OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 20, 2014, 06:14:19 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Creed and our witness  (Read 6958 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« 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
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


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
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


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
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


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
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


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
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


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: 37,960



« 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: 37,960



« 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: 6,144



« 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
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


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
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


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
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


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
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


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
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


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: 37,960



« 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
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


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: 37,960



« 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
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


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: 37,960



« 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
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


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: 37,960



« 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: 37,960



« 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: 5,968


When in doubt, 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: 37,960



« 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
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


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 .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #45 on: April 27, 2011, 12:50:46 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.
It's an analogy Izzy.And there is a sense in which the stream is begotten of the lake.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2011, 12:51:06 PM by Papist » Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #46 on: April 27, 2011, 12:53:50 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".

But, in much the same way, we also speak of the Holy Spirit as "the Third Person of the Trinity".
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #47 on: April 27, 2011, 01:26:45 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.
It's an analogy Izzy.And there is a sense in which the stream is begotten of the lake.
Not the One Which is processing, papist.
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: 37,960



« Reply #48 on: April 27, 2011, 01:28:56 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.

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.
And you make the Spirit the caused caused.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2011, 01:30:07 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
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #49 on: April 27, 2011, 01:35:36 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.

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.
And you make the Spirit the caused caused.
So?
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #50 on: April 27, 2011, 01:36:09 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.
It's an analogy Izzy.And there is a sense in which the stream is begotten of the lake.
Not the One Which is processing, papist.
Izzy, so? Again, Izzy, it's an analogy, not a perfect one, but it gets the point across about how from and through can mean the same thing.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2011, 01:37:04 PM by Papist » 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: 37,960



« Reply #51 on: April 27, 2011, 01:40:16 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.
It's an analogy Izzy.And there is a sense in which the stream is begotten of the lake.
Not the One Which is processing, papist.
Izzy, so? Again, Izzy, it's an analogy, not a perfect one, but it gets the point across about how from and through can mean the same thing.
But they don't, so it's a false analogy.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #52 on: April 27, 2011, 01:40:38 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.
It's an analogy Izzy.And there is a sense in which the stream is begotten of the lake.
Not the One Which is processing, papist.
Izzy, so? Again, Izzy, it's an analogy, not a perfect one, but it gets the point across about how from and through can mean the same thing.

Look at how many empty posts have been added to this thread.  The real meat of the message is way behind and now lost.  Every time it comes close to having some people "see" what the Catholic Church really teaches...."Guess Who"...pops in for a bit of fun and you always take the bait....

Best to stick with the lesson and when the King of Rabbit Trails comes by...drop the thread and do something else.
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: 37,960



« Reply #53 on: April 27, 2011, 01:47:36 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?

Christus resurrexit!
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.
And you make the Spirit the caused caused.
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
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: 37,960



« Reply #54 on: April 27, 2011, 01:48:35 PM »

Christos Voskrese!
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.
It's an analogy Izzy.And there is a sense in which the stream is begotten of the lake.
Not the One Which is processing, papist.
Izzy, so? Again, Izzy, it's an analogy, not a perfect one, but it gets the point across about how from and through can mean the same thing.

Look at how many empty posts have been added to this thread.  The real meat of the message is way behind and now lost.  Every time it comes close to having some people "see" what the Catholic Church really teaches...."Guess Who"...pops in for a bit of fun and you always take the bait....

Best to stick with the lesson and when the King of Rabbit Trails comes by...drop the thread and do something else.
Just clearing muddied waters.
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
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #55 on: April 27, 2011, 02:24:07 PM »

Christos Voskrese!
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.
It's an analogy Izzy.And there is a sense in which the stream is begotten of the lake.
Not the One Which is processing, papist.
Izzy, so? Again, Izzy, it's an analogy, not a perfect one, but it gets the point across about how from and through can mean the same thing.

Look at how many empty posts have been added to this thread.  The real meat of the message is way behind and now lost.  Every time it comes close to having some people "see" what the Catholic Church really teaches...."Guess Who"...pops in for a bit of fun and you always take the bait....

Best to stick with the lesson and when the King of Rabbit Trails comes by...drop the thread and do something else.
Just clearing muddied waters.
Haha! 99.93126754329888% of your posts muddy the waters.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #56 on: April 27, 2011, 02:24:32 PM »

We Latins agree with St. John of Damascus:
"I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word [the Son] coming from himself and, through his Word, the Spirit issuing from him" (St. John of Damascus, Dialogue Against the Manicheans 5 [A.D. 728]).

« Last Edit: April 27, 2011, 02:25:17 PM by Papist » 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 #57 on: April 27, 2011, 05:30:07 PM »

Papist & elijahmaria- I apologize for not responding sooner. It has been one of those days at work and in life that has captured my mind. I will take you both at your word. I'm at the point today where I don't remember my previous train of thought and this thread has died to me (not in a negative sense). Somehow I'm thinking my opinion doesn't carry much weight in RC and EO reunion talk anyway 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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #58 on: April 27, 2011, 06:00:34 PM »

Papist & elijahmaria- I apologize for not responding sooner. It has been one of those days at work and in life that has captured my mind. I will take you both at your word. I'm at the point today where I don't remember my previous train of thought and this thread has died to me (not in a negative sense). Somehow I'm thinking my opinion doesn't carry much weight in RC and EO reunion talk anyway haha.

Might carry far more than you realize today.

Forgive me if I pound too hard on a thing.  It may make it feel as though I pound on the person!!...That is not my intention.

I think you hold up better than most under fire and I admire that deeply.

Please do not stop interacting with us and I'll try to be less didactic in my manner...well...I'll try anyway...Feel free to ask and we will do our best to answer.  It's better than wandering around in the dark and you help me as well to understand how many Orthodox perceive us...without any rancor but only with respect to your perspective on how we see the Truth.

Christ is Risen!!
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 618


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


« Reply #59 on: April 27, 2011, 06:33:07 PM »

Papist & elijahmaria- I apologize for not responding sooner. It has been one of those days at work and in life that has captured my mind. I will take you both at your word. I'm at the point today where I don't remember my previous train of thought and this thread has died to me (not in a negative sense). Somehow I'm thinking my opinion doesn't carry much weight in RC and EO reunion talk anyway haha.

Might carry far more than you realize today.

Forgive me if I pound too hard on a thing.  It may make it feel as though I pound on the person!!...That is not my intention.

I think you hold up better than most under fire and I admire that deeply.

Please do not stop interacting with us and I'll try to be less didactic in my manner...well...I'll try anyway...Feel free to ask and we will do our best to answer.  It's better than wandering around in the dark and you help me as well to understand how many Orthodox perceive us...without any rancor but only with respect to your perspective on how we see the Truth.

Christ is Risen!!

There is surely a difference between a loving pounding because one cares, and a pounding because one cares little. I know which side of that you are on  Smiley
And I will agree that many, Orthodox or not, view the RC with some heavy disposistions whether warranted or not. Hopfully we will remember to see others as Christ sees them. No worries, these conversations won't be going away.

Truly He is risen indeed!
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 #60 on: April 27, 2011, 06:41:43 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

I am surprised that this did not get more response...

I will ask what you mean by "order"...
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #61 on: April 27, 2011, 08:27:39 PM »

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.
And you make the Spirit the caused caused.

One has to wonder, ialmisry, if you're changing the subject because you don't have a good response to Papist's point. :chinscratch:
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
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 #62 on: April 27, 2011, 09:22:15 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
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.

Christ is Risen!
Thanks Papist that helps!
Logged

All my hope I place in you, O Mother of God, keep me under your protection!
vasily
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox church in america
Posts: 189



« Reply #63 on: June 25, 2011, 09:44:45 AM »

Glory to Jesus Christ,

 I have read all the threads pertaining to this topic, the Creed. The Creed I recite states,"Who proceeds from the Father." Where did the statement, 'the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son", come from? Via my research some sites state that this was in the Creed via the Seventh Ecumenical Council in Niceae 787 AD. Is this correct?

 The filioque addition,'from the Son", changes the theology of the Trinity and confuses the mission with the procession. Is "through the Son" acceptable in Orthodox theology?
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #64 on: June 25, 2011, 10:48:35 AM »

Glory to Jesus Christ,

 I have read all the threads pertaining to this topic, the Creed. The Creed I recite states,"Who proceeds from the Father." Where did the statement, 'the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son", come from?

It can be found in theological writings from early curch fathers. 

Quote
Via my research some sites state that this was in the Creed via the Seventh Ecumenical Council in Niceae 787 AD. Is this correct?

I have found the same thing, but only from Roman Catholic sources. I tihnk if the council had really added it, there would be much more information on it out there from multiple souces, and could be possibly found if not recited then in written form somewhere in Orthodox tradition.

Quote
The filioque addition,'from the Son", changes the theology of the Trinity and confuses the mission with the procession.

It gives a characteristic belonging only to the Father to the Son when used in the context of the creed.

Quote
Is "through the Son" acceptable in Orthodox theology?

Yes.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #65 on: June 25, 2011, 03:10:04 PM »

St. Maximus the Confessor examined this same tired arguement in the early seventh century, yet the horse (now turned ice cream) is still being beaten.

Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus - on the Filioque
Quote
he following is St Maximus' Letter to Marinus as found in Migne, PG 91:136.

Those of the Queen of Cities [Constantinople] have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology [of the Trinity] and according to this, says 'the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.'

The other deals with the divine incarnation. With regard to the first matter, they [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit -- they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession -- but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence.

They [the Romans] have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong the accuse them, whereas the former [the Byzantines] have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them [Monothelitism].

In accordance with your request I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them (the 'also from the Son') in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending [the synodal letters] has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to doing this. It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot do.
http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/patristictexts/185-maximus-to-marinus

The Roman Catholic bishop, Cardinal Avery Dulles, also what the Roman Catholic theological understanding of the filioque is to the Roman Catholic Church.

From the paper "The Filioque:  What Is at Stake?"
Quote
...Just as the Holy Spirit is at work in the incarnation of the Son, so the Son is present  in the indwelling of the Spirit.  In some Eastern theologies one gets the impression that an independent sphere of action is being allotted to the Spirit. This tenet would compromise the unity of the godhead  and the universal efficacy of  Christ's  redemptive mediation.  The  filioque  must  also  be compared  with  the other  Eastern  formula, that the Spirit proceeds  from the Father through the Son.

Here a more nuanced judgment  is required. The  formulas using  "and"  and  "through"  may  be  seen  not  as  contradictory  but  as  complementary. Approaching  the  same  mystery from  different  points of  view,  both  formulas fall  short  of  encompassing the  full  reality that is intended. In the seventh century, as mentioned above,  the  Byzantine  monk  Maximus the Confessor maintained  that  the  filioque  was  a legitimate variation  of  the doctrine that the  Spirit  proceeds from the Father through the Son. Thomas Aquinas, in the  thirteenth century, maintained that the expression "through the Son" was orthodox and did not contradict what he himself understood by the filioque  (S.T.,  1.36.3).  The Council of  Florence, as we  have seen, admitted the legitimacy of both  formulas.

Some prefer the formulation using "through" because they  think that  it  better preserves  the  so-called "monarchy"  of  the Father-namely,  the fact that the Father is the fontal source of all divinity.  Augustine, while prefemng the filioque, concedes that the Spirit proceeds  "principally" (principaliter) from the Father, in the sense that the Father alone is the underived source (principium sine principio),  whereas  the  Son  is  the  derived  source  (principium principatum).15

Yet the expression "from the Father through the Son" labors under one  major difficulty.  It gives the  impression that the  Spirit  is differently related to the Father and to the Son, as though the Father were only a remote rather than an immediate source. The "through" can easily be understood as though the Son were a mere instrument used by the Father, somewhat as a person might speak by means of a microphone. Thomas points out that the Son does not receive the capacity  to  spirate  as  a  superadded power,  but  as  a  power that pertains to  Him  by  His  very being  as Son.  The  Spirit, therefore, proceeds immediately and equally from both Father and Son (S.T., 1.36.3, ad  2).  The filioque formula indicates more clearly that the Father and the Son have the same identical relationship to the Spirit. If this case were not  so, the Son would not  be one with the Father in all things except in being Son
http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/dullesthefilioque.pdf

St Thomas Aquinas' Summa 1.36.3 for reference.
http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FP/FP036.html#FPQ36A3THEP1
Logged


I'm going to need this.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #66 on: June 25, 2011, 03:16:27 PM »

Very nicely done!!   Smiley

St. Maximus the Confessor examined this same tired arguement in the early seventh century, yet the horse (now turned ice cream) is still being beaten.

Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus - on the Filioque
Quote
he following is St Maximus' Letter to Marinus as found in Migne, PG 91:136.

Those of the Queen of Cities [Constantinople] have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology [of the Trinity] and according to this, says 'the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.'

The other deals with the divine incarnation. With regard to the first matter, they [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit -- they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession -- but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence.

They [the Romans] have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong the accuse them, whereas the former [the Byzantines] have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them [Monothelitism].

In accordance with your request I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them (the 'also from the Son') in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending [the synodal letters] has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to doing this. It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot do.
http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/patristictexts/185-maximus-to-marinus

The Roman Catholic bishop, Cardinal Avery Dulles, also what the Roman Catholic theological understanding of the filioque is to the Roman Catholic Church.

From the paper "The Filioque:  What Is at Stake?"
Quote
...Just as the Holy Spirit is at work in the incarnation of the Son, so the Son is present  in the indwelling of the Spirit.  In some Eastern theologies one gets the impression that an independent sphere of action is being allotted to the Spirit. This tenet would compromise the unity of the godhead  and the universal efficacy of  Christ's  redemptive mediation.  The  filioque  must  also  be compared  with  the other  Eastern  formula, that the Spirit proceeds  from the Father through the Son.

Here a more nuanced judgment  is required. The  formulas using  "and"  and  "through"  may  be  seen  not  as  contradictory  but  as  complementary. Approaching  the  same  mystery from  different  points of  view,  both  formulas fall  short  of  encompassing the  full  reality that is intended. In the seventh century, as mentioned above,  the  Byzantine  monk  Maximus the Confessor maintained  that  the  filioque  was  a legitimate variation  of  the doctrine that the  Spirit  proceeds from the Father through the Son. Thomas Aquinas, in the  thirteenth century, maintained that the expression "through the Son" was orthodox and did not contradict what he himself understood by the filioque  (S.T.,  1.36.3).  The Council of  Florence, as we  have seen, admitted the legitimacy of both  formulas.

Some prefer the formulation using "through" because they  think that  it  better preserves  the  so-called "monarchy"  of  the Father-namely,  the fact that the Father is the fontal source of all divinity.  Augustine, while prefemng the filioque, concedes that the Spirit proceeds  "principally" (principaliter) from the Father, in the sense that the Father alone is the underived source (principium sine principio),  whereas  the  Son  is  the  derived  source  (principium principatum).15

Yet the expression "from the Father through the Son" labors under one  major difficulty.  It gives the  impression that the  Spirit  is differently related to the Father and to the Son, as though the Father were only a remote rather than an immediate source. The "through" can easily be understood as though the Son were a mere instrument used by the Father, somewhat as a person might speak by means of a microphone. Thomas points out that the Son does not receive the capacity  to  spirate  as  a  superadded power,  but  as  a  power that pertains to  Him  by  His  very being  as Son.  The  Spirit, therefore, proceeds immediately and equally from both Father and Son (S.T., 1.36.3, ad  2).  The filioque formula indicates more clearly that the Father and the Son have the same identical relationship to the Spirit. If this case were not  so, the Son would not  be one with the Father in all things except in being Son
http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/dullesthefilioque.pdf

St Thomas Aquinas' Summa 1.36.3 for reference.
http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FP/FP036.html#FPQ36A3THEP1
Logged

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

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


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #67 on: June 26, 2011, 06:03:07 AM »

St. Maximus the Confessor examined this same tired arguement in the early seventh century, yet the horse (now turned ice cream) is still being beaten.

Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus - on the Filioque  . . .
I prefer to quote St. Maximos' letter with the Greek technical terms included, because they help to clarify his meaning.  That said, here is a post that I wrote that includes the pertinent quotation with the important Greek theological terms included:



St. Maximos the Confessor, Letter to Marinus

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

I will never shift from the position espoused by St. Maximos the Confessor, and he said that the Son is not the cause of the Holy Spirit, because in truth the Father alone is cause of the Son and Spirit, the former by γέννησιν and the latter by ἐκπόρευσιν.  Procession [ἐκπόρευσιν] is a causal reality, while progression [προϊέναι] is not.



The Roman Catholic bishop, Cardinal Avery Dulles, also what the Roman Catholic theological understanding of the filioque is to the Roman Catholic Church.

From the paper "The Filioque:  What Is at Stake?"  . . .
Fr. Dulles, who was a Cardinal but not a bishop, has said quite a lot in the long quotation that you provided, but he has not actually addressed the real point of the Eastern criticism in connection with the medieval theory of the filioque.  To put it succinctly, the East rejects any notion that the procession (ἐκπορεύσθαι) of origin of the Spirit can come from or through the Son, while simultaneously accepting the idea that the Spirit's progression (προϊέναι), which is not a causal reality, comes from the Father through the Son.

Sadly the West tends to promote the idea that these two distinct theological realities (i.e., the procession [ἐκπορεύσθαι] of origin of the Spirit from the Father alone and the manifesting progression [προϊέναι] of the Spirit from the Father through the Son) are one and the same thing.  Finally, as far as the Council of Florence is concerned, it confused the Spirit's procession (ἐκπορεύσθαι) of origin with His manifestation (φανέρωσις), and that is why the union achieved at that council failed to last more than a few years.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 06:11:51 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

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

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

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


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #68 on: June 26, 2011, 06:10:35 AM »

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).
I agree.  It would be a very powerful witness if the Catholic and Orthodox Churches together always professed the original version of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.  Perhaps someday that will be the case.
Logged

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

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

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


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #69 on: June 26, 2011, 07:02:29 AM »

I still believe that the proposed text of Gennadios Scholarios at the Council of Florence could be used as a starting point for an agreed statement between the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches:

"We Greeks confess and believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from the Father, is proper to the Son and gushes forth (άναβλυζειν) from Him, and we affirm and believe that He flows forth (προχείσθαι) essentially from both, namely from the Father through the Son."
Logged

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

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,009


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #70 on: June 26, 2011, 07:45:18 AM »

I do too. That sounds like an excellent summary.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #71 on: June 26, 2011, 08:17:38 AM »

The Roman Catholic bishop, Cardinal Avery Dulles, also what the Roman Catholic theological understanding of the filioque is to the Roman Catholic Church.

From the paper "The Filioque:  What Is at Stake?"

I don't think it should be any surprise that different Catholics have different approaches to the filioque issue.

I've read Cardinal Dulles' paper. I won't get too deeply into in this post; I'll just say that I think it's important to also consider other Catholic statements about the filioque. For example, the Vatican's clarification on the filioque, "The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #72 on: June 26, 2011, 10:04:19 AM »

I prefer to quote St. Maximos' letter with the Greek technical terms included, because they help to clarify his meaning.  That said, here is a post that I wrote that includes the pertinent quotation with the important Greek theological terms included:

Ok...

Fr. Dulles, who was a Cardinal but not a bishop, has said quite a lot in the long quotation that you provided, but he has not actually addressed the real point of the Eastern criticism in connection with the medieval theory of the filioque.  To put it succinctly, the East rejects any notion that the procession (ἐκπορεύσθαι) of origin of the Spirit can come from or through the Son, while simultaneously accepting the idea that the Spirit's progression (προϊέναι), which is not a causal reality, comes from the Father through the Son.

Sadly the West tends to promote the idea that these two distinct theological realities (i.e., the procession [ἐκπορεύσθαι] of origin of the Spirit from the Father alone and the manifesting progression [προϊέναι] of the Spirit from the Father through the Son) are one and the same thing.  Finally, as far as the Council of Florence is concerned, it confused the Spirit's procession (ἐκπορεύσθαι) of origin with His manifestation (φανέρωσις), and that is why the union achieved at that council failed to last more than a few years.

If you didn't feel you got the answer you needed from the quote provided, I left a source for the whole article. However, I'm surprised at your insistence to still push the differences even though they clearly express the same theology. Your preference of Greek supplements has no hold on a Latin Catholic priest. Neverthethess, in his multiple words on the subject in English, did you find error in what he says.
Logged


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

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


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #73 on: June 26, 2011, 04:45:04 PM »

Azurestone,

Fr. Dulles presents the history of the medieval filioque theory fairly accurately, but alas what he never does in the article is to take into account the distinction between procession (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) and manifestation (φανέρωσις), which is why he never really addresses the criticism of the Eastern Church against the scholastic form of the filioque.  That said, what he describes - somewhat disparagingly - as the "first Eastern alternative" to the filioque in the section of the article entitled "The Stakes" as the monopatrist view is in fact the faith of the ancient Orthodox Church, because the Greek Fathers, and it is important to remember that the Greek language is the language of the New Testament revelation of God, taught that the procession (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) of origin of the Spirit is only from the Father; while the Spirit's manifestation (φανέρωσις), i.e., what Gennadios Scholarsios called His gushing forth (άναβλυζειν), which must not to be confused with the existential origin of the Spirit, is from the Father through the Son.  Now it would have been nice to see this theological distinction (i.e., the distinction between ἐκπορεύεσθαι and προϊέναι) made by Fr. Dulles, but alas he never addresses the actual doctrine of the East concerning the Spirit's procession (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) of origin and His manifestation (φανέρωσις), nor does he ever address the fact that the East restricts causality within the Godhead to the Father alone as monarch and font of divinity, for as St. Gregory of Nazianzus said:  ". . . all that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."  So after failing to ever really address the Eastern criticism of the medieval filioque theory Fr. Dulles next goes on to say that the so-called monopatrist position divides the economic Trinity from the immanent Trinity, but that accusation is simply false, because believing that there is a real distinction (πραγματικά διάκρισις) within God between economia and theologia does not necessitate positing a real division (πραγματική διαίρεσις) in God.  Now clearly for the Scholastics this theological distinction was a problem, but that was because they accepted the dialectical approach of Aristotle, which ended up reducing the hypostatic properties of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to mere relations of opposition within the divine essence.  But that late medieval Western theory was never accepted as legitimate by the Eastern Fathers, for whom there could be no opposition (διαλεκτικη or διάστημα) within the Godhead.  Now with that out of the way, the third so-called "weakness" - to use Fr. Dulles' own phrasing - with the monopatrist position is that it becomes "hard to see how the Son and Spirit differ," but this is also a false dilemma, because the distinction between the Son and Spirit is affirmed by simply recognizing - as St. Maximos did in his letter to Marinus - that the Son takes His origin from the Father alone by γέννησιν while the Spirit receives His origin - again from the Father alone - by ἐκπόρευσιν (see also St. John Damascene, De Fide Orthodoxa, Chapter 8; and St. Gregory Nazianzus, Oration 31:8).  Finally, at least as it concerns Fr. Dulles' assessment of monopatrist, he says that this focus upon the Father alone as cause, which by the way is the faith of the Orthodox Fathers, runs the risk of making the Son and Spirit "independent" agents within the Godhead, but there is no truth to this accusation either, because the Eastern Fathers always taught that the divine activity (ἐνέργεια) is one and simple within the Godhead flowing forth from the Father, through the Son, and in the Spirit, both temporally and eternally.  In fact ultimately, the monarchy of the Father can only truly be affirmed if one holds that the Father alone eternally gives hypostatic existence to the other two persons of the Trinity, and that is why the Greek bishops at Florence proposed using St. Maximos' letter to Marinus as the decree of union on the issue of the filioque; but sadly their proposal - and the proposal presented by Gennadios Scholarios that I quoted above - was rejected by the Latin bishops in favor of what became the official Florentine decree, a decree that affirms causality to the Son in the existential origin of the Spirit's subsistence, and which confuses the Spirit's procession (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) with His progression (προϊέναι).

I will, when time permits, address the next point brought up by Fr. Dulles in his article, i.e., the Western attempts to equate the medieval theory of the filioque with the "per filium," and I will explain why these attempts will always - from an Eastern Christian perspective - fail.

