Author Topic: Keep the Filioque  (Read 75975 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kyrillios Anthonios

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #405 on: April 17, 2015, 07:13:30 AM »
The Fathers spoke by convenience of language. They said "from the Father and the Son" and "from Both", meaning to say "from the Father through the Son". It is a matter of convenience of speech.

They in fact have clarified their meaning for us, either in the same passage when the expression is used or in different passages.

But none of them ever taught that the Son is an Origin and Cause in Eternal Spiration.

Offline Kyrillios Anthonios

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #406 on: April 17, 2015, 07:14:34 AM »
I will put this simply:

Do you say that the Son is an origin and cause of the Holy Spirit?

Offline JoeS2

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,662
  • St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #407 on: April 17, 2015, 10:30:36 AM »
The same St. Leo III who wrote those words confessed dogmatically the doctrine of the Filioque, though he did not wish to add it to the Creed at the time. He stated, "the Holy Spirit, proceeding equally from the Father and from the Son, consubstantial, coeternal with the Father and the Son. The Father, complete God in Himself, the Son, complete God begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit, complete God proceeding from the Father and the Son..." ("Spiritum Sanctum a Patre et a Filio aequaliter procedentem, consubstantialem, coaeternum Patri et Filio. Pater plenus Deus in se, Filius plenus Deus a Patre genitus, Spiritus Sanctus plenus Deus a Patre et Filio procedens." )

Patriarch St. Tarasius of Constantinople acknowledged the East has always believed what is denied by some posters here, "And in the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father through the Son, and Who is acknowledged to be Himself God." (ο Πνευμα το αγιον, το κυριον και ζωοποιον, το εκ του Πατροσ δια του Υιου εκπορευομενον.)

Numerous other Popes, Saints, Fathers and Doctors have declared the doctrine that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. St. Leo the Great, "as though there were not one Who begat, another Who is begotten, another Who proceeds from both.", Pope St. Hormisdas, "characteristic of the Spirit to proceed from Father and Son in one substance of deity.", the rejection of the doctrine professed here by a small section in Constantinople came much later.

Ok, if you are happy with this addition fine. We will stick with the original.

Offline Kyrillios Anthonios

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #408 on: April 17, 2015, 10:40:59 AM »
The Bishop of Rome Leo III of course affirmed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

But regarding the novelty and heresy that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son (as another Origin and Cause), he in accordance with his Orthodox Episcopal vow said:

"HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI"

"I, Leo, put this here for love and protection of Orthodox Faith"

He was doing his job as an Orthodox Hierarch.  It was for love and protection of Orthodox Faith.

In fact, Unity of Faith is the basis of Church Unity.  And this is what all Orthodox Hierarchs are sworn to uphold.

Offline Xavier

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 415
  • Slave of Love consecrated to the Heart of Jesus.
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #409 on: April 17, 2015, 10:57:53 AM »
Yes, Joe, I am happy and would be happy if all Christians professed together the dogma that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, or from the Father and through the Son, as St. Leo III and St. Tarasius have done. Before we come to discipline, we must settle the doctrine. Is the doctrine of the Filioque true?

For centuries before 1054 A.D. and the controversies between Rome and Caerularius, or even 860-880 and those with Photius, the Church of Rome had dogmatically professed as a confession of Catholic Faith necessary for salvation, "The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; not made, not begotten, but proceeding", St. Fulgentius says "Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the same Holy Spirit, the One Spirit of the Father and the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son. That He proceeds also from the Son is supported by the teaching both of Prophets and Apostles." and St. Isidore, "The Holy Spirit is called God because He proceeds from the Father and the Son and has Their essence ... There is, however, this difference between generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, that the Son is begotten of One, but the Spirit proceeds from Both." Therefore, there can be no dispute about the doctrine itself to us Catholics, nor does the Church ask the Orthodox to profess anything other than what these Fathers professed.

As for the issue of the addition in the Creed, Rome never insisted, even at Florence, when Latins and Greeks confessed together the complementarity of the formulations "from the Father and the Son" and "from the Father through the Son", that the Greeks add the Filioque to their Creed. Filioque was added in the West to deal with local heresies, only those who had slighted the dignity of Christ in the West had historically tried to throw doubt on the Spirit's procession from the Son and it was dogmatically defined in order to anathematize them. Those who denied the doctrine of the Filioque also denied that the Holy Ghost is from the Father and through the Son, though this was professed by St. Tarasius at Nicaea II. The formula used by St. Tarasius was discarded by Photius and others among the Greeks, as Church historian Philip Schaff records, "Photius and the later Eastern controversialists dropped or rejected the per Filium, as being nearly equivalent to ex Filio or Filioque, or understood it as being applicable only to the mission of the Spirit, and emphasized the exclusiveness of the procession from the Father" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, volume IV, §108).

Kyrillios, the Latin West and the Greek East do not understand terms like cause and principle in the same way. Give me a common dogmatic definition of these terms, otherwise it will not be possible to have a common understanding of what is defined. Theological terms like cause are meant to explain the defined doctrine. We say the Father is cause of the Son and Spirit, whereas the Father gives to the Son by generation that the Spirit should proceed from Him as well. St. Cyril says, "in that the Son is God, and from God according to nature (for He has had His birth from God the Father), the Spirit is both proper to Him and in Him and from Him, just as, to be sure, the same thing is understood to hold true in the case of God the Father Himself." By the Son being cause do you mean that the Son has from the Father as "proper to His Person that the Spirit should be in and from Him", or do you mean something else? Define what you mean by "cause" precisely, for what St. Cyril says is what we mean, but I think we do not mean by cause the same thing you do.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2015, 11:00:22 AM by Xavier »
Locution, Aug 18, 2014: "They will realize that I have released an ocean of graces which have changed their darkness into light. They will realize that they have been freed from the past century of diabolical control. They will also know that this great gift has come through the consecration of Russia made by the Holy Father in communion with all the bishops in the world. http://locutions-forever.org/locutions/show/2014-08-18/1-the-overcoming-of-separation

Offline Kyrillios Anthonios

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #410 on: April 17, 2015, 11:03:46 AM »
"From the Father through the Son" does not make the Son an origin and cause of the Holy Spirit.

Give simple answer:  Do you confess according to Florence and Lyons that the Son is a secondary (not principle) and mediate (not immediate) origin and cause of the Holy Spirit?

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,217
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #411 on: April 17, 2015, 01:18:19 PM »
"From the Father through the Son" does not make the Son an origin and cause of the Holy Spirit.

Give simple answer:  Do you confess according to Florence and Lyons that the Son is a secondary (not principle) and mediate (not immediate) origin and cause of the Holy Spirit?

The position of Florence and Lyons is that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son as from one principle.
Quote
When a time revolts against eternity, the only thing to set against it is genuine eternity itself, and not some other time which has already roused, and not without reason, a violent reaction against itself.
- Berdyaev

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

Offline JoeS2

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,662
  • St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #412 on: April 17, 2015, 04:24:29 PM »
Yes, Joe, I am happy and would be happy if all Christians professed together the dogma that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, or from the Father and through the Son, as St. Leo III and St. Tarasius have done. Before we come to discipline, we must settle the doctrine. Is the doctrine of the Filioque true?

