Topic: Hopko's list of points

[Keble]

It seems apparent that the "apologists who concede nothing" thread isn't going to be reopened, which is perhaps just as well. However, in the early part of that thread, someone linked to a position paper by Thomas Hopko which contains a list of points where he thinks Catholic theology and practice would need to be corrected as a precondition to unity. It's an interesting list which I think bears discussionon a point-by-point basis.

 No proper title in the thread's name.  After 2000 some posts you should be familiar with oc.net rules.  And obviously I'm not going to reopen the thread in question.  If you feel you have been given this in error, contact Fr. George =username! Orthodox Catholic moderator

[Papist]

•He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)

Not gonna happen

•The pope would also teach that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons or hypostases, and not simply "subsistent relations" within the one God who is identified with the divine nature. And he would insist that the one true God of Christian faith is not the Holy Trinity understood as a quasi-uni-personal subject who reveals himself as Father, Son and Spirit, which is unacceptable "modalism." He would rather hold that the one God is Jesus' Father from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds who dwells in the Son, and in those who by faith and grace become sons of God through him.

We are not modalists. We believe that the subsistent relations are realy subsistent persons. Hopko is creating a false dichotomy.

•The pope would also insist that human beings can have real communion with God through God's uncreated divine energies and actions toward creatures, from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.

We already believe this. Sanctifying Grace is defined as God's life in us. What is more, St. Thomas teaches that Grace is really a participation in the Divine, because only the Divine can make us Divine.

[Schultz]

•He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)

Not gonna happen

Wait a minute.

So, basically, you're saying that the Filioque says what the Orthodox says it says even though your fellow co-religionists, both east and west, have gone through great pains to show that the Filioque does not say what the Orthodox say it says.

And you say we're disunited...

[Papist]

•He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)

Not gonna happen

Wait a minute.

So, basically, you're saying that the Filioque says what the Orthodox says it says even though your fellow co-religionists, both east and west, have gone through great pains to show that the Filioque does not say what the Orthodox say it says.

And you say we're disunited...

I am saying that the point of departure between us, concerns what we all mean by "through the Son". If you read Catholic magesterial teaching on this point, particularly our western councils, it would be dishonest to suggest that that the procession of the Spirit through the Son is temporal from a Catholic view point. From what I can tell from what I've read about Eastern Orthodoxy, their view is that when the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son, it is not eternal, but temporal only. The funny thing is that both Churches claim that their view is the view that respects the unity of the Godhead. Whatever the case, we are not in agreement on this point.

[Papist]

•He would also officially say that the immaculate conception of Christ's mother Mary from her parents, and Mary's total glorification in the risen Christ "at the right hand of the Father," are not properly explained in the papal bulls that originally accompanied the Roman church's "ex cathedra" dogmas on these two articles of faith. The pope would explain that Mary's conception by her parents was pure and holy without a need for God extraordinarily to apply "the merits of Christ" to Joachim and Anna's sexual act of conceiving her in order to free her from "the stain of original sin." And the pope would also have to make it clear that Mary really died, and was not assumed bodily into heaven before vanquishing death by faith in her Son Jesus.

Well, I can't see the Catholic Church ever repudiating the doctrine of original sin or the Immaculate Conception. On the point of the Immaculate Conception, this is too deeply ingrained into our faith as Catholics, and is celebrated every Advent with great joy. On the point of original sin, I believe that the differences between the official Catholic position and the official position of the Eastern Orthodox Church is a matter of semantics. We both belief that we are born deprived of something that was supposed to be there but is not because of the sin of Adam and Eve.

•The pope would also clearly state that though there may be a purification and cleansing from sin in the process of human dying, there is no state or condition of purgatory where sinners pay off the temporal punishment that they allegedly owe to God for their sins. The pope would also stop the practice of indulgences whereby, through certain pious activities, Christians can allegedly reduce the "days" of purgatorial suffering for themselves and others.

