OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 23, 2014, 12:08:00 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 4 5 6 7   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creed question  (Read 18884 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #270 on: April 23, 2011, 11:51:53 PM »

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

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.
Actually, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox teach.

LOL. Are you for real Wyatt?
I fail to see what's funny. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. If they did not and believed that the Son participates in some way in this eternal procession of the Spirit then they would have accepted the filioque clause to the creed. They didn't, so what is one to conclude from that?
What one is to conclude from that is that we saw the Creed as untouchable save by another Ecumenical Council, that no pope of Rome ever had the authority to make unilateral changes to the Creed. Don't read too much theological significance into that rejection.
So it's ok for EOs and OOs to believe that God the Son participates in the Spiriation of the Holy Spirit?
I've never had a strong opinion one way or the other on the underlying theology of the filioque, so I really have to respond with "I dunno".
Wow, I have say that I surprised, as there are EO writers who seem to think that the filioque is the mother of all heresies.

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

Christ is Risen!

The last official statement from the Orthodox on the errors of the filioque was contained in the Encyclical of the Four Eastern Patriarchs, 1848   ~ "A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns""

You can read what they write about the filioque in message 212
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27651.msg438126.html#msg438126


I see that this message was also in response to something written by Peter the Aleut, that the Creed does not state that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone and he asks how does the filioque contradict the Creed.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #271 on: April 24, 2011, 12:10:32 AM »

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

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.
Actually, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox teach.

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

You're logic here is just really off: not believing that the Son participates in the causation of the Spirit does not mean that the Orthodox do not believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Son in any sense.
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
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #272 on: April 24, 2011, 12:13:28 AM »

I fail to see what's funny. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. If they did not and believed that the Son participates in some way in this eternal procession of the Spirit then they would have accepted the filioque clause to the creed. They didn't, so what is one to conclude from that?
What one is to conclude from that is that we saw the Creed as untouchable save by another Ecumenical Council, that no pope of Rome ever had the authority to make unilateral changes to the Creed. Don't read too much theological significance into that rejection.

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

That's not the issue. The issue is not whether the Orthodox can say the Creed without filioque (as this is obviously agreed upon given the Eastern Catholic practice), but whether the Latins can say the Creed with the filioque (Catholics say yes, Orthodox say no).
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
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #273 on: April 24, 2011, 12:17:32 AM »

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

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.
It's basically what Izzy is asserting with post above.

Not necessarily. The passage referred to speaks of a very specific form of procession, and for all we know he was simply saying that we cannot trespass upon the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is caused by the Father alone. While perhaps his wording was poorly suggestive, if we take the meaning farther than this, it winds up being so illogical that I have a hard time believing that Isa would fall into that error.
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
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #274 on: April 24, 2011, 12:20:56 AM »

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

IMO, no, it's not OK for Orthodox to believe that the Logos participates in the causal Spiration of the Spirit.

But that is not the only sort of procession that is treated theologically. Orthodox are free to believe (and should believe) that the Spirit proceeds from the Son in other senses.
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
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #275 on: April 24, 2011, 12:22:56 AM »

As far as I can tell, that's the only issue (inserting it into the creed) we really have with the filioque.

No, there is a theology that has developed exploring the filioque that has been judged to be heterodox.
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
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #276 on: April 24, 2011, 12:26:02 AM »

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

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.
Actually, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox teach.

LOL. Are you for real Wyatt?
I fail to see what's funny. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. If they did not and believed that the Son participates in some way in this eternal procession of the Spirit then they would have accepted the filioque clause to the creed. They didn't, so what is one to conclude from that?
What one is to conclude from that is that we saw the Creed as untouchable save by another Ecumenical Council, that no pope of Rome ever had the authority to make unilateral changes to the Creed. Don't read too much theological significance into that rejection.
So it's ok for EOs and OOs to believe that God the Son participates in the Spiriation of the Holy Spirit?
I've never had a strong opinion one way or the other on the underlying theology of the filioque, so I really have to respond with "I dunno".
Wow, I have say that I surprised, as there are EO writers who seem to think that the filioque is the mother of all heresies.

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

Don't get too worked up, you two. All he said was that he didn't sufficiently understand the theology to have a strong opinion on it.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2011, 12:26:16 AM by deusveritasest » 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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #277 on: April 24, 2011, 11:26:10 AM »

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

That's not the issue.

