OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 31, 2014, 09:47:54 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Creed and our witness  (Read 6985 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« on: April 25, 2011, 10:47:56 AM »

Correction: some Catholics say we should keep the filioque in the creed, some say we should drop it. I won't try to predict what's going to happen, but one thing I feel certain of is that if we did in fact drop it from the creed, that would make it a lot easier to get EOs to accept the dogma.
I am not sure that the filioque is a dogma. You are right, however, that it really would not hurt whatsoever to drop the filioque since it had not been present in the Creed for years and years and the Church was fine back then without it. I don't find it heretical, but if it would bring us closer to unity I would say "why not?" I would be willing to drop the filioque as long as the EO don't expect us to adopt a "Father alone" theology in terms of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit.

This morning I was reading the thread “How does Protestantism affect your faith?” and I was struck by something ...

One would imagine that age old heresies like Arianism and Nestorianism are long dead by now, but no. I always get shocked to find these teachings promoted by groups that have traditionally held to sound Christology. I would refuse to go into a debate where Holy Scripture is thrown around like rocks. I would instead explain that I hold to the Nicene Creed and quote the relevant part, this will either end the discussion or take it on a different path. Many pointless and harmful discussions can be avoided by referencing the Nicene Creed.

There's no mention of either Catholicism or the filioque in that post (or anywhere in that thread thus far); and yet it does more than almost any other post in terms of convincing me that it would be worthwhile for us to drop the filioque from the creed.

Indeed, IF we can avoid (or at least minimize) any negatives effects of returning to the older version of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, then we really can't ignore the positive impact that would have on our (Catholic and Orthodox) task of witnessing to Protestants (and non-Christians as well).
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 26, 2011, 05:39:30 PM »

Unfortunately, for many of us, that's not a sufficient answer to the overall problem of the filioque.
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
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,291


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #2 on: April 26, 2011, 06:43:48 PM »

Peter,
I actually sorta agree with you. As time goes on, I am more and more ok with a filioque-less Creed. Of course, the theology is sound. Of course the Holy Spirit is also the Spirit of the Son. Of course the Fathers teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (which is why it might be cool to have the Creed use "through the Son"). Of course, the Filioque is a Patristic doctrine. However, not all of the truths of the faith are enshrined in the Creed, and if it would alleviate some of the problems with our Orthodox bretheren to remove it, then I don't think that would be the end of the world. I know many are shocked to hear me say this, but there it is. Enjoy the movment, because as a big ol' sinner I might not feel as charitable tomorrow. Wink
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
CBGardner
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 618


Ask w/ tears, seek w/ obedience, knock w/ patience


« Reply #3 on: April 26, 2011, 07:17:48 PM »

Peter,
I actually sorta agree with you. As time goes on, I am more and more ok with a filioque-less Creed. Of course, the theology is sound. Of course the Holy Spirit is also the Spirit of the Son. Of course the Fathers teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (which is why it might be cool to have the Creed use "through the Son"). Of course, the Filioque is a Patristic doctrine. However, not all of the truths of the faith are enshrined in the Creed, and if it would alleviate some of the problems with our Orthodox bretheren to remove it, then I don't think that would be the end of the world. I know many are shocked to hear me say this, but there it is. Enjoy the movment, because as a big ol' sinner I might not feel as charitable tomorrow. Wink

I don't think it is enough to theologize around it. It must actually come from a heart of repentance, saying, we added this, we were wrong, sorry. You can't say you don't believe the Filioque by dropping it, yet still "know in your heart" that its true. That sir is deception.
Logged

Authentic zeal is not directed towards anything but union in Christ, or against anything but our own fallenness.

"Beardliness is next to Godliness."- Asteriktos
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,291


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #4 on: April 26, 2011, 07:19:22 PM »

Peter,
I actually sorta agree with you. As time goes on, I am more and more ok with a filioque-less Creed. Of course, the theology is sound. Of course the Holy Spirit is also the Spirit of the Son. Of course the Fathers teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (which is why it might be cool to have the Creed use "through the Son"). Of course, the Filioque is a Patristic doctrine. However, not all of the truths of the faith are enshrined in the Creed, and if it would alleviate some of the problems with our Orthodox bretheren to remove it, then I don't think that would be the end of the world. I know many are shocked to hear me say this, but there it is. Enjoy the movment, because as a big ol' sinner I might not feel as charitable tomorrow. Wink

I don't think it is enough to theologize around it. It must actually come from a heart of repentance, saying, we added this, we were wrong, sorry. You can't say you don't believe the Filioque by dropping it, yet still "know in your heart" that its true. That sir is deception.
I am not trying to deceive.I still believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, but not in the sort of charicatures that some EO polemicists create.
Christ is Risen!
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
CBGardner
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 618


Ask w/ tears, seek w/ obedience, knock w/ patience


« Reply #5 on: April 26, 2011, 07:26:45 PM »

Peter,
I actually sorta agree with you. As time goes on, I am more and more ok with a filioque-less Creed. Of course, the theology is sound. Of course the Holy Spirit is also the Spirit of the Son. Of course the Fathers teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (which is why it might be cool to have the Creed use "through the Son"). Of course, the Filioque is a Patristic doctrine. However, not all of the truths of the faith are enshrined in the Creed, and if it would alleviate some of the problems with our Orthodox bretheren to remove it, then I don't think that would be the end of the world. I know many are shocked to hear me say this, but there it is. Enjoy the movment, because as a big ol' sinner I might not feel as charitable tomorrow. Wink

I don't think it is enough to theologize around it. It must actually come from a heart of repentance, saying, we added this, we were wrong, sorry. You can't say you don't believe the Filioque by dropping it, yet still "know in your heart" that its true. That sir is deception.
I am not trying to deceive.I still believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, but not in the sort of charicatures that some EO polemicists create.
Christ is Risen!

Forgive me if I'm pressing too hard, but I'm confused. Why drop something from a creed that you actually believe? Why say you don't believe something when you do? For the sake of unity? Personally I'd prefer no unity to false unity.
Logged

Authentic zeal is not directed towards anything but union in Christ, or against anything but our own fallenness.

"Beardliness is next to Godliness."- Asteriktos
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,291


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #6 on: April 26, 2011, 07:42:21 PM »

Peter,
I actually sorta agree with you. As time goes on, I am more and more ok with a filioque-less Creed. Of course, the theology is sound. Of course the Holy Spirit is also the Spirit of the Son. Of course the Fathers teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (which is why it might be cool to have the Creed use "through the Son"). Of course, the Filioque is a Patristic doctrine. However, not all of the truths of the faith are enshrined in the Creed, and if it would alleviate some of the problems with our Orthodox bretheren to remove it, then I don't think that would be the end of the world. I know many are shocked to hear me say this, but there it is. Enjoy the movment, because as a big ol' sinner I might not feel as charitable tomorrow. Wink

I don't think it is enough to theologize around it. It must actually come from a heart of repentance, saying, we added this, we were wrong, sorry. You can't say you don't believe the Filioque by dropping it, yet still "know in your heart" that its true. That sir is deception.
I am not trying to deceive.I still believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, but not in the sort of charicatures that some EO polemicists create.
Christ is Risen!

Forgive me if I'm pressing too hard, but I'm confused. Why drop something from a creed that you actually believe? Why say you don't believe something when you do? For the sake of unity? Personally I'd prefer no unity to false unity.
I have no intention of uniting on false premeises and perhaps I haven't made myself sufficiently clear. That would be my fault. Ok, here goes. I think that the filique is not necessary in the Creed becasue it was not always in the Creed. Also, not every aspect of our faith is contianed in the Creed. For example, the Creed does not mention the real presence in the Eucharist, the priesthood, chrismation, etc. This means that we believe things, firmly, even if the Creed does not mention them. Thus, I can believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, through the Son, without having it in the Creed.
Ok, now, the filioque has a great deal of historical baggage and confuses Eastern Orthodox Christians. They think that Latins believe something that we most certainly do not. Thus, if removing the filioque from the Creed gets rid of such confusion, then why not? The substance of the Catholic faith is not changed, and we are not lying. We still will proudly admit that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, through the Son.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 07:43:11 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 26, 2011, 08:13:52 PM »

Peter,
I actually sorta agree with you. As time goes on, I am more and more ok with a filioque-less Creed. Of course, the theology is sound. Of course the Holy Spirit is also the Spirit of the Son. Of course the Fathers teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (which is why it might be cool to have the Creed use "through the Son"). Of course, the Filioque is a Patristic doctrine. However, not all of the truths of the faith are enshrined in the Creed, and if it would alleviate some of the problems with our Orthodox bretheren to remove it, then I don't think that would be the end of the world. I know many are shocked to hear me say this, but there it is. Enjoy the movment, because as a big ol' sinner I might not feel as charitable tomorrow. Wink

I don't think it is enough to theologize around it. It must actually come from a heart of repentance, saying, we added this, we were wrong, sorry. You can't say you don't believe the Filioque by dropping it, yet still "know in your heart" that its true. That sir is deception.
I am not trying to deceive.I still believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, but not in the sort of charicatures that some EO polemicists create.
Christ is Risen!

