OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 22, 2014, 05:50:41 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Keep the Filioque  (Read 9851 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,155


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #135 on: September 16, 2013, 04:28:12 PM »

Without addressing the bit of byzantine triumphalism... I'm not here to,convince bur rather to defend what's true. The west and Alexandria taught the same thing. Yet the west and Alexandria expressed differently.

My Church has dealt with both Byzantine and Latin triumphalism, so I know it when I see it, and this isn't it.  All Eastern Churches disagree with Rome on this.  And even Rome's position "evolved" in time.  

Quote
The problem here is A HUGE amount of time is spent accusing Latins of teaching things they actually don't and then claim that other never taught this. Yet even the Latins themselves never teach against the monarchy of the father.

Further the Latins have proved the truth of their case tile and time again. Yet the east continually misunderstands what we actually teach. Simply Latin theology is foreign to eastern theology yet both are true. A lot of the time we are speaking about two different things.

The problem, not just here but in many places and times, is that the Roman Church (and/or its apologists) talks out of both sides of its mouth.  How can we know or understand what "the Latins themselves" teach when they give different answers depending on who's asking the questions?  I can find sources which argue for a theologically Orthodox version of the Filioque, and I can find sources which argue against the monarchy of the Father, etc.  Depending on whom they're trying to convince, the RC's will give one or the other answer.  

In contrast, the Orthodox are quite happy to give a consistent answer and wish all the best for those who disagree.  We're not trying to divide and conquer.    
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
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,043


« Reply #136 on: September 16, 2013, 04:35:22 PM »

Leave to the Latins to claim that they understand the Alexandrians better than the Alexandrians understand themselves. But, luckily for those of us who are actually in the Church in question, our bishops explain it quite simply indeed, in that there is a difference between procession and temporal sending. The Creed deals with the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, which is from the Father (period). Why the Latins cannot seem to keep them straight is beyond me. Probably because they have this mess they call the filioque that seems to entertain heresy under the guise of "clarification", but only serves to further muddy the waters. Take note of the length of the EWTN library link presented by Wandile compared to the very simple answer given by HG Bishop Youssef above. When you teach the plain truth of the matter, you don't need to be so convoluted.

Neither St. Cyril nor St. Athanasius (who did not write the Creed the Latins have falsely attributed to him, unless he miraculously happened to live in Gaul some 100+ years after his own death), nor any other Alexandrian saint, taught the Latin Filioque doctrine, and we, following them, do not teach it either. It is foreign to Alexandrian theological tradition, whether expressed in Greek, Coptic, or Latin (see: St. Arsenius, St. Maximus, St. Domatius). Heresy is always foreign to right belief.
Logged

Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,918


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #137 on: September 16, 2013, 04:41:09 PM »

Read the original conciliar documents. The Council of Florence made a specific distinction between the term "Source" and the term "cause." In fact, the term "principle" is grammatically connected with the term "cause," not the term "Source."

Cause in Greek is αἰτία. You seem to connect principium with αἰτία. The Eastern Fathers taught that only the Father is the αἰτία of the Holy Spirit. So that's not a strong argument you have there.

« Last Edit: September 16, 2013, 04:42:12 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,155


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #138 on: September 16, 2013, 04:46:14 PM »

except that the Latins received the creed in Latin and expresses theology as much. Further you can't doge the point because the word is the the issue at hand. Stop trying to avoid this truth of this issue. Procedit is the issue as it does not connote origin but motion.

Proceeds" in the original Latin Creed is procedit

"Proceeds" in the original Greek Creed is ekporeusai

Both ekporeusai and procedit can mean "to go forth," but ekporeusai denotes something that procedit does not - namely, the concept of ontological origination.

The difference can be perceived between the two phrases:

"I proceeded from the house to go play." and "I proceeded from my mother at birth."

The first only denotes a going forth, but the second denotes a going forth in terms of ontological origination.

If ekporeusai and procedit were equivalent, then I can see where the subordination argument comes in because the Son would share in the Father's arche.

But procedit only refers to "a going forth" not an origination
, So what is "going forth" (procedit) from Father and the Son to the Holy Spirit? The Essence of divinity. But from Whom does this Essence of divinity originate (ekporeusai) that goes forth to the Holy Spirit through the Son? The Father alone.

So is it your contention that, when translating the Creed from Greek to Latin and later adding Filioque, the Latins decided that, contrary to the clear meaning of the Greek, they didn't want to talk about the Spirit's eternal procession from the Father, but instead wanted to talk about "motion"?  How is that not changing the rules in the middle of the game?    
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
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,552



« Reply #139 on: September 16, 2013, 04:52:03 PM »

Two things should be noted about the following quotation from St. Cyril of Alexandria:

"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it" (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).

First, this text does not speak about the Holy Spirit's eternal hypostatic origin from the Father; instead, it speaks about His work of conforming the Christian faithful to God (i.e., an economic reality); and second, the text can also be translated from the Greek in the following manner: "Since the Holy Spirit when He is in us effects our being conformed to God, and He actually goes forth of the Father and the Son, it is manifest that He is of the divine essence, essentially in it, and of it coming forth." This translation has the added benefit of preventing confusion by avoiding the Latin tendency to equate all the various Greek terms that speak about the Spirit's "movement" or "sending" from the Father through the Son, with His procession (ἐκπόρευσις) of origin, which comes only from the Father.

Pope St. Cyril of Alexendria explicitly taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds (proienai) from the Father and the Son (btw, the Latin original of the line in question of the Athanasian Creed uses the word procedens - if you have not made the connection yet, the Latin procedit is actually a more equivalent translation of the Greek proienai intead of the Greek ekporeusai).

No, procedere is a term with meanings which can accommodate both εκπορευω and προειμι, and that is precisely where the Latins ran into trouble, because they later came to misinterpret passages in Latin translation to refer to the causal origination of the Spirit when in the original Greek they only refer to the Spirit's manifestation through the Son.

St. Athanasius also taught about the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Son:
"All other things partake of the Spirit, but He, according to you, of what is He partaker? Of the Spirit? Nay, rather the Spirit Himself takes from the Son...When the Father says, "This is my beloved Son," and when the Son says that God is His own Father, it follows that what is partaken is not external, but from the essence of the Father."
(Discourse 1 Against the Arians, Ch. V)

You took that quote out of context. To give a bit more of the immediate context, read this fuller quote, "He, of course, as well as others, must be called Son and God and Wisdom only by participation; for thus all other creatures consist, and by sanctification are glorified. You have to tell us then, of what He is partaker. All other things partake of the Spirit, but He, according to you, of what is He partaker? Of the Spirit? Nay, rather the Spirit Himself takes from the Son, as He Himself says; and it is not reasonable to say that the latter is sanctified by the former. Therefore it is the Father that He partakes; for this only remains to say. But this, which is participated, what is it or whence ? If it be something external provided by the Father, He will not now be partaker of the Father, but of what is external to Him; and no longer will He be even second after the Father, since He has before Him this other; nor can He be called Son of the Father, but of that, as partaking which He has been called Son and God. And if this be unseemly and irreligious, when the Father says, 'This is My Beloved Son [Matthew 3:17],' and when the Son says that God is His own Father, it follows that what is partaken is not external, but from the essence of the Father." http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28161.htm

St. Athanasius here is speaking of sanctification, which itself is an energy. His argument follows this form: if the Son were a creature, then it should be that he participates in sanctification by the operation of the Holy Spirit, but since it is said that the Spirit receives of the Son in the Scriptures, it is absurd to think that the Son is sanctified by the Spirit, but rather, it must be that the Son is holy by participation in the Father. He must partake of the Father and not something external of the Father, and he therefore partakes of the Father's essence. But, unlike what you claim, St. Athanasius is not teaching that the Son transmits the divine nature to the Holy Spirit. Rather he is speaking of the ordering of the trinitarian hypostases, and how all operations of the Godhead (the example here being sanctification) have their cause from the father, are prepared by the Son, and are perfected in the Holy Spirit.