Well, for the most part it isn't an issue. Some Catholics (maybe not very many) have in fact said that the Eastern Orthodox should say the creed with the filioque.

The issue is not whether the Orthodox can say the Creed without filioque (as this is obviously agreed upon given the Eastern Catholic practice), but whether the Latins can say the Creed with the filioque (Catholics say yes, Orthodox say no).

Correction: some Catholics say we should keep the filioque in the creed, some say we should drop it. I won't try to predict what's going to happen, but one thing I feel certain of is that if we did in fact drop it from the creed, that would make it a lot easier to get EOs to accept the dogma.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #278 on: April 24, 2011, 11:33:46 AM »

Don't get too worked up, you two. All he said was that he didn't sufficiently understand the theology to have a strong opinion on it.

Ah man, and I was all ready to start celebrating our victory.

Wink
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #279 on: April 24, 2011, 11:41:15 AM »

On a separate note, Wyatt, I feel I should apologize for glibly remarking earlier that I "get the impression you're just swallowing whole whatever you hear from elijahmaria".
Thank you. I appreciate your apology. Don't worry about it. It's easy to get worked up and frustrated on a forum. Trust me, I know.  Cheesy

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,045


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #280 on: April 24, 2011, 12:52:48 PM »

Toward the end of my attendance at a Roman Catholic Church, I started going to the youth mass for a while. Every so often, I'd go to one that was earlier in the day. At the earlier one, they'd say the filioque. At the youth mass, however, they always used the Apostles' Creed, which doesn't have the filioque at all. I remember reading in the RCC Catechism that they consider both forms of the Creed to be valid. I think Wyatt brought up a good point. If they didn't have it in the beginning, might as well drop it. It wouldn't take much for the RCC to refresh the public's memory of the attendant theology- priests could give brief homilies about it, the parishes could print notices in the bulletin- and they're getting ready to implement a revised format of the liturgy anyway. It was said that the current Pope may be soon to recommend that the RCC faithful return to the older rules of fasting- every Wednesday and Friday, plus the whole of Lent- and he has taken fairly conservative stances on a number of issues. If he's ready for those types of things, hopefully he may come around on the filioque issue as well.  Smiley
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/
TheMathematician
Banished and Disgraced
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 1,498


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #281 on: April 24, 2011, 01:10:51 PM »

Toward the end of my attendance at a Roman Catholic Church, I started going to the youth mass for a while. Every so often, I'd go to one that was earlier in the day. At the earlier one, they'd say the filioque. At the youth mass, however, they always used the Apostles' Creed, which doesn't have the filioque at all. I remember reading in the RCC Catechism that they consider both forms of the Creed to be valid. I think Wyatt brought up a good point. If they didn't have it in the beginning, might as well drop it. It wouldn't take much for the RCC to refresh the public's memory of the attendant theology- priests could give brief homilies about it, the parishes could print notices in the bulletin- and they're getting ready to implement a revised format of the liturgy anyway. It was said that the current Pope may be soon to recommend that the RCC faithful return to the older rules of fasting- every Wednesday and Friday, plus the whole of Lent- and he has taken fairly conservative stances on a number of issues. If he's ready for those types of things, hopefully he may come around on the filioque issue as well.  Smiley
HH Benedict XVI, when he celebrates the Mass in Greek, already does not use the filioque
Logged

SCREW BON JOVI!
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #282 on: April 24, 2011, 02:26:40 PM »

Toward the end of my attendance at a Roman Catholic Church, I started going to the youth mass for a while. Every so often, I'd go to one that was earlier in the day. At the earlier one, they'd say the filioque. At the youth mass, however, they always used the Apostles' Creed, which doesn't have the filioque at all. I remember reading in the RCC Catechism that they consider both forms of the Creed to be valid. I think Wyatt brought up a good point. If they didn't have it in the beginning, might as well drop it. It wouldn't take much for the RCC to refresh the public's memory of the attendant theology- priests could give brief homilies about it, the parishes could print notices in the bulletin- and they're getting ready to implement a revised format of the liturgy anyway. It was said that the current Pope may be soon to recommend that the RCC faithful return to the older rules of fasting- every Wednesday and Friday, plus the whole of Lent- and he has taken fairly conservative stances on a number of issues. If he's ready for those types of things, hopefully he may come around on the filioque issue as well.  Smiley
HH Benedict XVI, when he celebrates the Mass in Greek, already does not use the filioque

That is because in Greek, filioque, or the equivalent is heresy BECAUSE it literally translates that the Son is also cause or origin of the divinity.