"the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to what each hath wrought" (an enjoyment or condemnation that will be complete only after the resurrection of the dead); but the souls of some "depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice benefiting the most; which each offers particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offers daily for all alike. Of course, it is understood that we do not know the time of their release. We know and believe that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment, but when we know not." - The Eastern Orthodox Council of Jerusalem

Considering the facts that there is not much about Purgatory that is officially defined dogma, and that there are statements like the one above from Eastern Orthodox sources, I think that we have quite bit of wiggle room here.

[Papist]

•The pope would also make it clear that Christ's crucifixion was not a payment of the debt of punishment that humans allegedly owe to God for their sins. He would rather teach that Christ's self-offering to his Father was the saving, atoning and redeeming payment of the perfect love, trust, obedience, gratitude and glory that humans owe to God, which is all that God desires of them for their salvation.

From what I can tell, this is what Catholics already believe. We already condemn the Protestant doctrine of the atonement.  Any other Catholics care to chime in?

[Papist]

I don't find much of what he says about the papacy to be objectionable. However, I don't think the Pope could cease to have the charism of infallibility when definitively teaching on faith and morals.

[ialmisry]

I don't find much of what he says about the papacy to be objectionable. However, I don't think the Pope could cease to have the charism of infallibility when definitively teaching on faith and morals.

He would have to have it before ceasing to have it.

[Papist]

I don't find much of what he says about the papacy to be objectionable. However, I don't think the Pope could cease to have the charism of infallibility when definitively teaching on faith and morals.

He would have to have it before ceasing to have it.

Izzy, don't poison this thread. You know exactly what I meant. I was talking about Catholic dogma, not the Eastern Orthodox view of Catholic dogma.

[ialmisry]

•He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)

Not gonna happen

•The pope would also teach that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons or hypostases, and not simply "subsistent relations" within the one God who is identified with the divine nature. And he would insist that the one true God of Christian faith is not the Holy Trinity understood as a quasi-uni-personal subject who reveals himself as Father, Son and Spirit, which is unacceptable "modalism." He would rather hold that the one God is Jesus' Father from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds who dwells in the Son, and in those who by faith and grace become sons of God through him.

We are not modalists. We believe that the subsistent relations are realy subsistent persons. Hopko is creating a false dichotomy.

The "defenses" that the Vatican has put up for the filioque over the centuries shows that Fr. Hopko is not creating a "false dichotomy," but pointing out one of the Vatican's making.

•The pope would also insist that human beings can have real communion with God through God's uncreated divine energies and actions toward creatures, from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.

We already believe this. Sanctifying Grace is defined as God's life in us. What is more, St. Thomas teaches that Grace is really a participation in the Divine, because only the Divine can make us Divine.

is this the same papist who has trouble with St. Gregory Palamas?

[Papist]

•He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)

Not gonna happen

•The pope would also teach that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons or hypostases, and not simply "subsistent relations" within the one God who is identified with the divine nature. And he would insist that the one true God of Christian faith is not the Holy Trinity understood as a quasi-uni-personal subject who reveals himself as Father, Son and Spirit, which is unacceptable "modalism." He would rather hold that the one God is Jesus' Father from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds who dwells in the Son, and in those who by faith and grace become sons of God through him.

We are not modalists. We believe that the subsistent relations are realy subsistent persons. Hopko is creating a false dichotomy.

The "defenses" that the Vatican has put up for the filioque over the centuries shows that Fr. Hopko is not creating a "false dichotomy," but pointing out one of the Vatican's making.

•The pope would also insist that human beings can have real communion with God through God's uncreated divine energies and actions toward creatures, from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.

We already believe this. Sanctifying Grace is defined as God's life in us. What is more, St. Thomas teaches that Grace is really a participation in the Divine, because only the Divine can make us Divine.

is this the same papist who has trouble with St. Gregory Palamas?

As to your first point, it is a false dichotomy, because we believe that the subsistent relations are subsistent persons. If he wants us to believe that the members of the Trinity are subsistent persons, then we already agree because we do believe that.
On your second point, just because I don't believe in Palamas contradictory view that God transcends God and is composed of parts, does not mean that I don't believe in theosis through the participation in the Divine life of God.

