OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 28, 2014, 08:31:52 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Filioque in Greek text of Creed  (Read 4460 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
nonchal
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« on: December 23, 2006, 07:15:17 PM »

The Latin church regards the insertion of "and (from) the Son" into the original Greek text of the Creed to be heretical. (Ekporeusis, the Greek word used for procession, denotes ultimate origin.) I wonder: did the Roman popes include the Creed as a statement of faith in letters of communion sent to Eastern patriarchs? Perhaps upon the election of a new pope. I think I read somewhere that this was practiced. But I want to be sure. If this was indeed practiced then I can see how the Latins are heretics from this fact alone because the popes would have kept the addition in the text sent to the Greeks. It would be heretical in translation.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2006, 08:05:30 PM by nonchal » Logged
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,247



« Reply #1 on: December 25, 2006, 10:09:05 PM »

The Latin church regards the insertion of "and (from) the Son" into the original Greek text of the Creed to be heretical. (Ekporeusis, the Greek word used for procession, denotes ultimate origin.) I wonder: did the Roman popes include the Creed as a statement of faith in letters of communion sent to Eastern patriarchs? Perhaps upon the election of a new pope. I think I read somewhere that this was practiced. But I want to be sure. If this was indeed practiced then I can see how the Latins are heretics from this fact alone because the popes would have kept the addition in the text sent to the Greeks. It would be heretical in translation.

Nonchal,

I'm at my parents and don't have access to my library so what I'm giving you is an incomplete answer and one which does not even begin to answer your question. Hope it helps.

I'm not sure if statements of faith were required to be submitted to Constantinople whenever a new Pope was elected.  Technically, the Pope of Rome had to be confirmed and approved by the Emperor or his underling, the Exarch of Ravenna, which ceased to exist after the invasion of the Lombards into Italy in the latter part of the seventh century.  Actually, I think Pope Gregory I was the last pope to receive former approval.  But due to barbarian invasions, the Moslem occupation of major shipping routes in the Mediterranean and the growing ascendancy of the Carolingians, the popes communicated less and less with Constantinople for the purposes of being confirmed by the Emperor.  And since the Filioque was a later addition to the creed--even Pope Leo III who crowned Charlemagne did not accept it--it was probably not inserted into any doctrinal statements issued by the bishop of Rome in official communiques to Constantinople. 

Like I said, I have to do more checking. 

I know, thanks for nothing, right? Wink

Scamandrius
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
nonchal
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« Reply #2 on: January 09, 2007, 03:01:26 AM »

So that I dont have to start another thread on the filioque I will ask the question on this thread. (Even though its unrelated.)

Is this text from Athanasius genuine? --

Quote
"For He [the Word], as been said, gives to the Spirit, and whatever the Spirit hath, He hath from the Word." Athanasius, Against the Arians, III:24


Its in the Schaff translation. What does it mean?
« Last Edit: January 09, 2007, 03:02:04 AM by nonchal » 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 #3 on: September 23, 2010, 08:11:41 PM »

So that I dont have to start another thread on the filioque I will ask the question on this thread. (Even though its unrelated.)

Is this text from Athanasius genuine? --

Quote
"For He [the Word], as been said, gives to the Spirit, and whatever the Spirit hath, He hath from the Word." Athanasius, Against the Arians, III:24


Its in the Schaff translation. What does it mean?
I cannot find it in Schaff.
In case anyone is interested.
The full passage:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28163.htm
Indeed we may learn also from the Saviour Himself, when He says, 'For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth Matthew 12:40.' For Jonah was not as the Saviour, nor did Jonah go down to hades; nor was the whale hades; nor did Jonah, when swallowed up, bring up those who had before been swallowed by the whale, but he alone came forth, when the whale was bidden. Therefore there is no identity nor equality signified in the term 'as,' but one thing and another; and it shows a certain kind of parallel in the case of Jonah, on account of the three days. In like manner then we too, when the Lord says 'as,' neither become as the Son in the Father, nor as the Father is in the Son. For we become one as the Father and the Son in mind and agreement of spirit, and the Saviour will be as Jonah in the earth; but as the Saviour is not Jonah, nor, as he was swallowed up, so did the Saviour descend into hades, but it is but a parallel, in like manner, if we too become one, as the Son in the Father, we shall not be as the Son, nor equal to Him; for He and we are but parallel. For on this account is the word 'as' applied to us; since things differing from others in nature, become as they, when viewed in a certain relation. Wherefore the Son Himself, simply and without any condition is in the Father; for this attribute He has by nature; but for us, to whom it is not natural, there is needed an image and example, that He may say of us, 'As Thou in Me, and I in You.' 'And when they shall be so perfected,' He says, 'then the world knows that You have sent Me, for unless I had come and borne this their body, no one of them had been perfected, but one and all had remained corruptible. Work Thou then in them, O Father, and as You have given to Me to bear this, grant to them Your Spirit, that they too in It may become one, and may be perfected in Me. For their perfecting shows that Your Word has sojourned among them; and the world seeing them perfect and full of God , will believe altogether that You have sent Me, and I have sojourned here. For whence is this their perfecting, but that I, Your Word, having borne their body, and become man, have perfected the work, which You gave Me, O Father? And the work is perfected, because men, redeemed from sin, no longer remain dead; but being deified , have in each other, by looking at Me, the bond of charity.
We then, by way of giving a rude view of the expressions in this passage, have been led into many words, but blessed John will show from his Epistle the sense of the words, concisely and much more perfectly than we can. And he will both disprove the interpretation of these irreligious men, and will teach how we become in God and God in us; and how again we become One in Him, and how far the Son differs in nature from us, and will stop the Arians from any longer thinking that they shall be as the Son, lest they hear it said to them, 'You are a man and not God,' and 'Stretch not yourself, being poor, beside a rich man. ' John then thus writes; 'Hereby know we that we dwell in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit 1 John 4:13.' Therefore because of the grace of the Spirit which has been given to us, in Him we come to be, and He in us ; and since it is the Spirit of God, therefore through His becoming in us, reasonably are we, as having the Spirit, considered to be in God, and thus is God in us. Not then as the Son in the Father, so also we become in the Father; for the Son does not merely partake the Spirit, that therefore He too may be in the Father; nor does He receive the Spirit, but rather He supplies It Himself to all; and the Spirit does not unite the Word to the Father , but rather the Spirit receives from the Word. And the Son is in the Father, as His own Word and Radiance; but we, apart from the Spirit, are strange and distant from God, and by the participation of the Spirit we are knit into the Godhead; so that our being in the Father is not ours, but is the Spirit's which is in us and abides in us, while by the true confession we preserve it in us, John again saying, 'Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwells in him and he in God 1 John 4:15.' What then is our likeness and equality to the Son? Rather, are not the Arians confuted on every side? And especially by John, that the Son is in the Father in one way, and we become in Him in another, and that neither we shall ever be as He, nor is the Word as we; except they shall dare, as commonly, so now to say, that the Son also by participation of the Spirit and by improvement of conduct came to be Himself also in the Father. But here again is an excess of irreligion, even in admitting the thought. For He, as has been said, gives to the Spirit, and whatever the Spirit has, He has from the Word.
The Saviour, then, saying of us, 'As Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in You, that they too may be one in Us,' does not signify that we were to have identity with Him; for this was shown from the instance of Jonah; but it is a request to the Father, as John has written, that the Spirit should be vouchsafed through Him to those who believe, through whom we are found to be in God, and in this respect to be conjoined in Him. For since the Word is in the Father, and the Spirit is given from the Word, He wills that we should receive the Spirit, that, when we receive It, thus having the Spirit of the Word which is in the Father, we too may be found on account of the Spirit to become One in the Word, and through Him in the Father. And if He say, 'as we,' this again is only a request that such grace of the Spirit as is given to the disciples may be without failure or revocation. For what the Word has by nature , as I said, in the Father, that He wishes to be given to us through the Spirit irrevocably; which the Apostle knowing, said, 'Who shall separate us from the love of Christ.' for 'the gifts of God?' and 'grace of His calling are without repentance. ' It is the Spirit then which is in God, and not we viewed in our own selves; and as we are sons and gods because of the Word in us , so we shall be in the Son and in the Father, and we shall be accounted to have become one in Son and in Father, because that that Spirit is in us, which is in the Word which is in the Father. When then a man falls from the Spirit for any wickedness, if he repent upon his fall, the grace remains irrevocably to such as are willing ; otherwise he who has fallen is no longer in God (because that Holy Spirit and Paraclete which is in God has deserted him), but the sinner shall be in him to whom he has subjected himself, as took place in Saul's instance; for the Spirit of God departed from him and an evil spirit was afflicting him. 1 Samuel 16:14 God's enemies hearing this ought to be henceforth abashed, and no longer to feign themselves equal to God. But they neither understand (for 'the irreligious,' he says, 'does not understand knowledge' ) nor endure religious words, but find them heavy even to hear.