God grant you many years,
Todd

P.S. - What Fr. Dulles calls "monopatrism," I call the "monarchy" of God the Father.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 05:11:45 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

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

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
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: 37,960



« Reply #74 on: June 26, 2011, 04:58:04 PM »

I still believe that the proposed text of Gennadios Scholarios at the Council of Florence could be used as a starting point for an agreed statement between the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches:

"We Greeks confess and believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from the Father, is proper to the Son and gushes forth (άναβλυζειν) from Him, and we affirm and believe that He flows forth (προχείσθαι) essentially from both, namely from the Father through the Son."
He also made a point that I think is key to our objection to the filioque: the Spirit proceeds from the Person of the Father, not the divine essence.
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
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #75 on: June 26, 2011, 05:07:42 PM »

I still believe that the proposed text of Gennadios Scholarios at the Council of Florence could be used as a starting point for an agreed statement between the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches:

"We Greeks confess and believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from the Father, is proper to the Son and gushes forth (άναβλυζειν) from Him, and we affirm and believe that He flows forth (προχείσθαι) essentially from both, namely from the Father through the Son."
He also made a point that I think is key to our objection to the filioque: the Spirit proceeds from the Person of the Father, not the divine essence.
Correct.  To put it even more precisely:  The Spirit as person proceeds from the person of the Father, and not the divine essence.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 05:14:10 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

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

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

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Portland
Posts: 86



« Reply #76 on: July 04, 2011, 10:44:07 AM »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Greek creed does not the word for "proceed" imply (or mean) "originate"?  The Latin word (procedere) does not come close to meaning that.  I'm not sure if there is a common Latin verb for both proceed and originate, and I'm guessing procedere was used in the pre-Vulgate translations of the Gospel of John (this is assuming the Creed was translated into Latin at the council, I do not know the details).  If have heard rightly, then I see no problem of the Filioque at its literal meaning, for the Spirit does go forth from the Son (not implying origin).

Did similar local councils like the Councils of Toledo take place in the East?  I've been under the impression that they did not.  If not, then we can already see difference between East/West, and then moreso in the view of the Creed.  I've gotten the impression that the East is skeptical of the amount of Arianism in the West at the time of the Councils of Toledo, but if it was as a problem even to the 600s, could adding the Filioque to "combat" be justified?  The addition, if because of Arianism, would seem Roman - formally defining doctrine in the face of opposition.  I wonder how much of an impact it actually had. 

I would not be opposed to removing the Filioque for historical accuracy.  I don't think the theology behind the Filioque would go away.  As far as abolishing what has become Catholic tradition, eh, I'd probably be more in favor of holding onto an older tradition.  Most of the Roman traditions were thrown out the window at VII anyway...sigh.  I can only imagine how sedevacantists and rad-trads would react to the removal of the Filioque...
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #77 on: July 04, 2011, 11:36:41 PM »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Greek creed does not the word for "proceed" imply (or mean) "originate"?  The Latin word (procedere) does not come close to meaning that.  I'm not sure if there is a common Latin verb for both proceed and originate, and I'm guessing procedere was used in the pre-Vulgate translations of the Gospel of John (this is assuming the Creed was translated into Latin at the council, I do not know the details).  If have heard rightly, then I see no problem of the Filioque at its literal meaning, for the Spirit does go forth from the Son (not implying origin).

Did similar local councils like the Councils of Toledo take place in the East?  I've been under the impression that they did not.  If not, then we can already see difference between East/West, and then moreso in the view of the Creed.  I've gotten the impression that the East is skeptical of the amount of Arianism in the West at the time of the Councils of Toledo, but if it was as a problem even to the 600s, could adding the Filioque to "combat" be justified?  The addition, if because of Arianism, would seem Roman - formally defining doctrine in the face of opposition.  I wonder how much of an impact it actually had.  

I would not be opposed to removing the Filioque for historical accuracy.  I don't think the theology behind the Filioque would go away.  As far as abolishing what has become Catholic tradition, eh, I'd probably be more in favor of holding onto an older tradition.  Most of the Roman traditions were thrown out the window at VII anyway...sigh.  I can only imagine how sedevacantists and rad-trads would react to the removal of the Filioque...

Good post Scotty.

I think removing-the-filioque might happen eventually, but the thing is that at this time, any such move would be seen as some sort of "Orthodox victory".
« Last Edit: July 04, 2011, 11:38:48 PM by Peter J » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #78 on: July 04, 2011, 11:42:18 PM »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Greek creed does not the word for "proceed" imply (or mean) "originate"?  The Latin word (procedere) does not come close to meaning that.  I'm not sure if there is a common Latin verb for both proceed and originate, and I'm guessing procedere was used in the pre-Vulgate translations of the Gospel of John (this is assuming the Creed was translated into Latin at the council, I do not know the details).  If have heard rightly, then I see no problem of the Filioque at its literal meaning, for the Spirit does go forth from the Son (not implying origin).

Did similar local councils like the Councils of Toledo take place in the East?  I've been under the impression that they did not.  If not, then we can already see difference between East/West, and then moreso in the view of the Creed.  I've gotten the impression that the East is skeptical of the amount of Arianism in the West at the time of the Councils of Toledo, but if it was as a problem even to the 600s, could adding the Filioque to "combat" be justified?  The addition, if because of Arianism, would seem Roman - formally defining doctrine in the face of opposition.  I wonder how much of an impact it actually had.  

I would not be opposed to removing the Filioque for historical accuracy.  I don't think the theology behind the Filioque would go away.  As far as abolishing what has become Catholic tradition, eh, I'd probably be more in favor of holding onto an older tradition.  Most of the Roman traditions were thrown out the window at VII anyway...sigh.  I can only imagine how sedevacantists and rad-trads would react to the removal of the Filioque...

Good post Scotty.

I think removing-the-filioque might happen eventually, but the thing is that at this time, any such move would be seen as some sort of "Orthodox victory".

You have a very interesting grasp of your Church's understanding of revealed truth.  Someone here said it:  why dump the term if the Church is going to continue to teach the concept and its meaning?

Filioque is now the long tradition of the western Church.  It should remain on those grounds alone.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #79 on: July 05, 2011, 12:11:45 AM »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Greek creed does not the word for "proceed" imply (or mean) "originate"?  The Latin word (procedere) does not come close to meaning that.  I'm not sure if there is a common Latin verb for both proceed and originate, and I'm guessing procedere was used in the pre-Vulgate translations of the Gospel of John (this is assuming the Creed was translated into Latin at the council, I do not know the details).  If have heard rightly, then I see no problem of the Filioque at its literal meaning, for the Spirit does go forth from the Son (not implying origin).

Did similar local councils like the Councils of Toledo take place in the East?  I've been under the impression that they did not.  If not, then we can already see difference between East/West, and then moreso in the view of the Creed.  I've gotten the impression that the East is skeptical of the amount of Arianism in the West at the time of the Councils of Toledo, but if it was as a problem even to the 600s, could adding the Filioque to "combat" be justified?  The addition, if because of Arianism, would seem Roman - formally defining doctrine in the face of opposition.  I wonder how much of an impact it actually had.  

I would not be opposed to removing the Filioque for historical accuracy.  I don't think the theology behind the Filioque would go away.  As far as abolishing what has become Catholic tradition, eh, I'd probably be more in favor of holding onto an older tradition.  Most of the Roman traditions were thrown out the window at VII anyway...sigh.  I can only imagine how sedevacantists and rad-trads would react to the removal of the Filioque...

Good post Scotty.

I think removing-the-filioque might happen eventually, but the thing is that at this time, any such move would be seen as some sort of "Orthodox victory".

You have a very interesting grasp of your Church's understanding of revealed truth. 

Please explain.

Someone here said it:  why dump the term if the Church is going to continue to teach the concept and its meaning?

That the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son is a dogma and is not going to change. The only question, to my mind, is whether we will continue to say so in the Creed or not.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #80 on: July 05, 2011, 12:16:38 AM »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Greek creed does not the word for "proceed" imply (or mean) "originate"?  The Latin word (procedere) does not come close to meaning that.  I'm not sure if there is a common Latin verb for both proceed and originate, and I'm guessing procedere was used in the pre-Vulgate translations of the Gospel of John (this is assuming the Creed was translated into Latin at the council, I do not know the details).  If have heard rightly, then I see no problem of the Filioque at its literal meaning, for the Spirit does go forth from the Son (not implying origin).

Did similar local councils like the Councils of Toledo take place in the East?  I've been under the impression that they did not.  If not, then we can already see difference between East/West, and then moreso in the view of the Creed.  I've gotten the impression that the East is skeptical of the amount of Arianism in the West at the time of the Councils of Toledo, but if it was as a problem even to the 600s, could adding the Filioque to "combat" be justified?  The addition, if because of Arianism, would seem Roman - formally defining doctrine in the face of opposition.  I wonder how much of an impact it actually had.  

I would not be opposed to removing the Filioque for historical accuracy.  I don't think the theology behind the Filioque would go away.  As far as abolishing what has become Catholic tradition, eh, I'd probably be more in favor of holding onto an older tradition.  Most of the Roman traditions were thrown out the window at VII anyway...sigh.  I can only imagine how sedevacantists and rad-trads would react to the removal of the Filioque...

Good post Scotty.

I think removing-the-filioque might happen eventually, but the thing is that at this time, any such move would be seen as some sort of "Orthodox victory".

You have a very interesting grasp of your Church's understanding of revealed truth. 

Please explain.

Someone here said it:  why dump the term if the Church is going to continue to teach the concept and its meaning?

That the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son is a dogma and is not going to change. The only question, to my mind, is whether we will continue to say so in the Creed or not.

If you are going to continually believe it, you might as well say it. Of course, we'll pass.
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: 37,960



« Reply #81 on: July 05, 2011, 12:18:19 AM »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Greek creed does not the word for "proceed" imply (or mean) "originate"?  The Latin word (procedere) does not come close to meaning that.  I'm not sure if there is a common Latin verb for both proceed and originate, and I'm guessing procedere was used in the pre-Vulgate translations of the Gospel of John (this is assuming the Creed was translated into Latin at the council, I do not know the details).  If have heard rightly, then I see no problem of the Filioque at its literal meaning, for the Spirit does go forth from the Son (not implying origin).

Did similar local councils like the Councils of Toledo take place in the East?  I've been under the impression that they did not.  If not, then we can already see difference between East/West, and then moreso in the view of the Creed.  I've gotten the impression that the East is skeptical of the amount of Arianism in the West at the time of the Councils of Toledo, but if it was as a problem even to the 600s, could adding the Filioque to "combat" be justified?  The addition, if because of Arianism, would seem Roman - formally defining doctrine in the face of opposition.  I wonder how much of an impact it actually had.  

I would not be opposed to removing the Filioque for historical accuracy.  I don't think the theology behind the Filioque would go away.  As far as abolishing what has become Catholic tradition, eh, I'd probably be more in favor of holding onto an older tradition.  Most of the Roman traditions were thrown out the window at VII anyway...sigh.  I can only imagine how sedevacantists and rad-trads would react to the removal of the Filioque...

Good post Scotty.

I think removing-the-filioque might happen eventually, but the thing is that at this time, any such move would be seen as some sort of "Orthodox victory".

You have a very interesting grasp of your Church's understanding of revealed truth.  Someone here said it:  why dump the term if the Church is going to continue to teach the concept and its meaning?

Filioque is now the long tradition of the western Church.  It should remain on those grounds alone.

Long heresy doesn't change the eternal Truth.  I know that with your dogma of "development of doctrine," that's a hard concept to grasp.
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: 6,144



« Reply #82 on: July 05, 2011, 09:23:35 AM »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Greek creed does not the word for "proceed" imply (or mean) "originate"?  The Latin word (procedere) does not come close to meaning that.  I'm not sure if there is a common Latin verb for both proceed and originate, and I'm guessing procedere was used in the pre-Vulgate translations of the Gospel of John (this is assuming the Creed was translated into Latin at the council, I do not know the details).  If have heard rightly, then I see no problem of the Filioque at its literal meaning, for the Spirit does go forth from the Son (not implying origin).

