OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 21, 2014, 06:27:35 AM *
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  
Poll
Question: Select all of the options that you believe are theologically acceptable (multiple choices allowed)
Monopatrism - HS proceeds from Father alone (Son has no involvement) - 29 (32.6%)
Filioque - HS proceeds from Father and Son as ONE principle - 2 (2.2%)
Per Filium - HS proceeds from Father through Son (Father is single principle) - 39 (43.8%)
Filioque, understood as Father as single principle - 12 (13.5%)
ex Patri spirituque - the Son comes forth from the Father and HS - 2 (2.2%)
NA - 0 (0%)
Other - 5 (5.6%)
Total Voters: 54

Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Filioque....(poll)  (Read 2062 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Surnaturel
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 147


« on: May 30, 2013, 10:13:39 PM »

Some notes for clarification:

Per Filium here is understood in the vein of St. Maximus and St. Gregory of Nyssa: the Son has a  'mediating role' but the Father is the unoriginate and monarchical source, ontogically and hypostatically, of the Son and HS.

Ex Patri spirituque is purported to have a patristic basis by some theologians and has been proposed by at least one RC and EO theologian.
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,551



« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2013, 10:23:59 PM »

I selected other, because I disagree with the opposition between 'monopatrism' and through the Son. We can say both that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and also that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, because the former refers to the Spirit having existence from the Father alone, while the latter refers to the Spirit existing from the Father through the Son. They don't really refer to different things at all. I disagree with the other options. The Filioque as traditionally taught, confuses the hypostatic property of the Father with the Son. An attempt to restate the Filioque, such that the Father is a single principle doesn't work, simply because to exclude the Son from being principle is to deny that the Spirit is from the Son. The idea that the Son is begotten from the Father and Spirit confuses economy with theology.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2013, 10:32:33 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #2 on: May 30, 2013, 10:28:03 PM »

I selected other, because I disagree with the opposition between 'monopatrism' and through the Son. We can say both that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and also that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, because the former refers to the Spirit having existence from the Father alone, while the latter refers to the Spirit existing from the Father through the Son.

Well, the poll was set up by a Latin. Procedit =/= ekporevete.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,551



« Reply #3 on: May 30, 2013, 10:35:11 PM »

I selected other, because I disagree with the opposition between 'monopatrism' and through the Son. We can say both that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and also that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, because the former refers to the Spirit having existence from the Father alone, while the latter refers to the Spirit existing from the Father through the Son.

Well, the poll was set up by a Latin. Procedit =/= ekporevete.

In both forumlae (from the Father alone, and from the Father through the Son), the verb used is ἐκπορεύεται.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Surnaturel
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 147


« Reply #4 on: May 30, 2013, 10:47:22 PM »

I selected other, because I disagree with the opposition between 'monopatrism' and through the Son. We can say both that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and also that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, because the former refers to the Spirit having existence from the Father alone, while the latter refers to the Spirit existing from the Father through the Son.

Well, the poll was set up by a Latin. Procedit =/= ekporevete.

In both forumlae (from the Father alone, and from the Father through the Son), the verb used is ἐκπορεύεται.
that's why I offered multiple options. The second Filioque option is not necessarily opposed to per filium either. In your case, you could have voted for monopatrism and per filium as two acceptable expressions of the same truth, but they nonetheless are distinguishable by different wording.
Logged
Surnaturel
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 147


« Reply #5 on: May 30, 2013, 10:55:33 PM »

Also, the Latin word is incredibly broad and allows for a per Filium interpretation since the HS would be understood as principle from the Father but 'proceeding' through the Son per mediation. In any case, I agree with you that Per Filium is less clumsy and a superior formula. Correlatively, I believe that the Per Filioque is superior to the Photian Monopatrism.
Logged
lovesupreme
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 736


Out of This World


« Reply #6 on: May 30, 2013, 11:24:18 PM »

I always thought the Spirit proceeded from the OC.net forums.  Huh
Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #7 on: May 31, 2013, 01:04:26 AM »

I didn't select any because I think if the ECF's took years to come up with the right answer, there are no other questions to ask.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #8 on: May 31, 2013, 08:09:18 AM »

