OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 22, 2014, 08:11:16 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 18858 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 #90 on: April 07, 2011, 02:30:15 PM »


As Apotheum points out, Florence shows otherwise.

 laugh laugh laugh

Allow me to point out to you that Bishop Mark didn't get it then, so I am not surprised that you and Apotheun don't get it now.

When you or Apotheun begin to argue against what the Catholic Church does teach concerning a whole host of issues, perhaps I will begin to listen.

As I pointed out earlier and perhaps elsewhere, it is pretty easy for me to tell when I am talking to people who don't get it, but I am heartened because I know Orthodox monks, scholars and others who do get it and don't think it is heresy and figure I have a snowball's chance in hades of convincing those who would rather cling to their Photian schism....Thus far they are right on all counts.... laugh
« Last Edit: April 07, 2011, 02:34:33 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #91 on: April 07, 2011, 02:45:33 PM »

Open question to any reading this thread: I am the only one who finds the tone of this conversation troubling?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #92 on: April 07, 2011, 02:54:22 PM »

St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus - on the Filioque    

The following is St Maximus' Letter to Marinus as found in Migne, PG 91:136  (Monachos.net)

"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."
« Last Edit: April 07, 2011, 02:55:00 PM by FatherHLL » Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #93 on: April 07, 2011, 02:58:47 PM »

Open question to any reading this thread: Am I the only one who finds the tone of this conversation troubling?

If you are talking about posts which insult St Mark of Ephesus while bragging about knowing Orthodox monks and scholars....then the answer is no....you are not the only one who is disturbed by the tone.

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #94 on: April 07, 2011, 03:26:53 PM »



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

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

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

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #95 on: April 07, 2011, 03:40:45 PM »

Open question to any reading this thread: I am the only one who finds the tone of this conversation troubling?

You ain't used to internetz:

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
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 #96 on: April 07, 2011, 04:19:47 PM »


As Apotheum points out, Florence shows otherwise.

 laugh laugh laugh

Allow me to point out to you that Bishop Mark didn't get it then, so I am not surprised that you and Apotheun don't get it now.

St. Mark was the only one who got it: even the Latins had to admit it.

When you or Apotheun begin to argue against what the Catholic Church does teach concerning a whole host of issues, perhaps I will begin to listen.
The Catholic Church doesn't teach Filioque. Apotheum, who is on the other side of the Vatican's communion from me, and I are in agreement with that.

As I pointed out earlier and perhaps elsewhere, it is pretty easy for me to tell when I am talking to people who don't get it,
LOL. Because they don't agree with you?

but I am heartened because I know Orthodox monks, scholars and others who do get it and don't think it is heresy

Then they are heretics, and an Orthodox heretic is an oxymoron.

and figure I have a snowball's chance in hades of convincing those who would rather cling to their Photian schism

You guys are the ones in schism from St. Photios, and the rest of the Fathers.

....Thus far they are right on all counts.... laugh
Invincible ignorance.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2011, 04:20:29 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
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 #97 on: April 07, 2011, 04:33:50 PM »



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

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

I didn't say anything about leaving out heretical permutations in a historical study.  On the theological side, I do expect that he did say "I do":
Quote
The Bishop questioneth the convert from the Lutheran Confession thus: Dost thou renounce the false doctrine that, for the expression of the dogma touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost the declaration of our Saviour Christ himself: "who proceedeth from the Father": doth not suffice; and that the addition, of man's invention: "and from the Son": is required?
Answer. I do
http://books.google.com/books?id=fBk9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA459&dq=Orthodox+Service+book+lutheran&output=text#c_top
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
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 #98 on: April 07, 2011, 05:35:35 PM »

I honestly do not understand the problem with the filioque. We know that all Persons of the Trinity are equal and eternal. We know that the Son possesses everything which the Father does, and that Father and Son are one. Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. It emphasizes the oneness of the Holy Trinity.