Forgive me if I'm pressing too hard, but I'm confused. Why drop something from a creed that you actually believe? Why say you don't believe something when you do? For the sake of unity? Personally I'd prefer no unity to false unity.

Dropping the filioque from the Creed would be a problem from the stand-point of tradition more so than from the stand point of theology.  Filioque takes nothing away from the N-C Creed.  It adds an element.  But as Papist says there are many things we believe that are not in the Creed.

However, when we resume communion, it is clear that the Orthodox Churches are going to want to continue on the same path of organic and authentic development as Orthodox Churches.  They will be intent on retaining ALL of their traditions. 

I think that it would be a very bad idea for the Roman rite to remove a part of the Creed that has now had a very long history in that rite.  As long as it is not heretical, and we admit that its position in the Creed was done unilaterally for bitter and for worse, then filioque should remain in the Creed as part of the authentic and organic western tradition.

M.
Logged

CBGardner
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 618


Ask w/ tears, seek w/ obedience, knock w/ patience


« Reply #8 on: April 26, 2011, 08:48:16 PM »

Papist-
Thank you for your clarification. Though we don't see eye to eye (to me dropping the filioque must coincide with dropping that dogma, otherwise it seems sneaky to me since the issue in itself is that Latin's believe it) I appreciate you taking your time.

Elijahmaria-
I see how you're saying it is more important traditionally than it is a sticking point of theology, dogma, etc. We differ in that you (I mean Latins, forgive me if not you personally) believe that development of doctrine is alright, while EO's believe we were given the whole truth ever needed by Christ and His Apostles. Tradition and how things are done can organically develop. However, the dogmas and doctrines are set and need no growth. I'm not sure if Rome stills holds to the "seed theory", but I believe if anything we are farther now from original truth not closer to it.
Logged

Authentic zeal is not directed towards anything but union in Christ, or against anything but our own fallenness.

"Beardliness is next to Godliness."- Asteriktos
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #9 on: April 26, 2011, 08:55:13 PM »

Papist-
Thank you for your clarification. Though we don't see eye to eye (to me dropping the filioque must coincide with dropping that dogma, otherwise it seems sneaky to me since the issue in itself is that Latin's believe it) I appreciate you taking your time.

Elijahmaria-
I see how you're saying it is more important traditionally than it is a sticking point of theology, dogma, etc. We differ in that you (I mean Latins, forgive me if not you personally) believe that development of doctrine is alright, while EO's believe we were given the whole truth ever needed by Christ and His Apostles. Tradition and how things are done can organically develop. However, the dogmas and doctrines are set and need no growth. I'm not sure if Rome stills holds to the "seed theory", but I believe if anything we are farther now from original truth not closer to it.

There's a difference here that I will note from my point of view.  There is no such thing as development of doctrine in the Catholic Church IF by that you mean the Truth changes over time.  No.  Revelation does not change.  We can however grow in deepening understanding of the Truth, and find better ways perhaps of articulating that Truth but the Truth, or Revelation, does not alter.

As I said the Filioque does not change any of the truth.  It is simply a way of distinguishing elements of the truth, and as such, filioque is ancient as a teaching in any event.

So my point was that it is NOT an innovation and it is NOT a heresy so it need not to change. 
Logged

CBGardner
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 618


Ask w/ tears, seek w/ obedience, knock w/ patience


« Reply #10 on: April 26, 2011, 09:06:14 PM »

Papist-
Thank you for your clarification. Though we don't see eye to eye (to me dropping the filioque must coincide with dropping that dogma, otherwise it seems sneaky to me since the issue in itself is that Latin's believe it) I appreciate you taking your time.

Elijahmaria-
I see how you're saying it is more important traditionally than it is a sticking point of theology, dogma, etc. We differ in that you (I mean Latins, forgive me if not you personally) believe that development of doctrine is alright, while EO's believe we were given the whole truth ever needed by Christ and His Apostles. Tradition and how things are done can organically develop. However, the dogmas and doctrines are set and need no growth. I'm not sure if Rome stills holds to the "seed theory", but I believe if anything we are farther now from original truth not closer to it.

There's a difference here that I will note from my point of view.  There is no such thing as development of doctrine in the Catholic Church IF by that you mean the Truth changes over time.  No.  Revelation does not change.  We can however grow in deepening understanding of the Truth, and find better ways perhaps of articulating that Truth but the Truth, or Revelation, does not alter.

As I said the Filioque does not change any of the truth.  It is simply a way of distinguishing elements of the truth, and as such, filioque is ancient as a teaching in any event.

So my point was that it is NOT an innovation and it is NOT a heresy so it need not to change. 

Would you agree, however, that when Rome has tried to explain aspects and justify positions with reason that their bowing to logic has caused the original truth they were trying to explain to be eroded? (ie original sin leads to the Immaculate Conception) I just see Rome's need to be justified to the world and to science bothersome. Plus to me Petrine Supremacey is a "new" revelation.
Logged

Authentic zeal is not directed towards anything but union in Christ, or against anything but our own fallenness.

"Beardliness is next to Godliness."- Asteriktos
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #11 on: April 26, 2011, 09:20:17 PM »

Papist-
Thank you for your clarification. Though we don't see eye to eye (to me dropping the filioque must coincide with dropping that dogma, otherwise it seems sneaky to me since the issue in itself is that Latin's believe it) I appreciate you taking your time.

Elijahmaria-
I see how you're saying it is more important traditionally than it is a sticking point of theology, dogma, etc. We differ in that you (I mean Latins, forgive me if not you personally) believe that development of doctrine is alright, while EO's believe we were given the whole truth ever needed by Christ and His Apostles. Tradition and how things are done can organically develop. However, the dogmas and doctrines are set and need no growth. I'm not sure if Rome stills holds to the "seed theory", but I believe if anything we are farther now from original truth not closer to it.

There's a difference here that I will note from my point of view.  There is no such thing as development of doctrine in the Catholic Church IF by that you mean the Truth changes over time.  No.  Revelation does not change.  We can however grow in deepening understanding of the Truth, and find better ways perhaps of articulating that Truth but the Truth, or Revelation, does not alter.

As I said the Filioque does not change any of the truth.  It is simply a way of distinguishing elements of the truth, and as such, filioque is ancient as a teaching in any event.

So my point was that it is NOT an innovation and it is NOT a heresy so it need not to change. 

Would you agree, however, that when Rome has tried to explain aspects and justify positions with reason that their bowing to logic has caused the original truth they were trying to explain to be eroded? (ie original sin leads to the Immaculate Conception) I just see Rome's need to be justified to the world and to science bothersome. Plus to me Petrine Supremacey is a "new" revelation.

I am not going to tackle petrine or primatial power and authority here.  I think I'll leave that for the moment to our bishops.

Original sin: with respect, I would like to at least make an assertion or maybe two.

Original sin as understood by the Catholic Church has nothing to do with personal sin guilt.  It also has very little to do with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in terms of "leading" to it.

When the Church teaches about the stain of original sin they are talking about a darkening of the intellect [nous] and a weakening of the will, a loss of original justice which is a state in which our will is aligned with the will of God, a state where we seek the good first, not last or later, and good is defined as that which is part of God's Providence.  Evil is not a part of His Providence.  But we come to know and to do evil because of the original sin of the ancestor Adam.

That stain is laved away in Baptism, so that we are illumined in Baptism just as you are in Orthodoxy.  But what remains is suffering, death and corruption of the body and that will not end till we are raised up on the last day.

So what is said about the Mother of God is that she came into her Personhood already illumined, never having been turned away from the good...She came into being as a whole person, fully alive in God's Providence, as we become, however briefly, at the moment of our Baptism.  That is what Immaculate Conception means.

So she will die, she can suffer, she can corrupt, just like the rest of us, and she can be tempted though her inclination is to always turn toward the good.  But she must, just as we do, work to discern the good.

Orthodoxy comes so close to accepting that premise that you will say that it happens to her in the womb...where the Catholic Church says it happens at the moment of her becoming in the womb.  It is an assertion of Faith, not logic.

Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,291


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #12 on: April 26, 2011, 09:22:15 PM »

Papist-
Thank you for your clarification. Though we don't see eye to eye (to me dropping the filioque must coincide with dropping that dogma, otherwise it seems sneaky to me since the issue in itself is that Latin's believe it) I appreciate you taking your time.
I guess I don't understand why you come to the conclusion that it is dropping the dogma. Can you help me understand?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,291


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #13 on: April 26, 2011, 09:23:00 PM »


Would you agree, however, that when Rome has tried to explain aspects and justify positions with reason that their bowing to logic has caused the original truth they were trying to explain to be eroded? (ie original sin leads to the Immaculate Conception) I just see Rome's need to be justified to the world and to science bothersome. Plus to me Petrine Supremacey is a "new" revelation.

