OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 19, 2014, 08:16:03 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 10203 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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 #180 on: September 17, 2013, 12:54:22 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?   

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.
But since the Greek word used in the creed concerns origin and not merely generic motion, it follows that the Latin translation has failed to accurately convey the meaning of the original Greek text. The Latins need to translate the Greek text of the creed in a way that actually conveys the meaning intended by the Fathers of the Council of Constantinople. It is unwise to create a new doctrine on a poor Latin translation of a Greek word.
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
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: 1,105


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #181 on: September 17, 2013, 12:54:57 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."
Straw man
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
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: 1,105


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #182 on: September 17, 2013, 12:58:19 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.
But since the Greek word used in the creed concerns origin and not merely generic motion, it follows that the Latin translation has failed to accurately convey the meaning of the original Greek text. The Latins need to translate the Greek text of the creed in a way that actually conveys the meaning intended by the Fathers of the Council of Constantinople. It is unwise to create a new doctrine on a poor Latin translation of a Greek word.

Latin has only one word which is procedit. The other that connotes origin is used in reference to the son. Can't use it to apply to the Holy Spirit as that would mean the holy spirit is begotten.

Secondly the creed was translated correctly. The original meaning is kept in tact yet the meaning of the filioque touches on what the word procedit conveys. Hence its perfectly orthodox. But somehow the "orthodox" will always find contention.

Again kalistos ware summaries' it is best in saying the filioque is an issue of semantics, not theology.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 12:59:55 PM by Wandile » 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
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,128


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #183 on: September 17, 2013, 01:01:19 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.

You claim that other passages affirm Filioque's orthodoxy, but you haven't demonstrated that conclusively, you've merely asserted it.  Meanwhile, we have a quote from Christ himself directly relevant to the issue.  If Western theology and saints and the Latin language have no need for Christ, just say so.  But don't claim Christ and ignore his very pertinent statement.  

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

You don't get it.  

If procedit concerns motion and not origin, how is it a translation of ἐκπορευόμενον, which does concern origin?  Either it is

a) a bad translation (which is itself problematic, and there are other examples in Western tradition of bad translations causing havoc), or

b) the Latins decided that they didn't want to discuss the origin of the Holy Spirit when professing the Creed, and so they decided to change the topic to "motion", redefining terms and meanings as they pleased.  You can't do that unilaterally, you can't agree to use certain words and then redefine them later because you feel like it might be nice or useful.    
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: 1,105


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #184 on: September 17, 2013, 01:03:02 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.

Gods church will never fall as he promised. Your evaluation is thus heretical
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
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: 1,105


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #185 on: September 17, 2013, 01:04:25 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.

You claim that other passages affirm Filioque's orthodoxy, but you haven't demonstrated that conclusively, you've merely asserted it.  Meanwhile, we have a quote from Christ himself directly relevant to the issue.  If Western theology and saints and the Latin language have no need for Christ, just say so.  But don't claim Christ and ignore his very pertinent statement.  

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

You don't get it.  

If procedit concerns motion and not origin, how is it a translation of ἐκπορευόμενον, which does concern origin?  Either it is

a) a bad translation (which is itself problematic, and there are other examples in Western tradition of bad translations causing havoc), or

b) the Latins decided that they didn't want to discuss the origin of the Holy Spirit when professing the Creed, and so they decided to change the topic to "motion", redefining terms and meanings as they pleased.  You can't do that unilaterally, you can't agree to use certain words and then redefine them later because you feel like it might be nice or useful.    
read up
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 #186 on: September 17, 2013, 01:07:33 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
I have heard that too, and I couldn't stop laughing.

As far as the main issue under consideration in this thread is concerned, I still think that coming up with a way to convey in Latin the difference between ἐκπόρευσις and προϊέναι is key to solving the present impasse, and this is true even if a Latin word must be artificially given a unique meaning or if the original Greek term must be simply transliterated into the Latin text. Only if the Latins can translate the original Greek in a way that fully conveys the sense of origination connected with the Greek term ἐκπόρευσις can real progress be made on this thorny issue. In addition to coming up with a specific Latin word to translate ἐκπόρευσις in the creed, the Latins will have to consistently use the older term processio to translate the Greek word προϊέναι, while simultaneously divorcing that term (i.e., processio) from any causal significance. And finally, the Latins will have to remove the term filioque from the creed because by their own admission the original intention of the authors of the creed was not to speak about motion in general, but was to refer to the origin of the Holy Spirit from God the Father, which the Son does not participate in because the Father alone is cause within the godhead.
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
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: 1,105


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #187 on: September 17, 2013, 01:11:56 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.

