OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 28, 2014, 07:38:46 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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: st Jerome believed that holy spirit proceeds from the Father and son?  (Read 729 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 911


« on: January 27, 2013, 08:59:13 AM »

I am studying the life of the Saints. I find out St. Jerome believed and openly claimed that holy spirit proceeds from the Father and Son(e.g. another god.) Why Orthodox Church still recognises him as Saint and does not accuse him and his teachings as heresy?
« Last Edit: January 27, 2013, 09:04:01 AM by walter1234 » Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,048


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #1 on: January 27, 2013, 09:31:49 AM »

Source?
Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,539



« Reply #2 on: January 27, 2013, 09:56:49 AM »

I don't know if St. Jerome taught that, but if he did it wouldn't matter as we would "cover" his sin in this case, as we did with St. Augustine on the same issue.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,539



« Reply #3 on: January 27, 2013, 10:00:08 AM »

Quote
Read through Ambrose or Augustine or whatever Father you may choose: which of them wished to affirm anything contrary to the Master's word? If it is I, then I insult your Fathers. But if you say it whilst I deny it, then you insult them, and I condemn you of insolence towards the Fathers. But, you retort, they have written so, and the words the Spirit proceeds from the Son are to be found in their writings. What of it? If those fathers, having been instructed, did not alter or change their opinion, if after just rebukes they were not persuaded — again, this is another slander against your Fathers — then you who teach your word [Filioque] as a dogma introduce your own stubbornness of opinion into the teachings of those men. Although in other things they are the equals of the best [Fathers], what does this have to do with you? If they slipped and fell into error, therefore, by some negligence or oversight — for such is the human condition — when they were corrected, they neither contradicted nor were they obstinately disobedient. For they were not, even in the slightest degree, participants in those things in which you abound. Though they were admirable by reason of many other qualities that manifest virtue and piety, they professed your teaching either through ignorance or negligence. But if they in no way shared the benefit of your advantages [of being corrected], why do your introduce their human fault as a mandate for your blasphemous belief?

. . . But I do not admit that what you assert was so plainly taught by those blessed men. Even so, if any among them has fallen into something unseemly — for they were all men and human, and no one composed of dust and ephemeral nature can avoid some trace of defilement — I would then imitate the sons of Noah and cover my father's shame with silence and gratitude instead of a garment. I would not have followed Ham as you do. Indeed, you follow him with even more shamelessness and impudence than he himself, because you publish abroad the shame of those whom you call your Fathers. Ham is cursed, not because he uncovered his father, but because he failed to cover him. You, however, both uncover your Fathers and brag about your audacity. Ham exposes the secret to his brothers; you tell yours not to one or two brothers, but in your rash and reckless abandon, proclaim the shame of your Fathers to the whole world, as if it were your theatre. You behave lewdly towards the shame of their nakedness and seek other revellers with whom to make more conspicuous festival, rejoicing when you expose their nakedness to the light!

. . . Admittedly, those things were said (by Augustine and Jerome). But perhaps they spoke out of necessity in attacking [pagan] Greek madness, or whilst refuting heresy, or through some condescension to the weakness of their listeners, or due to the necessity of any one of the many things presented by daily life. If, by chance, such a statement escaped their lips because of one or more of the above reasons, then why do you still dismiss their testimony, and take as a necessary dogma what they did not mean as a dogma? Do you not realise that you bring irreparable destruction upon yourselves by enlisting those men in your rebellious contention?

. . . It is possible to find many other examples in our holy and blessed fathers. I have in mind Clement, one of the bishops of [Old] Rome. Consider the books which are known from him as Clementine (I do not say write because, according to ancient report, Peter the Coryphaeus commanded they be written). Consider also Dionysius of Alexandria, who in stretching out his hand against Sabellius nearly joins with Arius. Consider also the splendour of the sacred-martyr, Methodius the Great of Patara, who did not reject the idea that angels fell into mortal desire and bodily intercourse, even though they are incorporeal and without passions. I shall pass over Pantaenos, Clement, Pierios, Pamphilos and Theognostos, all holy men and teachers of holy disciples whom we hymn with great honour and affection, especially Pamphilos and Pierios, distinguished by the trials of martyrdom. Although we do not accept all of their statements, we grant them honour for their patient disposition and goodness of life and for their other doctrines. In addition to those previously mentioned, there is Irenaeus, the bishop of God, who received the supervision of sacred things in Lyons and also Hippolytus, his disciple, the Episcopal martyr: all of these were admirable in many ways, though at times some of their writings do not avoid departing from orthodoxy.