I know this question was directed at Elijah Maria, but I am going to provide an answer as well: no.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
CBGardner
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 618


Ask w/ tears, seek w/ obedience, knock w/ patience


« Reply #14 on: April 26, 2011, 10:06:19 PM »

Papist-
Thank you for your clarification. Though we don't see eye to eye (to me dropping the filioque must coincide with dropping that dogma, otherwise it seems sneaky to me since the issue in itself is that Latin's believe it) I appreciate you taking your time.

Elijahmaria-
I see how you're saying it is more important traditionally than it is a sticking point of theology, dogma, etc. We differ in that you (I mean Latins, forgive me if not you personally) believe that development of doctrine is alright, while EO's believe we were given the whole truth ever needed by Christ and His Apostles. Tradition and how things are done can organically develop. However, the dogmas and doctrines are set and need no growth. I'm not sure if Rome stills holds to the "seed theory", but I believe if anything we are farther now from original truth not closer to it.

There's a difference here that I will note from my point of view.  There is no such thing as development of doctrine in the Catholic Church IF by that you mean the Truth changes over time.  No.  Revelation does not change.  We can however grow in deepening understanding of the Truth, and find better ways perhaps of articulating that Truth but the Truth, or Revelation, does not alter.

As I said the Filioque does not change any of the truth.  It is simply a way of distinguishing elements of the truth, and as such, filioque is ancient as a teaching in any event.

So my point was that it is NOT an innovation and it is NOT a heresy so it need not to change. 

Would you agree, however, that when Rome has tried to explain aspects and justify positions with reason that their bowing to logic has caused the original truth they were trying to explain to be eroded? (ie original sin leads to the Immaculate Conception) I just see Rome's need to be justified to the world and to science bothersome. Plus to me Petrine Supremacey is a "new" revelation.

I am not going to tackle petrine or primatial power and authority here.  I think I'll leave that for the moment to our bishops.

Original sin: with respect, I would like to at least make an assertion or maybe two.

Original sin as understood by the Catholic Church has nothing to do with personal sin guilt.  It also has very little to do with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in terms of "leading" to it.

When the Church teaches about the stain of original sin they are talking about a darkening of the intellect [nous] and a weakening of the will, a loss of original justice which is a state in which our will is aligned with the will of God, a state where we seek the good first, not last or later, and good is defined as that which is part of God's Providence.  Evil is not a part of His Providence.  But we come to know and to do evil because of the original sin of the ancestor Adam.

That stain is laved away in Baptism, so that we are illumined in Baptism just as you are in Orthodoxy.  But what remains is suffering, death and corruption of the body and that will not end till we are raised up on the last day.

So what is said about the Mother of God is that she came into her Personhood already illumined, never having been turned away from the good...She came into being as a whole person, fully alive in God's Providence, as we become, however briefly, at the moment of our Baptism.  That is what Immaculate Conception means.

So she will die, she can suffer, she can corrupt, just like the rest of us, and she can be tempted though her inclination is to always turn toward the good.  But she must, just as we do, work to discern the good.

Orthodoxy comes so close to accepting that premise that you will say that it happens to her in the womb...where the Catholic Church says it happens at the moment of her becoming in the womb.  It is an assertion of Faith, not logic.



What you state is pretty congruent with my understanding of original sin but as I've heard that is not what is in the current Catholic catechism or how the doctrine was formed. It teaches that we inherit a guilt of Adam's sin that is transmitted via propogation to the next generation. We sinned because Adam sinned. And the need of the Immaculate Conception is to prevent guilt being passed to Mary then to Jesus. But why would Christ need to be born without original sin if it was just our darkened nous? The IC puts Mary and Jesus outside of regular human nature. How can Christ be fully man if he doesn't inherit humanity's condition? Doesn't that make Mary's personal sinlessness void since she had no ability to sin being outside the human condition?
Perhaps my information is not up to date. That is something I'll have to look up in the catechism to clarify.
Logged

Authentic zeal is not directed towards anything but union in Christ, or against anything but our own fallenness.

"Beardliness is next to Godliness."- Asteriktos
CBGardner
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 618


Ask w/ tears, seek w/ obedience, knock w/ patience


« Reply #15 on: April 26, 2011, 10:11:52 PM »

Papist-
Thank you for your clarification. Though we don't see eye to eye (to me dropping the filioque must coincide with dropping that dogma, otherwise it seems sneaky to me since the issue in itself is that Latin's believe it) I appreciate you taking your time.
I guess I don't understand why you come to the conclusion that it is dropping the dogma. Can you help me understand?

Sorry, let me recount.
I understand that to you, it is perfectly fine to drop the Filioque from the Creed while still retaining your belief in the Filioque. Yes?
All I'm saying is: I'm under the assumption that EO's (including myself) would have a problem with the content of the Filioque. So Latin's simply dropping it from the Creed doesn't quell fears that they still believe it.

Confused yet? haha
Logged

Authentic zeal is not directed towards anything but union in Christ, or against anything but our own fallenness.

"Beardliness is next to Godliness."- Asteriktos
Altar Server
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian(as of 12/18/10)
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 978


Holy Father Seraphim, Pray to God for us!


« Reply #16 on: April 26, 2011, 11:08:58 PM »

Christ is Risen!

My big beef with this whole issue is if the RCC really believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son why would they have something in the creed and state at their councils that they hold something different( That The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son) could somebody maybe explain this to me? Even when I was Catholic I didn't understand this.

In Christ,
Seraphim
Logged

All my hope I place in you, O Mother of God, keep me under your protection!
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #17 on: April 27, 2011, 12:42:34 AM »

Papist-
Thank you for your clarification. Though we don't see eye to eye (to me dropping the filioque must coincide with dropping that dogma, otherwise it seems sneaky to me since the issue in itself is that Latin's believe it) I appreciate you taking your time.

Elijahmaria-
I see how you're saying it is more important traditionally than it is a sticking point of theology, dogma, etc. We differ in that you (I mean Latins, forgive me if not you personally) believe that development of doctrine is alright, while EO's believe we were given the whole truth ever needed by Christ and His Apostles. Tradition and how things are done can organically develop. However, the dogmas and doctrines are set and need no growth. I'm not sure if Rome stills holds to the "seed theory", but I believe if anything we are farther now from original truth not closer to it.

There's a difference here that I will note from my point of view.  There is no such thing as development of doctrine in the Catholic Church IF by that you mean the Truth changes over time.  No.  Revelation does not change.  We can however grow in deepening understanding of the Truth, and find better ways perhaps of articulating that Truth but the Truth, or Revelation, does not alter.

As I said the Filioque does not change any of the truth.  It is simply a way of distinguishing elements of the truth, and as such, filioque is ancient as a teaching in any event.

So my point was that it is NOT an innovation and it is NOT a heresy so it need not to change. 

Would you agree, however, that when Rome has tried to explain aspects and justify positions with reason that their bowing to logic has caused the original truth they were trying to explain to be eroded? (ie original sin leads to the Immaculate Conception) I just see Rome's need to be justified to the world and to science bothersome. Plus to me Petrine Supremacey is a "new" revelation.

I am not going to tackle petrine or primatial power and authority here.  I think I'll leave that for the moment to our bishops.

Original sin: with respect, I would like to at least make an assertion or maybe two.

Original sin as understood by the Catholic Church has nothing to do with personal sin guilt.  It also has very little to do with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in terms of "leading" to it.

When the Church teaches about the stain of original sin they are talking about a darkening of the intellect [nous] and a weakening of the will, a loss of original justice which is a state in which our will is aligned with the will of God, a state where we seek the good first, not last or later, and good is defined as that which is part of God's Providence.  Evil is not a part of His Providence.  But we come to know and to do evil because of the original sin of the ancestor Adam.

That stain is laved away in Baptism, so that we are illumined in Baptism just as you are in Orthodoxy.  But what remains is suffering, death and corruption of the body and that will not end till we are raised up on the last day.

So what is said about the Mother of God is that she came into her Personhood already illumined, never having been turned away from the good...She came into being as a whole person, fully alive in God's Providence, as we become, however briefly, at the moment of our Baptism.  That is what Immaculate Conception means.

So she will die, she can suffer, she can corrupt, just like the rest of us, and she can be tempted though her inclination is to always turn toward the good.  But she must, just as we do, work to discern the good.

Orthodoxy comes so close to accepting that premise that you will say that it happens to her in the womb...where the Catholic Church says it happens at the moment of her becoming in the womb.  It is an assertion of Faith, not logic.



Quote
The famous Duns Scotus (d. 1308) at last (in III Sent., dist. iii, in both commentaries) laid the foundations of the true doctrine so solidly and dispelled the objections in a manner so satisfactory, that from that time onward the doctrine prevailed. He showed that the sanctification after animation — sanctificatio post animationem — demanded that it should follow in the order of nature (naturae) not of time (temporis); he removed the great difficulty of St. Thomas showing that, so far from being excluded from redemption, the Blessed Virgin obtained of her Divine Son the greatest of redemptions through the mystery of her preservation from all sin. He also brought forward, by way of illustration, the somewhat dangerous and doubtful argument of Eadmer (S. Anselm) "decuit, potuit, ergo fecit."
That's faulty logic leading to a misguided faith.
Quote
Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #18 on: April 27, 2011, 01:54:12 AM »

Papist-
Thank you for your clarification. Though we don't see eye to eye (to me dropping the filioque must coincide with dropping that dogma, otherwise it seems sneaky to me since the issue in itself is that Latin's believe it) I appreciate you taking your time.

