OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 31, 2014, 01:59:45 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  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Filioque... in the East?  (Read 19861 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 319



« Reply #135 on: November 29, 2008, 12:46:08 AM »


If you would like to present an argument showing syriac translations with grammatical analysis, be my guest. 

Why would I do that for the second time on the same thread?
I can't see where you did that the first time.  ...

Take the glasses.

[size=0,1]Post No:7.[/size]
All you did was post a lot of links.  If you're trying to make a point I think it's fair that you at least cut and paste the pertinent info with your explanation instead of expecting me to follow your links and draw the same conclusion.  I'm not going to do your homework for you.
Logged
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 319



« Reply #136 on: November 29, 2008, 01:07:46 AM »

What does proceed here mean? Afterall, I want your sentence to be coherent, as I am sure you do as well if we want understanding.
The word used in the Creed is "εκπορευομενον" (pronounced "ekporevOmenon").
The root verb of this word is "εκπορευω" (pronounced "ekporevO") meaning "I cause to go forth". Thus "εκπορευομενον" means "caused to go forth from". The Creed says that the Holy Spirit is "το εκ του Πατρος εκπορευομενον" which transliterates as "The One out of the Father caused to go forth from". To add the filioque makes it read: "The one out of both the Father and the Son caused to go forth from" which is heresy.
I'd just like to make a little correction here, it's not really that important, but εκπορευω is not a word.  Εκπορευομαι is a present deponent verb and therefore has no active form.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #137 on: November 29, 2008, 01:16:30 AM »

I'd just like to make a little correction here, it's not really that important, but εκπορευω is not a word.
It is a word. I wish people would stop trying to correct me on my native tongue Cheesy, but if you don't believe me, then see page 518 of of H.G Liddell and R. Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (With A Revised Supplement). I've got it open in front of me now!
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 319



« Reply #138 on: November 29, 2008, 01:58:46 AM »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't your native tongue modern Greek?
Logged
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 319



« Reply #139 on: November 29, 2008, 02:03:29 AM »

Isn't εκπορευομενον a present continuous adverbial participle which translates specifically: "continuously comes(or goes) out of"?  I'm not trying to correct you on your native tongue, because Koine Greek (or this intermediate form of Greek) is no one's native tongue any more.
Logged
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 319



« Reply #140 on: November 29, 2008, 02:05:51 AM »

Furthermore, I don't know anything about modern Greek, but in ancient times this was a deponent verb.

I just checked out that lexicon, it ranges from 1200BC - 600AD, so I believe that the form existed at some point, but in early Christian times there was no root in that form.  So we're both right-ish. Cheesy
« Last Edit: November 29, 2008, 02:10:58 AM by Marc Hanna » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #141 on: November 29, 2008, 07:01:54 AM »

Quote
As has been posted, believing that the Son is a second principle is heresy enough

It's a question of authority. Your believe one way, the RC the other. Who is the final court of appeal? For the first 1000 years, it was the RC.

Honorius.

Yes, it's a question of authority.  You believe one way with the RC, I believe the other with the Fathers who cited Christ as their authority.  For the last 2000 years, the Ecumenical Council was and is the final court of appeal, as Popes Zosimos, Vigilius and Honorius found out, not to mention Pope Leo the Great (canon 3 of the second council and 28 of the Fourth).

When the Fathers of the Second Council wrote the Creed, they were not in communion with Rome.

Quote
Why exactly is having the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son hereitcal?


It's not.  But that has nothing to do with filioque.


Quote
The reasons you have provided here are incoherent to me
.

That's because the RC has evidently muddled your thinking.


Quote
You think otherwise.

The Fathers know otherwise.


Quote
I believe I have shown not only that your words were meaningless, and you grant this,


No, I don't.  Wishful thinking on your part.

Quote
but how the RC actually shows the way for a distinction.


If you want to know the Truth, make it up-Gospel of Dr. Seuss.


Quote
You claim that the river and lake are conflated since they both have the spring as their first source. NO one thinks that lakes and rivers are the same. You are alone here, but have to maintain that in order to secure the seperatism.


You are the one claiming a dual source.