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 #4 on: September 23, 2010, 08:58:42 PM »

I cannot find it in Schaff.
In case anyone is interested.
The full passage:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28163.htm
Indeed we may learn also from the Saviour Himself, when He says, 'For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth Matthew 12:40.' For Jonah was not as the Saviour, nor did Jonah go down to hades; nor was the whale hades; nor did Jonah, when swallowed up, bring up those who had before been swallowed by the whale, but he alone came forth, when the whale was bidden. Therefore there is no identity nor equality signified in the term 'as,' but one thing and another; and it shows a certain kind of parallel in the case of Jonah, on account of the three days. In like manner then we too, when the Lord says 'as,' neither become as the Son in the Father, nor as the Father is in the Son. For we become one as the Father and the Son in mind and agreement of spirit, and the Saviour will be as Jonah in the earth; but as the Saviour is not Jonah, nor, as he was swallowed up, so did the Saviour descend into hades, but it is but a parallel, in like manner, if we too become one, as the Son in the Father, we shall not be as the Son, nor equal to Him; for He and we are but parallel. For on this account is the word 'as' applied to us; since things differing from others in nature, become as they, when viewed in a certain relation. Wherefore the Son Himself, simply and without any condition is in the Father; for this attribute He has by nature; but for us, to whom it is not natural, there is needed an image and example, that He may say of us, 'As Thou in Me, and I in You.' 'And when they shall be so perfected,' He says, 'then the world knows that You have sent Me, for unless I had come and borne this their body, no one of them had been perfected, but one and all had remained corruptible. Work Thou then in them, O Father, and as You have given to Me to bear this, grant to them Your Spirit, that they too in It may become one, and may be perfected in Me. For their perfecting shows that Your Word has sojourned among them; and the world seeing them perfect and full of God , will believe altogether that You have sent Me, and I have sojourned here. For whence is this their perfecting, but that I, Your Word, having borne their body, and become man, have perfected the work, which You gave Me, O Father? And the work is perfected, because men, redeemed from sin, no longer remain dead; but being deified , have in each other, by looking at Me, the bond of charity.
We then, by way of giving a rude view of the expressions in this passage, have been led into many words, but blessed John will show from his Epistle the sense of the words, concisely and much more perfectly than we can. And he will both disprove the interpretation of these irreligious men, and will teach how we become in God and God in us; and how again we become One in Him, and how far the Son differs in nature from us, and will stop the Arians from any longer thinking that they shall be as the Son, lest they hear it said to them, 'You are a man and not God,' and 'Stretch not yourself, being poor, beside a rich man. ' John then thus writes; 'Hereby know we that we dwell in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit 1 John 4:13.' Therefore because of the grace of the Spirit which has been given to us, in Him we come to be, and He in us ; and since it is the Spirit of God, therefore through His becoming in us, reasonably are we, as having the Spirit, considered to be in God, and thus is God in us. Not then as the Son in the Father, so also we become in the Father; for the Son does not merely partake the Spirit, that therefore He too may be in the Father; nor does He receive the Spirit, but rather He supplies It Himself to all; and the Spirit does not unite the Word to the Father , but rather the Spirit receives from the Word. And the Son is in the Father, as His own Word and Radiance; but we, apart from the Spirit, are strange and distant from God, and by the participation of the Spirit we are knit into the Godhead; so that our being in the Father is not ours, but is the Spirit's which is in us and abides in us, while by the true confession we preserve it in us, John again saying, 'Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwells in him and he in God 1 John 4:15.' What then is our likeness and equality to the Son? Rather, are not the Arians confuted on every side? And especially by John, that the Son is in the Father in one way, and we become in Him in another, and that neither we shall ever be as He, nor is the Word as we; except they shall dare, as commonly, so now to say, that the Son also by participation of the Spirit and by improvement of conduct came to be Himself also in the Father. But here again is an excess of irreligion, even in admitting the thought. For He, as has been said, gives to the Spirit, and whatever the Spirit has, He has from the Word.
The Saviour, then, saying of us, 'As Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in You, that they too may be one in Us,' does not signify that we were to have identity with Him; for this was shown from the instance of Jonah; but it is a request to the Father, as John has written, that the Spirit should be vouchsafed through Him to those who believe, through whom we are found to be in God, and in this respect to be conjoined in Him. For since the Word is in the Father, and the Spirit is given from the Word, He wills that we should receive the Spirit, that, when we receive It, thus having the Spirit of the Word which is in the Father, we too may be found on account of the Spirit to become One in the Word, and through Him in the Father. And if He say, 'as we,' this again is only a request that such grace of the Spirit as is given to the disciples may be without failure or revocation. For what the Word has by nature , as I said, in the Father, that He wishes to be given to us through the Spirit irrevocably; which the Apostle knowing, said, 'Who shall separate us from the love of Christ.' for 'the gifts of God?' and 'grace of His calling are without repentance. ' It is the Spirit then which is in God, and not we viewed in our own selves; and as we are sons and gods because of the Word in us , so we shall be in the Son and in the Father, and we shall be accounted to have become one in Son and in Father, because that that Spirit is in us, which is in the Word which is in the Father.
When then a man falls from the Spirit for any wickedness, if he repent upon his fall, the grace remains irrevocably to such as are willing ; otherwise he who has fallen is no longer in God (because that Holy Spirit and Paraclete which is in God has deserted him), but the sinner shall be in him to whom he has subjected himself, as took place in Saul's instance; for the Spirit of God departed from him and an evil spirit was afflicting him. 1 Samuel 16:14 God's enemies hearing this ought to be henceforth abashed, and no longer to feign themselves equal to God. But they neither understand (for 'the irreligious,' he says, 'does not understand knowledge' ) nor endure religious words, but find them heavy even to hear.

« Last Edit: September 23, 2010, 09:01:53 PM by elijahmaria » 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 #5 on: September 23, 2010, 09:05:08 PM »

