OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 08:36:07 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Creed and our witness  (Read 6962 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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: 6,145



« 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: 6,145



« 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: 6,145



« 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: 6,145



« 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: 6,145



« 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: 6,145



« 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: 6,145



« 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: 6,145



« 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: 6,145



« 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: 6,145



« 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 0.203 seconds with 68 queries.