OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 23, 2014, 10:46:13 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creed question  (Read 18035 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #135 on: April 08, 2011, 01:54:37 PM »


Your denial is bizarre. Are you actually denying that the Council of Florence said these words?  The quotes I provided are from the text of the Council of Florence, as presented in Norman Tanner's Decrees of the Ecumanical Councils, and are reproduced on the EWTN website: http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm

There are many many more words, than the ones you've offered here,  and you've taken them entirely out of context and as you present them, they cannot but be falsely understood.  So your entire undertaking is lazy, or from some other cause, and thereby false.  Until you can, by explanation, reconcile the section I have marked in red with the later section that you chose to clip out of context, then you are presenting falsely.  In fact you cannot do that without reading the arguments presented during the council.

The "sense" in which the Father is recognized as soul source and cause of all divinity, essence and hypostasis, is not the same sense that the Latins used in recognizing Filioque.  That is clear in the records of argumentation from the council.  So to ignore ALL of that is far more bizarre than for me to claim that you've taken it so far out of context that it is impossible to get near to the truth by that snippit alone.

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

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

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

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


Mary, your quotation does not contradict Iconodule's interpretation. All it defines is that the Holy Spirit's procession is from one principle. As to this procession from one principle, the council said that it was from the Father and the Son as from one principle. And when elaborating on this, they explicitly stated that the procession from the Father and the Son as from one principle means that the Son is participating in the cause. Nothing you posted contradicts that interpretation which is essentially the plain interpretation of what he quoted.

It certainly does if one looks at the entire record from the council where "principle" is explained. 

It is clear in the patristic record that the Father is the SOLE source of the deity.

But I daresay you'd have to search far and wide to find a Holy Father who says that the Holy Spirit is from the Father....alone.

So to speak of essential source and cause on one hand may not be quite the same as looking at the relationships within the Trinity on the other.

You are freewheeling here some very specific and technical language as though you all really know what you are doing, yet you are looking at third and fourth hand English translations taken ENTIRELY out of any explanatory or pedagogical or even theological context and telling me that I am bizarre...

That may play well here but it would not play nearly as well among serious scholars who realize quite clearly that it is not nearly as simple or black and white as you'd like portray it to be...and I am not referencing only Catholic scholars here, I am including those who are Orthodox and who see that the Photian assertions may well not be as accurate as one might assert them to be.

Logged

ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #136 on: April 08, 2011, 07:38:26 PM »

It is clear in the patristic record that the Father is the SOLE source of the deity.

But I daresay you'd have to search far and wide to find a Holy Father who says that the Holy Spirit is from the Father....alone.
I wander why Catholics did not even see my question. I thought St. Maximus the Confessor was your main support in defending filioque. Seems you don't even know what he said. Let's repeat it since repetition is the mother of learning:

"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."

Clearly stated: Father is the only source of the Son and the Spirit. Most importantly, this Great Saint was thinking he was defending something absolutely different then Catholic Church came to believe later.

In case some of you decide to answer here's my question again:
Quote
Now, what I don't understand is how some Catholics (maybe many) try to use St. Maximus the Confessor as supporting the filioque? I've looked at the Second Council of Lyon's explanation of filioque and this is what is says: "We confess that the Holy Ghost proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle, not by two spirations, but by one single spiration."

Let me try to formulate the question as clearly as I can. On the other hand we have St. Maximus's defense of filioque which says: "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."

It is no-brainer that two interpretations of filioque are absolutely different. St. Maximos defended it because that time Romans meant Father, in their interpretation, as being the only cause of Holy Spirit. But later after Schism 2nd C. of Lyon explains it differently. With them it's clear that the Son is also the cause of Holy Spirit (it matters none whether they considered Father and Son as one principle - still Son is the cause along with Father). Latins have switched the original meaning of filioque. And since St. Maximus clearly states Latin Fathers and Cyril of Alexandria meant same thing then these Father also supported theology of God Father being the only cause of Holy Spirit.

Then how can Catholics use this saints as if they've supported the Son being the cause of Holy Spirit
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #137 on: April 08, 2011, 07:53:28 PM »

It is clear in the patristic record that the Father is the SOLE source of the deity.

But I daresay you'd have to search far and wide to find a Holy Father who says that the Holy Spirit is from the Father....alone.
I wander why Catholics did not even see my question. I thought St. Maximus the Confessor was your main support in defending filioque. Seems you don't even know what he said. Let's repeat it since repetition is the mother of learning:

"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."

This goes quite nicely with my assertion that you'll have to look long and hard to find a Holy Father who says that the Holy Spirit is from the Father...alone.

PS:  I could not resist my response above, given your crack about repetitions.  Also as long as you presume the "no brainer" then there is little anyone can say to you that will open that door...You have to open the door.  Best I can tell you is that they are not different as you assert.  And it's not a no-brainer to say so.  It is a fact of Catholic teaching.

« Last Edit: April 08, 2011, 08:12:45 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,021



« Reply #138 on: April 08, 2011, 08:03:13 PM »

I wander why Catholics did not even see my question.

None of the Catholics here responded to your question, but that doesn't mean that we didn't see it.

One thing you have to keep in mind is there are relatively few Catholics on this forum (which I think is unfortunate BTW).

I thought St. Maximus the Confessor was your main support in defending filioque. Seems you don't even know what he said. Let's repeat it since repetition is the mother of learning:

"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."

Clearly stated: Father is the only source of the Son and the Spirit. Most importantly, this Great Saint was thinking he was defending something absolutely different then Catholic Church came to believe later.

In case some of you decide to answer here's my question again:
Quote
Now, what I don't understand is how some Catholics (maybe many) try to use St. Maximus the Confessor as supporting the filioque?

Can you be more specific? What do those Catholics say?


Quote
Quote
I've looked at the Second Council of Lyon's explanation of filioque and this is what is says: "We confess that the Holy Ghost proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle, not by two spirations, but by one single spiration."

Let me try to formulate the question as clearly as I can. On the other hand we have St. Maximus's defense of filioque which says: "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."

It is no-brainer that two interpretations of filioque are absolutely different. St. Maximos defended it because that time Romans meant Father, in their interpretation, as being the only cause of Holy Spirit. But later after Schism 2nd C. of Lyon explains it differently. With them it's clear that the Son is also the cause of Holy Spirit (it matters none whether they considered Father and Son as one principle - still Son is the cause along with Father). Latins have switched the original meaning of filioque. And since St. Maximus clearly states Latin Fathers and Cyril of Alexandria meant same thing then these Father also supported theology of God Father being the only cause of Holy Spirit.

Then how can Catholics use this saints as if they've supported the Son being the cause of Holy Spirit

« Last Edit: April 08, 2011, 08:05:06 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #139 on: April 09, 2011, 03:36:08 AM »

Best I can tell you is that they are not different as you assert.  And it's not a no-brainer to say so.  It is a fact of Catholic teaching.
How could we miss that?

