Topic: Creed question

[Papist]

^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.

Well stated.

[Father H]

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.

What is this, Pete's Inquisition?:    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyQjiXSlU_w

I didn't know Peter was a closet member of the Entrepreneurs' Organization.  But in all seriousness, we would be happy to have him over here at the Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ.   Come on over Peter.  We have no Inquisition here.    

[Peter J]

Come on over Peter.  

Oh, you'd like that wouldn't you? 

Come to think of it, maybe Wyatt would like see that too, judging by some of his recent statements.

[ialmisry]

^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.

Well stated.

better stated.

those who reject Christ's very words can claim His mind and heart. And He said "Who proceeds from the Father." (that's a period there).

[Wyatt]

Come to think of it, maybe Wyatt would like see that too, judging by some of his recent statements.

I never want to see someone apostatize from Christ's Church.

[Iconodule]

^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.

Well stated.

better stated.

By another filioque supporter 

[Papist]

^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.

Well stated.

better stated.

those who reject Christ's very words can claim His mind and heart. And He said "Who proceeds from the Father." (that's a period there).

Good thing we don't reject his words. I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever." LOL. Can you find one?

BTW, do you really think that Catholics are going to hell because we believe in the Patristic doctrine of the Filioque?

[Peter J]

those who reject Christ's very words can claim His mind and heart. And He said "Who proceeds from the Father." (that's a period there).

And that's in every Catholic bible. It's only in the creed that we (some Catholics, not all) say "Who proceeds from the Father and the Son."

[Peter J]

Come to think of it, maybe Wyatt would like see that too, judging by some of his recent statements.

I never want to see someone apostatize from Christ's Church.

I'm glad to hear that; however I don't believe that converting (reaffiliating) between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is apostasy, as I've said on previous occasions, e.g.

Hey, just because I think that those who do not have an Orthodox understanding of the Holy Trinity worship a different god doesn't mean everyone else does.

I'm not entirely clear on how you became the focal point of the discussion; but certainly I agree with your statement: I see no reason to think that Cleveland bases his beliefs on your beliefs. (That Cleveland regards conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism as apostasy was an inference I made from his statement: "Even if one is very serious about leaving - i.e. taking catechism classes in another faith, talking about re-baptism, etc. - I still think they can avoid leaving and not be judged as apostates." I don't see any reference to you, ozgeorge, in that statement. Do you?)

Oh, well, there's a relief. I'm not an apostate, I'm a just a schismatic heretic....phew!

Don't mention it. Incidentally, if you'd like further proof that RCs regard you as a fellow Christian, I'd refer you to the documents of Vatican II.

God bless,
Peter.

[ialmisry]

those who reject Christ's very words can claim His mind and heart. And He said "Who proceeds from the Father." (that's a period there).

And that's in every Catholic bible. It's only in the creed that we (some Catholics, not all) say "Who proceeds from the Father and the Son."

And it is precisely that disconnect between the Vatican's creed and the Bible it received that keeps it out of the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church.

[ialmisry]

^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.

Well stated.

better stated.

those who reject Christ's very words can claim His mind and heart. And He said "Who proceeds from the Father." (that's a period there).

Good thing we don't reject his words.

Indeed. Dante states your views quite fine.

I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever." LOL. Can you find one?

It's after the verse that says "The Virgin is not the incarnation of the Holy Spirit," right before the verse that says "the Holy Spirit did not give the Quran to Muhammad."

and why "anyway whatsoever"?  At present your Vatican won't let the filioque be used with ekporeusis.  Maybe you should take it up with them.

BTW, do you really think that Catholics are going to hell because we believe in the Patristic doctrine of the Filioque?

About the same chances of the Mormons believing the patristic doctrine of the preexistence of souls (Origin was famous for that).

[deusveritasest]

I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever."

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.

[Wyatt]

BTW, do you really think that Catholics are going to hell because we believe in the Patristic doctrine of the Filioque?

If he believes one goes to hell for professing filioque that is pretty sad.

[Wyatt]

I'm glad to hear that; however I don't believe that converting (reaffiliating) between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is apostasy, as I've said on previous occasions, e.g.

Are you considering becoming Eastern Orthodox?

[Wyatt]

I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever."

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.