You claim that other passages affirm Filioque's orthodoxy, but you haven't demonstrated that conclusively, you've merely asserted it.  Meanwhile, we have a quote from Christ himself directly relevant to the issue.  If Western theology and saints and the Latin language have no need for Christ, just say so.  But don't claim Christ and ignore his very pertinent statement.  

Augustine

"If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle" (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]).

"[The one] from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term ‘principally’ because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son" (ibid., 15:17:29).

"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).

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 #188 on: September 17, 2013, 01:13:57 PM »

"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Here St. Augustine has confused economy with theology, which is a pervasive problem throughout his writings (i.e., including his treatise on the Trinity).
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
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,128


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #189 on: September 17, 2013, 01:14:09 PM »

Latin has only one word which is procedit. The other that connotes origin is used in reference to the son. Can't use it to apply to the Holy Spirit as that would mean the holy spirit is begotten.

Secondly the creed was translated correctly. The original meaning is kept in tact yet the meaning of the filioque touches on what the word procedit conveys. Hence its perfectly orthodox. But somehow the "orthodox" will always find contention.

Again kalistos ware summaries' it is best in saying the filioque is an issue of semantics, not theology.

I could believe that it is semantics and not a substantive theological difference if the RCC could demonstrate that despite using a "less precise than Greek" formulation, they maintained an Orthodox understanding.  

In other words, if procedit is the only Latin word available to translate ἐκπορευόμενον, the Latins should demonstrate that, even if procedit has a range of meaning incorporating motion as well as origin, they always understood it to mean origin and origin from the Father.  

But it seems as if you're arguing that they took a Greek word concerned with "origin" and translated it with a Latin word concerned with "motion".  That's not just semantics at that point, that's a fundamental theological misunderstanding.  And that's without factoring Filioque into the equation.  
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 01:14:27 PM by Mor Ephrem » 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: 1,105


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #190 on: September 17, 2013, 01:17:40 PM »

"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Here St. Augustine has confused economy with theology, which is a pervasive problem throughout his writings (i.e., including his treatise on the Trinity).
here though, Augustine is right. Others have concluded the same about the passages as they can only mean one things. How can Christ be God is he has not he spirit if God proceeding as it should with one whom we call God? Unless we equate two Gods, one that is the Hoky Spirit and the Father and the other that is the Father and The Son
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 #191 on: September 17, 2013, 01:18:04 PM »

In other words, if procedit is the only Latin word available to translate ἐκπορευόμενον, the Latins should demonstrate that, even if procedit has a range of meaning incorporating motion as well as origin, they always understood it to mean origin and origin from the Father.  
They cannot prove that because there clearly are other Latin words that could be used to translate the term ἐκπορευόμενον, e.g., the one I used in my earlier post "egreditur."
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
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,128


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #192 on: September 17, 2013, 01:18:27 PM »

read up

You know, if you don't have the time or the interest in debating the matter, just say

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

and leave it at that.  

But it's insulting to respond to people's comments and questions directed toward you with "Read up", as if everyone who disagrees with you obviously hasn't read anything about the subject.    
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: 1,105


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #193 on: September 17, 2013, 01:19:00 PM »

Latin has only one word which is procedit. The other that connotes origin is used in reference to the son. Can't use it to apply to the Holy Spirit as that would mean the holy spirit is begotten.

Secondly the creed was translated correctly. The original meaning is kept in tact yet the meaning of the filioque touches on what the word procedit conveys. Hence its perfectly orthodox. But somehow the "orthodox" will always find contention.

Again kalistos ware summaries' it is best in saying the filioque is an issue of semantics, not theology.

I could believe that it is semantics and not a substantive theological difference if the RCC could demonstrate that despite using a "less precise than Greek" formulation, they maintained an Orthodox understanding.  

In other words, if procedit is the only Latin word available to translate ἐκπορευόμενον, the Latins should demonstrate that, even if procedit has a range of meaning incorporating motion as well as origin, they always understood it to mean origin and origin from the Father.  