In his Epistles 56 and 61, St. Athanasius also asserts that the Arian's heresy against the Son is also a blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Why? Because if the Son is not Divine, then Divinity would not have been transmitted to the Spirit, and the Spirit would be a creature.

I have read both of those epistles, and he does not teach that the Son transmits divinity to the Spirit in either one.


Keep in mind that the term procedit/procedens (the best translation of St. Cyril's proienai) seeks only to express the "transmission" of the Essence of Divinity, and does not seek to denote ontological origination.

There is no such thing as a transmission of the divine nature, as if it were some material thing which could be partitioned. The divine nature is simple, and can only be shared in a sort of natural communion between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and the Father alone is the cause of this natural communion and sharing of the Divine Nature (i.e., the monarchy of the Father). The Son himself is not the cause of the Spirit's sharing in the divine nature, despite existing in a mediate position between the Father and the Spirit according to operation, which is why the Eastern Fathers who confessed that the Spirit proceeds through the Son were always careful to add that the Spirit's proceeding through the Son in no way severs the Spirit's natural relation to the Father, because it is from the Father (as the sole Cause) alone that the Spirit shares in the divine nature.
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 #140 on: September 16, 2013, 04:56:58 PM »

except that the Latins received the creed in Latin and expresses theology as much. Further you can't doge the point because the word is the the issue at hand. Stop trying to avoid this truth of this issue. Procedit is the issue as it does not connote origin but motion.

Proceeds" in the original Latin Creed is procedit

"Proceeds" in the original Greek Creed is ekporeusai

Both ekporeusai and procedit can mean "to go forth," but ekporeusai denotes something that procedit does not - namely, the concept of ontological origination.

The difference can be perceived between the two phrases:

"I proceeded from the house to go play." and "I proceeded from my mother at birth."

The first only denotes a going forth, but the second denotes a going forth in terms of ontological origination.

If ekporeusai and procedit were equivalent, then I can see where the subordination argument comes in because the Son would share in the Father's arche.

But procedit only refers to "a going forth" not an origination
, So what is "going forth" (procedit) from Father and the Son to the Holy Spirit? The Essence of divinity. But from Whom does this Essence of divinity originate (ekporeusai) that goes forth to the Holy Spirit through the Son? The Father alone.

So is it your contention that, when translating the Creed from Greek to Latin and later adding Filioque, the Latins decided that, contrary to the clear meaning of the Greek, they didn't want to talk about the Spirit's eternal procession from the Father, but instead wanted to talk about "motion"?  How is that not changing the rules in the middle of the game?    
This is the key to the problem. The Latins have mistranslated the Greek text of the creed and created a new doctrine in the process. Since it is admitted by both sides that the term ἐκπορευόμενον in the original Greek text of the creed is referring to the Spirit's eternal origin from the Father, it seems inappropriate to insert the filioque into this portion of the creed, because it alters the original meaning of the text as written by the Fathers at the Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381).
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
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: 37,370



« Reply #141 on: September 16, 2013, 05:15:09 PM »

Two things should be noted about the following quotation from St. Cyril of Alexandria:

"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it" (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).

First, this text does not speak about the Holy Spirit's eternal hypostatic origin from the Father; instead, it speaks about His work of conforming the Christian faithful to God (i.e., an economic reality); and second, the text can also be translated from the Greek in the following manner: "Since the Holy Spirit when He is in us effects our being conformed to God, and He actually goes forth of the Father and the Son, it is manifest that He is of the divine essence, essentially in it, and of it coming forth." This translation has the added benefit of preventing confusion by avoiding the Latin tendency to equate all the various Greek terms that speak about the Spirit's "movement" or "sending" from the Father through the Son, with His procession (ἐκπόρευσις) of origin, which comes only from the Father.

Pope St. Cyril of Alexendria explicitly taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds (proienai) from the Father and the Son (btw, the Latin original of the line in question of the Athanasian Creed uses the word procedens - if you have not made the connection yet, the Latin procedit is actually a more equivalent translation of the Greek proienai intead of the Greek ekporeusai).
Since the Athanasian Creed was fabricated in Latin, your point is moot, as no translation was involved.

St. Athanasius also taught about the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Son:
"All other things partake of the Spirit, but He, according to you, of what is He partaker? Of the Spirit? Nay, rather the Spirit Himself takes from the Son...When the Father says, "This is my beloved Son," and when the Son says that God is His own Father, it follows that what is partaken is not external, but from the essence of the Father."
(Discourse 1 Against the Arians, Ch. V)
to fill in your dots....
Quote
All other things partake of the Spirit, but He, according to you, of what is He partaker? of the Spirit? Nay, rather the Spirit Himself takes from the Son, as He Himself says; and it is not reasonable to say that the latter is sanctified by the former. Therefore it is the Father that He partakes; for this only remains to say. But this, which is participated, what is it or whence? If it be something external provided by the Father, He will not now be partaker of the Father, but of what is external to Him; and no longer will He be even second after the Father, since He has before Him this other; nor can He be called Son of the Father, but of that, as partaking which He has been called Son and God. And if this be unseemly and irreligious, when the Father says, ‘This is My Beloved Son,’ and when the Son says that God is His own Father, it follows that what is partaken is not external, but from the essence of the Father.

In his Epistles 56 and 61, St. Athanasius also asserts that the Arian's heresy against the Son is also a blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Why? Because if the Son is not Divine, then Divinity would not have been transmitted to the Spirit, and the Spirit would be a creature.
Mind giving us Pope St. Athanasius' own words, and not your own misinterpretation?

So the statement "The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding [procedens]" is perfectly in line with the Alexandrian theology, as expressed by her two greatest popes. Keep in mind that the term procedit/procedens (the best translation of St. Cyril's proienai) seeks only to express the "transmission" of the Essence of Divinity, and does not seek to denote ontological origination.
proienai has nothing to do with essence.  So the rest of your misrepresentation of the Fathers of Alexandria is perfectly in line with your heresy.
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
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 #142 on: September 16, 2013, 05:22:19 PM »

Two things should be noted about the following quotation from St. Cyril of Alexandria:

"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it" (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).

First, this text does not speak about the Holy Spirit's eternal hypostatic origin from the Father; instead, it speaks about His work of conforming the Christian faithful to God (i.e., an economic reality); and second, the text can also be translated from the Greek in the following manner: "Since the Holy Spirit when He is in us effects our being conformed to God, and He actually goes forth of the Father and the Son, it is manifest that He is of the divine essence, essentially in it, and of it coming forth." This translation has the added benefit of preventing confusion by avoiding the Latin tendency to equate all the various Greek terms that speak about the Spirit's "movement" or "sending" from the Father through the Son, with His procession (ἐκπόρευσις) of origin, which comes only from the Father.

Pope St. Cyril of Alexendria explicitly taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds (proienai) from the Father and the Son (btw, the Latin original of the line in question of the Athanasian Creed uses the word procedens - if you have not made the connection yet, the Latin procedit is actually a more equivalent translation of the Greek proienai intead of the Greek ekporeusai).

