OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 19, 2014, 12:15:24 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 10199 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: 17,100


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #225 on: September 17, 2013, 02:19:28 PM »

One would think the Latins know their OWN language better than you

One would think that, yes.  And yet, you don't have to be a Roman Catholic to have studied Latin well enough to propose that the language itself has other words that would render the meaning of the Greek much better.  So it goes back to the original Latins: did they not understand Greek, or did they simply not care?    
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: 17,100


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #226 on: September 17, 2013, 02:21:07 PM »

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

...except the meaning of "procedit". 
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
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,037



« Reply #227 on: September 17, 2013, 02:23:51 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
Why? How is it illogical that the Son is begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father?
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,226


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #228 on: September 17, 2013, 02:30:27 PM »

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?

Because the Greek Fathers didn't know Latin and when the filioque became known in the East - i.e. in the seventh century - the Greeks immediately protested it.
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: 1,103


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #229 on: September 17, 2013, 02:35:01 PM »

One would think the Latins know their OWN language better than you

One would think that, yes.  And yet, you don't have to be a Roman Catholic to have studied Latin well enough to propose that the language itself has other words that would render the meaning of the Greek much better.  So it goes back to the original Latins: did they not understand Greek, or did they simply not care?    

or were they correct
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: 1,103


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #230 on: September 17, 2013, 02:36:40 PM »

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

...except the meaning of "procedit". 

procesdit was not redefined. It meant exactly what the Latins claim it meant.
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: 17,100


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #231 on: September 17, 2013, 02:41:14 PM »

One would think the Latins know their OWN language better than you

One would think that, yes.  And yet, you don't have to be a Roman Catholic to have studied Latin well enough to propose that the language itself has other words that would render the meaning of the Greek much better.  So it goes back to the original Latins: did they not understand Greek, or did they simply not care?    

or were they correct

LOL.  If you want that option to be viable, you should demonstrate that the original Greek of the Creed was insufficient, and that the East is wrong to keep the older form, as Latin apologists have claimed from time to time throughout the centuries.

Otherwise, it's really a question of whether they misunderstood or did not care.  Either/or and both/and are equally possible.   
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: 17,100


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #232 on: September 17, 2013, 02:41:39 PM »

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

...except the meaning of "procedit". 

procesdit was not redefined. It meant exactly what the Latins claim it meant.

Tautology. 
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: 1,103


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #233 on: September 17, 2013, 02:45:30 PM »

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?

Because the Greek Fathers didn't know Latin and when the filioque became known in the East - i.e. in the seventh century - the Greeks immediately protested it.

ooooh some knew Latin and knew Latin theology yet kept communion with the latins

Most Greeks like Photius misunderstood the West,{3} knew no Latin,{4} and failed express the truly Catholic tradition, for he did not include the Latins, St. John of Damascus, and ante-Nicene saints among the Church Fathers if i remember correctly. urther even after the 7th century, communion was kept
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
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,580



« Reply #234 on: September 17, 2013, 02:53:07 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

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?

No, they don't, as St. Maximus proved when he wrote that the Latins of his time meant the Filioque in a non-causal sense.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 02:53:18 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,580



« Reply #235 on: September 17, 2013, 02:53:48 PM »

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?

Because the Greek Fathers didn't know Latin and when the filioque became known in the East - i.e. in the seventh century - the Greeks immediately protested it.
for he did not include the Latins, St. John of Damascus, and ante-Nicene saints among the Church Fathers if i remember correctly.
I want to see a source for that.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 02:54:28 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

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

Posts: 9,226


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #236 on: September 17, 2013, 03:01:40 PM »

ooooh some knew Latin and knew Latin theology yet kept communion with the latins

Name one.
Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
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: 37,626



« Reply #237 on: September 17, 2013, 03:05:47 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?

No, they don't, as St. Maximus proved when he wrote that the Latins of his time meant the Filioque in a non-causal sense.
He also said that the phrase was poorly worded, and should be changed.
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
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: 37,626



« Reply #238 on: September 17, 2013, 03:07:21 PM »

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?

Because the Greek Fathers didn't know Latin and when the filioque became known in the East - i.e. in the seventh century - the Greeks immediately protested it.

ooooh some knew Latin and knew Latin theology yet kept communion with the latins

Most Greeks like Photius misunderstood the West,{3} knew no Latin,{4} and failed express the truly Catholic tradition, for he did not include the Latins, St. John of Damascus, and ante-Nicene saints among the Church Fathers if i remember correctly. urther even after the 7th century, communion was kept
The Standard-the "truly Catholic tradition-was set in Greek, to which the Latin had to conform, not the other way around.
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
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: 37,626



« Reply #239 on: September 17, 2013, 03:10:38 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
They do.

http://www.patriarhia.ro/
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
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: 37,626



« Reply #240 on: September 17, 2013, 03:16:49 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
No, it just accepted Toledo's corruption, after fighting it for centuries.