But it seems as if you're arguing that they took a Greek word concerned with "origin" and translated it with a Latin word concerned with "motion".  That's not just semantics at that point, that's a fundamental theological misunderstanding.  And that's without factoring Filioque into the equation.  

The thing is the original meaning was never forgotten. The filioque is simply not an expansion on that meaning but on something else.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 01:21:32 PM by Wandile » 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
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: 1,105


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #194 on: September 17, 2013, 01:20:50 PM »

read up

You know, if you don't have the time or the interest in debating the matter, just say

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

and leave it at that.  

But it's insulting to respond to people's comments and questions directed toward you with "Read up", as if everyone who disagrees with you obviously hasn't read anything about the subject.    

LOL. I actually meant "read up" as in literally scroll up the page to the post before yours and read what I said about how Latin only has procedit.
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 #195 on: September 17, 2013, 01:21:52 PM »

"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Here St. Augustine has confused economy with theology, which is a pervasive problem throughout his writings (i.e., including his treatise on the Trinity).
here though, Augustine is right. Others have concluded the same about the passages as they can only mean one things. How can Christ be God is he has not he spirit if God proceeding as it should with one whom we call God? Unless we equate two Gods, one that is the Hoky Spirit and the Father and the other that is the Father and The Son
The fact that Son economically sends the Spirit is not the same thing as the Spirit receiving His origin from the Father by ἐκπόρευσις. What you are arguing for here is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox (and Oriental Orthodox) posters are accusing you of doing, i.e., confusing the Spirit's origination from the Father alone as the font of divinity, with His progression (i.e., His προϊέναι) or "general 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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,636



« Reply #196 on: September 17, 2013, 01:24:46 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."
Straw man
No, Divine Spirit.
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
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,052



« Reply #197 on: September 17, 2013, 01:26:07 PM »

Look!  Here we are, 1,000 years later still arguing about the Filioque.  Tis good to know some things never change...  Cheesy
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,636



« Reply #198 on: September 17, 2013, 01:30:10 PM »

"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Here St. Augustine has confused economy with theology, which is a pervasive problem throughout his writings (i.e., including his treatise on the Trinity).
here though, Augustine is right. Others have concluded the same about the passages as they can only mean one things. How can Christ be God is he has not he spirit if God proceeding as it should with one whom we call God? Unless we equate two Gods, one that is the Hoky Spirit and the Father and the other that is the Father and The Son
This is how your Scholasticism leads you astray.

The One Whom the Father declares His Only Begotten Son declares that the Spirit proceeds from the Father.  How you get two Gods-or rather, gods-from that (like the Arians, btw) only shows the heretical nature of the Scholastic endevour.
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: 1,105


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #199 on: September 17, 2013, 01:30:31 PM »

"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Here St. Augustine has confused economy with theology, which is a pervasive problem throughout his writings (i.e., including his treatise on the Trinity).
here though, Augustine is right. Others have concluded the same about the passages as they can only mean one things. How can Christ be God is he has not he spirit if God proceeding as it should with one whom we call God? Unless we equate two Gods, one that is the Hoky Spirit and the Father and the other that is the Father and The Son
The fact that Son economically sends the Spirit is not the same thing as the Spirit receiving His origin from the Father by ἐκπόρευσις. What you are arguing for here is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox (and Oriental Orthodox) posters are accusing you of doing, i.e., confusing the Spirit's origination from the Father alone as the font of divinity, with His progression (i.e., His προϊέναι) or "general movement" from the Father through the Son.

Yet nowhere was it states that he found his being in the son but procession (procedit) must happen for Christ to be God
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
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,128


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #200 on: September 17, 2013, 01:30:38 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.

You claim that other passages affirm Filioque's orthodoxy, but you haven't demonstrated that conclusively, you've merely asserted it.  Meanwhile, we have a quote from Christ himself directly relevant to the issue.  If Western theology and saints and the Latin language have no need for Christ, just say so.  But don't claim Christ and ignore his very pertinent statement.  

Augustine

"If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle" (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]).

Of course, we will have to dig up the reference for ourselves if we want to know the full version of "just as the Father and the Son are one God DOT DOT DOT relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle".  Until then, we can just take your word for it.  