Quote
Again: lakes are not rivers.

Again: you claim the water of the one comes from the other.  Btw, your linquistic limitations are showing: in many languages, yes they are.  And in Egypt, both in Ancient Egyptian, Coptic and Arabic, the Nile River is often referred to as the "sea."

Quote
I think that my case has been made, and what's the point in continuing?

Since the canons of the Ecumenical Councils and Constantinople IV (879) are clear in condemning filioque, I don't know why you do continue.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2008, 07:02:26 AM 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
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 #142 on: November 29, 2008, 07:07:40 AM »

Quote
Ever hear of a phrase book?

Of course, you trust that the person writing it speaks both languages and gets it right (I've seen phrase books that don't).

God the Word, incarnated, with the communication of the idioms tells us in human speech that the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds.  As He is our only informant, and we are in no position, not consubstantial with divinity, to correct Him, we take his word on it.

You would have a case if the Bible said: The Holy Spirit in no way has come from the Father through the Son. But it does not. So you try to deduce these major truths from inference while you claim to be darkness about.

LOL.  I've heard the same line of defense on reincarnation "the Bible doesn' say that souls aren't reborn."

The Son identifies the Spirit, the Paraclete as the Person Who proceeds from the Father.  Nothing about the Son.  Consult the end of Revelation about adding things.
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 #143 on: November 29, 2008, 07:14:59 AM »

Quote
Now you are telling us that you have the right to alter it based on your interpretation of the Bible

This brings up an interesting point. My interpretation. You say you believe the way you do because God told you. I can say the same thing, which would cancel your case.

LOL.  Ok, Joseph Smith, Jr.

Quote
Yet this is precisely what has been told to me here as a defense of not knowing meanings of words and beliefs. Do you guys listen to yourselves?

No, to the Fathers.

Quote
The creed was not changed, but clarified.

LOL.  Like the Quran clarified the NT.  Thank you, Muhammad.


Quote
The filioque was already in the western church father's mouth centuries before it was added to the creed.

Then they should have spit it out, and rinsed.


Quote
Back then, Rome was the center and first. First among equals as you would say. But I guess they were always wrong eh?  Wink

Not always, Honorius.  Your problem is you claim they never were.  The Fathers show othewise.

And so did Pope Leo III of Rome.  Leo forbade the addition of "filioque" to the Nicene Creed which was added by Franks in Aachen in 809. He also ordered that the Nicene creed be engraved on silver tablets so that his conclusion might not be overturned in the future. He wrote «HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI» (I, Leo, put here for love and protection of the Orthodox Faith)(VITA LEONIS, LIBER PONTIFICALIS (Ed.Duchene, TII, p.26)

Quote
 Earlychurch, you have had plenty of time to respond to the request made of you in July, in this post: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,17374.msg273145.html#msg273145

After you do so, you may continue in your ineffectual defense of your claims made in this thread, which you resurrected yourself while impersonating a 'new poster' interested in this topic.

I'll have to take a looksy. police
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 #144 on: November 29, 2008, 07:38:12 AM »

Furthermore, I don't know anything about modern Greek, but in ancient times this was a deponent verb.

I just checked out that lexicon, it ranges from 1200BC - 600AD, so I believe that the form existed at some point, but in early Christian times there was no root in that form.  So we're both right-ish. Cheesy

So it was a deponent verb.  So what?  In particular as although recorded in Greek, Christ most certainly said it in Aramaic.  The word, as has been mentioned, is napheq. Btw, for a literal translation from the Aramaic, a participle would have to be used.

1200BC-600 AD.  Gospel of John, c. 100.  Nicene(-Constantinopolitan) Creed, 381.  It fits.

As to Seleucia, I'll post a overly literal translation:

...and we confessors in (the) Spirit Living and Holy, the Living Paraclete who (is) from the Father and the Son, and in (the) one Trinity, in (the) one Essence, in (the) one will, we receivers the Faith of the three hundred and eighteen bishops who were in Nicea the city.  Such is our confession and our belief, it which we (are) receivers from our Holy Fathers.
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
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 319



« Reply #145 on: November 29, 2008, 10:05:39 AM »

^^regarding the Greek; that's my very point, in that spread of time Greek saw a lot of morphology.  In the period of Greek we're referring to the word had no active form and was deponent.  Just because the word existed at some time in that period it doesn't mean that it existed at all times.  Another example of this is the consonantal iota,; it also pre-existed biblical Greek but its usage dropped out.  It's still not overly relavent to the point at hand; it was just meant as a side note.