Consequently, you should produce this double dilemma and strive against all of these men and, with raised brows, say: Either these men should be honoured and their writings not rejected, or, if we reject some of their words, we should simultaneously reject the men themselves. But will not these more-than-righteous, expert men more fairly turn your facile argument back upon you, saying, Why, O man, do you enjoin what is not enjoined? If you really call us Fathers, why do you not fear to take up arms against the Fathers and, what is even more prideful, against our common Master, the Creator of all? But once you decided to behave insultingly towards us by being zealous for your doctrine, are you not evidently insane when you simultaneously stretch patricidal hands towards us? How many ways your sophisms can be turned against you! But just as we passed by the Fathers previously named, let us pass by discussion of these points for now.

Who does not know about Basil the Great, who (whilst preserving the royal garment of pure godliness in the secret chamber of his soul) was silent about the deity of the Spirit? A soul burning with divine love, but not flaring into an open flame lest it be extinguished by that very progress and open splendour! This man ordered his words with judgement and guided the godly with small, gradual increases (for when it has been gently introduced into men's souls, the mighty flame of faith arises more strongly; for the hasty assault of light frequently blinds the spiritual eyes of men as when strong light overshadows the eyes of those who have weak vision). For this reason, he is silent, inflaming them before he proclaims it. He passed over it in silence so that a more seasonable time would come to eloquently proclaim the secret. If one wished to name all the men and their reasons for often not revealing the blossom of truth, one would have to compose a huge book! Their ultimate concern was how this blossom might bloom more beautifully and how its fruit might multiply so that an abundant harvest could be gathered. But we admire those men who had unspeakable inspiration which surpasses reason and for their judiciousness of wisdom. Now if any of you would introduce laws and dogmas into the Church which are hateful to the Holy Fathers, we would consider him an enemy of the truth and a destroyer of piety. Since he becomes guilty by himself, we would condemn him with the judgements he himself provides.


-- St. Photius, Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, 68-77
Logged
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 911


« Reply #4 on: January 27, 2013, 10:52:25 AM »

Quote
Church fathers

The writings of the early Church Fathers, both eastern and western, sometimes speak of the Holy Spirit as proceeding or spirating from the Father and the Son.

Before the creed of 381 became known in the West and even before it was adopted by the First Council of Constantinople, Christian writers in the West, of whom Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 220), Jerome (347–420), Ambrose (c. 338 – 397) and Augustine (354–430) are representatives, spoke of the Spirit as coming from the Father and the Son,[10] while the expression “from the Father through the Son” is also found among them.[20][21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque
« Last Edit: January 27, 2013, 10:54:01 AM by walter1234 » Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,539



« Reply #5 on: January 27, 2013, 11:12:12 AM »

Ok, that doesn't change what I posted above Wink
Logged
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 911


« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2013, 01:32:57 PM »

I don't know if St. Jerome taught that, but if he did it wouldn't matter as we would "cover" his sin in this case, as we did with St. Augustine on the same issue.

What is your meaning of ' We would "cover" his sin'?
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,539



« Reply #7 on: January 27, 2013, 03:50:17 PM »

It means that he made a mistake and we would look past it, or ignore it in a sense. No one is infallible, and even saints sometimes said things that, in later times, were found to be heretical. St. Justin Martyr, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and others may have fallen into this category.
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #8 on: January 27, 2013, 05:34:05 PM »

Every latin speaking western father that I'm aware that wrote about it said in their writings that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The concept of procession in latin is not the same as it is in greek.

