OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 23, 2014, 10:56:43 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creed question  (Read 16980 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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: 35,626



« Reply #180 on: April 11, 2011, 08:56:21 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.
Which statement is that?
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: 5,670



« Reply #181 on: April 11, 2011, 09:10:12 PM »

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.

While it may not be pleasant to watch, I believe that the changes brought about by Vatican II were needed. (I don't mean every single last one was needed, just overall.) Also, I think that a lot of the problems we have today would have come about even without the council -- and may very well have been worse.

One other thought: it's been 45 years (and a few months) since Vatican II ended. That's not really a very long time. I'm hopeful that people a couple centuries from now will look back on Vatican II as the start a very successful reform.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #182 on: April 11, 2011, 09:13:04 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.
Which statement is that?

"An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation Saint Paul’s College, Washington, DC
October 25, 2003
The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?"
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #183 on: April 11, 2011, 09:31:59 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.

I had a wonderful teacher as a child in grade school and middle school...or those middle years...since there was no middle school back then.  And he coached me through the changes that came after the Second Vatican Council and he advised me to hold on to my hat because the ride was going to get very bumpy.  He said that councils bring out the best and the worst from the woodwork.  He said that if it ever seemed that the worst was going to win, to just be patient a little longer and things would start to come around and the best would shine through once more.  So I am still here and frankly I've been fortunate to be surrounded by some pretty decent Roman rite parishes and eastern Catholic parishes and Orthodox parishes.  So I don't worry much about not liking this or that.  I just wait till the good comes around and then I say "thank ya Jesus!!"...well...not that really but I am grateful and say so.

We all have different paths to walk.
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 #184 on: April 11, 2011, 09:34:12 PM »

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.

While it may not be pleasant to watch, I believe that the changes brought about by Vatican II were needed. (I don't mean every single last one was needed, just overall.) Also, I think that a lot of the problems we have today would have come about even without the council -- and may very well have been worse.

One other thought: it's been 45 years (and a few months) since Vatican II ended. That's not really a very long time. I'm hopeful that people a couple centuries from now will look back on Vatican II as the start a very successful reform.

I hope you are correct. I just need a place where I can do the spiritual work of the ancient Church. I can't speak for every Catholic Chuch but in America the Roman Catholic Church has no sense of itself. Some parishes are no different than any other liberal Methodist or liberal Episcopalian Parish and have absolutely no ties to the ancient Church of Chirst. A few near me are more faithful but still seem at odds with Rome. I honestly believe I'm a better Catholic in the Orthodox Church. I don't want to be strugging with my own Parish, I want to be struggling with my own sin. I don't think the modern Catholic Church is a nurturing place for the good fight. I hate to say that but I've come to believe that they Western Church is largely gone and I do blame Vatican II for that.
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: 5,670



« Reply #185 on: April 11, 2011, 10:35:25 PM »

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.

While it may not be pleasant to watch, I believe that the changes brought about by Vatican II were needed. (I don't mean every single last one was needed, just overall.) Also, I think that a lot of the problems we have today would have come about even without the council -- and may very well have been worse.

One other thought: it's been 45 years (and a few months) since Vatican II ended. That's not really a very long time. I'm hopeful that people a couple centuries from now will look back on Vatican II as the start a very successful reform.

I hope you are correct. I just need a place where I can do the spiritual work of the ancient Church. I can't speak for every Catholic Chuch but in America the Roman Catholic Church has no sense of itself. Some parishes are no different than any other liberal Methodist or liberal Episcopalian Parish and have absolutely no ties to the ancient Church of Chirst. A few near me are more faithful but still seem at odds with Rome. I honestly believe I'm a better Catholic in the Orthodox Church. I don't want to be strugging with my own Parish, I want to be struggling with my own sin. I don't think the modern Catholic Church is a nurturing place for the good fight. I hate to say that but I've come to believe that they Western Church is largely gone and I do blame Vatican II for that.

It's getting a bit late for me tonight, but if I have some time tomorrow I'll try to say a few words about why I don't think things were very good before VCII.