The Roman Church has NEVER taught that the Father and the Son are the cause of the divinity.  The father is the sole author of the divinity.

In LATIN the filioque does not contradict the Church's teaching that the Father is the sole author of the divinity.  Rather it addends the element of the eternal procession [without the meaning of origination] of the Spirit from the Father and the Son.

The Roman practice adds a true element.  It does not negate a true element.

I fail to see why this has been such a difficult concept over the centuries.

Christ is Risen!
« Last Edit: April 24, 2011, 02:28:05 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,659


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #283 on: April 24, 2011, 03:10:04 PM »

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

I think it would be helpful if you could clarify this a little.
I was referring to Wyatt's claim that we would have accepted the addition of filioque to the Creed if we did not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, that our rejection of the text change is due to an underlying "from the Father alone" theology. I personally don't think the Orthodox Church united enough in its theological opinions for Wyatt to posit such an explanation.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,659


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #284 on: April 24, 2011, 03:15:00 PM »

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

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.
Actually, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox teach.

LOL. Are you for real Wyatt?
I fail to see what's funny. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. If they did not and believed that the Son participates in some way in this eternal procession of the Spirit then they would have accepted the filioque clause to the creed. They didn't, so what is one to conclude from that?
What one is to conclude from that is that we saw the Creed as untouchable save by another Ecumenical Council, that no pope of Rome ever had the authority to make unilateral changes to the Creed. Don't read too much theological significance into that rejection.
So it's ok for EOs and OOs to believe that God the Son participates in the Spiriation of the Holy Spirit?
I've never had a strong opinion one way or the other on the underlying theology of the filioque, so I really have to respond with "I dunno".
Wow, I have say that I surprised, as there are EO writers who seem to think that the filioque is the mother of all heresies.

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

Don't get too worked up, you two. All he said was that he didn't sufficiently understand the theology to have a strong opinion on it.
No, I didn't say that I don't sufficiently understand the theology. I understand the theological arguments surrounding the filioque. I just don't find any particular theological argument all that convincing.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,659


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #285 on: April 24, 2011, 03:17:34 PM »

I see that this message was also in response to something written by Peter the Aleut, that the Creed does not state that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone and he asks how does the filioque contradict the Creed.
Yeah, quote boxes can be confusing. I believe it was most likely Wyatt who said that. I know I didn't. Wink
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #286 on: April 24, 2011, 06:35:36 PM »

I was referring to Wyatt's claim that we would have accepted the addition of filioque to the Creed if we did not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, that our rejection of the text change is due to an underlying "from the Father alone" theology. I personally don't think the Orthodox Church united enough in its theological opinions for Wyatt to posit such an explanation.
So, then, from the perspective of the Eastern Orthodox Church, would filioque be at the very least an acceptable theological opinion (as long as it is not used in the Creed, of course)?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #287 on: April 24, 2011, 08:35:42 PM »

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

I think it would be helpful if you could clarify this a little.
I was referring to Wyatt's claim that we would have accepted the addition of filioque to the Creed if we did not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, that our rejection of the text change is due to an underlying "from the Father alone" theology. I personally don't think the Orthodox Church united enough in its theological opinions for Wyatt to posit such an explanation.

Thanks. I figured that was how you meant it, but I wasn't completely sure: it also seemed possible that you were saying that the problem was only that the Creed was changed without an ecumenical council, and that there isn't any problem with the filioque in and of itself.
Logged

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

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



« Reply #288 on: April 25, 2011, 03:06:50 PM »

So, then, from the perspective of the Eastern Orthodox Church, would filioque be at the very least an acceptable theological opinion (as long as it is not used in the Creed, of course)?

I would find no problem with it as long as it is kept in line with St Augustine's teaching that it is from the Father alone that the Holy Spirit principally proceeds, and St John of Damacus's teaching that it (as a theological opinion) does not contradict but rather complements what we say in the creed.

But that's just my opinion, hopefully in line with these two saints of the Church.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #289 on: April 25, 2011, 03:08:44 PM »

So, then, from the perspective of the Eastern Orthodox Church, would filioque be at the very least an acceptable theological opinion (as long as it is not used in the Creed, of course)?

I would find no problem with it as long as it is kept in line with St Augustine's teaching that it is from the Father alone that the Holy Spirit principally proceeds, and St John of Damacus's teaching that it (as a theological opinion) does not contradict but rather complements what we say in the creed.