For centuries before 1054 A.D. and the controversies between Rome and Caerularius, or even 860-880 and those with Photius, the Church of Rome had dogmatically professed as a confession of Catholic Faith necessary for salvation, "The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; not made, not begotten, but proceeding", St. Fulgentius says "Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the same Holy Spirit, the One Spirit of the Father and the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son. That He proceeds also from the Son is supported by the teaching both of Prophets and Apostles." and St. Isidore, "The Holy Spirit is called God because He proceeds from the Father and the Son and has Their essence ... There is, however, this difference between generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, that the Son is begotten of One, but the Spirit proceeds from Both." Therefore, there can be no dispute about the doctrine itself to us Catholics, nor does the Church ask the Orthodox to profess anything other than what these Fathers professed.

As for the issue of the addition in the Creed, Rome never insisted, even at Florence, when Latins and Greeks confessed together the complementarity of the formulations "from the Father and the Son" and "from the Father through the Son", that the Greeks add the Filioque to their Creed. Filioque was added in the West to deal with local heresies, only those who had slighted the dignity of Christ in the West had historically tried to throw doubt on the Spirit's procession from the Son and it was dogmatically defined in order to anathematize them. Those who denied the doctrine of the Filioque also denied that the Holy Ghost is from the Father and through the Son, though this was professed by St. Tarasius at Nicaea II. The formula used by St. Tarasius was discarded by Photius and others among the Greeks, as Church historian Philip Schaff records, "Photius and the later Eastern controversialists dropped or rejected the per Filium, as being nearly equivalent to ex Filio or Filioque, or understood it as being applicable only to the mission of the Spirit, and emphasized the exclusiveness of the procession from the Father" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, volume IV, §108).

Kyrillios, the Latin West and the Greek East do not understand terms like cause and principle in the same way. Give me a common dogmatic definition of these terms, otherwise it will not be possible to have a common understanding of what is defined. Theological terms like cause are meant to explain the defined doctrine. We say the Father is cause of the Son and Spirit, whereas the Father gives to the Son by generation that the Spirit should proceed from Him as well. St. Cyril says, "in that the Son is God, and from God according to nature (for He has had His birth from God the Father), the Spirit is both proper to Him and in Him and from Him, just as, to be sure, the same thing is understood to hold true in the case of God the Father Himself." By the Son being cause do you mean that the Son has from the Father as "proper to His Person that the Spirit should be in and from Him", or do you mean something else? Define what you mean by "cause" precisely, for what St. Cyril says is what we mean, but I think we do not mean by cause the same thing you do.

Well, like I said before still goes......Im fine without the unauthorized addition.  I will stick with St. Mark EofE
« Last Edit: April 17, 2015, 04:25:48 PM by JoeS2 »

Online ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,323
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #413 on: April 18, 2015, 01:09:13 AM »
Christus resurrexit!
Yes, Joe, I am happy and would be happy if all Christians professed together the dogma that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, or from the Father and through the Son, as St. Leo III and St. Tarasius have done. Before we come to discipline, we must settle the doctrine. Is the doctrine of the Filioque true?
No.
For centuries before 1054 A.D. and the controversies between Rome and Caerularius, or even 860-880 and those with Photius, the Church of Rome had dogmatically professed as a confession of Catholic Faith necessary for salvation, "The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; not made, not begotten, but proceeding", St. Fulgentius says "Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the same Holy Spirit, the One Spirit of the Father and the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son. That He proceeds also from the Son is supported by the teaching both of Prophets and Apostles." and St. Isidore, "The Holy Spirit is called God because He proceeds from the Father and the Son and has Their essence ... There is, however, this difference between generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, that the Son is begotten of One, but the Spirit proceeds from Both." Therefore, there can be no dispute about the doctrine itself to us Catholics, nor does the Church ask the Orthodox to profess anything other than what these Fathers professed.
IOW instead of learning from their mistakes, repeating them. We Catholics can't do that.

Two brothers, natives of the homeland of the filioque heresy. Not much to recommend it to our Catholic Church.

Btw, the filioque requires that the Spirit both is begotten and proceeds. A manifest heresy.
As for the issue of the addition in the Creed, Rome never insisted, even at Florence, when Latins and Greeks confessed together the complementarity of the formulations "from the Father and the Son" and "from the Father through the Son", that the Greeks add the Filioque to their Creed.
The Vatican sent its envoy to insist that we "put it back" in 1054.
Filioque was added in the West to deal with local heresies, only those who had slighted the dignity of Christ in the West had historically tried to throw doubt on the Spirit's procession from the Son and it was dogmatically defined in order to anathematize them.
the Arians had no problem attributing the Spirit's origin to the Son.
Those who denied the doctrine of the Filioque also denied that the Holy Ghost is from the Father and through the Son, though this was professed by St. Tarasius at Nicaea II. The formula used by St. Tarasius was discarded by Photius and others among the Greeks, as Church historian Philip Schaff records, "Photius and the later Eastern controversialists dropped or rejected the per Filium, as being nearly equivalent to ex Filio or Filioque, or understood it as being applicable only to the mission of the Spirit, and emphasized the exclusiveness of the procession from the Father" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, volume IV, §108).
I'm always amused by the vestiges of the Vatican in your Protestant siblings.
Kyrillios, the Latin West and the Greek East do not understand terms like cause and principle in the same way. Give me a common dogmatic definition of these terms, otherwise it will not be possible to have a common understanding of what is defined. Theological terms like cause are meant to explain the defined doctrine. We say the Father is cause of the Son and Spirit, whereas the Father gives to the Son by generation that the Spirit should proceed from Him as well. St. Cyril says, "in that the Son is God, and from God according to nature (for He has had His birth from God the Father), the Spirit is both proper to Him and in Him and from Him, just as, to be sure, the same thing is understood to hold true in the case of God the Father Himself." By the Son being cause do you mean that the Son has from the Father as "proper to His Person that the Spirit should be in and from Him", or do you mean something else? Define what you mean by "cause" precisely, for what St. Cyril says is what we mean, but I think we do not mean by cause the same thing you do.
Pope St. Cyril meant the same as we do, not as Latin dogmatics have muddled. St. Augustine had the humility to admit that the answers were in the Greek books, but that he could not understand as he didn't speak Greek.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2015, 01:09:50 AM by ialmisry »
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

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,973
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #414 on: April 18, 2015, 01:22:42 AM »
"From the Father through the Son" does not make the Son an origin and cause of the Holy Spirit.

Give simple answer:  Do you confess according to Florence and Lyons that the Son is a secondary (not principle) and mediate (not immediate) origin and cause of the Holy Spirit?

The position of Florence and Lyons is that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son as from one principle.

Bingo, and that is where the real trouble begins, because even if it were true that the Son's relation to the Holy Spirit were causal, the consistent preference for the preposition "through" over the preposition "from" in the Greek Fathers would indicate that the Son's manner of causation is somehow secondary to the Father's manner of being cause (with respect to the Holy Spirit). This proposition is particularly troublesome, which is why the Latins quickly rejected that idea as a valid articulation for the Filioque (see the Summa, for example), as it implies a true double spiration from two principles. This is why the major disagreement between the East and West, which in my opinion, cannot simply be glossed over, is if the Church fathers in their multiple formulations to try to articulate the relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit (ex Patre Filioque procedit, δια του Υιου εκπορευεται, εκ του Υιου προεισι, κτλ.), meant to assign to the son the same power of spiration and causation as the Father. The Late Medieval Greeks consistently interpreted the Fathers as meaning a non-causal relationship (see Gregory Palamas or the Tomos of Blachernae), whereas their Latin contemporaries at Lyons and Floremce dogmatically confessed the opposite.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2015, 01:24:40 AM by Cavaradossi »
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Kyrillios Anthonios

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #415 on: April 18, 2015, 06:48:50 AM »
As from one principle, meaning from two sources (principally from the Father and secondarily from the Son), but simultaneously as from one principle.

Florence and Lyons indeed professed two origins and causes (principal and secondary causes) in the Godhead.

The Holy Orthodox Church, confessing the Faith Unchanged, condemns this heresy and innovation.

Ecclesiae Locuta Est.
Causa Finita Est.

Offline Xavier

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 415
  • Slave of Love consecrated to the Heart of Jesus.
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #416 on: April 18, 2015, 08:03:56 AM »
I'm amused that some Orthodox here recognize "from the Father through the Son" as doctrine and dogma, as indeed it is, while others deny and condemn it as a heresy. How can this be and who is right among yourselves?

Iconodule, if the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son, as St. Tarasius and with him many Greek Orthodox confess, then it is correct and necessary to say that the Holy Ghost proceeds as from one principle and by a single spiration and not from two principles or a dual spiration.

Kyrillios, I asked you to give a precise definition of cause agreed upon in East and West and applicable to the Godhead, can you please answer that? God alone is the cause of His Word and His Spirit, i.e. the Father is cause of the Son and the Holy Ghost if by cause you mean unoriginate source of divinity. The Father is the principle without principle, in Greek πηγή and αἰτία. But if by saying the Son is not cause, you mean in any way to deny that the Holy Ghost receives His eternal subsistence in hypostatic procession from the Father and the Son both, then you would be wrong. St. Maximus says, ""By nature (ϕυσει) the Holy Spirit in His being (κατ’ ουσιαν) takes substantially (ουσιοδως) His origin (εκπορευομενον) from the Father through the Son Who is begotten (δι’ Υιου γεννηθεντος)."

Iamistry, to establish the doctrine of the Filioque briefly, here are three Popes and three Fathers - St. Leo the Great, there is "One Who begat, another Who is begotten, another Who proceeds from Both", St. Gregory the Great, "The Spirit proceeds essentially from the Son." Pope St. Hormisdas, "characteristic of the Spirit to proceed from Father and Son in one substance of deity."

St. Ambrose, "The Holy Spirit also, when He proceeds from the Father and the Son, is not separated from the Father nor separated from the Son. For how could He be separated from the Father Who is the Spirit of His mouth? Which is certainly both a proof of His eternity, and expresses the Unity of this Godhead.", St. Athanasius, ""David sings in the psalm [35:10], saying: 'For with You is the font of Life;'because jointly with the Father the Son is indeed the font of the Holy Spirit." and finally you claim St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, for a view excluding substantial procession, but you are mistaken, the illustrious Doctor wrote, "the Spirit is from God the Father and, for that matter, from the Son, being poured forth substantially from both, that is to say, from the Father through the Son."

To omit other Scriptural proofs in light of this Tradition, we will consider three quick ones. First, St. John the Apostle says, "And he showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb." (the word used is derived from εκπόρευσις) and St. Ambrose comments, "This is certainly the River proceeding from the throne of God, that is, the Holy Spirit, Whom he drinks who believes in Christ, as He Himself says ... But this spoke He of the Spirit. (John 7:37-38) Therefore the river is the Spirit.", second, as we saw above, St. Ambrose, St. Athanasius and the other Fathers say the Spirit is signified as Life in the sacred writings, and so when the Son of God says, "For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself" (Jn 5:26), He establishes what the Catholic Church teaches through so many Doctors, that in generating the Son, the Father gave to Him that the Spirit should be in Him and proceed from Him as well. And St. Augustine furnishes the third plain Scriptural demonstration that the Holy Ghost proceeds ontologically also from the Son, "The Father begot a Son and, by begetting Him, gave it to Him that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him as well. If He did not proceed from Him, He would not say to His disciples, "Receive the Holy Spirit" [Jn 20:22], and give the Spirit by breathing on them. He signified that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from Him and showed outwardly by blowing what He was giving inwardly by breathing."
« Last Edit: April 18, 2015, 08:04:20 AM by Xavier »
Locution, Aug 18, 2014: "They will realize that I have released an ocean of graces which have changed their darkness into light. They will realize that they have been freed from the past century of diabolical control. They will also know that this great gift has come through the consecration of Russia made by the Holy Father in communion with all the bishops in the world. http://locutions-forever.org/locutions/show/2014-08-18/1-the-overcoming-of-separation

Offline Kyrillios Anthonios

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #417 on: April 18, 2015, 10:31:51 AM »
Which Orthodox Christians deny from the Father through the Son?

Florence and Lyons had professed the Filioque clearly:  That the Son is a secondary cause and origin of the Holy Spirit.

The Church condemns and anathematizes the heresy of two origins and causes in the Godhead.  This remains forever unto the ages of ages.  Amen.

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,217
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #418 on: April 18, 2015, 11:13:51 AM »
Which Orthodox Christians deny from the Father through the Son?

Florence and Lyons had professed the Filioque clearly:  That the Son is a secondary cause and origin of the Holy Spirit.

Yes and no. Montenero did seem to informally introduce the concept of two causes but when Mark pressed him to clarify his terminology, that session came to an end and Mark grudgingly allowed the next session to skip that point. It seems Montenero realized the problems in his argument and did not make it again. The "as from one principle" clause was intended to assuage Orthodox objections to the idea that there are two causes or even two essences. The final dogmatic position of Florence (in Laetentur Caeli) is that the Holy Spirit is caused by the Father; however, the causation of the Spirit is also granted to the Son insofar as the Son has everything the Father does excluding Fatherhood. This position is of course problematic as it seems based on the unity of essence between Father and Son. Since the Spirit likewise shares that essence, why don't we say that the Spirit begets the Son? 
Quote
When a time revolts against eternity, the only thing to set against it is genuine eternity itself, and not some other time which has already roused, and not without reason, a violent reaction against itself.
- Berdyaev

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

Offline Kyrillios Anthonios

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #419 on: April 18, 2015, 11:25:24 AM »
The Son has everything that the Father has, except the Hypostasis of the Father.  And it is the Hypostasis of the Father that begets and spirates.

The Latins didn't and still do not understand Theology.  They think spirating is not the Hypostatic Essence of the Father, and that's why they pass this Hypostatic Essence to the Son.

Unity of Essence signifies Consubstantiality, not the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and from the Son (as secondary origin and cause).

Florence and Lyons had professed the heretical Filioque.  The Church has condemned it.  Amen.

Offline Xavier

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 415
  • Slave of Love consecrated to the Heart of Jesus.
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #420 on: April 18, 2015, 12:18:58 PM »
Quote
Which Orthodox Christians deny from the Father through the Son?

Ialmisry stated above he did not believe it. Historically, there has always been a party in Constantinople that denied eternal procession of the Spirit and claimed the Fathers spoke only of temporal mission. This is admitted by Orthodox and other ecclesiastical historians. You also didn't define precisely what you mean by cause. You have to use terms carefully when we are speaking of the inner life of the Godhead.

To say the Latins don't understand theology is far from the truth. The Catholic Greeks who returned to or at least sincerely desired union with the Holy See understood this well and professed to believe what Rome had always believed and professed. The dissident Greeks didn't and don't understand Catholic theology and have departed from the teaching of their own Fathers. St. Thomas Aquinas had already expressed the complementarity of the formulations "from the Father through the Son" and "from the Father and the Son" explaining the Filioque is absolutely necessary to preserve distinction of Person and unity of Essence in the consubstantial Trinity. The Holy Ghost could not be distinguished from the Son if both came forth from the Father without an eternal relationship between them, as St. Isidore had said long ago. Therefore, there is an eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit and this consists in the fact that the Son receives as proper to His Person from the Father that the Spirit proceeds also from Him. If you deny that the Father and the Son communicate consubstantial divinity to the Spirit in the ineffable eternal act of procession or spiration, you deny the plain teaching of Scripture and Tradition above.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2015, 12:19:15 PM by Xavier »
Locution, Aug 18, 2014: "They will realize that I have released an ocean of graces which have changed their darkness into light. They will realize that they have been freed from the past century of diabolical control. They will also know that this great gift has come through the consecration of Russia made by the Holy Father in communion with all the bishops in the world. http://locutions-forever.org/locutions/show/2014-08-18/1-the-overcoming-of-separation

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,196
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #421 on: April 18, 2015, 01:16:02 PM »
Quote
Which Orthodox Christians deny from the Father through the Son?

Ialmisry stated above he did not believe it. Historically, there has always been a party in Constantinople that denied eternal procession of the Spirit and claimed the Fathers spoke only of temporal mission. This is admitted by Orthodox and other ecclesiastical historians. You also didn't define precisely what you mean by cause. You have to use terms carefully when we are speaking of the inner life of the Godhead.

To say the Latins don't understand theology is far from the truth. The Catholic Greeks who returned to or at least sincerely desired union with the Holy See understood this well and professed to believe what Rome had always believed and professed. The dissident Greeks didn't and don't understand Catholic theology and have departed from the teaching of their own Fathers. St. Thomas Aquinas had already expressed the complementarity of the formulations "from the Father through the Son" and "from the Father and the Son" explaining the Filioque is absolutely necessary to preserve distinction of Person and unity of Essence in the consubstantial Trinity. The Holy Ghost could not be distinguished from the Son if both came forth from the Father without an eternal relationship between them, as St. Isidore had said long ago. Therefore, there is an eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit and this consists in the fact that the Son receives as proper to His Person from the Father that the Spirit proceeds also from Him. If you deny that the Father and the Son communicate consubstantial divinity to the Spirit in the ineffable eternal act of procession or spiration, you deny the plain teaching of Scripture and Tradition above.
Amen
The mystery of Faith!

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end.Amen
« Last Edit: April 18, 2015, 01:19:02 PM by Wandile »
I do not post here anymore until the end of the year. God bless.

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,675
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: Yekmalian Monoculture
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #422 on: April 18, 2015, 01:29:21 PM »
Is the Son eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit?  If not, why not?
Mor Ephrem is a nice guy.  Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

thank you so much Mor ephrem you are a hero!

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,133
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #423 on: April 18, 2015, 01:30:49 PM »
Quote
Which Orthodox Christians deny from the Father through the Son?

Ialmisry stated above he did not believe it. Historically, there has always been a party in Constantinople that denied eternal procession of the Spirit and claimed the Fathers spoke only of temporal mission. This is admitted by Orthodox and other ecclesiastical historians. You also didn't define precisely what you mean by cause. You have to use terms carefully when we are speaking of the inner life of the Godhead.

To say the Latins don't understand theology is far from the truth. The Catholic Greeks who returned to or at least sincerely desired union with the Holy See understood this well and professed to believe what Rome had always believed and professed. The dissident Greeks didn't and don't understand Catholic theology and have departed from the teaching of their own Fathers. St. Thomas Aquinas had already expressed the complementarity of the formulations "from the Father through the Son" and "from the Father and the Son" explaining the Filioque is absolutely necessary to preserve distinction of Person and unity of Essence in the consubstantial Trinity. The Holy Ghost could not be distinguished from the Son if both came forth from the Father without an eternal relationship between them, as St. Isidore had said long ago. Therefore, there is an eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit and this consists in the fact that the Son receives as proper to His Person from the Father that the Spirit proceeds also from Him. If you deny that the Father and the Son communicate consubstantial divinity to the Spirit in the ineffable eternal act of procession or spiration, you deny the plain teaching of Scripture and Tradition above.

The fact that you think Aquinas the "own father" of "the dissident Greeks" doesn't raise my hopes that you know what you're talking about otherwise.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,196
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #424 on: April 18, 2015, 01:48:48 PM »
Is the Son eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit?  If not, why not?

No as the property to beget is of the Father alone. It is why he is called the Father.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2015, 01:50:12 PM by Wandile »
I do not post here anymore until the end of the year. God bless.

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,133
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #425 on: April 18, 2015, 02:09:23 PM »
Is the Son eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit?  If not, why not?

No as the property to beget is of the Father alone. It is why he is called the Father.

Many fundamental differences in theological understanding hiding behind "filioque."
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,196
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #426 on: April 18, 2015, 02:15:59 PM »
Is the Son eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit?  If not, why not?

No as the property to beget is of the Father alone. It is why he is called the Father.

Many fundamental differences in theological understanding hiding behind "filioque."

Between who?

I would like to think EO believe this too? The Father is the only one who has the property to beget yes? Hence "Father" ...
« Last Edit: April 18, 2015, 02:17:08 PM by Wandile »
I do not post here anymore until the end of the year. God bless.

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,133
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #427 on: April 18, 2015, 02:20:38 PM »
You're limiting him to begetter. (And lowering the Spirit into a more-removed relationship to him.) But nice sophistical dodge.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2015, 02:23:31 PM by Porter ODoran »
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,675
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: Yekmalian Monoculture
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #428 on: April 18, 2015, 02:39:17 PM »
Is the Son eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit?  If not, why not?

No as the property to beget is of the Father alone. It is why he is called the Father.

But the claim above was that the Spirit needs to proceed from Father and Son in order to preserve the distinction of persons.  If the Spirit must come from the Father and the Son in order for that distinction to be preserved, how come the Son doesn't need to come from the Father and the Spirit?  "Begetter"/"begotten" would seem only to address the relationship between two of the persons, it says nothing about the third.  How is the third distinct from the second? 
Mor Ephrem is a nice guy.  Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

thank you so much Mor ephrem you are a hero!

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,973
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #429 on: April 18, 2015, 02:47:20 PM »
Quote
Which Orthodox Christians deny from the Father through the Son?
Ialmisry stated above he did not believe it. Historically, there has always been a party in Constantinople that denied eternal procession of the Spirit and claimed the Fathers spoke only of temporal mission. This is admitted by Orthodox and other ecclesiastical historians.

Perhaps we have read different historians, but after Blachernae and the vindication of St. Gregory Palamas a few centuries after that, the belief of a purely temporal relationship between the Son and Spirit was no longer possible, as it had become an official point of doctrine that the Son eternally manifests the Spirit. That some previously thought otherwise should be of no consequence, since it is also true that some Latins historically seemed to teach a distinction between how the Spirit proceeds from the Father and how the Spirit proceeds from the Son (implying two principles). What needs to be addressed is the official position taken by both sides, as it is fallacious to argue against historical perspectives rather than actual points of doctrine. It might be fruitful to investigate why those ideas fell out of favor, but you should be careful not to pass historical positions which fell out of favor after a synodal ruling officially accepted a rival theory as being official positions of some confessional body.

You also didn't define precisely what you mean by cause. You have to use terms carefully when we are speaking of the inner life of the Godhead.

I find this somewhat tortuous, I must admit, this idea that cause must be carefully defined. Since at least the time of St. Basil the Great, cause in trinitarian theology has been understood to mean priority in a logical sense and (obviously) not in a temporal sense.

To say the Latins don't understand theology is far from the truth.

Far better to point out that they were ignorant of Greek, and thus could not recognize the difference between verbs like εκπορευεσθαι, προιεναι, εκχειν, κτλ. The Latins were capable of good philosophical inquiry, but on this matter, they were mistaken, being impoverished from their lack of access to the Greek Fathers in the original Greek.

The Catholic Greeks who returned to or at least sincerely desired union with the Holy See understood this well and professed to believe what Rome had always believed and professed.


The heretical Greeks, you mean, gobbled up the Latin party line, and received generous worldly accommodations for it (just look at Bessarion). But they were always few in number for the fact that they could convince so very few to abandon the doctrines of the Greek Fathers for the innovations of some late Medieval Latins.

The dissident Greeks didn't and don't understand Catholic theology and have departed from the teaching of their own Fathers.

The Catholic Greeks you mean, confessed the truth, and held fast to the doctrine of the Fathers both East and West. It is telling, for example, that the only party which wished to make use of St. Maximus' letter to Marinus as the grounds for reconciliation at Florence was the Greek party. The Latins could not accept it, because their doctrines had become so alien to the doctrines of the Fathers.

St. Thomas Aquinas had already expressed the complementarity of the formulations "from the Father through the Son" and "from the Father and the Son" explaining the Filioque is absolutely necessary to preserve distinction of Person and unity of Essence in the consubstantial Trinity.

He asserted that, it is true, but that he demonstrated it to be true is far from self-evident. It could also very well be the case that two formulae are complimentary in the sense give by St. Maximus in his letter to Marinus.

The Holy Ghost could not be distinguished from the Son if both came forth from the Father without an eternal relationship between them, as St. Isidore had said long ago.

Other saints, notably, St. Gregory the Theologian and St. John of Damascus explicitly denied this, noting that the mode of origination differs between the two, which is why one mode is more properly called γεννηθηναι and the other εκπορευεσθαι. Unlike the Latins, the Greek Fathers did not regard the two as being perfect and indistinct processions (only distinguishable by their source), but as being the personal acts of one hypostasis (the Father) causing the others.

Therefore, there is an eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit

We agree so far.

and this consists in the fact that the Son receives as proper to His Person from the Father that the Spirit proceeds also from Him. If you deny that the Father and the Son communicate consubstantial divinity to the Spirit in the ineffable eternal act of procession or spiration, you deny the plain teaching of Scripture and Tradition above.

And here we disagree. Firstly, Scripture has it from the mouth of the Lord himself that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Secondly, you then inaccurately have stated above that the Son has a relation to the Holy Spirit. That is manifestly false because in the Latin digmatic scheme of the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son as one principle, the Son only relates to the Spirit insofar as the Son forms a unity with the Father, which is to say that the Son does not truly have an eternal relationship with the Spirit, but rather that the Father and the Son have an eternal relationship with the Holy Spirit.

This leads directly into Vladimir Lossky's criticism that the Filioque prevents there from being any absolute diversity of the trinitarian persons, because rather than yielding a triad which is also a monad in its relation to one cause, the Filioque yields two dyadic-monadic structures, a Father-Son dyad which collapses (because the dyad is inherently unstable) into a monad in its relation to the Holy Spirit, yielding yet another dyad, a (Father-Son)-Holy Spirit dyad (where the Father and the Son have fallen back into a monad, relating to the Holy Spirit not personally but as an impersonal unity of persons). This dyad in turn collapses into another impersonal unity in the relation of the Trinity to creation. The Orthodox system, by contrast prevents this consequence by not positing opposition as the foundation of the absolute diversity of the divine persons, but rather by understanding that this is a consequence of their unique relations.

Thus the Father as Cause causes the Son and Holy Spirit by two distinct manners of origination (begetting and procession), while also establishing the foundation of the unique eternal relationship between the Spirit and the Son by bestowing the Spirit upon the Son from all eternity (as in the Augustinian analogy of the Spirit as the love between the Father and the Son). Hence the Son is uniquely anointed from all eternity and uniquely manifests the Holy Spirit, while the Spirit uniquely rests upon the Son. It is in this sense that we should understand how the Son has a role in the procession of the Holy Spirit, not as cause, for the Father alone communicates hypostatic being and divinity to the Holy Spirit, but as the eternally anointed Who from eternity does not keep His gift to Himself, but rather manifests it, such that by establishing from eternity the principles (logoi) which govern the creation which He foreknew, He determines the eternal ek-stasis of the Divinity, which is the eternal love of the Creator for His pre-existent creation and the eternal outpouring the the Holy Spirit as this divine love for His beloved creation.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Online ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,323
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #430 on: April 18, 2015, 03:02:34 PM »
Christus resurrexit!
I'm amused that some Orthodox here recognize "from the Father through the Son" as doctrine and dogma, as indeed it is, while others deny and condemn it as a heresy. How can this be and who is right among yourselves?
It is amusing to watch Vaticanistas try splitting. Must be an outgrowth of Scholastic hairsplitting.

There are followers of the Vatican who recognize from the Father and Son as doctrine and dogma, as indeed it is for the Vatican, while others (such as its Eastern submitters and some of its modern Ecumenically minded apologists) deny and condemn it as a heresy. Hence the rift among its followers on the status of EP St. Photios the Great.

Supposedly your supreme pontiff could say how this can be and who is right, but he doesn't talk much. And they disagree among themselves, Pope Leo III saying filioque should not be interpolated, er, inserted in the Creed, Pope Benedict VIII stuck it in when his imperial patron demanded it-so much for Caesaropapism being a heresy in Old Rome-and Pope Leo IX demanded we stick it "back" in.
Iconodule, if the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son, as St. Tarasius and with him many Greek Orthodox confess, then it is correct and necessary to say that the Holy Ghost proceeds as from one principle and by a single spiration and not from two principles or a dual spiration.
Not if you use Christ's own statement of the Gospel Truth.
Kyrillios, I asked you to give a precise definition of cause agreed upon in East and West and applicable to the Godhead, can you please answer that? God alone is the cause of His Word and His Spirit, i.e. the Father is cause of the Son and the Holy Ghost if by cause you mean unoriginate source of divinity. The Father is the principle without principle, in Greek πηγή and αἰτία. But if by saying the Son is not cause, you mean in any way to deny that the Holy Ghost receives His eternal subsistence in hypostatic procession from the Father and the Son both, then you would be wrong. St. Maximus says, ""By nature (ϕυσει) the Holy Spirit in His being (κατ’ ουσιαν) takes substantially (ουσιοδως) His origin (εκπορευομενον) from the Father through the Son Who is begotten (δι’ Υιου γεννηθεντος)."
Only if you understand St. Maximos as believing His hypostatic procession from the Son was begotten from the Father, and detoured through the Son.
Iamistry, to establish the doctrine of the Filioque briefly, here are three Popes and three Fathers - St. Leo the Great, there is "One Who begat, another Who is begotten, another Who proceeds from Both", St. Gregory the Great, "The Spirit proceeds essentially from the Son." Pope St. Hormisdas, "characteristic of the Spirit to proceed from Father and Son in one substance of deity."
and to establish the Truth of the matter, here is the 150 Fathers in Ecumenical Council proclaiming the word of Christ: "proceeds from the Father." Period.

Just for amusement, show us how Archbishops (Old Rome hadn't taken the old Alexandrian title of Pope yet) SS. Leo the Great, Hormisdas and Gregory the Great (to put them in correct chronological order) spoke "ex cathedra" in any of these attributed statements.

