OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 01:16:02 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 10635 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,576


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #45 on: September 15, 2013, 02:39:37 PM »

So, do you, like St.Maximus, confess that the Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit and the Son?

Not just me but the Catholic Church teaches monarchy of the father.
This source goes into the issue and does a good job of showing this:

Quote
In the seventh century, the Byzantines were shocked by a confession of faith made by the Pope and including the Filioque with reference to the procession of the Holy Spirit; they translated the procession inaccurately by ekporeusis. St. Maximus the Confessor then wrote a letter from Rome linking together the two approaches — Cappadocian and Alexandrian — to the eternal origin of the Spirit: the Father is the sole Principle without Principle (in Greek, aitia) of the Son and of the Spirit; the Father and the Son are consubstantial source of the procession (to proienai) of this same Spirit. "For the procession they (the Romans) brought the witness of the Latin Fathers, as well, of course, as that of St. Cyril of Alexandria in his sacred study on the Gospel of St. John. On this basis they showed that they themselves do not make the Son cause (aitia) of the Spirit. They know, indeed, that the Father is the sole cause of the Son and of the Spirit, of one by generation and of the other by ekporeusis — but they explained that the latter comes (proienai) through the Son, and they showed in this way the unity and the immutability of the essence" (Letter to Marin of Cyprus, PG 91, 136 A-B).

According to St. Maximus, echoing Rome, the Filioque does not concern the ekporeusis of the Spirit issued from the Father as source of the Trinity, but manifests his proienai (processio) in the consubstantial communion of the Father and the Son, while excluding any possible subordinationist interpretation of the Father's Monarchy.

The fact that in Latin and Alexandrian theology the Holy Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son in their consubstantial communion does not mean that it is the divine essence or substance that proceed in him, but that it is communicated from the Father and the Son who have it in common. This point was confessed as dogma in 1215 by the fourth Lateran Council: "The substance does not generate, is not begotten, does not proceed; but it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, the Holy Spirit who proceeds: so that there is distinction in persons and unity in nature. Although other (alius) is the Father, other the Son, other the Holy Spirit, they are not another reality (aliud), but what the Father is the Son is and the Holy Spirit equally; so, according to the orthodox and catholic faith, we believe that they are consubstantial. For the Father, generating eternally the Son, has given to him his substance... It is clear that, in being born the Son has received the substance of the Father without this substance being in any way diminished, and so the Father and the Son have the same substance. So the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from them both, are one same reality" (DS 804-805).

In 1274, the second Council of Lyons confessed that "the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles but as from one single principle (tamquam ex uno principio)" (DS 850). In the light of the Lateran Council, which preceded the second Council of Lyons, it is clear that it is not the divine essence that can be the "one principle" for the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Catechism of the Catholic Church interprets this formula in no.248 as follows: "The eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as the 'principle without principle,' is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Spirit proceeds" (Council of Lyons II, DS 850).
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1176&CFID=10011463&CFTOKEN=62100802
 

 

Even Bishop Kalistos Ware taught that after years of study into the filioque, he realized that the west and the east are teaching the same thing bit rather the issue was all due to semantics and misunderstandings. :

I think you have over simplified  Bishop Kallistos' point a bit too far. There is a good discussion of the semantic misunderstandings (the easier part to reconcile) and the theological and eccesiological differences between us regarding Filioque about midway through the previously cited 2003  paper of the North American dialogue.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,753


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #46 on: September 15, 2013, 02:54:03 PM »

oh that verse is interesting because nowhere does it say The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father "ONLY". As such we too believe what is written  Grin

So because Jn 15.26 doesn't explicitly say that the Holy Spirit proceeds ONLY from the Father, we can come up with our own conclusions and add them to the faith?  Talk about straining gnats and swallowing camels.  Maybe the Protestants are right about Matthew 1.25 after all.  

I'm sorry, but yours is a fairly worthless observation.  I hope you weren't serious.     
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
lovesupreme
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,036



« Reply #47 on: September 15, 2013, 03:40:13 PM »


Except if you are Eastern Catholic; there some include it, others don't. Go figure.

If push comes to shove, an Eastern Catholic must agree with Rome on the Filioque......Don't doubt me.
True. EC's just don't have to include it in the Creed.

To me, this doesn't work. ECs can omit a very crucial clause from their confession of faith, but they have to believe it anyway?
Logged

I am prone to bouts of sarcasm. Please forgive me if my posts have offended you.
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: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #48 on: September 15, 2013, 03:54:34 PM »

So, do you, like St.Maximus, confess that the Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit and the Son?
The Roman Catholic Church has issued a clarification on the filioque, which is really quite inadequate, because it refuses to alter the teaching put forth at the Council of Lyons II and the Council of Florence, neither of which can be conformed to the teaching of the Eastern Churches as exemplified in the letter of St. Maximos to Marinus.

The idea that the Father and the Son together cause the subsistent being of the Holy Spirit (see the Florentine decree [1]), is not compatible with the doctrine of the procession (ἐκπόρευσις) of origin of the Spirit as understood in the East. Moreover, the teaching of Lyons II, which introduced the novel idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son together as from "one principle" [2], is again contrary to the Eastern understanding that procession (ἐκπόρευσις) can be said to come only from the Father as the font of divinity. It is important to note that the Eastern Fathers make a real distinction between procession (ἐκπόρευσις) and progression (προϊέναι), a distinction that Westerners - at least since the Medieval period - do not make, where the former term concerns the Spirit's origin as person coming from the Father alone as cause (αἰτία), while the latter term concerns the manifesting progression (προϊέναι) of the Spirit's energies from the Father through the Son, understood both temporally and eternally. That said, the division between the East and the West will continue until the West unequivocally affirms the monarchy of God the Father as the sole cause (αἰτία) of the Son by generation (γέννησιν), and the sole cause of the Spirit by procession (ἐκπόρευσιν) [3], and although it does appear that the Roman authorities are moving in that direction, it is clear that they are reluctant to affirm the monarchy of God the Father as that doctrine has been traditionally understood in the East.


