OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 23, 2014, 05:02:11 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 2154 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: 1,620



« 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: 7,973


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: 1,620



« 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
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,037



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

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

I am prone to bouts of sarcasm. Please forgive me if my posts have offended you.
Kerdy
Warned
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: 7,973


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
Warned
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: 1,134


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
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #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: 17,787


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


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 Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


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 Catholic
Posts: 10,172


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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


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: 17,787


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


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 Ephrem > Justin Kissel
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: 1,498


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
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,744


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 Catholic
Posts: 10,172


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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
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: 1,134


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: 1,134


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: 132



« 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: 6,147



« 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: 6,147



« 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: 6,147



« 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: 12,264


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: 7,973


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: 7,973


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: 7,973


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: 1,134


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: 1,134


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: 12,264


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: 12,264


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 .
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,134


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


« Reply #45 on: June 05, 2013, 07:49:14 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.

Correction noted, thank you.  "modified by the First Council of Constantinople of 381"
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,515


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #46 on: June 06, 2013, 03:15:17 AM »

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.

They didn't think that the Holy Spirit originates hypostatically from the Son.

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.

That's ridiculous.
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,134


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


« Reply #47 on: June 11, 2013, 11:07:17 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.
It was changed after Nicea.

Correction noted, thank you.  "modified by the First Council of Constantinople of 381"

http://www.oodegr.com/english/papismos/filioque_criticism.htm
Logged
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 #48 on: June 12, 2013, 01:00:12 AM »

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.

They didn't think that the Holy Spirit originates hypostatically from the Son.
I agree. The Son has no mediating role in the hypostatic origination of the Holy Spirit. The Father alone is the cause of the hypostasis of the Son by generation (γέννησιν), and the Father alone is the cause of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit by procession (ἐκπόρευσιν). The Holy Spirit can be said only to progress (προϊέναι) through the Son, but He (i.e., the Spirit) does not receive His hypostatic existence from or through the Son.

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.

That's ridiculous.
I agree. The people who propose this weird notion of a "spirituque" are - as when they defend the "filioque" - confusing the origin of the second and third persons of the Trinity, which is from the Father alone, with the manifestation of the Spirit (and even of the Son) in the divine economy.
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
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: 1,620



« Reply #49 on: June 12, 2013, 05:17:25 AM »

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.

They didn't think that the Holy Spirit originates hypostatically from the Son.
I agree. The Son has no mediating role in the hypostatic origination of the Holy Spirit. The Father alone is the cause of the hypostasis of the Son by generation (γέννησιν), and the Father alone is the cause of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit by procession (ἐκπόρευσιν). The Holy Spirit can be said only to progress (προϊέναι) through the Son, but He (i.e., the Spirit) does not receive His hypostatic existence from or through the Son.

To sum it up, the Spirit is said to exist through the Son, but does not receive existence from or through the Son. This distinction, though it was initially misunderstood when it was clarified by Patriarch Gregory II of Constantinople, serves as a useful litmus test to cut through the semantic confusion surrounding the filioque. Of course, this distinction also has a problematic side-effect of pointing out incompatibilities (other than the filioque) between traditional Western and Eastern theology which some theologians seem very inclined to gloss over these days.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2013, 05:19:30 AM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
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 #50 on: June 12, 2013, 09:30:31 AM »

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.

They didn't think that the Holy Spirit originates hypostatically from the Son.
I agree. The Son has no mediating role in the hypostatic origination of the Holy Spirit. The Father alone is the cause of the hypostasis of the Son by generation (γέννησιν), and the Father alone is the cause of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit by procession (ἐκπόρευσιν). The Holy Spirit can be said only to progress (προϊέναι) through the Son, but He (i.e., the Spirit) does not receive His hypostatic existence from or through the Son.

To sum it up, the Spirit is said to exist through the Son, but does not receive existence from or through the Son. This distinction, though it was initially misunderstood when it was clarified by Patriarch Gregory II of Constantinople, serves as a useful litmus test to cut through the semantic confusion surrounding the filioque. Of course, this distinction also has a problematic side-effect of pointing out incompatibilities (other than the filioque) between traditional Western and Eastern theology which some theologians seem very inclined to gloss over these days.
Yes, I talked about the distinction between existing (uparcei) and having existence (uparxin ecein) in a paper that I wrote many years ago on the filioque:

The Filioque Controversy
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
Surnaturel
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 147


« Reply #51 on: June 22, 2013, 01:04:20 AM »

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.