Peter J
Quote
Can you be more specific? What do those Catholics say?
1) Per Catholic teaching the cause of Holy Spirit is not only the Father but also the Sun. 2) They blame us to be in error. We say the cause of Holy Spirit is only the Father though through the sun (this last part is not added in creed but nobody denies it) 3) St. Maximus (and other Saints and Fathers you use in support of filioque) was defending #2, not #1.

Why? Why you say that these Saints were actually defenders of filioque?
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #140 on: April 09, 2011, 03:58:48 AM »

Actually you can disregard my question and I apologize since it's been asked and answered but I did not see it.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,021



« Reply #141 on: April 09, 2011, 07:37:38 AM »

Actually you can disregard my question and I apologize since it's been asked and answered but I did not see it.

Oh, alright. I don't see that either. Where is it?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #142 on: April 09, 2011, 06:09:26 PM »

Actually you can disregard my question and I apologize since it's been asked and answered but I did not see it.
Oh, alright. I don't see that either. Where is it?
Same point was raised by Iconodule on previous page. He said "St. Maximus' words are in fact against the Vatican teaching" which is true. Even after quoting Council of Florence to prove this elijahmaria accused him of telling flat out falsehood. I haven't actually seen yet better "arguments" then hers.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #143 on: April 09, 2011, 06:33:24 PM »

Actually you can disregard my question and I apologize since it's been asked and answered but I did not see it.
Oh, alright. I don't see that either. Where is it?
Same point was raised by Iconodule on previous page. He said "St. Maximus' words are in fact against the Vatican teaching" which is true. Even after quoting Council of Florence to prove this elijahmaria accused him of telling flat out falsehood. I haven't actually seen yet better "arguments" then hers.

Dear ones,

It is indeed a falsehood to take text out of context and try to "prove" a point that has been argued for centuries.  That's about as false as it gets.  Without the context of the discussion that occurred during the Greek participation in the Council of Florence there is no truth to be had in the assertions that I've seen bandied about here.

M.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2011, 06:34:09 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #144 on: April 09, 2011, 06:44:14 PM »

It is clear in the patristic record that the Father is the SOLE source of the deity.

But I daresay you'd have to search far and wide to find a Holy Father who says that the Holy Spirit is from the Father....alone.
I wander why Catholics did not even see my question. I thought St. Maximus the Confessor was your main support in defending filioque. Seems you don't even know what he said. Let's repeat it since repetition is the mother of learning:

"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."

This goes quite nicely with my assertion that you'll have to look long and hard to find a Holy Father who says that the Holy Spirit is from the Father...alone.
We had a 150 gathered in one place in 381.

PS:  I could not resist my response above, given your crack about repetitions.  Also as long as you presume the "no brainer" then there is little anyone can say to you that will open that door...You have to open the door.  Best I can tell you is that they are not different as you assert.  And it's not a no-brainer to say so.  It is a fact of Catholic teaching.
According to the Ecumenical and Pan-Orthodox Councils, no, it is not.
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 #145 on: April 09, 2011, 06:49:44 PM »

It is clear in the patristic record that the Father is the SOLE source of the deity.

But I daresay you'd have to search far and wide to find a Holy Father who says that the Holy Spirit is from the Father....alone.
I wander why Catholics did not even see my question. I thought St. Maximus the Confessor was your main support in defending filioque. Seems you don't even know what he said. Let's repeat it since repetition is the mother of learning:

"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."

This goes quite nicely with my assertion that you'll have to look long and hard to find a Holy Father who says that the Holy Spirit is from the Father...alone.
We had a 150 gathered in one place in 381.

PS:  I could not resist my response above, given your crack about repetitions.  Also as long as you presume the "no brainer" then there is little anyone can say to you that will open that door...You have to open the door.  Best I can tell you is that they are not different as you assert.  And it's not a no-brainer to say so.  It is a fact of Catholic teaching.
According to the Ecumenical and Pan-Orthodox Councils, no, it is not.

Still ignoring meaning.  Totally ignoring meaning and language on both sides.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2011, 06:50:21 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #146 on: April 09, 2011, 07:45:35 PM »

It is clear in the patristic record that the Father is the SOLE source of the deity.

But I daresay you'd have to search far and wide to find a Holy Father who says that the Holy Spirit is from the Father....alone.
I wander why Catholics did not even see my question. I thought St. Maximus the Confessor was your main support in defending filioque. Seems you don't even know what he said. Let's repeat it since repetition is the mother of learning:

"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."

This goes quite nicely with my assertion that you'll have to look long and hard to find a Holy Father who says that the Holy Spirit is from the Father...alone.
We had a 150 gathered in one place in 381.

PS:  I could not resist my response above, given your crack about repetitions.  Also as long as you presume the "no brainer" then there is little anyone can say to you that will open that door...You have to open the door.  Best I can tell you is that they are not different as you assert.  And it's not a no-brainer to say so.  It is a fact of Catholic teaching.
According to the Ecumenical and Pan-Orthodox Councils, no, it is not.

Still ignoring meaning.  Totally ignoring meaning and language on both sides.
EP St. Photios, St. Gregory Palamas and St. Mark of Ephesus are as plain in Greek condemning the heresy of the filioque as the council of Florence is in Latin in expousing it.

It's not Greek to us.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2011, 07:47:30 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #147 on: April 09, 2011, 07:54:28 PM »

It is clear in the patristic record that the Father is the SOLE source of the deity.

But I daresay you'd have to search far and wide to find a Holy Father who says that the Holy Spirit is from the Father....alone.
I wander why Catholics did not even see my question. I thought St. Maximus the Confessor was your main support in defending filioque. Seems you don't even know what he said. Let's repeat it since repetition is the mother of learning:

"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."

This goes quite nicely with my assertion that you'll have to look long and hard to find a Holy Father who says that the Holy Spirit is from the Father...alone.
We had a 150 gathered in one place in 381.

PS:  I could not resist my response above, given your crack about repetitions.  Also as long as you presume the "no brainer" then there is little anyone can say to you that will open that door...You have to open the door.  Best I can tell you is that they are not different as you assert.  And it's not a no-brainer to say so.  It is a fact of Catholic teaching.
According to the Ecumenical and Pan-Orthodox Councils, no, it is not.

Still ignoring meaning.  Totally ignoring meaning and language on both sides.
EP St. Photios, St. Gregory Palamas and St. Mark of Ephesus are as plain in Greek condemning the heresy of the filioque as the council of Florence is in Latin in expousing it.

It's not Greek to us.

It isn't Latin either to you.  So what makes you think I am going to accept that you grasp its meaning in English either?...right...I don't.

As for your ad hoc infallible saints...well...I don't think I need to say more than that.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2011, 07:56:00 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,021



« Reply #148 on: April 09, 2011, 11:06:23 PM »

Actually you can disregard my question and I apologize since it's been asked and answered but I did not see it.
Oh, alright. I don't see that either. Where is it?
Same point was raised by Iconodule on previous page. He said "St. Maximus' words are in fact against the Vatican teaching" which is true. Even after quoting Council of Florence to prove this elijahmaria accused him of telling flat out falsehood. I haven't actually seen yet better "arguments" then hers.