I cannot find it in Schaff.
In case anyone is interested.
The full passage:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28163.htm
Indeed we may learn also from the Saviour Himself, when He says, 'For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth Matthew 12:40.' For Jonah was not as the Saviour, nor did Jonah go down to hades; nor was the whale hades; nor did Jonah, when swallowed up, bring up those who had before been swallowed by the whale, but he alone came forth, when the whale was bidden. Therefore there is no identity nor equality signified in the term 'as,' but one thing and another; and it shows a certain kind of parallel in the case of Jonah, on account of the three days. In like manner then we too, when the Lord says 'as,' neither become as the Son in the Father, nor as the Father is in the Son. For we become one as the Father and the Son in mind and agreement of spirit, and the Saviour will be as Jonah in the earth; but as the Saviour is not Jonah, nor, as he was swallowed up, so did the Saviour descend into hades, but it is but a parallel, in like manner, if we too become one, as the Son in the Father, we shall not be as the Son, nor equal to Him; for He and we are but parallel. For on this account is the word 'as' applied to us; since things differing from others in nature, become as they, when viewed in a certain relation. Wherefore the Son Himself, simply and without any condition is in the Father; for this attribute He has by nature; but for us, to whom it is not natural, there is needed an image and example, that He may say of us, 'As Thou in Me, and I in You.' 'And when they shall be so perfected,' He says, 'then the world knows that You have sent Me, for unless I had come and borne this their body, no one of them had been perfected, but one and all had remained corruptible. Work Thou then in them, O Father, and as You have given to Me to bear this, grant to them Your Spirit, that they too in It may become one, and may be perfected in Me. For their perfecting shows that Your Word has sojourned among them; and the world seeing them perfect and full of God , will believe altogether that You have sent Me, and I have sojourned here. For whence is this their perfecting, but that I, Your Word, having borne their body, and become man, have perfected the work, which You gave Me, O Father? And the work is perfected, because men, redeemed from sin, no longer remain dead; but being deified , have in each other, by looking at Me, the bond of charity.
We then, by way of giving a rude view of the expressions in this passage, have been led into many words, but blessed John will show from his Epistle the sense of the words, concisely and much more perfectly than we can. And he will both disprove the interpretation of these irreligious men, and will teach how we become in God and God in us; and how again we become One in Him, and how far the Son differs in nature from us, and will stop the Arians from any longer thinking that they shall be as the Son, lest they hear it said to them, 'You are a man and not God,' and 'Stretch not yourself, being poor, beside a rich man. ' John then thus writes; 'Hereby know we that we dwell in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit 1 John 4:13.' Therefore because of the grace of the Spirit which has been given to us, in Him we come to be, and He in us ; and since it is the Spirit of God, therefore through His becoming in us, reasonably are we, as having the Spirit, considered to be in God, and thus is God in us. Not then as the Son in the Father, so also we become in the Father; for the Son does not merely partake the Spirit, that therefore He too may be in the Father; nor does He receive the Spirit, but rather He supplies It Himself to all; and the Spirit does not unite the Word to the Father , but rather the Spirit receives from the Word. And the Son is in the Father, as His own Word and Radiance; but we, apart from the Spirit, are strange and distant from God, and by the participation of the Spirit we are knit into the Godhead; so that our being in the Father is not ours, but is the Spirit's which is in us and abides in us, while by the true confession we preserve it in us, John again saying, 'Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwells in him and he in God 1 John 4:15.' What then is our likeness and equality to the Son? Rather, are not the Arians confuted on every side? And especially by John, that the Son is in the Father in one way, and we become in Him in another, and that neither we shall ever be as He, nor is the Word as we; except they shall dare, as commonly, so now to say, that the Son also by participation of the Spirit and by improvement of conduct came to be Himself also in the Father. But here again is an excess of irreligion, even in admitting the thought. For He, as has been said, gives to the Spirit, and whatever the Spirit has, He has from the Word.
The Saviour, then, saying of us, 'As Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in You, that they too may be one in Us,' does not signify that we were to have identity with Him; for this was shown from the instance of Jonah; but it is a request to the Father, as John has written, that the Spirit should be vouchsafed through Him to those who believe, through whom we are found to be in God, and in this respect to be conjoined in Him. For since the Word is in the Father, and the Spirit is given from the Word, He wills that we should receive the Spirit, that, when we receive It, thus having the Spirit of the Word which is in the Father, we too may be found on account of the Spirit to become One in the Word, and through Him in the Father. And if He say, 'as we,' this again is only a request that such grace of the Spirit as is given to the disciples may be without failure or revocation. For what the Word has by nature , as I said, in the Father, that He wishes to be given to us through the Spirit irrevocably; which the Apostle knowing, said, 'Who shall separate us from the love of Christ.' for 'the gifts of God?' and 'grace of His calling are without repentance. ' It is the Spirit then which is in God, and not we viewed in our own selves; and as we are sons and gods because of the Word in us , so we shall be in the Son and in the Father, and we shall be accounted to have become one in Son and in Father, because that that Spirit is in us, which is in the Word which is in the Father.
When then a man falls from the Spirit for any wickedness, if he repent upon his fall, the grace remains irrevocably to such as are willing ; otherwise he who has fallen is no longer in God (because that Holy Spirit and Paraclete which is in God has deserted him), but the sinner shall be in him to whom he has subjected himself, as took place in Saul's instance; for the Spirit of God departed from him and an evil spirit was afflicting him. 1 Samuel 16:14 God's enemies hearing this ought to be henceforth abashed, and no longer to feign themselves equal to God. But they neither understand (for 'the irreligious,' he says, 'does not understand knowledge' ) nor endure religious words, but find them heavy even to hear.

You'll notice, that's not Schaff (although the newadvent uses him).
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 #6 on: September 23, 2010, 09:11:51 PM »

St Maximus the Confessor on the "filioque"

"Those of the Queen of cities (Constantinople) have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology (of the Trinity) and according to this, says 'the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.'

The other deals with the divine incarnation. With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit--they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession--but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence.

They (the Romans) have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong the accuse them, whereas the former (the Byzantines) have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them (Monothelitism).

In accordance with your request I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them (the 'also from the Son') in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending (the synodal letters) has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to doing this. It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot do."

St. Maximus, Letter to Marinus, PG 91, 136.
Logged

Fabio Leite
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,449



WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 23, 2010, 10:52:16 PM »

St Maximus the Confessor on the "filioque"

"Those of the Queen of cities (Constantinople) have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology (of the Trinity) and according to this, says 'the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.'

The other deals with the divine incarnation. With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit--they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession--but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence.

They (the Romans) have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong the accuse them, whereas the former (the Byzantines) have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them (Monothelitism).

In accordance with your request I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them (the 'also from the Son') in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending (the synodal letters) has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to doing this. It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot do."

St. Maximus, Letter to Marinus, PG 91, 136.


"On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit--they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession"
Traditional Orthodox Catholic teaching.

"246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)". The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.
(...)
248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason",78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle",79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.
"
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm - Roman Heterodox Teaching


Notice that the "mistaken accusation" of which St. Maximus is defending Rome from, is precisely that its accusers were saying that Rome was making the Father and the Son the single cause of the Holy Spirit. Because St. Maximus understood it was not the case, he felt it was his obligation to defend the primal see - by the way, this kind of justification would not even be necessary if the primate were an infallible on dogma supreme bishop with universal jurisdiction. The very fact that the primal see has to be defended on the basis of the Orthodoxy of its faith shows that *orthodoxy* was the basis of *authority* and not *authority* the source of *orthodoxy*.

Anyway, we have two possible situations here. Rome, in the time of St. Maximus knew and taught the Father is the *only* cause of the Son and of the Spirit, but at some point later, it fell in the error it had been accused of, that is, believing and confessing that the Father and the Son are the single principle of the Holy Spirit; or, it always believed the Father and the Son are the single principle from where the Spirit proceeds but relied on the Greeks not seeing this to cultivate the heresy in "cultural isolation".

Because I don't believe in the second possibility, I can only believe the first. Basically, Rome believed in the Orthodox faith that the Father is the single principle of the Son and the Holy Spirit. An innocent small ambiguity was created in Iberia, the filioque, to defend from a local heresy. It had been badly worded, it *could* be understood in a heretical way, but, outside the Creed where the words had strong definitions, it wasn't that bad.

Then, in the 9th century, Charlesmagne, to add to his campaign of independence from the Romaic Empire, forced this situation of imposing that old wording badly written with the *second* heretical sense into the very Creed. This was so abhorent the Pope himself resisted, and wrote the Orthodox creed on the gates of his See for everybody who went to Rome to see. Then Rome entered the worst period of its history (http://is.gd/fpUbQ), of which it would come out extremely altered in the medieval times. The pope, seeing in the potential to further alianate the Greeks and claim absolute authority, finally insert the Creed claiming it as "tradition" despite the fact it did not comply with any accepted criteria of catholicity (believed by all, everywhere at all times), of counciliar or even Roman history. And a heretical belief, that Saint Maximus knew was not the intention of those wordings, was finally inserted in the creed of the now fully heterodox Roman church.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2010, 11:14:31 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Go ma minions of modesty!
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 23, 2010, 11:06:15 PM »

St Maximus the Confessor on the "filioque"

"Those of the Queen of cities (Constantinople) have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology (of the Trinity) and according to this, says 'the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.'