Elijahmaria-
I see how you're saying it is more important traditionally than it is a sticking point of theology, dogma, etc. We differ in that you (I mean Latins, forgive me if not you personally) believe that development of doctrine is alright, while EO's believe we were given the whole truth ever needed by Christ and His Apostles. Tradition and how things are done can organically develop. However, the dogmas and doctrines are set and need no growth. I'm not sure if Rome stills holds to the "seed theory", but I believe if anything we are farther now from original truth not closer to it.

There's a difference here that I will note from my point of view.  There is no such thing as development of doctrine in the Catholic Church IF by that you mean the Truth changes over time.  No.  Revelation does not change.  We can however grow in deepening understanding of the Truth, and find better ways perhaps of articulating that Truth but the Truth, or Revelation, does not alter.

As I said the Filioque does not change any of the truth.  It is simply a way of distinguishing elements of the truth, and as such, filioque is ancient as a teaching in any event.
Arianism is even more ancient.

So my point was that it is NOT an innovation and it is NOT a heresy so it need not to change.
Then it should have been in the original Creed, now shouldn't it?
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,157



« Reply #19 on: April 27, 2011, 08:05:55 AM »

Hi all. Last night I noticed that there were a bunch of new posts here, but as it was getting a bit late (on the east coast) I decided to leave them till this morning.

Great discussion.

Papist-
Thank you for your clarification. Though we don't see eye to eye (to me dropping the filioque must coincide with dropping that dogma, otherwise it seems sneaky to me since the issue in itself is that Latin's believe it) I appreciate you taking your time.

CBGardner, in my experience it's not at all uncommon for Eastern Orthodox to expect the dropping of the filioque to coincide with the dropping of the dogma. But I see it completely differently: I expect the dropping of the filioque (if that ever happens I mean) to be the first step toward convincing the Orthodox to accept the dogma.

I want to emphasize that "first step". I don't in any way expect that the Orthodox would just immediately say "Now that you Catholics have dropped the filioque from the creed, it's suddenly obvious to us that you have been right all along about the theology." What I am saying is just that we Catholics would be in a better position to witness to the truth of the dogma if we use the creed of 381 in its original form (after a period of saying "No, we're not dropping the dogma ... No, we're not dropping the dogma ... No, we're not dropping the dogma ... No, we're not dropping the dogma ... "  Grin )
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #20 on: April 27, 2011, 09:45:27 AM »


What you state is pretty congruent with my understanding of original sin but as I've heard that is not what is in the current Catholic catechism or how the doctrine was formed. It teaches that we inherit a guilt of Adam's sin that is transmitted via propogation to the next generation. We sinned because Adam sinned. And the need of the Immaculate Conception is to prevent guilt being passed to Mary then to Jesus. But why would Christ need to be born without original sin if it was just our darkened nous? The IC puts Mary and Jesus outside of regular human nature. How can Christ be fully man if he doesn't inherit humanity's condition? Doesn't that make Mary's personal sinlessness void since she had no ability to sin being outside the human condition?
Perhaps my information is not up to date. That is something I'll have to look up in the catechism to clarify.

There is no need for an Immaculate Conception.  It was not defined because of need.  It was defined because of Truth.  Does Baptism put us outside of human nature when we are illumined at Baptism?

The idea of a "sin nature" is a very protestant idea.  Christ did not need to be born with a "sin nature" to be fully human.  Adam was fully human and he was untouched by sin.  Human nature was not rendered evil by sin any more than our human nature is rendered evil by sin. 

You have got a protestant notion mixed with an Orthodox notion mixed with a very poorly understood Catholic notion.

Good thing is you are not alone  Smiley

But you do need a little work there...Once you resolve that then this huge impediment that you have erected against the idea of an all-pure and ever-pure Virgin is dramatically reduced.

M.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,291


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #21 on: April 27, 2011, 11:28:27 AM »

Papist-
Thank you for your clarification. Though we don't see eye to eye (to me dropping the filioque must coincide with dropping that dogma, otherwise it seems sneaky to me since the issue in itself is that Latin's believe it) I appreciate you taking your time.
I guess I don't understand why you come to the conclusion that it is dropping the dogma. Can you help me understand?

Sorry, let me recount.
I understand that to you, it is perfectly fine to drop the Filioque from the Creed while still retaining your belief in the Filioque. Yes?
All I'm saying is: I'm under the assumption that EO's (including myself) would have a problem with the content of the Filioque. So Latin's simply dropping it from the Creed doesn't quell fears that they still believe it.

Confused yet? haha
Oh, I don't suspect that it would quell all EO fears, but I think it would quell the fears of some. Do you have a problem with the formulations "who proceed from the Father, through the Son"?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,291


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #22 on: April 27, 2011, 11:33:34 AM »

Christ is Risen!

My big beef with this whole issue is if the RCC really believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son why would they have something in the creed and state at their councils that they hold something different( That The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son) could somebody maybe explain this to me? Even when I was Catholic I didn't understand this.

In Christ,
Seraphim
Our "from" is a "through" because every thing that God the Son has, he received from the Father. So anything that comes from him, ulitmately comes through him, from the Father. Think of a lake that has a stream flowing out of it. If I were to drink water from the stream, did I get the water from the stream or the lake? Well, ulitimately I receive the water from the source (i.e. the lake), and get it by means of, or through the stream. However, because of the given situation it would not be inaccurate to say that I get the water "from" the lake, as long as I understand the "from" in a secondary way, so that such a from is acctually equivalent to "through". I think it's the same with the Filioque. Perhaps it doesn't translate from the Latin to other languages so well, but I would have no problem with the phrase in the Creed being changed to "through the Son". While "from" is not wrong, "through" would much more clearly convey the intended meaning of the Creed.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,291


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #23 on: April 27, 2011, 11:34:29 AM »

Then it should have been in the original Creed, now shouldn't it?
Why? the original Creed doesn't mention every element of the faith.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
CBGardner
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 618


Ask w/ tears, seek w/ obedience, knock w/ patience


« Reply #24 on: April 27, 2011, 11:41:42 AM »


What you state is pretty congruent with my understanding of original sin but as I've heard that is not what is in the current Catholic catechism or how the doctrine was formed. It teaches that we inherit a guilt of Adam's sin that is transmitted via propogation to the next generation. We sinned because Adam sinned. And the need of the Immaculate Conception is to prevent guilt being passed to Mary then to Jesus. But why would Christ need to be born without original sin if it was just our darkened nous? The IC puts Mary and Jesus outside of regular human nature. How can Christ be fully man if he doesn't inherit humanity's condition? Doesn't that make Mary's personal sinlessness void since she had no ability to sin being outside the human condition?
Perhaps my information is not up to date. That is something I'll have to look up in the catechism to clarify.

There is no need for an Immaculate Conception.  It was not defined because of need.  It was defined because of Truth.  Does Baptism put us outside of human nature when we are illumined at Baptism?

The idea of a "sin nature" is a very protestant idea.  Christ did not need to be born with a "sin nature" to be fully human.  Adam was fully human and he was untouched by sin.  Human nature was not rendered evil by sin any more than our human nature is rendered evil by sin. 

You have got a protestant notion mixed with an Orthodox notion mixed with a very poorly understood Catholic notion.

Good thing is you are not alone  Smiley

But you do need a little work there...Once you resolve that then this huge impediment that you have erected against the idea of an all-pure and ever-pure Virgin is dramatically reduced.

M.

I can agree with you that there is no need for an Immaculate Conception. I don't think Jesus or Mary need to be saved from any stain precisely because it isn't guilt they inherit. Was Jesus not baptized? Why couldn't that take care of this stain?

I'm not sure were you got sin nature from. I was telling you how I've understood what Catholic's see as original sin. I think that line of thinking has died off recently as the legalism has because that is from mostly older catholics and talks I've listened to. I won't argue that I need work though. May the Lord have mercy.
Logged

Authentic zeal is not directed towards anything but union in Christ, or against anything but our own fallenness.

"Beardliness is next to Godliness."- Asteriktos
CBGardner
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 618


Ask w/ tears, seek w/ obedience, knock w/ patience


« Reply #25 on: April 27, 2011, 11:46:10 AM »

Papist-
Thank you for your clarification. Though we don't see eye to eye (to me dropping the filioque must coincide with dropping that dogma, otherwise it seems sneaky to me since the issue in itself is that Latin's believe it) I appreciate you taking your time.
I guess I don't understand why you come to the conclusion that it is dropping the dogma. Can you help me understand?