[biro]

Wait a minute. If the Orthodox believe that the RCC Pope does not or should not have the ability to call himself 'infallible,' whatever that means, and the RCC claims the Orthodox have a wrong idea of what 'infallible' actually means...

What's really going on?  

"We don't agree with what you don't say that we're not doing!"

Maybe I'm just a bug-eyed optimist. I get too emotional and I wish we could put right the wrongs of the past.

How long does anyone want to beat their chest and say, "But you still haven't gotten that right, so ha!" Sometimes I think people look for too many excuses to stay mad at each other, just because... well, they just do. Some folks insist that the recipe be *so* perfect, no one will ever be able to satisfy them, because guess what... people aren't perfect!

It's been 900+ years. Maybe I should just hitch a ride to the International Space Station and see if they could freeze me until another 900 years goes by. I'll see if they're done with this mess by then. Grown-up people can't sit down and talk. Go figure.

[Keble]

I don't find much of what he says about the papacy to be objectionable. However, I don't think the Pope could cease to have the charism of infallibility when definitively teaching on faith and morals.

Well, I need not repeat Ialmisry's pointed response, but there are plainly political problems with a pope who, on his own and without conciliar support, claims to establish doctrine. Such an act requires schism as a response: obedience is not stronger than truth, and the pope has to be correct to be infallible.

Also, the problem with restricting this power to teaching on faith and morals is that, in practice, infallibility is not limited to such teaching. Any teaching that requires upon the Aristotelian framework for its justification steps outside that fence, and therefore cannot be infallible.

[biro]

But the Pope does have conciliar support. The Roman Catholic Church has had a number of councils since the Schism. They have even, as in Vatican II, invited the officials of other churches, including the Orthodox, to act as commentators, observers or advisers... precisely because the commissioning Pope wanted it to be an Ecumenical Council. Then he had the bad luck to up and die, so he didn't get to see it carried out the way he wanted to... and much else ensued. 

If the Orthodox wanted to, they could invite Roman Catholic officials to sit in on one of their conferences, if only as guests and not acting in any official capacity. What's stopping them? It takes two to tango. If you don't hold a council which invites the people in question, how can you blame them for not being there? And if you don't accept their internal councils either, why complain that they don't accept yours?

It makes me think that those poor men involved in the repeal of the excommunications in 1965- which did happen, even if not everybody likes it- wasted their time. How sad. They were trying to heal a significant wound in the history of the faith, to right an old wrong, and nobody else is on the same page of the music. Hundreds more years of this to go. Sigh. 

[Papist]

I don't find much of what he says about the papacy to be objectionable. However, I don't think the Pope could cease to have the charism of infallibility when definitively teaching on faith and morals.

Well, I need not repeat Ialmisry's pointed response, but there are plainly political problems with a pope who, on his own and without conciliar support, claims to establish doctrine. Such an act requires schism as a response: obedience is not stronger than truth, and the pope has to be correct to be infallible.

Also, the problem with restricting this power to teaching on faith and morals is that, in practice, infallibility is not limited to such teaching. Any teaching that requires upon the Aristotelian framework for its justification steps outside that fence, and therefore cannot be infallible.

Not sure I understand the objection to Aristotle. His philosophy was just that of common sense realism, defended in technical terms. I am not sure why any christian would object that? Of course, where Aristotle goes wrong, the Catholic Church disagrees with him.

[Papist]

But the Pope does have conciliar support. The Roman Catholic Church has had a number of councils since the Schism. They have even, as in Vatican II, invited the officials of other churches, including the Orthodox, to act as commentators, observers or advisers... precisely because the commissioning Pope wanted it to be an Ecumenical Council. Then he had the bad luck to up and die, so he didn't get to see it carried out the way he wanted to... and much else ensued. 

If the Orthodox wanted to, they could invite Roman Catholic officials to sit in on one of their conferences, if only as guests and not acting in any official capacity. What's stopping them? It takes two to tango. If you don't hold a council which invites the people in question, how can you blame them for not being there? And if you don't accept their internal councils either, why complain that they don't accept yours?