Regarding the Syriac, your literal translation is not entirely dissimilar in meaning.  I think it gives good reason to believe that this doctrine pre-existed its Latin usage.  It states that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2008, 10:07:33 AM by Marc Hanna » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #146 on: November 29, 2008, 10:55:31 AM »

^^regarding the Greek; that's my very point, in that spread of time Greek saw a lot of morphology.  In the period of Greek we're referring to the word had no active form and was deponent.  Just because the word existed at some time in that period it doesn't mean that it existed at all times.  Another example of this is the consonantal iota,; it also pre-existed biblical Greek but its usage dropped out.  It's still not overly relavent to the point at hand; it was just meant as a side note.

Since it existed at the time of Christ and the time of First Constantinople, I still don't see the relevance.  I am not sure what you mean by consonantal iota, since iota is still around.


Quote
Regarding the Syriac, your literal translation is not entirely dissimilar in meaning.  I think it gives good reason to believe that this doctrine pre-existed its Latin usage.  It states that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son.
No, the verb napheq would have to be present to render filioque.  Btw, the form of the Nicene Creed that the Assyrians use does NOT have "and the Son," though it explicitely, as does the original Greek, state that He proceeds from the Father.  As "men" renders both Greek "ek" and "dia," it is the verb (present in the Assyrian text of the Nicene Creed, without "and the Son"), that would be another issue.
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
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 319



« Reply #147 on: November 29, 2008, 11:11:27 AM »

The consanantal iota is another letter in the Greek alphabet that dropped out before biblical times, it is not the same as the vocalic iota which is still in use.

The active form of εκπορευομαι was also not in use during biblical times and the period afterward, so as we always profess that "context is key" any active form of the word is irrelavent to our conversations when they pertain to this period in time.

regarding whether or not the verb "to proceed" is present or not, the statement is still akin to the doctrine associated to the Creed with the inclusion of the filioque.  I certainly was not clear in my original post, and I apologise for that, I did not mean to make the assertion that the filioque was used specifically in the Creed but rather that the doctrine was present.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2008, 11:12:19 AM by Marc Hanna » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #148 on: November 29, 2008, 12:25:20 PM »

The consanantal iota is another letter in the Greek alphabet that dropped out before biblical times, it is not the same as the vocalic iota which is still in use.

You mean iota subscript?  It was dropped out of pronunciation and writing, but remained, as in the Constantinopolitan era (i.e. "Byzantine") it was retained by wringing under its vowel.

Quote
The active form of εκπορευομαι was also not in use during biblical times and the period afterward, so as we always profess that "context is key" any active form of the word is irrelavent to our conversations when they pertain to this period in time.

Since the Fathers used the term in 381, we know it existed.  Since being deponent would effect the form, but not the meaning (at leat in this case), what would be the relevance in any case?  As I've said, the Aramaic Vorlage would use the active participle, no matter what form the Greeks used.

Quote
regarding whether or not the verb "to proceed" is present or not, the statement is still akin to the doctrine associated to the Creed with the inclusion of the filioque.  I certainly was not clear in my original post, and I apologise for that, I did not mean to make the assertion that the filioque was used specifically in the Creed but rather that the doctrine was present.

The verb ekporeusis is the problem, or rather solution.  As the phrase "proceeds from the Father through the Son" is used by the Fathers of the 4th century and perhaps earlier than 381, that isn't an issue: the Spirit deriving His Person from a hypostatic procession from the Son is a problem.
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
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 319



« Reply #149 on: November 29, 2008, 12:58:37 PM »

1) No I didn't mean the iota subscript - that is actually still a vowel.