To be honest, I'm a tad surprised that you're saying we can disregard your question. I can't really complain, however: I'm not really too keen on the way this conversation has been going -- it seems to have little to do with the arguments and much to do with who-can-come-up-with-better-insults -- so I just as happy to limit my participation in it.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #149 on: April 09, 2011, 11:50:50 PM »

It is clear in the patristic record that the Father is the SOLE source of the deity.

But I daresay you'd have to search far and wide to find a Holy Father who says that the Holy Spirit is from the Father....alone.
I wander why Catholics did not even see my question. I thought St. Maximus the Confessor was your main support in defending filioque. Seems you don't even know what he said. Let's repeat it since repetition is the mother of learning:

"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."

This goes quite nicely with my assertion that you'll have to look long and hard to find a Holy Father who says that the Holy Spirit is from the Father...alone.
We had a 150 gathered in one place in 381.

PS:  I could not resist my response above, given your crack about repetitions.  Also as long as you presume the "no brainer" then there is little anyone can say to you that will open that door...You have to open the door.  Best I can tell you is that they are not different as you assert.  And it's not a no-brainer to say so.  It is a fact of Catholic teaching.
According to the Ecumenical and Pan-Orthodox Councils, no, it is not.

Still ignoring meaning.  Totally ignoring meaning and language on both sides.
EP St. Photios, St. Gregory Palamas and St. Mark of Ephesus are as plain in Greek condemning the heresy of the filioque as the council of Florence is in Latin in expousing it.

It's not Greek to us.

It isn't Latin either to you.
Georgian, Armenian, Slavonic, Ruthenian, Klingon.....it will be the same.


So what makes you think I am going to accept that you grasp its meaning in English either?...right...I don't.
And?

As for your ad hoc infallible saints...well...I don't think I need to say more than that.
The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic has said all that needs to be said about the Pillars of Orthodoxy and their Orthodox profession of the Catholic Church.
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
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #150 on: April 10, 2011, 02:46:23 AM »

To be honest, I'm a tad surprised that you're saying we can disregard your question. I can't really complain, however: I'm not really too keen on the way this conversation has been going -- it seems to have little to do with the arguments and much to do with who-can-come-up-with-better-insults -- so I just as happy to limit my participation in it.
My apology to you if I insulted you. I'm as human as anybody else and sometimes I get irritated. When I saw Mary's response that is what happened. I apologize to her too.

I might be expressing my opinions in a rude manner but I do think I see no response (real one) from Catholic users. I do not want to fight or insult anybody. But I do like things be called by their name and the name is "Filioque creed and the creed St. Maximus was defending are completely different things, and the evidence for this is multiple".

Anyways God Bless all God fearing people and God loving people Eastern Orthodox or Not
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,021



« Reply #151 on: April 10, 2011, 07:42:11 AM »

To be honest, I'm a tad surprised that you're saying we can disregard your question. I can't really complain, however: I'm not really too keen on the way this conversation has been going -- it seems to have little to do with the arguments and much to do with who-can-come-up-with-better-insults -- so I just as happy to limit my participation in it.
My apology to you if I insulted you. I'm as human as anybody else and sometimes I get irritated. When I saw Mary's response that is what happened. I apologize to her too.

I don't remember you saying anything too insulting. But it's possible of course -- with all of back-and-forth of jabs between the Orthodox side and the Catholic side ... well it can be a little hard to keep track. (Not that I really want to keep track.  Wink )

I might be expressing my opinions in a rude manner but I do think I see no response (real one) from Catholic users. I do not want to fight or insult anybody. But I do like things be called by their name and the name is "Filioque creed and the creed St. Maximus was defending are completely different things, and the evidence for this is multiple".

Doesn't seem like a very good name to me. What about "Filioque advanced at Florence and the filioque St. Maximus was defending are completely different things"?

Anyways God Bless all God fearing people and God loving people Eastern Orthodox or Not

Amen.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #152 on: April 10, 2011, 10:28:51 AM »


Anyways God Bless all God fearing people and God loving people Eastern Orthodox or Not

Don't worry.  We are just talking here.  That does not take away from the fact that we ought to, and most likely do, care for the salvation of each others souls.  It seems to me that most of us share that without doubt...so no apology necessary and the prayers and blessings are returned...be assured.

M.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,021



« Reply #153 on: April 10, 2011, 12:49:34 PM »


Anyways God Bless all God fearing people and God loving people Eastern Orthodox or Not

Don't worry.  We are just talking here. 

Well the setting does make it a bit difficult to use physical violence.

That does not take away from the fact that we ought to, and most likely do, care for the salvation of each others souls.  It seems to me that most of us share that without doubt...so no apology necessary

You're too kind. Really.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #154 on: April 10, 2011, 12:54:45 PM »


Anyways God Bless all God fearing people and God loving people Eastern Orthodox or Not

Don't worry.  We are just talking here. 

Well the setting does make it a bit difficult to use physical violence.

That does not take away from the fact that we ought to, and most likely do, care for the salvation of each others souls.  It seems to me that most of us share that without doubt...so no apology necessary

You're too kind. Really.

 laugh laugh laugh

A poke in the nose here is not nearly as bloody!!

thanks...

M.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,021



« Reply #155 on: April 10, 2011, 02:13:40 PM »

thanks...

You seem to be reading a comment into my post. I didn't intend one.

On the other hand, perhaps your intention was to thank me for holding back from fulling expressing what I think of your posts. If that's the case, then you're welcome.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #156 on: April 10, 2011, 02:17:34 PM »

thanks...

You seem to be reading a comment into my post. I didn't intend one.

On the other hand, perhaps your intention was to thank me for holding back from fulling expressing what I think of your posts. If that's the case, then you're welcome.

You elliptically presume I was talking to you...
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,021



« Reply #157 on: April 10, 2011, 03:39:00 PM »

Yeah, that was really presumptuous of me wasn't it.   laugh
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
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 #158 on: April 10, 2011, 05:01:20 PM »

Grace and Peace,

I, as a Roman Catholic, used to support the inclusion of the filioque. I thought since some of the early Church Fathers spoke of the notion as 'through the son'... that is was just and right for the Western Church to include it if that meant that Arians would be frustrated in progressing their own teaching of the Son but in all honesty I don't see 'any reason' why it should continue to be in our Creed in our modern day. If the Roman Church can completely rewrite their entire Liturgy to appeal to Protestants... I don't see any reason we couldn't return to the ancient Creed once shared between the Eastern and Western Churches? The evidence is clear that it's inclusion has allowed errors to creep into the Western Church with regard to the Western Understanding of the Trinity. I don't see why we can't simply return to the Creed that is shared between East and West...
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.”
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,021



« Reply #159 on: April 10, 2011, 05:33:05 PM »

Grace and Peace,

I, as a Roman Catholic, used to support the inclusion of the filioque. I thought since some of the early Church Fathers spoke of the notion as 'through the son'... that is was just and right for the Western Church to include it if that meant that Arians would be frustrated in progressing their own teaching of the Son but in all honesty I don't see 'any reason' why it should continue to be in our Creed in our modern day. If the Roman Church can completely rewrite their entire Liturgy to appeal to Protestants... I don't see any reason we couldn't return to the ancient Creed once shared between the Eastern and Western Churches? The evidence is clear that it's inclusion has allowed errors to creep into the Western Church with regard to the Western Understanding of the Trinity. I don't see why we can't simply return to the Creed that is shared between East and West...