But that's just my opinion, hopefully in line with these two saints of the Church.
So if Latins removed it from the Creed, but believed in the filioque along the lines that you have described above, then that would be enough as far as this matter of division goes?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #290 on: April 25, 2011, 03:23:44 PM »

So, then, from the perspective of the Eastern Orthodox Church, would filioque be at the very least an acceptable theological opinion (as long as it is not used in the Creed, of course)?

I would find no problem with it as long as it is kept in line with St Augustine's teaching that it is from the Father alone that the Holy Spirit principally proceeds, and St John of Damacus's teaching that it (as a theological opinion) does not contradict but rather complements what we say in the creed.

But that's just my opinion, hopefully in line with these two saints of the Church.
So if Latins removed it from the Creed, but believed in the filioque along the lines that you have described above, then that would be enough as far as this matter of division goes?

I don't know, but I do know it was good enough for the pre-schism saints that we hold in common.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #291 on: April 25, 2011, 03:33:27 PM »

If the filioque was the only barrier to full communion of the Churches then I would have no problem dropping it for the sake of unity (and because the Creed minus the filioque is equally valid), but unfortunately we would have to entirely revamp our faith to make it compatible with Eastern Orthodoxy (no purgatory, no Immaculate Conception, no original sin, no Pope, no post-schism devotions, no unleavened bread, etc.). Because of this we might as well continue to use the filioque since it seems to be low on the list when you consider these other things.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #292 on: April 25, 2011, 03:48:08 PM »

If the filioque was the only barrier to full communion of the Churches then I would have no problem dropping it for the sake of unity (and because the Creed minus the filioque is equally valid), but unfortunately we would have to entirely revamp our faith to make it compatible with Eastern Orthodoxy (no purgatory, no Immaculate Conception, no original sin, no Pope, no post-schism devotions, no unleavened bread, etc.). Because of this we might as well continue to use the filioque since it seems to be low on the list when you consider these other things.

Best to just leave the door open.  Talk about beliefs but don't rank them or judge their worth.  Leave those discussions to our bishops as they dialogue with one another.  Leave it to the Holy Spirit to guide through our apostolic teachers.   In other words...think, speak, believe, write...but don't conclude... Smiley  It is far and away above our paygrade to "conclude"....
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #293 on: April 25, 2011, 03:51:09 PM »

If the filioque was the only barrier to full communion of the Churches then I would have no problem dropping it for the sake of unity (and because the Creed minus the filioque is equally valid), but unfortunately we would have to entirely revamp our faith to make it compatible with Eastern Orthodoxy (no purgatory, no Immaculate Conception, no original sin, no Pope, no post-schism devotions, no unleavened bread, etc.). Because of this we might as well continue to use the filioque since it seems to be low on the list when you consider these other things.

Best to just leave the door open.  Talk about beliefs but don't rank them or judge their worth.  Leave those discussions to our bishops as they dialogue with one another.  Leave it to the Holy Spirit to guide through our apostolic teachers.   In other words...think, speak, believe, write...but don't conclude... Smiley  It is far and away above our paygrade to "conclude"....
That is very true. I would love it be able to see the end of the Great Schism sometime within my lifetime.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #294 on: May 08, 2011, 03:35:37 PM »

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

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

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

Actually the bolded portion of your statement about statements not making sense does not make sense.

Well, I didn't claim to be smart.

Maybe you could take pity on me and explain to me how it can make sense to say that all I've done since I came here has been to take gratuitous pot shots at her posts, when she has only been on this forum since March 28, 2010 (excepting if she used to post here with a different username).
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,041


Saint Severus of Antioch - the Eloquent Mouth

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #295 on: July 04, 2011, 06:15:18 PM »

I honestly do not understand the problem with the filioque. We know that all Persons of the Trinity are equal and eternal. We know that the Son possesses everything which the Father does, and that Father and Son are one. Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. It emphasizes the oneness of the Holy Trinity.

But wouldn't that mean by the same standard because the Father and Holy Spirit are of one essence that the Son could be spoken of as being begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit? Furthermore, consubstantiality (i.e. of the Father and the Son) is a property of essence/substance while temporal/eternal procession is a property of hypostasis.

In Christ,
Severian
Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ (Cf. St. John 16:33)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #296 on: July 04, 2011, 06:26:11 PM »

I honestly do not understand the problem with the filioque. We know that all Persons of the Trinity are equal and eternal. We know that the Son possesses everything which the Father does, and that Father and Son are one. Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. It emphasizes the oneness of the Holy Trinity.