Blessings,
Peter.
Logged

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

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #186 on: April 13, 2011, 01:08:54 AM »

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.
Apology's accepted. But I didn't really take it as an insult. Besides I know I'm not moron Smiley When I agreed with you I meant whatever good I got it's not mine and it's God's gift. Denying God's gift is not humility but stupidity but same is true when appropriating it.

Yes please, provide me with more information (links would be OK) that proves your point and disproves mine. I'm not saying I can't be wrong but at the same time I don't see otherwise based on however insufficient data may be provided in those articles. I'm more then glad to hear anything. I don't try to merely refuse everything Catholic, though I do like to see something supporting Catholic statements.

Thanks
« Last Edit: April 13, 2011, 01:09:58 AM by ativan » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #187 on: April 13, 2011, 10:17:10 AM »

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.
Apology's accepted. But I didn't really take it as an insult. Besides I know I'm not moron Smiley When I agreed with you I meant whatever good I got it's not mine and it's God's gift. Denying God's gift is not humility but stupidity but same is true when appropriating it.

Yes please, provide me with more information (links would be OK) that proves your point and disproves mine. I'm not saying I can't be wrong but at the same time I don't see otherwise based on however insufficient data may be provided in those articles. I'm more then glad to hear anything. I don't try to merely refuse everything Catholic, though I do like to see something supporting Catholic statements.

Thanks

Good on the first point.  All I was really saying was that if your point were accurate then it would be likely that I would have heard something like it before or that it would be a point that is grappled with more directly historically.  But in the way that you have phrased it all, it has not appeared. 

As to your openness to being proved wrong...I don't know if I can do that directly.  I think your whole approach is off so from my perspective it would be like trying to prove to you that I don't or did not beat my children, if I never had any children.

So there are two things at work: one being your presumptions are off because two, there is insufficient data there in the document to make it clear that you are reading something in to it that is not really intended or cannot stand against the actual history.

At any rate, I will keep my eyes open to see what I can see that might help.  You realize that I see how rigidly you are convinced at the moment so I don't know that I will be staying up nights looking for ways to change your mind.  Smiley
Logged

ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #188 on: April 14, 2011, 12:36:25 AM »

So there are two things at work: one being your presumptions are off because two, there is insufficient data there in the document to make it clear that you are reading something in to it that is not really intended or cannot stand against the actual history.

At any rate, I will keep my eyes open to see what I can see that might help.  You realize that I see how rigidly you are convinced at the moment so I don't know that I will be staying up nights looking for ways to change your mind.  Smiley
I'll be looking forward to new data. Convincing me is not going to be hard if you present convincing data. I can assure you one thing: I may be stubborn and say "I don't believe what you say and I don't want to believe it; I'm firmly convinced you are wrong" but I will not say this and that data doesn't support your point. I can even imagine certain new data that would invalidate my reasoning but I need to see it.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #189 on: April 14, 2011, 10:26:37 AM »

So there are two things at work: one being your presumptions are off because two, there is insufficient data there in the document to make it clear that you are reading something in to it that is not really intended or cannot stand against the actual history.

At any rate, I will keep my eyes open to see what I can see that might help.  You realize that I see how rigidly you are convinced at the moment so I don't know that I will be staying up nights looking for ways to change your mind.  Smiley
I'll be looking forward to new data. Convincing me is not going to be hard if you present convincing data. I can assure you one thing: I may be stubborn and say "I don't believe what you say and I don't want to believe it; I'm firmly convinced you are wrong" but I will not say this and that data doesn't support your point. I can even imagine certain new data that would invalidate my reasoning but I need to see it.

Thank you.  That is good news indeed...I wish I had handy such proofs as would convince you.  Some of the "proof" would have to come from inside you.  In other words you'd have to be willing to accept that in the Roman rite history of Filioque that there is a distinction made between source or cause that is ultimate, and source and cause that is mediate.  God the Father been the ultimate source of the Holy Spirit and the Son being the mediate source or cause.  In today's plain language, I would say that the Father is the Ultimate Source and Cause of the divinity, while the Son is the Mediate Cause, with the Father, of the Holy Spirit.