I always thought the Spirit proceeded from the OC.net forums.  Huh

Not the Holy Spirit.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Surnaturel
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 147


« Reply #9 on: May 31, 2013, 09:02:40 AM »

I didn't select any because I think if the ECF's took years to come up with the right answer, there are no other questions to ask.
Which ECFs? Nyssa and Maximus asserted per filium, Augustine Filioque, Photius Monopatrism....Nicaea-Constantinople left open the possibility for all three...
Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #10 on: May 31, 2013, 09:06:09 AM »

I didn't select any because I think if the ECF's took years to come up with the right answer, there are no other questions to ask.
Which ECFs? Nyssa and Maximus asserted per filium, Augustine Filioque, Photius Monopatrism....Nicaea-Constantinople left open the possibility for all three...

Only one was approved and accepted.
Logged
Surnaturel
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 147


« Reply #11 on: May 31, 2013, 09:55:00 AM »

I am surprised by the votes. I would have though that Monopatrism would be the majority vote. Personally, as I said, I think that the fullest expression of the Trinitarian truth of Nicaea-Constantinople is per Filium.
Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,093


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #12 on: May 31, 2013, 10:05:41 AM »

I didn't select any because I think if the ECF's took years to come up with the right answer, there are no other questions to ask.
Which ECFs? Nyssa and Maximus asserted per filium, Augustine Filioque, Photius Monopatrism....Nicaea-Constantinople left open the possibility for all three...

Only one was approved and accepted.

Bump!
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,359



« Reply #13 on: May 31, 2013, 10:28:55 AM »

Why would we express theology in Latin phrases?
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
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,089


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #14 on: May 31, 2013, 10:58:39 AM »

Why would we express theology in Latin phrases?

This is an important point.  While the argument has been made that the Latin terms are broader in meaning on this question than the Greek, there's no reason why the Eastern Churches would define theology in Latin.  Regarding procession, none of the languages in the East differ significantly from the Greek as far as I am aware, so we're happy sticking with the uninterpolated Creed, and so was Rome once upon a time.  Even if different local traditions may also use other phrases in their expansions on this theology, like the Syriac "takes from the Son" (for the sake of which I included "per Filium" in my vote), it need not be imposed on everyone else as was attempted with Filioque.     

 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #15 on: May 31, 2013, 12:53:58 PM »

Why would we express theology in Latin phrases?
You don't want any Latin Orthodox?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #16 on: May 31, 2013, 01:31:33 PM »

I voted "Other", as in "Don't know--above my pay grade."
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #17 on: May 31, 2013, 03:19:10 PM »

I voted "Other", as in "Don't know--above my pay grade."
I like that.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Surnaturel
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 147


« Reply #18 on: May 31, 2013, 08:41:35 PM »

Why would we express theology in Latin phrases?
I don't think you should. What gave you that impression?

Per Filium is from St. GREGORY of Nyssa, an Eastern Father, I just read it today in Book I and II of his 'Against Eunomius' and in his treatise on the Trinity. Same is true with St. Maximus the Confessor.

Moreover, I merely asked what formula(s) people found agreeable and theologically tenable.
Logged
Surnaturel
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 147


« Reply #19 on: May 31, 2013, 08:44:34 PM »

Why would we express theology in Latin phrases?

This is an important point.  While the argument has been made that the Latin terms are broader in meaning on this question than the Greek, there's no reason why the Eastern Churches would define theology in Latin.  Regarding procession, none of the languages in the East differ significantly from the Greek as far as I am aware, so we're happy sticking with the uninterpolated Creed, and so was Rome once upon a time.  Even if different local traditions may also use other phrases in their expansions on this theology, like the Syriac "takes from the Son" (for the sake of which I included "per Filium" in my vote), it need not be imposed on everyone else as was attempted with Filioque.      

  
I can look for it if you're interested, but St Gregory of Nyssa used the phrase 'takes from the Son' at least once time in one of his works.