I thought that the Son possesses everything 'except' what makes them persons... ?
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share in common all that is proper to the divine essence, while they are distinct in the properties that are unique to their hypostaseis.  That said, the Father - as person - is the sole cause of the Son by generation, and He alone is the cause of the Spirit by ekporeusis (see St. Maximos' letter to Marinus), and so if one were to posit the idea that either the ability to generate the Son or to process the Spirit was somehow common to one or both of the other two persons within the Trinity it follows that the other person within the Trinity would possess a hypostatic property of the Father, and would also be the Father.  That is why - for Eastern Christians - the filioque is often referred to as a type of Sabellian Modalism, because it attempts to give the Father's unique hypostatic ability to process (ekporeusis) the Spirit - as sole cause within the Godhead - to the Son as a common property of the Father and the Son, which involves a confusion of the hypostaseis of the Father and the Son.  Moreover, this attempt to give a hypostatic property that is unique to the Father to the Son has the added difficult of dividing the persons of the Father and the Son from the Holy Spirit, who is not given this new common property, which is why Eastern Orthodox Christians often see the Western theory of the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son - as from one principle - as the promotion of a type of ditheism.

The only viable solution to the present impasse is for the West to return to its original understanding of the filioque as described and defended in the 7th century Letter of Maximos to Marinus, then - and only then - would Orthodox objections to the Western theory of Trinitarian relations be overcome, but so far the Latin Church has been unwilling to do that, and has instead continued to defend the late medieval understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit, which ultimately makes the Son with the Father - as the Council of Florence says - the cause (atia) of the Spirit's subsistence.

excellent post. Thanks.

This is what I grew up with in the Roman Church...
« Last Edit: April 07, 2011, 05:39:18 PM by ignatius » 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 #99 on: April 07, 2011, 05:41:23 PM »

I find it interesting that this is being studiously ignored.

St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus - on the Filioque    

The following is St Maximus' Letter to Marinus as found in Migne, PG 91:136  (Monachos.net)

"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."

Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #100 on: April 07, 2011, 05:43:07 PM »


This is what I grew up with in the Roman Church...


And I did not, so who had the better education.  Your's looks prettier than mine....but...
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 #101 on: April 07, 2011, 05:45:21 PM »


This is what I grew up with in the Roman Church...


And I did not, so who had the better education.  Your's looks prettier than mine....but...

But wouldn't you agree that this illustration teaches an error?
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.”
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,019


"My god is greater."


« Reply #102 on: April 07, 2011, 05:47:18 PM »

I find it interesting that this is being studiously ignored.

St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus - on the Filioque    

The following is St Maximus' Letter to Marinus as found in Migne, PG 91:136  (Monachos.net)

"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.


The Council of Florence and the current catechism do precisely this, so St. Maximus' words are in fact against the Vatican teaching.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
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 #103 on: April 07, 2011, 05:47:29 PM »

I find it interesting that this is being studiously ignored.

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.
So am I.
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 #104 on: April 07, 2011, 05:50:17 PM »


This is what I grew up with in the Roman Church...


And I did not, so who had the better education.  Your's looks prettier than mine....but...

But wouldn't you agree that this illustration teaches an error?

I would indeed agree.  As I said it is much much more eye-catching than what I was taught but I generally prefer the truth to "pretty"...
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #105 on: April 07, 2011, 05:51:58 PM »

I find it interesting that this is being studiously ignored.

St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus - on the Filioque    

The following is St Maximus' Letter to Marinus as found in Migne, PG 91:136  (Monachos.net)

"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.


The Council of Florence and the current catechism do precisely this, so St. Maximus' words are in fact against the Vatican teaching.

That is not accurate at all.  That is not what I was taught formally, as Filioque, in classes that I took from a seminary, and I was taught out of that catechism among other things.  

The Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit.  That is the teaching of the Catholic Church.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2011, 05:57:37 PM by elijahmaria » 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 #106 on: April 07, 2011, 05:59:38 PM »


This is what I grew up with in the Roman Church...


And I did not, so who had the better education.  Your's looks prettier than mine....but...

But wouldn't you agree that this illustration teaches an error?

I would indeed agree.  As I said it is much much more eye-catching than what I was taught but I generally prefer the truth to "pretty"...