This is the meaning that one finds at Florence, so that the Mediate Cause does fall in line with the Holy Fathers including St. Maximos the Confessor and St Gregory Nyssa.

I am not sure you would accept that at all, and there is no "proof" for that sort of thing save to say that is the distinction that the Church has made all along.

M.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #190 on: April 15, 2011, 04:41:05 PM »

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.

While it may not be pleasant to watch, I believe that the changes brought about by Vatican II were needed. (I don't mean every single last one was needed, just overall.) Also, I think that a lot of the problems we have today would have come about even without the council -- and may very well have been worse.

One other thought: it's been 45 years (and a few months) since Vatican II ended. That's not really a very long time. I'm hopeful that people a couple centuries from now will look back on Vatican II as the start a very successful reform.

I hope you are correct. I just need a place where I can do the spiritual work of the ancient Church. I can't speak for every Catholic Chuch but in America the Roman Catholic Church has no sense of itself. Some parishes are no different than any other liberal Methodist or liberal Episcopalian Parish and have absolutely no ties to the ancient Church of Chirst. A few near me are more faithful but still seem at odds with Rome. I honestly believe I'm a better Catholic in the Orthodox Church. I don't want to be strugging with my own Parish, I want to be struggling with my own sin. I don't think the modern Catholic Church is a nurturing place for the good fight. I hate to say that but I've come to believe that they Western Church is largely gone and I do blame Vatican II for that.

It's getting a bit late for me tonight, but if I have some time tomorrow I'll try to say a few words about why I don't think things were very good before VCII.

Blessings,
Peter.

Sorry, I still haven't made good on that. But I was just thinking, on a related note, that one reason I admire Orthodoxy is that it seems to have, in some regards, the best of both (pre- and post- Vatican II Catholicism).
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: 2,439



« Reply #191 on: April 15, 2011, 05:15:38 PM »

^Thank you.  For those among Orthodox who disparage the post VII altogether, VII actually re-established the Epiklesis in the NO, which is no insignificant matter, and in my opinion is a move "toward" the Orthodox Church, although since then there have been a couple of moves away, such as making the metochia churches of the patriarchates in Rome into papal basilicas.    
« Last Edit: April 15, 2011, 05:16:21 PM by FatherHLL » Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #192 on: April 16, 2011, 04:57:15 AM »

Thank you.  That is good news indeed...I wish I had handy such proofs as would convince you.  Some of the "proof" would have to come from inside you.
If it has to come from inside of me then inside of me tells it's wrong. I could tell you exactly same thing: If you want to see how its wrong it has to come inside of you.

Quote
In other words you'd have to be willing to accept that in the Roman rite history of Filioque that there is a distinction made between source or cause that is ultimate, and source and cause that is mediate.  God the Father been the ultimate source of the Holy Spirit and the Son being the mediate source or cause.  In today's plain language, I would say that the Father is the Ultimate Source and Cause of the divinity, while the Son is the Mediate Cause, with the Father, of the Holy Spirit.

This is the meaning that one finds at Florence, so that the Mediate Cause does fall in line with the Holy Fathers including St. Maximos the Confessor and St Gregory Nyssa.
Could you point a quote whereever these Saints made distinctions in ultimate and mediate cause? And secondly what is ultimate cause and what is mediate cause? An how do they differ?

Quote
I am not sure you would accept that at all, and there is no "proof" for that sort of thing save to say that is the distinction that the Church has made all along.

M.
When you say "Church" what you mean, Catholic Church or Orthodox Church, since Orthodox Church has never made such distinction with regards to the cause of Holy Spirit?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #193 on: April 16, 2011, 08:05:54 AM »


Quote
In other words you'd have to be willing to accept that in the Roman rite history of Filioque that there is a distinction made between source or cause that is ultimate, and source and cause that is mediate.  God the Father been the ultimate source of the Holy Spirit and the Son being the mediate source or cause.  In today's plain language, I would say that the Father is the Ultimate Source and Cause of the divinity, while the Son is the Mediate Cause, with the Father, of the Holy Spirit.