Did similar local councils like the Councils of Toledo take place in the East?  I've been under the impression that they did not.  If not, then we can already see difference between East/West, and then moreso in the view of the Creed.  I've gotten the impression that the East is skeptical of the amount of Arianism in the West at the time of the Councils of Toledo, but if it was as a problem even to the 600s, could adding the Filioque to "combat" be justified?  The addition, if because of Arianism, would seem Roman - formally defining doctrine in the face of opposition.  I wonder how much of an impact it actually had.  

I would not be opposed to removing the Filioque for historical accuracy.  I don't think the theology behind the Filioque would go away.  As far as abolishing what has become Catholic tradition, eh, I'd probably be more in favor of holding onto an older tradition.  Most of the Roman traditions were thrown out the window at VII anyway...sigh.  I can only imagine how sedevacantists and rad-trads would react to the removal of the Filioque...

Good post Scotty.

I think removing-the-filioque might happen eventually, but the thing is that at this time, any such move would be seen as some sort of "Orthodox victory".

You have a very interesting grasp of your Church's understanding of revealed truth. 

Please explain.

Someone here said it:  why dump the term if the Church is going to continue to teach the concept and its meaning?

That the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son is a dogma and is not going to change. The only question, to my mind, is whether we will continue to say so in the Creed or not.

If you are going to continually believe it, you might as well say it.

1. Yes, we are going to continually believe it and 2. yes we are going to say it.

If you mean, say it in the Creed, then I have to say that that doesn't necessarily follow. You should really read our creedal text. You'll be surprised (shocked, I should say, judging by what you've said on this thread) by what's not said in it, e.g. that Mary is Immaculately Conceived.

Quote from: Creed in English as of November 27, 2011
    I believe in one God,
    the Father almighty,
    maker of heaven and earth,
    of all things visible and invisible.

    I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
    the Only Begotten Son of God,
    born of the Father before all ages.
    God from God, Light from Light,
    true God from true God,
    begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
    through him all things were made.
    For us men and for our salvation
    he came down from heaven,
    and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
    and became man.

    For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
    he suffered death and was buried,
    and rose again on the third day
    in accordance with the Scriptures.
    He ascended into heaven
    and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
    He will come again in glory
    to judge the living and the dead
    and his kingdom will have no end.

    I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
    who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
    who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
    who has spoken through the prophets.

    I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
    I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins
    and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
    and the life of the world to come. Amen.


Of course, we'll pass.

Accepting the dogma of the filioque is necessary for full communion with the pope, but since you are in schism you're statement doesn't much surprise me.
Logged

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

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #83 on: July 05, 2011, 01:29:21 PM »

Accepting the dogma of the filioque is necessary for full communion with the pope

I don't think it's as simple as that.

There are two things that need to be affirmed, what filioque means, and what the creed says.

The best solution for the filioque as a doctrine is to clarify Trinitarian beliefs, how they have been traditionally expressed, and the context of how certain words should be understood in theological writings and teaching. I am actually impressed with the effort your church has made on this point in it's document covering this issue.

The best solution (at least in my opinion) for the creed, if "proceeds for the Father" lacks clarity in latin, would be to insert the word "proceeds immediately from the Father" (to use the terminology of your own St Thomas Aquinas), to better convey what the creed itself (the decree of the council) actually says.

Just my opinion.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
katherine 2001
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 889


Eastern Orthodox Church--Established in 33 A.D.


« Reply #84 on: July 05, 2011, 03:15:34 PM »

I don't think the Orthodox will ever negotiate on the Creed.  If the Second Person of the Godhead (Christ) didn't put Himself in the equation for the procession of the Holy Spirit, who are we to make Him part of the equation?  After all, if anyone would know how things work in the Godhead, wouldn't it be one of the members of the Godhead?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #85 on: July 05, 2011, 03:56:22 PM »

I don't think the Orthodox will ever negotiate on the Creed.  If the Second Person of the Godhead (Christ) didn't put Himself in the equation for the procession of the Holy Spirit, who are we to make Him part of the equation?  After all, if anyone would know how things work in the Godhead, wouldn't it be one of the members of the Godhead?

As I noted in an earlier post, maybe even in a different but similar thread..."natural" answers are not always good theological answers.

In this case a natural rebuttal to your claim here is that we cannot say either how things DO NOT work in the Godhead.

But there is much more to what has been revealed and we have to take it as a whole...not in the bits and bites that make us most comfy.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2011, 03:57:11 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,478


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #86 on: July 05, 2011, 04:36:23 PM »

Quote
Quote
Quote
Is "through the Son" acceptable in Orthodox theology?

Yes.

I am quite glad as that really makes sense to me....I often wondered about from the son, because to me that really dosent make that much of a distinction between God the Father and God the Son.

primuspilus

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #87 on: July 06, 2011, 12:16:59 PM »

Quote
Quote
Quote
Is "through the Son" acceptable in Orthodox theology?

Yes.

I am quite glad as that really makes sense to me....I often wondered about from the son, because to me that really dosent make that much of a distinction between God the Father and God the Son.

primuspilus


There is already a distinction between God the Father and God the Son, in that God the Father begets God the Son and God the Son is begotten by God the Father. This is true with or without the filioque.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,478


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #88 on: July 06, 2011, 12:41:26 PM »

Quote
There is already a distinction between God the Father and God the Son, in that God the Father begets God the Son and God the Son is begotten by God the Father. This is true with or without the filioque.

I understand what you're saying, but it just seems to me that the lines become a bit blurry with the "Father AND the Son". An example, in my head, would be when Jesus was baptised and the Spirit came down like a dove and the quote is "This is my son, with whom I am well pleased". How could that be said if the Spirit proceedsa from both? It would be "This is my Son, and me too....."

Please understand, I am not pokin fun, just a bit confusing if the Spirit proceeds from both.

primuspilus
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #89 on: July 06, 2011, 12:53:15 PM »

Quote
There is already a distinction between God the Father and God the Son, in that God the Father begets God the Son and God the Son is begotten by God the Father. This is true with or without the filioque.

I understand what you're saying, but it just seems to me that the lines become a bit blurry with the "Father AND the Son". An example, in my head, would be when Jesus was baptised and the Spirit came down like a dove and the quote is "This is my son, with whom I am well pleased". How could that be said if the Spirit proceedsa from both? It would be "This is my Son, and me too....."

Please understand, I am not pokin fun, just a bit confusing if the Spirit proceeds from both.

primuspilus


It is clear from the Scripture that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son...so with or without filioque you'd have a problem with this pericope.
Logged

primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,478


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #90 on: July 06, 2011, 12:55:27 PM »

Quote
It is clear from the Scripture that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son

Im not sure everyone would agree........

primuspilus
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #91 on: July 06, 2011, 12:58:21 PM »

Quote
It is clear from the Scripture that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son

Im not sure everyone would agree........

primuspilus

Well then it is clear from the Holy Fathers and Scripture.  It's tough not to agree with it at some level.  How much have you been actively involved in this kind of discussion of the Trinity?   I am not challenging you, it simply sounds to me as though you are somewhat new to thinking about the topic in Catholic terms...Orthodox or papal Catholic.

Mary
« Last Edit: July 06, 2011, 12:59:10 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #92 on: July 06, 2011, 01:01:41 PM »

Quote
There is already a distinction between God the Father and God the Son, in that God the Father begets God the Son and God the Son is begotten by God the Father. This is true with or without the filioque.

I understand what you're saying, but it just seems to me that the lines become a bit blurry with the "Father AND the Son". An example, in my head, would be when Jesus was baptised and the Spirit came down like a dove and the quote is "This is my son, with whom I am well pleased". How could that be said if the Spirit proceedsa from both? It would be "This is my Son, and me too....."

Please understand, I am not pokin fun, just a bit confusing if the Spirit proceeds from both.

primuspilus

Why could the Spirit not descend on Jesus if he proceeds from both? In fact, since the procession of the Spirit from the Son, is really a "through" the Son, then he must first proceed from the Father to the Son. What is more, the rejection of the filioque seems to lead a confusion of the perons of the Son and the Spirit.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,478


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #93 on: July 06, 2011, 01:07:02 PM »

Quote
Well then it is clear from the Holy Fathers and Scripture.  It's tough not to agree with it at some level.  How much have you been actively involved in this kind of discussion of the Trinity?   I am not challenging you, it simply sounds to me as though you are somewhat new to thinking about the topic in Catholic terms...Orthodox or papal Catholic.

I am new to it...if I had a cookie to give for guessing right......well...I'd eat it. But I was thinkin of ya Smiley

These are new concepts, and discussing them like this really is helping me out very much.

Quote
In fact, since the procession of the Spirit from the Son, is really a "through" the Son
Again, not attacking, but it seems to me that through and from are 2 separate things. If Someone gives me a letter for someone else, and I deliver it, its not FROM me, but it was delivered through (in a manner of speaking) me.

primuspilus
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #94 on: July 06, 2011, 01:16:58 PM »

Quote
Well then it is clear from the Holy Fathers and Scripture.  It's tough not to agree with it at some level.  How much have you been actively involved in this kind of discussion of the Trinity?   I am not challenging you, it simply sounds to me as though you are somewhat new to thinking about the topic in Catholic terms...Orthodox or papal Catholic.

I am new to it...if I had a cookie to give for guessing right......well...I'd eat it. But I was thinkin of ya Smiley

These are new concepts, and discussing them like this really is helping me out very much.

Quote
In fact, since the procession of the Spirit from the Son, is really a "through" the Son
Again, not attacking, but it seems to me that through and from are 2 separate things. If Someone gives me a letter for someone else, and I deliver it, its not FROM me, but it was delivered through (in a manner of speaking) me.

primuspilus

But they got it from you. There is more than one kind of "from". That being said, I have no problem with "through the Son" being in the creed instead, because it is clearer.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,478


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #95 on: July 06, 2011, 01:23:07 PM »

I really do appreciate you all explaining your stances on this. Makes things a bit clearer Smiley
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #96 on: July 06, 2011, 01:32:14 PM »

I really do appreciate you all explaining your stances on this. Makes things a bit clearer Smiley
Of course. It's nice to have a charitable conversations over our differences.
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: 37,960



« Reply #97 on: July 06, 2011, 01:36:21 PM »

Quote
There is already a distinction between God the Father and God the Son, in that God the Father begets God the Son and God the Son is begotten by God the Father. This is true with or without the filioque.

I understand what you're saying, but it just seems to me that the lines become a bit blurry with the "Father AND the Son". An example, in my head, would be when Jesus was baptised and the Spirit came down like a dove and the quote is "This is my son, with whom I am well pleased". How could that be said if the Spirit proceedsa from both? It would be "This is my Son, and me too....."

Please understand, I am not pokin fun, just a bit confusing if the Spirit proceeds from both.

primuspilus

Why could the Spirit not descend on Jesus if he proceeds from both? In fact, since the procession of the Spirit from the Son, is really a "through" the Son, then he must first proceed from the Father to the Son. What is more, the rejection of the filioque seems to lead a confusion of the perons[sic, Persons?] of the Son and the Spirit.
nonsense.
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: 37,960



« Reply #98 on: July 06, 2011, 01:38:15 PM »

Quote
It is clear from the Scripture that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son

Im not sure everyone would agree........

primuspilus

Well then it is clear from the Holy Fathers and Scripture.  It's tough not to agree with it at some level. 
It has been condemned at the Ecumenical and Pan Orthodox level, as it is clear from the Fathers and Scripture He proceeds from the Father.
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
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #99 on: July 06, 2011, 01:42:14 PM »

Quote
There is already a distinction between God the Father and God the Son, in that God the Father begets God the Son and God the Son is begotten by God the Father. This is true with or without the filioque.

I understand what you're saying, but it just seems to me that the lines become a bit blurry with the "Father AND the Son". An example, in my head, would be when Jesus was baptised and the Spirit came down like a dove and the quote is "This is my son, with whom I am well pleased". How could that be said if the Spirit proceedsa from both? It would be "This is my Son, and me too....."

