OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 29, 2014, 03:19:07 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 6779 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,142


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« 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: 6,041



« 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
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: 37,124



« 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
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: 37,124



« 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
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,142


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« 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
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,142


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« 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
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: 37,124



« 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
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: 37,124



« 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
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: 37,124



« 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
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,142


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« 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
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,142


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« 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: 6,041



« 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: 834


Christos Anesti!


« 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

"Come ye take light from The Light that is never overtaken by night and glorify the Christ, who is risen from the dead"
vasily
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox church in america
Posts: 184



« 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
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,718


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: 6,041



« 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
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: 37,124



« 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: 6,041



« 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: 6,041



« 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
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: 37,124



« 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
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: 37,124



« 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: 6,041



« 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: 885


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: 6,197


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
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,142


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« 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: 6,197


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

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 0.223 seconds with 71 queries.