I decided to find it whether you're interested or not lol. It's on the first page of his 'On the Holy Spirit' and the literal Greek, according to the translator, is 'proceeding from the Father receiving from the Son.'
« Last Edit: May 31, 2013, 08:52:18 PM by Surnaturel » Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,089


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #20 on: May 31, 2013, 09:45:29 PM »

I decided to find it whether you're interested or not lol. It's on the first page of his 'On the Holy Spirit' and the literal Greek, according to the translator, is 'proceeding from the Father receiving from the Son.'

Thanks for indulging my laziness.  Tongue
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #21 on: June 01, 2013, 11:54:20 PM »

The correct answer, of course, is the one which the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church professes.  angel
Logged
TheMathematician
Banished and Disgraced
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 1,409


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #22 on: June 02, 2013, 12:14:25 AM »

The correct answer, of course, is the one which the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church professes.  angel

I quite agree with you, and how it is professes now, that is, Who proceeds from the Father, with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified.

 Grin
Logged

SCREW BON JOVI!
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,430


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #23 on: June 02, 2013, 12:25:37 AM »

I think the bigger issue in regards to the Filioque was not whether or not it was doctrinally true--it has the potential to be understood in both a proper and heretical way--but the fact that it symbolized Papal Supremacy. The West was already using the Filioque since the 6th century, but it didn't become a problem until the West tried to force it on us.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #24 on: June 02, 2013, 06:46:43 PM »

I think the bigger issue in regards to the Filioque was not whether or not it was doctrinally true--it has the potential to be understood in both a proper and heretical way--but the fact that it symbolized Papal Supremacy. The West was already using the Filioque since the 6th century, but it didn't become a problem until the West tried to force it on us.

Who is this "us"--The Church of the Confused  Cool?
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #25 on: June 02, 2013, 10:59:31 PM »

The correct answer, of course, is the one which the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church professes.  angel

I quite agree with you, and how it is professes now, that is, Who proceeds from the Father, with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified.

 Grin
Yep...that is a fully orthodox way to say the Creed. After all, this is what the Eastern Catholics say. :p
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #26 on: June 03, 2013, 02:59:03 AM »

The correct answer, of course, is the one which the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church professes.  angel

I quite agree with you, and how it is professes now, that is, Who proceeds from the Father, with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified.

 Grin
Yep...that is a fully orthodox way to say the Creed. After all, this is what the Eastern Catholics say. :p
There is a small problem though. The Catholic Church is supposed to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. If we focus on the mark "ONE", wouldn't this imply that there should be one creed, which everyone agrees on? If the East says that the HS proceeds from the Father, while the Romans say that the HS proceeds from the Father and from the Son, is this indicative of "ONE" belief? Some in the East say no, especially in consideration of the some of the harsher  declarations at Western Councils and in spite of a recent document which attempted to soften the harsher implication of filioque.  I know that Romans today say that both creeds effectively  mean the same thing, but this is not agreeable to the East, and  a further question is whether this was this what the Romans have always said or was it taught previously, that there is a serious difference between putting the filioque in the creed and leaving it out?
Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,093


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #27 on: June 03, 2013, 07:25:45 AM »

The correct answer, of course, is the one which the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church professes.  angel

I quite agree with you, and how it is professes now, that is, Who proceeds from the Father, with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified.

 Grin
Yep...that is a fully orthodox way to say the Creed. After all, this is what the Eastern Catholics say. :p
There is a small problem though. The Catholic Church is supposed to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. If we focus on the mark "ONE", wouldn't this imply that there should be one creed, which everyone agrees on? If the East says that the HS proceeds from the Father, while the Romans say that the HS proceeds from the Father and from the Son, is this indicative of "ONE" belief? Some in the East say no, especially in consideration of the some of the harsher  declarations at Western Councils and in spite of a recent document which attempted to soften the harsher implication of filioque.  I know that Romans today say that both creeds effectively  mean the same thing, but this is not agreeable to the East, and  a further question is whether this was this what the Romans have always said or was it taught previously, that there is a serious difference between putting the filioque in the creed and leaving it out?