Please understand, I am not pokin fun, just a bit confusing if the Spirit proceeds from both.

primuspilus

Why could the Spirit not descend on Jesus if he proceeds from both? In fact, since the procession of the Spirit from the Son, is really a "through" the Son, then he must first proceed from the Father to the Son. What is more, the rejection of the filioque seems to lead a confusion of the perons[sic, Persons?] of the Son and the Spirit.
nonsense.
I'm going to start calling you Scott.
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: 37,960



« Reply #100 on: July 06, 2011, 01:44:14 PM »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Greek creed does not the word for "proceed" imply (or mean) "originate"?  The Latin word (procedere) does not come close to meaning that.  I'm not sure if there is a common Latin verb for both proceed and originate, and I'm guessing procedere was used in the pre-Vulgate translations of the Gospel of John (this is assuming the Creed was translated into Latin at the council, I do not know the details).  If have heard rightly, then I see no problem of the Filioque at its literal meaning, for the Spirit does go forth from the Son (not implying origin).

Did similar local councils like the Councils of Toledo take place in the East?  I've been under the impression that they did not.  If not, then we can already see difference between East/West, and then moreso in the view of the Creed.  I've gotten the impression that the East is skeptical of the amount of Arianism in the West at the time of the Councils of Toledo, but if it was as a problem even to the 600s, could adding the Filioque to "combat" be justified?  The addition, if because of Arianism, would seem Roman - formally defining doctrine in the face of opposition.  I wonder how much of an impact it actually had.  

I would not be opposed to removing the Filioque for historical accuracy.  I don't think the theology behind the Filioque would go away.  As far as abolishing what has become Catholic tradition, eh, I'd probably be more in favor of holding onto an older tradition.  Most of the Roman traditions were thrown out the window at VII anyway...sigh.  I can only imagine how sedevacantists and rad-trads would react to the removal of the Filioque...

Good post Scotty.

I think removing-the-filioque might happen eventually, but the thing is that at this time, any such move would be seen as some sort of "Orthodox victory".

You have a very interesting grasp of your Church's understanding of revealed truth. 

Please explain.

Someone here said it:  why dump the term if the Church is going to continue to teach the concept and its meaning?

That the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son is a dogma and is not going to change. The only question, to my mind, is whether we will continue to say so in the Creed or not.

If you are going to continually believe it, you might as well say it.

1. Yes, we are going to continually believe it and 2. yes we are going to say it.

If you mean, say it in the Creed, then I have to say that that doesn't necessarily follow. You should really read our creedal text. You'll be surprised (shocked, I should say, judging by what you've said on this thread) by what's not said in it, e.g. that Mary is Immaculately Conceived.

Quote from: Creed in English as of November 27, 2011
    I believe in one God,
    the Father almighty,
    maker of heaven and earth,
    of all things visible and invisible.

    I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
    the Only Begotten Son of God,
    born of the Father before all ages.
    God from God, Light from Light,
    true God from true God,
    begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
    through him all things were made.
    For us men and for our salvation
    he came down from heaven,
    and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
    and became man.

    For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
    he suffered death and was buried,
    and rose again on the third day
    in accordance with the Scriptures.
    He ascended into heaven
    and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
    He will come again in glory
    to judge the living and the dead
    and his kingdom will have no end.

    I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
    who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
    who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
    who has spoken through the prophets.

    I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
    I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins
    and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
    and the life of the world to come. Amen.
I notice, no one, holy,catholic and apostolic Roman church."

the bold face means you confess heresy. Beyond that, you are free to go as deep into heresy as you like, e.g. the IC.

Of course, we'll pass.

Accepting the dogma of the filioque is necessary for full communion with the pope, but since you are in schism you're statement doesn't much surprise me.
Not sure what full communion with a heretical schismatic as the sovereign of the Vatican City State means.  Of course all Orthodox members of the Catholic Church are in schism from schismatics: that's what makes us Orthodox and Catholic.
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: 37,960



« Reply #101 on: July 06, 2011, 01:46:53 PM »

Quote
There is already a distinction between God the Father and God the Son, in that God the Father begets God the Son and God the Son is begotten by God the Father. This is true with or without the filioque.

I understand what you're saying, but it just seems to me that the lines become a bit blurry with the "Father AND the Son". An example, in my head, would be when Jesus was baptised and the Spirit came down like a dove and the quote is "This is my son, with whom I am well pleased". How could that be said if the Spirit proceedsa from both? It would be "This is my Son, and me too....."

Please understand, I am not pokin fun, just a bit confusing if the Spirit proceeds from both.

primuspilus

Why could the Spirit not descend on Jesus if he proceeds from both? In fact, since the procession of the Spirit from the Son, is really a "through" the Son, then he must first proceed from the Father to the Son. What is more, the rejection of the filioque seems to lead a confusion of the perons[sic, Persons?] of the Son and the Spirit.
nonsense.
I'm going to start calling you Scott.
you blaspheme the Spirit by calling Him processing from the Son, and I'm going to worry about you call me? Roll Eyes (in contrast to your self designation, which is apt enough).
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
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #102 on: July 06, 2011, 01:47:07 PM »

Not sure what full communion with a heretical schismatic as the sovereign of the Vatican City State means.  Of course all Orthodox members of the Catholic Church are in schism from schismatics: that's what makes us Orthodox and Catholic.
Thus verifying that you are, indeed, Scott.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #103 on: July 06, 2011, 01:48:14 PM »

Quote
There is already a distinction between God the Father and God the Son, in that God the Father begets God the Son and God the Son is begotten by God the Father. This is true with or without the filioque.

I understand what you're saying, but it just seems to me that the lines become a bit blurry with the "Father AND the Son". An example, in my head, would be when Jesus was baptised and the Spirit came down like a dove and the quote is "This is my son, with whom I am well pleased". How could that be said if the Spirit proceedsa from both? It would be "This is my Son, and me too....."

Please understand, I am not pokin fun, just a bit confusing if the Spirit proceeds from both.

primuspilus

Why could the Spirit not descend on Jesus if he proceeds from both? In fact, since the procession of the Spirit from the Son, is really a "through" the Son, then he must first proceed from the Father to the Son. What is more, the rejection of the filioque seems to lead a confusion of the perons[sic, Persons?] of the Son and the Spirit.
nonsense.
I'm going to start calling you Scott.
you blaspheme the Spirit by calling Him processing from the Son, and I'm going to worry about you call me? Roll Eyes (in contrast to your self designation, which is apt enough).
Wow, you really think that I am committing the unforgivable sin by professing the Patristic doctrine that the Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father, through the Son? You really are Scott.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #104 on: July 06, 2011, 02:06:31 PM »

Quote
It is clear from the Scripture that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son

Im not sure everyone would agree........

primuspilus

Well then it is clear from the Holy Fathers and Scripture.  It's tough not to agree with it at some level. 
It has been condemned at the Ecumenical and Pan Orthodox level, as it is clear from the Fathers and Scripture He proceeds from the Father.

Your rejection of it has been condemned twice (IIRC) namely at the Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #105 on: July 06, 2011, 02:10:05 PM »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Greek creed does not the word for "proceed" imply (or mean) "originate"?  The Latin word (procedere) does not come close to meaning that.  I'm not sure if there is a common Latin verb for both proceed and originate, and I'm guessing procedere was used in the pre-Vulgate translations of the Gospel of John (this is assuming the Creed was translated into Latin at the council, I do not know the details).  If have heard rightly, then I see no problem of the Filioque at its literal meaning, for the Spirit does go forth from the Son (not implying origin).

Did similar local councils like the Councils of Toledo take place in the East?  I've been under the impression that they did not.  If not, then we can already see difference between East/West, and then moreso in the view of the Creed.  I've gotten the impression that the East is skeptical of the amount of Arianism in the West at the time of the Councils of Toledo, but if it was as a problem even to the 600s, could adding the Filioque to "combat" be justified?  The addition, if because of Arianism, would seem Roman - formally defining doctrine in the face of opposition.  I wonder how much of an impact it actually had.  

I would not be opposed to removing the Filioque for historical accuracy.  I don't think the theology behind the Filioque would go away.  As far as abolishing what has become Catholic tradition, eh, I'd probably be more in favor of holding onto an older tradition.  Most of the Roman traditions were thrown out the window at VII anyway...sigh.  I can only imagine how sedevacantists and rad-trads would react to the removal of the Filioque...

Good post Scotty.

I think removing-the-filioque might happen eventually, but the thing is that at this time, any such move would be seen as some sort of "Orthodox victory".

You have a very interesting grasp of your Church's understanding of revealed truth. 

Please explain.

Someone here said it:  why dump the term if the Church is going to continue to teach the concept and its meaning?

That the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son is a dogma and is not going to change. The only question, to my mind, is whether we will continue to say so in the Creed or not.

If you are going to continually believe it, you might as well say it.

1. Yes, we are going to continually believe it and 2. yes we are going to say it.

If you mean, say it in the Creed, then I have to say that that doesn't necessarily follow. You should really read our creedal text. You'll be surprised (shocked, I should say, judging by what you've said on this thread) by what's not said in it, e.g. that Mary is Immaculately Conceived.

Quote from: Creed in English as of November 27, 2011
    I believe in one God,
    the Father almighty,
    maker of heaven and earth,
    of all things visible and invisible.

    I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
    the Only Begotten Son of God,
    born of the Father before all ages.
    God from God, Light from Light,
    true God from true God,
    begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
    through him all things were made.
    For us men and for our salvation
    he came down from heaven,
    and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
    and became man.

    For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
    he suffered death and was buried,
    and rose again on the third day
    in accordance with the Scriptures.
    He ascended into heaven
    and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
    He will come again in glory
    to judge the living and the dead
    and his kingdom will have no end.

    I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
    who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
    who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
    who has spoken through the prophets.

    I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
    I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins
    and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
    and the life of the world to come. Amen.
I notice, no one, holy,catholic and apostolic Roman church."

the bold face means you confess heresy. Beyond that, you are free to go as deep into heresy as you like, e.g. the IC.

You're too kind.  Wink

Seriously though, I don't think it's very likely that we are going to be inserting the IC (which is a dogma btw) into the Creed. So much for your "If you are going to continually believe it, you might as well say it [in the creed]."
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #106 on: July 06, 2011, 02:15:13 PM »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Greek creed does not the word for "proceed" imply (or mean) "originate"?  The Latin word (procedere) does not come close to meaning that.  I'm not sure if there is a common Latin verb for both proceed and originate, and I'm guessing procedere was used in the pre-Vulgate translations of the Gospel of John (this is assuming the Creed was translated into Latin at the council, I do not know the details).  If have heard rightly, then I see no problem of the Filioque at its literal meaning, for the Spirit does go forth from the Son (not implying origin).

Did similar local councils like the Councils of Toledo take place in the East?  I've been under the impression that they did not.  If not, then we can already see difference between East/West, and then moreso in the view of the Creed.  I've gotten the impression that the East is skeptical of the amount of Arianism in the West at the time of the Councils of Toledo, but if it was as a problem even to the 600s, could adding the Filioque to "combat" be justified?  The addition, if because of Arianism, would seem Roman - formally defining doctrine in the face of opposition.  I wonder how much of an impact it actually had.  

I would not be opposed to removing the Filioque for historical accuracy.  I don't think the theology behind the Filioque would go away.  As far as abolishing what has become Catholic tradition, eh, I'd probably be more in favor of holding onto an older tradition.  Most of the Roman traditions were thrown out the window at VII anyway...sigh.  I can only imagine how sedevacantists and rad-trads would react to the removal of the Filioque...

Good post Scotty.

I think removing-the-filioque might happen eventually, but the thing is that at this time, any such move would be seen as some sort of "Orthodox victory".

You have a very interesting grasp of your Church's understanding of revealed truth. 

Please explain.

Preferably sooner rather than later, if it's convenient for you.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,478


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #107 on: July 06, 2011, 02:18:55 PM »

As I said, not all agree  laugh

primuspilus
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
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: 37,960



« Reply #108 on: July 06, 2011, 02:24:31 PM »

Quote
It is clear from the Scripture that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son

Im not sure everyone would agree........

primuspilus

Well then it is clear from the Holy Fathers and Scripture.  It's tough not to agree with it at some level. 
It has been condemned at the Ecumenical and Pan Orthodox level, as it is clear from the Fathers and Scripture He proceeds from the Father.