This is the meaning that one finds at Florence, so that the Mediate Cause does fall in line with the Holy Fathers including St. Maximos the Confessor and St Gregory Nyssa.
Could you point a quote whereever these Saints made distinctions in ultimate and mediate cause? And secondly what is ultimate cause and what is mediate cause? An how do they differ?

When I said Church, I meant the Church of my Baptism.  If I don't designate Orthodox or Orthodoxy, I am generally referring to the Church of my Baptism, that Catholic Church.

A mediate cause is one such as that which would come through the Son of God.  We refer to Him, in another context, as mediator of all graces [all divine caritas].  So that the Father is understood as the ultimate authority or author of all graces, while all graces are mediated by the Son, through the power of the Holy Spirit, and that flow of grace or divine caritas then can be said to have a primary or ultimate source and a mediate source through all eternity, since divine caritas is not bound by temporality.

Do the Fathers need to speak in these explicit terms in order for us to see that they understood this relationship?

M.
Logged

ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #194 on: April 16, 2011, 03:43:28 PM »

A mediate cause is one such as that which would come through the Son of God.  We refer to Him, in another context, as mediator of all graces [all divine caritas].  So that the Father is understood as the ultimate authority or author of all graces, while all graces are mediated by the Son, through the power of the Holy Spirit, and that flow of grace or divine caritas then can be said to have a primary or ultimate source and a mediate source through all eternity, since divine caritas is not bound by temporality.
Your reasoning is called circular. You say the Son is mediate cause. And mediate cause means the cause which comes though the Son. Same circular reasoning you apply to ultimate cause. You did not make any distinction at all. What does it mean to be a cause?

Quote
Do the Fathers need to speak in these explicit terms in order for us to see that they understood this relationship?

M.
Then where do they talk about ultimate and mediate cause in implicit terms?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #195 on: April 16, 2011, 04:32:31 PM »

A mediate cause is one such as that which would come through the Son of God.  We refer to Him, in another context, as mediator of all graces [all divine caritas].  So that the Father is understood as the ultimate authority or author of all graces, while all graces are mediated by the Son, through the power of the Holy Spirit, and that flow of grace or divine caritas then can be said to have a primary or ultimate source and a mediate source through all eternity, since divine caritas is not bound by temporality.
Your reasoning is called circular. You say the Son is mediate cause. And mediate cause means the cause which comes though the Son. Same circular reasoning you apply to ultimate cause. You did not make any distinction at all. What does it mean to be a cause?

Quote
Do the Fathers need to speak in these explicit terms in order for us to see that they understood this relationship?

M.
Then where do they talk about ultimate and mediate cause in implicit terms?

That's a very good question!!  What does it mean to say that the Father is "cause" of the divinity?

How does one come to understand such a mystery!!

PS: Faith is by definition tautological and rooted in the authority of the Church, which takes it reality from the authority of the Father...which is what gives you a HUGE clue as to the meaning of the Father as auctoris...[author, authority].  The Son then mediates that authority, by the power of the Holy Spirit, both in time and outside of time.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2011, 04:36:47 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #196 on: April 17, 2011, 06:16:29 PM »

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.

While it may not be pleasant to watch, I believe that the changes brought about by Vatican II were needed. (I don't mean every single last one was needed, just overall.) Also, I think that a lot of the problems we have today would have come about even without the council -- and may very well have been worse.

One other thought: it's been 45 years (and a few months) since Vatican II ended. That's not really a very long time. I'm hopeful that people a couple centuries from now will look back on Vatican II as the start a very successful reform.

I hope you are correct. I just need a place where I can do the spiritual work of the ancient Church. I can't speak for every Catholic Chuch but in America the Roman Catholic Church has no sense of itself. Some parishes are no different than any other liberal Methodist or liberal Episcopalian Parish and have absolutely no ties to the ancient Church of Chirst. A few near me are more faithful but still seem at odds with Rome. I honestly believe I'm a better Catholic in the Orthodox Church. I don't want to be strugging with my own Parish, I want to be struggling with my own sin. I don't think the modern Catholic Church is a nurturing place for the good fight. I hate to say that but I've come to believe that they Western Church is largely gone and I do blame Vatican II for that.