But wouldn't that mean by the same standard because the Father and Holy Spirit are of one essence that the Son could be spoken of as being begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit? Furthermore, consubstantiality (i.e. of the Father and the Son) is a property of essence/substance while temporal/eternal procession is a property of hypostasis.

In Christ,
Severian
Indeed!  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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #297 on: July 04, 2011, 06:30:19 PM »

If the filioque was the only barrier to full communion of the Churches then I would have no problem dropping it for the sake of unity (and because the Creed minus the filioque is equally valid), but unfortunately we would have to entirely revamp our faith to make it compatible with Eastern Orthodoxy (no purgatory, no Immaculate Conception, no original sin, no Pope, no post-schism devotions, no unleavened bread, etc.). Because of this we might as well continue to use the filioque since it seems to be low on the list when you consider these other things.

Best to just leave the door open.  Talk about beliefs but don't rank them or judge their worth.  Leave those discussions to our bishops as they dialogue with one another.  Leave it to the Holy Spirit to guide through our apostolic teachers.   In other words...think, speak, believe, write...but don't conclude... Smiley  It is far and away above our paygrade to "conclude"....
It is well within our paygrade to repeat what we have been told by all generations of the Fathers, from the Apostles until now.  If a bishop thinks his salary requires a hefty retainer to engage in jesuitry around that, he can have the Vatican pay his way. And keep him.
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 #298 on: July 04, 2011, 10:25:40 PM »

I honestly do not understand the problem with the filioque. We know that all Persons of the Trinity are equal and eternal. We know that the Son possesses everything which the Father does, and that Father and Son are one. Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. It emphasizes the oneness of the Holy Trinity.

But wouldn't that mean by the same standard because the Father and Holy Spirit are of one essence that the Son could be spoken of as being begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit? Furthermore, consubstantiality (i.e. of the Father and the Son) is a property of essence/substance while temporal/eternal procession is a property of hypostasis.

In Christ,
Severian

The personal relationship between the Father and the Son, attested to in Scripture, is very different from that of the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The Filioque is a teaching about those relationships.

The Father and the Son's relationship to one another is unique and not shared with the Holy Spirit in the same way that it is with one another.

M.
Logged

Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,041


Saint Severus of Antioch - the Eloquent Mouth

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #299 on: July 04, 2011, 11:56:36 PM »

I honestly do not understand the problem with the filioque. We know that all Persons of the Trinity are equal and eternal. We know that the Son possesses everything which the Father does, and that Father and Son are one. Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. It emphasizes the oneness of the Holy Trinity.

But wouldn't that mean by the same standard because the Father and Holy Spirit are of one essence that the Son could be spoken of as being begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit? Furthermore, consubstantiality (i.e. of the Father and the Son) is a property of essence/substance while temporal/eternal procession is a property of hypostasis.

In Christ,
Severian

The personal relationship between the Father and the Son, attested to in Scripture, is very different from that of the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The Filioque is a teaching about those relationships.

The Father and the Son's relationship to one another is unique and not shared with the Holy Spirit in the same way that it is with one another.

M.

But do you see why we Orthodox (i.e. both EO and OO) have a problem with the filioque? You are distinguishing between the relationships in the Trinity so much that you seem to subordinate the Spirit. Now I am not necessarily saying that's what you believe, but, do you see how that might lend itself to that interpretation? And as I said before, the procession of the Spirit is a hypostatic characteristic not an essential one. As far as I see it the three hypostases of the Trinity are distinguished by their unique hypostatic characteristics. The Father begets the Son and 'spirits' the Holy Spirit, the Son is begotten only of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds only from the Father. I, like many Orthodox, feel that the filioque confuses the unique hypostatic characteristics that each of the three hypostases of the Trinity possess.
Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ (Cf. St. John 16:33)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #300 on: July 05, 2011, 12:54:35 AM »

Doesn't Scripture refer to the Holy Spirit by both the names "Spirit of the Father" and "Spirit of Christ"?
Logged
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,041


Saint Severus of Antioch - the Eloquent Mouth

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #301 on: July 05, 2011, 01:04:08 AM »

Doesn't Scripture refer to the Holy Spirit by both the names "Spirit of the Father" and "Spirit of Christ"?