No, procedere is a term with meanings which can accommodate both εκπορευω and προειμι, and that is precisely where the Latins ran into trouble, because they later came to misinterpret passages in Latin translation to refer to the causal origination of the Spirit when in the original Greek they only refer to the Spirit's manifestation through the Son.
Maybe the Latins should come up with a new way of translating the portion of the creed that concerns the Holy Spirit, and in the process truly clarify matters and help to bring about a real common understanding of the Spirit's existential origin from the Father alone.

Something like this:  "Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui egreditur ex Patre, qui cum Patre et Filio adoratur et glorificatur . . ."
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
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #143 on: September 16, 2013, 05:24:32 PM »

Two things should be noted about the following quotation from St. Cyril of Alexandria:

"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it" (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).

First, this text does not speak about the Holy Spirit's eternal hypostatic origin from the Father; instead, it speaks about His work of conforming the Christian faithful to God (i.e., an economic reality); and second, the text can also be translated from the Greek in the following manner: "Since the Holy Spirit when He is in us effects our being conformed to God, and He actually goes forth of the Father and the Son, it is manifest that He is of the divine essence, essentially in it, and of it coming forth." This translation has the added benefit of preventing confusion by avoiding the Latin tendency to equate all the various Greek terms that speak about the Spirit's "movement" or "sending" from the Father through the Son, with His procession (ἐκπόρευσις) of origin, which comes only from the Father.

Pope St. Cyril of Alexendria explicitly taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds (proienai) from the Father and the Son (btw, the Latin original of the line in question of the Athanasian Creed uses the word procedens - if you have not made the connection yet, the Latin procedit is actually a more equivalent translation of the Greek proienai intead of the Greek ekporeusai).

No, procedere is a term with meanings which can accommodate both εκπορευω and προειμι, and that is precisely where the Latins ran into trouble, because they later came to misinterpret passages in Latin translation to refer to the causal origination of the Spirit when in the original Greek they only refer to the Spirit's manifestation through the Son.

St. Athanasius also taught about the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Son:
"All other things partake of the Spirit, but He, according to you, of what is He partaker? Of the Spirit? Nay, rather the Spirit Himself takes from the Son...When the Father says, "This is my beloved Son," and when the Son says that God is His own Father, it follows that what is partaken is not external, but from the essence of the Father."
(Discourse 1 Against the Arians, Ch. V)

You took that quote out of context. To give a bit more of the immediate context, read this fuller quote, "He, of course, as well as others, must be called Son and God and Wisdom only by participation; for thus all other creatures consist, and by sanctification are glorified. You have to tell us then, of what He is partaker. All other things partake of the Spirit, but He, according to you, of what is He partaker? Of the Spirit? Nay, rather the Spirit Himself takes from the Son, as He Himself says; and it is not reasonable to say that the latter is sanctified by the former. Therefore it is the Father that He partakes; for this only remains to say. But this, which is participated, what is it or whence ? If it be something external provided by the Father, He will not now be partaker of the Father, but of what is external to Him; and no longer will He be even second after the Father, since He has before Him this other; nor can He be called Son of the Father, but of that, as partaking which He has been called Son and God. And if this be unseemly and irreligious, when the Father says, 'This is My Beloved Son [Matthew 3:17],' and when the Son says that God is His own Father, it follows that what is partaken is not external, but from the essence of the Father." http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28161.htm

St. Athanasius here is speaking of sanctification, which itself is an energy. His argument follows this form: if the Son were a creature, then it should be that he participates in sanctification by the operation of the Holy Spirit, but since it is said that the Spirit receives of the Son in the Scriptures, it is absurd to think that the Son is sanctified by the Spirit, but rather, it must be that the Son is holy by participation in the Father. He must partake of the Father and not something external of the Father, and he therefore partakes of the Father's essence. But, unlike what you claim, St. Athanasius is not teaching that the Son transmits the divine nature to the Holy Spirit. Rather he is speaking of the ordering of the trinitarian hypostases, and how all operations of the Godhead (the example here being sanctification) have their cause from the father, are prepared by the Son, and are perfected in the Holy Spirit.

In his Epistles 56 and 61, St. Athanasius also asserts that the Arian's heresy against the Son is also a blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Why? Because if the Son is not Divine, then Divinity would not have been transmitted to the Spirit, and the Spirit would be a creature.

I have read both of those epistles, and he does not teach that the Son transmits divinity to the Spirit in either one.


How could Wandile know that since he just does copy and pasting from internet apologist websites.
Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #144 on: September 16, 2013, 05:28:20 PM »

except that the Latins received the creed in Latin and expresses theology as much. Further you can't doge the point because the word is the the issue at hand. Stop trying to avoid this truth of this issue. Procedit is the issue as it does not connote origin but motion.

Proceeds" in the original Latin Creed is procedit

"Proceeds" in the original Greek Creed is ekporeusai

Both ekporeusai and procedit can mean "to go forth," but ekporeusai denotes something that procedit does not - namely, the concept of ontological origination.

The difference can be perceived between the two phrases:

"I proceeded from the house to go play." and "I proceeded from my mother at birth."

The first only denotes a going forth, but the second denotes a going forth in terms of ontological origination.

If ekporeusai and procedit were equivalent, then I can see where the subordination argument comes in because the Son would share in the Father's arche.

But procedit only refers to "a going forth" not an origination
, So what is "going forth" (procedit) from Father and the Son to the Holy Spirit? The Essence of divinity. But from Whom does this Essence of divinity originate (ekporeusai) that goes forth to the Holy Spirit through the Son? The Father alone.

So is it your contention that, when translating the Creed from Greek to Latin and later adding Filioque, the Latins decided that, contrary to the clear meaning of the Greek, they didn't want to talk about the Spirit's eternal procession from the Father, but instead wanted to talk about "motion"?  How is that not changing the rules in the middle of the game?    
This is the key to the problem. The Latins have mistranslated the Greek text of the creed and created a new doctrine in the process. Since it is admitted by both sides that the term ἐκπορευόμενον in the original Greek text of the creed is referring to the Spirit's eternal origin from the Father, it seems inappropriate to insert the filioque into this portion of the creed, because it alters the original meaning of the text as written by the Fathers at the Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381).

Exactly, if the filioque would be heresy in greek then even if it was not the case in the latin version of the creed, that would mean the creed is not the same, since it is not talking about what the greek speaking fathers of Constantinople had written.  And so, the vaticanist creed is invalid and heretical by nature.
Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 159



« Reply #145 on: September 16, 2013, 05:41:30 PM »

I've noticed that quite a number of stock quotes from the Fathers supporting Roman doctrines include ellipses.  And, when the ellipses are removed, the doctrine sought to be proven with the quotation is disproven. I've noticed this about papal claims, and it is also showing up here.

(I want to thank the poster above who discussed the difference between Roman apologists and theologians. That was a very helpful post for me at this particular time.)
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
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: 37,370



« Reply #146 on: September 16, 2013, 05:41:45 PM »

irrelevant as the latin word for proceed is word in common language as well even at that time.
Oh?  Languages such as what?
Latin...
look up "tautology."
Quote
Further the creed of Constantinople never reached the west until Chalcedon when Latin was spoken by all.
Everyone at Chalcedon spoke Greek.  It would seem the same at Constantionple I, which sent a letter to several bishops of the West with the Creed in 382.

Latin was spoken by all in the west.
Hardly.  Southern Italy, for instance, was still speaking Greek.