Is is still a clarification when it confuses everything?
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: 1,103


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #241 on: September 17, 2013, 03:27:33 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?

No, they don't, as St. Maximus proved when he wrote that the Latins of his time meant the Filioque in a non-causal sense.

The Latins have always taught it. Numerous writings attest to it. In fact Pope Saint Leo I, defined the true doctrine of the two natures of Christ as the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, in a letter to Bishop St. Turibius of Astoga in 447:

"Thus, in the first chapter it is shown what impious notions they hold concerning the divine Trinity, when they assert that there is one and the same person of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, as though the same God should at one time be named Father, at another time Son, at another time Holy Spirit; and as though there were not one Who begat, another Who is begotten, another Who proceeds from both."

Latin:

primo itaque capitulo demonstratur quam impie sentiant de Trinitate divina, qui et Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti unam atque eandem asserunt esse personam, tamquam idem Deus nunc Pater nunc Filius nunc Spiritus Sanctus nominetur; nec alius sit qui genuit, alius qui genitus est, alius qui de utroque procedit.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 03:33:14 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: 1,103


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #242 on: September 17, 2013, 04:22:54 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
They do.

http://www.patriarhia.ro/

LOL
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
JoeS2
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,123


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


« Reply #243 on: September 17, 2013, 04:26:11 PM »

Suffice it to say:  The Latins want it in the Creed, and the Orthodox consider it heresy...... ♫ ♪  Lets call the whole thing off ♫  ♪

We aint budging, and Im sure the RCC aren't.  

Lets move on  !
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 04:26:34 PM by JoeS2 » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #244 on: September 17, 2013, 04:27:14 PM »

Suffice it to say:  The Latins want it in the Creed, and the Orthodox consider it heresy...... ♫ ♪  Lets call the whole thing off ♫  ♪

We aint budging, and Im sure the RCC aren't.  

Lets move on  !
The wisest, most insightful, and important post in the thread. Smiley
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
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: 37,626



« Reply #245 on: September 17, 2013, 04:50:26 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?

No, they don't, as St. Maximus proved when he wrote that the Latins of his time meant the Filioque in a non-causal sense.

The Latins have always taught it. Numerous writings attest to it. In fact Pope Saint Leo I, defined the true doctrine of the two natures of Christ as the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son
just when you thought the filioque couldn't muddle things further....
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: 17,100


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #246 on: September 17, 2013, 05:00:49 PM »

Suffice it to say:  The Latins want it in the Creed, and the Orthodox consider it heresy...... ♫ ♪  Lets call the whole thing off ♫  ♪

We aint budging, and Im sure the RCC aren't.  

Lets move on  !
The wisest, most insightful, and important post in the thread. Smiley

Quote
I Kings 3 (RSV)

16 Then two harlots came to the king, and stood before him. 17 The one woman said, “Oh, my lord, this woman and I dwell in the same house; and I gave birth to a child while she was in the house. 18 Then on the third day after I was delivered, this woman also gave birth; and we were alone; there was no one else with us in the house, only we two were in the house. 19 And this woman’s son died in the night, because she lay on it. 20 And she arose at midnight, and took my son from beside me, while your maidservant slept, and laid it in her bosom, and laid her dead son in my bosom. 21 When I rose in the morning to nurse my child, behold, it was dead; but when I looked at it closely in the morning, behold, it was not the child that I had borne.” 22 But the other woman said, “No, the living child is mine, and the dead child is yours.” The first said, “No, the dead child is yours, and the living child is mine.” Thus they spoke before the king.

23 Then the king said, “The one says, ‘This is my son that is alive, and your son is dead’; and the other says, ‘No; but your son is dead, and my son is the living one.’” 24 And the king said, “Bring me a sword.” So a sword was brought before the king. 25 And the king said, “Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other.” 26 Then the woman whose son was alive said to the king, because her heart yearned for her son, “Oh, my lord, give her the living child, and by no means slay it.” But the other said, “It shall be neither mine nor yours; divide it.” 27 Then the king answered and said, “Give the living child to the first woman, and by no means slay it; she is its mother.” 28 And all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had rendered; and they stood in awe of the king, because they perceived that the wisdom of God was in him, to render justice.
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 #247 on: September 17, 2013, 05:07:35 PM »

But the Holy Spirit does not proceed hypostatically from the Son.
I agree.
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 #248 on: September 17, 2013, 06:46:00 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

Very bad argument, if it is a necesity for Christ to be God, then the Holy Spirit who does not have it is not God. Great logic!  Cheesy
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 #249 on: September 17, 2013, 06:49:36 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.