They didn't think that the Holy Spirit originates hypostatically from the Son.
Can you cite some evidence for that from Gregory of Nyssa (or other Capodocians)? Nyssa is not entirely clear, he uses different phrases like 'through the Son' and also 'takes from the Son.' What exactly is being received by the HS from the Son then?

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.

That's ridiculous.
[/quote]I agree.
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,515


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #52 on: June 22, 2013, 05:29:49 AM »

What exactly is being received by the HS from the Son then?

Energetic procession. Apotheoun explains it quite well.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2013, 05:30:15 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,134


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


« Reply #53 on: June 22, 2013, 09:02:03 AM »

What exactly is being received by the HS from the Son then?

Energetic procession. Apotheoun explains it quite well.

Definitely saving this one and I will have to re read it from time to time.  But it also explains why the insertion of "and" and Not "through" is highly important and it disproves the idea that both terms DO NOT mean the same thing contrary to many contemporary Theologians.
Logged
Surnaturel
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 147


« Reply #54 on: June 23, 2013, 12:03:39 AM »

I actually agree with Metro. Zizioulas's diagnosis of the problematic, which is thankfully chalk full of patristic references on the Filioque. He says [rightly] that St. Maximus saw the Filioque in terms of the HS receiving ousia from the Father and the Son in that the Son too shares the gift of common essence in the procession of the HS, but the hypostatis of the HS is derived solely from the Father. Even the Augustinian language of a 'sharing or unitive bond of love' can be re-read in terms of divine essence and not hypostatis and still be compatible with the Western concern for the mutual sharing of divinity of Father and Son in the procession.
Logged
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,607



« Reply #55 on: June 23, 2013, 10:02:01 PM »

From today's service: "O Holy Immortal, the Spirit, the Comforter, who proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son!"

What does the bolded mean?
Logged
Surnaturel
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 147


« Reply #56 on: June 23, 2013, 11:39:30 PM »

From today's service: "O Holy Immortal, the Spirit, the Comforter, who proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son!"