At the time of Nicea, they knew Greek. By the time of Constantinople, many knew Greek, but not all. The ones who knew Greek would likely have been in Italy. The rest of the Roman empire by this time would have used Latin, the language of the common people
The plurality of the common people in the Roman Empire spoke Greek.  Church affairs throughout the Empire were conducted almost, if not, exclusively in Greek.

Officially it was received by Rome at the time of chalcedon.
So the Vatican claims now.  Chalcedon, however, was convened because Eutyches and Pope Dioscoros and their council of Ephesus were judged according to standards the Council of Constantinople I set up.
ok....  the only creed in the west before chalcedon was the Nicene crees. The Constantinople one came after Chalcedon and was receives in Latin.
Constantinople set the seal of the Fathers on the Creed in 381.  Pope Dioscoros convened his council of Ephesus in 449, and the Fathers convened the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

Secondly the word for "proceed" in Latin accommodates the idea and not the Greek word due to what the words mean.
Since no one was expressing any idea in Latin, your point is moot.
except that the Latins received the creed in Latin
no, the Latins received it in Greek and translated it in Latin, and did so correctly at Rome-without filioque.
and expresses theology as much.
Latin, like any language, can express Orthodoxy and heresy.

Further you can't doge the point because the word is the the issue at hand. Stop trying to avoid this truth of this issue. Procedit is the issue as it does not connote origin but motion.
and since the Fathers who wrote the Creed were using the Lord's Own words on the origin of the Spirit, your point, if you had one, would be irrelevant.

Proceeds" in the original Latin Creed is procedit
you mean the creed of Toledo?  It's not the original Latin Creed, which Pope Leo III put up in both the original Greek and the Latin derivative.

"Proceeds" in the original Greek Creed is ekporeusai
fixed that for you, to avoid redundancy.

Both ekporeusai and procedit can mean "to go forth," but ekporeusai denotes something that procedit does not - namely, the concept of ontological origination.
which is why the Lord chose it and the Fathers kept it.

The difference can be perceived between the two phrases:

"I proceeded from the house to go play." and "I proceeded from my mother at birth."

The first only denotes a going forth, but the second denotes a going forth in terms of ontological origination.

If ekporeusai and procedit were equivalent, then I can see where the subordination argument comes in because the Son would share in the Father's arche.

But procedit only refers to "a going forth" not an origination, So what is "going forth" (procedit) from Father and the Son to the Holy Spirit? The Essence of divinity. But from Whom does this Essence of divinity originate (ekporeusai) that goes forth to the Holy Spirit through the Son? The Father alone.
you are, like the Vatican, confused over "origin," "ontology" and "essence," none of which come second hand.
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
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: 37,370



« Reply #147 on: September 16, 2013, 06:06:07 PM »

Also what should be considerrd..., take the passage "proceeds from both as from one principle"
better yet, why don't you toss it?

proceeds from one principle =/= proceeds as from one principle

in the context of Trinitarian theology.
it does not exist within Trinitarian theology.

In order to understand what the passage means, one must necessarily go beyond it's Pneumatological significance.

yes, heresy is always wanting to go "beyond" God.

You're thinking only in terms of the Holy Spirit's relationship to the Father and Son. It seems you are forgetting to take into account the relationship of the Son to the Father.
Although the Spirit is equal to the Son, Spirit=Son.

You can assume all you want from the ambiguity of the text in question that there are two Sources of the Spirit
you can assUme all you want.  It's your heresy.

but there is no way you can inject that ambiguity on the Catholic teaching that the Father is the Source of the Son. My point is that even if the Son can be mistakenly interpreted to be a source of Spirit, the Father must still be the actual Source of the Spirit, because the Father is the Source of the Son.
so the Spirit is begotten. H-E-R-E-S-Y.

Read the official clarification on Filioque promulgated by HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory (http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM) back in 1995. I very strongly recommend you read the whole thing
you assUme we haven't.

though I will give you a pertinent quote here:
"On the basis of Jn 15:26, this Symbol confesses the Spirit “to ek tou PatroV ekporeuomenon” (“who takes his origin from the Father”). The Father alone is the principle without principle (arch anarcoV) of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source (phgh) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit therefore takes his origin from the Father alone (ek monou tou PatroV) in a principal, proper and immediate manner."
and from the Son second hand, if the filioque is to be believed.
Read the original conciliar documents. The Council of Florence made a specific distinction between the term "Source" and the term "cause."
so they muddled and conflated.

In fact, the term "principle" is grammatically connected with the term "cause," not the term "Source." The Son shares as the causating principle of the Spirit, but the Son does not share in the Father's character as Source.

because filioque is a lie.

There is only ONE Source in the Trinity according to the Latin Catholic Church, as with ALL the Catholic Churches. This important distinction between "cause" and "Source"

a distinction NO Catholic Church makes, as it would be stricken from the Orthodox diptychs.
is intimately related to the distinction between procedit and ekporeusai, on the one hand, as well as the distinction between proving the divinity of the Spirit through consubstantiality and proving His divinity through origin.


To be concise, the following two sets of words basically define the distinction between the Eastern and Western understanding on the matter, both of which are completely Catholic and Orthodox:

CAUSE, PROCEDIT, CONSUBSTANTIALITY, OUSIA

SOURCE, EKPOREUSAI, ORIGIN, HYPOSTASIS
Quote
Πιστεύω εἰς ἕνα Θεόν, Πατέρα, Παντοκράτορα, ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, ὁρατῶν τε πάντων καὶ ἀοράτων.
Καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων·
φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί, δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο.
Τὸν δι' ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ σαρκωθέντα
ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα.
Σταυρωθέντα τε ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, καὶ παθόντα καὶ ταφέντα.
Καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τὰς Γραφάς.
Καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Πατρός.
Καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον μετὰ δόξης κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος.
Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον, τὸ ζῳοποιόν,
τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον,
τὸ σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον,
τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν.
Εἰς μίαν, Ἁγίαν, Καθολικὴν καὶ Ἀποστολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν.
Ὁμολογῶ ἓν βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.
Προσδοκῶ ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν.
Καὶ ζωὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος.
Ἀμήν.
Quote
Credo in unum Deum,
Patrem omnipoténtem,
Factórem cæli et terræ,
Visibílium ómnium et invisibílium.
Et in unum Dóminum Iesum Christum,
Fílium Dei Unigénitum,
Et ex Patre natum ante ómnia sæcula.
Deum de Deo, lumen de lúmine, Deum verum de Deo vero,
Génitum, non factum, consubstantiálem Patri:
Per quem ómnia facta sunt.
Qui propter nos hómines et propter nostram salútem
Descéndit de cælis.
Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto
Ex María Vírgine, et homo factus est.
Crucifíxus étiam pro nobis sub Póntio Piláto;
Passus, et sepúltus est,
Et resurréxit tértia die, secúndum Scriptúras,
Et ascéndit in cælum, sedet ad déxteram Patris.
Et íterum ventúrus est cum glória,
Iudicáre vivos et mórtuos,
Cuius regni non erit finis.
Et in Spíritum Sanctum, Dóminum et vivificántem:
Qui ex Patre  police procédit.
Qui cum Patre et Fílio simul adorátur et conglorificátur:
Qui locútus est per prophétas.
Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam.
Confíteor unum baptísma in remissiónem peccatorum.
Et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum,
Et vitam ventúri sæculi. Amen.
HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI
I, Leo, put these here for love and protection of the Orthodox Faith
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
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #148 on: September 16, 2013, 06:49:17 PM »