Well, if the RCC is willing to accept the "through" rather than the "and" term there may be a chance here, but I still am confused somewhat in the RCC believing that "and" means "through" and visa versa.  In English, this is not so. But what do I know.  Anyway, whatever change would have to be a published change ie Sunday Missals, Catechism, etc. to confirm it. In what language does "and" allowed to be used in the place of "through"?
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #28 on: June 03, 2013, 01:45:14 PM »

The correct answer, of course, is the one which the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church professes.  angel

I quite agree with you, and how it is professes now, that is, Who proceeds from the Father, with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified.

 Grin
Yep...that is a fully orthodox way to say the Creed. After all, this is what the Eastern Catholics say. :p
There is a small problem though. The Catholic Church is supposed to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. If we focus on the mark "ONE", wouldn't this imply that there should be one creed, which everyone agrees on? If the East says that the HS proceeds from the Father, while the Romans say that the HS proceeds from the Father and from the Son, is this indicative of "ONE" belief? Some in the East say no, especially in consideration of the some of the harsher  declarations at Western Councils and in spite of a recent document which attempted to soften the harsher implication of filioque.  I know that Romans today say that both creeds effectively  mean the same thing, but this is not agreeable to the East, and  a further question is whether this was this what the Romans have always said or was it taught previously, that there is a serious difference between putting the filioque in the creed and leaving it out?
The Church, East and West, said the Creed without the filioque for quite some time, so it is a perfectly orthodox expression of the faith. Since filioque is a clarification and not a change of doctrine, and since the absence of the filioque does not necessarily imply "Father alone," I see nothing wrong with it not being said by the Eastern Catholic Churches.
Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,093


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #29 on: June 03, 2013, 06:18:24 PM »

The correct answer, of course, is the one which the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church professes.  angel

I quite agree with you, and how it is professes now, that is, Who proceeds from the Father, with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified.

 Grin
Yep...that is a fully orthodox way to say the Creed. After all, this is what the Eastern Catholics say. :p
There is a small problem though. The Catholic Church is supposed to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. If we focus on the mark "ONE", wouldn't this imply that there should be one creed, which everyone agrees on? If the East says that the HS proceeds from the Father, while the Romans say that the HS proceeds from the Father and from the Son, is this indicative of "ONE" belief? Some in the East say no, especially in consideration of the some of the harsher  declarations at Western Councils and in spite of a recent document which attempted to soften the harsher implication of filioque.  I know that Romans today say that both creeds effectively  mean the same thing, but this is not agreeable to the East, and  a further question is whether this was this what the Romans have always said or was it taught previously, that there is a serious difference between putting the filioque in the creed and leaving it out?
The Church, East and West, said the Creed without the filioque for quite some time, so it is a perfectly orthodox expression of the faith. Since filioque is a clarification and not a change of doctrine, and since the absence of the filioque does not necessarily imply "Father alone," I see nothing wrong with it not being said by the Eastern Catholic Churches.

I beg to differ here, the Filioque is a change of doctrine.  It was also adopted without conciliatory approval from a unified Church.  
« Last Edit: June 03, 2013, 06:18:45 PM by JoeS2 » Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #30 on: June 03, 2013, 07:24:01 PM »

filioque is a clarification

But not a clarification of the Creed was written to express.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Anglican (Episcopal Church)
Posts: 103



« Reply #31 on: June 03, 2013, 08:38:50 PM »

The point of the filioque was to short-circuit possible Arian interpretations of the article on the procession of the Holy Ghost.  If the Son is a divine cul-de-sac, off to one side of the main action, having no connection whatever to the Holy Ghost except for a few crumbs of knowledge given by the Father, then the Arians are right that the Son does not fully know his Father, for he does not share his Father's full knowledge of the Holy Ghost.

The synod of Hatfield, in 679, in its statement of "the right and orthodox faith", stated that "we glorify our Lord Jesus in such sort as [the apostles, the fathers, and the general councils] have glorified him; adding or diminishing nothing: ... glorifying God the Father without beginning, and his only-begotten Son begotten of the Father before the worlds, and the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son in a way that cannot be described (et Spiritum Sanctum procedentem ex Patre et Filio inenarrabiliter)."  This confession was accepted as orthodox by St. Theodore, a Greek-speaking monk from Asia Minor, who taught his students in the Canterbury school from the writings of the Greek fathers.
Logged

Forþon we sealon efestan þas Easterlican þing to asmeagenne and to gehealdanne, þaet we magon cuman to þam Easterlican daege, þe aa byð, mid fullum glaedscipe and wynsumnysse and ecere blisse.--Byrhtferth of Ramsey
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,104



« Reply #32 on: June 03, 2013, 09:46:36 PM »

I think the bigger issue in regards to the Filioque was not whether or not it was doctrinally true--it has the potential to be understood in both a proper and heretical way--but the fact that it symbolized Papal Supremacy. The West was already using the Filioque since the 6th century, but it didn't become a problem until the West tried to force it on us.