2) I've seen no active form used in 381

3) I don't think the verb is necessarily the root problem, but rather the understanding of and the presence of the doctrine of the eternal origin of the Holy Spirit.  The quote from 410, suggests that there was a possible understanding of such a doctrine.  If not, what is meant by the quote from 410?
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #150 on: November 29, 2008, 05:05:29 PM »

Excuse me, but I'm actually not the one who claimed that the phrases "τον εκ του Πατρος εκπορευομενον" and "qui ex Patre procedit" mean different things. I'm actually saying that they mean the same thing, i.e. That the Holy Spirit goes forth from the Father; which makes the filioque clearly heresy. What I am saying is that to try and claim that these phrases mean different things in order to defend the filioque means that the original meaning of the Creed has changed in Latin hands (which it hasn't, apart from the heretical adding of the filioque). Face it, you guys say that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, contrary to the Church Fathers of the Nicean-Constantinoplian Synods. That's fine, believe whatever you want- but just don't keep trying to justify it to we who hold the Orthodox Faith of the Church.

My goodness, why don't you Orthodox appreciate mystery? You folks are always trying to legalistically define the undefinable.... Wink
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #151 on: November 29, 2008, 05:09:45 PM »

My goodness, why don't you Orthodox appreciate mystery heresy? You folks are always trying to legalistically define apophatically approach the undefinable.... Wink
Corrections made for the sake of accuracy.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2008, 05:10:00 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 319



« Reply #152 on: November 29, 2008, 05:44:03 PM »

^^ Cheesy
« Last Edit: November 29, 2008, 05:44:24 PM by Marc Hanna » Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #153 on: November 29, 2008, 06:04:42 PM »

It should be noted that the adherence to Orthodox Faith has been criticized both as "unability to define" and "legalistically define the undefinable" by filioquists on the same thread.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,728


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #154 on: November 29, 2008, 06:57:25 PM »

It should be noted that the adherence to Orthodox Faith has been criticized both as "unability to define" and "legalistically define the undefinable" by filioquists on the same thread.
Yes, and what you see in lubeltri's Reply #150 above is his use of the rhetorical tactic of irony.  Take the specific criticism in that post with a bit of a sense of humor.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #155 on: November 29, 2008, 07:28:58 PM »

2) I've seen no active form used in 381
Euripides uses the present imperative active "ἐκπορεύετ'" ("fetch out"/"summon forth") in line 1068 of Phoenissae.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2008, 07:29:20 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 319



« Reply #156 on: November 29, 2008, 08:13:55 PM »

How about active indicative?  Seeing as that was the specific form in question.  Cheesy
« Last Edit: November 29, 2008, 08:15:17 PM by Marc Hanna » Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #157 on: December 01, 2008, 05:36:55 PM »

Resurrection of this Thread!  Grin

Didn't a Father once say that the distinctions between Son and Spirit is one proceeds and the other is begotten and to look no further into the mystery? Does this sound familiar to anyone?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #158 on: December 01, 2008, 05:56:09 PM »

Resurrection of this Thread!  Grin

Didn't a Father once say that the distinctions between Son and Spirit is one proceeds and the other is begotten and to look no further into the mystery? Does this sound familiar to anyone?

Both St. Gregory the Theologian and St. Gregory of Nyssa. Can't look for the quotes now, you'll have them tomorrow if nobody else provides them.

Edit: typo
« Last Edit: December 01, 2008, 05:56:58 PM by orthodoxlurker » Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #159 on: December 01, 2008, 06:16:58 PM »

Not exactly what you were after, but a few passages to chew on...

"What then is Procession?  Do you tell me what is the Unbegottenness of the Father, and I will explain to you the physiology of the Generation of the Son and the Procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be frenzy-stricken for prying into the mystery of God. And who are we to do these things, we who cannot even see what lies at our feet, or number the sand of the sea, or the drops of rain, or the days of Eternity, much less enter into the Depths of God, and supply an account of that Nature which is so unspeakable and transcending all words?" - St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 31, 8

"For though the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father, yet this is not generative in character but processional. This is a different mode of existence, alike incomprehensible and unknown, just as is the generation of the Son... For the Father alone is ingenerate, no other subsistence having given Him being. And the Son alone is generate, for He was begotten of the Father’s essence without beginning and without time. And only the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father’s essence, not having been generated but simply proceeding. For this is the doctrine of Holy Scripture. But the nature of the generation and the procession is quite beyond comprehension." - St. John Of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 1, 8
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #160 on: December 01, 2008, 06:23:10 PM »

Not exactly what you were after, but a few passages to chew on...

"What then is Procession?  Do you tell me what is the Unbegottenness of the Father, and I will explain to you the physiology of the Generation of the Son and the Procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be frenzy-stricken for prying into the mystery of God. And who are we to do these things, we who cannot even see what lies at our feet, or number the sand of the sea, or the drops of rain, or the days of Eternity, much less enter into the Depths of God, and supply an account of that Nature which is so unspeakable and transcending all words?" - St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 31, 8

"For though the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father, yet this is not generative in character but processional. This is a different mode of existence, alike incomprehensible and unknown, just as is the generation of the Son... For the Father alone is ingenerate, no other subsistence having given Him being. And the Son alone is generate, for He was begotten of the Father’s essence without beginning and without time. And only the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father’s essence, not having been generated but simply proceeding. For this is the doctrine of Holy Scripture. But the nature of the generation and the procession is quite beyond comprehension." - St. John Of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 1, 8

yeah! The First one was it! You are the Man! Thanks so much!
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
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 #161 on: December 03, 2008, 11:21:19 PM »

I have a question (I've searched here, to no avail): does any one know the background of St. Maximus' letter to Marino on the filioque (for one thing, do we have it in Greek, or only Latin? police).
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 #162 on: July 27, 2011, 02:11:11 PM »

Just came across this interesting tidbit in Aquinas' Summa:
Quote
Article 2. Whether the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son?

Objection 3. Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i): "We say that the Holy Ghost is from the Father, and we name Him the spirit of the Father; but we do not say that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, yet we name Him the Spirit of the Son." Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son....

Reply to Objection 3. The Nestorians were the first to introduce the error that the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son, as appears in a Nestorian creed condemned in the council of Ephesus. This error was embraced by Theodoric the Nestorian, and several others after him, among whom was also Damascene. Hence, in that point his opinion is not to be held. Although, too, it has been asserted by some that while Damascene did not confess that the Holy Ghost was from the Son, neither do those words of his express a denial thereof.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1036.htm#article2
Only in the reasoning of the Scholastic Vatican does a denial not deny what it denies.

interesting, given the claim that the Filioque first appeared at the Council of Seleucia, and the association of that Council in the history of Nestorianism.

The Nestorians have a work of Theodore of Mopsuestia (condemned for his heretical Nestorianism at Constantinople II) commenting on the Nicean Creed (although it treats the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed), which says on the section in question:
Quote
It is with the (above) words that our blessed Fathers warned us and taught us that we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit was from the Divine nature of God the Father. This is the reason why He is confessed and believed in side by side with the Father and the Son at the time of initiation and baptism. Each one of us is baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, according to the doctrine of our Fathers, which is derived from the teaching of our Lord, so that it should be made clear and manifest to all that our blessed Fathers handed down to us the doctrine of the true faith by following the order of Christ. Even the words of the creed contain nothing but an explanation and interpretation of the words found in the teaching of our Lord. Indeed, He who ordered to baptise the Gentiles in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit showed us clearly that the Divine nature of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is one. It was not possible that He should induce the Gentiles—who were converted to the true faith by casting away from them the error of polytheism and rejecting those who were falsely called gods—to receive a teaching that drew them nigh unto the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, if He did not know the oneness of their Divine nature which exists eternally and which is the cause of everything; (nor would He have induced us) to secede from those who are not truly gods and to believe in one Divine nature which is Father, Son and Holy Spirit; to desist from calling creatures gods and to believe that the uncreated nature is one, which from nothing can make everything because it is truly Lord and God to whom this name and this honour are justly due.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/theodore_of_mopsuestia_nicene_02_text.htm#C9
« Last Edit: July 27, 2011, 02:22:14 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
Tags: filioque Seleucia 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4  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 0.117 seconds with 56 queries.