There is a real difference between excluding the Filioque from the recitation of the Creed, and rejecting the dogma as heretical.
Perhaps this issue will be resolved eventually as a language problem according to which the word "proceeds" means different things in the two cases:
HS proceeds from the Father.
HS proceeds from the Son.
I think that the Bible says that the Son will send the HS, and "proceeds" could be interpreted as referring to this sending.
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: 37,370



« Reply #149 on: September 16, 2013, 07:06:35 PM »

There is a real difference between excluding the Filioque from the recitation of the Creed, and rejecting the dogma as heretical.
Perhaps this issue will be resolved eventually as a language problem according to which the word "proceeds" means different things in the two cases:
HS proceeds from the Father.
HS proceeds from the Son.
I think that the Bible says that the Son will send the HS, and "proceeds" could be interpreted as referring to this sending.
making it Father AND Son leaves no wiggle room for "language issues."
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
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 #150 on: September 16, 2013, 08:11:51 PM »

I think that the Bible says that the Son will send the HS, and "proceeds" could be interpreted as referring to this sending.
Sending and proceeding are not synonyms in the Greek language of the New Testament. It would be helpful if the West would come up with a way to distinguish between the procession of origin of the Spirit, which comes only from the Father, and His movement from the Father through the Son.
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
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #151 on: September 16, 2013, 11:00:48 PM »

There is a real difference between excluding the Filioque from the recitation of the Creed, and rejecting the dogma as heretical.
Perhaps this issue will be resolved eventually as a language problem according to which the word "proceeds" means different things in the two cases:
HS proceeds from the Father.
HS proceeds from the Son.
I think that the Bible says that the Son will send the HS, and "proceeds" could be interpreted as referring to this sending.
making it Father AND Son leaves no wiggle room for "language issues."
It might seem so, but sometimes there are ways out which are not apparent at first sight.  Even though it does say the HS proceeds from the Father and from the Son, the word proceeds could have a different meaning when applied to the procession from the Father versus the procession from the Son. To reduce it to a silly example in the English language, suppose someone said that aid for the reconstruction of the city block after the disastrous hurricane is proceeding from the federal government and from the local government. Proceeding might mean two different things here.  The money may not come in the same way from the federal as from the local. The local might just reevaluate their budget for police and fire assistance, so that the money does not proceed directly to the victims, whereas the federal help might involve giving a certain amount of monetary financial aid directly to the people involved in the tragedy. Aid is proceeding from both federal and local, but in one case it is direct financial money in the pocket of the victims, whereas in the other case it is indirect aid in the form of a budgetary swap to the advantage of the fire and police departments.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,155


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #152 on: September 16, 2013, 11:17:26 PM »

I'm stunned that John 15.26 is really considered to be so insufficient by Roman Catholicism when addressing this issue.  The very Son from whom the Spirit is supposed to proceed says the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and that's not good enough?  They can take him at face value re: Matthew 26.26-28, but not here?   
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
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: 37,370



« Reply #153 on: September 16, 2013, 11:19:52 PM »

There is a real difference between excluding the Filioque from the recitation of the Creed, and rejecting the dogma as heretical.
Perhaps this issue will be resolved eventually as a language problem according to which the word "proceeds" means different things in the two cases:
HS proceeds from the Father.
HS proceeds from the Son.
I think that the Bible says that the Son will send the HS, and "proceeds" could be interpreted as referring to this sending.
making it Father AND Son leaves no wiggle room for "language issues."
It might seem so, but sometimes there are ways out which are not apparent at first sight.  Even though it does say the HS proceeds from the Father and from the Son, the word proceeds could have a different meaning when applied to the procession from the Father versus the procession from the Son. To reduce it to a silly example in the English language, suppose someone said that aid for the reconstruction of the city block after the disastrous hurricane is proceeding from the federal government and from the local government. Proceeding might mean two different things here.  The money may not come in the same way from the federal as from the local. The local might just reevaluate their budget for police and fire assistance, so that the money does not proceed directly to the victims, whereas the federal help might involve giving a certain amount of monetary financial aid directly to the people involved in the tragedy. Aid is proceeding from both federal and local, but in one case it is direct financial money in the pocket of the victims, whereas in the other case it is indirect aid in the form of a budgetary swap to the advantage of the fire and police departments.
Apply Okham's Razor.
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
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,043


« Reply #154 on: September 16, 2013, 11:27:39 PM »

There is a real difference between excluding the Filioque from the recitation of the Creed, and rejecting the dogma as heretical.
Perhaps this issue will be resolved eventually as a language problem according to which the word "proceeds" means different things in the two cases:
HS proceeds from the Father.
HS proceeds from the Son.
I think that the Bible says that the Son will send the HS, and "proceeds" could be interpreted as referring to this sending.
making it Father AND Son leaves no wiggle room for "language issues."
It might seem so, but sometimes there are ways out which are not apparent at first sight.  Even though it does say the HS proceeds from the Father and from the Son, the word proceeds could have a different meaning when applied to the procession from the Father versus the procession from the Son. To reduce it to a silly example in the English language, suppose someone said that aid for the reconstruction of the city block after the disastrous hurricane is proceeding from the federal government and from the local government. Proceeding might mean two different things here.  The money may not come in the same way from the federal as from the local. The local might just reevaluate their budget for police and fire assistance, so that the money does not proceed directly to the victims, whereas the federal help might involve giving a certain amount of monetary financial aid directly to the people involved in the tragedy. Aid is proceeding from both federal and local, but in one case it is direct financial money in the pocket of the victims, whereas in the other case it is indirect aid in the form of a budgetary swap to the advantage of the fire and police departments.

The Creed was not adopted so that we might by convoluted, silly analogy affirm the Orthodox faith.
Logged

lovesupreme
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 736


Out of This World


« Reply #155 on: September 16, 2013, 11:44:22 PM »

I'm stunned that John 15.26 is really considered to be so insufficient by Roman Catholicism when addressing this issue.  The very Son from whom the Spirit is supposed to proceed says the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and that's not good enough?  They can take him at face value re: Matthew 26.26-28, but not here?   

Yeah, but Jesus didn't really mean that. See, He was speaking in Aramaic, and to say that the Spirit proceeds from Him would have been heresy, so he politely omitted it while winking at the apostles and nudging them in the ribs.
Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 2,954



« Reply #156 on: September 17, 2013, 12:54:39 AM »

A better alternative:

http://dropthefilioque.org/
Logged

“We now live in a nation where doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the press destroys information, religion destroys morals, and our banks destroy the economy.” (Chris Hedges)
lovesupreme
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 736


Out of This World


« Reply #157 on: September 17, 2013, 01:09:48 AM »

Can I www.bakethefilioque.com instead?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #158 on: September 17, 2013, 01:48:50 AM »

There is a real difference between excluding the Filioque from the recitation of the Creed, and rejecting the dogma as heretical.
Perhaps this issue will be resolved eventually as a language problem according to which the word "proceeds" means different things in the two cases:
HS proceeds from the Father.
HS proceeds from the Son.
I think that the Bible says that the Son will send the HS, and "proceeds" could be interpreted as referring to this sending.
making it Father AND Son leaves no wiggle room for "language issues."
It might seem so, but sometimes there are ways out which are not apparent at first sight.  Even though it does say the HS proceeds from the Father and from the Son, the word proceeds could have a different meaning when applied to the procession from the Father versus the procession from the Son. To reduce it to a silly example in the English language, suppose someone said that aid for the reconstruction of the city block after the disastrous hurricane is proceeding from the federal government and from the local government. Proceeding might mean two different things here.  The money may not come in the same way from the federal as from the local. The local might just reevaluate their budget for police and fire assistance, so that the money does not proceed directly to the victims, whereas the federal help might involve giving a certain amount of monetary financial aid directly to the people involved in the tragedy. Aid is proceeding from both federal and local, but in one case it is direct financial money in the pocket of the victims, whereas in the other case it is indirect aid in the form of a budgetary swap to the advantage of the fire and police departments.
Apply Okham's Razor.
Occam's razor is not a universal principle that applies in every case, especially in theological discussions. I am only stating an opinion that a possible way out for the Roman Church is to say that the word proceeds is used differently in the two cases.
Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,043