It's getting a bit late for me tonight, but if I have some time tomorrow I'll try to say a few words about why I don't think things were very good before VCII.

Blessings,
Peter.

Sorry, I still haven't made good on that.

Alright, here's what I've come up with so far:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35349.msg557244.html#msg557244
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #197 on: April 17, 2011, 07:15:56 PM »

That's a very good question!!  What does it mean to say that the Father is "cause" of the divinity?

How does one come to understand such a mystery!!

It's very simple. It means that He is fountainhead who performs the actions (Begetting and Spirating) from which the Son and the Spirit receive their Being.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #198 on: April 17, 2011, 09:31:10 PM »

That's a very good question!!  What does it mean to say that the Father is "cause" of the divinity?

How does one come to understand such a mystery!!

It's very simple. It means that He is fountainhead who performs the actions (Begetting and Spirating) from which the Son and the Spirit receive their Being.

From whom they receive their Being?....

The Fountainhead...as in Ayn Rand?

You mean like:

Praise Father God from whom all Baby Gods flow
Praise Him all lesser gods here below....

Like dat?
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #199 on: April 17, 2011, 09:38:32 PM »

That's a very good question!!  What does it mean to say that the Father is "cause" of the divinity?

How does one come to understand such a mystery!!

It's very simple. It means that He is fountainhead who performs the actions (Begetting and Spirating) from which the Son and the Spirit receive their Being.

From whom they receive their Being?....

The Fountainhead...as in Ayn Rand?

You mean like:

Praise Father God from whom all Baby Gods flow
Praise Him all lesser gods here below....

Like dat?

I'm not here to play games with you.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #200 on: April 17, 2011, 09:48:01 PM »

That's a very good question!!  What does it mean to say that the Father is "cause" of the divinity?

How does one come to understand such a mystery!!

It's very simple. It means that He is fountainhead who performs the actions (Begetting and Spirating) from which the Son and the Spirit receive their Being.

From whom they receive their Being?....

The Fountainhead...as in Ayn Rand?

You mean like:

Praise Father God from whom all Baby Gods flow
Praise Him all lesser gods here below....

Like dat?

I'm not here to play games with you.

Your easy theology is hardly a game!!

And since that is your level best...I'll have to pass.
Logged

Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,439



« Reply #201 on: April 17, 2011, 09:57:45 PM »

That's a very good question!!  What does it mean to say that the Father is "cause" of the divinity?How does one come to understand such a mystery!!
It's very simple. It means that He is fountainhead who performs the actions (Begetting and Spirating) from which the Son and the Spirit receive their Being.
From whom they receive their Being?....The Fountainhead...as in Ayn Rand?You mean like:Praise Father God from whom all Baby Gods flowPraise Him all lesser gods here below....
Like dat?

Maria, what you say here is very disturbing to me.  Before St. Gregory the Theologion states that we must not pry too deeply into the Trinity, He affirms that the Father is the Arche (Fountainhead) of the Trinity.   The fathers agree on this, even St. Augustine, who is the assumed inspiration for filioque, but also made it clear that the Father is the cause both of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.  I surely hope that you jest in this. 
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #202 on: April 17, 2011, 10:09:33 PM »

That's a very good question!!  What does it mean to say that the Father is "cause" of the divinity?

How does one come to understand such a mystery!!

It's very simple. It means that He is fountainhead who performs the actions (Begetting and Spirating) from which the Son and the Spirit receive their Being.

From whom they receive their Being?....

The Fountainhead...as in Ayn Rand?

You mean like:

Praise Father God from whom all Baby Gods flow
Praise Him all lesser gods here below....

Like dat?

I'm not here to play games with you.