Sure, but to me there is real traction to Orthodox Criticisms of the Fillioque because of this kinda stuff. It's proof that erroneous teachings can enter into the Church because of the vagueness of the Fillioque. So I agree that we shouldn't have it in the creed. I see no good reason for it's inclusion.
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.”
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 #107 on: April 07, 2011, 06:11:01 PM »

I find it interesting that this is being studiously ignored.

St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus - on the Filioque    

The following is St Maximus' Letter to Marinus as found in Migne, PG 91:136  (Monachos.net)

"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.


The Council of Florence and the current catechism do precisely this, so St. Maximus' words are in fact against the Vatican teaching.

That is not accurate at all.  That is not what I was taught formally, as Filioque, in classes that I took from a seminary, and I was taught out of that catechism among other things.  

The Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit.  That is the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Indeed it is. But that is not the teaching of the Vatican's medieval councils.
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
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,019


"My god is greater."


« Reply #108 on: April 07, 2011, 06:16:12 PM »

I find it interesting that this is being studiously ignored.

St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus - on the Filioque    

The following is St Maximus' Letter to Marinus as found in Migne, PG 91:136  (Monachos.net)

"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.


The Council of Florence and the current catechism do precisely this, so St. Maximus' words are in fact against the Vatican teaching.

That is not accurate at all.  That is not what I was taught formally, as Filioque, in classes that I took from a seminary, and I was taught out of that catechism among other things.  

The Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit.  That is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

The teaching of the Council of Florence, reiterated in the catechism, is that the Spirit "proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and one spiration." Florence continues: "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."

But, as you say, the catechesis in the RCC is not the best, and it's possibly you were taught something other than the Vatican's dogmatic teaching.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #109 on: April 07, 2011, 06:45:19 PM »

I find it interesting that this is being studiously ignored.

St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus - on the Filioque    

The following is St Maximus' Letter to Marinus as found in Migne, PG 91:136  (Monachos.net)

"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.


The Council of Florence and the current catechism do precisely this, so St. Maximus' words are in fact against the Vatican teaching.

That is not accurate at all.  That is not what I was taught formally, as Filioque, in classes that I took from a seminary, and I was taught out of that catechism among other things.  

The Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit.  That is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

The teaching of the Council of Florence, reiterated in the catechism, is that the Spirit "proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and one spiration." Florence continues: "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."

But, as you say, the catechesis in the RCC is not the best, and it's possibly you were taught something other than the Vatican's dogmatic teaching.


This is flat out falsehood.  I'll give you a chance to either document this, or correct it, before I begin typing text from the history of the doctrinal sessions...that will demonstrate that your assertion here is clearly false.  I am lazy so I'll wait a while...but the texts are here in my hand...bookmarked.
Logged

Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,019


"My god is greater."


« Reply #110 on: April 07, 2011, 06:57:08 PM »

I find it interesting that this is being studiously ignored.

St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus - on the Filioque    

The following is St Maximus' Letter to Marinus as found in Migne, PG 91:136  (Monachos.net)

"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.


The Council of Florence and the current catechism do precisely this, so St. Maximus' words are in fact against the Vatican teaching.

That is not accurate at all.  That is not what I was taught formally, as Filioque, in classes that I took from a seminary, and I was taught out of that catechism among other things.  

The Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit.  That is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

The teaching of the Council of Florence, reiterated in the catechism, is that the Spirit "proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and one spiration." Florence continues: "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."

But, as you say, the catechesis in the RCC is not the best, and it's possibly you were taught something other than the Vatican's dogmatic teaching.


This is flat out falsehood.  I'll give you a chance to either document this, or correct it, before I begin typing text from the history of the doctrinal sessions...that will demonstrate that your assertion here is clearly false.  I am lazy so I'll wait a while...but the texts are here in my hand...bookmarked.

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
« Last Edit: April 07, 2011, 07:00:43 PM by Iconodule » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #111 on: April 07, 2011, 07:25:36 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.