Notes:

[1] Norman P. Tanner, S.J., (Editor), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (London and Washington, D.C.: Sheed & Ward, and Georgetown University Press, 1990), pages 526-527.

[2] Norman P. Tanner, S.J., (Editor), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (London and Washington, D.C.: Sheed & Ward, and Georgetown University Press, 1990), page 314.

[3] St. Maximos the Confessor, Letter to Marinus, no. 2 (Greek text).

Novel idea? It was being taught as far as 600 -700 years before the great schism and the east knew about the wester teaching on filioque yet kept communion.

Further, stubbornness like that presented above is the reason schism will persist. We teach what has been taught by the fathers and maximus attests to this saying the west showed the writings of the western fathers as evidence of filioque.

Both the councils of Lyon and Florence teach what is taught today. Its only that today clarification has been made evident due to misunderstanding. As noted before Kallistos Ware admits the orthodoxy of filioque as taught by the catholic church.

Maybe this will help :

Quote
The seventeenth session of the council (the first at Florence) took place in the papal palace on 26 February. In nine consecutive sessions, the Filioque was the chief matter of discussion. In the last session but one (twenty-fourth of Ferrara, eighth of Florence) Giovanni di Ragusa set forth clearly the Latin doctrine in the following terms: "the Latin Church recognizes but one principle, one cause of the Holy Spirit, namely, the Father. It is from the Father that the Son holds his place in the 'Procession' of the Holy Ghost. It is in this sense that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, but He proceeds also from the Son." In the last session, the same theologian again expounded the doctrine, after which the public sessions were closed at the request of the Greeks, as it seemed useless to prolong further the theological discussions. At this juncture began the active efforts of Isidore of Kiev, and, as the result of further parleys, Eugene IV submitted four propositions summing up the result of the previous discussion and exposing the weakness of the attitude of the Greeks. As the latter were loath to admit defeat, Cardinal Bessarion, in a special meeting of the Greeks, on 13 and 14 April, 1439, delivered his famous discourse in favour of reunion, and was supported by Georgius Scholarius. Both parties now met again, after which, to put an end to all equivocation, the Latins drew up and read a declaration of their faith in which they stated that they did not admit two "principia" in the Trinity, but only one, the productive power of the Father and the Son, and that the Holy Ghost proceeds also from the Son. They admitted, therefore, two hypostases, one action, one productive power, and one product due to the substance and the hypostases of the Father and the Son. The Greeks met this statement with an equivocal counter-formula, whereupon Bessarion, Isidore of Kiev, and Dortheus of Mitylene, encouraged by the emperor, came out strongly in favour of the ex filio.

The reunion of the Churches was at last really in sight. When, therefore, at the request of the emperor, Eugene IV promised the Greeks the military and financial help of the Holy See as a consequence of the projected reconciliation, the Greeks declared (3 June, 1439) that they recognized the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son as from one "principium" (arche) and from one cause (aitia). On 8 June, a final agreement was reached concerning this doctrine
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06111a.htm

This is in line with what these fathers taught. :

Quote
St Augustine of Hippo

At the same time they (learned and distinguished investigators of the Scriptures) hold by this position, namely, to predicate the Holy Spirit neither as begotten, like the Son, of the Father; for Christ is the only one [so begotten]: nor as [begotten] of the Son, like a Grandson of the Supreme Father: while they do not affirm Him to owe that which He is to no one, but [admit Him to owe it] to the Father, of whom are all things; lest we should establish two Beginnings without beginning (ne duo constituamus principia sine principio), which would be an assertion at once most false and most absurd, and one proper not to the catholic faith, but to the error of certain heretics".[19][20][21]

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

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

"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]).

St Hilary of Pottiers

Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources" (The Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 357]).

"In the fact that before times eternal your [the Father’s] only-begotten [Son] was born of you, when we put an end to every ambiguity of words and difficulty of understanding, there remains only this: he was born. So too, even if I do not g.asp it in my understanding, I hold fast in my consciousness to the fact that your Holy Spirit is from you through him" (ibid., 12:56).

Didymus the Blind

"As we have understood discussions . . . about the incorporeal natures, so too it is now to be recognized that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son that which he was of his own nature. . . . So too the Son is said to receive from the Father the very things by which he subsists. For neither has the Son anything else except those things given him by the Father, nor has the Holy Spirit any other substance than that given him by the Son" (The Holy Spirit 37 [A.D. 362]).

 

Epiphanius of Salamis

"The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son" (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).

 

St. Basil The Great

"Through the Son, who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity" (The Holy Spirit 18:45 [A.D. 375]).

"[T]he goodness of [the divine] nature, the holiness of [that] nature, and the royal dignity reach from the Father through the only-begotten [Son] to the Holy Spirit. Since we confess the persons in this manner, there is no infringing upon the holy dogma of the monarchy" (ibid., 18:47).

 

St. Ambrose of Milan

"Just as the Father is the fount of life, so too, there are many who have stated that the Son is designated as the fount of life. It is said, for example that with you, Almighty God, your Son is the fount of life, that is, the fount of the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit is life, just as the Lord says: ‘The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life’ [John 6:63]" (The Holy Spirit 1:15:152 [A.D. 381]).

"The Holy Spirit, when he proceeds from the Father and the Son, does not separate himself from the Father and does not separate himself from the Son" (ibid., 1:2:120).

St. Cyril of Alexandria

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

"[T]he Holy Spirit flows from the Father in the Son" (ibid.).

"Just as the Son says ‘All that the Father has is mine’ [John 16:15], so shall we find that through the Son it is all also in the Spirit" (Letters 3:4:33 [A.D. 433]).

Fulgence of Ruspe

"Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the only God the Son, who is one person of the Trinity, is the Son of the only God the Father; but the Holy Spirit himself also one person of the Trinity, is Spirit not of the Father only, but of Father and of Son together" (The Rule of Faith 53 [A.D. 524]).

"Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the same Holy Spirit who is Spirit of the Father and of the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son" (ibid., 54).
warned for 14 days.  You can't copy and paste long parts of articles from non oc.net sources. you must simply provide a synopsis and a sentence or two AND the link.  You didn't do that.
You are on post moderation for 15 days because you violated the rules officially three times that I can count in this thread.  You didn't even provide a link to the list of fathers you quoted.  Regardless you can't go about copy and pasting long parts of articles or entire articles from other websites. It is against our rules for specific reasons.  

moderation reduced to warning
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 08:37:42 PM by Michał Kalina » 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: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #49 on: September 15, 2013, 03:55:30 PM »


Except if you are Eastern Catholic; there some include it, others don't. Go figure.

If push comes to shove, an Eastern Catholic must agree with Rome on the Filioque......Don't doubt me.
True. EC's just don't have to include it in the Creed.

To me, this doesn't work. ECs can omit a very crucial clause from their confession of faith, but they have to believe it anyway?

Yes because if the clause is added into the Greek, it becomes a heresy
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
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #50 on: September 15, 2013, 04:05:38 PM »

Yes because if the clause is added into the Greek, it becomes a heresy

Sophistry! How come only the Greek is vulnerable to this heresy, whereas the Latin version and all other translations are immune? If they speak of other things than the original (i.e. the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father), then they are not faithful translations and ought to be emendated. 
« Last Edit: September 15, 2013, 04:06:55 PM by Romaios » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,145



« Reply #51 on: September 15, 2013, 04:07:41 PM »

True. EC's just don't have to include it in the Creed.

Is it compulsory for Romans?
It's in the Roman Liturgy, so for now, yes. Could this be changed? sure. It's a matter of discipline.

Actually, it's not exactly compulsory even in the Roman Rite: a priest can choose to use the Apostles' Creed. (Not too long ago, that was restricted to "Children's masses" and certain season. But not anymore.)

There's also another possibility (although very rarely employed): saying the Creed in Greek, in which case there is certainly no filioque. But that's only allowed if Greek is your vernacular or if you have your bishop's permission.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,502


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #52 on: September 15, 2013, 04:16:34 PM »

I wish there were a 'report to ialmisry' button underneath every post in the Orthodox-Catholic discussion forum.
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
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: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #53 on: September 15, 2013, 04:28:41 PM »

oh that verse is interesting because nowhere does it say The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father "ONLY". As such we too believe what is written  Grin

So because Jn 15.26 doesn't explicitly say that the Holy Spirit proceeds ONLY from the Father, we can come up with our own conclusions and add them to the faith?  Talk about straining gnats and swallowing camels.  Maybe the Protestants are right about Matthew 1.25 after all.  

I'm sorry, but yours is a fairly worthless observation.  I hope you weren't serious.     

No the filioque is based upon other passages in scripture as the fathers explained in their quotes.
Its the faith of the fathers of Alexandria and the west. Even some Eastern ones too

Again make sure you know what is meant by the west and Alexandrians when they taught filioque as you will see its a tradition of the church.
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
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,502


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #54 on: September 15, 2013, 04:30:15 PM »


Its the faith of the fathers of Alexandria and the west. Even some Eastern ones too

Again make sure you know what is meant by the west and Alexandrians when they taught filioque as you will see its a tradition of the church.

The Alexandrians, like St. Cyril, didn't teach the filioque in the modern sense of the word. St. Cyril said as much in answer to Theodoret's objection to his filioquist-like language.

Likewise, none of the Eastern Fathers taught that the Holy Spirit proceeded hypostatically from the Son.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2013, 04:30:43 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
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: 37,960



« Reply #55 on: September 15, 2013, 04:33:51 PM »

oh that verse is interesting because nowhere does it say The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father "ONLY". As such we too believe what is written  Grin

So because Jn 15.26 doesn't explicitly say that the Holy Spirit proceeds ONLY from the Father, we can come up with our own conclusions and add them to the faith?  Talk about straining gnats and swallowing camels.  Maybe the Protestants are right about Matthew 1.25 after all.  

I'm sorry, but yours is a fairly worthless observation.  I hope you weren't serious.     

No the filioque is based upon other passages in scripture as the fathers explained in their quotes.
Its the faith of the fathers of Alexandria and the west. Even some Eastern ones too

Again make sure you know what is meant by the west and Alexandrians when they taught filioque as you will see its a tradition of the church.
The only Alexandrians who taught filioque were the Arians.  Neither OO nor EO have ever.
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: 37,960



« Reply #56 on: September 15, 2013, 04:35:36 PM »


Except if you are Eastern Catholic; there some include it, others don't. Go figure.

If push comes to shove, an Eastern Catholic must agree with Rome on the Filioque......Don't doubt me.
True. EC's just don't have to include it in the Creed.

To me, this doesn't work. ECs can omit a very crucial clause from their confession of faith, but they have to believe it anyway?

Yes because if the clause is added into the Greek, it becomes a heresy
and in what language did the Fathers compose the Creed and set their seal on it?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
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: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #57 on: September 15, 2013, 04:39:03 PM »

Yes because if the clause is added into the Greek, it becomes a heresy

Sophistry! How come only the Greek is vulnerable to this heresy, whereas the Latin version and all other translations are immune? If they speak of other things than the original (i.e. the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father), then they are not faithful translations and ought to be emendated. 

LOL due to the fact that languages are spoken differently and the words in two languages convey different things :

The Roman Catholic Church recognizes that, in the Greek language, the word used in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (ἐκπορευόμενον, "who proceeds") to signify the proceeding of the Holy Spirit cannot appropriately be used with regard to the Son, but only with regard to the Father, a difficulty that does not exist in other languages.[135] For this reason, even in the liturgy of Latin Rite Catholics, it does not add the phrase corresponding to Filioque (καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ) to the Greek text of the Creed containing the word ἐκπορευόμενον.[/quote]
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: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #58 on: September 15, 2013, 04:40:43 PM »

oh that verse is interesting because nowhere does it say The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father "ONLY". As such we too believe what is written  Grin

So because Jn 15.26 doesn't explicitly say that the Holy Spirit proceeds ONLY from the Father, we can come up with our own conclusions and add them to the faith?  Talk about straining gnats and swallowing camels.  Maybe the Protestants are right about Matthew 1.25 after all.  