Hi Ignatius. I tend to agree with you. What's more, I think that the insertion of the filioque into the creed has not helped us at all in our attempts to convince our Eastern brethren of the truth of the filioque, and in fact has actually tended to thwart those efforts.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
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 #160 on: April 10, 2011, 05:42:07 PM »

Grace and Peace,

I, as a Roman Catholic, used to support the inclusion of the filioque. I thought since some of the early Church Fathers spoke of the notion as 'through the son'... that is was just and right for the Western Church to include it if that meant that Arians would be frustrated in progressing their own teaching of the Son but in all honesty I don't see 'any reason' why it should continue to be in our Creed in our modern day. If the Roman Church can completely rewrite their entire Liturgy to appeal to Protestants... I don't see any reason we couldn't return to the ancient Creed once shared between the Eastern and Western Churches? The evidence is clear that it's inclusion has allowed errors to creep into the Western Church with regard to the Western Understanding of the Trinity. I don't see why we can't simply return to the Creed that is shared between East and West...

Hi Ignatius. I tend to agree with you. What's more, I think that the insertion of the filioque into the creed has not helped us at all in our attempts to convince our Eastern brethren of the truth of the filioque, and in fact has actually tended to thwart those efforts.

Thanks Brother. I would also contend that our understanding of the Trinity has more to do with Neo-Platonism than it does the Early Church. They idea of the World Soul (i.e. Holy Spirit) being a product of the One and the Logos... is our Western Teaching of the Trinity. Now, I'm not saying that it's possible that this might have been a early Church understanding... but it's not very Scriptural and does demote the Holy Spirit (i.e. World Soul) to a product of the Divine Godhead and not a equal to the Father and the Son.
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 #161 on: April 10, 2011, 06:27:40 PM »

Grace and Peace,

I, as a Roman Catholic, used to support the inclusion of the filioque. I thought since some of the early Church Fathers spoke of the notion as 'through the son'... that is was just and right for the Western Church to include it if that meant that Arians would be frustrated in progressing their own teaching of the Son but in all honesty I don't see 'any reason' why it should continue to be in our Creed in our modern day. If the Roman Church can completely rewrite their entire Liturgy to appeal to Protestants... I don't see any reason we couldn't return to the ancient Creed once shared between the Eastern and Western Churches? The evidence is clear that it's inclusion has allowed errors to creep into the Western Church with regard to the Western Understanding of the Trinity. I don't see why we can't simply return to the Creed that is shared between East and West...

Hi Ignatius. I tend to agree with you. What's more, I think that the insertion of the filioque into the creed has not helped us at all in our attempts to convince our Eastern brethren of the truth of the filioque, and in fact has actually tended to thwart those efforts.

Thanks Brother. I would also contend that our understanding of the Trinity has more to do with Neo-Platonism than it does the Early Church. They idea of the World Soul (i.e. Holy Spirit) being a product of the One and the Logos... is our Western Teaching of the Trinity. Now, I'm not saying that it's possible that this might have been a early Church understanding... but it's not very Scriptural and does demote the Holy Spirit (i.e. World Soul) to a product of the Divine Godhead and not a equal to the Father and the Son.

This is very alien teaching to me and I am a life-long Catholic.  Have you by chance ever read The Filioque: Clarification from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity?
Logged

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 #162 on: April 10, 2011, 07:39:53 PM »

Grace and Peace,

I, as a Roman Catholic, used to support the inclusion of the filioque. I thought since some of the early Church Fathers spoke of the notion as 'through the son'... that is was just and right for the Western Church to include it if that meant that Arians would be frustrated in progressing their own teaching of the Son but in all honesty I don't see 'any reason' why it should continue to be in our Creed in our modern day. If the Roman Church can completely rewrite their entire Liturgy to appeal to Protestants... I don't see any reason we couldn't return to the ancient Creed once shared between the Eastern and Western Churches? The evidence is clear that it's inclusion has allowed errors to creep into the Western Church with regard to the Western Understanding of the Trinity. I don't see why we can't simply return to the Creed that is shared between East and West...

Hi Ignatius. I tend to agree with you. What's more, I think that the insertion of the filioque into the creed has not helped us at all in our attempts to convince our Eastern brethren of the truth of the filioque, and in fact has actually tended to thwart those efforts.

Thanks Brother. I would also contend that our understanding of the Trinity has more to do with Neo-Platonism than it does the Early Church. They idea of the World Soul (i.e. Holy Spirit) being a product of the One and the Logos... is our Western Teaching of the Trinity. Now, I'm not saying that it's possible that this might have been a early Church understanding... but it's not very Scriptural and does demote the Holy Spirit (i.e. World Soul) to a product of the Divine Godhead and not a equal to the Father and the Son.

This is very alien teaching to me and I am a life-long Catholic.  Have you by chance ever read The Filioque: Clarification from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity?

Grace and Peace elijahmaria,

I think it's great that you've been shielded from this kind of stuff. Having Byzantine Catholics in the Church may well be a real help to the Roman Catholic Church as a whole. Anytime you see God the Father and God the Son as parallels both processing the Holy Spirit most with a working knowledge of Neo-Platonism would notice it's similarities to the first two emanations of the One... that being the Logos and following would be the World Soul. It is true that in Neo-Platonism, the One contemplating the Logos and that reciprocated... allows the procession of the World Soul. This teaching is so inline with the Western Teaching of the Trinity and the procession of the Holy Spirit by the Father and the Son that it is hard to overlook as it's source. I have no doubt that Greek Fathers suggesting procession 'through' the Son are drawing from Neo-Platonist theories as well... I just see the Orthodox position on this point to be superior and one that might well be embraced by the Western Church and simply get past this notion of 'procession from the Father and the Son'...
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 #163 on: April 10, 2011, 07:46:41 PM »

Grace and Peace,

I, as a Roman Catholic, used to support the inclusion of the filioque. I thought since some of the early Church Fathers spoke of the notion as 'through the son'... that is was just and right for the Western Church to include it if that meant that Arians would be frustrated in progressing their own teaching of the Son but in all honesty I don't see 'any reason' why it should continue to be in our Creed in our modern day. If the Roman Church can completely rewrite their entire Liturgy to appeal to Protestants... I don't see any reason we couldn't return to the ancient Creed once shared between the Eastern and Western Churches? The evidence is clear that it's inclusion has allowed errors to creep into the Western Church with regard to the Western Understanding of the Trinity. I don't see why we can't simply return to the Creed that is shared between East and West...