Well said deusveritasest. In my humble opinion there's already been too much game playing around here lately.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #203 on: April 17, 2011, 11:09:43 PM »

That's a very good question!!  What does it mean to say that the Father is "cause" of the divinity?How does one come to understand such a mystery!!
It's very simple. It means that He is fountainhead who performs the actions (Begetting and Spirating) from which the Son and the Spirit receive their Being.
From whom they receive their Being?....The Fountainhead...as in Ayn Rand?You mean like:Praise Father God from whom all Baby Gods flowPraise Him all lesser gods here below....
Like dat?

Maria, what you say here is very disturbing to me.  Before St. Gregory the Theologion states that we must not pry too deeply into the Trinity, He affirms that the Father is the Arche (Fountainhead) of the Trinity.   The fathers agree on this, even St. Augustine, who is the assumed inspiration for filioque, but also made it clear that the Father is the cause both of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.  I surely hope that you jest in this.  

Yes.  I jested with my comment on the Fountainhead but I am not joking when I challenge the idea that the Father "performs the actions from which the Son and Spirit receive their Being"....Filioque is less dangerous an idea than that one.

I find it ludicrous to challenge the Catholic Filioque by using phrasing that is as clearly irresponsible as saying that the Father is responsible for the Son and Holy Spirit in their "Being"...So rather than be sharp, I joked through it.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2011, 11:26:13 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #204 on: April 18, 2011, 09:07:39 AM »

That's a very good question!!  What does it mean to say that the Father is "cause" of the divinity?

How does one come to understand such a mystery!!

It's very simple. It means that He is fountainhead who performs the actions (Begetting and Spirating) from which the Son and the Spirit receive their Being.
But what sense does that make if all Three are eternal? Hence elijahmaria's point that it is a mystery. There is nothing "simple" about the Godhead.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #205 on: April 18, 2011, 01:25:32 PM »

That's a very good question!!  What does it mean to say that the Father is "cause" of the divinity?How does one come to understand such a mystery!!
It's very simple. It means that He is fountainhead who performs the actions (Begetting and Spirating) from which the Son and the Spirit receive their Being.
From whom they receive their Being?....The Fountainhead...as in Ayn Rand?You mean like:Praise Father God from whom all Baby Gods flowPraise Him all lesser gods here below....
Like dat?

Maria, what you say here is very disturbing to me.  Before St. Gregory the Theologion states that we must not pry too deeply into the Trinity, He affirms that the Father is the Arche (Fountainhead) of the Trinity.   The fathers agree on this, even St. Augustine, who is the assumed inspiration for filioque, but also made it clear that the Father is the cause both of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.  I surely hope that you jest in this.  

Yes.  I jested with my comment on the Fountainhead but I am not joking when I challenge the idea that the Father "performs the actions from which the Son and Spirit receive their Being"....Filioque is less dangerous an idea than that one.

I find it ludicrous to challenge the Catholic Filioque by using phrasing that is as clearly irresponsible as saying that the Father is responsible for the Son and Holy Spirit in their "Being"...So rather than be sharp, I joked through it.
I agree. To me, saying that the Father is the cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit sounds like dangerous terminology. "Cause" implies a beginning, which suggests that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not eternal and thus both subordinate to the Father. This would be a far graver heresy than the allegedly heretical filioque. It seems, in Eastern Orthodoxy, there is a far greater tendency to overanalyze and draw distinctions between the Three Persons of the Trinity. Some of this stuff doesn't sound like something that any human can know for certain this side of the grave.
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,439



« Reply #206 on: April 18, 2011, 02:17:49 PM »

^Ok, we have officially entered the twilight zone.  All of the church fathers affirm that the Father is the cause of the Son and Holy Spirit.  If you are labeling this a heresy you are anathematizing the entire church of the first millenium.  "The Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit" (St. John of Damascus Orth. Faith 1.12).
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #207 on: April 18, 2011, 02:28:52 PM »

That's a very good question!!  What does it mean to say that the Father is "cause" of the divinity?How does one come to understand such a mystery!!
It's very simple. It means that He is fountainhead who performs the actions (Begetting and Spirating) from which the Son and the Spirit receive their Being.
From whom they receive their Being?....The Fountainhead...as in Ayn Rand?You mean like:Praise Father God from whom all Baby Gods flowPraise Him all lesser gods here below....
Like dat?