I'm sorry, but yours is a fairly worthless observation.  I hope you weren't serious.     

No the filioque is based upon other passages in scripture as the fathers explained in their quotes.
Its the faith of the fathers of Alexandria and the west. Even some Eastern ones too

Again make sure you know what is meant by the west and Alexandrians when they taught filioque as you will see its a tradition of the church.
The only Alexandrians who taught filioque were the Arians.  Neither OO nor EO have ever.

This is rubbish

Filioque was specifically taught to defeat Arianism and prove the divinity of all three persons.
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
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,502


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #59 on: September 15, 2013, 04:40:48 PM »

The Dutch 'uitgaan van' has the same connonations as the Greek ekporeuomai. Yet Dutch Roman Catholics profess the filioque in the creed.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2013, 04:43:42 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,502


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #60 on: September 15, 2013, 04:41:15 PM »

oh that verse is interesting because nowhere does it say The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father "ONLY". As such we too believe what is written  Grin

So because Jn 15.26 doesn't explicitly say that the Holy Spirit proceeds ONLY from the Father, we can come up with our own conclusions and add them to the faith?  Talk about straining gnats and swallowing camels.  Maybe the Protestants are right about Matthew 1.25 after all.  

I'm sorry, but yours is a fairly worthless observation.  I hope you weren't serious.     

No the filioque is based upon other passages in scripture as the fathers explained in their quotes.
Its the faith of the fathers of Alexandria and the west. Even some Eastern ones too

Again make sure you know what is meant by the west and Alexandrians when they taught filioque as you will see its a tradition of the church.
The only Alexandrians who taught filioque were the Arians.  Neither OO nor EO have ever.

This is rubbish

Filioque was specifically taught to defeat Arianism and prove the divinity of all three persons.

The filioque was taught by Eunomius...
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
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: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #61 on: September 15, 2013, 04:41:52 PM »


Except if you are Eastern Catholic; there some include it, others don't. Go figure.

If push comes to shove, an Eastern Catholic must agree with Rome on the Filioque......Don't doubt me.
True. EC's just don't have to include it in the Creed.

To me, this doesn't work. ECs can omit a very crucial clause from their confession of faith, but they have to believe it anyway?

Yes because if the clause is added into the Greek, it becomes a heresy
and in what language did the Fathers compose the Creed and set their seal on it?

In what language is it confessed in the roman church?

The fact is Latin can accommodate flioque and Greek can't since the words in the creed make this so
« Last Edit: September 15, 2013, 04:43:05 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
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: 37,960



« Reply #62 on: September 15, 2013, 04:48:54 PM »

So, do you, like St.Maximus, confess that the Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit and the Son?
The Roman Catholic Church has issued a clarification on the filioque, which is really quite inadequate, because it refuses to alter the teaching put forth at the Council of Lyons II and the Council of Florence, neither of which can be conformed to the teaching of the Eastern Churches as exemplified in the letter of St. Maximos to Marinus.

The idea that the Father and the Son together cause the subsistent being of the Holy Spirit (see the Florentine decree [1]), is not compatible with the doctrine of the procession (ἐκπόρευσις) of origin of the Spirit as understood in the East. Moreover, the teaching of Lyons II, which introduced the novel idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son together as from "one principle" [2], is again contrary to the Eastern understanding that procession (ἐκπόρευσις) can be said to come only from the Father as the font of divinity. It is important to note that the Eastern Fathers make a real distinction between procession (ἐκπόρευσις) and progression (προϊέναι), a distinction that Westerners - at least since the Medieval period - do not make, where the former term concerns the Spirit's origin as person coming from the Father alone as cause (αἰτία), while the latter term concerns the manifesting progression (προϊέναι) of the Spirit's energies from the Father through the Son, understood both temporally and eternally. That said, the division between the East and the West will continue until the West unequivocally affirms the monarchy of God the Father as the sole cause (αἰτία) of the Son by generation (γέννησιν), and the sole cause of the Spirit by procession (ἐκπόρευσιν) [3], and although it does appear that the Roman authorities are moving in that direction, it is clear that they are reluctant to affirm the monarchy of God the Father as that doctrine has been traditionally understood in the East.


Notes:

[1] Norman P. Tanner, S.J., (Editor), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (London and Washington, D.C.: Sheed & Ward, and Georgetown University Press, 1990), pages 526-527.

[2] Norman P. Tanner, S.J., (Editor), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (London and Washington, D.C.: Sheed & Ward, and Georgetown University Press, 1990), page 314.

[3] St. Maximos the Confessor, Letter to Marinus, no. 2 (Greek text).

Novel idea? It was being taught as far as 600 -700 years before the great schism and the east knew about the wester teaching on filioque yet kept communion.
No, the East objected every time they came across it and demanded it be dropped, on pain of excommunication (hence the decree of Constantinople IV (879), and the letter of St. Maximos to Marinus).

Further, stubbornness like that presented above is the reason schism will persist. We teach what has been taught by the fathers and maximus attests to this saying the west showed the writings of the western fathers as evidence of filioque.
Yes, the Vatican's stubbornness to persist in its misunderstanding is the reason schism-and heresy-will persist.

Both the councils of Lyon and Florence teach what is taught today.
Yes-heresy.
Its only that today clarification has been made evident due to misunderstanding. As noted before Kallistos Ware admits the orthodoxy of filioque as taught by the catholic church.
As noted before Met. Kallistos Ware is not infallible, and if he accepts filioque as being taught by the Catholic Church, he is mistaken.