What about the EP's actions in 1014?
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,104



« Reply #33 on: June 03, 2013, 09:47:41 PM »

The correct answer, of course, is the one which the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church professes.  angel

I quite agree with you, and how it is professes now, that is, Who proceeds from the Father, with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified.

 Grin
Yep...that is a fully orthodox way to say the Creed. After all, this is what the Eastern Catholics say. :p

I'd like to also mention Dominus Jesus.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,104



« Reply #34 on: June 03, 2013, 09:51:33 PM »

The correct answer, of course, is the one which the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church professes.  angel

I quite agree with you, and how it is professes now, that is, Who proceeds from the Father, with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified.

 Grin
Yep...that is a fully orthodox way to say the Creed. After all, this is what the Eastern Catholics say. :p
There is a small problem though. The Catholic Church is supposed to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. If we focus on the mark "ONE", wouldn't this imply that there should be one creed, which everyone agrees on? If the East says that the HS proceeds from the Father, while the Romans say that the HS proceeds from the Father and from the Son, is this indicative of "ONE" belief? Some in the East say no, especially in consideration of the some of the harsher  declarations at Western Councils and in spite of a recent document which attempted to soften the harsher implication of filioque.  I know that Romans today say that both creeds effectively  mean the same thing, but this is not agreeable to the East, and  a further question is whether this was this what the Romans have always said or was it taught previously, that there is a serious difference between putting the filioque in the creed and leaving it out?
The Church, East and West, said the Creed without the filioque for quite some time, so it is a perfectly orthodox expression of the faith. Since filioque is a clarification and not a change of doctrine, and since the absence of the filioque does not necessarily imply "Father alone," I see nothing wrong with it not being said by the Eastern Catholic Churches.

I beg to differ here, the Filioque is a change of doctrine.  It was also adopted without conciliatory approval from a unified Church.  

I assume you that in the sense the Florence's statement represented a change of teaching? I think most Orthodox agree that the filioque in-and-of-itself can be orthodox. (All the more so in English, since we say "who proceeds from the Father and the Son", not "who proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son".)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #35 on: June 04, 2013, 03:51:17 PM »

I chose the "monopatrism" option, because the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed concerns the origination of the Spirit's existence, and that comes from the Father alone.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #36 on: June 04, 2013, 05:15:11 PM »

The correct answer, of course, is the one which the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church professes.  angel

I quite agree with you, and how it is professes now, that is, Who proceeds from the Father, with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified.

 Grin
Yep...that is a fully orthodox way to say the Creed. After all, this is what the Eastern Catholics say. :p
There is a small problem though. The Catholic Church is supposed to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. If we focus on the mark "ONE", wouldn't this imply that there should be one creed, which everyone agrees on? If the East says that the HS proceeds from the Father, while the Romans say that the HS proceeds from the Father and from the Son, is this indicative of "ONE" belief? Some in the East say no, especially in consideration of the some of the harsher  declarations at Western Councils and in spite of a recent document which attempted to soften the harsher implication of filioque.  I know that Romans today say that both creeds effectively  mean the same thing, but this is not agreeable to the East, and  a further question is whether this was this what the Romans have always said or was it taught previously, that there is a serious difference between putting the filioque in the creed and leaving it out?
The Church, East and West, said the Creed without the filioque for quite some time, so it is a perfectly orthodox expression of the faith. Since filioque is a clarification and not a change of doctrine, and since the absence of the filioque does not necessarily imply "Father alone," I see nothing wrong with it not being said by the Eastern Catholic Churches.
Agreed. In addition to this, some parts of the Church recited the filioque while other did not, and the and East and West were still in communion with one another.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #37 on: June 04, 2013, 11:08:52 PM »

Why would we express theology in Latin phrases?