Sorry, let me recount.
I understand that to you, it is perfectly fine to drop the Filioque from the Creed while still retaining your belief in the Filioque. Yes?
All I'm saying is: I'm under the assumption that EO's (including myself) would have a problem with the content of the Filioque. So Latin's simply dropping it from the Creed doesn't quell fears that they still believe it.

Confused yet? haha
Oh, I don't suspect that it would quell all EO fears, but I think it would quell the fears of some. Do you have a problem with the formulations "who proceed from the Father, through the Son"?

I've never come into any contact with Orthodox material that says the Spirit must pass through the Son first, so yes. To me that subjugates the Spirit under the Father and the Son which I don't believe is the case. Any despriction of God can be applied to the Godhead as a whole, or to one of the parts but not the others.   
Logged

Authentic zeal is not directed towards anything but union in Christ, or against anything but our own fallenness.

"Beardliness is next to Godliness."- Asteriktos
CBGardner
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 618


Ask w/ tears, seek w/ obedience, knock w/ patience


« Reply #26 on: April 27, 2011, 11:46:48 AM »

Papist-
Thank you for your clarification. Though we don't see eye to eye (to me dropping the filioque must coincide with dropping that dogma, otherwise it seems sneaky to me since the issue in itself is that Latin's believe it) I appreciate you taking your time.

Elijahmaria-
I see how you're saying it is more important traditionally than it is a sticking point of theology, dogma, etc. We differ in that you (I mean Latins, forgive me if not you personally) believe that development of doctrine is alright, while EO's believe we were given the whole truth ever needed by Christ and His Apostles. Tradition and how things are done can organically develop. However, the dogmas and doctrines are set and need no growth. I'm not sure if Rome stills holds to the "seed theory", but I believe if anything we are farther now from original truth not closer to it.

There's a difference here that I will note from my point of view.  There is no such thing as development of doctrine in the Catholic Church IF by that you mean the Truth changes over time.  No.  Revelation does not change.  We can however grow in deepening understanding of the Truth, and find better ways perhaps of articulating that Truth but the Truth, or Revelation, does not alter.

As I said the Filioque does not change any of the truth.  It is simply a way of distinguishing elements of the truth, and as such, filioque is ancient as a teaching in any event.

So my point was that it is NOT an innovation and it is NOT a heresy so it need not to change. 

Would you agree, however, that when Rome has tried to explain aspects and justify positions with reason that their bowing to logic has caused the original truth they were trying to explain to be eroded? (ie original sin leads to the Immaculate Conception) I just see Rome's need to be justified to the world and to science bothersome. Plus to me Petrine Supremacey is a "new" revelation.

I am not going to tackle petrine or primatial power and authority here.  I think I'll leave that for the moment to our bishops.

Original sin: with respect, I would like to at least make an assertion or maybe two.

Original sin as understood by the Catholic Church has nothing to do with personal sin guilt.  It also has very little to do with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in terms of "leading" to it.

When the Church teaches about the stain of original sin they are talking about a darkening of the intellect [nous] and a weakening of the will, a loss of original justice which is a state in which our will is aligned with the will of God, a state where we seek the good first, not last or later, and good is defined as that which is part of God's Providence.  Evil is not a part of His Providence.  But we come to know and to do evil because of the original sin of the ancestor Adam.

That stain is laved away in Baptism, so that we are illumined in Baptism just as you are in Orthodoxy.  But what remains is suffering, death and corruption of the body and that will not end till we are raised up on the last day.

So what is said about the Mother of God is that she came into her Personhood already illumined, never having been turned away from the good...She came into being as a whole person, fully alive in God's Providence, as we become, however briefly, at the moment of our Baptism.  That is what Immaculate Conception means.

So she will die, she can suffer, she can corrupt, just like the rest of us, and she can be tempted though her inclination is to always turn toward the good.  But she must, just as we do, work to discern the good.

Orthodoxy comes so close to accepting that premise that you will say that it happens to her in the womb...where the Catholic Church says it happens at the moment of her becoming in the womb.  It is an assertion of Faith, not logic.



Quote
The famous Duns Scotus (d. 1308) at last (in III Sent., dist. iii, in both commentaries) laid the foundations of the true doctrine so solidly and dispelled the objections in a manner so satisfactory, that from that time onward the doctrine prevailed. He showed that the sanctification after animation — sanctificatio post animationem — demanded that it should follow in the order of nature (naturae) not of time (temporis); he removed the great difficulty of St. Thomas showing that, so far from being excluded from redemption, the Blessed Virgin obtained of her Divine Son the greatest of redemptions through the mystery of her preservation from all sin. He also brought forward, by way of illustration, the somewhat dangerous and doubtful argument of Eadmer (S. Anselm) "decuit, potuit, ergo fecit."
That's faulty logic leading to a misguided faith.
Quote
Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

Thank you Sir. That is a perfect example of what I was trying to explain!
Logged

Authentic zeal is not directed towards anything but union in Christ, or against anything but our own fallenness.

"Beardliness is next to Godliness."- Asteriktos
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,291


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #27 on: April 27, 2011, 11:48:04 AM »

Papist-
Thank you for your clarification. Though we don't see eye to eye (to me dropping the filioque must coincide with dropping that dogma, otherwise it seems sneaky to me since the issue in itself is that Latin's believe it) I appreciate you taking your time.
I guess I don't understand why you come to the conclusion that it is dropping the dogma. Can you help me understand?

Sorry, let me recount.
I understand that to you, it is perfectly fine to drop the Filioque from the Creed while still retaining your belief in the Filioque. Yes?
All I'm saying is: I'm under the assumption that EO's (including myself) would have a problem with the content of the Filioque. So Latin's simply dropping it from the Creed doesn't quell fears that they still believe it.

Confused yet? haha
Oh, I don't suspect that it would quell all EO fears, but I think it would quell the fears of some. Do you have a problem with the formulations "who proceed from the Father, through the Son"?

I've never come into any contact with Orthodox material that says the Spirit must pass through the Son first, so yes. To me that subjugates the Spirit under the Father and the Son which I don't believe is the case. Any despriction of God can be applied to the Godhead as a whole, or to one of the parts but not the others.   
So by that logic, are the Son and the Holy Spirit then somehow less than the Father?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
CBGardner
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 618


Ask w/ tears, seek w/ obedience, knock w/ patience


« Reply #28 on: April 27, 2011, 11:56:48 AM »

Papist-
Thank you for your clarification. Though we don't see eye to eye (to me dropping the filioque must coincide with dropping that dogma, otherwise it seems sneaky to me since the issue in itself is that Latin's believe it) I appreciate you taking your time.
I guess I don't understand why you come to the conclusion that it is dropping the dogma. Can you help me understand?

Sorry, let me recount.
I understand that to you, it is perfectly fine to drop the Filioque from the Creed while still retaining your belief in the Filioque. Yes?
All I'm saying is: I'm under the assumption that EO's (including myself) would have a problem with the content of the Filioque. So Latin's simply dropping it from the Creed doesn't quell fears that they still believe it.

Confused yet? haha
Oh, I don't suspect that it would quell all EO fears, but I think it would quell the fears of some. Do you have a problem with the formulations "who proceed from the Father, through the Son"?

I've never come into any contact with Orthodox material that says the Spirit must pass through the Son first, so yes. To me that subjugates the Spirit under the Father and the Son which I don't believe is the case. Any despriction of God can be applied to the Godhead as a whole, or to one of the parts but not the others.   
So by that logic, are the Son and the Holy Spirit then somehow less than the Father?

How so? It is an aspect that can be attributed to Him (the Father) solely, but the Son and Spirit still have aspects that can be attributed to them solely so it all comes out in the wash. They all have perfect wills that bend to and work in synergy with eachother. All are equal is their God-ness.
Logged

Authentic zeal is not directed towards anything but union in Christ, or against anything but our own fallenness.

"Beardliness is next to Godliness."- Asteriktos
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #29 on: April 27, 2011, 12:04:38 PM »


I'm not sure were you got sin nature from. I was telling you how I've understood what Catholic's see as original sin. I think that line of thinking has died off recently as the legalism has because that is from mostly older catholics and talks I've listened to. I won't argue that I need work though. May the Lord have mercy.

Well you are wrong about the Catholic teaching concerning original sin.  There's never been a time when the Church has formally taught that we inherit the personal sin guilt of Adam...but that we bear the consequences of his sin by birthright.  It never died off.  That's something that Orthodox believers say and they are not accurate there.

Duns Scotus was not necessary to the teaching of the Immaculate Conception.  The teaching survived several attempts to negate it and was an active part of the Church's liturgy in many places for many centuries.

I have no idea what kind of work you need as an Orthodox soul, but I do see certain predictable errors in your grasp of papal Catholic teaching.  I doubt that you will do much to alter that, as long as it is comfortable for you and you gain the approval of your fellow Orthodox.