Maybe this will help :

Quote
The seventeenth session of the council (the first at Florence) took place in the papal palace on 26 February. In nine consecutive sessions, the Filioque was the chief matter of discussion. In the last session but one (twenty-fourth of Ferrara, eighth of Florence) Giovanni di Ragusa set forth clearly the Latin doctrine in the following terms: "the Latin Church recognizes but one principle, one cause of the Holy Spirit, namely, the Father. It is from the Father that the Son holds his place in the 'Procession' of the Holy Ghost. It is in this sense that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, but He proceeds also from the Son." In the last session, the same theologian again expounded the doctrine, after which the public sessions were closed at the request of the Greeks, as it seemed useless to prolong further the theological discussions. At this juncture began the active efforts of Isidore of Kiev, and, as the result of further parleys, Eugene IV submitted four propositions summing up the result of the previous discussion and exposing the weakness of the attitude of the Greeks. As the latter were loath to admit defeat, Cardinal Bessarion, in a special meeting of the Greeks, on 13 and 14 April, 1439, delivered his famous discourse in favour of reunion, and was supported by Georgius Scholarius. Both parties now met again, after which, to put an end to all equivocation, the Latins drew up and read a declaration of their faith in which they stated that they did not admit two "principia" in the Trinity, but only one, the productive power of the Father and the Son, and that the Holy Ghost proceeds also from the Son. They admitted, therefore, two hypostases, one action, one productive power, and one product due to the substance and the hypostases of the Father and the Son. The Greeks met this statement with an equivocal counter-formula, whereupon Bessarion, Isidore of Kiev, and Dortheus of Mitylene, encouraged by the emperor, came out strongly in favour of the ex filio.

The reunion of the Churches was at last really in sight. When, therefore, at the request of the emperor, Eugene IV promised the Greeks the military and financial help of the Holy See as a consequence of the projected reconciliation, the Greeks declared (3 June, 1439) that they recognized the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son as from one "principium" (arche) and from one cause (aitia). On 8 June, a final agreement was reached concerning this doctrine
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06111a.htm
Yes, it helped heresy be heresy.

This is in line with what these fathers taught. :

Quote
St Augustine of Hippo

At the same time they (learned and distinguished investigators of the Scriptures) hold by this position, namely, to predicate the Holy Spirit neither as begotten, like the Son, of the Father; for Christ is the only one [so begotten]: nor as [begotten] of the Son, like a Grandson of the Supreme Father: while they do not affirm Him to owe that which He is to no one, but [admit Him to owe it] to the Father, of whom are all things; lest we should establish two Beginnings without beginning (ne duo constituamus principia sine principio), which would be an assertion at once most false and most absurd, and one proper not to the catholic faith, but to the error of certain heretics".[19][20][21]

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

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

"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]).

St Hilary of Pottiers

Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources" (The Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 357]).

"In the fact that before times eternal your [the Father’s] only-begotten [Son] was born of you, when we put an end to every ambiguity of words and difficulty of understanding, there remains only this: he was born. So too, even if I do not g.asp it in my understanding, I hold fast in my consciousness to the fact that your Holy Spirit is from you through him" (ibid., 12:56).

Didymus the Blind

"As we have understood discussions . . . about the incorporeal natures, so too it is now to be recognized that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son that which he was of his own nature. . . . So too the Son is said to receive from the Father the very things by which he subsists. For neither has the Son anything else except those things given him by the Father, nor has the Holy Spirit any other substance than that given him by the Son" (The Holy Spirit 37 [A.D. 362]).

 

Epiphanius of Salamis

"The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son" (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).

 

St. Basil The Great

"Through the Son, who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity" (The Holy Spirit 18:45 [A.D. 375]).

"[T]he goodness of [the divine] nature, the holiness of [that] nature, and the royal dignity reach from the Father through the only-begotten [Son] to the Holy Spirit. Since we confess the persons in this manner, there is no infringing upon the holy dogma of the monarchy" (ibid., 18:47).

 

St. Ambrose of Milan

"Just as the Father is the fount of life, so too, there are many who have stated that the Son is designated as the fount of life. It is said, for example that with you, Almighty God, your Son is the fount of life, that is, the fount of the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit is life, just as the Lord says: ‘The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life’ [John 6:63]" (The Holy Spirit 1:15:152 [A.D. 381]).

"The Holy Spirit, when he proceeds from the Father and the Son, does not separate himself from the Father and does not separate himself from the Son" (ibid., 1:2:120).

St. Cyril of Alexandria

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

"[T]he Holy Spirit flows from the Father in the Son" (ibid.).

"Just as the Son says ‘All that the Father has is mine’ [John 16:15], so shall we find that through the Son it is all also in the Spirit" (Letters 3:4:33 [A.D. 433]).

Fulgence of Ruspe

"Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the only God the Son, who is one person of the Trinity, is the Son of the only God the Father; but the Holy Spirit himself also one person of the Trinity, is Spirit not of the Father only, but of Father and of Son together" (The Rule of Faith 53 [A.D. 524]).

"Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the same Holy Spirit who is Spirit of the Father and of the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son" (ibid., 54).
I'm a little pressed for time, so won't go into these already long and many times refuted spooftexts for the filioque.  I'll just make two points now: St. Augustine admitted that he did not fully understand such matters and believed if he could read the Greek Fathers in the original-where he believed the answer would be found-he would have a better understanding.  It has been shown that the many (all?) of the Greek texts used as spoof texts at Florence were interpolated.
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
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,502


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #63 on: September 15, 2013, 04:50:47 PM »

In what language is it confessed in the roman church?

Pope Leo III decided that it should be recited in Greek.
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
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: 37,960



« Reply #64 on: September 15, 2013, 04:51:43 PM »


Except if you are Eastern Catholic; there some include it, others don't. Go figure.

If push comes to shove, an Eastern Catholic must agree with Rome on the Filioque......Don't doubt me.
True. EC's just don't have to include it in the Creed.

To me, this doesn't work. ECs can omit a very crucial clause from their confession of faith, but they have to believe it anyway?