The other deals with the divine incarnation. With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit--they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession--but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence.

They (the Romans) have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong the accuse them, whereas the former (the Byzantines) have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them (Monothelitism).

In accordance with your request I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them (the 'also from the Son') in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending (the synodal letters) has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to doing this. It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot do."

St. Maximus, Letter to Marinus, PG 91, 136.


"On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit--they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession"
Traditional Orthodox Catholic teaching.

"246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)". The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.
(...)
248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason",78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle",79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.
"
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm - Roman Heterodox Teaching


Notice that the "mistaken accusation" of which St. Maximus is defending Rome from, is precisely that its accusers were saying that Rome was making the Father and the Son the single cause of the Holy Spirit. Because St. Maximus understood it was not the case, he felt it was his obligation to defend the primal see - by the way, this kind of justification would not even be necessary if the primate were an infallible on dogma supreme bishop with universal jurisdiction. The very fact that the primal see has to be defended on the basis of the Orthodoxy of its faith shows that *orthodoxy* was the basis of *authority* and not *authority* the source of *orthodoxy*.

Anyway, we have two possible situations here. Rome, in the time of St. Maximus knew and taught the Father is the *only* cause of the Son and of the Spirit, but at some point later, it fell in the error it had been accused of, that is, believing and confessing that the Father and the Son are the single principle of the Holy Spirit; or, it always believed the Father and the Son are the single principle from where the Spirit proceeds but relied on the Greeks not seeing this to cultivate the heresy in "cultural isolation".

Because I don't believe in the second possibility, I can only believe the first. Basically, Rome believed in the Orthodox faith that the Father is the single principle of the Son and the Holy Spirit. An innocent small ambiguity was created in Iberia, the filioque, to defend from a local heresy. It had been badly worded, it *could* be understood in a heretical way, but, outside the Creed where the words had strong definitions, it wasn't that bad.

Then, in the 9th century, Charlesmagne, to add to his campaign of independence from the Romaic Empire, forced this situation of imposing that old wording badly written with the *second* heretical sense into the very Creed. This was so abhorent the Pope himself resisted, and wrote the Orthodox creed on the gates of his See for everybody who went to Rome to see. Then Rome entered the worst period of its history, of which it would come out extremely altered in the medieval times. The pope, seeing in the potential to further alianate the Greeks and claim absolute authority, finally insert the Creed claiming it as "tradition" despite the fact it did not comply with any accepted criteria of catholicity (believed by all, everywhere at all times), of counciliar or even Roman history. And a heretical belief, that Saint Maximus knew was not the intention of those wordings, was finally inserted in the creed of the now fully heterodox Roman church.

I will deal with one issue here first because it is actually the most important.

Now you may insist till your blue that "AS from one principle" means that we think that the Son is also the source but that is not what the Church teaches.    It is a reference to those words of Christ where he asserts the equivalency of the Father and the Son.

So there has been no change in the teaching at all in time.  None.

So what Maximos said then applies now.

It's been a very foolish argument for very many centuries.

M.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #9 on: September 23, 2010, 11:18:23 PM »


Now you may insist till your blue that "AS from one principle" means that we think that the Son is also the source but that is not what the Church teaches.

.

I can tell all the Orthodox here that scratching your head and trying to understand this is an exercise in complete futility.  In the esoteric vocabulary of Roman Catholicism the word "AS" has a meaning which no outsider can fathom.
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 #10 on: September 23, 2010, 11:29:16 PM »

St Maximus the Confessor on the "filioque"

"Those of the Queen of cities (Constantinople) have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology (of the Trinity) and according to this, says 'the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.'

The other deals with the divine incarnation. With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit--they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession--but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence.

They (the Romans) have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong the accuse them, whereas the former (the Byzantines) have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them (Monothelitism).

In accordance with your request I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them (the 'also from the Son') in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending (the synodal letters) has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to doing this. It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot do."

St. Maximus, Letter to Marinus, PG 91, 136.

Sage advice. Too bad Rome didn't take it.
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #11 on: September 23, 2010, 11:32:44 PM »

St Maximus the Confessor on the "filioque"


A reference to a scholarly study of this matter is given here in message 236
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27651.msg438459.html#msg438459
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 23, 2010, 11:37:05 PM »


Now you may insist till your blue that "AS from one principle" means that we think that the Son is also the source but that is not what the Church teaches.

.

I can tell all the Orthodox here that scratching your head and trying to understand this is an exercise in complete futility.  In the esoteric vocabulary of Roman Catholicism the word "AS" has a meaning which no outsider can fathom.


Drop the Drama, please.

The word "principle" is indicative as well...

It indicates a conditional equivalency and not a direct equivalency.

So you can smack yourself silly and still won't have a case.

This is one of those cases where the Orthodox have no business insisting that they know better.

M.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #13 on: September 23, 2010, 11:39:12 PM »


Now you may insist till your blue that "AS from one principle" means that we think that the Son is also the source but that is not what the Church teaches.

.

I can tell all the Orthodox here that scratching your head and trying to understand this is an exercise in complete futility.  In the esoteric vocabulary of Roman Catholicism the word "AS" has a meaning which no outsider can fathom.


Drop the Drama, please.

The word "principle" is indicative as well...

It indicates a conditional equivalency and not a direct equivalency.

So you can smack yourself silly and still won't have a case.

This is one of those cases where the Orthodox have no business insisting that they know better.


The Church, Madam, always knows better.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #14 on: September 23, 2010, 11:44:41 PM »


Now you may insist till your blue that "AS from one principle" means that we think that the Son is also the source but that is not what the Church teaches.

.

I can tell all the Orthodox here that scratching your head and trying to understand this is an exercise in complete futility.  In the esoteric vocabulary of Roman Catholicism the word "AS" has a meaning which no outsider can fathom.


Drop the Drama, please.

The word "principle" is indicative as well...

It indicates a conditional equivalency and not a direct equivalency.

So you can smack yourself silly and still won't have a case.

This is one of those cases where the Orthodox have no business insisting that they know better.


The Church, Madam, always knows better.


My Church does.

M.
Logged

Fabio Leite
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,449



WWW
« Reply #15 on: September 24, 2010, 12:04:55 AM »

Now you may insist till your blue that "AS from one principle" means that we think that the Son is also the source but that is not what the Church teaches.    It is a reference to those words of Christ where he asserts the equivalency of the Father and the Son.

 "AS from one principle" can mean what you say, or what is defined in the Cathecism: simul (simultaneously), that everything that the Father is, except being Father, was given to the Son, so being the source of the procession is not what makes the Father, Father, it also would belong to the Son. Unfortunately, it is you who may want to close your eyes to the Roman modifications to the faith, but the Cathecism says very clearly: "as from one principle" means *exactly* that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, that the Father and the Son are (no "as") the single principle of the Holy Spirit."

246 (...) He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . (...)  the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.
(...)
248 *the Father, as "the principle without principle",79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds*. "
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm

By the way, when the Cathecism says "the Father, as the principle without principle is also implying that the Father is not exactly the principle without principle? And that he is the principle without principle in a conditional  and not direct equivalency of the terms? Are you really stating an even worse heresy of relativizing the Paternity of the Father? Or do the words change their senses in the same text to convenience?

Now, you can turn and twist as much as you want that when Peter says that "John and Mary are my parents" that he doesn't really mean that they are, united, the single physical cause of Peter, that they say it in a very "philosophical" way that actually means that only John is the cause and Mary just the medium who "sends forth" Peter.

Your cathecism teaches this. St. Maximus says otherwise. The Catholic church says otherwise.

But this is a nice lesson on RC rethoric for everybody who may be following this. It's typical indeed:

RC - "The sun is green."

Normal peson - "?!!"

RC - "Yep, green as a dollar bill"

NP - "In fact, it's yellow!"

RC - "True, true, that's what we have always taught!"

NP - "!! - You just said it's green!"

RC - "You are being mean to us and attaching yourself to word games! We always meant green as yellow!"

NP - "But you said as a dollar bill! They're green!"