Logged

Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #112 on: April 07, 2011, 07:48:49 PM »

Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, only the Roman Catholic Church is making the claim that it is from the Father and Son. Period.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #113 on: April 07, 2011, 10:24:12 PM »

Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, only the Roman Catholic Church is making the claim that it is from the Father and Son. Period.

Do Protestants count?
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #114 on: April 07, 2011, 10:30:51 PM »

I find it interesting that this is being studiously ignored.

St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus - on the Filioque    

The following is St Maximus' Letter to Marinus as found in Migne, PG 91:136  (Monachos.net)

"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.


The Council of Florence and the current catechism do precisely this, so St. Maximus' words are in fact against the Vatican teaching.

That is not accurate at all.  That is not what I was taught formally, as Filioque, in classes that I took from a seminary, and I was taught out of that catechism among other things.  

The Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit.  That is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

The teaching of the Council of Florence, reiterated in the catechism, is that the Spirit "proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and one spiration." Florence continues: "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."

But, as you say, the catechesis in the RCC is not the best, and it's possibly you were taught something other than the Vatican's dogmatic teaching.


This is flat out falsehood.  I'll give you a chance to either document this, or correct it,

Well that's ironic ...

Wow, you just never stop trying to bait me do you? Alright, show where I was wrong, if you think I was.

Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #115 on: April 08, 2011, 12:40:40 AM »


This is flat out falsehood.  I'll give you a chance to either document this, or correct it,

Well that's ironic ...

Wow, you just never stop trying to bait me do you? Alright, show where I was wrong, if you think I was.



Actually it isn't. Unless you studied rhetoric under Alanis Morissette.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #116 on: April 08, 2011, 12:45:19 AM »

I find it interesting that this is being studiously ignored.

St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus - on the Filioque    

The following is St Maximus' Letter to Marinus as found in Migne, PG 91:136  (Monachos.net)

"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.


The Council of Florence and the current catechism do precisely this, so St. Maximus' words are in fact against the Vatican teaching.

That is not accurate at all.  That is not what I was taught formally, as Filioque, in classes that I took from a seminary, and I was taught out of that catechism among other things.  

The Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit.  That is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Mary, what you were taught at a seminary is not necessarily what is the real dogmatic history of your faith tradition. All sorts of crazed ideas are now commonly taught in Romanist seminaries.
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 #117 on: April 08, 2011, 12:46:47 AM »

*redundant post*
« Last Edit: April 08, 2011, 12:47:34 AM 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
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #118 on: April 08, 2011, 12:51:46 AM »


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

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #119 on: April 08, 2011, 12:52:01 AM »

*redundant post*

How many of the above and whose are you referring to?

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #120 on: April 08, 2011, 12:54:09 AM »

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.

What is clear is that they equated their concept of principle in "Father and Son as from one principle" to the Greek conception of cause, which the Fathers attributed only to 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
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #121 on: April 08, 2011, 12:55:48 AM »

*redundant post*

How many of the above and whose are you referring to?



LOL.

I'm referring to my own. It asked Iconodule to post his reference to the Florence quote, but when I kept reading I saw that he had already posted it later on in the thread. So I had hoped blanking my post might lead it to fade into obscurity.
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 #122 on: April 08, 2011, 12:57:12 AM »


This is flat out falsehood.  I'll give you a chance to either document this, or correct it,

Well that's ironic ...

Wow, you just never stop trying to bait me do you? Alright, show where I was wrong, if you think I was.



Actually it isn't. Unless you studied rhetoric under Alanis Morissette.

That was my hardest LOL of the day so far.  laugh

Thank you for that.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2011, 12:57:46 AM 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
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #123 on: April 08, 2011, 02:18:12 AM »

St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus - on the Filioque    

The following is St Maximus' Letter to Marinus as found in Migne, PG 91:136  (Monachos.net)

"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."
Thank you.

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

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #124 on: April 08, 2011, 03:56:17 AM »

The teaching of the Council of Florence, reiterated in the catechism, is that the Spirit "proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and one spiration." Florence continues: "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."