If the common divinity of the Father and the Son requires that both persons are the principle of the Spirit, and if the Spirit shares that very same divinity, what does that require of the Spirit?  Does the Son "proceed" in some way from the Spirit?  Does the Father derive "fatherhood" or some other quality from the Spirit and the Son?  Does the Spirit proceed from himself?  

Or else, maybe the Spirit's divinity is not the same as that of the Father and the Son?  Or maybe the Spirit is not divine at all?    

Quote
"[The one] from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term ‘principally’ because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son" (ibid., 15:17:29).

"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).

As Apotheoun said, it seems economy and theology are being confused 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
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 #201 on: September 17, 2013, 01:30:51 PM »

Look!  Here we are, 1,000 years later still arguing about the Filioque.  Tis good to know some things never change...  Cheesy
What is really funny is that the filioque dispute was caused by a poor Latin translation of the word ἐκπορευόμενον, and that the whole Latin doctrine of the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son as from one principle is an attempt to legitimize that poor translation.
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
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,636



« Reply #202 on: September 17, 2013, 01:31:47 PM »

Latin has only one word which is procedit. The other that connotes origin is used in reference to the son. Can't use it to apply to the Holy Spirit as that would mean the holy spirit is begotten.

Secondly the creed was translated correctly. The original meaning is kept in tact yet the meaning of the filioque touches on what the word procedit conveys. Hence its perfectly orthodox. But somehow the "orthodox" will always find contention.

Again kalistos ware summaries' it is best in saying the filioque is an issue of semantics, not theology.

I could believe that it is semantics and not a substantive theological difference if the RCC could demonstrate that despite using a "less precise than Greek" formulation, they maintained an Orthodox understanding.  

In other words, if procedit is the only Latin word available to translate ἐκπορευόμενον, the Latins should demonstrate that, even if procedit has a range of meaning incorporating motion as well as origin, they always understood it to mean origin and origin from the Father.  

But it seems as if you're arguing that they took a Greek word concerned with "origin" and translated it with a Latin word concerned with "motion".  That's not just semantics at that point, that's a fundamental theological misunderstanding.  And that's without factoring Filioque into the equation.  

The thing is the original meaning was never forgotten. The filioque is simply not an expansion on that meaning but on something else.
my, the definition of "clarification" in the Vatican's dictionary keeps changing!
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 #203 on: September 17, 2013, 01:33:24 PM »

"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Here St. Augustine has confused economy with theology, which is a pervasive problem throughout his writings (i.e., including his treatise on the Trinity).
here though, Augustine is right. Others have concluded the same about the passages as they can only mean one things. How can Christ be God is he has not he spirit if God proceeding as it should with one whom we call God? Unless we equate two Gods, one that is the Hoky Spirit and the Father and the other that is the Father and The Son
The fact that Son economically sends the Spirit is not the same thing as the Spirit receiving His origin from the Father by ἐκπόρευσις. What you are arguing for here is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox (and Oriental Orthodox) posters are accusing you of doing, i.e., confusing the Spirit's origination from the Father alone as the font of divinity, with His progression (i.e., His προϊέναι) or "general movement" from the Father through the Son.

Yet nowhere was it states that he found his being in the son but procession (procedit) must happen for Christ to be God
The Son is God because He is generated by the Father, i.e., God has begotten God. The Spirit's progression (προϊέναι) from the Father through the Son does not add anything ontologically to the begetting of 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
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,128


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #204 on: September 17, 2013, 01:35:09 PM »

The thing is the original meaning was never forgotten. The filioque is simply not an expansion on that meaning but on something else.

So, to be clear, your argument is that the Greek text of the Creed concerns the origin of the Spirit, but when the text was translated into Latin, they deliberately chose a word that indicates motion and not origin, and Filioque is an expansion on this "new" focus and not on the "old"?  

It is still wrong, I just want to be clear on which erroneous position you are taking.  
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: 1,105


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #205 on: September 17, 2013, 01:35:50 PM »

"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Here St. Augustine has confused economy with theology, which is a pervasive problem throughout his writings (i.e., including his treatise on the Trinity).
here though, Augustine is right. Others have concluded the same about the passages as they can only mean one things. How can Christ be God is he has not he spirit if God proceeding as it should with one whom we call God? Unless we equate two Gods, one that is the Hoky Spirit and the Father and the other that is the Father and The Son
This is how your Scholasticism leads you astray.