St. Ambrose, "The Holy Spirit also, when He proceeds from the Father and the Son, is not separated from the Father nor separated from the Son. For how could He be separated from the Father Who is the Spirit of His mouth? Which is certainly both a proof of His eternity, and expresses the Unity of this Godhead.", St. Athanasius, ""David sings in the psalm [35:10], saying: 'For with You is the font of Life;'because jointly with the Father the Son is indeed the font of the Holy Spirit." and finally you claim St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, for a view excluding substantial procession, but you are mistaken, the illustrious Doctor wrote, "the Spirit is from God the Father and, for that matter, from the Son, being poured forth substantially from both, that is to say, from the Father through the Son."
sorry, Scholastic sophistry doesn't work as well in Greek as it does in Latin (I'll leave aside the issue of interpolated texts, like the Filioque).
To omit other Scriptural proofs in light of this Tradition

only Scriptural spoof-texts are darkened by this tradition (small t. like all heresies).
we will consider three quick ones. First, St. John the Apostle says, "And he showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb." (the word used is derived from εκπόρευσις) and St. Ambrose comments, "This is certainly the River proceeding from the throne of God, that is, the Holy Spirit, Whom he drinks who believes in Christ, as He Himself says ... But this spoke He of the Spirit. (John 7:37-38) Therefore the river is the Spirit.", second, as we saw above, St. Ambrose, St. Athanasius and the other Fathers say the Spirit is signified as Life in the sacred writings, and so when the Son of God says, "For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself" (Jn 5:26), He establishes what the Catholic Church teaches through so many Doctors, that in generating the Son, the Father gave to Him that the Spirit should be in Him and proceed from Him as well. And St. Augustine furnishes the third plain Scriptural demonstration that the Holy Ghost proceeds ontologically also from the Son, "The Father begot a Son and, by begetting Him, gave it to Him that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him as well. If He did not proceed from Him, He would not say to His disciples, "Receive the Holy Spirit" [Jn 20:22], and give the Spirit by breathing on them. He signified that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from Him and showed outwardly by blowing what He was giving inwardly by breathing."
it is so cute when Latin speakers interpret Greek texts they don't understand.

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

Online ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,323
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #431 on: April 18, 2015, 03:06:17 PM »
Is the Son eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit?  If not, why not?

No as the property to beget is of the Father alone. It is why he is called the Father.
but since you try to justify your filioque on the fact that the Son has all that the Father has, that would include the procession (which indeed you are claiming), which He could only receive from the Father through begetting.
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

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,196
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #432 on: April 18, 2015, 05:20:20 PM »
You're limiting him to begetter. (And lowering the Spirit into a more-removed relationship to him.) But nice sophistical dodge.

He is not being limited. It is accurate identification of his person, not of his being. That is why is he called the father? Because he begets the Son. That's the reason he is called the Father. Why is the Son called the Son? Because he is begotten of the Father. The Holy Spirit is so called because he is the Spirit of the Father and Son, proceeding from them both equally as from one principle through one spiration.

The Persons are distinguished by relations to one another. The Son is everything then Father is Except being the Father for he is Begotten of the Father. That is the only difference between them. Since  the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father (John 16:15), except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son (Apocalypse 22:1,Romans 8:9, John 15:26, Galatians 4:6).
 
« Last Edit: April 18, 2015, 05:29:27 PM by Wandile »
I do not post here anymore until the end of the year. God bless.

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,196
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #433 on: April 18, 2015, 05:21:48 PM »
Duplicate
« Last Edit: April 18, 2015, 05:22:35 PM by Wandile »
I do not post here anymore until the end of the year. God bless.

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,196
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #434 on: April 18, 2015, 05:34:59 PM »
Is the Son eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit?  If not, why not?

No as the property to beget is of the Father alone. It is why he is called the Father.
but since you try to justify your filioque on the fact that the Son has all that the Father has
John 16:15

Quote
that would include the procession (which indeed you are claiming)
Yes or Properly worded, that would include the giving of the Spirit of God which is manifested through procession. Thus the Spirit would proceed from the Son also as He is fully and equally the Spirit of the Son

Quote
which He could only receive from the Father through begetting.
If you mean by virtue of the Son being begotten of the Father
« Last Edit: April 18, 2015, 05:40:20 PM by Wandile »
I do not post here anymore until the end of the year. God bless.

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,133
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #435 on: April 18, 2015, 05:35:23 PM »
You're limiting him to begetter. (And lowering the Spirit into a more-removed relationship to him.) But nice sophistical dodge.

He is not being limited. It is accurate identification of his person, not of his being. That is why is he called the father? Because he begets the Son.

And how is he called God? Again, you're dodging in a classically sophistical way, pairing rhetorical contingencies as tho they were answers.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,196
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #436 on: April 18, 2015, 05:36:43 PM »
You're limiting him to begetter. (And lowering the Spirit into a more-removed relationship to him.) But nice sophistical dodge.

He is not being limited. It is accurate identification of his person, not of his being. That is why is he called the father? Because he begets the Son.

And how is he called God? Again, you're dodging in a classically sophistical way, pairing rhetorical contingencies as tho they were answers.

I assume we are speaking of the Father... The Father ,simply put, is God in and of Himself as he is the principal without principal. The Father is first, the Son is second and the Holy Spirit is third. This is their order as taught by the fathers.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2015, 05:42:26 PM by Wandile »
I do not post here anymore until the end of the year. God bless.

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,133
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #437 on: April 18, 2015, 05:43:09 PM »
And as God, the Father can be the source from with the Holy Spirit progresseth. No contradiction in terms here as you were pretending.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Kyrillios Anthonios

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #438 on: April 18, 2015, 07:27:33 PM »
Ialmisry denied it, and this means "there is conflicting opinion in Orthodoxy about from the Father through the Son"?

I shall not dignify that retarded stupidity with an answer.

The introduction of the Mystagogy tells us:

"...concerning the saying that because He is of one essence with the Son, He therefore proceeds from Him as well."

The Mystagogy isn't addressing "from the Father through the Son" which is Orthodox.  It addresses the heresy that the Son is also a (secondary) cause and origin of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is One Essence with the Son, this denotes Consubstantiality.  I can't comprehend how this simple statement is connected to the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as an origin and cause.  Consubstantiality and Hypostatic relations are two different things.

From this reasoning, since the Son is One Essence with the Holy Spirit (for who can deny this?) therefore the Son should also be begotten from the Holy Spirit.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2015, 07:47:43 PM by Kyrillios Anthonios »

Offline Kyrillios Anthonios

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #439 on: April 18, 2015, 07:29:32 PM »
To be the Father is to beget and to spirate.

To be the Son is to be begotten.

To be the Holy Spirit is to proceed.

But you are saying that to be the Father is to beget and to principally spirate.  To be the Son is to be begotten and to secondarily spirate.  To be the Holy Spirit is to proceed principally from the Father and secondarily from the Son.

And thus you divide the Person of the Father (into principal and secondary), confound the Person of the Son (mingling spirating with being begotten in the Son) and makes the Holy Spirit composite (proceeding from two sources).

Because what is called principal is distinct from what is secondary.  They are not one and identical cause, but two distinct causes.  And that is why in order to maintain this position, Florence and Lyons said "as from one" and not "from one".

This is the heresy of two origins and causes in the Godhead.  The Church condemns this.  Period.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2015, 07:33:59 PM by Kyrillios Anthonios »

Offline Kyrillios Anthonios

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #440 on: April 18, 2015, 07:40:21 PM »
The Son has all that the Father has, except being the Father.  Which is to say, except for begetting and spirating.  The Son is begotten and does not beget and does not spirate.