It makes me think that those poor men involved in the repeal of the excommunications in 1965- which did happen, even if not everybody likes it- wasted their time. How sad. They were trying to heal a significant wound in the history of the faith, to right an old wrong, and nobody else is on the same page of the music. Hundreds more years of this to go. Sigh. 

Oh, there are absolutely hundreds of more years, and the schism may not be healed this side of eternity.

[William]

•He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)

Not gonna happen

Then there will never be union.

On your second point, just because I don't believe in Palamas contradictory view that God transcends God and is composed of parts, does not mean that I don't believe in theosis through the participation in the Divine life of God.

Do you really not like St. Gregory for his theology (which you constantly misrepresent) or is it just that he was anti-Latin?

[Papist]

•He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)

Not gonna happen

Then there will never be union.

On your second point, just because I don't believe in Palamas contradictory view that God transcends God and is composed of parts, does not mean that I don't believe in theosis through the participation in the Divine life of God.

Do you really not like St. Gregory for his theology (which you constantly misrepresent) or is it just that he was anti-Latin?

I have problems with Gregory Palamas for both reasons. First, his theology, (which I never misrepresent... I mean honestly, I went through a long period of trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, but some of the things that he says are very problematic) and, second, the fact that he was anti-Catholic is a real problem for me. Regardless of this, he is venerated in Eastern Catholic Churches, so there must have been something holy about him, but I'm not a fan.

[ialmisry]

I don't find much of what he says about the papacy to be objectionable. However, I don't think the Pope could cease to have the charism of infallibility when definitively teaching on faith and morals.

Well, I need not repeat Ialmisry's pointed response, but there are plainly political problems with a pope who, on his own and without conciliar support, claims to establish doctrine. Such an act requires schism as a response: obedience is not stronger than truth, and the pope has to be correct to be infallible.

Also, the problem with restricting this power to teaching on faith and morals is that, in practice, infallibility is not limited to such teaching. Any teaching that requires upon the Aristotelian framework for its justification steps outside that fence, and therefore cannot be infallible.

Not sure I understand the objection to Aristotle. His philosophy was just that of common sense realism, defended in technical terms. I am not sure why any christian would object that? Of course, where Aristotle goes wrong, the Catholic Church disagrees with him.

How convenient.

Yes, Aristotleans make that claim "just common sense realism defended in technical terms", but no, it cannot be sustained.

[Papist]

I don't find much of what he says about the papacy to be objectionable. However, I don't think the Pope could cease to have the charism of infallibility when definitively teaching on faith and morals.

Well, I need not repeat Ialmisry's pointed response, but there are plainly political problems with a pope who, on his own and without conciliar support, claims to establish doctrine. Such an act requires schism as a response: obedience is not stronger than truth, and the pope has to be correct to be infallible.

Also, the problem with restricting this power to teaching on faith and morals is that, in practice, infallibility is not limited to such teaching. Any teaching that requires upon the Aristotelian framework for its justification steps outside that fence, and therefore cannot be infallible.

Not sure I understand the objection to Aristotle. His philosophy was just that of common sense realism, defended in technical terms. I am not sure why any christian would object that? Of course, where Aristotle goes wrong, the Catholic Church disagrees with him.

How convenient.

Yes, Aristotleans make that claim "just common sense realism defended in technical terms", but no, it cannot be sustained.

That's a nice assertion sweetie-pie.

[ialmisry]

Wait a minute. If the Orthodox believe that the RCC Pope does not or should not have the ability to call himself 'infallible,' whatever that means, and the RCC claims the Orthodox have a wrong idea of what 'infallible' actually means...

What's really going on?  

"We don't agree with what you don't say that we're not doing!"

Maybe I'm just a bug-eyed optimist. I get too emotional and I wish we could put right the wrongs of the past.