False. If what you say is true, since we Orthodox deny that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, that means in our theology, according to your argument, Christ is not God. Wich would make us kind of arians. And then it is not a semantic issue but a theological one, and your appeal to Kalistos Ware is irelevant.

Vatican logic is full of surprises. Aristotle is pleading innocent.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #250 on: September 17, 2013, 07:43:49 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.

False. If what you say is true, since we Orthodox deny that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, that means in our theology, according to your argument, Christ is not God. Wich would make us kind of arians. And then it is not a semantic issue but a theological one, and your appeal to Kalistos Ware is irelevant.

Vatican logic is full of surprises. Aristotle is pleading innocent.
I don't think you are an Arian. Just mistaken.  Grin
Logged

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

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #251 on: September 17, 2013, 07:48:29 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.

False. If what you say is true, since we Orthodox deny that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, that means in our theology, according to your argument, Christ is not God. Wich would make us kind of arians. And then it is not a semantic issue but a theological one, and your appeal to Kalistos Ware is irelevant.

Vatican logic is full of surprises. Aristotle is pleading innocent.
I don't think you are an Arian. Just mistaken.  Grin

Then also is Wandile  Smiley
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
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: 1,103


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #252 on: September 17, 2013, 08:16:20 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

Very bad argument, if it is a necesity for Christ to be God, then the Holy Spirit who does not have it is not God. Great logic!  Cheesy

Shows your lack,of logic. Personhood in the trinity is a factor, since the Holy Spirit is who he is, he does not proceed from himself... Just as the fathers and son's Personhood have certain things that apply to them too.
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: 1,103


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #253 on: September 17, 2013, 08:23:08 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.

False. If what you say is true, since we Orthodox deny that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, that means in our theology, according to your argument, Christ is not God. Wich would make us kind of arians. And then it is not a semantic issue but a theological one, and your appeal to Kalistos Ware is irelevant.

Vatican logic is full of surprises. Aristotle is pleading innocent.

Nope because this is all in the frame of procedit not the Greek term. A lot of the time this is a misunderstanding. You guys in your theology with relation to the Greek term are correct. Latin theology in relation to procedit is correct to. You theology does not deny the sons divinity.
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
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #254 on: September 17, 2013, 09:25:53 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

Very bad argument, if it is a necesity for Christ to be God, then the Holy Spirit who does not have it is not God. Great logic!  Cheesy

Shows your lack,of logic. Personhood in the trinity is a factor, since the Holy Spirit is who he is, he does not proceed from himself... Just as the fathers and son's Personhood have certain things that apply to them too.

We really see how bad it is when philosophy replaces revelation. You say if HS does not proceed from the Son, then the Son is not God. Well by that logic if the HS does not have anything proceeding from him, he is not God either. That's all.
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 #255 on: September 17, 2013, 09:26:39 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.

False. If what you say is true, since we Orthodox deny that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, that means in our theology, according to your argument, Christ is not God. Wich would make us kind of arians. And then it is not a semantic issue but a theological one, and your appeal to Kalistos Ware is irelevant.

Vatican logic is full of surprises. Aristotle is pleading innocent.

Nope because this is all in the frame of procedit not the Greek term. A lot of the time this is a misunderstanding. You guys in your theology with relation to the Greek term are correct. Latin theology in relation to procedit is correct to. You theology does not deny the sons divinity.

No it does not, but since we deny your all procedit thing, you must say that we do, if not in intention, de facto. You must keep in line with your argumentation.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 09:27:17 PM 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
lovesupreme
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 883



« Reply #256 on: September 17, 2013, 09:46:19 PM »

And I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord and giver of life,
Who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
that is, if by "proceeds," one means...
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 09:46:35 PM by lovesupreme » Logged

I am prone to bouts of sarcasm. Please forgive me if my posts have offended you.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,100


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #257 on: September 17, 2013, 09:58:37 PM »

Nope because this is all in the frame of procedit not the Greek term. A lot of the time this is a misunderstanding. You guys in your theology with relation to the Greek term are correct. Latin theology in relation to procedit is correct to. You theology does not deny the sons divinity.

You keep bouncing around the issue without actually taking a stand. 

You say that Orthodox theology, related as it is to the Greek term, is correct, and that Latin theology, related as it is to the Latin term, is also correct. 

But you also assert that the Greek term is interested in origins, while the Latin term is interested in motion. 