Hi Ignatius. I tend to agree with you. What's more, I think that the insertion of the filioque into the creed has not helped us at all in our attempts to convince our Eastern brethren of the truth of the filioque, and in fact has actually tended to thwart those efforts.

Thanks Brother. I would also contend that our understanding of the Trinity has more to do with Neo-Platonism than it does the Early Church. They idea of the World Soul (i.e. Holy Spirit) being a product of the One and the Logos... is our Western Teaching of the Trinity. Now, I'm not saying that it's possible that this might have been a early Church understanding... but it's not very Scriptural and does demote the Holy Spirit (i.e. World Soul) to a product of the Divine Godhead and not a equal to the Father and the Son.

This is very alien teaching to me and I am a life-long Catholic.  Have you by chance ever read The Filioque: Clarification from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity?

Grace and Peace elijahmaria,

I think it's great that you've been shielded from this kind of stuff.

I am a pre-Vatican II Roman rite Catholic who remains interested in both the Roman rite teaching and perceptions of those teachings. 

Are you familiar with The Filioque:Clarification from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity?

Perhaps it has been a while since you've seen it?  It is not as easy to come by on the Internet any longer.  You really have to search for it.

M.

Logged

ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #164 on: April 10, 2011, 08:12:33 PM »

I might be expressing my opinions in a rude manner but I do think I see no response (real one) from Catholic users. I do not want to fight or insult anybody. But I do like things be called by their name and the name is "Filioque creed and the creed St. Maximus was defending are completely different things, and the evidence for this is multiple".

Doesn't seem like a very good name to me. What about "Filioque advanced at Florence and the filioque St. Maximus was defending are completely different things"?
For sure the name you gave is right name. Though that's not whole story. I'll quote Filioque story before Florence and after it. If you could make different conclusion then I said I'll be more than glad to hear it.

An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation Saint Paul’s College, Washington, DC
Quote
The earliest use of Filioque language in a credal context is in the profession of faith formulated for the Visigoth King Reccared at the local Council of Toledo in 589. This regional council anathematized those who did not accept the decrees of the first four Ecumenical Councils (canon 11), as well as those who did not profess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (canon 3). It appears that the Spanish bishops and King Reccared believed at that time that the Greek equivalent of Filioque was part of the original creed of Constantinople, and apparently understood that its purpose was to oppose Arianism by affirming the intimate relationship of the Father and Son. On Reccared’s orders, the Creed began to be recited during the Eucharist, in imitation of the Eastern practice. From Spain, the use of the Creed with the Filioque spread throughout Gaul.

Quote
Charlemagne received a translation of the decisions of the Second Council of Nicaea (787). The Council had given definitive approval to the ancient practice of venerating icons. The translation proved to be defective. On the basis of this defective translation, Charlemagne sent a delegation to Pope Hadrian I (772-795), to present his concerns. Among the points of objection, Charlemagne’s legates claimed that Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople, at his installation, did not follow the Nicene faith and profess that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but confessed rather his procession from the Father through the Son (Mansi 13.760). The Pope strongly rejected Charlemagne’s protest, showing at length that Tarasius and the Council, on this and other points, maintained the faith of the Fathers (ibid. 759-810). Following this exchange of letters, Charlemagne commissioned the so-called Libri Carolini (791-794), a work written to challenge the positions both of the iconoclast council of 754 and of the Council of Nicaea of 787 on the veneration of icons. Again because of poor translations, the Carolingians misunderstood the actual decision of the latter Council. Within this text, the Carolingian view of the Filioque also was emphasized again. Arguing that the word Filioque was part of the Creed of 381, the Libri Carolini reaffirmed the Latin tradition that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and rejected as inadequate the teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.
Before proceeding do you agree with the quotes being historical facts and particularly those that are in bold and underlined? This developments are long before Florence.


Now this is what newadvent.org says:
Quote
The rejection of the Filioque, or the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, and the denial of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff constitute even today the principal errors of the Greek church.
1) Does Greek Church profess that Holy Spirit processes from the Father through the Son? 2) If they do and if the creed "Holy Spirit processes from the Father through the Son" and the creed "Holy Spirit processes from the Father and the Son" is the same, how can Greeks be in error?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,021



« Reply #165 on: April 10, 2011, 08:56:00 PM »

I might be expressing my opinions in a rude manner but I do think I see no response (real one) from Catholic users. I do not want to fight or insult anybody. But I do like things be called by their name and the name is "Filioque creed and the creed St. Maximus was defending are completely different things, and the evidence for this is multiple".

Doesn't seem like a very good name to me. What about "Filioque advanced at Florence and the filioque St. Maximus was defending are completely different things"?
For sure the name you gave is right name. Though that's not whole story. I'll quote Filioque story before Florence and after it. If you could make different conclusion then I said I'll be more than glad to hear it.

An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation Saint Paul’s College, Washington, DC
Quote
The earliest use of Filioque language in a credal context is in the profession of faith formulated for the Visigoth King Reccared at the local Council of Toledo in 589. This regional council anathematized those who did not accept the decrees of the first four Ecumenical Councils (canon 11), as well as those who did not profess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (canon 3). It appears that the Spanish bishops and King Reccared believed at that time that the Greek equivalent of Filioque was part of the original creed of Constantinople, and apparently understood that its purpose was to oppose Arianism by affirming the intimate relationship of the Father and Son. On Reccared’s orders, the Creed began to be recited during the Eucharist, in imitation of the Eastern practice. From Spain, the use of the Creed with the Filioque spread throughout Gaul.

Quote
Charlemagne received a translation of the decisions of the Second Council of Nicaea (787). The Council had given definitive approval to the ancient practice of venerating icons. The translation proved to be defective. On the basis of this defective translation, Charlemagne sent a delegation to Pope Hadrian I (772-795), to present his concerns. Among the points of objection, Charlemagne’s legates claimed that Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople, at his installation, did not follow the Nicene faith and profess that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but confessed rather his procession from the Father through the Son (Mansi 13.760). The Pope strongly rejected Charlemagne’s protest, showing at length that Tarasius and the Council, on this and other points, maintained the faith of the Fathers (ibid. 759-810). Following this exchange of letters, Charlemagne commissioned the so-called Libri Carolini (791-794), a work written to challenge the positions both of the iconoclast council of 754 and of the Council of Nicaea of 787 on the veneration of icons. Again because of poor translations, the Carolingians misunderstood the actual decision of the latter Council. Within this text, the Carolingian view of the Filioque also was emphasized again. Arguing that the word Filioque was part of the Creed of 381, the Libri Carolini reaffirmed the Latin tradition that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and rejected as inadequate the teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.
Before proceeding do you agree with the quotes being historical facts and particularly those that are in bold and underlined? This developments are long before Florence.

Yes, I trust those historical facts. In fact, I think they are very sympathetic to the Catholic side: In the first place, the 6th-century Spaniards did not deliberately change the creed, they were simply misinformed about what it said. In the second place, the popes deserve credit for standing up to the Carolingians for no less than a couple hundred years (even though they eventually gave in with respect to the insertion of the filioque into the creed, in 1014 AD).