Your rejection of it has been condemned twice (IIRC) namely at the Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence.
What robber councils of schismatics and heretics do doesn't concern the Orthodox Councils of the Catholic Church.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
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: 37,960



« Reply #109 on: July 06, 2011, 02:25:51 PM »

Quote
There is already a distinction between God the Father and God the Son, in that God the Father begets God the Son and God the Son is begotten by God the Father. This is true with or without the filioque.

I understand what you're saying, but it just seems to me that the lines become a bit blurry with the "Father AND the Son". An example, in my head, would be when Jesus was baptised and the Spirit came down like a dove and the quote is "This is my son, with whom I am well pleased". How could that be said if the Spirit proceedsa from both? It would be "This is my Son, and me too....."

Please understand, I am not pokin fun, just a bit confusing if the Spirit proceeds from both.

primuspilus

Why could the Spirit not descend on Jesus if he proceeds from both? In fact, since the procession of the Spirit from the Son, is really a "through" the Son, then he must first proceed from the Father to the Son. What is more, the rejection of the filioque seems to lead a confusion of the perons[sic, Persons?] of the Son and the Spirit.
nonsense.
I'm going to start calling you Scott.
you blaspheme the Spirit by calling Him processing from the Son, and I'm going to worry about you call me? Roll Eyes (in contrast to your self designation, which is apt enough).
Wow, you really think that I am committing the unforgivable sin by professing the Patristic doctrine that the Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father, through the Son? You really are Scott.
through the Son is Patristic, Orthodox and Catholic; from the Son is Patristic onlyin the sense like Tertullian, a Church father who died a heretic, and is neither Orthodox nor Catholic.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2011, 02:26:56 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
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,478


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #110 on: July 06, 2011, 02:35:20 PM »

Now that I had a second to think it over, going back to my letter analogy, If you receive a birthday card from Aunt Bertha, delivered by the post office, you dont say the post office AND Aunt Bertha gave you the card. It went through the post office (still an immeasurably beneficial service) it dosent start its journey through the post office.

primuspilus
« Last Edit: July 06, 2011, 02:45:18 PM by primuspilus » Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #111 on: July 06, 2011, 06:24:24 PM »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Greek creed does not the word for "proceed" imply (or mean) "originate"?  The Latin word (procedere) does not come close to meaning that.  I'm not sure if there is a common Latin verb for both proceed and originate, and I'm guessing procedere was used in the pre-Vulgate translations of the Gospel of John (this is assuming the Creed was translated into Latin at the council, I do not know the details).  If have heard rightly, then I see no problem of the Filioque at its literal meaning, for the Spirit does go forth from the Son (not implying origin).

Did similar local councils like the Councils of Toledo take place in the East?  I've been under the impression that they did not.  If not, then we can already see difference between East/West, and then moreso in the view of the Creed.  I've gotten the impression that the East is skeptical of the amount of Arianism in the West at the time of the Councils of Toledo, but if it was as a problem even to the 600s, could adding the Filioque to "combat" be justified?  The addition, if because of Arianism, would seem Roman - formally defining doctrine in the face of opposition.  I wonder how much of an impact it actually had.  

I would not be opposed to removing the Filioque for historical accuracy.  I don't think the theology behind the Filioque would go away.  As far as abolishing what has become Catholic tradition, eh, I'd probably be more in favor of holding onto an older tradition.  Most of the Roman traditions were thrown out the window at VII anyway...sigh.  I can only imagine how sedevacantists and rad-trads would react to the removal of the Filioque...

Good post Scotty.

I think removing-the-filioque might happen eventually, but the thing is that at this time, any such move would be seen as some sort of "Orthodox victory".

You have a very interesting grasp of your Church's understanding of revealed truth. 

Please explain.

Preferably sooner rather than later, if it's convenient for you.

My mother is very ill Peter, so if I'm not spot-on for your time schedule, I'll have to beg your pardon.

At this point I don't wish to respond beyond the following, so it must suffice.  In fact my response is contained in my repeated insistence that the filioque is not open for exclusion since it is now a longstanding tradition in the Creed of the Roman rite, and does not substantially negate anything in the normative Creed for the eastern Catholics...Orthodox, I mean.

So when you suggest it might be acceptable to drop it I say that you have a rather warped view of the way your Church does things.

Thanks for your patience... Smiley
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #112 on: July 06, 2011, 06:26:29 PM »

Now that I had a second to think it over, going back to my letter analogy, If you receive a birthday card from Aunt Bertha, delivered by the post office, you dont say the post office AND Aunt Bertha gave you the card. It went through the post office (still an immeasurably beneficial service) it dosent start its journey through the post office.

primuspilus

If you consider your analogy more fully with respect to the divinity, you might consider conceding that the letter going through the post office is hardly representative of the relationship of the Father and the Spirit and the Son and the Spirit...much LESS the Father and the Son....
Logged

bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #113 on: July 06, 2011, 06:58:02 PM »

Quote
It is clear from the Scripture that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son

Im not sure everyone would agree........

primuspilus

Well then it is clear from the Holy Fathers and Scripture.  It's tough not to agree with it at some level.
It has been condemned at the Ecumenical and Pan Orthodox level, as it is clear from the Fathers and Scripture He proceeds from the Father.

Your rejection of it has been condemned twice (IIRC) namely at the Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence.

The Filioque was condemned centuries earlier at the Fourth Council of Constantinople (880).
« Last Edit: July 06, 2011, 06:59:12 PM by bogdan » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #114 on: July 06, 2011, 09:23:32 PM »

My mother is very ill Peter, so if I'm not spot-on for your time schedule, I'll have to beg your pardon.

No, you don't have to. If you re-read the post you quoted, you'll see that I said "Preferably sooner rather than later, if it's convenient for you."

You also didn't have to respond to me today, but you chose to which is fine with me of course.

At this point I don't wish to respond beyond the following, so it must suffice.  In fact my response is contained in my repeated insistence that the filioque is not open for exclusion since it is now a longstanding tradition in the Creed of the Roman rite, and does not substantially negate anything in the normative Creed for the eastern Catholics...Orthodox, I mean.

So when you suggest it might be acceptable to drop it I say that you have a rather warped view of the way your Church does things.

Thanks for your patience... Smiley
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #115 on: July 06, 2011, 09:28:56 PM »

Quote
It is clear from the Scripture that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son

Im not sure everyone would agree........

primuspilus

Well then it is clear from the Holy Fathers and Scripture.  It's tough not to agree with it at some level.
It has been condemned at the Ecumenical and Pan Orthodox level, as it is clear from the Fathers and Scripture He proceeds from the Father.

Your rejection of it has been condemned twice (IIRC) namely at the Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence.

The Filioque was condemned centuries earlier at the Fourth Council of Constantinople (880).

I find that very hard to believe, since much of the West (although not including Rome, until 134 years later) was already saying the filioque in the creed, and since the East and West reunited at the end of the Photian Schism.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #116 on: July 06, 2011, 09:41:57 PM »

My mother is very ill Peter, so if I'm not spot-on for your time schedule, I'll have to beg your pardon.

No, you don't have to. If you re-read the post you quoted, you'll see that I said "Preferably sooner rather than later, if it's convenient for you."

You also didn't have to respond to me today, but you chose to which is fine with me of course.

At this point I don't wish to respond beyond the following, so it must suffice.  In fact my response is contained in my repeated insistence that the filioque is not open for exclusion since it is now a longstanding tradition in the Creed of the Roman rite, and does not substantially negate anything in the normative Creed for the eastern Catholics...Orthodox, I mean.

So when you suggest it might be acceptable to drop it I say that you have a rather warped view of the way your Church does things.

Thanks for your patience... Smiley

I needed a good chuckle...thankee
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #117 on: July 06, 2011, 09:42:49 PM »

Quote
It is clear from the Scripture that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son

Im not sure everyone would agree........

primuspilus

Well then it is clear from the Holy Fathers and Scripture.  It's tough not to agree with it at some level.
It has been condemned at the Ecumenical and Pan Orthodox level, as it is clear from the Fathers and Scripture He proceeds from the Father.

Your rejection of it has been condemned twice (IIRC) namely at the Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence.

The Filioque was condemned centuries earlier at the Fourth Council of Constantinople (880).

I find that very hard to believe, since much of the West (although not including Rome, until 134 years later) was already saying the filioque in the creed, and since the East and West reunited at the end of the Photian Schism.

Well only Rome was really represented at the council, so the rest of the West is irrelevant.
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
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #118 on: July 06, 2011, 10:15:08 PM »

Quote
It is clear from the Scripture that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son

Im not sure everyone would agree........

primuspilus

Well then it is clear from the Holy Fathers and Scripture.  It's tough not to agree with it at some level.
It has been condemned at the Ecumenical and Pan Orthodox level, as it is clear from the Fathers and Scripture He proceeds from the Father.

Your rejection of it has been condemned twice (IIRC) namely at the Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence.

The Filioque was condemned centuries earlier at the Fourth Council of Constantinople (880).

I find that very hard to believe, since much of the West (although not including Rome, until 134 years later) was already saying the filioque in the creed, and since the East and West reunited at the end of the Photian Schism.

Patriarch Dositheus II of Jerusalem said otherwise: "At this Ecumenical Synod the Filioque was condemned as teaching and as addition into the Symbol of the Faith." (Tomos Charas, 1705)

From the minutes of Constantinople IV (of 879-80; the council of 869-70 having been declared a robber council):



Jointly sanctifying and preserving intact the venerable and divine teaching of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, which has been established in the bosom of our mind, with unhesitating resolve and purity of faith, as well as the sacred ordinances and canonical stipulations of his holy disciples and Apostles with an unwavering judgment, and indeed, those Seven holy and ecumenical Synods which were directed by the inspiration of the one and the same Holy Spirit and effected the [Christian] preaching, and jointly guarding with a most honest and unshakeable resolve the canonical institutions invulnerable and unfalsified, we expel those who removed themselves from the Church, and embrace and regard worthy of receiving those of the same faith or teachers of orthodoxy to whom honor and sacred respect is due as they themselves ordered. Thus, having in mind and declaring all these things, we embrace with mind and tongue (τῇ διανοίᾳ καὶ γλώσσῃ) and declare to all people with a loud voice the Horos (Rule) of the most pure faith of the Christians which has come down to us from above through the Fathers, subtracting nothing, adding nothing, falsifying nothing; for subtraction and addition, when no heresy is stirred up by the ingenious fabrications of the evil one, introduces disapprobation of those who are exempt from blame and inexcusable assault on the Fathers. As for the act of changing with falsified words the Horoi (Rules, Boundaries) of the Fathers is much worse that the previous one. Therefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod embracing whole-heartedly and declaring with divine desire and straightness of mind, and establishing and erecting on it the firm edifice of salvation, thus we think and loudly proclaim this message to all:

"I believe in One God, Father Almighty, ... and in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God... and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord ... who proceeds from the Father... [the whole Creed is cited here, without the Filioque]

Thus we think, in this confession of faith we were we baptized, through this one the word of truth proved that every heresy is broken to pieces and canceled out. We enroll as brothers and fathers and coheirs of the heavenly city those who think thus. If anyone, however, dares to rewrite and call Rule of Faith some other exposition besides that of the sacred Symbol which has been spread abroad from above by our blessed and holy Fathers even as far as ourselves, and to snatch the authority of the confession of those divine men and impose on it his own invented phrases (ἰδίαις εὑρεσιολογίαις) and put this forth as a common lesson to the faithful or to those who return from some kind of heresy, and display the audacity to falsify completely (κατακιβδηλεῦσαι ἀποθρασυνθείη) the antiquity of this sacred and venerable Horos (Rule) with illegitimate words, or additions, or subtractions, such a person should, according to the vote of the holy and Ecumenical Synods, which has been already acclaimed before us, be subjected to complete defrocking if he happens to be one of the clergymen, or be sent away with an anathema if he happens to be one of the lay people."


http://www.oodegr.com/english/dogma/synodoi/8th_Synod_Dragas.htm



As Rome was not expelled then and there, it seems to me the fathers regarded the Filioque as an internal problem for the Church of Rome to work out. This is the logical explanation for why elements in the West used the Filioque but Rome remained in communion with the Church. The East afforded the West as much goodwill as possible until Rome herself turned on Pope Leo III's confession of Orthodoxy written on the silver shields. At that point, in 1014, things began to quickly go downhill. Perhaps the East, in the age before mass communications, did not even realize how widespread the Filioque had become by 880. Perhaps the Pope did not even know. But once it was added to the Roman rite, it was over.