The One Whom the Father declares His Only Begotten Son declares that the Spirit proceeds from the Father.  How you get two Gods-or rather, gods-from that (like the Arians, btw) only shows the heretical nature of the Scholastic endevour.

LOL. I'm gonna show this in as plain terms as possible.

God has a spirit that proceeds from him (procedit). Now in nature/being all that the father has was given to the son including procession. The only things the son has not got is being the father himself which entitles source. Now since the father is the source of the trinity, the spirit finds his being in the father and not the son for this is an attribute of being the father and the son is not the father.

Yet the son is God. Gods spirit proceeds from him (procedit). The son HAD to have this happen through the son or else he is not God, this is the crux of the matter.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 01:43:29 PM by Wandile » 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
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: 1,105


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #206 on: September 17, 2013, 01:37:18 PM »

"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Here St. Augustine has confused economy with theology, which is a pervasive problem throughout his writings (i.e., including his treatise on the Trinity).
here though, Augustine is right. Others have concluded the same about the passages as they can only mean one things. How can Christ be God is he has not he spirit if God proceeding as it should with one whom we call God? Unless we equate two Gods, one that is the Hoky Spirit and the Father and the other that is the Father and The Son
The fact that Son economically sends the Spirit is not the same thing as the Spirit receiving His origin from the Father by ἐκπόρευσις. What you are arguing for here is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox (and Oriental Orthodox) posters are accusing you of doing, i.e., confusing the Spirit's origination from the Father alone as the font of divinity, with His progression (i.e., His προϊέναι) or "general movement" from the Father through the Son.

Yet nowhere was it states that he found his being in the son but procession (procedit) must happen for Christ to be God
The Son is God because He is generated by the Father, i.e., God has begotten God. The Spirit's progression (προϊέναι) from the Father through the Son does not add anything ontologically to the begetting of the Son.

And in being begotten received all from the father except being the father including procession. This is why he is God. So yes its because he is begotten
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
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: 1,105


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #207 on: September 17, 2013, 01:40:30 PM »

The thing is the original meaning was never forgotten. The filioque is simply not an expansion on that meaning but on something else.

So, to be clear, your argument is that the Greek text of the Creed concerns the origin of the Spirit, but when the text was translated into Latin, they deliberately chose a word that indicates motion and not origin, and Filioque is an expansion on this "new" focus and not on the "old"?  

It is still wrong, I just want to be clear on which erroneous position you are taking.  

My argument. Is that the Latin text focuses on both meanings. Filioque is focused on motion.

" We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of life. Who proceeds from the father (Eternally in attaining origin and in motion) and the son (eternally in motion but not origin). Who with the father and the son is worshiped and glorified..."
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 01:47:29 PM by Wandile » 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
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,128


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #208 on: September 17, 2013, 01:40:52 PM »

God has a spirit that proceeds from him (procedit). Now in personage all that the fathe has was given to the son including procession. The only things the son has not got is being the father himself which entitles source. Now since the fatbe is the source of the trinity, the spirit finds his being in the father and not the son for this is an attribute of being the father and the son is kot the father.

Yet the son is God. Gods spirit proceeds from him (procedit). The son HAD to have this happen through the son or else he is not God, this is the crux of the matter.

Can you do this again using "motion" and "origin" rather than "procession"?    
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
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 #209 on: September 17, 2013, 01:41:06 PM »

LOL. I'm gonna show this in as plain terms as possible.

God has a spirit that proceeds from him (procedit). Now in personage all that the fathe has was given to the son including procession. The only things the son has not got is being the father himself which entitles source. Now since the fatbe is the source of the trinity, the spirit finds his being in the father and not the son for this is an attribute of being the father and the son is kot the father.