Now this is what newadvent.org says:
Quote
The rejection of the Filioque, or the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, and the denial of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff constitute even today the principal errors of the Greek church.
1) Does Greek Church profess that Holy Spirit processes from the Father through the Son? 2) If they do and if the creed "Holy Spirit processes from the Father through the Son" and the creed "Holy Spirit processes from the Father and the Son" is the same, how can Greeks be in error?

Forgive me for being blunt, but I'm not going to enter into a debate centered around newadvent.org.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
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 #166 on: April 10, 2011, 10:20:15 PM »

Grace and Peace,

I, as a Roman Catholic, used to support the inclusion of the filioque. I thought since some of the early Church Fathers spoke of the notion as 'through the son'... that is was just and right for the Western Church to include it if that meant that Arians would be frustrated in progressing their own teaching of the Son but in all honesty I don't see 'any reason' why it should continue to be in our Creed in our modern day. If the Roman Church can completely rewrite their entire Liturgy to appeal to Protestants... I don't see any reason we couldn't return to the ancient Creed once shared between the Eastern and Western Churches? The evidence is clear that it's inclusion has allowed errors to creep into the Western Church with regard to the Western Understanding of the Trinity. I don't see why we can't simply return to the Creed that is shared between East and West...

Hi Ignatius. I tend to agree with you. What's more, I think that the insertion of the filioque into the creed has not helped us at all in our attempts to convince our Eastern brethren of the truth of the filioque, and in fact has actually tended to thwart those efforts.

Thanks Brother. I would also contend that our understanding of the Trinity has more to do with Neo-Platonism than it does the Early Church. They idea of the World Soul (i.e. Holy Spirit) being a product of the One and the Logos... is our Western Teaching of the Trinity. Now, I'm not saying that it's possible that this might have been a early Church understanding... but it's not very Scriptural and does demote the Holy Spirit (i.e. World Soul) to a product of the Divine Godhead and not a equal to the Father and the Son.

This is very alien teaching to me and I am a life-long Catholic.  Have you by chance ever read The Filioque: Clarification from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity?

Grace and Peace elijahmaria,

I think it's great that you've been shielded from this kind of stuff.

I am a pre-Vatican II Roman rite Catholic who remains interested in both the Roman rite teaching and perceptions of those teachings.

You state that you're Byzantine Catholic... is that not correct?

Quote
Are you familiar with The Filioque:Clarification from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity?

I"m actually not familiar with the document. I think my reaction to it might be... if you have to clarify The Filioque, then perhaps it's far to vague to be in our creed in the way that it is?
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.”
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,021



« Reply #167 on: April 10, 2011, 10:33:03 PM »

Quote
Are you familiar with The Filioque:Clarification from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity?

I"m actually not familiar with the document.

It's an excellent work. I highly recommend it.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,461


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #168 on: April 10, 2011, 10:43:36 PM »

Grace and Peace,

I, as a Roman Catholic, used to support the inclusion of the filioque. I thought since some of the early Church Fathers spoke of the notion as 'through the son'... that is was just and right for the Western Church to include it if that meant that Arians would be frustrated in progressing their own teaching of the Son but in all honesty I don't see 'any reason' why it should continue to be in our Creed in our modern day. If the Roman Church can completely rewrite their entire Liturgy to appeal to Protestants... I don't see any reason we couldn't return to the ancient Creed once shared between the Eastern and Western Churches? The evidence is clear that it's inclusion has allowed errors to creep into the Western Church with regard to the Western Understanding of the Trinity. I don't see why we can't simply return to the Creed that is shared between East and West...

Hi Ignatius. I tend to agree with you. What's more, I think that the insertion of the filioque into the creed has not helped us at all in our attempts to convince our Eastern brethren of the truth of the filioque, and in fact has actually tended to thwart those efforts.

Thanks Brother. I would also contend that our understanding of the Trinity has more to do with Neo-Platonism than it does the Early Church. They idea of the World Soul (i.e. Holy Spirit) being a product of the One and the Logos... is our Western Teaching of the Trinity. Now, I'm not saying that it's possible that this might have been a early Church understanding... but it's not very Scriptural and does demote the Holy Spirit (i.e. World Soul) to a product of the Divine Godhead and not a equal to the Father and the Son.

This is very alien teaching to me and I am a life-long Catholic.  Have you by chance ever read The Filioque: Clarification from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity?

Grace and Peace elijahmaria,

I think it's great that you've been shielded from this kind of stuff.

I am a pre-Vatican II Roman rite Catholic who remains interested in both the Roman rite teaching and perceptions of those teachings. 

Are you familiar with The Filioque:Clarification from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity?

Perhaps it has been a while since you've seen it?  It is not as easy to come by on the Internet any longer.  You really have to search for it.

M.



It can be viewed at http://www.reocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/vatican_clarification.html
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,021



« Reply #169 on: April 10, 2011, 11:00:08 PM »

BTW, if you've read http://www.usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml you saw a a reference to the Clarification at the end, where it recommends "that the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use."


http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #170 on: April 10, 2011, 11:09:00 PM »


Thanks!!  I had lost track of TRV's presentation.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #171 on: April 10, 2011, 11:19:19 PM »


You state that you're Byzantine Catholic... is that not correct?

Quote
Are you familiar with The Filioque:Clarification from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity?

I"m actually not familiar with the document. I think my reaction to it might be... if you have to clarify The Filioque, then perhaps it's far to vague to be in our creed in the way that it is?


I was a Roman rite Catholic for 40 out of 60 years...give or take two years.  I did not just dump all those years and all that learning when I transferred.

Well the document is worth reading in any event.

Glad to know your moving into a Church were nothing requires clarification.  Smiley 

Logged

ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #172 on: April 11, 2011, 01:08:26 AM »

I might be expressing my opinions in a rude manner but I do think I see no response (real one) from Catholic users. I do not want to fight or insult anybody. But I do like things be called by their name and the name is "Filioque creed and the creed St. Maximus was defending are completely different things, and the evidence for this is multiple".

Doesn't seem like a very good name to me. What about "Filioque advanced at Florence and the filioque St. Maximus was defending are completely different things"?
For sure the name you gave is right name. Though that's not whole story. I'll quote Filioque story before Florence and after it. If you could make different conclusion then I said I'll be more than glad to hear it.

An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation Saint Paul’s College, Washington, DC
Quote
The earliest use of Filioque language in a credal context is in the profession of faith formulated for the Visigoth King Reccared at the local Council of Toledo in 589. This regional council anathematized those who did not accept the decrees of the first four Ecumenical Councils (canon 11), as well as those who did not profess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (canon 3). It appears that the Spanish bishops and King Reccared believed at that time that the Greek equivalent of Filioque was part of the original creed of Constantinople, and apparently understood that its purpose was to oppose Arianism by affirming the intimate relationship of the Father and Son. On Reccared’s orders, the Creed began to be recited during the Eucharist, in imitation of the Eastern practice. From Spain, the use of the Creed with the Filioque spread throughout Gaul.