How long does anyone want to beat their chest and say, "But you still haven't gotten that right, so ha!" Sometimes I think people look for too many excuses to stay mad at each other, just because... well, they just do. Some folks insist that the recipe be *so* perfect, no one will ever be able to satisfy them, because guess what... people aren't perfect!

It's been 900+ years. Maybe I should just hitch a ride to the International Space Station and see if they could freeze me until another 900 years goes by. I'll see if they're done with this mess by then. Grown-up people can't sit down and talk. Go figure.

Talk about what?

[ialmisry]

I don't find much of what he says about the papacy to be objectionable. However, I don't think the Pope could cease to have the charism of infallibility when definitively teaching on faith and morals.

Well, I need not repeat Ialmisry's pointed response, but there are plainly political problems with a pope who, on his own and without conciliar support, claims to establish doctrine. Such an act requires schism as a response: obedience is not stronger than truth, and the pope has to be correct to be infallible.

Also, the problem with restricting this power to teaching on faith and morals is that, in practice, infallibility is not limited to such teaching. Any teaching that requires upon the Aristotelian framework for its justification steps outside that fence, and therefore cannot be infallible.

Not sure I understand the objection to Aristotle. His philosophy was just that of common sense realism, defended in technical terms. I am not sure why any christian would object that? Of course, where Aristotle goes wrong, the Catholic Church disagrees with him.

How convenient.

Yes, Aristotleans make that claim "just common sense realism defended in technical terms", but no, it cannot be sustained.

That's a nice assertion sweetie-pie.

Since you made, I should think you would like it.

You cannot claim Aristotle, and then toss him aside when his ideas are inconvenient, and call yourself an Aristotelian.

[Iconodule]

I don't find much of what he says about the papacy to be objectionable. However, I don't think the Pope could cease to have the charism of infallibility when definitively teaching on faith and morals.

He would have to have it before ceasing to have it.

Izzy, don't poison this thread.

He can't if no one plays his games. Too late.

[Papist]

I don't find much of what he says about the papacy to be objectionable. However, I don't think the Pope could cease to have the charism of infallibility when definitively teaching on faith and morals.

Well, I need not repeat Ialmisry's pointed response, but there are plainly political problems with a pope who, on his own and without conciliar support, claims to establish doctrine. Such an act requires schism as a response: obedience is not stronger than truth, and the pope has to be correct to be infallible.

Also, the problem with restricting this power to teaching on faith and morals is that, in practice, infallibility is not limited to such teaching. Any teaching that requires upon the Aristotelian framework for its justification steps outside that fence, and therefore cannot be infallible.

Not sure I understand the objection to Aristotle. His philosophy was just that of common sense realism, defended in technical terms. I am not sure why any christian would object that? Of course, where Aristotle goes wrong, the Catholic Church disagrees with him.

How convenient.

Yes, Aristotleans make that claim "just common sense realism defended in technical terms", but no, it cannot be sustained.

That's a nice assertion sweetie-pie.

Since you made, I should think you would like it.

You cannot claim Aristotle, and then toss him aside when his ideas are inconvenient, and call yourself an Aristotelian.

I'm not Aristotelian. I never said I was. I am a Thomist.

[elijahmaria]

I don't find much of what he says about the papacy to be objectionable. However, I don't think the Pope could cease to have the charism of infallibility when definitively teaching on faith and morals.

Well, I need not repeat Ialmisry's pointed response, but there are plainly political problems with a pope who, on his own and without conciliar support, claims to establish doctrine. Such an act requires schism as a response: obedience is not stronger than truth, and the pope has to be correct to be infallible.

Also, the problem with restricting this power to teaching on faith and morals is that, in practice, infallibility is not limited to such teaching. Any teaching that requires upon the Aristotelian framework for its justification steps outside that fence, and therefore cannot be infallible.

Debunking de Bunko!!

It is an interesting article in any event!

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/orth_plato.aspx

Eastern Orthodox thinkers at times insist that they have purged neo-Platonism from their thinking by slight changes in Plotinus’s system.