Maria, what you say here is very disturbing to me.  Before St. Gregory the Theologion states that we must not pry too deeply into the Trinity, He affirms that the Father is the Arche (Fountainhead) of the Trinity.   The fathers agree on this, even St. Augustine, who is the assumed inspiration for filioque, but also made it clear that the Father is the cause both of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.  I surely hope that you jest in this.  

Yes.  I jested with my comment on the Fountainhead but I am not joking when I challenge the idea that the Father "performs the actions from which the Son and Spirit receive their Being"....Filioque is less dangerous an idea than that one.

I find it ludicrous to challenge the Catholic Filioque by using phrasing that is as clearly irresponsible as saying that the Father is responsible for the Son and Holy Spirit in their "Being"...So rather than be sharp, I joked through it.
I agree. To me, saying that the Father is the cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit sounds like dangerous terminology. "Cause" implies a beginning, which suggests that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not eternal and thus both subordinate to the Father. This would be a far graver heresy than the allegedly heretical filioque. It seems, in Eastern Orthodoxy, there is a far greater tendency to overanalyze and draw distinctions between the Three Persons of the Trinity. Some of this stuff doesn't sound like something that any human can know for certain this side of the grave.

It is the whole phrase "cause of their being" that creates problems.  The Fathers don't even say this.

Source is better than cause but cause is fine when understood as source or font of the Triune divinity.

But it must stop short there and not extend to any talk of cause for being or essence...
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #208 on: April 18, 2011, 03:00:54 PM »

I agree. To me, saying that the Father is the cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit sounds like dangerous terminology. "Cause" implies a beginning, which suggests that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not eternal and thus both subordinate to the Father.

No offense intended, but I get the impression you're just swallowing whole whatever you hear from elijahmaria.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #209 on: April 18, 2011, 03:14:58 PM »

But what sense does that make if all Three are eternal?

"Eternally begotten"
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 #210 on: April 18, 2011, 03:15:28 PM »

I agree. To me, saying that the Father is the cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit sounds like dangerous terminology. "Cause" implies a beginning, which suggests that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not eternal and thus both subordinate to the Father.

No offense intended, but I get the impression you're just swallowing whole whatever you hear from elijahmaria.

LOL
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 #211 on: April 18, 2011, 03:17:38 PM »

To me, saying that the Father is the cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit sounds like dangerous terminology.

Yeah, right, just like "one nature of God the Word Incarnate" was dangerous terminology.  Roll Eyes

"Cause" implies a beginning, which suggests that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not eternal and thus both subordinate to the Father.

Nope, not when the Father is eternally begetting the Son and eternally spirating the Spirit.
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 #212 on: April 18, 2011, 03:19:59 PM »

It is the whole phrase "cause of their being" that creates problems.  The Fathers don't even say this.

Source is better than cause but cause is fine when understood as source or font of the Triune divinity.

But it must stop short there and not extend to any talk of cause for being or essence...

Good grief. Obviously if I am acknowledging that the Father is without origin, and that the Son and the Spirit are homoousios with Him, and take and subsist in His Essence, then I am not meaning by "Being" that the Father is generating the Essence. What should be clear that I was meaning was that the Father is the cause of the existence of the Son and the Spirit as hypostases.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,963


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #213 on: April 18, 2011, 03:22:31 PM »

I agree. To me, saying that the Father is the cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit sounds like dangerous terminology. "Cause" implies a beginning, which suggests that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not eternal and thus both subordinate to the Father.

No offense intended, but I get the impression you're just swallowing whole whatever you hear from elijahmaria.
LOL. Whenever anyone begins a sentence with this phrase, you know that the following statement is going to be offensive.  Cheesy
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #214 on: April 18, 2011, 04:24:14 PM »

But what sense does that make if all Three are eternal?
"Eternally begotten"
Okay, and what does "eternally begotten" mean? And don't say "it's a mystery" because if, as you say, it is so easy to parse Trinitarian theology then you should have no problem explaining this.