RC - "Nah, everybody knows that green is made of the mixture of yellow and blue. So, fundamentally, the dollar bill is yellow."

NP - "Yeah, so much for word games."

RC - "So, let's paint the house the same color of the sun?"

NP - "Yellow?"

RC - "Yellow, green, what matters the names, they are just cultural differences...."

NP - "The color of the sun, then?"

RC - "Of course!"

Time passes...

NP - "You painted the house green!"

RC - "Of course, that's the color of the sun, as we agreed."

NP - *sigh*
« Last Edit: September 24, 2010, 12:19:16 AM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Go ma minions of modesty!
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #16 on: September 24, 2010, 12:16:32 AM »


246 (...) He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . (...)  the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.
(...)
248 *the Father, as "the principle without principle",79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds*. "
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm

Your interpretations do not substitute for the teaching of the Catholic Church. 

I hate to break it to you but Orthodoxy, and much less individual Orthodox, is not the infallible arbiter of the meaning of the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

But it is impossible for you to accept that since it would pull the teeth out of most of the resistance to resumption of communion.

By the way do you believe that babies are conceived with original sin?

Logged

Fabio Leite
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,449



WWW
« Reply #17 on: September 24, 2010, 12:43:57 AM »


246 (...) He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . (...)  the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.
(...)
248 *the Father, as "the principle without principle",79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds*. "
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm

Your interpretations do not substitute for the teaching of the Catholic Church. 

I hate to break it to you but Orthodoxy, and much less individual Orthodox, is not the infallible arbiter of the meaning of the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

But it is impossible for you to accept that since it would pull the teeth out of most of the resistance to resumption of communion.

By the way do you believe that babies are conceived with original sin?



Reasonable exposition of historical context.

response: Nah, my church is better.

Reasonable exposition of the teaching of the Roman church through Roman documents, with interpretations given by the same text by means of parallelisms and paraphrases of the same idea.

response: Nah, it's not my church's teaching. "He works as a doctor" clearly means that he *is not* a doctor. We never mean what we write, just vague non-related oral interpretations, that can be changed in a decade or so to be what is literally written when we feel it will be more convenient. You are bad, and ugly and mean.

Like you or not, the traditional Orthodox Catholic filioque of the fathers of the first millenium, does not have the same sense of this word in the text of the Creed, something the illiterate Charlesmagne could not grasp, but the "infallible" Leo III could see. Now, to prevent assuming the mistake, the RC simply delves into ambiguity over ambiguity.

It would be much more dignified to admit "yeah, it doesn't make much theological sense in the Creed, we shouldn't have allowed an emperor to force such heresy. Let's praise Leo III for his wisdom, and agree with the traditional sense of the word out of the Creed and give one more serious step toward union."

Logged

Go ma minions of modesty!
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #18 on: September 24, 2010, 12:46:20 AM »


246 (...) He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . (...)  the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.
(...)
248 *the Father, as "the principle without principle",79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds*. "
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm

Your interpretations do not substitute for the teaching of the Catholic Church. 

I hate to break it to you but Orthodoxy, and much less individual Orthodox, is not the infallible arbiter of the meaning of the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

But it is impossible for you to accept that since it would pull the teeth out of most of the resistance to resumption of communion.

By the way do you believe that babies are conceived with original sin?



Reasonable exposition of historical context.

response: Nah, my church is better.

Reasonable exposition of the teaching of the Roman church through Roman documents, with interpretations given by the same text by means of parallelisms and paraphrases of the same idea.

response: Nah, it's not my church's teaching. "He works as a doctor" clearly means that he *is not* a doctor. We never mean what we write, just vague non-related oral interpretations, that can be changed in a decade or so to be what is literally written when we feel it will be more convenient. You are bad, and ugly and mean.

Like you or not, the traditional Orthodox Catholic filioque of the fathers of the first millenium, does not have the same sense of this word in the text of the Creed, something the illiterate Charlesmagne could not grasp, but the "infallible" Leo III could see. Now, to prevent assuming the mistake, the RC simply delves into ambiguity over ambiguity.

It would be much more dignified to admit "yeah, it doesn't make much theological sense in the Creed, we shouldn't have allowed an emperor to force such heresy. Let's praise Leo III for his wisdom, and agree with the traditional sense of the word out of the Creed and give one more serious step toward union."



You can't get the theology right.  So I suppose I should not be surprised if you get the history wrong too.

Do you believe that babies are conceived in original sin?

M.
Logged

deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #19 on: September 24, 2010, 01:21:04 AM »

St Maximus the Confessor on the "filioque"

"Those of the Queen of cities (Constantinople) have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology (of the Trinity) and according to this, says 'the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.'

The other deals with the divine incarnation. With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit--they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession--but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence.

They (the Romans) have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong the accuse them, whereas the former (the Byzantines) have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them (Monothelitism).

In accordance with your request I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them (the 'also from the Son') in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending (the synodal letters) has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to doing this. It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot do."

St. Maximus, Letter to Marinus, PG 91, 136.


"On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit--they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession"
Traditional Orthodox Catholic teaching.

"246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)". The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.
(...)
248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason",78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle",79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.
"
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm - Roman Heterodox Teaching


Notice that the "mistaken accusation" of which St. Maximus is defending Rome from, is precisely that its accusers were saying that Rome was making the Father and the Son the single cause of the Holy Spirit. Because St. Maximus understood it was not the case, he felt it was his obligation to defend the primal see - by the way, this kind of justification would not even be necessary if the primate were an infallible on dogma supreme bishop with universal jurisdiction. The very fact that the primal see has to be defended on the basis of the Orthodoxy of its faith shows that *orthodoxy* was the basis of *authority* and not *authority* the source of *orthodoxy*.

Anyway, we have two possible situations here. Rome, in the time of St. Maximus knew and taught the Father is the *only* cause of the Son and of the Spirit, but at some point later, it fell in the error it had been accused of, that is, believing and confessing that the Father and the Son are the single principle of the Holy Spirit; or, it always believed the Father and the Son are the single principle from where the Spirit proceeds but relied on the Greeks not seeing this to cultivate the heresy in "cultural isolation".

Because I don't believe in the second possibility, I can only believe the first. Basically, Rome believed in the Orthodox faith that the Father is the single principle of the Son and the Holy Spirit. An innocent small ambiguity was created in Iberia, the filioque, to defend from a local heresy. It had been badly worded, it *could* be understood in a heretical way, but, outside the Creed where the words had strong definitions, it wasn't that bad.

Then, in the 9th century, Charlesmagne, to add to his campaign of independence from the Romaic Empire, forced this situation of imposing that old wording badly written with the *second* heretical sense into the very Creed. This was so abhorent the Pope himself resisted, and wrote the Orthodox creed on the gates of his See for everybody who went to Rome to see. Then Rome entered the worst period of its history, of which it would come out extremely altered in the medieval times. The pope, seeing in the potential to further alianate the Greeks and claim absolute authority, finally insert the Creed claiming it as "tradition" despite the fact it did not comply with any accepted criteria of catholicity (believed by all, everywhere at all times), of counciliar or even Roman history. And a heretical belief, that Saint Maximus knew was not the intention of those wordings, was finally inserted in the creed of the now fully heterodox Roman church.

I will deal with one issue here first because it is actually the most important.

Now you may insist till your blue that "AS from one principle" means that we think that the Son is also the source but that is not what the Church teaches.    It is a reference to those words of Christ where he asserts the equivalency of the Father and the Son.

So there has been no change in the teaching at all in time.  None.

So what Maximos said then applies now.

It's been a very foolish argument for very many centuries.

M.

If the Son is not the source of the Holy Spirit in the same way as the Father then it is disingenuous to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both of them "as from one principle". If the Father alone really causes the spiration of the Holy Spirit, then the Son is not the principle of Him in the same way the Father is.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 24, 2010, 01:23:14 AM »

By the way do you believe that babies are conceived with original sin?