What does the bolded mean?
That expression has a basis in the Fathers too, but I find it to be the most enigmatic. I would venture to guess that it is similar to the formula 'proceeds from the Father, receives from the Son,' which denotes the dependence of the Holy Spirit on the Son and the Father's sharing of the divine essence (not hypostatically, which is reserved for the Father alone).
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #57 on: June 25, 2013, 05:39:51 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.'
I missed it:
Quote
Πᾶσαν ἑορτῆς ὑπόθεσιν φαιδροτέραν ὁ ∆αβὶδ δι' ἑαυτοῦ ἀπεργάζεται, τὴν πολυαρμόνιον ἐκείνην κιθά ραν προσφόρως ἀεὶ τῇ χρείᾳ μεθαρμοζόμενος. Οὐκ οῦν καὶ τὴν μεγάλην τῆς Πεντηκοστῆς ἑορτὴν φαι δρυνέτω ἡμῖν ὁ αὐτὸς Προφήτης, τῷ πλήκτρῳ τοῦ Πνεύματος ἐν ταῖς χορδαῖς τῆς σοφίας τὸ μέλος ἀνακρουόμενος. Εἰπάτω τοίνυν ἐκ τῆς ἐνθέου μελ ωδίας ἐκείνης, τὸ τῇ παρούσῃ χάριτι πρόσφορον, ὅτι ∆εῦτε, ἀγαλλιασώμεθα τῷ Κυρίῳ.
Πρότερον χρὴ γνῶναι τὴν χάριν, ἥτις ἐστὶν, εἶθ' οὕτως τὴν κατάλληλον ἐκ τῆς προφητείας ἐφαρμόσαι τῇ ὑποθέ σει φωνήν· καί μοι δότε, καθὼς ἂν ᾖ δυνατὸν, διά τινος ἀκολούθου τάξεως διασαφῆσαι τὸν περὶ τούτων λόγον· Πεπλάνητο κατ' ἀρχὰς τὸ ἀνθρώπινον, πρὸς τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ κατανόησιν, καὶ καταλιπόντες τὸν τῆς κτίσεως Κύριον, οἱ μὲν τοῖς τοῦ κόσμου στοιχείοις δι' ἀπάτην ὑπέκυπτον, ἄλλοι δὲ τὴν τῶν δαιμό νων φύσιν ἐποιοῦντο σεβάσμιον, πολλοῖς δὲ τὸ Θεῖον ἐδόκει καὶ ἡ χειροποίητος τῶν εἰδώλων μορφὴ, οἷς βωμοί τε, καὶ ναοὶ, καὶ τελεταὶ, καὶ θυσίαι, καὶ τε μένη, καὶ ἀφιδρύματα, καὶ πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα παρ' αὐτῶν ἀνετίθετο εἰς θεραπείαν τῶν ψευδωνύμων θεῶν. Εἶδε τοίνυν τῷ τῆς φιλανθρωπίας ὀφθαλμῷ τὴν τῆς φύσεως τῶν ἀνθρώπων διαφθορὰν ὁ ∆εσπότης τῆς φύσεως, καὶ διά τινος ἀκολουθίας ἀπὸ τῆς πλάνης ἐπανάγει τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην ζωὴν πρὸς τὴν τῆς ἀλη θείας ἐπίγνωσιν. Ὥσπερ γὰρ οἱ τοὺς ἐν λιμῷ χρονίῳ συντετηκότας, μετά τινος ἰατρικῆς ἐπιστήμης ἀνα λαμβάνοντες, οὐκ ἀθρόως ἐπὶ τὸν κόρον προάγου σι, φειδοῖ τῆς ἀσθενείας αὐτῶν· ἀλλὰ διὰ τῆς συμμέτρου τροφῆς ἀναληφθείσης αὐτοῖς τῆς δυνά μεως, τότε συγχωροῦσι κατ' ἐξουσίαν ἐμφορεῖσθαι τοῦ κόρου· κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον τῷ φοβερῷ λιμῷ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως δαπανηθείσης, τεταμιευμένη γίνεται αὐτοῖς παρὰ τῆς οἰκονομίας ἡ τῆς τῶν μυστη ρίων τροφῆς μετουσία· ὥστε διά τινος ἀκολούθου τάξεως ἀεὶ τὸ τέλειον προσλαμβάνοντας, οὕτως ἐπὶ τὸ πέρας φθάσαι τῆς τελειότητος.