And the Son has all that the Holy Spirit has, except for being the Holy Spirit.  Which is to say, except for proceeding.  The Son is begotten and does not proceed.

The Holy Spirit likewise has all that the Father and the Son has, except being the Father and the Son.  Which is to say, except for begetting and spirating, and being begotten.  The Holy Spirit does not beget and does not spirate, and is not begotten.

The Father has all that the Son and the Holy Spirit has, except for being the Son and the Holy Spirit.  Which is to say, except for being begotten and proceeding.  The Father begets and spirates and is not begotten and does not proceed.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,133
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #441 on: April 18, 2015, 07:43:44 PM »
I see all sorts of elegant and symmetrical arguments emerging from the Church and the Greeks on this, while from the Latin side I see something like "We put out a statement and dare someone to speak up." Some of Ambrose particularly is bothering me in this thread as having almost a childish bullying nature.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Online ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,323
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #442 on: April 18, 2015, 08:38:53 PM »
Christus resurrexit!
Is the Son eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit?  If not, why not?

No as the property to beget is of the Father alone. It is why he is called the Father.
but since you try to justify your filioque on the fact that the Son has all that the Father has
John 16:15
on point only if you think the Spirit is an "it"/"thing."
Quote
that would include the procession (which indeed you are claiming)
Yes or Properly worded, that would include the giving of the Spirit of God which is manifested through procession. Thus the Spirit would proceed from the Son also as He is fully and equally the Spirit of the Son

Quote
which He could only receive from the Father through begetting.
If you mean by virtue of the Son being begotten of the Father
so the Spirit is begotten of the Father through the Son.

LOL. Proper wording of an improper word.

I mean? I reject the meaningless filioque. Or does heresy have meaning?
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

Offline JoeS2

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,662
  • St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #443 on: April 18, 2015, 11:18:43 PM »
Catholics, if you are happy with the 'filioque' KEEP IT.

As for us we will go on as always with the original version.   Give me a break already.  We don't need you.

Offline Xavier

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 415
  • Slave of Love consecrated to the Heart of Jesus.
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #444 on: April 19, 2015, 12:03:26 AM »
Well, Porter, I mentioned St. Thomas in response to the claim that the Latins' don't understand theology, obviously I know the Greek Orthodox don't agree with him. In Against the Errors of the Greeks and Summa Theologica where he treats of the Spirit's procession, the Angelic Doctor developed a sophisticated refutation of those who denied all eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit, which has not really been addressed by those who still maintain that opinion. Anyway, to those who think this originates from St. Thomas on the Latin side, St. Isidore had said long ago essentially what St. Thomas said, "There is, however, this difference between generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, that the Son is begotten of One, but the Spirit proceeds from Both." ("Hoc autem interest inter nascentem Filium et procedentum Spiritum sanctum, quod Filius ex uno nascitur; Spiritus sanctus ex utroque procedit.") The Latin Church has always believed and professed the Spirit proceeds from Both as from One, therefore by a single spiration and by one procession. Even St. Eucherius of Lyons says, "The Holy Spirit is neither generate nor ingenerate, but rather is He who proceeds from the Father and the Son, as a harmony, we may say, of Both."

Cavaradossi, difference and nuance of language is a legitimate point, owing to which divisions can arise. First, I would ask you, how you understand the phrase in Scripture, "I saw a river of the water of life, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb" (Rev 22:1). The Greek word in the passage is from ekporeusis, just as in St. Jn 15:26. The internal evidence of Scripture itself suggests this river of the water of life is the holy Ghost (e.g. Jn 7:38-39) since the Holy Ghost is called living waters in the Gospels and the Prophets, the fountain of life in the Fathers, and finally St. Ambrose and others say this passage refers to the Holy Ghost. How would you understand it and how does it square with the claim that the Latins never understood the different usages of ekporeusis? In any case, Rome did not and does not insist the Greeks add the Filioque in the Creed in their own language, and St. Leo III was aware of this among other nuances, only that it cannot be denied that in Latin, it is unimpeachably unorthodox. In effectively identical words, it has been dogmatically confessed in the Latin West from ancient times.

Quote
Other saints, notably, St. Gregory the Theologian and St. John of Damascus explicitly denied this, noting that the mode of origination differs between the two, which is why one mode is more properly called γεννηθηναι and the other εκπορευεσθαι. Unlike the Latins, the Greek Fathers did not regard the two as being perfect and indistinct processions (only distinguishable by their source), but as being the personal acts of one hypostasis (the Father) causing the others.

Let's look at St. John Damascene, would you agree with this excerpt from a modern study, "But the spiration of the Spirit from the Father takes place by and through (the two senses of dia in Greek) the generation of the Son, to which it gives its Trinitarian character. It is in this sense that St John Damascene says: "The Holy Spirit is a substantial power contemplated in his own distinct hypostasis, who proceeds from the Father and reposes in the Word"

https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM

If not wishing to use ekporeusis to describe the Spirit's eternal relationship to the Son, you wish to say the Spirit reposes in the Word and flows from Him, or that He is in the Word and manifested through Him,  or even that His spiration is by and through the Word, as the Greek Fathers did above, there will be no fundamental disagreement between Latin and Greek Traditions. Disagreement comes when this eternal relationship is closed out.
Locution, Aug 18, 2014: "They will realize that I have released an ocean of graces which have changed their darkness into light. They will realize that they have been freed from the past century of diabolical control. They will also know that this great gift has come through the consecration of Russia made by the Holy Father in communion with all the bishops in the world. http://locutions-forever.org/locutions/show/2014-08-18/1-the-overcoming-of-separation

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,133
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #445 on: April 19, 2015, 12:06:21 AM »
As fine as you've started to cut this, Xavier, why would you want to see reference to it in the very Symbol of Faith? That's no place for rarified contemplation on could-be-true-if-you-look-at-it-just-like-this.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Xavier

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 415
  • Slave of Love consecrated to the Heart of Jesus.
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #446 on: April 19, 2015, 12:09:33 AM »
Quote
the Son only relates to the Spirit insofar as the Son forms a unity with the Father, which is to say that the Son does not truly have an eternal relationship with the Spirit, but rather that the Father and the Son have an eternal relationship with the Holy Spirit.

Lossky's criticism of "one principle" says it precludes the Son having as proper to His own Person (having received this in generation from the Father) an eternal relationship with the Spirit and reduces to a Dyad within the Trinity. We say Father and Son are one principle of the Spirit as sunlight is one principle of heat. The Spirit does not flow from the essence as such, but from the two Persons as distinct, from the Father as the Love of the Father is in Himself, from the Son as the Love of the Father is in the beloved Son from eternity, an analogy you admit, as did Gregory Palamas. St. Thomas says, "the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, as distinct; for He proceeds from them as the unitive love of both. " Of course, any natural analogy is insufficient to express the Trinitarian mystery, but it is necessary not to preclude the role of the Son in the eternal spiration of the Holy Ghost from the Father. Gregory Palamas says, "The Spirit of the most high Word is like an ineffable love of the Father for this Word ineffably generated. A love which this same Word and beloved Son of the Father entertains towards the Father: but insofar as he has the Spirit coming with him from the Father and reposing connaturally in him"

Kyrillios, so, you are saying the Son does not receive spiration of the Spirit as a personal property. The Son is excluded from the eternal spiration of the Spirit? No, the Father communicates to the Son that He may spirate the Spirit also, Holy Scripture speaks of this signifying the Spirit as Life, "As the Father has life in Himself, so He gave to the Son that He may also have life in Himself" (Jn 5:26), as we understand from Tradition, from St. Athanasius, St. Ambrose etc. that the Spirit is signified as Life in Holy Writ.