Yeah, right, just like "one nature of God the Word Incarnate" was dangerous terminology.  Roll Eyes
It was and is. Chalcedon settled it, but that's another discussion altogether.

Nope, not when the Father is eternally begetting the Son and eternally spirating the Spirit.
What does it mean to eternally beget or to eternally spirate? What proof do we have that this is a role God the Father alone possesses?
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #215 on: April 18, 2011, 04:24:22 PM »

No offense intended, but I get the impression you're just swallowing whole whatever you hear from elijahmaria.
What part did I "swallow whole" that you take issue with? I think it is ridiculous to split hairs over the nature of the Godhead (or even worse, perpetuate schism over it) since it will forever be a mystery to us until we enter into eternal life.
Logged
Saint Iaint
This Poster Has Ignored Multiple Requests to Behave Better
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Once Delivered
Posts: 625


The Truth Shall Be Reviled


WWW
« Reply #216 on: April 18, 2011, 05:03:39 PM »


We all have different paths to walk.


Eventually, we all walk the paths we choose... don't we?


†IC XC†
†NI KA†
Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #217 on: April 18, 2011, 05:20:23 PM »

I think it is ridiculous to split hairs over the nature of the Godhead

That's fine, as long as you don't change your mind two minutes later.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #218 on: April 18, 2011, 06:02:29 PM »

I think it is ridiculous to split hairs over the nature of the Godhead

That's fine, as long as you don't change your mind two minutes later.
Why would I do that?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,963


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #219 on: April 19, 2011, 12:03:11 PM »

I think it is ridiculous to split hairs over the nature of the Godhead

That's fine, as long as you don't change your mind two minutes later.
Why would I do that?
Pete is playing games with you. Don't get sucked in.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #220 on: April 19, 2011, 01:50:00 PM »

I think it is ridiculous to split hairs over the nature of the Godhead

That's fine, as long as you don't change your mind two minutes later.
Why would I do that?
Pete is playing games with you.

No, I'm not.
Logged

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

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #221 on: April 19, 2011, 01:54:24 PM »

I agree. To me, saying that the Father is the cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit sounds like dangerous terminology. "Cause" implies a beginning, which suggests that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not eternal and thus both subordinate to the Father.

No offense intended, but I get the impression you're just swallowing whole whatever you hear from elijahmaria.
LOL. Whenever anyone begins a sentence with this phrase, you know that the following statement is going to be offensive.  Cheesy

I really don't follow this thread. No kidding on the rhetoric.

But hey, noticed you had returned. Welcome back.
Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #222 on: April 19, 2011, 02:03:52 PM »

I think it is ridiculous to split hairs over the nature of the Godhead

That's fine, as long as you don't change your mind two minutes later.
Why would I do that?
Pete is playing games with you. Don't get sucked in.
I think Pete is a closet EO.
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: 35,626



« Reply #223 on: April 19, 2011, 03:58:32 PM »

^Ok, we have officially entered the twilight zone.  All of the church fathers affirm that the Father is the cause of the Son and Holy Spirit.  If you are labeling this a heresy you are anathematizing the entire church of the first millenium.  "The Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit" (St. John of Damascus Orth. Faith 1.12).
But isn't the filioque nothing but the "ENTER" sign above the doorway into the twilight zone (and more nepharious regions)?
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
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #224 on: April 19, 2011, 04:18:15 PM »

^Ok, we have officially entered the twilight zone.  All of the church fathers affirm that the Father is the cause of the Son and Holy Spirit.  If you are labeling this a heresy you are anathematizing the entire church of the first millenium.  "The Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit" (St. John of Damascus Orth. Faith 1.12).
But isn't the filioque nothing but the "ENTER" sign above the doorway into the twilight zone (and more nepharious regions)?
Only to enemies of our Church. Those within the Church read and interpret things with the mind and heart of the Church, which is the mind and heart of Christ.
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 0.186 seconds with 73 queries.