Yes because if the clause is added into the Greek, it becomes a heresy
and in what language did the Fathers compose the Creed and set their seal on it?

In what language is it confessed in the roman church?

The fact is Latin can accommodate flioque and Greek can't since the words in the creed make this so

Since a) no Latin was spoken at the Second Ecumenical Council AFAIK, and b) the Roman Church did not fully adopt Latin until that time or shortly thereafter, whatever Latin does is of no interest to anyone except Ultramontanists.

Neither the Lord nor the Evangalists spoke Latin, so your "point" is moot.
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: 37,960



« Reply #65 on: September 15, 2013, 04:52:40 PM »

In what language is it confessed in the roman church?

Pope Leo III decided that it should be recited in Greek.
No, actually he posted the Creed WITHOUT FILIOQUE in Greek AND LATIN on the doors of St. Peter's and the crypt of St. Paul's.
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: 37,960



« Reply #66 on: September 15, 2013, 04:53:58 PM »

oh that verse is interesting because nowhere does it say The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father "ONLY". As such we too believe what is written  Grin

So because Jn 15.26 doesn't explicitly say that the Holy Spirit proceeds ONLY from the Father, we can come up with our own conclusions and add them to the faith?  Talk about straining gnats and swallowing camels.  Maybe the Protestants are right about Matthew 1.25 after all.  

I'm sorry, but yours is a fairly worthless observation.  I hope you weren't serious.    

No the filioque is based upon other passages in scripture as the fathers explained in their quotes.
Its the faith of the fathers of Alexandria and the west. Even some Eastern ones too

Again make sure you know what is meant by the west and Alexandrians when they taught filioque as you will see its a tradition of the church.
The only Alexandrians who taught filioque were the Arians.  Neither OO nor EO have ever.

This is rubbish

Filioque was specifically taught to defeat Arianism and prove the divinity of all three persons.
This is rubbish

Filioque wasn't stuck into the creed until Arianism was defeated and the divinity of all three persons proved.  Defeated, that is, in the West.  It had died out already in 381, slain by the Second Ecumenical Council, in the East.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2013, 04:55:44 PM by ialmisry » 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
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,502


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #67 on: September 15, 2013, 04:54:22 PM »

In what language is it confessed in the roman church?

Pope Leo III decided that it should be recited in Greek.
No, actually he posted the Creed WITHOUT FILIOQUE in Greek AND LATIN on the doors of St. Peter's and the crypt of St. Paul's.

IIRC he did both. My memory might be failing me, though.
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
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: 37,960



« Reply #68 on: September 15, 2013, 04:56:43 PM »

In what language is it confessed in the roman church?

Pope Leo III decided that it should be recited in Greek.
No, actually he posted the Creed WITHOUT FILIOQUE in Greek AND LATIN on the doors of St. Peter's and the crypt of St. Paul's.

IIRC he did both. My memory might be failing me, though.
In both languages, or in both Orthodox and corrupted form?  He did the former, to refute the latter.
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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,145



« Reply #69 on: September 15, 2013, 04:57:42 PM »


Here are my thoughts: If you're going to keep the filioque, then it makes sense to me to expend a certain amount of energy laying out reasons why. So in principle, the website sounds like a good idea.

Based on my experience, however, I did not really expect good things from that website ... and my expectations were exceeded, in a negative sense that is. (Have you read #8??)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,502


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #70 on: September 15, 2013, 04:57:58 PM »

In what language is it confessed in the roman church?

Pope Leo III decided that it should be recited in Greek.
No, actually he posted the Creed WITHOUT FILIOQUE in Greek AND LATIN on the doors of St. Peter's and the crypt of St. Paul's.

IIRC he did both. My memory might be failing me, though.
In both languages, or in both Orthodox and corrupted form?  He did the former, to refute the latter.

Proclaim that the creed should be chanted in Greek and that the creed without the filioque, both in Greek and Latin, should be posted on the doors of the St. Peter.
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
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: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #71 on: September 15, 2013, 05:04:50 PM »

oh that verse is interesting because nowhere does it say The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father "ONLY". As such we too believe what is written  Grin

So because Jn 15.26 doesn't explicitly say that the Holy Spirit proceeds ONLY from the Father, we can come up with our own conclusions and add them to the faith?  Talk about straining gnats and swallowing camels.  Maybe the Protestants are right about Matthew 1.25 after all.  

I'm sorry, but yours is a fairly worthless observation.  I hope you weren't serious.     

No the filioque is based upon other passages in scripture as the fathers explained in their quotes.
Its the faith of the fathers of Alexandria and the west. Even some Eastern ones too

Again make sure you know what is meant by the west and Alexandrians when they taught filioque as you will see its a tradition of the church.
The only Alexandrians who taught filioque were the Arians.  Neither OO nor EO have ever.

This is rubbish

Filioque was specifically taught to defeat Arianism and prove the divinity of all three persons.

The filioque was taught by Eunomius...

His theology does not accommodate the idea . Its is nothing near to what the catholic church teaches.

Further all theological circles admit Alexandria and the Latins taught filioque. A simple google search shows this  Undecided
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: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #72 on: September 15, 2013, 05:08:11 PM »


Except if you are Eastern Catholic; there some include it, others don't. Go figure.

If push comes to shove, an Eastern Catholic must agree with Rome on the Filioque......Don't doubt me.
True. EC's just don't have to include it in the Creed.

To me, this doesn't work. ECs can omit a very crucial clause from their confession of faith, but they have to believe it anyway?

Yes because if the clause is added into the Greek, it becomes a heresy
and in what language did the Fathers compose the Creed and set their seal on it?

In what language is it confessed in the roman church?

The fact is Latin can accommodate flioque and Greek can't since the words in the creed make this so

Since a) no Latin was spoken at the Second Ecumenical Council AFAIK, and b) the Roman Church did not fully adopt Latin until that time or shortly thereafter, whatever Latin does is of no interest to anyone except Ultramontanists.