Ialmisry, if you want attributions for the above, they are as follows - Pope St. Leo the Great, Letter 15:2 to Bishop St. Turibius of Astorga, St. Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job 2:56:92, Pope St. Hormisdas Profession of Faith, 517 A.D. St. Ambrose On The Holy Spirit 1:11:120, St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word Against the Arians 9, St. Cyril On Worship and Adoration in Spirit and Truth 1. Some of these are dogmatic professions, others are teaching documents, others are the Fathers engaged in theological reasoning. How can one accuse the Filioque of being heretical? Please address this passage in particular from St. Cyril, "the Spirit is from God the Father and, for that matter, from the Son, being poured forth substantially from both, that is to say, from the Father through the Son."

From the study in the link above,

"What is this Trinitarian character that the person of the Holy Spirit brings to the very relationship between the Father and the Son? It is the original role of the Spirit in the economy with regard to the mission and work of the Son. The Father is love in its source (2 Cor 13:13; 1 Jn 4:8,16), the Son is "the Son that he loves" (Col 1:14). So a tradition dating back to St Augustine has seen in the Holy Spirit, through whom "God's love has been poured into our hearts" (Rom 5:5), love as the eternal Gift of the Father to his "beloved Son" (Mk 1:11; 9:7; Lk 20:13; Eph 1:6) ... The divine love which has its origin in the Father reposes in "the Son of his love" in order to exist consubstantially through the Son in the person of the Spirit, the Gift of love ... This role of the Spirit in the innermost human existence of the Son of God made man derives from an eternal Trinitarian relationship through which the Spirit, in his mystery as Gift of Love, characterizes the relation between the Father, as source of love, and his beloved Son."
« Last Edit: April 19, 2015, 12:09:56 AM by Xavier »
Locution, Aug 18, 2014: "They will realize that I have released an ocean of graces which have changed their darkness into light. They will realize that they have been freed from the past century of diabolical control. They will also know that this great gift has come through the consecration of Russia made by the Holy Father in communion with all the bishops in the world. http://locutions-forever.org/locutions/show/2014-08-18/1-the-overcoming-of-separation

Offline JoeS2

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,662
  • St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #447 on: April 19, 2015, 12:20:21 AM »
Quote
the Son only relates to the Spirit insofar as the Son forms a unity with the Father, which is to say that the Son does not truly have an eternal relationship with the Spirit, but rather that the Father and the Son have an eternal relationship with the Holy Spirit.

Lossky's criticism of "one principle" says it precludes the Son having as proper to His own Person (having received this in generation from the Father) an eternal relationship with the Spirit and reduces to a Dyad within the Trinity. We say Father and Son are one principle of the Spirit as sunlight is one principle of heat. The Spirit does not flow from the essence as such, but from the two Persons as distinct, from the Father as the Love of the Father is in Himself, from the Son as the Love of the Father is in the beloved Son from eternity, an analogy you admit, as did Gregory Palamas. St. Thomas says, "the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, as distinct; for He proceeds from them as the unitive love of both. " Of course, any natural analogy is insufficient to express the Trinitarian mystery, but it is necessary not to preclude the role of the Son in the eternal spiration of the Holy Ghost from the Father. Gregory Palamas says, "The Spirit of the most high Word is like an ineffable love of the Father for this Word ineffably generated. A love which this same Word and beloved Son of the Father entertains towards the Father: but insofar as he has the Spirit coming with him from the Father and reposing connaturally in him"

Kyrillios, so, you are saying the Son does not receive spiration of the Spirit as a personal property. The Son is excluded from the eternal spiration of the Spirit? No, the Father communicates to the Son that He may spirate the Spirit also, Holy Scripture speaks of this signifying the Spirit as Life, "As the Father has life in Himself, so He gave to the Son that He may also have life in Himself" (Jn 5:26), as we understand from Tradition, from St. Athanasius, St. Ambrose etc. that the Spirit is signified as Life in Holy Writ.

Ialmisry, if you want attributions for the above, they are as follows - Pope St. Leo the Great, Letter 15:2 to Bishop St. Turibius of Astorga, St. Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job 2:56:92, Pope St. Hormisdas Profession of Faith, 517 A.D. St. Ambrose On The Holy Spirit 1:11:120, St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word Against the Arians 9, St. Cyril On Worship and Adoration in Spirit and Truth 1. Some of these are dogmatic professions, others are teaching documents, others are the Fathers engaged in theological reasoning. How can one accuse the Filioque of being heretical? Please address this passage in particular from St. Cyril, "the Spirit is from God the Father and, for that matter, from the Son, being poured forth substantially from both, that is to say, from the Father through the Son."

From the study in the link above,

"What is this Trinitarian character that the person of the Holy Spirit brings to the very relationship between the Father and the Son? It is the original role of the Spirit in the economy with regard to the mission and work of the Son. The Father is love in its source (2 Cor 13:13; 1 Jn 4:8,16), the Son is "the Son that he loves" (Col 1:14). So a tradition dating back to St Augustine has seen in the Holy Spirit, through whom "God's love has been poured into our hearts" (Rom 5:5), love as the eternal Gift of the Father to his "beloved Son" (Mk 1:11; 9:7; Lk 20:13; Eph 1:6) ... The divine love which has its origin in the Father reposes in "the Son of his love" in order to exist consubstantially through the Son in the person of the Spirit, the Gift of love ... This role of the Spirit in the innermost human existence of the Son of God made man derives from an eternal Trinitarian relationship through which the Spirit, in his mystery as Gift of Love, characterizes the relation between the Father, as source of love, and his beloved Son."

Why don't you get it? We don't need the Filioque. End of argument.  I'm ok with you keeping the Filioque. Why are you not happy?

Online ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,323
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #448 on: April 19, 2015, 12:38:16 AM »
Christus resurrexit!
Ialmisry, if you want attributions for the above, they are as follows...
I'm about to go to bed, but Lord willing will return to it. In the meantime answer what I did ask for in the above:
Just for amusement, show us how Archbishops (Old Rome hadn't taken the old Alexandrian title of Pope yet) SS. Leo the Great, Hormisdas and Gregory the Great (to put them in correct chronological order) spoke "ex cathedra" in any of these attributed statements.
How can one accuse the Filioque of being heretical?
Easy, because it is.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2015, 12:39:49 AM by ialmisry »
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

Online ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,323
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #449 on: April 19, 2015, 12:54:49 AM »
Christus resurrexit.
Let's look at St. John Damascene, would you agree with this excerpt from a modern study, "But the spiration of the Spirit from the Father takes place by and through (the two senses of dia in Greek) the generation of the Son, to which it gives its Trinitarian character. It is in this sense that St John Damascene says: "The Holy Spirit is a substantial power contemplated in his own distinct hypostasis, who proceeds from the Father and reposes in the Word"

https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM

If not wishing to use ekporeusis to describe the Spirit's eternal relationship to the Son, you wish to say the Spirit reposes in the Word and flows from Him, or that He is in the Word and manifested through Him,  or even that His spiration is by and through the Word, as the Greek Fathers did above, there will be no fundamental disagreement between Latin and Greek Traditions. Disagreement comes when this eternal relationship is closed out.
why not listen to what St. John himself says "we speak also of the Spirit of the Son, not as through proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father. For the Father alone is cause."
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