St Maximus the Confessor in his letter to Marinus
Quote
Those of the Queen of cities (Constantinople) have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology (of the Trinity) and according to this, says 'the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.'

The other deals with the divine incarnation. With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit--they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession--but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 911


« Reply #9 on: January 28, 2013, 08:33:58 AM »

It means that he made a mistake and we would look past it, or ignore it in a sense. No one is infallible, and even saints sometimes said things that, in later times, were found to be heretical. St. Justin Martyr, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and others may have fallen into this category.

St Augustine , St, jerome and many Latin Church Father/ Saints also taught filioque. They are believe in and worship other god ( idol). How come  the Church just ignore such big mistake and still venerate them?
« Last Edit: January 28, 2013, 08:35:59 AM by walter1234 » Logged
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #10 on: January 28, 2013, 09:13:45 AM »

It means that he made a mistake and we would look past it, or ignore it in a sense. No one is infallible, and even saints sometimes said things that, in later times, were found to be heretical. St. Justin Martyr, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and others may have fallen into this category.

St Augustine , St, jerome and many Latin Church Father/ Saints also taught filioque. They are believe in and worship other god ( idol). How come  the Church just ignore such big mistake and still venerate them?

Saints are human and humans are not perfect. They make mistakes. If we could only venerate those who were perfect, our list of saints would be very short indeed. There is a big difference between holding to an opinion later condemned as heresy and stubbornly holding to it after it is condemned. Saints can do the former, those who do the latter are heretics.

When we venerate a saint we do so despite whatever errors they might have adhered to - it doesn't mean that we support them in everything they ever said or did.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,922


"My god is greater."


« Reply #11 on: January 28, 2013, 09:37:06 AM »

They are believe in and worship other god ( idol).

Huh? What's your proof of this?

As for the filioque, I think St. Maximus explains well why the filioque of the Latin fathers is not the same as the filioque of Lyons and Florence, where the Holy Spirit is said to proceed eternally from the Father and Son "as from one principle."
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,887


« Reply #12 on: January 28, 2013, 11:27:27 AM »

I know the Eastern Orthodox Church always rejected the filioque but did it just basically not bother the west about it until 1054 when the west tried to coerce the Orthodox Church into accepting this heresy? If I recall (I am starting to forget because of slight apathy) Patriarch Photius raised deep concerns about the filioque also but otherwise was it not basically rejected & ignored by the Orthodox?
Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 911


« Reply #13 on: January 29, 2013, 06:09:07 AM »

They are believe in and worship other god ( idol).

Huh? What's your proof of this?

As for the filioque, I think St. Maximus explains well why the filioque of the Latin fathers is not the same as the filioque of Lyons and Florence, where the Holy Spirit is said to proceed eternally from the Father and Son "as from one principle."

You mean the filioque from St Augustine ,St Jerome and other Latin Church father is not the same as the filioque which today's Catholic church holds?
« Last Edit: January 29, 2013, 06:09:48 AM by walter1234 » Logged
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 911


« Reply #14 on: January 29, 2013, 09:38:17 AM »

It means that he made a mistake and we would look past it, or ignore it in a sense. No one is infallible, and even saints sometimes said things that, in later times, were found to be heretical. St. Justin Martyr, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and others may have fallen into this category.

St Augustine , St, jerome and many Latin Church Father/ Saints also taught filioque. They are believe in and worship other god ( idol). How come  the Church just ignore such big mistake and still venerate them?

Saints are human and humans are not perfect. They make mistakes. If we could only venerate those who were perfect, our list of saints would be very short indeed. There is a big difference between holding to an opinion later condemned as heresy and stubbornly holding to it after it is condemned. Saints can do the former, those who do the latter are heretics.

When we venerate a saint we do so despite whatever errors they might have adhered to - it doesn't mean that we support them in everything they ever said or did.