M.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,291


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #30 on: April 27, 2011, 12:06:32 PM »

Papist-
Thank you for your clarification. Though we don't see eye to eye (to me dropping the filioque must coincide with dropping that dogma, otherwise it seems sneaky to me since the issue in itself is that Latin's believe it) I appreciate you taking your time.
I guess I don't understand why you come to the conclusion that it is dropping the dogma. Can you help me understand?

Sorry, let me recount.
I understand that to you, it is perfectly fine to drop the Filioque from the Creed while still retaining your belief in the Filioque. Yes?
All I'm saying is: I'm under the assumption that EO's (including myself) would have a problem with the content of the Filioque. So Latin's simply dropping it from the Creed doesn't quell fears that they still believe it.

Confused yet? haha
Oh, I don't suspect that it would quell all EO fears, but I think it would quell the fears of some. Do you have a problem with the formulations "who proceed from the Father, through the Son"?

I've never come into any contact with Orthodox material that says the Spirit must pass through the Son first, so yes. To me that subjugates the Spirit under the Father and the Son which I don't believe is the case. Any despriction of God can be applied to the Godhead as a whole, or to one of the parts but not the others.   
So by that logic, are the Son and the Holy Spirit then somehow less than the Father?

How so? It is an aspect that can be attributed to Him (the Father) solely, but the Son and Spirit still have aspects that can be attributed to them solely so it all comes out in the wash. They all have perfect wills that bend to and work in synergy with eachother. All are equal is their God-ness.

It just seems that if you think that the Son participating in the Spiration of the Holy Spirit would make the Holy Spirit less than the Son, then the concept that the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father would make them less than the Father. You don't see the inconsistency in your reasoning?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #31 on: April 27, 2011, 12:08:14 PM »

Papist-
Thank you for your clarification. Though we don't see eye to eye (to me dropping the filioque must coincide with dropping that dogma, otherwise it seems sneaky to me since the issue in itself is that Latin's believe it) I appreciate you taking your time.
I guess I don't understand why you come to the conclusion that it is dropping the dogma. Can you help me understand?

Sorry, let me recount.
I understand that to you, it is perfectly fine to drop the Filioque from the Creed while still retaining your belief in the Filioque. Yes?
All I'm saying is: I'm under the assumption that EO's (including myself) would have a problem with the content of the Filioque. So Latin's simply dropping it from the Creed doesn't quell fears that they still believe it.

Confused yet? haha
Oh, I don't suspect that it would quell all EO fears, but I think it would quell the fears of some. Do you have a problem with the formulations "who proceed from the Father, through the Son"?

I've never come into any contact with Orthodox material that says the Spirit must pass through the Son first, so yes. To me that subjugates the Spirit under the Father and the Son which I don't believe is the case. Any despriction of God can be applied to the Godhead as a whole, or to one of the parts but not the others.   
So by that logic, are the Son and the Holy Spirit then somehow less than the Father?

How so? It is an aspect that can be attributed to Him (the Father) solely, but the Son and Spirit still have aspects that can be attributed to them solely so it all comes out in the wash. They all have perfect wills that bend to and work in synergy with eachother. All are equal is their God-ness.


There is ONLY one Divine Will...It bends to no one or nothing.  There are NOT three wills.  In other words the energies are NOT hypostatic.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #32 on: April 27, 2011, 12:31:46 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
Papist-
Thank you for your clarification. Though we don't see eye to eye (to me dropping the filioque must coincide with dropping that dogma, otherwise it seems sneaky to me since the issue in itself is that Latin's believe it) I appreciate you taking your time.
I guess I don't understand why you come to the conclusion that it is dropping the dogma. Can you help me understand?

Sorry, let me recount.
I understand that to you, it is perfectly fine to drop the Filioque from the Creed while still retaining your belief in the Filioque. Yes?
All I'm saying is: I'm under the assumption that EO's (including myself) would have a problem with the content of the Filioque. So Latin's simply dropping it from the Creed doesn't quell fears that they still believe it.

Confused yet? haha
Oh, I don't suspect that it would quell all EO fears, but I think it would quell the fears of some. Do you have a problem with the formulations "who proceed from the Father, through the Son"?

I've never come into any contact with Orthodox material that says the Spirit must pass through the Son first, so yes. To me that subjugates the Spirit under the Father and the Son which I don't believe is the case. Any despriction of God can be applied to the Godhead as a whole, or to one of the parts but not the others.  
So by that logic, are the Son and the Holy Spirit then somehow less than the Father?

How so? It is an aspect that can be attributed to Him (the Father) solely, but the Son and Spirit still have aspects that can be attributed to them solely so it all comes out in the wash. They all have perfect wills that bend to and work in synergy with eachother. All are equal is their God-ness.

It just seems that if you think that the Son participating in the Spiration of the Holy Spirit would make the Holy Spirit less than the Son, then the concept that the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father would make them less than the Father. You don't see the inconsistency in your reasoning?
No, because anyone the Son would spirate would have to be begotten in the Son first.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2011, 12:32:21 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,291


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #33 on: April 27, 2011, 12:34:16 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
Papist-
Thank you for your clarification. Though we don't see eye to eye (to me dropping the filioque must coincide with dropping that dogma, otherwise it seems sneaky to me since the issue in itself is that Latin's believe it) I appreciate you taking your time.
I guess I don't understand why you come to the conclusion that it is dropping the dogma. Can you help me understand?

Sorry, let me recount.
I understand that to you, it is perfectly fine to drop the Filioque from the Creed while still retaining your belief in the Filioque. Yes?
All I'm saying is: I'm under the assumption that EO's (including myself) would have a problem with the content of the Filioque. So Latin's simply dropping it from the Creed doesn't quell fears that they still believe it.

Confused yet? haha
Oh, I don't suspect that it would quell all EO fears, but I think it would quell the fears of some. Do you have a problem with the formulations "who proceed from the Father, through the Son"?

I've never come into any contact with Orthodox material that says the Spirit must pass through the Son first, so yes. To me that subjugates the Spirit under the Father and the Son which I don't believe is the case. Any despriction of God can be applied to the Godhead as a whole, or to one of the parts but not the others.  
So by that logic, are the Son and the Holy Spirit then somehow less than the Father?

How so? It is an aspect that can be attributed to Him (the Father) solely, but the Son and Spirit still have aspects that can be attributed to them solely so it all comes out in the wash. They all have perfect wills that bend to and work in synergy with eachother. All are equal is their God-ness.

It just seems that if you think that the Son participating in the Spiration of the Holy Spirit would make the Holy Spirit less than the Son, then the concept that the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father would make them less than the Father. You don't see the inconsistency in your reasoning?
No, because anyone the Son would spirate would have to be begotten in the Son first.
So why does your view not make the Son and the Spirit less than the Father?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #34 on: April 27, 2011, 12:34:59 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
Then it should have been in the original Creed, now shouldn't it?
Why? the original Creed doesn't mention every element of the faith.
No, but in the case in point it mentions the vital and excludes all others.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2011, 12:35:31 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 618


Ask w/ tears, seek w/ obedience, knock w/ patience


« Reply #35 on: April 27, 2011, 12:35:25 PM »

Papist-
Thank you for your clarification. Though we don't see eye to eye (to me dropping the filioque must coincide with dropping that dogma, otherwise it seems sneaky to me since the issue in itself is that Latin's believe it) I appreciate you taking your time.
I guess I don't understand why you come to the conclusion that it is dropping the dogma. Can you help me understand?

Sorry, let me recount.
I understand that to you, it is perfectly fine to drop the Filioque from the Creed while still retaining your belief in the Filioque. Yes?
All I'm saying is: I'm under the assumption that EO's (including myself) would have a problem with the content of the Filioque. So Latin's simply dropping it from the Creed doesn't quell fears that they still believe it.

Confused yet? haha
Oh, I don't suspect that it would quell all EO fears, but I think it would quell the fears of some. Do you have a problem with the formulations "who proceed from the Father, through the Son"?

I've never come into any contact with Orthodox material that says the Spirit must pass through the Son first, so yes. To me that subjugates the Spirit under the Father and the Son which I don't believe is the case. Any despriction of God can be applied to the Godhead as a whole, or to one of the parts but not the others.   
So by that logic, are the Son and the Holy Spirit then somehow less than the Father?

How so? It is an aspect that can be attributed to Him (the Father) solely, but the Son and Spirit still have aspects that can be attributed to them solely so it all comes out in the wash. They all have perfect wills that bend to and work in synergy with eachother. All are equal is their God-ness.

It just seems that if you think that the Son participating in the Spiration of the Holy Spirit would make the Holy Spirit less than the Son, then the concept that the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father would make them less than the Father. You don't see the inconsistency in your reasoning?

The Spirit proceeding from one of the Holy Persons doesn't in itself subjugate it. That comes when you give an attribute to two of the persons yet not to all three of them. Attributes are either three or one; any description can be applied to the Godhead as a whole, or to one of the parts but not the others. But the Fillioque seems to throw the equilibrium of that off; its a 2 if you will.
Again I will state that I have no short of authority on this or honestly any other issue. The point of our discussion here is to challenge and make eachother think which is why I participate; because I'm open to the fact I'm wrong.