Neither the Lord nor the Evangalists spoke Latin, so your "point" is moot.

yet it neve reached the west fully until Chalcedon. By them Latin was all that ws spoken
Secondly the Latin word is of most importance. The Latin word accommodates filioque whereas the Greek doesn't. This is common knowledge. I expect you to know this
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: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #73 on: September 15, 2013, 05:10:15 PM »

In what language is it confessed in the roman church?

Pope Leo III decided that it should be recited in Greek.
No, actually he posted the Creed WITHOUT FILIOQUE in Greek AND LATIN on the doors of St. Peter's and the crypt of St. Paul's.

IIRC he did both. My memory might be failing me, though.
In both languages, or in both Orthodox and corrupted form?  He did the former, to refute the latter.

Proclaim that the creed should be chanted in Greek and that the creed without the filioque, both in Greek and Latin, should be posted on the doors of the St. Peter.

It should be noted that this same Leo accepted the theology of filioque but didn't want it on the creed , not for theological reasons, but to keep east from bring upset. Which is later what happened when it was eventually included
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: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #74 on: September 15, 2013, 05:14:36 PM »

oh that verse is interesting because nowhere does it say The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father "ONLY". As such we too believe what is written  Grin

So because Jn 15.26 doesn't explicitly say that the Holy Spirit proceeds ONLY from the Father, we can come up with our own conclusions and add them to the faith?  Talk about straining gnats and swallowing camels.  Maybe the Protestants are right about Matthew 1.25 after all.  

I'm sorry, but yours is a fairly worthless observation.  I hope you weren't serious.    

No the filioque is based upon other passages in scripture as the fathers explained in their quotes.
Its the faith of the fathers of Alexandria and the west. Even some Eastern ones too

Again make sure you know what is meant by the west and Alexandrians when they taught filioque as you will see its a tradition of the church.
The only Alexandrians who taught filioque were the Arians.  Neither OO nor EO have ever.

This is rubbish

Filioque was specifically taught to defeat Arianism and prove the divinity of all three persons.
This is rubbish

Filioque wasn't stuck into the creed until Arianism was defeated and the divinity of all three persons proved.  Defeated, that is, in the West.  It had died out already in 381, slain by the Second Ecumenical Council, in the East.

Again, rubbish

its insertion I'm the creed is immaterial to why filioque was taught. It was taught for hundreds of years before it was included for the purpose mentioned. And it served its purpose in its time.

Funny thing is that the western Arians used the creed without the clause to prove their point and hence the theology of the filioque was necessary and did the job in silencing their arguments.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2013, 05:16:21 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: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #75 on: September 15, 2013, 05:20:46 PM »

So, do you, like St.Maximus, confess that the Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit and the Son?
The Roman Catholic Church has issued a clarification on the filioque, which is really quite inadequate, because it refuses to alter the teaching put forth at the Council of Lyons II and the Council of Florence, neither of which can be conformed to the teaching of the Eastern Churches as exemplified in the letter of St. Maximos to Marinus.

The idea that the Father and the Son together cause the subsistent being of the Holy Spirit (see the Florentine decree [1]), is not compatible with the doctrine of the procession (ἐκπόρευσις) of origin of the Spirit as understood in the East. Moreover, the teaching of Lyons II, which introduced the novel idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son together as from "one principle" [2], is again contrary to the Eastern understanding that procession (ἐκπόρευσις) can be said to come only from the Father as the font of divinity. It is important to note that the Eastern Fathers make a real distinction between procession (ἐκπόρευσις) and progression (προϊέναι), a distinction that Westerners - at least since the Medieval period - do not make, where the former term concerns the Spirit's origin as person coming from the Father alone as cause (αἰτία), while the latter term concerns the manifesting progression (προϊέναι) of the Spirit's energies from the Father through the Son, understood both temporally and eternally. That said, the division between the East and the West will continue until the West unequivocally affirms the monarchy of God the Father as the sole cause (αἰτία) of the Son by generation (γέννησιν), and the sole cause of the Spirit by procession (ἐκπόρευσιν) [3], and although it does appear that the Roman authorities are moving in that direction, it is clear that they are reluctant to affirm the monarchy of God the Father as that doctrine has been traditionally understood in the East.


Notes:

[1] Norman P. Tanner, S.J., (Editor), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (London and Washington, D.C.: Sheed & Ward, and Georgetown University Press, 1990), pages 526-527.

[2] Norman P. Tanner, S.J., (Editor), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (London and Washington, D.C.: Sheed & Ward, and Georgetown University Press, 1990), page 314.

[3] St. Maximos the Confessor, Letter to Marinus, no. 2 (Greek text).

Novel idea? It was being taught as far as 600 -700 years before the great schism and the east knew about the wester teaching on filioque yet kept communion.
No, the East objected every time they came across it and demanded it be dropped, on pain of excommunication (hence the decree of Constantinople IV (879), and the letter of St. Maximos to Marinus).

Further, stubbornness like that presented above is the reason schism will persist. We teach what has been taught by the fathers and maximus attests to this saying the west showed the writings of the western fathers as evidence of filioque.
Yes, the Vatican's stubbornness to persist in its misunderstanding is the reason schism-and heresy-will persist.

Both the councils of Lyon and Florence teach what is taught today.
Yes-heresy.
Its only that today clarification has been made evident due to misunderstanding. As noted before Kallistos Ware admits the orthodoxy of filioque as taught by the catholic church.
As noted before Met. Kallistos Ware is not infallible, and if he accepts filioque as being taught by the Catholic Church, he is mistaken.