Τὸ μὲν γὰρ σῶζον ἡμᾶς ἡ ζωοποιός ἐστι δύναμις, ἐν ὀνόματι Πατρὸς, καὶ Υἱοῦ, καὶ ἁγίου Πνεύματος πιστευομένη. Οἱ δὲ τοῦ παντὸς ἀχώρητοι διὰ τὴν γεγενημένην αὐτοῖς ἐκ τοῦ λιμοῦ τῶνψυχῶν ἀσθένειαν, πρότερον ἐκ τῆς πολυθεΐας ὑπὸ τῶν προφητῶν τε, καὶ τοῦ νόμου με τατεθέντες, εἰς μίαν θεότητα βλέπειν ἐθίζονται, καὶ ἐν τῇ μιᾷ θεότητι μόνην τὴν τοῦ Πατρὸς δύναμιν κα τανοοῦσιν, ἀχώρητοι, καθὼς εἶπον, ὄντες τῆς τελείας τροφῆς. Εἶτα διὰ τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου καὶ ὁ μονογενὴς Υἱὸς τοῖς διὰ τοῦ νόμου προτετελειωμένοις ἀπο καλύπτεται, μετὰ τοῦτο παραγίνεται ἡμῖν ἡ τελεία τῆς φύσεως ἡμῶν τροφὴ, τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν ἡ ζωή. Αὕτη τῆς ἑορτῆς ἡ ὑπόθεσις· διὰ ταῦτα καλῶς ἔχει, χορευτὰς ἡμᾶς γενομένους τοῦ Πνεύμα τος, πείθεσθαι τῷ κορυφαίῳ τῆς πνευματικῆς ταύ της χοροστασίας ∆αβὶδ τῷ λέγοντι· ∆εῦτε, ἀγαλλιασώμεθα τῷ Κυρίῳ· Ὁ δὲ Κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστι, καθώςφησιν ὁ Ἀπόστολος.
Σήμερον γὰρ κατὰ τὴν ἐτήσιον τοῦ ἔτους περίοδον τῆς πεντηκοστῆς συμπληρουμένης, κατὰ τὴν ὥραν ταύτην, εἴγε περὶ τὴν τρίτην ὥραν τῆς ἡμέρας ἐσμὲν, ἐγένετο ἡ ἀνεκδιήγητος χάρις. Κατεμίχθη γὰρ πάλιν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τὸ Πνεῦμα, ὅπερ πρότερον διὰ τὸ γενέσθαι σάρκα τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῆς φύσεως ἡμῶν ἀπεφοίτησε· καὶ διὰ τῆς βιαίας ἐκείνης πνοῆς, τῶν πνευματικῶν τῆς πονηρίας δυνάμεων, καὶ πάντων τῶν ῥυπαρῶν δαιμονίων ἀποσκεδασθέντων ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀέρος, ἐν τῇ καθόδῳ τοῦ Πνεύματος, πλήρεις τῆς θείας δυνάμεως, ἐν εἴδει πυρὸς, οἱ ἐν τῷ ὑπερῴῳ καταλειφθέντες ἐγένοντο· οὐδὲ γάρ ἐστι δυνατὸν ἄλλως μέτοχον  Πνεύματος ἁγίου γενέσθαι τινὰ, μὴ τῷ ὑπερῴῳ τῆς ζωῆς ταύτης ἐνδιαιτώμενον. Ὅσοι γὰρ τὰ ἄνω φρονοῦσι, μεταθέντες ἑαυτῶν ἀπὸ γῆς εἰς οὐρανὸν τὸ πολίτευμα, τοῦ ὑπερῴου τῆς ὑψηλῆς πολιτείας ὄντες οἰκήτορες, ἐν μετουσίᾳ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος γίνονται. Οὕτω γάρ φησιν ἡ ἱστορία τῶν Πράξεων, ὅτι συνηγμένων αὐτῶν ἐν τῷ ὑπερῴῳ, τὸ καθαρὸν ἐκεῖνο καὶ ἄϋλον πῦρ εἰς εἴδη γλωσσῶν, κατὰ τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν μαθητῶν, διασχίζεται. Ἐκεῖνοι μὲν οὖν Πάρθοις, καὶ Μήδοις, καὶ Ἐλαμίταις, καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς ἔθνεσι διελέγοντο, κατ' ἐξουσίαν πρὸς πᾶσαν ἐθνικὴν γλῶσσαν τὰς ἑαυτῶν φωνὰς μεθαρμόζοντες· Ἐγὼ δὲ, καθώς φησιν ὁ Ἀπόστολος, θέλω πέντε λόγους ἐν Ἐκκλησίᾳ τῷ νοΐ μου λαλῆσαι, ἵνα καὶ ἄλλους ὠφελήσω, ἢ μυρίους λόγους ἐν γλώσσῃ. Τότε μὲν χρήσιμον τὸ ὁμόφωνον γίνεσθαι τοῖς ἀλλογλώσσοις, ὡς ἂν μὴ ἀνενέργητον εἴη τὸ κήρυγμα τοῖς ἀγνοοῦσι, τῇ φωνῇ τῶν κηρυσσόντων ἐμποδιζόμενον· νῦν μέντοι τῆς κατὰ τὴν γλῶσσαν ὁμοφωνίας οὔσης, ἐπιζητῆσαι χρὴ τὴν πυρίνην γλῶσσαν τοῦ Πνεύματος εἰς φωτισμὸν τῶν δι' ἀπάτης ἐσκοτισμένων.
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
Surnaturel
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 147