We believe that babies are conceived with the ancestral curse, yes. "Original sin" is not the most traditional language for us to use.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 24, 2010, 09:15:32 AM »


If the Son is not the source of the Holy Spirit in the same way as the Father then it is disingenuous to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both of them "as from one principle". If the Father alone really causes the spiration of the Holy Spirit, then the Son is not the principle of Him in the same way the Father is.

Like it or not, believe it or not, recognize it or not there is a logic to language and to say that

1. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle

IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING

2. The Son is the principle of the Holy Spirit.

In the FIRST place "principle" is meaningless in sentence #2.   A principle is not a cause.  There is nothing in the definition of principle, even in the ancient Latin usage that makes a principle a cause.

In the second place the Latin for proceeds as Maximus the Confessor notes does not inherently mean cause, as does the word in Greek.

And to have the Father be the Source of the Spirit and to have the Spirit pass through the Son...thereby coming FROM the Son in that way does NOTHING to make the Son the cause of the Spirit.

And to recognize that the Father and the Son are AS ONE PRINCIPLE is perfectly in line with Scripture and texts from Tradition that recognize a relationship of Father and Son that is different from the relationship of the Spirit to either or both.

So you should not take something that has been very carefully worked out over centuries, tried and true, and wool it around in your own head to make it say what you want.

You can do it but it is not a good thing or a fair thing to do.

Mary
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 24, 2010, 09:16:53 AM »

By the way do you believe that babies are conceived with original sin?

We believe that babies are conceived with the ancestral curse, yes. "Original sin" is not the most traditional language for us to use.

I am finding that does not hold true from person to person in Orthodoxy.

In fairness I should add that I do believe that what you express is the teaching of universal Orthodoxy.

There seems to be a strong tendency to deny this however and I am curious as to why, since it is affirmed in two of the Seven Great Councils which appear to be strong pillars in Orthodox authority to keep and teach the truth of the faith.

Mary
« Last Edit: September 24, 2010, 09:20:54 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,933



« Reply #23 on: September 24, 2010, 11:07:33 AM »


If the Son is not the source of the Holy Spirit in the same way as the Father then it is disingenuous to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both of them "as from one principle". If the Father alone really causes the spiration of the Holy Spirit, then the Son is not the principle of Him in the same way the Father is.

Like it or not, believe it or not, recognize it or not there is a logic to language and to say that

1. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle

IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING

2. The Son is the principle of the Holy Spirit.

In the FIRST place "principle" is meaningless in sentence #2.   A principle is not a cause.  There is nothing in the definition of principle, even in the ancient Latin usage that makes a principle a cause.

In the second place the Latin for proceeds as Maximus the Confessor notes does not inherently mean cause, as does the word in Greek.

And to have the Father be the Source of the Spirit and to have the Spirit pass through the Son...thereby coming FROM the Son in that way does NOTHING to make the Son the cause of the Spirit.

And to recognize that the Father and the Son are AS ONE PRINCIPLE is perfectly in line with Scripture and texts from Tradition that recognize a relationship of Father and Son that is different from the relationship of the Spirit to either or both.

So you should not take something that has been very carefully worked out over centuries, tried and true, and wool it around in your own head to make it say what you want.

You can do it but it is not a good thing or a fair thing to do.

Mary

Even if one accepts this as a reasonable interpretation of the Roman Catholics, it is unreasonable to insist that it must also be so defined by the rest of the Church. What I am saying is that, the RCC has every right to believe in the filioque but not the right to insist that she is the universal church if such belief separates her from the rest of the Body.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #24 on: September 24, 2010, 11:13:43 AM »

By the way do you believe that babies are conceived with original sin?

We believe that babies are conceived with the ancestral curse, yes. "Original sin" is not the most traditional language for us to use.

Regardless of which words you would describe this as... what is the 'effect' of this 'curse'...? Loss of Sanctifying Grace or not? My guess is that you will dance around this with a great deal of labor at this point but St. Cyprian was rather clear... on this point and so were the councils.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #25 on: September 24, 2010, 11:15:48 AM »


Even if one accepts this as a reasonable interpretation of the Roman Catholics, it is unreasonable to insist that it must also be so defined by the rest of the Church. What I am saying is that, the RCC has every right to believe in the filioque but not the right to insist that she is the universal church if such belief separates her from the rest of the Body.

There have been isolated times and isolated bishops or groups of bishops who may have turned on the Greeks and Slavs for not professing filioque, but if those people and periods are carefully examined it will quickly become apparent that the Greeks and Slavs were stirring the pot as well.  

We must move beyond the pot stirring.

And I do not believe that the Catholic Church today looks upon the east with the same gimlet eye that she once did.  All good faith efforts to try to overcome history have been mocked.  You can see it very clearly from some on this Forum.

But the only thing to do for the Catholic Church is to keep on the course that we are on today and hope that Orthodoxy will understand the intent is not to change her to become something she is not and never was.   I do believe that many of our bishops and certainly our last 150-200 years worth of popes have been of good faith in their efforts to reach out to Orthodoxy in the hopes of communion.  Certainly the popes since John the Twenty-third.

I appreciate you comment here and understand and am sympathetic to your concerns.

Mary
Logged

deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #26 on: September 24, 2010, 04:29:46 PM »

By the way do you believe that babies are conceived with original sin?

We believe that babies are conceived with the ancestral curse, yes. "Original sin" is not the most traditional language for us to use.

Regardless of which words you would describe this as... what is the 'effect' of this 'curse'...? Loss of Sanctifying Grace or not? My guess is that you will dance around this with a great deal of labor at this point but St. Cyprian was rather clear... on this point and so were the councils.

No dancing. I know that some don't like me using the term "sanctifying grace", but essentially I would say yes. A more straightforward and acceptable way of saying it perhaps would be that they have lost the original indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

The fundamental effect of the curse is spiritual death. This involves loss of communion with God, and His indwelling in us. That sanctification is effectively lost should be a given.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #27 on: September 24, 2010, 04:36:17 PM »

I am finding that does not hold true from person to person in Orthodoxy.

In fairness I should add that I do believe that what you express is the teaching of universal Orthodoxy.

There seems to be a strong tendency to deny this however and I am curious as to why, since it is affirmed in two of the Seven Great Councils which appear to be strong pillars in Orthodox authority to keep and teach the truth of the faith.

Mary

BTW, just to remind you, I don't believe in all of those seven councils.

Yes, I certainly am aware of that tendency. I've even been told my some people on this very forum that our holiness was essentially not effected by the sin of Adam but is only by our own.

And I really have no idea where this tendency comes from.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #28 on: September 24, 2010, 04:47:04 PM »


If the Son is not the source of the Holy Spirit in the same way as the Father then it is disingenuous to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both of them "as from one principle". If the Father alone really causes the spiration of the Holy Spirit, then the Son is not the principle of Him in the same way the Father is.

Like it or not, believe it or not, recognize it or not there is a logic to language and to say that

1. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle

IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING

2. The Son is the principle of the Holy Spirit.

In the FIRST place "principle" is meaningless in sentence #2.   A principle is not a cause.  There is nothing in the definition of principle, even in the ancient Latin usage that makes a principle a cause.

In the second place the Latin for proceeds as Maximus the Confessor notes does not inherently mean cause, as does the word in Greek.

And to have the Father be the Source of the Spirit and to have the Spirit pass through the Son...thereby coming FROM the Son in that way does NOTHING to make the Son the cause of the Spirit.

And to recognize that the Father and the Son are AS ONE PRINCIPLE is perfectly in line with Scripture and texts from Tradition that recognize a relationship of Father and Son that is different from the relationship of the Spirit to either or both.

So you should not take something that has been very carefully worked out over centuries, tried and true, and wool it around in your own head to make it say what you want.

You can do it but it is not a good thing or a fair thing to do.

Mary

I know that principle does not necessarily indicate cause.

However, when you equate the principle of one thing to the principle of another that is causal, then logically the principle of the former ought also to be causal principle of the latter.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #29 on: September 24, 2010, 05:30:53 PM »


If the Son is not the source of the Holy Spirit in the same way as the Father then it is disingenuous to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both of them "as from one principle". If the Father alone really causes the spiration of the Holy Spirit, then the Son is not the principle of Him in the same way the Father is.