But, as you say, the catechesis in the RCC is not the best, and it's possibly you were taught something other than the Vatican's dogmatic teaching.
Iconodule you are correct, and the inconsistency between the processional theory proposed at the Council of Florence and the teaching of St. Maximos becomes all the more apparent when the Greek theological terms found in the two texts are compared.  Below are the two excerpted texts (i.e., Maximos' Letter to Marinus and the Decree of Florence) with the technical Greek terms in brackets:


"From this they [i.e., the Romans] showed that they themselves do not make the Son the cause [αἰτίαν] of the Spirit for they know that the Father is the one cause [αἰτίαν] of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting [γέννησιν] and the other by procession [ἐκπόρευσιν], but they show the progression [προϊέναι] through Him [i.e., the Son] and thus the unity of the essence [οὐσίας]." (1)

"In the name of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it:  that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has His essence [οὐσίαν] and His subsistent being [ύπαρχτιχόν είναι] from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds [ἐκπορεύεται] from both eternally as from one principle [μίᾶς άρχής] and a single spiration. We declare that when Holy Doctors and Fathers say that the Holy Spirit proceeds [ἐκπορεύεσθαι] from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause [αἰτίαν], and according to the Latins as principle [άρχήν] of the subsistence [ύπἁρξεως] of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father." (2)


Clearly the theological position of the Latin Church at Florence had moved beyond what St. Maximos had said was acceptable in his Letter to Marinus, and - in fact - it actually embraced what he explicitly condemned.


Bibliography:

(1) A. Edward Siecienski, "The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy," (New York:  Oxford University Press, 2010), pages 80-81.

(2) Norman P. Tanner, S.J., (Editor), "Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils," (London and Washington, D.C.: Sheed & Ward, and Georgetown University Press, 1990), pages 526-527.
Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #125 on: April 08, 2011, 04:19:01 AM »

Eastern Triadology is focused first and foremost upon the monarchy of the Father, Who is seen as the sole principle (arche), source (pege), and cause (aitia) of divinity. Now, it follows from the doctrine of the monarchy of the Father that both the Son and the Holy Spirit receive their subsistence solely from Him, i.e., that He is their sole source and origin; and so, they are — as a consequence — homoousios with Him. Moreover, it is important to remember that the word homoousios itself, which was used by the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in order to describe the eternal communion of nature that exists between the Father and the Son, is a term that indicates a relation of dependence. In other words, the term homoousios involves recognition of the fact that the Son receives His existence as person (hypostasis) from the Father alone by generation (gennatos), and that He is dependent upon the Father for His co-essential nature. That being said, it follows that the Son comes forth from the Father’s person (hypostasis), and not from the divine essence (ousia), which is always absolutely common to the three divine persons. The same also holds with the hypostatic procession (ekporeusis) of origin of the Holy Spirit, because He also receives His existence from the Father alone, i.e., from the Father’s person (hypostasis), and not from the divine essence (ousia), which — as I already indicated — is absolutely common to the three divine persons [see St. Gregory Palamas, “Logos Apodeiktikos” I, 6]. Thus, it is from the Father Himself personally that the other two persons of the Holy Trinity derive their eternal subsistence and their co-essential nature.

Now, with the foregoing information in mind, it is clear that the Eastern Churches must reject any theological system or theory that tries to elevate the Son to a co-principle of origin in connection with the existential procession (ekporeusis) of the Holy Spirit as person (hypostasis), because within Byzantine Triadology a theological proposition of that kind entails either the error of ditheism, which involves positing the false idea that there are two principles or causes of divinity (i.e., the Father and the Son); or the error of Sabellian Modalism, which involves proposing the false notion that the Holy Spirit as person (hypostasis) proceeds from Father and the Son “as from one principle,” thus causing an unintentional blending of the persons of the Father and the Son, by giving the Son a personal characteristic (i.e., the power to spirate the Holy Spirit as person) that is proper only to the Father.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2011, 04:21:12 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,019


"My god is greater."