« Reply #159 on: September 17, 2013, 02:08:49 AM »

They have not thus far made such an argument, though. If I remember my RCIA classes well enough, the thing that is supposed to save the filioque is not two different senses of "proceeds", but rather the qualification that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son "as from one principle" (read: it's not dual procession because the Latins say it isn't). This is what the current RC catechism says, and in that it is in concord with the teaching on the Holy Spirit as proclaimed at the Council of Florence in 1438, which says: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration" (see CCC 246). That's your tradition, not this newfangled "let's play around with the verb so as to give ourselves a context in which to keep this thing that is clearly against the tradition of the whole Church".

Quit moving the goal posts 575 years on. It's not helping.
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: 37,370



« Reply #160 on: September 17, 2013, 02:15:08 AM »

There is a real difference between excluding the Filioque from the recitation of the Creed, and rejecting the dogma as heretical.
Perhaps this issue will be resolved eventually as a language problem according to which the word "proceeds" means different things in the two cases:
HS proceeds from the Father.
HS proceeds from the Son.
I think that the Bible says that the Son will send the HS, and "proceeds" could be interpreted as referring to this sending.
making it Father AND Son leaves no wiggle room for "language issues."
It might seem so, but sometimes there are ways out which are not apparent at first sight.  Even though it does say the HS proceeds from the Father and from the Son, the word proceeds could have a different meaning when applied to the procession from the Father versus the procession from the Son. To reduce it to a silly example in the English language, suppose someone said that aid for the reconstruction of the city block after the disastrous hurricane is proceeding from the federal government and from the local government. Proceeding might mean two different things here.  The money may not come in the same way from the federal as from the local. The local might just reevaluate their budget for police and fire assistance, so that the money does not proceed directly to the victims, whereas the federal help might involve giving a certain amount of monetary financial aid directly to the people involved in the tragedy. Aid is proceeding from both federal and local, but in one case it is direct financial money in the pocket of the victims, whereas in the other case it is indirect aid in the form of a budgetary swap to the advantage of the fire and police departments.
Apply Okham's Razor.
Occam's razor is not a universal principle that applies in every case, especially in theological discussions. I am only stating an opinion that a possible way out for the Roman Church is to say that the word proceeds is used differently in the two cases.
embracing the Truth would be much simpler.
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
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #161 on: September 17, 2013, 02:33:01 AM »

They have not thus far made such an argument, though. If I remember my RCIA classes well enough, the thing that is supposed to save the filioque is not two different senses of "proceeds", but rather the qualification that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son "as from one principle" (read: it's not dual procession because the Latins say it isn't). This is what the current RC catechism says, and in that it is in concord with the teaching on the Holy Spirit as proclaimed at the Council of Florence in 1438, which says: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration" (see CCC 246). That's your tradition, not this newfangled "let's play around with the verb so as to give ourselves a context in which to keep this thing that is clearly against the tradition of the whole Church".

Quit moving the goal posts 575 years on. It's not helping.
I personally would not take what is said in an RCIA class as being the definitive word on Roman Catholic theology.
As far as not helping is concerned, are you sure that you or anyone here really wants to help unify the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #162 on: September 17, 2013, 02:37:18 AM »

There is a real difference between excluding the Filioque from the recitation of the Creed, and rejecting the dogma as heretical.
Perhaps this issue will be resolved eventually as a language problem according to which the word "proceeds" means different things in the two cases:
HS proceeds from the Father.
HS proceeds from the Son.
I think that the Bible says that the Son will send the HS, and "proceeds" could be interpreted as referring to this sending.
making it Father AND Son leaves no wiggle room for "language issues."
It might seem so, but sometimes there are ways out which are not apparent at first sight.  Even though it does say the HS proceeds from the Father and from the Son, the word proceeds could have a different meaning when applied to the procession from the Father versus the procession from the Son. To reduce it to a silly example in the English language, suppose someone said that aid for the reconstruction of the city block after the disastrous hurricane is proceeding from the federal government and from the local government. Proceeding might mean two different things here.  The money may not come in the same way from the federal as from the local. The local might just reevaluate their budget for police and fire assistance, so that the money does not proceed directly to the victims, whereas the federal help might involve giving a certain amount of monetary financial aid directly to the people involved in the tragedy. Aid is proceeding from both federal and local, but in one case it is direct financial money in the pocket of the victims, whereas in the other case it is indirect aid in the form of a budgetary swap to the advantage of the fire and police departments.
Apply Okham's Razor.
Occam's razor is not a universal principle that applies in every case, especially in theological discussions. I am only stating an opinion that a possible way out for the Roman Church is to say that the word proceeds is used differently in the two cases.
embracing the Truth would be much simpler.
Is it not the truth that the HS was sent by Jesus? Do you say that this is not the Truth? How do you apply Occam's razor to the fact that the HS was sent by Jesus?
Logged
LBK
Moderated
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,489


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #163 on: September 17, 2013, 02:50:25 AM »


I personally would not take what is said in an RCIA class as being the definitive word on Roman Catholic theology.


 Shocked Shocked Huh

If a formal and official catechism doesn't properly teach what your church teaches, then it is utterly worthless.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 02:50:52 AM by LBK » Logged
lovesupreme
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 736


Out of This World


« Reply #164 on: September 17, 2013, 02:58:18 AM »

I personally think that this thread has set back RC-EO internet apologist relations back by at least fifty years.
Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,043


« Reply #165 on: September 17, 2013, 03:14:33 AM »

I personally would not take what is said in an RCIA class as being the definitive word on Roman Catholic theology.

That's funny; they sure did when they were teaching it. That's kind of the whole point of the classes. And even if it weren't, I linked to your official catechism via the Vatican's own website. If the RCIA classes aren't 'definitive' for some reason, surely what the Vatican publishes and puts on its own website must be.

Quote
As far as not helping is concerned, are you sure that you or anyone here really wants to help unify the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches?

I can't speak for other people, but I would think that any RC-EO reunion initiatives wouldn't include me no matter what I think about it. I will put it this way: Any union that may take place between the RCC and any church that is not itself must be on the basis of shared faith. Since the RCC does not share the Orthodox faith in the first place, all the wanting in the world will not unite it with the Orthodox Church. We cannot help you get rid of doctrine that separates your church from the Orthodox faith that you're determined to keep regardless of the fact that no Orthodox Church will accept such false doctrines.
Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,207


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #166 on: September 17, 2013, 07:18:20 AM »

I personally think that this thread has set back RC-EO internet apologist relations back by at least fifty years.