Like it or not, believe it or not, recognize it or not there is a logic to language and to say that

1. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle

IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING

2. The Son is the principle of the Holy Spirit.

In the FIRST place "principle" is meaningless in sentence #2.   A principle is not a cause.  There is nothing in the definition of principle, even in the ancient Latin usage that makes a principle a cause.

In the second place the Latin for proceeds as Maximus the Confessor notes does not inherently mean cause, as does the word in Greek.

And to have the Father be the Source of the Spirit and to have the Spirit pass through the Son...thereby coming FROM the Son in that way does NOTHING to make the Son the cause of the Spirit.

And to recognize that the Father and the Son are AS ONE PRINCIPLE is perfectly in line with Scripture and texts from Tradition that recognize a relationship of Father and Son that is different from the relationship of the Spirit to either or both.

So you should not take something that has been very carefully worked out over centuries, tried and true, and wool it around in your own head to make it say what you want.

You can do it but it is not a good thing or a fair thing to do.

Mary

I know that principle does not necessarily indicate cause.

However, when you equate the principle of one thing to the principle of another that is causal, then logically the principle of the former ought also to be causal principle of the latter.

 Smiley...you are still trying too hard to make it fit your own logic.

I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through a belief in the Threeness,
Through confession of the Oneness
Of the Creator of creation.

Filioque tells of a belief in the Threeness through confession of the Oneness

And again, Scripture and Tradition speak of a oneness that is unique in the relationship of the Father and the Son that the Holy Spirit does not share with either one or both.

It seems so simple to me because I understand what the Church is teaching, and I believe it and I think it is a beautiful teaching and whether or not I profess it in a Creed makes no difference to me.  I still find it to be a fine mystery.  Smiley

M.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #30 on: September 24, 2010, 05:32:56 PM »


BTW, just to remind you, I don't believe in all of those seven councils.


You'll have to keep reminding me.  I would be so lost without them in terms of being able to see a wholeness of and in the beliefs of the faith.  We'll have to talk more about these things as time permits and the mood of the Forum allows  Smiley

M.
Logged

deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #31 on: September 24, 2010, 05:36:24 PM »

And again, Scripture and Tradition speak of a oneness that is unique in the relationship of the Father and the Son that the Holy Spirit does not share with either one or both.

It seems to me that the dogmatic statement "the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle" cannot be satisfied by just any sort of particular equality of the Father and the Son, but rather must be in equality of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, i.e. they are not in this sense one principle unless the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as He does from the Father.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #32 on: September 24, 2010, 05:54:12 PM »

And again, Scripture and Tradition speak of a oneness that is unique in the relationship of the Father and the Son that the Holy Spirit does not share with either one or both.

It seems to me that the dogmatic statement "the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle" cannot be satisfied by just any sort of particular equality of the Father and the Son, but rather must be in equality of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, i.e. they are not in this sense one principle unless the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as He does from the Father.

You say so. 

The Catholic Church says "no"...The Son is Filiation.  The Father is Source.

As from one principle addresses those occasions when Jesus indicates that he and the Father are one.  That relationship is never spoken of to include the Holy Spirit.

So you are adding your logic to something that is far more simple.

The understanding that the Holy Spirit has the Father as Source and that He proceeds through the Father and the Son eternally is one truth.

That the Father and the Son are as one principle because Jesus tells us that in the gospels is another truth attested to by the rest of the teaching.

That the Father and the Son are one principle is not something made up by the Catholic Church.

M.
Logged

deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #33 on: September 24, 2010, 06:21:36 PM »

And again, Scripture and Tradition speak of a oneness that is unique in the relationship of the Father and the Son that the Holy Spirit does not share with either one or both.

It seems to me that the dogmatic statement "the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle" cannot be satisfied by just any sort of particular equality of the Father and the Son, but rather must be in equality of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, i.e. they are not in this sense one principle unless the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as He does from the Father.

You say so. 

The Catholic Church says "no"...The Son is Filiation.  The Father is Source.

As from one principle addresses those occasions when Jesus indicates that he and the Father are one.  That relationship is never spoken of to include the Holy Spirit.

So you are adding your logic to something that is far more simple.

The understanding that the Holy Spirit has the Father as Source and that He proceeds through the Father and the Son eternally is one truth.

That the Father and the Son are as one principle because Jesus tells us that in the gospels is another truth attested to by the rest of the teaching.

That the Father and the Son are one principle is not something made up by the Catholic Church.

M.


It doesn't seem like you are actually applying the Son being one in principle with the Father to the procession of the Holy Spirit, which is something the phrase we are discussing clearly does.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #34 on: September 24, 2010, 07:39:43 PM »

And again, Scripture and Tradition speak of a oneness that is unique in the relationship of the Father and the Son that the Holy Spirit does not share with either one or both.

It seems to me that the dogmatic statement "the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle" cannot be satisfied by just any sort of particular equality of the Father and the Son, but rather must be in equality of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, i.e. they are not in this sense one principle unless the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as He does from the Father.

You say so.  

The Catholic Church says "no"...The Son is Filiation.  The Father is Source.

As from one principle addresses those occasions when Jesus indicates that he and the Father are one.  That relationship is never spoken of to include the Holy Spirit.

So you are adding your logic to something that is far more simple.

The understanding that the Holy Spirit has the Father as Source and that He proceeds through the Father and the Son eternally is one truth.

That the Father and the Son are as one principle because Jesus tells us that in the gospels is another truth attested to by the rest of the teaching.

That the Father and the Son are one principle is not something made up by the Catholic Church.

M.


It doesn't seem like you are actually applying the Son being one in principle with the Father to the procession of the Holy Spirit, which is something the phrase we are discussing clearly does.
 

Oh yes I see.  I am sorry.  I was focusing on the particular relationship between the Father [Existence or Godhead] and the Son [the Father's Self-Knowledge or Word].

The principles that they share as two separate Persons of the Trinity are an infinite nature and infinite love.

The principle referred to in the catechetical and doctrinal teaching is the infinite love of the Father and Son that is spirated from the Source [Father], through the Word [Son], and becomes the third Person which is the outpouring or spiration of the principle of infinite love [Holy Spirit].

The principle that is referenced in that teaching is Love, in other words, the divine nature itself, which is infinite caritas [love].

So that the Father in that way remains the arche [archon, monarch] of unity among the Three.  He remains the Source or Existence of the Three in One. 

That is why the Little Flower was made a Doctor of the Church for her Little Way where she teaches so simply:  All is Love!

M.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2010, 07:45:10 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #35 on: September 24, 2010, 07:43:45 PM »

And again, Scripture and Tradition speak of a oneness that is unique in the relationship of the Father and the Son that the Holy Spirit does not share with either one or both.

It seems to me that the dogmatic statement "the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle" cannot be satisfied by just any sort of particular equality of the Father and the Son, but rather must be in equality of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, i.e. they are not in this sense one principle unless the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as He does from the Father.

You say so. 

The Catholic Church says "no"...The Son is Filiation.  The Father is Source.

As from one principle addresses those occasions when Jesus indicates that he and the Father are one.  That relationship is never spoken of to include the Holy Spirit.

So you are adding your logic to something that is far more simple.

The understanding that the Holy Spirit has the Father as Source and that He proceeds through the Father and the Son eternally is one truth.

That the Father and the Son are as one principle because Jesus tells us that in the gospels is another truth attested to by the rest of the teaching.

That the Father and the Son are one principle is not something made up by the Catholic Church.

M.


It doesn't seem like you are actually applying the Son being one in principle with the Father to the procession of the Holy Spirit, which is something the phrase we are discussing clearly does.
 

Oh yes I see.  I am sorry.  I was focusing on the particular relationship between the Father [Existence or Godhead] and the Son [the Father's Self-Knowledge or Word].

The principles that they share as two separate Persons of the Trinity are an infinite nature and infinite love.

The principle referred to in the catechetical and doctrinal teaching is the infinite love of the Father and Son that is spirated from the Source [Father], through the Word [Son], and becomes the third principle of infinite love [Holy Spirit].