Yet the son is God. Gods spirit proceeds from him (procedit). The son HAD to have this happen through the son or else he is not God, this is the crux of the matter.
If by the word procession you mean the ἐκπόρευσις of the Spirit from the Father, then you are in error, because the Father alone is cause within the godhead, and so He alone causes the Son by generation (γέννησιν), and He alone causes the Spirit by procession (ἐκπόρευσις). But if you are only talking about general movement (i.e., progression / προϊέναι) then this is a common attribute of the Holy Trinity, and it does not have causal significance. That said, as far as causation within the godhead is concerned, that characteristic is unique to the person of the Father, and it cannot be shared with either the Son or the Holy Spirit, for as St. Gregory of Nazianzen said: "All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 01:41:53 PM by Apotheoun » 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
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: 1,105


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #210 on: September 17, 2013, 01:45:56 PM »

LOL. I'm gonna show this in as plain terms as possible.

God has a spirit that proceeds from him (procedit). Now in personage all that the fathe has was given to the son including procession. The only things the son has not got is being the father himself which entitles source. Now since the fatbe is the source of the trinity, the spirit finds his being in the father and not the son for this is an attribute of being the father and the son is kot the father.

Yet the son is God. Gods spirit proceeds from him (procedit). The son HAD to have this happen through the son or else he is not God, this is the crux of the matter.
If by the word procession you mean the ἐκπόρευσις of the Spirit from the Father, then you are in error, because the Father alone is cause within the godhead, and so He alone causes the Son by generation (γέννησιν), and He alone causes the Spirit by procession (ἐκπόρευσις). But if you are only talking about general movement (i.e., progression / προϊέναι) then this is a common attribute of the Holy Trinity, and it does not have causal significance. That said, as far as causation within the godhead is concerned, that characteristic is unique to the person of the Father, and it cannot be shared with either the Son or the Holy Spirit, for as St. Gregory of Nazianzen said: "All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."

NO I NEVER MEANT ἐκπόρευσις AND THAT IS WHY GREGORY IS RIGHT.

sorry for "shouting"
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 01:46:33 PM by Wandile » 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
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,128


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #211 on: September 17, 2013, 01:46:12 PM »

My argument. Is that the Latin text focuses on both meanings. Filioque is focused on motion.

" We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of life. Who proceeds from the father (Eternally in staining origin and in motion) and the son (eternally in motion but not origin). Who with the father and the son is worshiped and glorified..."

That is not at all clear in the Latin Creed without adding all those parenthetical phrases you added.  I mean, really, "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" is very simple Latin.  So it really depends on what "procedit" means.  You can't claim that Filioque is concerned with motion and ex Patre is focused on origin when claiming "procedit" encompasses both origin and motion.  For that matter, you could also claim that "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" concerns a) motion from the Father and origin from the Son, or b) motion from the Father and motion from the Son without reference to origin at all.  
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 01:48:50 PM by Mor Ephrem » 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: 1,105


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #212 on: September 17, 2013, 01:48:36 PM »

God has a spirit that proceeds from him (procedit). Now in personage all that the fathe has was given to the son including procession. The only things the son has not got is being the father himself which entitles source. Now since the fatbe is the source of the trinity, the spirit finds his being in the father and not the son for this is an attribute of being the father and the son is kot the father.

Yet the son is God. Gods spirit proceeds from him (procedit). The son HAD to have this happen through the son or else he is not God, this is the crux of the matter.

Can you do this again using "motion" and "origin" rather than "procession"?    

Any particular reason why?
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
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: 1,105


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #213 on: September 17, 2013, 01:50:07 PM »

My argument. Is that the Latin text focuses on both meanings. Filioque is focused on motion.

" We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of life. Who proceeds from the father (Eternally in staining origin and in motion) and the son (eternally in motion but not origin). Who with the father and the son is worshiped and glorified..."

That is not at all clear in the Latin Creed without adding all those parenthetical phrases you added.  I mean, really, "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" is very simple Latin.  So it really depends on what "procedit" means.  You can't claim that Filioque is concerned with motion and ex Patre is focused on origin when claiming "procedit" encompasses both origin and motion.  For that matter, you could also claim that "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" concerns a) motion from the Father and origin from the Son, or b) motion from the Father and motion from the Son without reference to origin at all.  

Its not clear but it is what is meant. Keeping both meanings alive in the text. This is the truth of the roman theology. Perfectly orthodox and like I said Bishop Kalistos Ware noticed this too . Its all just semantics
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 01:51:56 PM by Wandile » 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
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,128


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #214 on: September 17, 2013, 01:50:46 PM »

Any particular reason why?