Yes but I don't necessarily think that this means that the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. You can reconcile the Orthodox view per filium with scripture. Of course I am not an expert and if any of you have caught me making an error please correct me. The Spirit is sent from the Father through the Son. Perhaps this quote from St Cyril of Alexandria can further add to this discussion:

"After the thrice-blessed Fathers have brought to an end the statement about Christ, they mention the Holy Spirit. For they stated that they believe in him, just as they do in the Father and in the Son. For his is consubstantial with them and he is poured forth, that is, he proceeds as from the fountain of God the Father and he is bestowed on creation through the Son."

I'm logging out. I might check up on this stuff tomorrow.

God Bless,
Severian
« Last Edit: July 05, 2011, 01:10:30 AM by Severian » Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ (Cf. St. John 16:33)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #302 on: July 05, 2011, 01:07:55 AM »

Doesn't Scripture refer to the Holy Spirit by both the names "Spirit of the Father" and "Spirit of Christ"?

Yes but I don't necessarily think that this means that the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. You can reconcile the Orthodox view per filium with scripture. Of course I am not an expert and if any of you have caught me making an error please correct me.
"Of Christ" means, to me, "originating in" or "of the origin of" Christ. Referring to the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, as both the "Spirit of the Father" and "Spirit of Christ" interchangeably seems to point to a special connection and relationship between the Father and Son and makes a strong case for filioque.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2011, 01:13:59 AM by Wyatt » Logged
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,041


Saint Severus of Antioch - the Eloquent Mouth

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #303 on: July 05, 2011, 01:11:29 AM »

@Wyatt I edited & elaborated on my previous post.
Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ (Cf. St. John 16:33)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #304 on: July 05, 2011, 09:12:47 AM »

I honestly do not understand the problem with the filioque. We know that all Persons of the Trinity are equal and eternal. We know that the Son possesses everything which the Father does, and that Father and Son are one. Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. It emphasizes the oneness of the Holy Trinity.

But wouldn't that mean by the same standard because the Father and Holy Spirit are of one essence that the Son could be spoken of as being begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit? Furthermore, consubstantiality (i.e. of the Father and the Son) is a property of essence/substance while temporal/eternal procession is a property of hypostasis.

In Christ,
Severian

The personal relationship between the Father and the Son, attested to in Scripture, is very different from that of the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The Filioque is a teaching about those relationships.

The Father and the Son's relationship to one another is unique and not shared with the Holy Spirit in the same way that it is with one another.

M.

But do you see why we Orthodox (i.e. both EO and OO) have a problem with the filioque? You are distinguishing between the relationships in the Trinity so much that you seem to subordinate the Spirit. Now I am not necessarily saying that's what you believe, but, do you see how that might lend itself to that interpretation? And as I said before, the procession of the Spirit is a hypostatic characteristic not an essential one. As far as I see it the three hypostases of the Trinity are distinguished by their unique hypostatic characteristics. The Father begets the Son and 'spirits' the Holy Spirit, the Son is begotten only of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds only from the Father. I, like many Orthodox, feel that the filioque confuses the unique hypostatic characteristics that each of the three hypostases of the Trinity possess.

Yes.  Thank you for your exceptionally well reasoned and complete response.  I do indeed understand it, and have for some time.  It is a natural conclusion to presume that the west elevates the relationship of the Father and the Son into some disordered Trinitarian theology.

However natural that conclusion, it is not a revealed conclusion upheld in Scripture.  Scripture is the source of the emphasis on the Father and the Son's unique relationship.  In fact the emphasis on the Holy Spirit must come from Tradition, for it is not found as clearly in Scripture as it is in Tradition.  Protecting the equality of the third person of the Trinity with the Father and the Son was a difficult path initially.

Be that as it may, we ought not diminish that very clear and explicit relationship between the Father and the Son simply to avoid making a mistake.  IF the goal in theology is to not make mistakes, I expect we'd have little if anything to say at all.  Even liturgy would be too dangerous.  Do you cease to ask the Mother of God to save us, simply because it is a teaching that could be misunderstood.  Is it not the purpose of catechesis to explain those teachings where they are not so obvious on the surface?