I did not mean to imply that there are three separate wills. It was a poor choice of words to try and describe what's in my mind. Thank you for the vote of confidence though, elijahmaria.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2011, 12:36:25 PM by CBGardner » Logged

Authentic zeal is not directed towards anything but union in Christ, or against anything but our own fallenness.

"Beardliness is next to Godliness."- Asteriktos
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,291


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #36 on: April 27, 2011, 12:37:00 PM »

Papist-
Thank you for your clarification. Though we don't see eye to eye (to me dropping the filioque must coincide with dropping that dogma, otherwise it seems sneaky to me since the issue in itself is that Latin's believe it) I appreciate you taking your time.
I guess I don't understand why you come to the conclusion that it is dropping the dogma. Can you help me understand?

Sorry, let me recount.
I understand that to you, it is perfectly fine to drop the Filioque from the Creed while still retaining your belief in the Filioque. Yes?
All I'm saying is: I'm under the assumption that EO's (including myself) would have a problem with the content of the Filioque. So Latin's simply dropping it from the Creed doesn't quell fears that they still believe it.

Confused yet? haha
Oh, I don't suspect that it would quell all EO fears, but I think it would quell the fears of some. Do you have a problem with the formulations "who proceed from the Father, through the Son"?

I've never come into any contact with Orthodox material that says the Spirit must pass through the Son first, so yes. To me that subjugates the Spirit under the Father and the Son which I don't believe is the case. Any despriction of God can be applied to the Godhead as a whole, or to one of the parts but not the others.   
So by that logic, are the Son and the Holy Spirit then somehow less than the Father?

How so? It is an aspect that can be attributed to Him (the Father) solely, but the Son and Spirit still have aspects that can be attributed to them solely so it all comes out in the wash. They all have perfect wills that bend to and work in synergy with eachother. All are equal is their God-ness.

It just seems that if you think that the Son participating in the Spiration of the Holy Spirit would make the Holy Spirit less than the Son, then the concept that the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father would make them less than the Father. You don't see the inconsistency in your reasoning?

The Spirit proceeding from one of the Holy Persons doesn't in itself subjugate it. That comes when you give an attribute to two of the persons yet not to all three of them. Attributes are either three or one; any description can be applied to the Godhead as a whole, or to one of the parts but not the others. But the Fillioque seems to throw the equilibrium of that off.
Again I will state that I have no short of authority on this or honestly any other issue. The point of our discussion here is to challenge and make eachother think which is why I participate; because I'm open to the fact I'm wrong.

I did not mean to imply that there are three separate wills. It was a poor choice of words to try and describe what's in my mind. Thank you for the vote of confidence though, elijahmaria.
So it's a numbers game? If some one  proceeds from two persons, then that person is less. However, if two proceed from one, those two are not less? Hmmm. Seems like an arbitrary criteria to me.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #37 on: April 27, 2011, 12:37:26 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
Papist-
Thank you for your clarification. Though we don't see eye to eye (to me dropping the filioque must coincide with dropping that dogma, otherwise it seems sneaky to me since the issue in itself is that Latin's believe it) I appreciate you taking your time.
I guess I don't understand why you come to the conclusion that it is dropping the dogma. Can you help me understand?

Sorry, let me recount.
I understand that to you, it is perfectly fine to drop the Filioque from the Creed while still retaining your belief in the Filioque. Yes?
All I'm saying is: I'm under the assumption that EO's (including myself) would have a problem with the content of the Filioque. So Latin's simply dropping it from the Creed doesn't quell fears that they still believe it.

Confused yet? haha
Oh, I don't suspect that it would quell all EO fears, but I think it would quell the fears of some. Do you have a problem with the formulations "who proceed from the Father, through the Son"?

I've never come into any contact with Orthodox material that says the Spirit must pass through the Son first, so yes. To me that subjugates the Spirit under the Father and the Son which I don't believe is the case. Any despriction of God can be applied to the Godhead as a whole, or to one of the parts but not the others.  
So by that logic, are the Son and the Holy Spirit then somehow less than the Father?

How so? It is an aspect that can be attributed to Him (the Father) solely, but the Son and Spirit still have aspects that can be attributed to them solely so it all comes out in the wash. They all have perfect wills that bend to and work in synergy with eachother. All are equal is their God-ness.

It just seems that if you think that the Son participating in the Spiration of the Holy Spirit would make the Holy Spirit less than the Son, then the concept that the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father would make them less than the Father. You don't see the inconsistency in your reasoning?
No, because anyone the Son would spirate would have to be begotten in the Son first.
So why does your view not make the Son and the Spirit less than the Father?
Because the Catholic Church through the Orthodox Fathers of Constnantinople I said so.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,291


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #38 on: April 27, 2011, 12:38:41 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
Papist-
Thank you for your clarification. Though we don't see eye to eye (to me dropping the filioque must coincide with dropping that dogma, otherwise it seems sneaky to me since the issue in itself is that Latin's believe it) I appreciate you taking your time.
I guess I don't understand why you come to the conclusion that it is dropping the dogma. Can you help me understand?

Sorry, let me recount.
I understand that to you, it is perfectly fine to drop the Filioque from the Creed while still retaining your belief in the Filioque. Yes?
All I'm saying is: I'm under the assumption that EO's (including myself) would have a problem with the content of the Filioque. So Latin's simply dropping it from the Creed doesn't quell fears that they still believe it.

Confused yet? haha
Oh, I don't suspect that it would quell all EO fears, but I think it would quell the fears of some. Do you have a problem with the formulations "who proceed from the Father, through the Son"?

I've never come into any contact with Orthodox material that says the Spirit must pass through the Son first, so yes. To me that subjugates the Spirit under the Father and the Son which I don't believe is the case. Any despriction of God can be applied to the Godhead as a whole, or to one of the parts but not the others.  
So by that logic, are the Son and the Holy Spirit then somehow less than the Father?

How so? It is an aspect that can be attributed to Him (the Father) solely, but the Son and Spirit still have aspects that can be attributed to them solely so it all comes out in the wash. They all have perfect wills that bend to and work in synergy with eachother. All are equal is their God-ness.

It just seems that if you think that the Son participating in the Spiration of the Holy Spirit would make the Holy Spirit less than the Son, then the concept that the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father would make them less than the Father. You don't see the inconsistency in your reasoning?
No, because anyone the Son would spirate would have to be begotten in the Son first.
So why does your view not make the Son and the Spirit less than the Father?
Because the Catholic Church through the Orthodox Fathers of Constnantinople I said so.
Because modern day Orthodox not in communion with the Catholic Church say so. lol
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #39 on: April 27, 2011, 12:39:45 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
Papist-
Thank you for your clarification. Though we don't see eye to eye (to me dropping the filioque must coincide with dropping that dogma, otherwise it seems sneaky to me since the issue in itself is that Latin's believe it) I appreciate you taking your time.
I guess I don't understand why you come to the conclusion that it is dropping the dogma. Can you help me understand?

Sorry, let me recount.
I understand that to you, it is perfectly fine to drop the Filioque from the Creed while still retaining your belief in the Filioque. Yes?
All I'm saying is: I'm under the assumption that EO's (including myself) would have a problem with the content of the Filioque. So Latin's simply dropping it from the Creed doesn't quell fears that they still believe it.

Confused yet? haha
Oh, I don't suspect that it would quell all EO fears, but I think it would quell the fears of some. Do you have a problem with the formulations "who proceed from the Father, through the Son"?

I've never come into any contact with Orthodox material that says the Spirit must pass through the Son first, so yes. To me that subjugates the Spirit under the Father and the Son which I don't believe is the case. Any despriction of God can be applied to the Godhead as a whole, or to one of the parts but not the others.   
So by that logic, are the Son and the Holy Spirit then somehow less than the Father?

How so? It is an aspect that can be attributed to Him (the Father) solely, but the Son and Spirit still have aspects that can be attributed to them solely so it all comes out in the wash. They all have perfect wills that bend to and work in synergy with eachother. All are equal is their God-ness.

It just seems that if you think that the Son participating in the Spiration of the Holy Spirit would make the Holy Spirit less than the Son, then the concept that the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father would make them less than the Father. You don't see the inconsistency in your reasoning?

The Spirit proceeding from one of the Holy Persons doesn't in itself subjugate it. That comes when you give an attribute to two of the persons yet not to all three of them. Attributes are either three or one; any description can be applied to the Godhead as a whole, or to one of the parts but not the others. But the Fillioque seems to throw the equilibrium of that off.
Again I will state that I have no short of authority on this or honestly any other issue. The point of our discussion here is to challenge and make eachother think which is why I participate; because I'm open to the fact I'm wrong.