Why?  Because you're claiming a semantic range of meaning for procedit, and yet that's the only term you used.  The confusion over who's doing what is at the root of the issue, so if you clarify it with your own chosen terms, it might be more comprehensible.  
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
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,128


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #215 on: September 17, 2013, 01:52:25 PM »

My argument. Is that the Latin text focuses on both meanings. Filioque is focused on motion.

" We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of life. Who proceeds from the father (Eternally in staining origin and in motion) and the son (eternally in motion but not origin). Who with the father and the son is worshiped and glorified..."

That is not at all clear in the Latin Creed without adding all those parenthetical phrases you added.  I mean, really, "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" is very simple Latin.  So it really depends on what "procedit" means.  You can't claim that Filioque is concerned with motion and ex Patre is focused on origin when claiming "procedit" encompasses both origin and motion.  For that matter, you could also claim that "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" concerns a) motion from the Father and origin from the Son, or b) motion from the Father and motion from the Son without reference to origin at all.  

Its not clear but it is what is meant. Keeping both meanings alive in the text. This is the truth of the roman theology.

A Creed is useless if it is "not clear".  You've made our case for us.  Thanks.
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
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,227


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #216 on: September 17, 2013, 01:54:18 PM »

My argument. Is that the Latin text focuses on both meanings. Filioque is focused on motion.

" We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of life. Who proceeds from the father (Eternally in staining origin and in motion) and the son (eternally in motion but not origin). Who with the father and the son is worshiped and glorified..."

That is not at all clear in the Latin Creed without adding all those parenthetical phrases you added.  I mean, really, "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" is very simple Latin.  So it really depends on what "procedit" means.  You can't claim that Filioque is concerned with motion and ex Patre is focused on origin when claiming "procedit" encompasses both origin and motion.  For that matter, you could also claim that "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" concerns a) motion from the Father and origin from the Son, or b) motion from the Father and motion from the Son without reference to origin at all.  

Its not clear but it is what is meant. Keeping both meanings alive in the text. This is the truth of the roman theology. Perfectly orthodox and like I said Bishop Kalistos Ware noticed this too . Its all just semantics

But the Holy Spirit does not proceed hypostatically from the Son.
Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
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: 1,105


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #217 on: September 17, 2013, 01:57:52 PM »

Any particular reason why?

Why?  Because you're claiming a semantic range of meaning for procedit, and yet that's the only term you used.  The confusion over who's doing what is at the root of the issue, so if you clarify it with your own chosen terms, it might be more comprehensible.  

It was pretty basic but I will issue one more clarification
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
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: 1,105


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #218 on: September 17, 2013, 02:00:50 PM »

My argument. Is that the Latin text focuses on both meanings. Filioque is focused on motion.

" We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of life. Who proceeds from the father (Eternally in staining origin and in motion) and the son (eternally in motion but not origin). Who with the father and the son is worshiped and glorified..."

That is not at all clear in the Latin Creed without adding all those parenthetical phrases you added.  I mean, really, "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" is very simple Latin.  So it really depends on what "procedit" means.  You can't claim that Filioque is concerned with motion and ex Patre is focused on origin when claiming "procedit" encompasses both origin and motion.  For that matter, you could also claim that "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" concerns a) motion from the Father and origin from the Son, or b) motion from the Father and motion from the Son without reference to origin at all.  

Its not clear but it is what is meant. Keeping both meanings alive in the text. This is the truth of the roman theology.

A Creed is useless if it is "not clear".  You've made our case for us.  Thanks.

it is clear once one decided to learn what is being taught in the creed. A lot of things in the creed need explanation and aren't as straight forward as you make it out to be. Unless the whole creed is rendered useless by your logic
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
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,128


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #219 on: September 17, 2013, 02:10:14 PM »

it is clear once one decided to learn what is being taught in the creed. A lot of things in the creed need explanation and aren't as straight forward as you make it out to be. Unless the whole creed is rendered useless by your logic

I had to catechise a Hindu once, and she thought "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic CHURCH" referred to the parish she was joining, with its heated parish council politics that spilled over into coffee hour; she told me in no uncertain terms that if she was required to believe in those hotheads in order to be Christian, she was going to stay Hindu.  Smiley  

Of course the Creed requires explanation and isn't as straightforward on its face.  But once you define the terms as the Church defined them when formulating the Creed, there's really only one way to take it.  That's the whole point of having a Creed: it defines what is believed and leaves no wiggle room.  

Your problem is that you want to allow for definitions other than those the entire Church agreed upon.  Everyone--pre-Filioque Rome, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, even the Assyrians--agrees on the meaning and implications of ἐκπορευόμενον.  It's only the post-Filioque West which disagrees.          
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 02:10:45 PM by Mor Ephrem » 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
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,052



« Reply #220 on: September 17, 2013, 02:12:29 PM »

I dunno, it always seemed pretty clear to me...

I don't know all the latin and greek that you guys are going on about, but the filioque just does not make any sense to me at all. Just from a simple logic standpoint, the creed makes much more sense without it in there.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
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: 1,105


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #221 on: September 17, 2013, 02:13:19 PM »

My argument. Is that the Latin text focuses on both meanings. Filioque is focused on motion.

" We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of life. Who proceeds from the father (Eternally in staining origin and in motion) and the son (eternally in motion but not origin). Who with the father and the son is worshiped and glorified..."

That is not at all clear in the Latin Creed without adding all those parenthetical phrases you added.  I mean, really, "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" is very simple Latin.  So it really depends on what "procedit" means.  You can't claim that Filioque is concerned with motion and ex Patre is focused on origin when claiming "procedit" encompasses both origin and motion.  For that matter, you could also claim that "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" concerns a) motion from the Father and origin from the Son, or b) motion from the Father and motion from the Son without reference to origin at all.  

Its not clear but it is what is meant. Keeping both meanings alive in the text. This is the truth of the roman theology. Perfectly orthodox and like I said Bishop Kalistos Ware noticed this too . Its all just semantics

But the Holy Spirit does not proceed hypostatically from the Son.

The Latin Fathers unanimously teach Filioque in the sense of a hypostatic procession; their teaching is not, as others have said, restricted to an energetic procession. How could the Greek Fathers have held an understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit antithetical to the unanimous understanding of the Latin Fathers who openly professed Filioque, with whom they were in communion for centuries, and whom the Eastern Orthodox venerate as saints?
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
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: 1,105


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #222 on: September 17, 2013, 02:16:00 PM »

I dunno, it always seemed pretty clear to me...

I don't know all the latin and greek that you guys are going on about, but the filioque just does not make any sense to me at all. Just from a simple logic standpoint, the creed makes much more sense without it in there.

To me it is the other way around. To me it has always been completely illogical to not have the spirit proceed form the son also
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
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: 1,105


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #223 on: September 17, 2013, 02:16:39 PM »

In other words, if procedit is the only Latin word available to translate ἐκπορευόμενον, the Latins should demonstrate that, even if procedit has a range of meaning incorporating motion as well as origin, they always understood it to mean origin and origin from the Father.  
They cannot prove that because there clearly are other Latin words that could be used to translate the term ἐκπορευόμενον, e.g., the one I used in my earlier post "egreditur."

One would think the Latins know their OWN language better than you
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
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: 1,105


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #224 on: September 17, 2013, 02:18:47 PM »

it is clear once one decided to learn what is being taught in the creed. A lot of things in the creed need explanation and aren't as straight forward as you make it out to be. Unless the whole creed is rendered useless by your logic

I had to catechise a Hindu once, and she thought "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic CHURCH" referred to the parish she was joining, with its heated parish council politics that spilled over into coffee hour; she told me in no uncertain terms that if she was required to believe in those hotheads in order to be Christian, she was going to stay Hindu.  Smiley  

Of course the Creed requires explanation and isn't as straightforward on its face.  But once you define the terms as the Church defined them when formulating the Creed, there's really only one way to take it.  That's the whole point of having a Creed: it defines what is believed and leaves no wiggle room.  

Your problem is that you want to allow for definitions other than those the entire Church agreed upon.  Everyone--pre-Filioque Rome, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, even the Assyrians--agrees on the meaning and implications of ἐκπορευόμενον.  It's only the post-Filioque West which disagrees.          

And our creed does just that. Its explains the faith. Rome went on to clarify another part of the church teachings. Rome redefined nothing
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 0.187 seconds with 72 queries.