The principle that is referenced in that teaching is Love, in other words, the divine nature itself, which is infinite caritas [love].

That is why the Little Flower was made a Doctor of the Church for her Little Way where she teaches so simply:  All is Love!

M.

"From the Father" "through the Word" does not sound like "as from one principle" to me.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #36 on: September 24, 2010, 07:47:30 PM »

[quote author=deusveritasest link=topic=10589.msg475590#msg475590 date=1285371825

"From the Father" "through the Word" does not sound like "as from one principle" to me.
[/quote]

The principle that is referenced in that teaching is Love, in other words, the divine nature itself, which is infinite caritas [love].
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #37 on: September 24, 2010, 07:51:04 PM »

[quote author=deusveritasest link=topic=10589.msg475590#msg475590 date=1285371825

"From the Father" "through the Word" does not sound like "as from one principle" to me.

The principle that is referenced in that teaching is Love, in other words, the divine nature itself, which is infinite caritas [love].
[/quote]

Sometimes what I think people do not see or realize is that the "one principle" belongs to the Source, to the Word, and to the Love Spirated. 

The one principle is the infinite caritas of the divinty.
Logged

deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #38 on: September 24, 2010, 07:53:00 PM »


"From the Father" "through the Word" does not sound like "as from one principle" to me.

The principle that is referenced in that teaching is Love, in other words, the divine nature itself, which is infinite caritas [love].

But that doesn't satisfy an equal principle of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son because the procession from the Father is hypostatic and causal and the procession from the Son is not.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2010, 07:53:27 PM by deusveritasest » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #39 on: September 24, 2010, 08:02:29 PM »


"From the Father" "through the Word" does not sound like "as from one principle" to me.

The principle that is referenced in that teaching is Love, in other words, the divine nature itself, which is infinite caritas [love].

But that doesn't satisfy an equal principle of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son because the procession from the Father is hypostatic and causal and the procession from the Son is not.


That is because the principle is love. 

In your scheme above the principle would have to be the Source itself which it is clearly not.

The hypostasis is the Outpouring or Spiration of Infinite Caritas [Holy Spirit] from the Source through the Word.

The Source is the Father who sends the Spirit through the Son infinitely lovingly [the single principle is as I noted the divine nature].

Logged

deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #40 on: September 24, 2010, 08:10:50 PM »

In your scheme above the principle would have to be the Source itself which it is clearly not.

Why is it clear that this phrase is not asserting that the Father and the Son are somehow commonly the Source of the Holy Spirit? That seems to me to be the most obvious meaning.

The hypostasis is the Outpouring or Spiration of Infinite Caritas [Holy Spirit] from the Source through the Word.

Again, the phrase makes it clear that it is referring to the Holy Spirit proceeding from, not through, the Word. Even further, this most be so if it is to be from the Father and the Son as from one principle.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #41 on: September 24, 2010, 08:22:42 PM »

In your scheme above the principle would have to be the Source itself which it is clearly not.

Why is it clear that this phrase is not asserting that the Father and the Son are somehow commonly the Source of the Holy Spirit? That seems to me to be the most obvious meaning.

The hypostasis is the Outpouring or Spiration of Infinite Caritas [Holy Spirit] from the Source through the Word.

Again, the phrase makes it clear that it is referring to the Holy Spirit proceeding from, not through, the Word. Even further, this most be so if it is to be from the Father and the Son as from one principle.

The reason that it is clear that this phrase is not asserting that the Father and the Son are somehow commonly the Source of the Holy Spirit is the fact that the Catholic Church says that she does not mean or intend by that phrase to teach that the Father is not the arche, archon, source of the Holy Spirit.  It is explicitly stated that the Father is arche, monarch.

So whether that is obvious to you or not, on the face of it, is, pardon me for saying so, irrelevant.

And the Spirit comes from the Son by being Spirated by the Father through the Son.  That is the only way he possibly COULD come from the Son without having the Father and the Son be a double Source.  The Church has also made her mind clear on this point over several councils and many hundreds of years.

The best Orthodoxy can do is talk about their own interpretations of the text, which is tantamount to telling the Catholic Church they are lying about their own doctrinal theology.

Well...ok.  But that is the very BEST you've been able to do in hundreds of years.  Simply make the bald faced claim that we are lying by talking about Filioque in terms that were never intended.

Can you see how that might irritate some of us?

M.
Logged

deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #42 on: September 24, 2010, 08:32:41 PM »

In your scheme above the principle would have to be the Source itself which it is clearly not.

Why is it clear that this phrase is not asserting that the Father and the Son are somehow commonly the Source of the Holy Spirit? That seems to me to be the most obvious meaning.

The hypostasis is the Outpouring or Spiration of Infinite Caritas [Holy Spirit] from the Source through the Word.

Again, the phrase makes it clear that it is referring to the Holy Spirit proceeding from, not through, the Word. Even further, this most be so if it is to be from the Father and the Son as from one principle.

The reason that it is clear that this phrase is not asserting that the Father and the Son are somehow commonly the Source of the Holy Spirit is the fact that the Catholic Church says that she does not mean or intend by that phrase to teach that the Father is not the arche, archon, source of the Holy Spirit.  It is explicitly stated that the Father is arche, monarch.

So whether that is obvious to you or not, on the face of it, is, pardon me for saying so, irrelevant.

And the Spirit comes from the Son by being Spirated by the Father through the Son.  That is the only way he possibly COULD come from the Son without having the Father and the Son be a double Source.  The Church has also made her mind clear on this point over several councils and many hundreds of years.

The best Orthodoxy can do is talk about their own interpretations of the text, which is tantamount to telling the Catholic Church they are lying about their own doctrinal theology.

Well...ok.  But that is the very BEST you've been able to do in hundreds of years.  Simply make the bald faced claim that we are lying by talking about Filioque in terms that were never intended.

Can you see how that might irritate some of us?

M.

Where has your church stated that the Father is solely the causal source of the Holy Spirit?

Besides, I've seen a number of your coreligionists claim that the Father gives everything of His to the Son, including the spiration of the Holy Spirit. This, even more, would imply a common causal source of the Father and the Son.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #43 on: September 24, 2010, 08:50:32 PM »

In your scheme above the principle would have to be the Source itself which it is clearly not.

Why is it clear that this phrase is not asserting that the Father and the Son are somehow commonly the Source of the Holy Spirit? That seems to me to be the most obvious meaning.

The hypostasis is the Outpouring or Spiration of Infinite Caritas [Holy Spirit] from the Source through the Word.

Again, the phrase makes it clear that it is referring to the Holy Spirit proceeding from, not through, the Word. Even further, this most be so if it is to be from the Father and the Son as from one principle.

The reason that it is clear that this phrase is not asserting that the Father and the Son are somehow commonly the Source of the Holy Spirit is the fact that the Catholic Church says that she does not mean or intend by that phrase to teach that the Father is not the arche, archon, source of the Holy Spirit.  It is explicitly stated that the Father is arche, monarch.

So whether that is obvious to you or not, on the face of it, is, pardon me for saying so, irrelevant.

And the Spirit comes from the Son by being Spirated by the Father through the Son.  That is the only way he possibly COULD come from the Son without having the Father and the Son be a double Source.  The Church has also made her mind clear on this point over several councils and many hundreds of years.

The best Orthodoxy can do is talk about their own interpretations of the text, which is tantamount to telling the Catholic Church they are lying about their own doctrinal theology.

Well...ok.  But that is the very BEST you've been able to do in hundreds of years.  Simply make the bald faced claim that we are lying by talking about Filioque in terms that were never intended.

Can you see how that might irritate some of us?

M.

Where has your church stated that the Father is solely the causal source of the Holy Spirit?

Besides, I've seen a number of your coreligionists claim that the Father gives everything of His to the Son, including the spiration of the Holy Spirit. This, even more, would imply a common causal source of the Father and the Son.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason",78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle",79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.
Logged

Tags: filioque Maximus Marinus 
Pages: 1   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 0.246 seconds with 72 queries.