« Reply #58 on: June 25, 2013, 08:04:00 PM »

I don't read Greek, but maybe you can help find the phrase in the Greek (I have the Greek but I dont have a way of typing it).

Quote
We confess that, save His being contemplated as with peculiar attributes in regard of Person, the Holy Spirit is indeed from God and of Christ according to the Scriptures.

This is from Vol. 3 of the Nicene-Post Nicene series translated by Philip Schaff and Henry Wallace.

The footnote gives the Greek and says "Compare with the words below: "proceeding from the Father, receiving from the Son."

The same phrase is found in Pope St. Gregory the Great, St. Hilary of Poitiers, St. Ephrem the Syrian.

I went back to fin the Latin for Hilary and it is 'A Patre procedit' and 'A Filio accipit'.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2013, 08:09:53 PM by Surnaturel » Logged
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,422


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #59 on: June 25, 2013, 08:07:41 PM »

There is a small problem though. 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? 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?
Sure, everyone in the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church." But Orthodox Christians confess this phrase with the understanding that it refers specifically to the Orthodox Church. Orthodox Christians do not regard this phrase or the Church referred to by it in the same manner Roman Catholics do.


« Last Edit: June 25, 2013, 08:13:59 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,134


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


« Reply #60 on: June 29, 2013, 03:13:12 PM »

There is a small problem though. 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? 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?
Sure, everyone in the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church." But Orthodox Christians confess this phrase with the understanding that it refers specifically to the Orthodox Church. Orthodox Christians do not regard this phrase or the Church referred to by it in the same manner Roman Catholics do.




Hey, heres an Idea. Lets have a general council of all Catholic faiths and hash this out.......NO?
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #61 on: June 29, 2013, 03:19:09 PM »

Hey, heres an Idea. Lets have a general council of all Catholic faiths and hash this out.......NO?

The Orthodox can't even get their own people together for a council.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
paedenfield
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 10


St. Ephrem, the Harp of the Holy Spirit


« Reply #62 on: June 30, 2013, 09:39:27 PM »

From today's service: "O Holy Immortal, the Spirit, the Comforter, who proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son!"

What does the bolded mean?

That's a great question, I think, and seems to me an example of how the Church has preserved many ancient traditions through her liturgies. 

This tradition of the Holy Spirit finding its rest in our Lord Jesus Christ has a Scriptural basis and seems to have been taken up particularly among the early Jewish Christians.  There are profound similarities with the Pentateuchal treatments of the Glory of the Lord in the tabernacle, through the Sapiential traditions of Wisdom in search of a resting place, to the New Testament concept of the body of Christ as God's temple/tabernacle (and thus the resting place of the Holy Spirit).  And since the Church is now the Body of Christ, she is the resting place where the Holy Spirit tabernacles ...

For anybody who is interested, below are some relevant Scriptural quotes, and at the end there is a quote from Jerome in which he preserves a very pertinent Jewish-Christian tradition:   

Exodus 24:15-16:  Then Moses went up into the mountain, and a cloud covered the mountain. Now the glory of the Lord rested on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days. And on the seventh day He called to Moses out of the midst of the cloud.

Numbers 9:22:  Whether it was two days, or a month, or a longer time, that the cloud continued over the tabernacle, resting upon it, the Israelites would remain in camp and would not set out; but when it lifted they would set out.

Isaiah 11:1-2: A shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots.  The Spirit of the LORD shall rest on him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD.

Isaiah 66:1:  Thus says the LORD: Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and what is my resting place?

Sirach 24:7-11:  [Wisdom:]  Among all these I sought a resting place; in whose territory should I abide? "Then the Creator of all things gave me a command, and my Creator chose the place for my tent.  He said, 'Make your dwelling in Jacob, and in Israel receive your inheritance.'  Before the ages, in the beginning, he created me, and for all the ages I shall not cease to be.  In the holy tent I ministered before him, and so I was established in Zion.  Thus in the beloved city he gave me a resting place, and in Jerusalem was my domain.

John 1:14:  The Word became flesh and lived [literally, "tabernacled"] among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory of a father's only son, full of grace and truth.

John 1:32-33:  John testified, 'I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain [Gr. menon, lit., "live/dwell/lodge] is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'

John 2:19-21:  Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."  The Jews then said, "This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?"  But he was speaking of the temple of his body.

1 Peter 4:14:  If you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the spirit of glory, which is the Spirit of God, is resting on you.

Gospel of the Hebrews (via Jerome):  Further in the Gospel which we mentioned above we find that the following is written: It happened when the Lord ascended from the water, that the whole fountain of the Holy Spirit descended and rested upon him and said to him:  My son, I expected you among all the prophets that you should come and that I should rest upon you: For you are my rest, you are my firstborn son, who shall reign in eternity.  (Jerome, Comm. Isa.)
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
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,607



« Reply #63 on: June 30, 2013, 09:52:25 PM »

Very interesting. Thank you. Looks like it definitely has a strong Biblical foundation. I wonder what the pneumatological/triadological implications of it are, if any.
Logged
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 0.216 seconds with 93 queries.