+1
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #38 on: June 04, 2013, 11:10:32 PM »

Why would we express theology in Latin phrases?
You don't want any Latin Orthodox?

We have many Latin Orthodox, but the best of them were at least a bit conversant in Greek or knew the Greek Fathers. The ones who didn't got into trouble and the best of them acknowledged such.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #39 on: June 04, 2013, 11:11:53 PM »

I think the bigger issue in regards to the Filioque was not whether or not it was doctrinally true--it has the potential to be understood in both a proper and heretical way--but the fact that it symbolized Papal Supremacy. The West was already using the Filioque since the 6th century, but it didn't become a problem until the West tried to force it on us.

Bazinga
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,093


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #40 on: June 05, 2013, 12:37:29 AM »


Agreed. In addition to this, some parts of the Church recited the filioque while other did not, and the and East and West were still in communion with one another.

Yes, we were in communion but heck, lets face it, they didn't have Google or the Internet otherwise we may have been split up well before the accepted 1054 date.  And for another, the eastern faithful would not have gone along with it anyway if they knew what was going on.  But, they Woke up after Ravenna and Florence in a big way as we all know.
Logged
paedenfield
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 10


St. Ephrem, the Harp of the Holy Spirit


« Reply #41 on: June 05, 2013, 02:19:46 AM »

Ex Patri spirituque is purported to have a patristic basis by some theologians and has been proposed by at least one RC and EO theologian.

I have always felt on the safest theological ground with "Monopatrism - HS proceeds from Father alone (Son has no involvement)."  I worshiped for years as an Episcopalian and later as a Methodist, and for some reason I always had a gut reaction against saying the Filioque clause when using the Nicene Creed ... I should've known something was up with that!  Smiley

At the same time, I am interested in learning more about the small minority view of "ex Patri spirituque - the Son comes forth from the Father and HS."  Surnaturel, would you please share with us the patristic and later sources for this understanding of the Trinity?  My guess is that it ultimately has a Semitic (early Syriac and/or Jewish-Christian) origin, where the Holy Spirit was understood in maternal terms.  Thanks.

  -- Paul
Logged

If you are able to bear the whole yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect.  But if you are not able, then do what you can. - Didache 6:2
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,093


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #42 on: June 05, 2013, 08:44:59 AM »



I assume you that in the sense the Florence's statement represented a change of teaching? I think most Orthodox agree that the filioque in-and-of-itself can be orthodox. (All the more so in English, since we say "who proceeds from the Father and the Son", not "who proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son".)

No No NO.  The Nicean Creed is explicit in it's content.  No changes no additions are allowed without universal consent by a unified church council.  Any changes have been condemned as heretical.  Now if a future unified church chose to include this term, so be it.  But as of now, its a No NO.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2013, 08:45:25 AM by JoeS2 » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #43 on: June 05, 2013, 02:38:01 PM »


Agreed. In addition to this, some parts of the Church recited the filioque while other did not, and the and East and West were still in communion with one another.

Yes, we were in communion but heck, lets face it, they didn't have Google or the Internet otherwise we may have been split up well before the accepted 1054 date.  And for another, the eastern faithful would not have gone along with it anyway if they knew what was going on.  But, they Woke up after Ravenna and Florence in a big way as we all know.
You think the Eastern Catholics would have demanded schism from Spanish Catholics when the Spanish started reciting the filioque?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #44 on: June 05, 2013, 02:38:01 PM »



I assume you that in the sense the Florence's statement represented a change of teaching? I think most Orthodox agree that the filioque in-and-of-itself can be orthodox. (All the more so in English, since we say "who proceeds from the Father and the Son", not "who proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son".)

No No NO.  The Nicean Creed is explicit in it's content.  No changes no additions are allowed without universal consent by a unified church council.  Any changes have been condemned as heretical.  Now if a future unified church chose to include this term, so be it.  But as of now, its a No NO.
It was changed after Nicea.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Tags:
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 0.152 seconds with 74 queries.