I did not mean to imply that there are three separate wills. It was a poor choice of words to try and describe what's in my mind. Thank you for the vote of confidence though, elijahmaria.
So it's a numbers game? If some one  proceeds from two persons, then that person is less. However, if two proceed from one, those two are not less? Hmmm. Seems like an arbitrary criteria to me.
Take it up with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and Christ, Whose very words she used.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #40 on: April 27, 2011, 12:40:58 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
Papist-
Thank you for your clarification. Though we don't see eye to eye (to me dropping the filioque must coincide with dropping that dogma, otherwise it seems sneaky to me since the issue in itself is that Latin's believe it) I appreciate you taking your time.
I guess I don't understand why you come to the conclusion that it is dropping the dogma. Can you help me understand?

Sorry, let me recount.
I understand that to you, it is perfectly fine to drop the Filioque from the Creed while still retaining your belief in the Filioque. Yes?
All I'm saying is: I'm under the assumption that EO's (including myself) would have a problem with the content of the Filioque. So Latin's simply dropping it from the Creed doesn't quell fears that they still believe it.

Confused yet? haha
Oh, I don't suspect that it would quell all EO fears, but I think it would quell the fears of some. Do you have a problem with the formulations "who proceed from the Father, through the Son"?

I've never come into any contact with Orthodox material that says the Spirit must pass through the Son first, so yes. To me that subjugates the Spirit under the Father and the Son which I don't believe is the case. Any despriction of God can be applied to the Godhead as a whole, or to one of the parts but not the others.  
So by that logic, are the Son and the Holy Spirit then somehow less than the Father?

How so? It is an aspect that can be attributed to Him (the Father) solely, but the Son and Spirit still have aspects that can be attributed to them solely so it all comes out in the wash. They all have perfect wills that bend to and work in synergy with eachother. All are equal is their God-ness.

It just seems that if you think that the Son participating in the Spiration of the Holy Spirit would make the Holy Spirit less than the Son, then the concept that the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father would make them less than the Father. You don't see the inconsistency in your reasoning?
No, because anyone the Son would spirate would have to be begotten in the Son first.
So why does your view not make the Son and the Spirit less than the Father?
Because the Catholic Church through the Orthodox Fathers of Constnantinople I said so.
Because modern day Orthodox not in communion with the Catholic Church say so. lol
Yes, the filioque was in the original Creed because the Vatican said so, centuries later.
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
CBGardner
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 618


Ask w/ tears, seek w/ obedience, knock w/ patience


« Reply #41 on: April 27, 2011, 12:41:27 PM »

Papist-
Thank you for your clarification. Though we don't see eye to eye (to me dropping the filioque must coincide with dropping that dogma, otherwise it seems sneaky to me since the issue in itself is that Latin's believe it) I appreciate you taking your time.
I guess I don't understand why you come to the conclusion that it is dropping the dogma. Can you help me understand?

Sorry, let me recount.
I understand that to you, it is perfectly fine to drop the Filioque from the Creed while still retaining your belief in the Filioque. Yes?
All I'm saying is: I'm under the assumption that EO's (including myself) would have a problem with the content of the Filioque. So Latin's simply dropping it from the Creed doesn't quell fears that they still believe it.

Confused yet? haha
Oh, I don't suspect that it would quell all EO fears, but I think it would quell the fears of some. Do you have a problem with the formulations "who proceed from the Father, through the Son"?

I've never come into any contact with Orthodox material that says the Spirit must pass through the Son first, so yes. To me that subjugates the Spirit under the Father and the Son which I don't believe is the case. Any despriction of God can be applied to the Godhead as a whole, or to one of the parts but not the others.   
So by that logic, are the Son and the Holy Spirit then somehow less than the Father?

How so? It is an aspect that can be attributed to Him (the Father) solely, but the Son and Spirit still have aspects that can be attributed to them solely so it all comes out in the wash. They all have perfect wills that bend to and work in synergy with eachother. All are equal is their God-ness.

It just seems that if you think that the Son participating in the Spiration of the Holy Spirit would make the Holy Spirit less than the Son, then the concept that the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father would make them less than the Father. You don't see the inconsistency in your reasoning?

The Spirit proceeding from one of the Holy Persons doesn't in itself subjugate it. That comes when you give an attribute to two of the persons yet not to all three of them. Attributes are either three or one; any description can be applied to the Godhead as a whole, or to one of the parts but not the others. But the Fillioque seems to throw the equilibrium of that off.
Again I will state that I have no short of authority on this or honestly any other issue. The point of our discussion here is to challenge and make eachother think which is why I participate; because I'm open to the fact I'm wrong.

I did not mean to imply that there are three separate wills. It was a poor choice of words to try and describe what's in my mind. Thank you for the vote of confidence though, elijahmaria.
So it's a numbers game? If some one  proceeds from two persons, then that person is less. However, if two proceed from one, those two are not less? Hmmm. Seems like an arbitrary criteria to me.

You know it's not about that numbers, that was just a way to explain it. Can you provide an example of any other attribute being given to just two persons?
Logged

Authentic zeal is not directed towards anything but union in Christ, or against anything but our own fallenness.

"Beardliness is next to Godliness."- Asteriktos
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,992


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #42 on: April 27, 2011, 12:42:10 PM »

So why does your view not make the Son and the Spirit less than the Father?
The Son and Spirit are equal to the Father in divinity and substance, but subordinate by order and procession. See "the Father is greater than I".

Contrast this view with the heresy of subordinationism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subordinationism
« Last Edit: April 27, 2011, 12:43:53 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #43 on: April 27, 2011, 12:44:22 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
Christ is Risen!

My big beef with this whole issue is if the RCC really believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son why would they have something in the creed and state at their councils that they hold something different( That The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son) could somebody maybe explain this to me? Even when I was Catholic I didn't understand this.

In Christ,
Seraphim
Our "from" is a "through" because every thing that God the Son has, he received from the Father. So anything that comes from him, ulitmately comes through him, from the Father. Think of a lake that has a stream flowing out of it. If I were to drink water from the stream, did I get the water from the stream or the lake? Well, ulitimately I receive the water from the source (i.e. the lake), and get it by means of, or through the stream. However, because of the given situation it would not be inaccurate to say that I get the water "from" the lake, as long as I understand the "from" in a secondary way, so that such a from is acctually equivalent to "through". I think it's the same with the Filioque. Perhaps it doesn't translate from the Latin to other languages so well, but I would have no problem with the phrase in the Creed being changed to "through the Son". While "from" is not wrong, "through" would much more clearly convey the intended meaning of the Creed.
Your problem is that stream processing isn't begotten of the lake.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,291


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #44 on: April 27, 2011, 12:50:20 PM »

Papist-
Thank you for your clarification. Though we don't see eye to eye (to me dropping the filioque must coincide with dropping that dogma, otherwise it seems sneaky to me since the issue in itself is that Latin's believe it) I appreciate you taking your time.
I guess I don't understand why you come to the conclusion that it is dropping the dogma. Can you help me understand?

Sorry, let me recount.
I understand that to you, it is perfectly fine to drop the Filioque from the Creed while still retaining your belief in the Filioque. Yes?
All I'm saying is: I'm under the assumption that EO's (including myself) would have a problem with the content of the Filioque. So Latin's simply dropping it from the Creed doesn't quell fears that they still believe it.

Confused yet? haha
Oh, I don't suspect that it would quell all EO fears, but I think it would quell the fears of some. Do you have a problem with the formulations "who proceed from the Father, through the Son"?

I've never come into any contact with Orthodox material that says the Spirit must pass through the Son first, so yes. To me that subjugates the Spirit under the Father and the Son which I don't believe is the case. Any despriction of God can be applied to the Godhead as a whole, or to one of the parts but not the others.   
So by that logic, are the Son and the Holy Spirit then somehow less than the Father?

How so? It is an aspect that can be attributed to Him (the Father) solely, but the Son and Spirit still have aspects that can be attributed to them solely so it all comes out in the wash. They all have perfect wills that bend to and work in synergy with eachother. All are equal is their God-ness.

It just seems that if you think that the Son participating in the Spiration of the Holy Spirit would make the Holy Spirit less than the Son, then the concept that the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father would make them less than the Father. You don't see the inconsistency in your reasoning?

The Spirit proceeding from one of the Holy Persons doesn't in itself subjugate it. That comes when you give an attribute to two of the persons yet not to all three of them. Attributes are either three or one; any description can be applied to the Godhead as a whole, or to one of the parts but not the others. But the Fillioque seems to throw the equilibrium of that off.
Again I will state that I have no short of authority on this or honestly any other issue. The point of our discussion here is to challenge and make eachother think which is why I participate; because I'm open to the fact I'm wrong.

I did not mean to imply that there are three separate wills. It was a poor choice of words to try and describe what's in my mind. Thank you for the vote of confidence though, elijahmaria.
So it's a numbers game? If some one  proceeds from two persons, then that person is less. However, if two proceed from one, those two are not less? Hmmm. Seems like an arbitrary criteria to me.

You know it's not about that numbers, that was just a way to explain it. Can you provide an example of any other attribute being given to just two persons?
Yes. Being caused. Only the Father is the uncaused source.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   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 0.241 seconds with 71 queries.