This is an elaboration and variation on the original unsupported assertion with one difference. Which Eastern Orthodox thinkers when literally claim that "they have purged neo-Platonism from their thinking by slight changes in Plotinus’s system." No names named. And it ignores the very important distinction of ousia and hypostasis. If one looks at number of citations, the Fathers actually quote Aristotle more than Plotinus or the Platonists. Aristotle is a common conceptual framework to Orthodox and Calvinist theology. Much of the Fathers Platonist vocabulary comes from Origen’s attack on Celsus or from Pseudo-Denis whose neo-Platonism is Syriac, not Plotinean. Nicene vocabulary is a critical re-construction of Origen’s conceptual vocabulary. This is inherited by both Orthodox and Calvinists. And where Orthodox Trinitarian theology departs from the west, it is more Biblical than the west’s! Consider.

Towards late antiquity, two words were in philosophical use which meant substance or substantive being. as Aristotle put it, being can be said in many ways or there are many meanings of Being. He isolated and identified Being according to the different categories of which substance (ousia) was the most fundamental, Being as act and potency, Being as true, and Being as contingent as opposed to necessary/essential. There has been on and off again the debate over the question of whether this listing of the meanings of Being is complete. We will return to that in a bit. The Byzantine answer was it was incomplete.

As indicated, there were two words used for substantive being in late classical philosophy. The first was Aristotle’s ousia. The second was hypostasis from Stoic origins. But they each developed a meaning that made them not exactly synonymous. Ousia increasingly came to mean a substance/thing to the extent it was a kind of substance/thing or a thing of a typical nature or essence. Hypostasis increasingly came to mean a substantive mode of existence in its unique and distinctive particularity and individuality.

Into this context comes the tradition of Judaism. Philo uses these distinctions to suggest that the personal God of Israel is a uniquely distinctive and singular reality or hypostasis in contrast to the impersonal thought thinking itself thing (ousia) of Aristotle. One branch of Middle Platonism picks this up and God and souls become hypostases while impersonal things, including cups, chairs, etc., become ousias. The other branch of Middle Platonism represented by Numenius of Apamea pushes the God as impersonal monad and ousia interpretation which nevertheless reinforces the ousia = non-personal substance/thing of a typical kind and hypostasis = personal substance of a uniquely and distinctive individual (usually God as person).

We have here the elements of a conceptual revolution in ancient philosophy and religion. It was the characteristic trait of ancient philosophy, religion, and humanism that the individual was not valued in and of itself in its particularity but only as an paradigmatic instance of a universal ideal type. Person was just an epiphenomenal mask. By contrast, as Tillich brings out, even the post-Christian humanism of the modern world is Judeo-Christian to the extent the unrepeatable individual per se is valued in and of itself. The roots of this contrast is in the Trinitarian controversy and the debt the parties owed to Philo and Origen.

[William]

•He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)

Not gonna happen

Then there will never be union.

On your second point, just because I don't believe in Palamas contradictory view that God transcends God and is composed of parts, does not mean that I don't believe in theosis through the participation in the Divine life of God.

Do you really not like St. Gregory for his theology (which you constantly misrepresent) or is it just that he was anti-Latin?

I have problems with Gregory Palamas for both reasons. First, his theology, (which I never misrepresent... I mean honestly, I went through a long period of trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, but some of the things that he says are very problematic)

You said that he thinks that God is divided into parts and that his theology is basically Buddhism. I'm pretty sure that that ain't accurate.

[Wyatt]

•He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)

Not gonna happen

Then there will never be union.

So be it. The Church will continue to be the Church with or without the East.

[podkarpatska]

•He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christijavascript:void(0);an be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)

Not gonna happen

Then there will never be union.

So be it. The Church will continue to be the Church with or without the East.

I am truly glad that we, the self appointed representatives of both the Orthodox Churches and the Church of Rome, have exhausted any efforts regarding union, determining them to be futile, and have reverted to our time honored traditions. Who is sending out the snail mail notices to everyone else?

[primuspilus]

•He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)

Not gonna happen

Then there will never be union.

So be it. The Church will continue to be the Church with or without the East Rome.

You had an oopsies there...I took care of it. Dont worry, these mistakes happen.

PP

[Ortho_cat]

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

[Maria]

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

I was a Catholic in good standing for 50 years before converting to the Holy Orthodox Church.

The Eastern Catholic Churches have removed the filioque from the Nicene Creed.

And whenever the Pope of Rome prays with the Orthodox (with the EP, for example), he prays the Nicene Creed in Greek sans filioque.

[primuspilus]

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

I was a Catholic in good standing for 50 years before converting to the Holy Orthodox Church.

The Eastern Catholic Churches have removed the filioque from the Nicene Creed.

And whenever the Pope of Rome prays with the Orthodox (with the EP, for example), he prays the Nicene Creed in Greek sans filioque.

Indefense of the Pope on that one, I would say that is out of courtesy than anything else. However I do find it odd that the Eastern Catholics removed it completely.

PP

[orthonorm]

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

Papist once said he was. I dunno if that has changed or what.

Really, the way the RCs teach the filioque, who cares. It is inline with Orthodoxy. People can argue forever how it came about and whatever, but every RC I've known who gives 2 cents would agree with the Orthodox teaching on the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father ontologically and from the Son within time.

How many prayers do we pray to the Ghost of the Son? I do more than a few times I think a day or week or month or however often I am actually praying.

Everyone knows Papal infallibility is pretty much around which all things turn.

It would be an act of God for that to change, like raising the dead.

The Orthodox would do well to show that an infallible head of the Church is not necessary by settling some of the more ridiculous antics by its own leaders over authority and prestige.

[orthonorm]

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

I was a Catholic in good standing for 50 years before converting to the Holy Orthodox Church.

The Eastern Catholic Churches have removed the filioque from the Nicene Creed.

And whenever the Pope of Rome prays with the Orthodox (with the EP, for example), he prays the Nicene Creed in Greek sans filioque.

IIRC, the Latin Church does not allow for and from / through the Son ever to be used in liturgies celebrated in Greek.

Someone please tell me I am right or if you have to, wrong.

[primuspilus]

The Orthodox would do well to show that an infallible head of the Church is not necessary by settling some of the more ridiculous antics by its own leaders over authority and prestige

+1

[Maria]

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

I was a Catholic in good standing for 50 years before converting to the Holy Orthodox Church.

The Eastern Catholic Churches have removed the filioque from the Nicene Creed.

And whenever the Pope of Rome prays with the Orthodox (with the EP, for example), he prays the Nicene Creed in Greek sans filioque.

Indefense of the Pope on that one, I would say that is out of courtesy than anything else. However I do find it odd that the Eastern Catholics removed it completely.

PP

The addition of the filioque to the Greek Catholic Nicene Creed was an accretion as a result of latinizations.
After Vatican II, the Eastern Catholics began to remove many of the latinizations. For example: confessionals, Stations of the Cross, and the filioque.

[Papist]

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

I would be ok with it being changed to "through the Son" to more clearly express what we mean.

[primuspilus]

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

I was a Catholic in good standing for 50 years before converting to the Holy Orthodox Church.

The Eastern Catholic Churches have removed the filioque from the Nicene Creed.

And whenever the Pope of Rome prays with the Orthodox (with the EP, for example), he prays the Nicene Creed in Greek sans filioque.

Indefense of the Pope on that one, I would say that is out of courtesy than anything else. However I do find it odd that the Eastern Catholics removed it completely.

PP

The addition of the filioque to the Greek Catholic Nicene Creed was an accretion as a result of latinizations.
After Vatican II, the Eastern Catholics began to remove many of the latinizations. For example: confessionals, Stations of the Cross, and the filioque.

What about the IC?

PP

[Maria]

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

I was a Catholic in good standing for 50 years before converting to the Holy Orthodox Church.

The Eastern Catholic Churches have removed the filioque from the Nicene Creed.

And whenever the Pope of Rome prays with the Orthodox (with the EP, for example), he prays the Nicene Creed in Greek sans filioque.