Quote
Charlemagne received a translation of the decisions of the Second Council of Nicaea (787). The Council had given definitive approval to the ancient practice of venerating icons. The translation proved to be defective. On the basis of this defective translation, Charlemagne sent a delegation to Pope Hadrian I (772-795), to present his concerns. Among the points of objection, Charlemagne’s legates claimed that Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople, at his installation, did not follow the Nicene faith and profess that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but confessed rather his procession from the Father through the Son (Mansi 13.760). The Pope strongly rejected Charlemagne’s protest, showing at length that Tarasius and the Council, on this and other points, maintained the faith of the Fathers (ibid. 759-810). Following this exchange of letters, Charlemagne commissioned the so-called Libri Carolini (791-794), a work written to challenge the positions both of the iconoclast council of 754 and of the Council of Nicaea of 787 on the veneration of icons. Again because of poor translations, the Carolingians misunderstood the actual decision of the latter Council. Within this text, the Carolingian view of the Filioque also was emphasized again. Arguing that the word Filioque was part of the Creed of 381, the Libri Carolini reaffirmed the Latin tradition that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and rejected as inadequate the teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.
Before proceeding do you agree with the quotes being historical facts and particularly those that are in bold and underlined? This developments are long before Florence.

Yes, I trust those historical facts. In fact, I think they are very sympathetic to the Catholic side: In the first place, the 6th-century Spaniards did not deliberately change the creed, they were simply misinformed about what it said. In the second place, the popes deserve credit for standing up to the Carolingians for no less than a couple hundred years (even though they eventually gave in with respect to the insertion of the filioque into the creed, in 1014 AD).
I totally agree with you. I do not think either the creed was changed deliberately. I trust that information too. But then it makes 2 points quite clear: 1) Catholic Church's claim that filioque is just an extension of the original creed and elaboration of it and whatnot is false. We now know for the fact now that Latins merely thought filioque creed was the original one. Consequently it is no development of original creed but mistaken creed. 2) We also can deduct from these facts that filioque creed (procession from the Father and the Son) and original creed (procession from the Father through the Son) was not understood as the same even those times. Otherwise Charlemagne would not have compared these 2 creeds and wouldn't have accused east of having wrong creed and deviating from original Nicene-Constantinople creed. "Procession from the Father and the Son" and "Procession from the Father through the Son" was considered as 2 different creeds. Consequently council of Florence reiterated what was Catholic faith. They did not introduce anything new.

Quote
Forgive me for being blunt, but I'm not going to enter into a debate centered around newadvent.org.
I don't want to go into that debate either. I don't even know what's wrong with newadvent.org. I thought it was official Catholic website. Anyways, my point isn't dependent on newadvent. This is what I want to know: 1) When did Catholic Church announce equivalence of the 2 creed? 2) Why did they all of a sudden change their own (kept by succession of Catholic Popes and Bishops and Priests) interpretation of the creed? 3) Why did they not abandon that creed if we know for the fact it was wrongly assumed as original and right creed?

You are free to answer these particular questions. I'm not asking them to debate anything, just questions for interest.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #173 on: April 11, 2011, 09:36:11 AM »

I totally agree with you. I do not think either the creed was changed deliberately. I trust that information too. But then it makes 2 points quite clear: 1) Catholic Church's claim that filioque is just an extension of the original creed and elaboration of it and whatnot is false. We now know for the fact now that Latins merely thought filioque creed was the original one. Consequently it is no development of original creed but mistaken creed. 2) We also can deduct from these facts that filioque creed (procession from the Father and the Son) and original creed (procession from the Father through the Son) was not understood as the same even those times. Otherwise Charlemagne would not have compared these 2 creeds and wouldn't have accused east of having wrong creed and deviating from original Nicene-Constantinople creed. "Procession from the Father and the Son" and "Procession from the Father through the Son" was considered as 2 different creeds. Consequently council of Florence reiterated what was Catholic faith. They did not introduce anything new.


How long has it been since you've read a good history of the Creed written by a Catholic?   I read one two days ago and although the quotes that you mention have truth in them they are misleading in that they leave you with the impression that filioque was unknown in east or west prior to the dates mentioned.  That is false.  It is also false to presume that the west believed the filioque to be false or did so once they figured out it was an "accident."  Read that whole document again and show me where the west said "Oooops!!" we had and accident and filioque must be removed because it was an accidental heresy. 
 
Just to keep it brief:  Do you really think that if matters were this simple someone else might not have already arrived at your conclusions, with data far more reliable and fully presented than the
O-C Consultation's Condensed Version of Creeds East and West?

At any rate this part of the discussion has now gone down a Rabbit Hole and is about to embark on a long journey through Wonderland...unless it is brought back to reality a bit.

You all really ought to pay more attention to the formal Filioque: Clarification before you assume that you can parse the truth out of what the North American Consultation has written in one of their very worst documents yet with respect to history or theology.  That is what they could agree on.  It does not mean that it is the best version of the facts or the truth.

M.
Logged

ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #174 on: April 11, 2011, 11:36:51 AM »

How long has it been since you've read a good history of the Creed written by a Catholic?   I read one two days ago and although the quotes that you mention have truth in them they are misleading in that they leave you with the impression that filioque was unknown in east or west prior to the dates mentioned.  That is false.  It is also false to presume that the west believed the filioque to be false or did so once they figured out it was an "accident."  Read that whole document again and show me where the west said "Oooops!!" we had and accident and filioque must be removed because it was an accidental heresy. 
 
Just to keep it brief:  Do you really think that if matters were this simple someone else might not have already arrived at your conclusions, with data far more reliable and fully presented than the
O-C Consultation's Condensed Version of Creeds East and West?

At any rate this part of the discussion has now gone down a Rabbit Hole and is about to embark on a long journey through Wonderland...unless it is brought back to reality a bit.

You all really ought to pay more attention to the formal Filioque: Clarification before you assume that you can parse the truth out of what the North American Consultation has written in one of their very worst documents yet with respect to history or theology.  That is what they could agree on.  It does not mean that it is the best version of the facts or the truth.

M.
Give the proof of what you say. The article I linked was an agreed upon statement by both Orthodox and Catholics and Peter has not doubted veracity of it. It clearly states what I've said. I haven't added or subtracted anything. Do you not agree on my conclusion which is based on this article? Why? Or do you doubt what's in article?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #175 on: April 11, 2011, 12:10:01 PM »

How long has it been since you've read a good history of the Creed written by a Catholic?   I read one two days ago and although the quotes that you mention have truth in them they are misleading in that they leave you with the impression that filioque was unknown in east or west prior to the dates mentioned.  That is false.  It is also false to presume that the west believed the filioque to be false or did so once they figured out it was an "accident."  Read that whole document again and show me where the west said "Oooops!!" we had and accident and filioque must be removed because it was an accidental heresy. 
 