Maybe this will help :

Quote
The seventeenth session of the council (the first at Florence) took place in the papal palace on 26 February. In nine consecutive sessions, the Filioque was the chief matter of discussion. In the last session but one (twenty-fourth of Ferrara, eighth of Florence) Giovanni di Ragusa set forth clearly the Latin doctrine in the following terms: "the Latin Church recognizes but one principle, one cause of the Holy Spirit, namely, the Father. It is from the Father that the Son holds his place in the 'Procession' of the Holy Ghost. It is in this sense that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, but He proceeds also from the Son." In the last session, the same theologian again expounded the doctrine, after which the public sessions were closed at the request of the Greeks, as it seemed useless to prolong further the theological discussions. At this juncture began the active efforts of Isidore of Kiev, and, as the result of further parleys, Eugene IV submitted four propositions summing up the result of the previous discussion and exposing the weakness of the attitude of the Greeks. As the latter were loath to admit defeat, Cardinal Bessarion, in a special meeting of the Greeks, on 13 and 14 April, 1439, delivered his famous discourse in favour of reunion, and was supported by Georgius Scholarius. Both parties now met again, after which, to put an end to all equivocation, the Latins drew up and read a declaration of their faith in which they stated that they did not admit two "principia" in the Trinity, but only one, the productive power of the Father and the Son, and that the Holy Ghost proceeds also from the Son. They admitted, therefore, two hypostases, one action, one productive power, and one product due to the substance and the hypostases of the Father and the Son. The Greeks met this statement with an equivocal counter-formula, whereupon Bessarion, Isidore of Kiev, and Dortheus of Mitylene, encouraged by the emperor, came out strongly in favour of the ex filio.

The reunion of the Churches was at last really in sight. When, therefore, at the request of the emperor, Eugene IV promised the Greeks the military and financial help of the Holy See as a consequence of the projected reconciliation, the Greeks declared (3 June, 1439) that they recognized the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son as from one "principium" (arche) and from one cause (aitia). On 8 June, a final agreement was reached concerning this doctrine
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06111a.htm
Yes, it helped heresy be heresy.

This is in line with what these fathers taught. :

Quote
St Augustine of Hippo

At the same time they (learned and distinguished investigators of the Scriptures) hold by this position, namely, to predicate the Holy Spirit neither as begotten, like the Son, of the Father; for Christ is the only one [so begotten]: nor as [begotten] of the Son, like a Grandson of the Supreme Father: while they do not affirm Him to owe that which He is to no one, but [admit Him to owe it] to the Father, of whom are all things; lest we should establish two Beginnings without beginning (ne duo constituamus principia sine principio), which would be an assertion at once most false and most absurd, and one proper not to the catholic faith, but to the error of certain heretics".[19][20][21]

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

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

"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]).

St Hilary of Pottiers

Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources" (The Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 357]).

"In the fact that before times eternal your [the Father’s] only-begotten [Son] was born of you, when we put an end to every ambiguity of words and difficulty of understanding, there remains only this: he was born. So too, even if I do not g.asp it in my understanding, I hold fast in my consciousness to the fact that your Holy Spirit is from you through him" (ibid., 12:56).

Didymus the Blind

"As we have understood discussions . . . about the incorporeal natures, so too it is now to be recognized that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son that which he was of his own nature. . . . So too the Son is said to receive from the Father the very things by which he subsists. For neither has the Son anything else except those things given him by the Father, nor has the Holy Spirit any other substance than that given him by the Son" (The Holy Spirit 37 [A.D. 362]).

 

Epiphanius of Salamis

"The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son" (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).

 

St. Basil The Great

"Through the Son, who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity" (The Holy Spirit 18:45 [A.D. 375]).

"[T]he goodness of [the divine] nature, the holiness of [that] nature, and the royal dignity reach from the Father through the only-begotten [Son] to the Holy Spirit. Since we confess the persons in this manner, there is no infringing upon the holy dogma of the monarchy" (ibid., 18:47).

 

St. Ambrose of Milan

"Just as the Father is the fount of life, so too, there are many who have stated that the Son is designated as the fount of life. It is said, for example that with you, Almighty God, your Son is the fount of life, that is, the fount of the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit is life, just as the Lord says: ‘The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life’ [John 6:63]" (The Holy Spirit 1:15:152 [A.D. 381]).

"The Holy Spirit, when he proceeds from the Father and the Son, does not separate himself from the Father and does not separate himself from the Son" (ibid., 1:2:120).

St. Cyril of Alexandria

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

"[T]he Holy Spirit flows from the Father in the Son" (ibid.).

"Just as the Son says ‘All that the Father has is mine’ [John 16:15], so shall we find that through the Son it is all also in the Spirit" (Letters 3:4:33 [A.D. 433]).

Fulgence of Ruspe

"Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the only God the Son, who is one person of the Trinity, is the Son of the only God the Father; but the Holy Spirit himself also one person of the Trinity, is Spirit not of the Father only, but of Father and of Son together" (The Rule of Faith 53 [A.D. 524]).

"Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the same Holy Spirit who is Spirit of the Father and of the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son" (ibid., 54).
I'm a little pressed for time, so won't go into these already long and many times refuted spooftexts for the filioque.  I'll just make two points now: St. Augustine admitted that he did not fully understand such matters and believed if he could read the Greek Fathers in the original-where he believed the answer would be found-he would have a better understanding.  It has been shown that the many (all?) of the Greek texts used as spoof texts at Florence were interpolated.

LOL. I actually read about this recently and what the geeks at the council admitted was that the western fathers explicitly taught filioque. What we was in contention is the quotes of the Greek fathers that the Latins presented. The Greeks claimed these were corruptions. it is admitted that a few are suspect but alot were  genuine AND in some cases some of the texts the Greeks presented themselves were actually forgeries and that the Latins had the correct versions.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2013, 05:23:32 PM by Wandile » Logged

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

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #76 on: September 15, 2013, 05:26:41 PM »

The Dutch 'uitgaan van' has the same connonations as the Greek ekporeuomai. Yet Dutch Roman Catholics profess the filioque in the creed.

I don't know about this and I'm sure there is an explanation if you read up. I'll research this.
I checked a translator and uitgaan van translates into a lot of other things. The closest translation I could find was "assume" but there was no proceed. Are you sure this is the right phrase?

Yet what I told about the Greek true. Read up on it
« