OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 25, 2014, 01:07:14 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 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Orthodox vs. RC Eucharist  (Read 2094 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Timon
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,490



« on: July 30, 2011, 01:45:14 PM »

Is it true that it would be unacceptable for an Orthodox Christian to take communion in a RC church? I thought that they had similar views on the topic.  What are the major differences, if any?  I understand why an Orthodox or a RC wouldnt want to take communion in a protestant church, because they dont have a sacramental view of it. Its more of just a remembrance of a long lost friend. (Even though most protestant churches have all but abandoned the practice... so even if they did want to, they probably wouldnt have the chance!!)

Also, I heard there are some rules about worshipping and praying with people of other Christian faiths. Is this true? This is one thing that has kind of been holding me back as I am just about on board with everything regarding Orthodox faith.  (I grew up protestant...) What are the reasons for these types of rules, if there are any.  Maybe I just heard/understood wrong.  It seems like it shouldnt be a problem since we all pray to and worship the same God, even if we do have some differences on different subjects.  Help me understand! Thanks a lot!

Logged

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

— Chrysostom

BLOG
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 #1 on: July 30, 2011, 01:53:24 PM »

Is it true that it would be unacceptable for an Orthodox Christian to take communion in a RC church?

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I thought that they had similar views on the topic.

Define similar.
What are the major differences, if any?
Their supreme pontiff, his "magisterium," and their reducing the whole of the Faith to submitting to the Vatican.  That's just for starters.

I understand why an Orthodox or a RC wouldnt want to take communion in a protestant church, because they dont have a sacramental view of it. Its more of just a remembrance of a long lost friend. (Even though most protestant churches have all but abandoned the practice... so even if they did want to, they probably wouldnt have the chance!!)

Technically, the Vatican isn't much difference from the Orthodox POV as far as the status of their ecclesial communities.

Also, I heard there are some rules about worshipping and praying with people of other Christian faiths. Is this true?
yes.
This is one thing that has kind of been holding me back as I am just about on board with everything regarding Orthodox faith.  (I grew up protestant...) What are the reasons for these types of rules, if there are any.  
Why can you make love only with your wife.  Same reason.
Maybe I just heard/understood wrong.  It seems like it shouldnt be a problem since we all pray to and worship the same God,
are you so sure with that?
even if we do have some differences on different subjects.  Help me understand! Thanks a lot!
a stranger is not a member of the family.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2011, 01:58:12 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
Timon
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,490



« Reply #2 on: July 30, 2011, 01:59:34 PM »

Maybe I just heard/understood wrong.  It seems like it shouldnt be a problem since we all pray to and worship the same God,
Quote
are you so sure with that?


I thought I was. After all, isnt the one thing that Orthodox, RC, and Protestants all agree on is the Trinity? God in 3 persons? I certainly assumed that we all worshipped the same God. Am I wrong?
Logged

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

— Chrysostom

BLOG
lost
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #3 on: July 30, 2011, 02:10:28 PM »

I think one of the symbolism of taking communion in a certain church is the acceptance of their dogma... that is one of the reasons is inappropriate to comune in other churches...
Logged
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #4 on: July 30, 2011, 02:14:12 PM »

Maybe I just heard/understood wrong.  It seems like it shouldnt be a problem since we all pray to and worship the same God,
Quote
are you so sure with that?


I thought I was. After all, isnt the one thing that Orthodox, RC, and Protestants all agree on is the Trinity? God in 3 persons? I certainly assumed that we all worshipped the same God. Am I wrong?

The Trinity seems to work differently in the 'RC' ecclesiastical organization than in the Orthodox Church.

Protestants may have many different heresies as well.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2011, 02:16:42 PM by FrChris » Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
Timon
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,490



« Reply #5 on: July 30, 2011, 03:06:53 PM »

Maybe I just heard/understood wrong.  It seems like it shouldnt be a problem since we all pray to and worship the same God,
Quote
are you so sure with that?


I thought I was. After all, isnt the one thing that Orthodox, RC, and Protestants all agree on is the Trinity? God in 3 persons? I certainly assumed that we all worshipped the same God. Am I wrong?

The Trinity seems to work differently in the 'RC' ecclesiastical organization than in the Orthodox Church.

Protestants may have many different heresies as well.

Could you be a little more specific?
Logged

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

— Chrysostom

BLOG
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 #6 on: July 30, 2011, 03:10:58 PM »

Maybe I just heard/understood wrong.  It seems like it shouldnt be a problem since we all pray to and worship the same God,
Quote
are you so sure with that?


I thought I was. After all, isnt the one thing that Orthodox, RC, and Protestants all agree on is the Trinity? God in 3 persons? I certainly assumed that we all worshipped the same God. Am I wrong?

The Trinity seems to work differently in the 'RC' ecclesiastical organization than in the Orthodox Church.

Protestants may have many different heresies as well.

Could you be a little more specific?
The scholastics have the divine Persons arise out of the divine essence, whereas the divine essence is shared (consubstantial) between the divine persons.

The Vatican has the Spirit proceeding from the Son in addition to the Father, whereas He processes, according to Christ the incarnate Son, from the Person of the Father.

The Scholastics confine the Divine Persons to the divine essence, whereas the flow beyond the divine essence in the divine energies.
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
lost
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #7 on: July 30, 2011, 03:25:35 PM »

just curious : Was filioque ever condemn in a pre-schism council?
Logged
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #8 on: July 30, 2011, 03:31:48 PM »

just curious : Was filioque ever condemn in a pre-schism council?

Absolutely. The actual 8th Council (the one initially accepted by Rome but then they committed an egregious act of historical revisionism to adopt a different council as their 8th) stated the filioque was a heresy.

We had a thumbtacked thread up about this, plus one of the articles elsewhere on this website discussed this. The interesting thing is this:

The actual 8th Council provided the reunification of the East and West after the Photian Schism. If history transpired as the Vatican proclaims, then this Photian Schism was never healed and the Churches were separated long before 1054 or 1204.

-----------------

PS: Here's the thread I was thinking of!
« Last Edit: July 30, 2011, 03:43:11 PM by FrChris » Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
lost
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #9 on: July 30, 2011, 04:04:24 PM »

just curious : Was filioque ever condemn in a pre-schism council?

Absolutely. The actual 8th Council (the one initially accepted by Rome but then they committed an egregious act of historical revisionism to adopt a different council as their 8th) stated the filioque was a heresy.

We had a thumbtacked thread up about this, plus one of the articles elsewhere on this website discussed this. The interesting thing is this:

The actual 8th Council provided the reunification of the East and West after the Photian Schism. If history transpired as the Vatican proclaims, then this Photian Schism was never healed and the Churches were separated long before 1054 or 1204.

-----------------

PS: Here's the thread I was thinking of!

Is Photius considered a saint?
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 #10 on: July 30, 2011, 04:07:12 PM »

just curious : Was filioque ever condemn in a pre-schism council?

Absolutely. The actual 8th Council (the one initially accepted by Rome but then they committed an egregious act of historical revisionism to adopt a different council as their 8th) stated the filioque was a heresy.

We had a thumbtacked thread up about this, plus one of the articles elsewhere on this website discussed this. The interesting thing is this:

The actual 8th Council provided the reunification of the East and West after the Photian Schism. If history transpired as the Vatican proclaims, then this Photian Schism was never healed and the Churches were separated long before 1054 or 1204.

-----------------

PS: Here's the thread I was thinking of!

Is Photius considered a saint?
the Great and Pillar of Orthodoxy.
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
lost
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #11 on: July 30, 2011, 04:11:18 PM »

just curious : Was filioque ever condemn in a pre-schism council?

Absolutely. The actual 8th Council (the one initially accepted by Rome but then they committed an egregious act of historical revisionism to adopt a different council as their 8th) stated the filioque was a heresy.

We had a thumbtacked thread up about this, plus one of the articles elsewhere on this website discussed this. The interesting thing is this:

The actual 8th Council provided the reunification of the East and West after the Photian Schism. If history transpired as the Vatican proclaims, then this Photian Schism was never healed and the Churches were separated long before 1054 or 1204.

-----------------

PS: Here's the thread I was thinking of!

that had political implications and does not count... Photius himself was two-faced on this..
Logged
lost
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #12 on: July 30, 2011, 04:13:53 PM »

Just wondering why wasn`t it condemned soon after Toledo? Why did it had to pass somewhere around 200 years to be condemned?why did people accept it for 200 years with no problem?And why did all the Fathers say the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son?
« Last Edit: July 30, 2011, 04:14:20 PM by lost » Logged
Timon
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,490



« Reply #13 on: July 30, 2011, 04:19:20 PM »


Quote
The scholastics have the divine Persons arise out of the divine essence, whereas the divine essence is shared (consubstantial) between the divine persons.

The Vatican has the Spirit proceeding from the Son in addition to the Father, whereas He processes, according to Christ the incarnate Son, from the Person of the Father.

The Scholastics confine the Divine Persons to the divine essence, whereas the flow beyond the divine essence in the divine energies.

Is there any further reading I could do on this? Excuse my ignorance, but I obviously can read the words, but I really do not understand what it means! Ha! Theres so much I've been trying to take in lately that sometimes it just doesnt make sense!

And also... "fililoque" means "of the son" and that ties in with what you said about the Vatican position you stated above... right?
Logged

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

— Chrysostom

BLOG
Timon
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,490



« Reply #14 on: July 30, 2011, 04:23:32 PM »

And also, sort of going back to my original point about worship and prayers.... Since certain prayers such as the Jesus Prayer are typically "Orthodox" does that mean that they shouldnt be used outside the Orthodox church? Should I not, for example, have it in my signature since I'm not Orthodox although I pray it often and think it is a beautiful prayer? Should I not have an "icon" as my picture, even though I love the use of icons? Ha. I certainly dont think it would be a problem, but I would just like to be sure.  I dont want the real Orthodox to think im a "poser"!!! (although I guess I technically am....)
Logged

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

— Chrysostom

BLOG
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #15 on: July 30, 2011, 04:27:34 PM »

Is it true that it would be unacceptable for an Orthodox Christian to take communion in a RC church? I thought that they had similar views on the topic.  What are the major differences, if any?  I understand why an Orthodox or a RC wouldnt want to take communion in a protestant church, because they dont have a sacramental view of it. Its more of just a remembrance of a long lost friend. (Even though most protestant churches have all but abandoned the practice... so even if they did want to, they probably wouldnt have the chance!!)

To put it simply, more than agreement on the sacramental nature of Communion is necessary for intercommunion. Orthodox churches do not intercommune with other Orthodox churches just because they hold a sacramental view of Communion. The reason we do not intercommune with Rome is because we are not in communion with each other. There are other differences in faith and those differences do matter. Even if there was either no or very little difference in the substance of our faith, the fact is that, biblically speaking, one aspect of Communion is that it is an expression of being united as the Body of Christ as a single Body joined together. Unfortunately, for the last thousand years or so, depending on how you time it, we haven't been one body body with Rome, but have been two entirely seperate bodies without any visible link of being joined together. That is why we cannot intercommune. Even Rome's official stance that "encourages" intercommunion at the level of allowing laity to commune in each others churches is still conditional on "approval of church authority" (CCC Par 1399). It's not about how we understand the Eucharist, but about how we understand and identify the Church as the Body of Christ.

I hope this helps.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2011, 04:31:47 PM by Melodist » Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
lost
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #16 on: July 30, 2011, 04:31:09 PM »

communing in a different church represents a spiritual betrayal of your religion..

Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #17 on: July 30, 2011, 04:37:12 PM »

communing in a different church represents a spiritual betrayal of your religion..

Only if that church is not in communion with your own. For example, as a member of the OCA, I could receive Communion in a Greek or Antiochian church, but not in a Roman Catholic church because we are not in communion with each other. To do so would be to essentially be joined to their church and by default sever the sacramental bond that I have with my own.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #18 on: July 30, 2011, 04:39:32 PM »

Just wondering why wasn`t it condemned soon after Toledo?


The use of the filioque had not become a church-wide issue until several centuries after Toledo committed its heretical error.

Besides, what is important is that the Church did condemn the clause. There is no statute of limitations or anything like that which would allow anything like 'this heresy has been around long enough for it to be true now'.


why did people accept it for 200 years with no problem?

People did NOT accept it for 200 years with 'no problem'. I suggest you actually read the references linked to in the thread, as well as the thread itself. There is no way you can make that statement if you have read those items.

 Finally, if you actually believe that

Quote
all the Fathers say the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son?

This makes my head spin...clearly you need to read St. Photius the Great. His Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit will cause you to disavow that ridiculous claim.

Additionally, the statement you cite is very different from the filioque.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2011, 04:43:00 PM by FrChris » Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,972


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #19 on: July 30, 2011, 04:44:28 PM »

And also, sort of going back to my original point about worship and prayers.... Since certain prayers such as the Jesus Prayer are typically "Orthodox" does that mean that they shouldnt be used outside the Orthodox church? Should I not, for example, have it in my signature since I'm not Orthodox although I pray it often and think it is a beautiful prayer? Should I not have an "icon" as my picture, even though I love the use of icons? Ha. I certainly dont think it would be a problem, but I would just like to be sure.  I dont want the real Orthodox to think im a "poser"!!! (although I guess I technically am....)

There is nothing wrong with you praying Orthodox prayers. There is nothing wrong with you praying with Orthodox people if you agree with their views of God.

The issue is that to be led in prayer by someone, and to say "amen" to that prayer, is to affirm that their view of God is correct. If I say "amen" to a Calvinist prayer, for example, I am affirming that God arbitrarily predestines men to damnation and is the ultimate artificer of man's suffering, a position anathematized by the Council of Jerusalem in 1672. If I join in prayer with a Catholic, I am affirming that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in eternity. I am also affirming that their version of Christianity is "one of many valid versions".
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,972


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #20 on: July 30, 2011, 04:45:00 PM »

Why did all the Fathers say the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son?
Because He does proceed from the Father through the Son.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #21 on: July 30, 2011, 04:45:35 PM »

And also, sort of going back to my original point about worship and prayers.... Since certain prayers such as the Jesus Prayer are typically "Orthodox" does that mean that they shouldnt be used outside the Orthodox church? Should I not, for example, have it in my signature since I'm not Orthodox although I pray it often and think it is a beautiful prayer? Should I not have an "icon" as my picture, even though I love the use of icons? Ha. I certainly dont think it would be a problem, but I would just like to be sure.  I dont want the real Orthodox to think im a "poser"!!! (although I guess I technically am....)

Just don't lie about your faith or identify yourself as something you're not and you should be good.
Logged

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

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

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



« Reply #22 on: July 30, 2011, 04:55:25 PM »

And why did all the Fathers say the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son?

It is my undestanding that there are fathers who say this, and we affirm that "through" does not mean the same thing as "from". This is one point of contention on the matter where Rome and credal Protestants affirm that both words mean the same thing.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
lost
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #23 on: July 30, 2011, 05:02:04 PM »

Just wondering why wasn`t it condemned soon after Toledo?


The use of the filioque had not become a church-wide issue until several centuries after Toledo committed its heretical error.

the filioque was pretty wide-spread... that is why Leo put an unalterated copy of the original creed without filioque.. nevertheless he never condemned filioque...

Quote
Besides, what is important is that the Church did condemn the clause. There is no statute of limitations or anything like that which would allow anything like 'this heresy has been around long enough for it to be true now'.

more on a political basis than a dogmatical one... it first affirmed it... the eight council is as if it was not... it is a robber-council...


why did people accept it for 200 years with no problem?

Quote
People did NOT accept it for 200 years with 'no problem'. I suggest you actually read the references linked to in the thread, as well as the thread itself. There is no way you can make that statement if you have read those items.

who was against it?

 
Quote
Finally, if you actually believe that

Quote
all the Fathers say the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son?

This makes my head spin...clearly you need to read St. Photius the Great. His Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit will cause you to disavow that ridiculous claim.

Additionally, the statement you cite is very different from the filioque.
[/quote]

I've read it partly and didn`t understand much,it had no substance... and I consider myself a very spiritual discerning person... I don`t like Photius... he was a hypocrite... the eight ecumenical council was strong politics... as it was the Great-Schism... both out of human pride and excess of zeal...

well the Fathers did said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, even big-guns... They speak of the Holy Spirit as the 'Breath' of the Word... Essp St. Basil... See St. Basil 'On the Holy Spirit'.. Also 'Ruach' one of the hebrew names for Spirit means 'breath' air.... there is much evidence and support for the procession of the Spirit also from the Son than it is against it.... Also one of the difference here out of pride might be that of language... The Catholics say that the Father is the initiator of the Spirit, but through the Word...
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #24 on: July 30, 2011, 05:02:38 PM »

just curious : Was filioque ever condemn in a pre-schism council?

Absolutely. The actual 8th Council (the one initially accepted by Rome but then they committed an egregious act of historical revisionism to adopt a different council as their 8th) stated the filioque was a heresy.

We had a thumbtacked thread up about this, plus one of the articles elsewhere on this website discussed this. The interesting thing is this:

The actual 8th Council provided the reunification of the East and West after the Photian Schism. If history transpired as the Vatican proclaims, then this Photian Schism was never healed and the Churches were separated long before 1054 or 1204.

-----------------

PS: Here's the thread I was thinking of!
But the 8th council wouldn't necessarily be binding from an Eastern Orthodox point of view since the EO Church only professes seven councils to be Ecumenical.
Logged
lost
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #25 on: July 30, 2011, 05:03:53 PM »

And why did all the Fathers say the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son?

It is my undestanding that there are fathers who say this, and we affirm that "through" does not mean the same thing as "from". This is one point of contention on the matter where Rome and credal Protestants affirm that both words mean the same thing.

i`ve heard this argument and is absurd... besides there are statements more clearer than that.. i`ve also heard that the writings have been forged... that is more absurd...
Logged
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #26 on: July 30, 2011, 05:07:00 PM »

just curious : Was filioque ever condemn in a pre-schism council?

Absolutely. The actual 8th Council (the one initially accepted by Rome but then they committed an egregious act of historical revisionism to adopt a different council as their 8th) stated the filioque was a heresy.

We had a thumbtacked thread up about this, plus one of the articles elsewhere on this website discussed this. The interesting thing is this:

The actual 8th Council provided the reunification of the East and West after the Photian Schism. If history transpired as the Vatican proclaims, then this Photian Schism was never healed and the Churches were separated long before 1054 or 1204.

-----------------

PS: Here's the thread I was thinking of!
But the 8th council wouldn't necessarily be binding from an Eastern Orthodox point of view since the EO Church only professes seven councils to be Ecumenical.

Please read the article posted on this site. You will find that phrase 'Church of the Seven Councils' is something of a catchphrase that is not historically accurate.

And, once again I wind up repeating myself: if the 8th Council were not accepted as being Ecumenical, then the Schism between the Church and Rome occurred during the Photian Schism instead of later. However, since the Schism  was healed during the 8th Council, East and West were back in communion with each other.
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,972


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #27 on: July 30, 2011, 05:16:49 PM »

And why did all the Fathers say the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son?

It is my undestanding that there are fathers who say this, and we affirm that "through" does not mean the same thing as "from". This is one point of contention on the matter where Rome and credal Protestants affirm that both words mean the same thing.

i`ve heard this argument and is absurd... besides there are statements more clearer than that.. i`ve also heard that the writings have been forged... that is more absurd...
It is not an absurd argument.

There is a difference between the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son in eternity as from an ultimate origin, versus coming through the Son. The former destroys the monarchy of the Father and makes the Godhead unapproachable.

I don`t like Photius... he was a hypocrite...
Quite an accusation.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2011, 05:18:11 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Timon
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,490



« Reply #28 on: July 30, 2011, 05:25:29 PM »

Quote

Just don't lie about your faith or identify yourself as something you're not and you should be good.

Certainly dont want to lie about that. As I said, I grew up Protestant and feel like I am in a period of transition. Although, I will admit that I play music for a living and a lot of the work that I do is contract work within local churches. (Obviously, most are Protestant, and I sometimes play guitar for a "contemporary mass" at a RC church.) Im not sure what the Orthodox view would be on my profession, but as of now it is essential for me to provide for my family.  I also teach lessons during the week.  

Obviously, with my work, it would be hard for me to attend DL on a Sunday at least in this stage of my life.  I do attend a Eucharist service during the week at an Anglican church.  But the church I like to attend, and do whenever I can, is an Anglo-Catholic church within the Anglican communion.  (It's also a "sister church" of the one I attend during the week.) They do, at least with how things look and how they do things, resemble an Orthodox church.  I think that they wish they were in communion with the Orthodox church, at least from talks ive had with the people there, and may be taking steps to make that happen. (although I have no idea what those steps would be... or if its even possible.)

Thats just a little, honest background of where I am.  I am seriously studying the Orthodox (and RC) faith.  I certainly am more inline with the Orthodox.  But my current transitional phase is why I am on this forum asking so many questions. So please be patient with me. Haha!
« Last Edit: July 30, 2011, 05:26:45 PM by kurtismjohnson » Logged

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

— Chrysostom

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,682


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #29 on: July 30, 2011, 05:26:58 PM »

just curious : Was filioque ever condemn in a pre-schism council?

Absolutely. The actual 8th Council (the one initially accepted by Rome but then they committed an egregious act of historical revisionism to adopt a different council as their 8th) stated the filioque was a heresy.

We had a thumbtacked thread up about this, plus one of the articles elsewhere on this website discussed this. The interesting thing is this:

The actual 8th Council provided the reunification of the East and West after the Photian Schism. If history transpired as the Vatican proclaims, then this Photian Schism was never healed and the Churches were separated long before 1054 or 1204.

-----------------

PS: Here's the thread I was thinking of!

that had political implications and does not count...
How so?

Photius himself was two-faced on this..
How so?
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,972


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #30 on: July 30, 2011, 05:27:36 PM »

But the church I like to attend, and do whenever I can, is an Anglo-Catholic church within the Anglican communion.  (It's also a "sister church" of the one I attend during the week.) They do, at least with how things look and how they do things, resemble an Orthodox church.  I think that they wish they were in communion with the Orthodox church, at least from talks ive had with the people there, and may be taking steps to make that happen. (although I have no idea what those steps would be... or if its even possible.)
It's happened before and is very possible. At least two Orthodox jurisdictions possess "Western Rites" now that have accepted Anglo-Catholics, Anglicans, Traditional Catholics, etc.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2011, 05:28:24 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
lost
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #31 on: July 30, 2011, 05:31:04 PM »

And why did all the Fathers say the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son?

It is my undestanding that there are fathers who say this, and we affirm that "through" does not mean the same thing as "from". This is one point of contention on the matter where Rome and credal Protestants affirm that both words mean the same thing.

i`ve heard this argument and is absurd... besides there are statements more clearer than that.. i`ve also heard that the writings have been forged... that is more absurd...
It is not an absurd argument.

There is a difference between the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son in eternity as from an ultimate origin, versus coming through the Son. The former destroys the monarchy of the Father and makes the Godhead unapproachable.

I don`t like Photius... he was a hypocrite...
Quite an accusation.

yeah... when the Holy Fathers speak of the Procession of the Holy Ghost through the Son they refer to His Origins(see the context)... Like the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son as through one principle... 'everything was made through the Word' , 'my Word is Spirit and truth' , 'he blowed on them Holy Spirit' , 'all the Father has, the Son has also' ... the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son as through a channel... another saying... plus the Fathers call the Spirit as The Third of Origins...

As concerning Photius I would not dare calling him a saint... my opinion is that it is an exagerration to strenghten up the anti-catholic feeling... read the genesis and evolution of the Great Schism... it's roots stand on roman vs greek culture... who is best... constantinople was always jealous on rome... they wanted to be a little popes themselves... they conflicted and battled over jurisdictions with all sort of things... it was most of the times about ego's..
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,972


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #32 on: July 30, 2011, 05:33:24 PM »

yeah... when the Holy Fathers speak of the Procession of the Holy Ghost through the Son they refer to His Origins(see the context)... Like the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son as through one principle... 'everything was made through the Word' , 'my Word is Spirit and truth' , 'he blowed on them Holy Spirit' , 'all the Father has, the Son has also' ... the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son as through a channel... another saying... plus the Fathers call the Spirit as The Third of Origins...
I don't think you understand the distinction between Eternal vs. Temporal procession.

constantinople was always jealous on rome... they wanted to be a little popes themselves...
What have you been reading?
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Timon
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,490



« Reply #33 on: July 30, 2011, 05:38:29 PM »

So my thread has officially been hijacked. Haha. Its ok because I'm interested, but someone please explain to me what "procession of the spirit through the Son" means.  I know I should understand it, but a lot of these ideas are new to me.  I have no shame in asking, because I want to learn.  Also, please someone briefly summarize the Orthodox view vs. the RC view of "procession of the spirit...."

Thanks. I know I'm a dummy....
Logged

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

— Chrysostom

BLOG
lost
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #34 on: July 30, 2011, 05:42:14 PM »

just curious : Was filioque ever condemn in a pre-schism council?

Absolutely. The actual 8th Council (the one initially accepted by Rome but then they committed an egregious act of historical revisionism to adopt a different council as their 8th) stated the filioque was a heresy.

We had a thumbtacked thread up about this, plus one of the articles elsewhere on this website discussed this. The interesting thing is this:

The actual 8th Council provided the reunification of the East and West after the Photian Schism. If history transpired as the Vatican proclaims, then this Photian Schism was never healed and the Churches were separated long before 1054 or 1204.

-----------------

PS: Here's the thread I was thinking of!

that had political implications and does not count...
How so?

Photius himself was two-faced on this..
How so?

the battle over the jurisdiction of Bulgaria... Photius first admitted that the differences between East and West does not break the unity and raport between the two Churches... Afterwards he changed his mind in his Encycle to Bulgarians and imputed the roman celibacy , fast on saturdays and filioque, ... He then exaggerated and said that the romans sacrificed a lamb on Passover like the jews and that they ordain deacons bishops and that they prepare the Holy Myrrh with river water, and etc...
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,972


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #35 on: July 30, 2011, 05:43:47 PM »

So my thread has officially been hijacked. Haha. Its ok because I'm interested, but someone please explain to me what "procession of the spirit through the Son" means.  I know I should understand it, but a lot of these ideas are new to me.  I have no shame in asking, because I want to learn.  Also, please someone briefly summarize the Orthodox view vs. the RC view of "procession of the spirit...."

Thanks. I know I'm a dummy....

Eternal Procession: The ultimate origin of the Holy Spirit and the Son is in the Father.

Temporal Procession: The Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son, but is not originated in the Son.

If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son ultimately, you get this:

http://thetrinitydoctrine.com/__MASTER/assets/Images/Catholic-Trinity-Illustration.jpg

Which is quasi-modalism.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2011, 05:44:36 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
lost
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #36 on: July 30, 2011, 05:44:29 PM »

yeah... when the Holy Fathers speak of the Procession of the Holy Ghost through the Son they refer to His Origins(see the context)... Like the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son as through one principle... 'everything was made through the Word' , 'my Word is Spirit and truth' , 'he blowed on them Holy Spirit' , 'all the Father has, the Son has also' ... the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son as through a channel... another saying... plus the Fathers call the Spirit as The Third of Origins...
I don't think you understand the distinction between Eternal vs. Temporal procession.

constantinople was always jealous on rome... they wanted to be a little popes themselves...
What have you been reading?

I do temporal 'procession' refers to the sending in time of the Holy Ghost by the Son..

Eternal procession refers to the origins of the Holy Ghost...

Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,972


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #37 on: July 30, 2011, 05:45:13 PM »

yeah... when the Holy Fathers speak of the Procession of the Holy Ghost through the Son they refer to His Origins(see the context)... Like the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son as through one principle... 'everything was made through the Word' , 'my Word is Spirit and truth' , 'he blowed on them Holy Spirit' , 'all the Father has, the Son has also' ... the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son as through a channel... another saying... plus the Fathers call the Spirit as The Third of Origins...
I don't think you understand the distinction between Eternal vs. Temporal procession.

constantinople was always jealous on rome... they wanted to be a little popes themselves...
What have you been reading?

I do temporal 'procession' refers to the sending in time of the Holy Ghost by the Son..

Eternal procession refers to the origins of the Holy Ghost...


So do you believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in Eternal Procession?
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
lost
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #38 on: July 30, 2011, 05:53:05 PM »

yeah... when the Holy Fathers speak of the Procession of the Holy Ghost through the Son they refer to His Origins(see the context)... Like the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son as through one principle... 'everything was made through the Word' , 'my Word is Spirit and truth' , 'he blowed on them Holy Spirit' , 'all the Father has, the Son has also' ... the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son as through a channel... another saying... plus the Fathers call the Spirit as The Third of Origins...
I don't think you understand the distinction between Eternal vs. Temporal procession.

constantinople was always jealous on rome... they wanted to be a little popes themselves...
What have you been reading?

I do temporal 'procession' refers to the sending in time of the Holy Ghost by the Son..

Eternal procession refers to the origins of the Holy Ghost...


So do you believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in Eternal Procession?

what i believe is irrelevant.. you can consider me an atheist...
Logged
Timon
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,490



« Reply #39 on: July 30, 2011, 06:12:08 PM »

So to make sure I understand, the issue of procession is the reason why the trinity works different in Orthodox and RC churches.  The Orthodox believe the Father is the origin of the Son and the Spirit, yet they are all one equal being.  I guess making the father the first among the equals.

The RC version says that the the Spirit originates from the Father and the Son together, making the Father and the Son tied for the first among equals.  (I guess....)

So the Orthodox view is Eternal and the RC is temporal?  Or are they both recognized by each church?

Sorry for making this so complicated. If I am wrong again, feel free to ignore me. I may just never understand.  All this reading is making my head hurt.
Logged

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

— Chrysostom

BLOG
lost
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #40 on: July 30, 2011, 06:15:47 PM »

So to make sure I understand, the issue of procession is the reason why the trinity works different in Orthodox and RC churches.  The Orthodox believe the Father is the origin of the Son and the Spirit, yet they are all one equal being.  I guess making the father the first among the equals.

The RC version says that the the Spirit originates from the Father and the Son together, making the Father and the Son tied for the first among equals.  (I guess....)

So the Orthodox view is Eternal and the RC is temporal?  Or are they both recognized by each church?

Sorry for making this so complicated. If I am wrong again, feel free to ignore me. I may just never understand.  All this reading is making my head hurt.

my opinion is that they both believe the same, but the catholics have it more defined, and when it gets to ego's they can be both wrong.
Logged
lost
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #41 on: July 30, 2011, 06:20:32 PM »

yeah... when the Holy Fathers speak of the Procession of the Holy Ghost through the Son they refer to His Origins(see the context)... Like the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son as through one principle... 'everything was made through the Word' , 'my Word is Spirit and truth' , 'he blowed on them Holy Spirit' , 'all the Father has, the Son has also' ... the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son as through a channel... another saying... plus the Fathers call the Spirit as The Third of Origins...
I don't think you understand the distinction between Eternal vs. Temporal procession.

constantinople was always jealous on rome... they wanted to be a little popes themselves...
What have you been reading?

I do temporal 'procession' refers to the sending in time of the Holy Ghost by the Son..

Eternal procession refers to the origins of the Holy Ghost...


So do you believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in Eternal Procession?

what i believe is irrelevant.. you can consider me an atheist...

this relationships do not count for me as I take God as One... And Jesus answered Shema Yisrael Thy God is One.
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #42 on: July 30, 2011, 06:28:02 PM »

this relationships do not count for me as I take God as One... And Jesus answered Shema Yisrael Thy God is One.

Just curious, is that "one" in a modalist sense or an arian sense?

And what do you believe about Jesus?
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,972


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #43 on: July 30, 2011, 06:32:34 PM »

this relationships do not count for me as I take God as One... And Jesus answered Shema Yisrael Thy God is One.

Just curious, is that "one" in a modalist sense or an arian sense?

And what do you believe about Jesus?
He said earlier that he doesn't want to reveal his own beliefs.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
lost
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #44 on: July 30, 2011, 06:34:46 PM »

this relationships do not count for me as I take God as One... And Jesus answered Shema Yisrael Thy God is One.

Just curious, is that "one" in a modalist sense or an arian sense?

And what do you believe about Jesus?
He said earlier that he doesn't want to reveal his own beliefs.

that is correct.
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,972


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #45 on: July 30, 2011, 06:35:00 PM »

So to make sure I understand, the issue of procession is the reason why the trinity works different in Orthodox and RC churches.  The Orthodox believe the Father is the origin of the Son and the Spirit, yet they are all one equal being.  I guess making the father the first among the equals.

The RC version says that the the Spirit originates from the Father and the Son together, making the Father and the Son tied for the first among equals.  (I guess....)

So the Orthodox view is Eternal and the RC is temporal?  Or are they both recognized by each church?

Sorry for making this so complicated. If I am wrong again, feel free to ignore me. I may just never understand.  All this reading is making my head hurt.


You got it. The Orthodox version also lines up more easily with early Christian and Jewish wording. God (the Father) eternally with his Word and Spirit. The source of the Godhead is the Father.

RC's have tended to focus on the "Divine Essence" being the source of the Godhead. EO believes that Personhood is the foundation of being, and not essence. The RC view has been accused by EO of producing a "fourth person of the trinity"; A "God in Essence" who is the source of, and the ultimate reality of, the Trinity.

Edit: The EO believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son temporally. The RC's believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in origin.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2011, 06:38:42 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
lost
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #46 on: July 30, 2011, 06:38:53 PM »

So to make sure I understand, the issue of procession is the reason why the trinity works different in Orthodox and RC churches.  The Orthodox believe the Father is the origin of the Son and the Spirit, yet they are all one equal being.  I guess making the father the first among the equals.

The RC version says that the the Spirit originates from the Father and the Son together, making the Father and the Son tied for the first among equals.  (I guess....)

So the Orthodox view is Eternal and the RC is temporal?  Or are they both recognized by each church?

Sorry for making this so complicated. If I am wrong again, feel free to ignore me. I may just never understand.  All this reading is making my head hurt.

You got it. The Orthodox version also lines up more easily with early Christian and Jewish wording. God (the Father) eternally with his Word and Spirit. The source of the Godhead is the Father.

RC's have tended to focus on the "Divine Essence" being the source of the Godhead. EO believes that Personhood is the foundation of being, and not essence. The RC view has been accused by EO of producing a "fourth person of the trinity"; A "God in Essence" who is the source of, and the ultimate reality of, the Trinity.

it does not line-up with jewish wording... the jewish word for spirit is ruach which means breath... breath comes from the mouth... also in the creation of man God blew breath of life in him...
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,972


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #47 on: July 30, 2011, 06:48:55 PM »

Quote

You got it. The Orthodox version also lines up more easily with early Christian and Jewish wording. God (the Father) eternally with his Word and Spirit. The source of the Godhead is the Father.


it does not line-up with jewish wording... the jewish word for spirit is ruach which means breath... breath comes from the mouth... also in the creation of man God blew breath of life in him...

Uh... I think we're having a language barrier issue here.

I didn't mean "wording" as in "linguistics". I meant wording as in phrasing. Pre-Christian Jews believed that God existed eternally with His D'var and Ruach. Orthodox Christians believe this as well.

« Last Edit: July 30, 2011, 06:49:31 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
lost
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #48 on: July 30, 2011, 06:51:18 PM »

Quote

You got it. The Orthodox version also lines up more easily with early Christian and Jewish wording. God (the Father) eternally with his Word and Spirit. The source of the Godhead is the Father.


it does not line-up with jewish wording... the jewish word for spirit is ruach which means breath... breath comes from the mouth... also in the creation of man God blew breath of life in him...

Uh... I think we're having a language barrier issue here.

I didn't mean "wording" as in "linguistics". I meant wording as in phrasing. Pre-Christian Jews believed that God existed eternally with His D'var and Ruach. Orthodox Christians believe this as well.



afaik Jews believed that the Shekinah(Holy Spirit) was the expression of God's glory.
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,972


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #49 on: July 30, 2011, 06:54:42 PM »

Quote

You got it. The Orthodox version also lines up more easily with early Christian and Jewish wording. God (the Father) eternally with his Word and Spirit. The source of the Godhead is the Father.


it does not line-up with jewish wording... the jewish word for spirit is ruach which means breath... breath comes from the mouth... also in the creation of man God blew breath of life in him...

Uh... I think we're having a language barrier issue here.

I didn't mean "wording" as in "linguistics". I meant wording as in phrasing. Pre-Christian Jews believed that God existed eternally with His D'var and Ruach. Orthodox Christians believe this as well.



afaik Jews believed that the Shekinah(Holy Spirit) was the expression of God's glory.
Shekinah need not be identified only with the Spirit. Shekinah is sourced in ancient pagan depictions of deities appearing as a glowing cloud or storm, utilized by the Jews to describe the Glory of YHWH. Shekinah means, generically, God's manifested presence. God reveals himself through both his Ruach and D'var.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2011, 06:56:25 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic/Universalist
Posts: 3,107


« Reply #50 on: July 30, 2011, 07:12:22 PM »

So to make sure I understand, the issue of procession is the reason why the trinity works different in Orthodox and RC churches.  The Orthodox believe the Father is the origin of the Son and the Spirit, yet they are all one equal being.  I guess making the father the first among the equals.

The RC version says that the the Spirit originates from the Father and the Son together, making the Father and the Son tied for the first among equals.  (I guess....)

So the Orthodox view is Eternal and the RC is temporal?  Or are they both recognized by each church?

Sorry for making this so complicated. If I am wrong again, feel free to ignore me. I may just never understand.  All this reading is making my head hurt.


You got it. The Orthodox version also lines up more easily with early Christian and Jewish wording. God (the Father) eternally with his Word and Spirit. The source of the Godhead is the Father.

RC's have tended to focus on the "Divine Essence" being the source of the Godhead. EO believes that Personhood is the foundation of being, and not essence. The RC view has been accused by EO of producing a "fourth person of the trinity"; A "God in Essence" who is the source of, and the ultimate reality of, the Trinity.

Edit: The EO believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son temporally. The RC's believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in origin.
Ya'know, it's funny. I used to talk with Protestants who were confused as to what to do with this, "common Godhead." Is it some kind of fourth Person? Is it just some kind of "umbrella term" for the Three Persons, etc...?"

I never realized Orthodoxy solves this issue until I began looking into it!
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 #51 on: July 30, 2011, 11:45:30 PM »

just curious : Was filioque ever condemn in a pre-schism council?

Absolutely. The actual 8th Council (the one initially accepted by Rome but then they committed an egregious act of historical revisionism to adopt a different council as their 8th) stated the filioque was a heresy.

We had a thumbtacked thread up about this, plus one of the articles elsewhere on this website discussed this. The interesting thing is this:

The actual 8th Council provided the reunification of the East and West after the Photian Schism. If history transpired as the Vatican proclaims, then this Photian Schism was never healed and the Churches were separated long before 1054 or 1204.

-----------------

PS: Here's the thread I was thinking of!
But the 8th council wouldn't necessarily be binding from an Eastern Orthodox point of view since the EO Church only professes seven councils to be Ecumenical.

Please read the article posted on this site. You will find that phrase 'Church of the Seven Councils' is something of a catchphrase that is not historically accurate.

And, once again I wind up repeating myself: if the 8th Council were not accepted as being Ecumenical, then the Schism between the Church and Rome occurred during the Photian Schism instead of later. However, since the Schism  was healed during the 8th Council, East and West were back in communion with each other.
Not sure what non-binding would mean in this case, as ALL Orthodox accept Constantinople IV (879).
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: Eucharist Trinity filioque 
Pages: 1 2 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 0.183 seconds with 78 queries.