« Reply #126 on: April 08, 2011, 06:50:23 AM »

Elijahmaria- When I provided the quotes, you first accused me of outright falsehood and asked me what my sources were, as if the quotes were fabricated. I then showed you the sources and you backpeddled, claiming that what you really meant was that I was taking them out of context. That's enough to prove that you have no idea what you're talking about and I won't waste any more time arguing with you.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #127 on: April 08, 2011, 10:06:17 AM »


This is flat out falsehood.  I'll give you a chance to either document this, or correct it,

Well that's ironic ...

Wow, you just never stop trying to bait me do you? Alright, show where I was wrong, if you think I was.



Actually it isn't. Unless you studied rhetoric under Alanis Morissette.

That was my hardest LOL of the day so far.  laugh

Thank you for that.


Dude, you got something against Alanis Morissette?  Angry

j/k

Okay, but seriously, I still think it's ironic (not like a black fly in your chardonnay) inasmuch as elijahmaria issued a challenge to Iconodule after having ignored pretty much the same challenge from me.

Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #128 on: April 08, 2011, 10:21:48 AM »


This is flat out falsehood.  I'll give you a chance to either document this, or correct it,

Well that's ironic ...

Wow, you just never stop trying to bait me do you? Alright, show where I was wrong, if you think I was.



Actually it isn't. Unless you studied rhetoric under Alanis Morissette.

That was my hardest LOL of the day so far.  laugh

Thank you for that.


Dude, you got something against Alanis Morissette?  Angry

j/k

Okay, but seriously, I still think it's ironic (not like a black fly in your chardonnay) inasmuch as elijahmaria issued a challenge to Iconodule after having ignored pretty much the same challenge from me.



Hate to rain on your wedding day, but that ain't irony neither.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #129 on: April 08, 2011, 10:53:19 AM »


This is flat out falsehood.  I'll give you a chance to either document this, or correct it,

Well that's ironic ...

Wow, you just never stop trying to bait me do you? Alright, show where I was wrong, if you think I was.



Actually it isn't. Unless you studied rhetoric under Alanis Morissette.

That was my hardest LOL of the day so far.  laugh

Thank you for that.


Dude, you got something against Alanis Morissette?  Angry

j/k

Okay, but seriously, I still think it's ironic (not like a black fly in your chardonnay) inasmuch as elijahmaria issued a challenge to Iconodule after having ignored pretty much the same challenge from me.



Hate to rain on your wedding day, but that ain't irony neither.

True, it's more of an interesting coincidence.

Now I wish I had taken your good advice.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #130 on: April 08, 2011, 12:02:07 PM »

Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, only the Roman Catholic Church is making the claim that it is from the Father and Son. Period.

Do Protestants count?
Only as much as the Vatican.
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
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 #131 on: April 08, 2011, 12:04:55 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.
Add to that, no one on our side is accusing the council of Florence of consistency.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #132 on: April 08, 2011, 12:20:14 PM »

Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, only the Roman Catholic Church is making the claim that it is from the Father and Son. Period.

Do Protestants count?
Only as much as the Vatican.

Well that's a relief, I was starting to think they counted more to you than the Vatican does. (Okay, now I'm being ironic.)

Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #133 on: April 08, 2011, 01:01:35 PM »

Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, only the Roman Catholic Church is making the claim that it is from the Father and Son. Period.

Do Protestants count?
Only as much as the Vatican.

Well that's a relief, I was starting to think they counted more to you than the Vatican does. (Okay, now I'm being ironic.)



I thought the question was whether Protestants could even count to three. (Not sarcasm, which is a form of irony, but a more ambiguous trope of humor.)
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #134 on: April 08, 2011, 01:05:46 PM »

Mary, what you were taught at a seminary is not necessarily what is the real dogmatic history of your faith tradition. All sorts of crazed ideas are now commonly taught in Romanist seminaries.
How about monophysite seminaries? What are they like?
 Wyatt, use of the M-word in the manner you just used it is deemed inappropriate according to board rules.  You are hereby put on warning status for the next 16 days.  If you feel this is in error, please appeal to Fr. George or FrChris.  -Schultz.
Logged
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 0.2 seconds with 72 queries.