Nah, it's just a regurgitation of the same ole....... same ole...... Since most of us have a minimal understanding of the teachings of our own respective churches, we have little if any concerning the teachings of others. We (myself included) are all good at reciting or clipping and pasting from our catechisms and we lace  our basic knowledge with mighty opinions which are almost always based on apologia and for some, fine tuned with the passion of polemic.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 07:25:38 AM by podkarpatska » 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: 37,370



« Reply #167 on: September 17, 2013, 09:21:37 AM »

There is a real difference between excluding the Filioque from the recitation of the Creed, and rejecting the dogma as heretical.
Perhaps this issue will be resolved eventually as a language problem according to which the word "proceeds" means different things in the two cases:
HS proceeds from the Father.
HS proceeds from the Son.
I think that the Bible says that the Son will send the HS, and "proceeds" could be interpreted as referring to this sending.
making it Father AND Son leaves no wiggle room for "language issues."
It might seem so, but sometimes there are ways out which are not apparent at first sight.  Even though it does say the HS proceeds from the Father and from the Son, the word proceeds could have a different meaning when applied to the procession from the Father versus the procession from the Son. To reduce it to a silly example in the English language, suppose someone said that aid for the reconstruction of the city block after the disastrous hurricane is proceeding from the federal government and from the local government. Proceeding might mean two different things here.  The money may not come in the same way from the federal as from the local. The local might just reevaluate their budget for police and fire assistance, so that the money does not proceed directly to the victims, whereas the federal help might involve giving a certain amount of monetary financial aid directly to the people involved in the tragedy. Aid is proceeding from both federal and local, but in one case it is direct financial money in the pocket of the victims, whereas in the other case it is indirect aid in the form of a budgetary swap to the advantage of the fire and police departments.
Apply Okham's Razor.
Occam's razor is not a universal principle that applies in every case, especially in theological discussions. I am only stating an opinion that a possible way out for the Roman Church is to say that the word proceeds is used differently in the two cases.
embracing the Truth would be much simpler.
Is it not the truth that the HS was sent by Jesus? Do you say that this is not the Truth? How do you apply Occam's razor to the fact that the HS was sent by Jesus?
Apply the Gospel Truth of the Creed: the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and from Him alone.
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
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,155


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #168 on: September 17, 2013, 09:27:10 AM »


I personally would not take what is said in an RCIA class as being the definitive word on Roman Catholic theology.


 Shocked Shocked Huh

If a formal and official catechism doesn't properly teach what your church teaches, then it is utterly worthless.

Well, at least in the US, parish RCIA classes are notorious for being hit or miss, mostly miss.  On that, I would agree with Stanley.  But I think it's disingenuous for him to focus on the RCIA anecdote and ignore Dzheremi's reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: paragraph 246 says exactly what Dzheremi claims.  If the CCC is not a/the definitive word on Roman Catholic theology, then really, what is?  

Many of us would love to know, because this is an important point.  RC apologists point to the lack of a "Pope" figure in Orthodoxy and claim that we have no definitive teaching authority, that different bishops/synods can disagree with each other, etc.  But despite having a Pope, and one enjoying a claim to infallibility at that, where is the definitive teaching?  CCC can be disregarded, RCIA is not dependable (which is funny, since that's how most converts enter the Church...what are they being taught?), bishops and national bishops' conferences often disagree with the Pope and with each other, and even Popes don't seem to maintain any continuity other than a historical succession.

In another post, I spoke of how RC apologists will give different answers to questions such as Filioque depending on who's asking, and they have definitive sources for contradictory answers.  If you call them on it, they'll insist they're right, that we don't understand, etc., but those aren't the reasons.  It's because they've placed so much dogmatic faith in an office and the man holding it that their belief system would crumble if the papacy were discredited.  The papacy is a sacred cow, so you can never question it.  That's why rebellion against papal authority is the only real heresy in Roman Catholicism.  The current prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was widely criticised upon his appointment for his views against the perpetual virginity of Our Lady; nevertheless, he's the top dogmatic theologian in their Church.  But the SSPX is "canonically irregular", "do not exercise legitimate ministry in the Church", etc., etc., because their founder ordained bishops without a papal mandate (that there was only one ordaining bishop never factors in as a problem) and he didn't approve of what he felt were liberal excesses in the post-Vatican II Church, a papally driven and endorsed institution.  

This is a real problem for Roman Catholicism, the elevation of the papacy to such a central place in RC teaching that the whole thing would fall apart without it.    
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
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #169 on: September 17, 2013, 09:57:00 AM »

They have not thus far made such an argument, though. If I remember my RCIA classes well enough, the thing that is supposed to save the filioque is not two different senses of "proceeds", but rather the qualification that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son "as from one principle" (read: it's not dual procession because the Latins say it isn't). This is what the current RC catechism says, and in that it is in concord with the teaching on the Holy Spirit as proclaimed at the Council of Florence in 1438, which says: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration" (see CCC 246). That's your tradition, not this newfangled "let's play around with the verb so as to give ourselves a context in which to keep this thing that is clearly against the tradition of the whole Church".

Quit moving the goal posts 575 years on. It's not helping.
I personally would not take what is said in an RCIA class as being the definitive word on Roman Catholic theology.
As far as not helping is concerned, are you sure that you or anyone here really wants to help unify the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches?

Yes i really want tp help it, you submit to thhe Truth of the Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, that is to us and it is done.

@Mor Ephrem

Quote
Many of us would love to know, because this is an important point.  RC apologists point to the lack of a "Pope" figure in Orthodoxy and claim that we have no definitive teaching authority, that different bishops/synods can disagree with each other, etc.  But despite having a Pope, and one enjoying a claim to infallibility at that, where is the definitive teaching?  CCC can be disregarded, RCIA is not dependable (which is funny, since that's how most converts enter the Church...what are they being taught?), bishops and national bishops' conferences often disagree with the Pope and with each other, and even Popes don't seem to maintain any continuity other than a historical succession.

They will tell you we need also the Pope because one must be in communion with him blablabla, all of those points being out of mind since St Meletius or the Western Schism etc. They will say we must be in communion with the Pope. Then what about St Meletius? Well we never heared about him, it is the first time on this forum  Cheesy
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 10:00:56 AM by Napoletani » Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
xOrthodox4Christx
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 2,954



« Reply #170 on: September 17, 2013, 12:01:22 PM »

The issue is whether the Father is the sole source/originator (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) of the Spirit or not. Whether procedit in Latin can mean send is an entirely different issue.

The question is this: if we use the Greek word ekporeuesthai to describe the procession of the Holy Spirit, instead of the word procedit would it be heresy?
Logged

“We now live in a nation where doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the press destroys information, religion destroys morals, and our banks destroy the economy.” (Chris Hedges)
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,207


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #171 on: September 17, 2013, 12:26:19 PM »


I personally would not take what is said in an RCIA class as being the definitive word on Roman Catholic theology.


 Shocked Shocked Huh

If a formal and official catechism doesn't properly teach what your church teaches, then it is utterly worthless.

Well, at least in the US, parish RCIA classes are notorious for being hit or miss, mostly miss.  On that, I would agree with Stanley.  But I think it's disingenuous for him to focus on the RCIA anecdote and ignore Dzheremi's reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: paragraph 246 says exactly what Dzheremi claims.  If the CCC is not a/the definitive word on Roman Catholic theology, then really, what is?  

Many of us would love to know, because this is an important point.  RC apologists point to the lack of a "Pope" figure in Orthodoxy and claim that we have no definitive teaching authority, that different bishops/synods can disagree with each other, etc.  But despite having a Pope, and one enjoying a claim to infallibility at that, where is the definitive teaching?  CCC can be disregarded, RCIA is not dependable (which is funny, since that's how most converts enter the Church...what are they being taught?), bishops and national bishops' conferences often disagree with the Pope and with each other, and even Popes don't seem to maintain any continuity other than a historical succession.

In another post, I spoke of how RC apologists will give different answers to questions such as Filioque depending on who's asking, and they have definitive sources for contradictory answers.  If you call them on it, they'll insist they're right, that we don't understand, etc., but those aren't the reasons.  It's because they've placed so much dogmatic faith in an office and the man holding it that their belief system would crumble if the papacy were discredited.  The papacy is a sacred cow, so you can never question it.  That's why rebellion against papal authority is the only real heresy in Roman Catholicism.  The current prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was widely criticised upon his appointment for his views against the perpetual virginity of Our Lady; nevertheless, he's the top dogmatic theologian in their Church.  But the SSPX is "canonically irregular", "do not exercise legitimate ministry in the Church", etc., etc., because their founder ordained bishops without a papal mandate (that there was only one ordaining bishop never factors in as a problem) and he didn't approve of what he felt were liberal excesses in the post-Vatican II Church, a papally driven and endorsed institution.  

This is a real problem for Roman Catholicism, the elevation of the papacy to such a central place in RC teaching that the whole thing would fall apart without it.    

Mor has quite succinctly summarized the Orthodox position as expressed at length by the Orthodox theologians of the North American Dialogue group. He does SVS proud. ( SVS being whipping boy #2 here after the EP. )
Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #172 on: September 17, 2013, 12:29:40 PM »

Because the Ariana In the west used this very creed that defeated the Ariana in the east to prove how the son is not divine due to the procession of the spirit from the father.

Yeah right....

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father."

that's not the part they used. They focused on the procession part as that is what they deemed to be a flaw in the creed that supported their doctrines. Plain history brother..
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
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 #173 on: September 17, 2013, 12:39:48 PM »

The issue is whether the Father is the sole source/originator (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) of the Spirit or not. Whether procedit in Latin can mean send is an entirely different issue.

The question is this: if we use the Greek word ekporeuesthai to describe the procession of the Holy Spirit, instead of the word procedit would it be heresy?
That is why I put forward the proposal in the post below:

Maybe the Latins should come up with a new way of translating the portion of the creed that concerns the Holy Spirit, and in the process truly clarify matters and help to bring about a real common understanding of the Spirit's existential origin from the Father alone.

Something like this:  "Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui egreditur ex Patre, qui cum Patre et Filio adoratur et glorificatur . . ."
Perhaps if the Roman Church basically designated a Latin word (e.g., egreditur) that would exclusively be used to translate the Greek term ἐκπορεύεσθαι real progress could be made on the issue of the origin of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, I admit that my own take on the issue is that Rome really does not want to clarify the issue if the clarification involves either relativizing or worse repudiating (i.e., from the Roman Catholic perspective) what was put forward at Lyons II and Florence.
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
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: 37,370



« Reply #174 on: September 17, 2013, 12:48:38 PM »

Because the Ariana In the west used this very creed that defeated the Ariana in the east to prove how the son is not divine due to the procession of the spirit from the father.

Yeah right....

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father."

that's not the part they used. They focused on the procession part as that is what they deemed to be a flaw in the creed that supported their doctrines. Plain history brother..
plain heresy, prodigal.

"They deemed a flaw."  LOL.  Yes, heretics always think they could do better than the Church in Ecumenical Council.

As for the history, where is it?  Where is it recorded that the filioque was put in to slay (the already dead) Arians, and that it succeeded in doing so?
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
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,155


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #175 on: September 17, 2013, 12:49:30 PM »

Perhaps if the Roman Church basically designated a Latin word (e.g., egreditur) that would exclusively be used to translate the Greek term ἐκπορεύεσθαι real progress could be made on the issue of the origin of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, I admit that my own take on the issue is that Rome really does not want to clarify the issue if the clarification involves either relativizing or worse repudiating (i.e., from the Roman Catholic perspective) what was put forward at Lyons II and Florence.

Once, I read a RC online claim that Filioque should be kept in the Creed because, were the Pope to take it out, all the various chant and polyphonic settings of the Creed would be rendered useless.  Smiley
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
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #176 on: September 17, 2013, 12:50:38 PM »

I'm stunned that John 15.26 is really considered to be so insufficient by Roman Catholicism when addressing this issue.  The very Son from whom the Spirit is supposed to proceed says the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and that's not good enough?  They can take him at face value re: Matthew 26.26-28, but not here?   

Oh gosh like I said again... Other passages affirm it as St Augustine pointed out. But ignore western theology and saints abs the Latin language and pronounce the Greek only.

Procedit accommodates filioque because it concerns motion, not origin.
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
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: 37,370



« Reply #177 on: September 17, 2013, 12:51:46 PM »


I personally would not take what is said in an RCIA class as being the definitive word on Roman Catholic theology.


 Shocked Shocked Huh

If a formal and official catechism doesn't properly teach what your church teaches, then it is utterly worthless.

Well, at least in the US, parish RCIA classes are notorious for being hit or miss, mostly miss.  On that, I would agree with Stanley.  But I think it's disingenuous for him to focus on the RCIA anecdote and ignore Dzheremi's reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: paragraph 246 says exactly what Dzheremi claims.  If the CCC is not a/the definitive word on Roman Catholic theology, then really, what is?  

Many of us would love to know, because this is an important point.  RC apologists point to the lack of a "Pope" figure in Orthodoxy and claim that we have no definitive teaching authority, that different bishops/synods can disagree with each other, etc.  But despite having a Pope, and one enjoying a claim to infallibility at that, where is the definitive teaching?  CCC can be disregarded, RCIA is not dependable (which is funny, since that's how most converts enter the Church...what are they being taught?), bishops and national bishops' conferences often disagree with the Pope and with each other, and even Popes don't seem to maintain any continuity other than a historical succession.

In another post, I spoke of how RC apologists will give different answers to questions such as Filioque depending on who's asking, and they have definitive sources for contradictory answers.  If you call them on it, they'll insist they're right, that we don't understand, etc., but those aren't the reasons.  It's because they've placed so much dogmatic faith in an office and the man holding it that their belief system would crumble if the papacy were discredited.  The papacy is a sacred cow, so you can never question it.  That's why rebellion against papal authority is the only real heresy in Roman Catholicism.  The current prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was widely criticised upon his appointment for his views against the perpetual virginity of Our Lady; nevertheless, he's the top dogmatic theologian in their Church.  But the SSPX is "canonically irregular", "do not exercise legitimate ministry in the Church", etc., etc., because their founder ordained bishops without a papal mandate (that there was only one ordaining bishop never factors in as a problem) and he didn't approve of what he felt were liberal excesses in the post-Vatican II Church, a papally driven and endorsed institution.  

This is a real problem for Roman Catholicism, the elevation of the papacy to such a central place in RC teaching that the whole thing would fall apart without it.    
and fall down with it.

Excellent summary of the problem of Vatican theology and the apologetics for it.
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
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: 37,370



« Reply #178 on: September 17, 2013, 12:52:45 PM »

I'm stunned that John 15.26 is really considered to be so insufficient by Roman Catholicism when addressing this issue.  The very Son from whom the Spirit is supposed to proceed says the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and that's not good enough?  They can take him at face value re: Matthew 26.26-28, but not here?   

Oh gosh like I said again... Other passages affirm it as St Augustine pointed out. But ignore western theology and saints abs the Latin language and pronounce the Greek only.

Procedit accommodates filioque because it concerns motion, not origin.
the Spirit is not created by "motion."
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
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #179 on: September 17, 2013, 12:53:40 PM »

But I can't keep up with this thread. Too many replies to argue against. Its waaaaaay too overwhelming.
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 »   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 0.222 seconds with 72 queries.