Actually, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox teach.

[Peter J]

I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever."

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.

No, not a straw man. Take a look at what he was responding to:

those who reject Christ's very words can claim His mind and heart. And He said "Who proceeds from the Father." (that's a period there).

Good thing we don't reject his words. I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever." LOL. Can you find one?

[Peter J]

Actually, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox teach.

Hmm ... I wonder if there's some way that you and elijahmaria could balance-each-other-out. (She believes that Catholic and Orthodox teachings are the same, and that we should discontinue the Catholic-Orthodox dialogues and just resume communion right now.)

Of course, you're really making me look bad, inasmuch as I recently said that it seemed like you were just swallowing whole whatever elijahmaria said.

[elijahmaria]

If you cannot accurately represent what I say, I suggest that you stay away from my posting entirely.  So far all you've done since you came here has been to take gratuitous pot shots at my posts.  I don't know you.   I only know that you post on the Byzantine Forum.  So either get what I say accurately or just simply interact here with the others and try leaving me alone for a while.

Actually, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox teach.

Hmm ... I wonder if there's some way that you and elijahmaria could balance-each-other-out. (She believes that Catholic and Orthodox teachings are the same, and that we should discontinue the Catholic-Orthodox dialogues and just resume communion right now.)

Of course, you're really making me look bad, inasmuch as I recently said that it seemed like you were just swallowing whole whatever elijahmaria said.

[deusveritasest]

I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever."

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.

Actually, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox teach.

LOL. Are you for real Wyatt?

[deusveritasest]

If you cannot accurately represent what I say, I suggest that you stay away from my posting entirely.  So far all you've done since you came here has been to take gratuitous pot shots at my posts.  I don't know you.   I only know that you post on the Byzantine Forum.  So either get what I say accurately or just simply interact here with the others and try leaving me alone for a while.

Actually, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox teach.

Hmm ... I wonder if there's some way that you and elijahmaria could balance-each-other-out. (She believes that Catholic and Orthodox teachings are the same, and that we should discontinue the Catholic-Orthodox dialogues and just resume communion right now.)

Of course, you're really making me look bad, inasmuch as I recently said that it seemed like you were just swallowing whole whatever elijahmaria said.

Oh the delicious irony.

[deusveritasest]

I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever."

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.

No, not a straw man. Take a look at what he was responding to:

those who reject Christ's very words can claim His mind and heart. And He said "Who proceeds from the Father." (that's a period there).

Good thing we don't reject his words. I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever." LOL. Can you find one?

It is because the idea that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in any sense was not the point that Isa was trying to make.

[Peter J]

If you cannot accurately represent what I say, I suggest that you stay away from my posting entirely.  So far all you've done since you came here has been to take gratuitous pot shots at my posts.  I don't know you.   I only know that you post on the Byzantine Forum.  So either get what I say accurately or just simply interact here with the others and try leaving me alone for a while.

That doesn't even make any sense (unless you used to post here with a different username) because according to your profile you've only been on this forum since March 28, 2010.

But in any case, your posts have caused me to seriously consider staying away from OC-net. Your latest hostility is just one more example of the sort of thing I've come to expect from you. It appears that you either don't know that this is a Christian forum, or you don't understand what that means.

[Peter J]

Oh the delicious irony.

Forgive me for being redundant, but it's actually pretty predictable in view of what I quoted earlier:

Dear elijahmaria and J Michael,

You might say that you're only jesting or only being a smartass, but may I be so bold as to suggest that you read the following quote from C. S. Lewis, and see if you don't fit the description:

Certainly I have met with little of the fabled odium theologicum from convinced members of communions different from my own. Hostility has come more from borderline people whether within the Church of England or without it: men not exactly obedient to any
 communion.* This I find curiously consoling. It is at her centre, where her truest children dwell, that each communion is really closest to every other in spirit, if not in doctrine. And this suggests that at the centre of each 
there is something, or a Someone, who against all divergences of belief, all differences of temperament, all memories of mutual persecution, speaks with
 the same voice.

[elijahmaria]

But in any case, your posts have caused me to seriously consider staying away from OC-net. Your latest hostility is just one more example of the sort of thing I've come to expect from you. It appears that you either don't know that this is a Christian forum, or you don't understand what that means.

I have done my best to ignore you.  Asking you to stop taking gratuitous pot shots at me is not hostile, and that sort of baseless accusation is what I mean when I say your remarks have been gratuitous.

Have a blessed Pascha, Peter.

[orthonorm]

If you cannot accurately represent what I say, I suggest that you stay away from my posting entirely.  So far all you've done since you came here has been to take gratuitous pot shots at my posts.  I don't know you.   I only know that you post on the Byzantine Forum.  So either get what I say accurately or just simply interact here with the others and try leaving me alone for a while.

That doesn't even make any sense (unless you used to post here with a different username) because according to your profile you've only been on this forum since March 28, 2010.

But in any case, your posts have caused me to seriously consider staying away from OC-net. Your latest hostility is just one more example of the sort of thing I've come to expect from you. It appears that you either don't know that this is a Christian forum, or you don't understand what that means.

Actually the bolded portion of your statement about statements not making sense does not make sense. And no that is not irony.

If she bothers you, can't you just not take her posts to heart? The dramatic threat to leave a forum or newsgroup over some back and forth with someone is cliched and boring.

Just don't engage with the person, if it causes you that much grief.

And frankly I fail to see the hostility you speak of in her posts. They are just direct and pointed IMHO.

While the italicized part of your post is patronizing and insulting.

Whether you like elijahmaria or her posts is irrelevant. She is an active poster and certainly knows this forum is about Christianity and demonstrates consistently more than a pedestrian knowledge of the history, beliefs, disagreements, etc. of the Church.

RCs have it rough around here at times. Dunno why she or Papist post as much or at all, but to question their sincerity to Christianity seems way out of line.


EDIT: Posted simultaneously with EM's above. Didn't mean to pile on as such.

[Peter J]

Asking you to stop taking gratuitous pot shots at me is not hostile,

Accusing me of taking "gratuitous pot shots" at you is offensive. Many of your posts have been hostile.

[Peter J]

Actually the bolded portion of your statement about statements not making sense does not make sense. And no that is not irony.

If she bothers you, can't you just not take her posts to heart? The dramatic threat to leave a forum or newsgroup over some back and forth with someone is cliched and boring.

Just don't engage with the person, if it causes you that much grief.

And frankly I fail to see the hostility you speak of in her posts. They are just direct and pointed IMHO.

While the italicized part of your post is patronizing and insulting.

Whether you like elijahmaria or her posts is irrelevant. She is an active poster and certainly knows this forum is about Christianity and demonstrates consistently more than a pedestrian knowledge of the history, beliefs, disagreements, etc. of the Church.

RCs have it rough around here at times. Dunno why she or Papist post as much or at all, but to question their sincerity to Christianity seems way out of line.


EDIT: Posted simultaneously with EM's above. Didn't mean to pile on as such.

Thank you for your opinion. However, I think I'm capable of making my own decisions.

[Peter J]

The dramatic threat to leave a forum or newsgroup over some back and forth with someone is cliched and boring.

At least I have a pretty good idea now what you think of me.

[Wyatt]

I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever."

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.

Actually, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox teach.

LOL. Are you for real Wyatt?

I fail to see what's funny. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. If they did not and believed that the Son participates in some way in this eternal procession of the Spirit then they would have accepted the filioque clause to the creed. They didn't, so what is one to conclude from that? Again, where is the humor here?

[PeterTheAleut]

I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever."

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.

Actually, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox teach.

LOL. Are you for real Wyatt?

I fail to see what's funny. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. If they did not and believed that the Son participates in some way in this eternal procession of the Spirit then they would have accepted the filioque clause to the creed. They didn't, so what is one to conclude from that?

What one is to conclude from that is that we saw the Creed as untouchable save by another Ecumenical Council, that no pope of Rome ever had the authority to make unilateral changes to the Creed. Don't read too much theological significance into that rejection.

[Peter J]

I fail to see what's funny. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. If they did not and believed that the Son participates in some way in this eternal procession of the Spirit then they would have accepted the filioque clause to the creed. They didn't, so what is one to conclude from that?

What one is to conclude from that is that we saw the Creed as untouchable save by another Ecumenical Council, that no pope of Rome ever had the authority to make unilateral changes to the Creed. Don't read too much theological significance into that rejection.

For what it's worth, I have no problem with the Orthodox saying the creed without the filioque.

[elijahmaria]

What one is to conclude from that is that we saw the Creed as untouchable save by another Ecumenical Council, that no pope of Rome ever had the authority to make unilateral changes to the Creed. Don't read too much theological significance into that rejection.

That bears repeating.

I have a question for you in response, that presupposes eventual resumption of communion: 

Given the weight that both Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church give to tradition, is it possible for Eastern Orthodoxy to concede filioque to the Latin rite and ritual after all these centuries.

Orthodoxy might wish to make perspicacious reminders of the history and ask for an apology from the west for having changed the Creed without the agreement and consultation the eastern bishops.

On the other hand there will be the desire on the part of EO to continue on in her own organic development as a grouping of particular Churches, and I wonder if it would be wise to hold the Latin rite to a standard of accountability that Orthodoxy herself would not wish to be binding.

What is your considered opinion on this?

M.

[ialmisry]

BTW, do you really think that Catholics are going to hell because we believe in the Patristic doctrine of the Filioque?

If he believes one goes to hell for professing filioque that is pretty sad.

Yes, Hell is a pretty sad place.

[Papist]

I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever."

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.

It's basically what Izzy is asserting with post above.

[Papist]

BTW, do you really think that Catholics are going to hell because we believe in the Patristic doctrine of the Filioque?

If he believes one goes to hell for professing filioque that is pretty sad.

Yes, Hell is a pretty sad place.

Well, at least we further understand the insanity of your thought.

[Papist]

I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever."

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.

Actually, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox teach.

LOL. Are you for real Wyatt?

I fail to see what's funny. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. If they did not and believed that the Son participates in some way in this eternal procession of the Spirit then they would have accepted the filioque clause to the creed. They didn't, so what is one to conclude from that?

What one is to conclude from that is that we saw the Creed as untouchable save by another Ecumenical Council, that no pope of Rome ever had the authority to make unilateral changes to the Creed. Don't read too much theological significance into that rejection.

So it's ok for EOs and OOs to believe that God the Son participates in the Spiriation of the Holy Spirit?

[Papist]

I fail to see what's funny. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. If they did not and believed that the Son participates in some way in this eternal procession of the Spirit then they would have accepted the filioque clause to the creed. They didn't, so what is one to conclude from that?

What one is to conclude from that is that we saw the Creed as untouchable save by another Ecumenical Council, that no pope of Rome ever had the authority to make unilateral changes to the Creed. Don't read too much theological significance into that rejection.

For what it's worth, I have no problem with the Orthodox saying the creed without the filioque.

Agreed.

[PeterTheAleut]

I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever."

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.

Actually, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox teach.

LOL. Are you for real Wyatt?

I fail to see what's funny. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. If they did not and believed that the Son participates in some way in this eternal procession of the Spirit then they would have accepted the filioque clause to the creed. They didn't, so what is one to conclude from that?

What one is to conclude from that is that we saw the Creed as untouchable save by another Ecumenical Council, that no pope of Rome ever had the authority to make unilateral changes to the Creed. Don't read too much theological significance into that rejection.

So it's ok for EOs and OOs to believe that God the Son participates in the Spiriation of the Holy Spirit?

I've never had a strong opinion one way or the other on the underlying theology of the filioque, so I really have to respond with "I dunno".

[elijahmaria]

Dear PtA,

Do you have any thoughts on the following...presuming that you are correct below and the real problem is the fact that filioque actually made it into the creed....?

What one is to conclude from that is that we saw the Creed as untouchable save by another Ecumenical Council, that no pope of Rome ever had the authority to make unilateral changes to the Creed. Don't read too much theological significance into that rejection.

That bears repeating.

I have a question for you in response, that presupposes eventual resumption of communion: 

Given the weight that both Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church give to tradition, is it possible for Eastern Orthodoxy to concede filioque to the Latin rite and ritual after all these centuries.

Orthodoxy might wish to make perspicacious reminders of the history and ask for an apology from the west for having changed the Creed without the agreement and consultation the eastern bishops.

On the other hand there will be the desire on the part of EO to continue on in her own organic development as a grouping of particular Churches, and I wonder if it would be wise to hold the Latin rite to a standard of accountability that Orthodoxy herself would not wish to be binding.

What is your considered opinion on this?

M.

[Papist]

I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever."

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.

Actually, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox teach.

LOL. Are you for real Wyatt?

I fail to see what's funny. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. If they did not and believed that the Son participates in some way in this eternal procession of the Spirit then they would have accepted the filioque clause to the creed. They didn't, so what is one to conclude from that?

What one is to conclude from that is that we saw the Creed as untouchable save by another Ecumenical Council, that no pope of Rome ever had the authority to make unilateral changes to the Creed. Don't read too much theological significance into that rejection.

So it's ok for EOs and OOs to believe that God the Son participates in the Spiriation of the Holy Spirit?

I've never had a strong opinion one way or the other on the underlying theology of the filioque, so I really have to respond with "I dunno".

Wow, I have say that I surprised, as there are EO writers who seem to think that the filioque is the mother of all heresies.

[Melodist]

Wow, I have say that I surprised, as there are EO writers who seem to think that the filioque is the mother of all heresies.

Pews are. (Just for the record, I absolutely love the ones in my church.)

I personally find some of the connections made (comparing to unleavened bread, the calendar, etc) to be questionable at best. To be honest, the filioque is only heretical when it is used in the creed because it does not fit the original context of the creed. As far as I can tell, that's the only issue (inserting it into the creed) we really have with the filioque.

[Peter J]

I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever."

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.

Actually, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox teach.

LOL. Are you for real Wyatt?

I fail to see what's funny. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. If they did not and believed that the Son participates in some way in this eternal procession of the Spirit then they would have accepted the filioque clause to the creed. They didn't, so what is one to conclude from that?

What one is to conclude from that is that we saw the Creed as untouchable save by another Ecumenical Council, that no pope of Rome ever had the authority to make unilateral changes to the Creed. Don't read too much theological significance into that rejection.

So it's ok for EOs and OOs to believe that God the Son participates in the Spiriation of the Holy Spirit?

I've never had a strong opinion one way or the other on the underlying theology of the filioque, so I really have to respond with "I dunno".

Wow, I have say that I surprised, as there are EO writers who seem to think that the filioque is the mother of all heresies.

I guess there is a certain amount of diversity of opinion among EOs after all.

[Wyatt]

I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever."

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.

Actually, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox teach.

LOL. Are you for real Wyatt?

I fail to see what's funny. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. If they did not and believed that the Son participates in some way in this eternal procession of the Spirit then they would have accepted the filioque clause to the creed. They didn't, so what is one to conclude from that?

What one is to conclude from that is that we saw the Creed as untouchable save by another Ecumenical Council, that no pope of Rome ever had the authority to make unilateral changes to the Creed. Don't read too much theological significance into that rejection.

So it's ok for EOs and OOs to believe that God the Son participates in the Spiriation of the Holy Spirit?

Exactly. I have heard too many people on this forum argue that the filioque is heretical to believe that it was rejected only due to it being added outside an Ecumenical Council.

I fail to see what's funny. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. If they did not and believed that the Son participates in some way in this eternal procession of the Spirit then they would have accepted the filioque clause to the creed. They didn't, so what is one to conclude from that?

What one is to conclude from that is that we saw the Creed as untouchable save by another Ecumenical Council, that no pope of Rome ever had the authority to make unilateral changes to the Creed. Don't read too much theological significance into that rejection.

For what it's worth, I have no problem with the Orthodox saying the creed without the filioque.

Agreed.

I second that agreement because, since we see the filioque only as a clarification, it is perfectly fine to say the Creed without it. After all, the words of the Creed do not say "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father alone," so not saying "and the Son" should not and does not imply that.

[Peter J]

On a separate note, Wyatt, I feel I should apologize for glibly remarking earlier that I "get the impression you're just swallowing whole whatever you hear from elijahmaria".

[Peter J]

What one is to conclude from that is that we saw the Creed as untouchable save by another Ecumenical Council, that no pope of Rome ever had the authority to make unilateral changes to the Creed. Don't read too much theological significance into that rejection.

I think it would be helpful if you could clarify this a little.