Indefense of the Pope on that one, I would say that is out of courtesy than anything else. However I do find it odd that the Eastern Catholics removed it completely.

PP

The addition of the filioque to the Greek Catholic Nicene Creed was an accretion as a result of latinizations.
After Vatican II, the Eastern Catholics began to remove many of the latinizations. For example: confessionals, Stations of the Cross, and the filioque.

What about the IC?

PP

The last I heard about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.... the Melkites celebrate the Conception of Anna on December 9 instead of the Immaculate Conception on December 8.

[orthonorm]

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

I would be ok with it being changed to "through the Son" to more clearly express what we mean.

In simple and non-fight with Isa bickering language, why not just drop it?

I mean ,if unity stood in the balance, everything, including Papal infallibility had been resolved and the only thing standing in the way of the unity was simply dropping the filioque and you got to decide what to do:

Would you drop it?

Or keep it in spite of all other matters being resolved and keep the division?

[Papist]

•He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)

Not gonna happen

Then there will never be union.

On your second point, just because I don't believe in Palamas contradictory view that God transcends God and is composed of parts, does not mean that I don't believe in theosis through the participation in the Divine life of God.

Do you really not like St. Gregory for his theology (which you constantly misrepresent) or is it just that he was anti-Latin?

I have problems with Gregory Palamas for both reasons. First, his theology, (which I never misrepresent... I mean honestly, I went through a long period of trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, but some of the things that he says are very problematic)

You said that he thinks that God is divided into parts and that his theology is basically Buddhism. I'm pretty sure that that ain't accurate.

No, I think Todd's intrepretation of Palamas is Buddhist.

[primuspilus]

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

I was a Catholic in good standing for 50 years before converting to the Holy Orthodox Church.

The Eastern Catholic Churches have removed the filioque from the Nicene Creed.

And whenever the Pope of Rome prays with the Orthodox (with the EP, for example), he prays the Nicene Creed in Greek sans filioque.

Indefense of the Pope on that one, I would say that is out of courtesy than anything else. However I do find it odd that the Eastern Catholics removed it completely.

PP

The addition of the filioque to the Greek Catholic Nicene Creed was an accretion as a result of latinizations.
After Vatican II, the Eastern Catholics began to remove many of the latinizations. For example: confessionals, Stations of the Cross, and the filioque.

What about the IC?

PP

The last I heard about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.... the Melkites celebrate the Conception of Anna on December 9 instead of the Immaculate Conception on December 8.

Sounds like unofficially it is not adhered to. Would that be correct?

PP

[Inquisitor]

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

The Pope recites the Creed without filioque in greek.

In Spanish filioque is as old as the year 400, and spanish speakers are as many as half of all catholics. I turn the question back to you, if the ancient christians of the east accepted hispanic chiristians despite filioque, Would you accept hispanics to preserve it?

[primuspilus]

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

The Pope recites the Creed without filioque in greek.

In Spanish filioque is as old as the year 400, and spanish speakers are as many as half of all catholics. I turn the question back to you, if the ancient christians of the east accepted hispanic chiristians despite filioque, Would you accept hispanics to preserve it?

I thinik that the biggest problem is it is an addition to the creed. No matter how it is interpreted. I know some Orthodox that make that argument and they follow it up with, "Nothing else really matters. They edited the creed and wont back off of it." Thats a pretty big argument to alot of folks.


PP

[Inquisitor]

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

The Pope recites the Creed without filioque in greek.

In Spanish filioque is as old as the year 400, and spanish speakers are as many as half of all catholics. I turn the question back to you, if the ancient christians of the east accepted hispanic chiristians despite filioque, Would you accept hispanics to preserve it?

I thinik that the biggest problem is it is an addition to the creed. No matter how it is interpreted. I know some Orthodox that make that argument and they follow it up with, "Nothing else really matters. They edited the creed and wont back off of it." Thats a pretty big argument to alot of folks.


PP

The core idea of filioque is older than creed, catholics we don't say that such adition is an innovation, but a recognition and emphasis in a truth the church fathers didn'tdiscused in the council.