But when asked how the Latins were able to (mis)translate the Greek term so that it no longer means what the Greek means because it is no longer talking about the same concept, you want to say that the Latin term indicates both origin and motion. 

But when asked how that doesn't make the Son an "origin" of the Spirit, you say it doesn't--that it means origin when it refers to the Father and motion when it refers to the Son, even if that's not at all the plain sense of the Latin.

The common thread in all of this is "The Pope is never wrong".   
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
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,393


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #258 on: September 17, 2013, 10:19:08 PM »

This thread makes my head spin. I am reminded of a long ago autumn when as a college sophomore I thought I knew it all after five weeks of Logic 201. Boy was I wrong......Unfortunately, others apparently didn't reach a similar conclusion about their own skill set.

Kipling said it best, "East is east, west is west and never the twain shall meet."
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,626



« Reply #259 on: September 17, 2013, 10:51:54 PM »

This thread makes my head spin. I am reminded of a long ago autumn when as a college sophomore I thought I knew it all after five weeks of Logic 201. Boy was I wrong......Unfortunately, others apparently didn't reach a similar conclusion about their own skill set.

Kipling said it best, "East is east, west is west and never the twain shall meet."

Kipling was wrong.


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
TheMathematician
Banished and Disgraced
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 1,464


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #260 on: September 17, 2013, 11:36:34 PM »

Let's solve this problem, and only recite the Creed in the Greek that it was written in, to avoid these types of confusion. For, even the Pope Emetrius Benedict XVI refused to say and the Son in Greek, because he knew it was heretical.
Logged

SCREW BON JOVI!
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,197


« Reply #261 on: September 17, 2013, 11:39:51 PM »

The Orthodox Church does fine reciting it in English and many other languages that are not Greek. I think encouraging the Latins to come to the truth is the better option in the long run, even if it takes forever.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 11:40:52 PM by dzheremi » Logged

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

Posts: 9,226


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #262 on: September 18, 2013, 05:07:04 AM »

"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.

False. If what you say is true, since we Orthodox deny that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, that means in our theology, according to your argument, Christ is not God. Wich would make us kind of arians. And then it is not a semantic issue but a theological one, and your appeal to Kalistos Ware is irelevant.

Vatican logic is full of surprises. Aristotle is pleading innocent.

Nope because this is all in the frame of procedit not the Greek term. A lot of the time this is a misunderstanding. You guys in your theology with relation to the Greek term are correct. Latin theology in relation to procedit is correct to. You theology does not deny the sons divinity.

But the definition of the Council of Florence is definitely heretical.
Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #263 on: September 18, 2013, 11:04:38 AM »

"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.

False. If what you say is true, since we Orthodox deny that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, that means in our theology, according to your argument, Christ is not God. Wich would make us kind of arians. And then it is not a semantic issue but a theological one, and your appeal to Kalistos Ware is irelevant.

Vatican logic is full of surprises. Aristotle is pleading innocent.

Nope because this is all in the frame of procedit not the Greek term. A lot of the time this is a misunderstanding. You guys in your theology with relation to the Greek term are correct. Latin theology in relation to procedit is correct to. You theology does not deny the sons divinity.

But the definition of the Council of Florence is definitely heretical.
Or definitely not. Smiley
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
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: 1,103


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #264 on: September 18, 2013, 12:01:13 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.

False. If what you say is true, since we Orthodox deny that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, that means in our theology, according to your argument, Christ is not God. Wich would make us kind of arians. And then it is not a semantic issue but a theological one, and your appeal to Kalistos Ware is irelevant.

Vatican logic is full of surprises. Aristotle is pleading innocent.

Nope because this is all in the frame of procedit not the Greek term. A lot of the time this is a misunderstanding. You guys in your theology with relation to the Greek term are correct. Latin theology in relation to procedit is correct to. You theology does not deny the sons divinity.

But the definition of the Council of Florence is definitely heretical.
Or definitely not. Smiley

Indeed
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: 1,103


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #265 on: September 18, 2013, 12:03:46 PM »

The Orthodox Church does fine reciting it in English and many other languages that are not Greek. I think encouraging the Latins to come to the truth is the better option in the long run, even if it takes forever.

This goes without saying but we have the truth already.
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: 1,103


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #266 on: September 18, 2013, 12:19:30 PM »

Nope because this is all in the frame of procedit not the Greek term. A lot of the time this is a misunderstanding. You guys in your theology with relation to the Greek term are correct. Latin theology in relation to procedit is correct to. You theology does not deny the sons divinity.

You keep bouncing around the issue without actually taking a stand.  

No I took a stand. You just refuse to recognize it. Can't help you with that.

Quote
You say that Orthodox theology, related as it is to the Greek term, is correct, and that Latin theology, related as it is to the Latin term, is also correct.
Yes

Quote
But you also assert that the Greek term is interested in origins, while the Latin term is interested in motion.  
Not just assert, but in fact IS THE CASE.

Quote
But when asked how the Latins were able to (mis)translate the Greek term so that it no longer means what the Greek means because it is no longer talking about the same concept, you want to say that the Latin term indicates both origin and motion.  

It doesn't and I never said it did. Read further down.

Quote
when asked how that doesn't make the Son an "origin" of the Spirit, you say it doesn't--that it means origin when it refers to the Father and motion when it refers to the Son, even if that's not at all the plain sense of the Latin.

No the  Latin term means what the Latin term means, "to go forth". However I was explaining Latin filioque in the creed keeping in mind the original Greek meaning coupled with the Latin meaning due to the use of procedit. And BOOM!... You have a logical explanation.

If you neglect the original Greek meaning then STILL the filioque is orthodox as all the creed is saying (in the strictly Latin sense) is ... " We believe in the Holy Spirit... Who goes forth (proceeds/ procedit) from the father and the son..."

But of course we don't neglect the original Greek meaning and that's why I explained the creed that way to you

Quote
The common thread in all of this is "The Pope is never wrong".  

When speaking from the chair on faith and morals, yeah, he's never wrong... Charism of the Holy Spirit baby  Cool
« Last Edit: September 18, 2013, 12:22:57 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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #267 on: September 18, 2013, 12:21:43 PM »


When speaking from the chair on faith and morals, yeah, he's never wrong... Charism of the Holy Spirit baby  Cool

The Holy Spirit who, btw, proceeds from the Father and the Son. Smiley
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
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 #268 on: September 18, 2013, 12:27:03 PM »

But the definition of the Council of Florence is definitely heretical.
What is certain is that the Greek text of the decree of Florence does not conform to St. Maximus' letter to Marinus, because the decree affirms that the Son is the cause of the subsistent being (ύπαρχτιχόν είναι) of the Holy Spirit "just like the Father," while St. Maximus says that the Father is the only cause of the Son by generation (γέννησιν), and that He alone (i.e., the Father) is the cause of the Holy Spirit by procession (ἐκπόρευσιν). I still think that the only way to even begin to move beyond the historic impasse on this issue is for the West to distinguish between ἐκπόρευσις and προϊέναι when translating texts from the Greek into Latin.

Here again is my proposal:

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
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,100


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #269 on: September 18, 2013, 12:49:17 PM »

Quote
when asked how that doesn't make the Son an "origin" of the Spirit, you say it doesn't--that it means origin when it refers to the Father and motion when it refers to the Son, even if that's not at all the plain sense of the Latin.

No the  Latin term means what the Latin term means, "to go forth". However I was explaining Latin filioque in the creed keeping in mind the original Greek meaning coupled with the Latin meaning due to the use of procedit. And BOOM!... You have a logical explanation.

Not really, you had an explanation riddled with parenthetical phrases intended to preserve an orthodox understanding of the Holy Spirit's origin from the Father and his economic sending forth from the Son when the same could have been done by omitting Filioque in the first place. 

Quote
If you neglect the original Greek meaning then STILL the filioque is orthodox as all the creed is saying (in the strictly Latin sense) is ... " We believe in the Holy Spirit... Who goes forth (proceeds/ procedit) from the father and the son..."

If you eliminate from your Latin "procedit" the Greek sense of "origin", then all you've got left is "motion" or economy.  That's fine, but...

Quote
But of course we don't neglect the original Greek meaning and that's why I explained the creed that way to you

...you don't take this to its logical conclusion.  If you don't neglect--but rather acknowledge as valid--the "original Greek meaning", then you have to admit that the Greek term only allows for "origin" and not "motion".  Your answer to that is to say that the Latin term encompasses both meanings, and so you come up with this mouthful:

" 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's not how your Creed reads.  That's how you want us to believe you mean it, but you can't prove that conclusively from your own Church's historical records, nor can you argue that this is the plain sense of the Latin text or its various translations.  Heck, apparently even in Dutch it's translated in a heterodox way even though that language supposedly has terms that would assure an orthodox interpretation (if Cyrillic, as a native speaker who is also conversant in Greek and Latin, is to be believed).  Is that because the Dutch RC bishops don't know their own faith?  Or is it because they understand Filioque--on its face and consistent with Latin teaching as opposed to Orthodox teaching--to be their faith?   
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
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 0.21 seconds with 72 queries.