Just to keep it brief:  Do you really think that if matters were this simple someone else might not have already arrived at your conclusions, with data far more reliable and fully presented than the
O-C Consultation's Condensed Version of Creeds East and West?

At any rate this part of the discussion has now gone down a Rabbit Hole and is about to embark on a long journey through Wonderland...unless it is brought back to reality a bit.

You all really ought to pay more attention to the formal Filioque: Clarification before you assume that you can parse the truth out of what the North American Consultation has written in one of their very worst documents yet with respect to history or theology.  That is what they could agree on.  It does not mean that it is the best version of the facts or the truth.

M.
Give the proof of what you say. The article I linked was an agreed upon statement by both Orthodox and Catholics and Peter has not doubted veracity of it. It clearly states what I've said. I haven't added or subtracted anything. Do you not agree on my conclusion which is based on this article? Why? Or do you doubt what's in article?

I made it as clear as possible without being rude that I think that in the first instance the document is flawed, in that it allows much to much room for historical conjecture, and that in the second instance you've drawn false conclusions from incomplete data.

In the third place I do not give you sufficient credit for being an original and insightful thinker such that you have come to an accurate conclusion that is unique in the history of the discussion on filioque.  The chances of that really are pretty slim.

You have yet to offer any correlative proofs to my challenge so I'll let it rest till you do.

M.
Logged

ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #176 on: April 11, 2011, 01:07:52 PM »

I made it as clear as possible without being rude that I think that in the first instance the document is flawed, in that it allows much to much room for historical conjecture, and that in the second instance you've drawn false conclusions from incomplete data.

In the third place I do not give you sufficient credit for being an original and insightful thinker such that you have come to an accurate conclusion that is unique in the history of the discussion on filioque.  The chances of that really are pretty slim.

You have yet to offer any correlative proofs to my challenge so I'll let it rest till you do.

M.
I agree that I'm not an original thinker or even thinker at all. But at least give me proof that the document is flawed (we can't just rely on your words). And give me some reasoning that proves my non-original conclusion conclusion is wrong.

If you have no answer to this in your next response I'll know you just want to say something and it doesn't matter what you say.

Good luck
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #177 on: April 11, 2011, 06:54:29 PM »

I made it as clear as possible without being rude that I think that in the first instance the document is flawed, in that it allows much to much room for historical conjecture, and that in the second instance you've drawn false conclusions from incomplete data.

In the third place I do not give you sufficient credit for being an original and insightful thinker such that you have come to an accurate conclusion that is unique in the history of the discussion on filioque.  The chances of that really are pretty slim.

You have yet to offer any correlative proofs to my challenge so I'll let it rest till you do.

M.
I agree that I'm not an original thinker or even thinker at all. But at least give me proof that the document is flawed (we can't just rely on your words). And give me some reasoning that proves my non-original conclusion conclusion is wrong.

If you have no answer to this in your next response I'll know you just want to say something and it doesn't matter what you say.

Good luck

ahhhh...I knew when I went out this morning that I had been too strong and it conveyed a high-handedness that I did NOT mean.  Of course you are a thinker and a strong one but what you have in that document that you referenced is not enough that you can think your way through it logically.  It is not sufficient data.  I am sorry if you thought I was just slamming you to the mat.  That was NOT my intention.  I will say that if I were in your shoes, I'd have done no better with it.

As for giving you more...that takes time and work and lots of typing...and its Lent and I want to keep my focus.  Which means I'll look around for something that I can offer you in a reasonable time frame and if I cannot find just the thing then we'll have to let this hang.

Please forgive me for any insult or hurt I caused this morning!!

M.
Logged

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 #178 on: April 11, 2011, 08:51:41 PM »


You state that you're Byzantine Catholic... is that not correct?

Quote
Are you familiar with The Filioque:Clarification from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity?

I"m actually not familiar with the document. I think my reaction to it might be... if you have to clarify The Filioque, then perhaps it's far to vague to be in our creed in the way that it is?


I was a Roman rite Catholic for 40 out of 60 years...give or take two years.  I did not just dump all those years and all that learning when I transferred.

Well the document is worth reading in any event.

Glad to know your moving into a Church were nothing requires clarification.  Smiley 



Since Vatican II, a great deal of effort has been taken to transform Roman Catholicism... to make it, to a larger extent, less intellectual. I've seen it as a kind of unwinding of years past... At first, I was content to simply ignore these changes but Orthodoxy has helped me to understand that there is an alternative to watching the Western Church deconstruct itself, it's dogmas and it's Liturgy not by retreating into Traditionalist Catholic groups but to enter into Eastern Orthodoxy and experience a tradition which still has it legs to stand upon. When I think about it, I'm a better Roman Catholic in the Orthodox Church than I am in many of the Roman Catholic Parishes around me.
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.”
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,021



« Reply #179 on: April 11, 2011, 08:53:36 PM »

How long has it been since you've read a good history of the Creed written by a Catholic?   I read one two days ago and although the quotes that you mention have truth in them they are misleading in that they leave you with the impression that filioque was unknown in east or west prior to the dates mentioned.  That is false.  It is also false to presume that the west believed the filioque to be false or did so once they figured out it was an "accident."  Read that whole document again and show me where the west said "Oooops!!" we had and accident and filioque must be removed because it was an accidental heresy. 
 
Just to keep it brief:  Do you really think that if matters were this simple someone else might not have already arrived at your conclusions, with data far more reliable and fully presented than the
O-C Consultation's Condensed Version of Creeds East and West?

At any rate this part of the discussion has now gone down a Rabbit Hole and is about to embark on a long journey through Wonderland...unless it is brought back to reality a bit.

You all really ought to pay more attention to the formal Filioque: Clarification before you assume that you can parse the truth out of what the North American Consultation has written in one of their very worst documents yet with respect to history or theology.  That is what they could agree on.  It does not mean that it is the best version of the facts or the truth.

M.
Give the proof of what you say. The article I linked was an agreed upon statement by both Orthodox and Catholics and Peter has not doubted veracity of it. It clearly states what I've said. I haven't added or subtracted anything. Do you not agree on my conclusion which is based on this article? Why? Or do you doubt what's in article?

Hi ativan,

Let me start by saying that I'm not a fan of elijahmaria. You may not have been aware of that because I've been trying to follow the old saying of "If you don't have anything nice to say ..." Hence, I rarely say anything to or about elijahmaria.

But, having said that, I also want to point out that it isn't really unusual for a Catholic or Orthodox to question or flat-out reject statements from Catholic-Orthodox dialogues. Just consider how some of your fellow Orthodox view the Balamand Agreement.

One way to look at it is that if a statement isn't rejected by some people (possibly angrily rejected), than it probably wasn't worth saying in the first place.

Anyhow, it's getting harder and harder for elijahmaria to say anything that surprises me. I say just be glad that she likes the 1995 Clarification, and don't bother trying to get her to like the 2003 statement.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Tags: Creed filioque The Creed 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »   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 0.207 seconds with 72 queries.