M.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2011, 09:14:41 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,487


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #305 on: July 05, 2011, 10:27:24 AM »

Would it be more proper to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through 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
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,041


Saint Severus of Antioch - the Eloquent Mouth

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #306 on: July 05, 2011, 10:29:07 AM »

Thank you for your response. I now understand the Catholic position on the filioque better due to your posts. But, what do you think of the above quote from St Cyril that I posted?
And yes I do think from the Father through the Son is acceptable to the Orthodox. This is the teaching of Athanasius and Cyril. IIRC, Photius had no problem with it.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2011, 10:53:24 AM by Severian » Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ (Cf. St. John 16:33)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #307 on: July 05, 2011, 10:56:36 AM »

Thank you for your response. I now understand the Catholic position on the filioque better due to your posts. But, what do you think of the above quote from St Cyril that I posted?
And yes I do think from the Father through the Son is acceptable to the Orthodox. This is the teaching of Athanasius and Cyril. IIRC, Photius had no problem with it.

"After the thrice-blessed Fathers have brought to an end the statement about Christ, they mention the Holy Spirit. For they stated that they believe in him, just as they do in the Father and in the Son. For his [sic] is consubstantial with them and he is poured forth, that is, he proceeds as from the fountain of God the Father and he is bestowed on creation through the Son." ~St. Cyril

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Where to begin?...If you read the last part carefully, and remember Scripture, it is clear that Jesus' Hand was on Creation by the power of the Holy Spirit so that one must look not only to find the Holy Spirit in earthly time but eternally as well:

This is what the LORD says-
your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb:
I am the LORD, who has created all things,
who alone stretched out the heavens,
who spread out the earth by myself.
(Isaiah 44:24)

For by him (Christ Jesus) all things were created:
things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities-
All things were created by him and for him.
(Col 1:16-17)

Therefore the formulation in Latin refers to both the eternal procession and the earthly procession and in NEITHER case is the procession one of origination, nor is the preposition "from" restricted to some rigid meaning of origination.  From/through the Son refers to the same relationship and neither are originate.

The papal Church teaches explicitly that the Father is the source of all divinity, and that would include the essential and the hypostatic.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2011, 10:58:44 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #308 on: July 05, 2011, 10:57:46 AM »

Thank you for your response. I now understand the Catholic position on the filioque better due to your posts.

All praise and thanks to God.
Logged

Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,041


Saint Severus of Antioch - the Eloquent Mouth

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #309 on: July 05, 2011, 11:03:50 AM »

Thank you, that clarifies a lot. Now, don't think I by any means accept the filioque, but, I have increased my understanding of the RC position. That was the reason I joined this forum, not to debate or to argue, but, to increase my understanding. I suppose I'll take a deeper look into this later. Thanks!
Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ (Cf. St. John 16:33)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #310 on: July 05, 2011, 11:41:55 AM »

Thank you, that clarifies a lot. Now, don't think I by any means accept the filioque, but, I have increased my understanding of the RC position. That was the reason I joined this forum, not to debate or to argue, but, to increase my understanding. I suppose I'll take a deeper look into this later. Thanks!

There's never a need for you to accept the filioque, since it is not at all a part of your eastern or Byzantine tradition...presuming that you are of the Byzantine [Greek or Slav] tradition...I see now that you are not but even still, filioque is not part of your tradition in any way.

What would be helpful is to understand filioque sufficiently to be able to accept it as a legitimate and true theology, and then accept its inclusion in the Roman rite as part of its credal tradition. 

The reason that the filioque should not be removed from the Creed is precisely the same reason that Orthodoxy does not want to change ANY of her traditions, should we ever resume communion together...

There are some Roman bishops who would love to see Latinizations foisted upon Orthodoxy.  You can't slam the door shut in their faces on that score and then demand that they change their own traditions.

Must be mutual acceptance of one anothers traditions,  if not full and immediate universal respect, which is nearly impossible even across Orthodox jurisdictions.

M.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2011, 11:43:46 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,041


Saint Severus of Antioch - the Eloquent Mouth

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #311 on: July 05, 2011, 11:43:29 AM »

For the record I am Oriental Orthodox, not Byzantine or Slavic, we also reject the filioque. Thanks again  Smiley
Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ (Cf. St. John 16:33)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #312 on: July 05, 2011, 11:50:23 AM »

For the record I am Oriental Orthodox, not Byzantine or Slavic, we also reject the filioque. Thanks again  Smiley

When I was typing my reply I didn't have your data in front of me.  I caught it as soon as the note was published and corrected for you as a Copt!  Smiley   

Perhaps there will come a time when "reject" will not be the normative position toward filioque...bur rather acceptance in its appropriate context.

M.
Logged

Tags: Creed filioque The Creed 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   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 0.176 seconds with 71 queries.