I don't personally deny that the Filioque can be understood in a certain way which is Orthodox. The bigger issue for the Fathers, it seems, is that the Creed was changed at all—and not just unilaterally by one Church, but even against the express wishes of the other Churches, in an act of sheer disregard. The real heresy here is the true definition of the word: to choose. Rome chose for herself, rather than going along with the Church's common will.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2011, 10:26:47 PM by bogdan » Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #119 on: July 06, 2011, 10:36:49 PM »

Also there is the Synodikon of the Holy Spirit (though I do not know the background of this, whether it is also from Constantinople IV or if it is a later composition):

To those who do not deign to consent to the unaltered and unadulterated holy Symbol confessed by the Orthodox, that one, I mean, which was evangelically formulated by the First and Second Holy Synods and confirmed by the rest, but who rather amend it and distort it to support their own belief, thereby not only corrupting the synodal traditions of the Holy Fathers and of the holy and God-instructed apostles, but also the definitions of our true God and Saviour, Jesus Christ,

Anathema!

To those who do not confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds and has His existence from the Father with no intermediary in the same manner as the Son is begotten from the Father with no intermediary, according as God the Word Himself taught and as the Church has received from on high through the fathers, and who account as worthless the tradition of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ and accept impious and spurious doctrines which contend that the Son is related to the Father directly and with no intermediary, but that the Holy Spirit is distant and mediated, and who thus alienate the Holy Spirit from the Father's hypostasis and introduce some sort of interval and boundary between the Father and the All-holy Spirit, and so fall into the gulf of tritheism,

Anathema!

To those who undertake to teach contrary to our Master Christ and who declare that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son, from the Son directly and with no intermediary, but indirectly from the Father and with an intermediary, that is, as the Son proceeds directly from the Father, so the Spirit proceeds from the Son; and to those who dare to say that the Son is the immediate cause of the Spirit while the Father is the removed cause, as though the Spirit were operatively from the Son but only potentially from the Father and who thus introduce degrees and successions of cause and effect in the simple and indivisible Trinity,

Anathema!

...

To those who, according to their own irreligion, wrongly construe this passage from the divine Fathers Maximus and Tarasius, The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, and who do not interpret this passage according to the word of truth, that is, in the same manner as from the one sun the two powers of illumination and warming possess their existence directly and without intermediary, since neither the illuminating power has its existence from the warming, nor the warming from the illuminating, but through the illuminating power the warming power proceeds from the sun and is received by all creation, for their energies proceed from the sun and exist inseparably and simultaneously, yet remain unconfounded; so too, the phrase through the Son signifies simultaneity and is understood to mean with — for the divine Basil declares, The Son, who has made known through Himself and with Himself the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father, and Who has alone shone forth as the Only-begotten from the Unbegotten Light and in yet another place, the Holy Spirit is known through the Son and with the Son and concurrently with Him — but who rather squander their time attempting to replace the preposition through with the preposition from, as if it concerned creatures or a kind of genealogy or some root and its fruit — for as concerns these things, the third is from the first through the second; the third is from the second immediately and operatively, but from the first potentially and indirectly — wherefore, to those who godlessly attempt to misconstrue the procession of the All-holy Spirit from the Father through the Son,

Anathema!


(This one, it seems, does not admit the possibility of an Orthodox understanding of 'filioque'. So maybe I am wrong on that point.)

http://home.comcast.net/~t.r.valentine/orthodoxy/filioque/spirit_synodikon.html
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #120 on: July 06, 2011, 10:43:28 PM »

Quote
It is clear from the Scripture that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son

Im not sure everyone would agree........

primuspilus

Well then it is clear from the Holy Fathers and Scripture.  It's tough not to agree with it at some level.
It has been condemned at the Ecumenical and Pan Orthodox level, as it is clear from the Fathers and Scripture He proceeds from the Father.

Your rejection of it has been condemned twice (IIRC) namely at the Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence.

The Filioque was condemned centuries earlier at the Fourth Council of Constantinople (880).

I find that very hard to believe, since much of the West (although not including Rome, until 134 years later) was already saying the filioque in the creed, and since the East and West reunited at the end of the Photian Schism.

Patriarch Dositheus II of Jerusalem said otherwise: "At this Ecumenical Synod the Filioque was condemned as teaching and as addition into the Symbol of the Faith." (Tomos Charas, 1705)

From the minutes of Constantinople IV (of 879-80; the council of 869-70 having been declared a robber council):



Jointly sanctifying and preserving intact the venerable and divine teaching of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, which has been established in the bosom of our mind, with unhesitating resolve and purity of faith, as well as the sacred ordinances and canonical stipulations of his holy disciples and Apostles with an unwavering judgment, and indeed, those Seven holy and ecumenical Synods which were directed by the inspiration of the one and the same Holy Spirit and effected the [Christian] preaching, and jointly guarding with a most honest and unshakeable resolve the canonical institutions invulnerable and unfalsified, we expel those who removed themselves from the Church, and embrace and regard worthy of receiving those of the same faith or teachers of orthodoxy to whom honor and sacred respect is due as they themselves ordered. Thus, having in mind and declaring all these things, we embrace with mind and tongue (τῇ διανοίᾳ καὶ γλώσσῃ) and declare to all people with a loud voice the Horos (Rule) of the most pure faith of the Christians which has come down to us from above through the Fathers, subtracting nothing, adding nothing, falsifying nothing; for subtraction and addition, when no heresy is stirred up by the ingenious fabrications of the evil one, introduces disapprobation of those who are exempt from blame and inexcusable assault on the Fathers. As for the act of changing with falsified words the Horoi (Rules, Boundaries) of the Fathers is much worse that the previous one. Therefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod embracing whole-heartedly and declaring with divine desire and straightness of mind, and establishing and erecting on it the firm edifice of salvation, thus we think and loudly proclaim this message to all:

"I believe in One God, Father Almighty, ... and in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God... and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord ... who proceeds from the Father... [the whole Creed is cited here, without the Filioque]

Thus we think, in this confession of faith we were we baptized, through this one the word of truth proved that every heresy is broken to pieces and canceled out. We enroll as brothers and fathers and coheirs of the heavenly city those who think thus. If anyone, however, dares to rewrite and call Rule of Faith some other exposition besides that of the sacred Symbol which has been spread abroad from above by our blessed and holy Fathers even as far as ourselves, and to snatch the authority of the confession of those divine men and impose on it his own invented phrases (ἰδίαις εὑρεσιολογίαις) and put this forth as a common lesson to the faithful or to those who return from some kind of heresy, and display the audacity to falsify completely (κατακιβδηλεῦσαι ἀποθρασυνθείη) the antiquity of this sacred and venerable Horos (Rule) with illegitimate words, or additions, or subtractions, such a person should, according to the vote of the holy and Ecumenical Synods, which has been already acclaimed before us, be subjected to complete defrocking if he happens to be one of the clergymen, or be sent away with an anathema if he happens to be one of the lay people."


http://www.oodegr.com/english/dogma/synodoi/8th_Synod_Dragas.htm

I believe I can provide a satisfactory answer to all of that, but I shan't attempt it tonight.

As Rome was not expelled then and there, it seems to me the fathers regarded the Filioque as an internal problem for the Church of Rome to work out. This is the logical explanation for why elements in the West used the Filioque but Rome remained in communion with the Church.

I hadn't considered it in quite that way. Essentially you're saying it was a kind of dual-communion situation, right? I.e. the East was in full communion with Rome, and Rome was in full communion with the rest of the West? I'll have to give the matter some thought before I say more about that possibility.

The East afforded the West as much goodwill as possible until Rome herself turned on Pope Leo III's confession of Orthodoxy written on the silver shields. At that point, in 1014, things began to quickly go downhill. Perhaps the East, in the age before mass communications, did not even realize how widespread the Filioque had become by 880. Perhaps the Pope did not even know. But once it was added to the Roman rite, it was over.

I don't personally deny that the Filioque can be understood in a certain way which is Orthodox.

 Smiley

The bigger issue for the Fathers, it seems, is that the Creed was changed at all—and not just unilaterally by one Church, but even against the express wishes of the other Churches, in an act of sheer disregard. The real heresy here is the true definition of the word: to choose. Rome chose for herself, rather than going along with the Church's common will.

Ultimately, I don't think we will come to agree on this matter until we come to agree regarding Papal Primacy.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #121 on: July 06, 2011, 10:47:16 PM »

As Rome was not expelled then and there, it seems to me the fathers regarded the Filioque as an internal problem for the Church of Rome to work out. This is the logical explanation for why elements in the West used the Filioque but Rome remained in communion with the Church.

I hadn't considered it in quite that way. Essentially you're saying it was a kind of dual-communion situation, right? I.e. the East was in full communion with Rome, and Rome was in full communion with the rest of the West? I'll have to give the matter some thought before I say more about that possibility.

I don't think that's what he means. By that time, all of the West was under the jurisdiction of Rome. The East was in communion with the jurisdiction of Rome. Rome was responsible for expelling those who violated the Creed, and the East was to be in communion with those in the West who Rome permitted to remain in communion. The major problem with this arrangement was that Rome did not enforce this condemnation of the clause and eventually succumbed to it itself.
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
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #122 on: July 06, 2011, 11:22:23 PM »

As Rome was not expelled then and there, it seems to me the fathers regarded the Filioque as an internal problem for the Church of Rome to work out. This is the logical explanation for why elements in the West used the Filioque but Rome remained in communion with the Church.

I hadn't considered it in quite that way. Essentially you're saying it was a kind of dual-communion situation, right? I.e. the East was in full communion with Rome, and Rome was in full communion with the rest of the West? I'll have to give the matter some thought before I say more about that possibility.

I don't think that's what he means. By that time, all of the West was under the jurisdiction of Rome. The East was in communion with the jurisdiction of Rome. Rome was responsible for expelling those who violated the Creed, and the East was to be in communion with those in the West who Rome permitted to remain in communion. The major problem with this arrangement was that Rome did not enforce this condemnation of the clause and eventually succumbed to it itself.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant, deusveritasest.

Think about it like international relations. Country X may not like some new law in, say, Colorado, but they're not going to recall their ambassador over it. But if that new law sweeps the nation and is put in the US constitution, it might prevent international relations to continue.

In the same way, I think the East did not feel it was their place to step into the Western Church's internal problems. Antioch and Constantinople had no direct dealings with the Church of Toledo, and Rome still confessed the orthodox Creed, so why would they excommunicate Rome over it?

What could they even do? The East voiced their displeasure and Rome reaffirmed the original Creed. Pope Leo hung the silver plaques and declared that they were the orthodox faith. The East could do nothing else about it, except hope things would be fixed.

But later, Rome also changed the Creed. At that point things fell apart because the East could no longer vouch for the orthodoxy of the Roman Church and concluded the entire West had fallen into heresy. I think the East actually made a good, centuries-long effort to stick it out and hope Rome would fix things in the Western Church. Yet there came a point of no return and that was 1014.

Given the conciliar model the Church operates under, and that our sister Churches still do not generally stick their noses into each others' business, I think this is the most likely explanation for the way things happened.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2011, 11:31:55 PM by bogdan » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #123 on: July 06, 2011, 11:29:51 PM »

Fair enough. You're not saying that it was a dual-communion situation.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #124 on: July 06, 2011, 11:41:47 PM »

Quote
It is clear from the Scripture that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son

Im not sure everyone would agree........

primuspilus

Well then it is clear from the Holy Fathers and Scripture.  It's tough not to agree with it at some level.
It has been condemned at the Ecumenical and Pan Orthodox level, as it is clear from the Fathers and Scripture He proceeds from the Father.

Your rejection of it has been condemned twice (IIRC) namely at the Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence.