James

Some teachings from St Augustine , St Jerome and some latin Father does not align with Orthodox Faith, like original sin, filioque, purgutory,etc. They are closer to the Faith of Catholic Church. Why doesn't Orthodox Church cancel them from the saint lists? Why does Orthodox Church still believe they are in the heaven even they did not hold the Orthodox faith?
« Last Edit: January 29, 2013, 09:45:08 AM by walter1234 » Logged
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #15 on: January 29, 2013, 10:35:40 AM »

It means that he made a mistake and we would look past it, or ignore it in a sense. No one is infallible, and even saints sometimes said things that, in later times, were found to be heretical. St. Justin Martyr, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and others may have fallen into this category.

St Augustine , St, jerome and many Latin Church Father/ Saints also taught filioque. They are believe in and worship other god ( idol). How come  the Church just ignore such big mistake and still venerate them?

Saints are human and humans are not perfect. They make mistakes. If we could only venerate those who were perfect, our list of saints would be very short indeed. There is a big difference between holding to an opinion later condemned as heresy and stubbornly holding to it after it is condemned. Saints can do the former, those who do the latter are heretics.

When we venerate a saint we do so despite whatever errors they might have adhered to - it doesn't mean that we support them in everything they ever said or did.

James

Some teachings from St Augustine , St Jerome and some latin Father does not align with Orthodox Faith, like original sin, filioque, purgutory,etc. They are closer to the Faith of Catholic Church. Why doesn't Orthodox Church cancel them from the saint lists? Why does Orthodox Church still believe they are in the heaven even they did not hold the Orthodox faith?

Like I said, everyone makes mistakes. Holding up someone as a saint doesn't mean we agree with everything they ever said or did and disagreeing with them on one thing doesn't mean that we can't still consider them as saints. If they had been condemned (like Tertullian for instance) in the lifetime and had refused to correct their beliefs they would not be saints. If, on the other hand, they had been faithful members of the church who believed what they taught was orthodox doctrine but were never corrected, even though we may be able to see errors in what they wrote, there is no reason to deny that they are saints. This is the case with some of the Latin Fathers. Any errors were not corrected in their lifetimes so they died faithful members of the Church.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,636



« Reply #16 on: January 29, 2013, 10:37:14 AM »

Some teachings from St Augustine , St Jerome and some latin Father does not align with Orthodox Faith, like original sin, filioque, purgutory,etc.

Have you by any chance actually read what those Fathers have said? "Read" meaning reading books and not RC apologetics on internet.
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,048


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #17 on: January 29, 2013, 10:38:32 AM »


Like I said, everyone makes mistakes. Holding up someone as a saint doesn't mean we agree with everything they ever said or did and disagreeing with them on one thing doesn't mean that we can't still consider them as saints. If they had been condemned (like Tertullian for instance) in the lifetime and had refused to correct their beliefs they would not be saints. If, on the other hand, they had been faithful members of the church who believed what they taught was orthodox doctrine but were never corrected, even though we may be able to see errors in what they wrote, there is no reason to deny that they are saints. This is the case with some of the Latin Fathers. Any errors were not corrected in their lifetimes so they died faithful members of the Church.

James

*kuch* Origen *kuch*
Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #18 on: January 29, 2013, 11:15:46 AM »


Like I said, everyone makes mistakes. Holding up someone as a saint doesn't mean we agree with everything they ever said or did and disagreeing with them on one thing doesn't mean that we can't still consider them as saints. If they had been condemned (like Tertullian for instance) in the lifetime and had refused to correct their beliefs they would not be saints. If, on the other hand, they had been faithful members of the church who believed what they taught was orthodox doctrine but were never corrected, even though we may be able to see errors in what they wrote, there is no reason to deny that they are saints. This is the case with some of the Latin Fathers. Any errors were not corrected in their lifetimes so they died faithful members of the Church.

James

*kuch* Origen *kuch*

What about Origen? Are you referring to the fact that Origenism was condemned after his death? This is true, but he also had to defend himself during his lifetime due to some of his controversial views and to the best of my knowledge was never a candidate to be considered a saint, so this would hardly seem relevant to what I was saying - we don't strike saints from the calendar after the fact because we see some errors in their writings. Someone like Origen, who was always too controversial to be glorified is not really in the same boat, is he?

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Tags:
Pages: 1   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 0.083 seconds with 47 queries.