The Filioque was condemned centuries earlier at the Fourth Council of Constantinople (880).

I find that very hard to believe, since much of the West (although not including Rome, until 134 years later) was already saying the filioque in the creed, and since the East and West reunited at the end of the Photian Schism.

Patriarch Dositheus II of Jerusalem said otherwise: "At this Ecumenical Synod the Filioque was condemned as teaching and as addition into the Symbol of the Faith." (Tomos Charas, 1705)

From the minutes of Constantinople IV (of 879-80; the council of 869-70 having been declared a robber council):



Jointly sanctifying and preserving intact the venerable and divine teaching of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, which has been established in the bosom of our mind, with unhesitating resolve and purity of faith, as well as the sacred ordinances and canonical stipulations of his holy disciples and Apostles with an unwavering judgment, and indeed, those Seven holy and ecumenical Synods which were directed by the inspiration of the one and the same Holy Spirit and effected the [Christian] preaching, and jointly guarding with a most honest and unshakeable resolve the canonical institutions invulnerable and unfalsified, we expel those who removed themselves from the Church, and embrace and regard worthy of receiving those of the same faith or teachers of orthodoxy to whom honor and sacred respect is due as they themselves ordered. Thus, having in mind and declaring all these things, we embrace with mind and tongue (τῇ διανοίᾳ καὶ γλώσσῃ) and declare to all people with a loud voice the Horos (Rule) of the most pure faith of the Christians which has come down to us from above through the Fathers, subtracting nothing, adding nothing, falsifying nothing; for subtraction and addition, when no heresy is stirred up by the ingenious fabrications of the evil one, introduces disapprobation of those who are exempt from blame and inexcusable assault on the Fathers. As for the act of changing with falsified words the Horoi (Rules, Boundaries) of the Fathers is much worse that the previous one. Therefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod embracing whole-heartedly and declaring with divine desire and straightness of mind, and establishing and erecting on it the firm edifice of salvation, thus we think and loudly proclaim this message to all:

"I believe in One God, Father Almighty, ... and in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God... and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord ... who proceeds from the Father... [the whole Creed is cited here, without the Filioque]

Thus we think, in this confession of faith we were we baptized, through this one the word of truth proved that every heresy is broken to pieces and canceled out. We enroll as brothers and fathers and coheirs of the heavenly city those who think thus. If anyone, however, dares to rewrite and call Rule of Faith some other exposition besides that of the sacred Symbol which has been spread abroad from above by our blessed and holy Fathers even as far as ourselves, and to snatch the authority of the confession of those divine men and impose on it his own invented phrases (ἰδίαις εὑρεσιολογίαις) and put this forth as a common lesson to the faithful or to those who return from some kind of heresy, and display the audacity to falsify completely (κατακιβδηλεῦσαι ἀποθρασυνθείη) the antiquity of this sacred and venerable Horos (Rule) with illegitimate words, or additions, or subtractions, such a person should, according to the vote of the holy and Ecumenical Synods, which has been already acclaimed before us, be subjected to complete defrocking if he happens to be one of the clergymen, or be sent away with an anathema if he happens to be one of the lay people."


http://www.oodegr.com/english/dogma/synodoi/8th_Synod_Dragas.htm

I believe I can provide a satisfactory answer to all of that, but I shan't attempt it tonight.

Upon further reflection, it occurred to me that I can provide an answer pretty easily: the Catholic Church didn't change the Creed. "The Catholic Church acknowledges the conciliar, ecumenical, normative and irrevocable value, as expression of the one common faith of the Church and of all Christians, of the Symbol professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the Second Ecumenical Council." (Greek and Latin Traditions on Holy Spirit) The Creed that is said in Roman-Rite Catholic parishes (a.k.a. the "Creed of Toledo", or simply "the Creed with the filioque") doesn't do away with the Creed of 381, any more than the Apostles' Creed does away with the Creed of 381. So the quotations from the 879-80 council don't actually pose any problem.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #125 on: July 07, 2011, 10:37:11 AM »

I have never heard of a "Creed of Toledo". Every Roman Catholic rubric I've ever seen has declared this was the Nicene Creed. And given that both creeds are the same except for one word, and the West long claimed this... I think this explanation is a sort of legal fiction.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #126 on: July 07, 2011, 10:50:51 AM »

I have never heard of a "Creed of Toledo".

It's not an official name. But, then again, neither is "the creed with the filioque in it".

Every Roman Catholic rubric I've ever seen has declared this was the Nicene Creed. And given that both creeds are the same except for one word,  and the West long claimed this... I think this explanation is a sort of legal fiction.

Interestingly enough, one of the things I hear most often from my fellow Catholics is "I can't believe the Orthodox are making such a big deal over this! It's just one word different!"

You seem to be arguing the opposite: that the difference is unacceptable because it's only one word.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,478


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #127 on: July 07, 2011, 10:55:04 AM »

Quote
Interestingly enough, one of the things I hear most often from my fellow Catholics is "I can't believe the Orthodox are making such a big deal over this! It's just one word different!"

You seem to be arguing the opposite: that the difference is unacceptable because it's only one word

Then take it out Smiley

primuspilus
« Last Edit: July 07, 2011, 10:55:26 AM by primuspilus » Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Knee V
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 227



« Reply #128 on: August 04, 2011, 06:57:05 PM »

I've become a mixed bag when it comes to the filioque (although I couldn't accept it in the creed).

The first thing that I take into account is that the Creed was formulated in Greek, with Greek definitions of words.

The Creed came to us in two phases. The first phase, from the Council of Nicea, was a little more simple. It was Trinitarian and emphasized the Divinity of Christ (after all, it was in response to the Arians). For the Holy Spirit, this version of the Creed merely said, "and in the Holy Spirit".

At the council of Constantinople, the Fathers added to the Creed. In this "updated" version of the Creed, the Divinity of the Holy Spirit was emphasized to counter those who would say that the Holy Spirit was some kind of "impersonal force", or was created by God, or something. So they clarified that the Holy Spirit derives His eternal origin from the Father, and is therefore Divine, just like the Father and the Son: "Who proceeds from the Father; Who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified". The purpose of this section of the Creed is to explain the the Holy Spirit is Divine and is worshiped as God.

The word used in this section of the Creed for "proceed", as some others have pointed out, carries with it the meaning of coming forth from a point of absolute origin. In other words, the Greek tells us that the Holy Spirit has His "immediate" origin in the Father.

When translated into Latin, that section of the Creed is less specific. The Latin word used is closer to our word "proceed", and is more of a general movement, not necessarily from a point of origin (although it does not preclude that understanding).

Given that there is a difference in Greek and Latin definitions of the word "proceed", and that the Latin word is less specific, there is room for differing language in Latin that isn't necessarily "incorrect". It is not incorrect, given the Latin understanding of the word, to say that the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from both the Father and the Son. It's merely saying that the Holy Spirit "has movement" from the Father and the Son. That is technically true, at least according to the Patristic citations that have been presented in this thread.

A problem arises if one were to translate that back into the Greek. It may be OK to say that the Holy Spirit "progresses" from both the Father and the Son in Latin, but to say that the Holy Spirit's "original" movement is from the Father AND the Son in Greek is not correct.

Also (and I place much less weight on this point, but I think it's worthy to at least be brought up, even if it doesn't make any difference), the filioque was added to the Creed to defend the Divinity of Christ. But it's added in a section that is devoted to defending the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. If one were to further defend the Divinity of the Son, it would be more appropriate to make that addition in the section that is devoted to the Son's Divinity.

My line of thought is as follows:

1) The language used in the Latin version of the Creed is "technically" correct in what it says about the Holy Spirit's "procession".
2) The language used in the Greek version of the Creed cannot support that addition.
3) The Creed is the Creed for the WHOLE Church, and thus should reflect the mind of the whole Church.
4) Since the filioque cannot be translated back to the Greek, and thus cannot be proclaimed by the WHOLE Church, the filioque clause lacks catholicity and should not be part of the Creed.

It is for that reason that I cannot accept the filioque. I don't think that it's incorrect when spoken in Latin, but it is not an addition that can rightly be used in every version of the Creed, and thus shouldn't be used at all. If we profess belief in "One...Catholic Church", then we must profess a Creed that is truly catholic.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #129 on: August 04, 2011, 08:13:29 PM »

OK. I was going to welcome you, then I saw:

1.) A Popeye Avatar
2.) Post about the filioque
3.) #2 being your 15th post

Instead, I decided to roll my eyes.

Glanced at your post. Then read it. About as clear in "simple" language for reasonable approach to the issue.

Welcome!

Awesome avatar!
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Knee V
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 227



« Reply #130 on: August 04, 2011, 08:33:44 PM »

OK. I was going to welcome you, then I saw:

1.) A Popeye Avatar
2.) Post about the filioque
3.) #2 being your 15th post

Instead, I decided to roll my eyes.

Glanced at your post. Then read it. About as clear in "simple" language for reasonable approach to the issue.

Welcome!

Awesome avatar!

Thanks, matey!
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #131 on: August 04, 2011, 08:45:11 PM »

I've become a mixed bag when it comes to the filioque (although I couldn't accept it in the creed).

The first thing that I take into account is that the Creed was formulated in Greek, with Greek definitions of words.

The Creed came to us in two phases. The first phase, from the Council of Nicea, was a little more simple. It was Trinitarian and emphasized the Divinity of Christ (after all, it was in response to the Arians). For the Holy Spirit, this version of the Creed merely said, "and in the Holy Spirit".

At the council of Constantinople, the Fathers added to the Creed. In this "updated" version of the Creed, the Divinity of the Holy Spirit was emphasized to counter those who would say that the Holy Spirit was some kind of "impersonal force", or was created by God, or something. So they clarified that the Holy Spirit derives His eternal origin from the Father, and is therefore Divine, just like the Father and the Son: "Who proceeds from the Father; Who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified". The purpose of this section of the Creed is to explain the the Holy Spirit is Divine and is worshiped as God.

The word used in this section of the Creed for "proceed", as some others have pointed out, carries with it the meaning of coming forth from a point of absolute origin. In other words, the Greek tells us that the Holy Spirit has His "immediate" origin in the Father.

When translated into Latin, that section of the Creed is less specific. The Latin word used is closer to our word "proceed", and is more of a general movement, not necessarily from a point of origin (although it does not preclude that understanding).

Given that there is a difference in Greek and Latin definitions of the word "proceed", and that the Latin word is less specific, there is room for differing language in Latin that isn't necessarily "incorrect". It is not incorrect, given the Latin understanding of the word, to say that the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from both the Father and the Son. It's merely saying that the Holy Spirit "has movement" from the Father and the Son. That is technically true, at least according to the Patristic citations that have been presented in this thread.

A problem arises if one were to translate that back into the Greek. It may be OK to say that the Holy Spirit "progresses" from both the Father and the Son in Latin, but to say that the Holy Spirit's "original" movement is from the Father AND the Son in Greek is not correct.

Also (and I place much less weight on this point, but I think it's worthy to at least be brought up, even if it doesn't make any difference), the filioque was added to the Creed to defend the Divinity of Christ. But it's added in a section that is devoted to defending the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. If one were to further defend the Divinity of the Son, it would be more appropriate to make that addition in the section that is devoted to the Son's Divinity.

My line of thought is as follows:

1) The language used in the Latin version of the Creed is "technically" correct in what it says about the Holy Spirit's "procession".
2) The language used in the Greek version of the Creed cannot support that addition.
3) The Creed is the Creed for the WHOLE Church, and thus should reflect the mind of the whole Church.
4) Since the filioque cannot be translated back to the Greek, and thus cannot be proclaimed by the WHOLE Church, the filioque clause lacks catholicity and should not be part of the Creed.

It is for that reason that I cannot accept the filioque. I don't think that it's incorrect when spoken in Latin, but it is not an addition that can rightly be used in every version of the Creed, and thus shouldn't be used at all. If we profess belief in "One...Catholic Church", then we must profess a Creed that is truly catholic.

Hi Knee V,

Good post; a lot of great points; but I'm sorry that, ultimately, you can't accept the filioque in the Creed.

Welcome to the forum!
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
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 0.593 seconds with 158 queries.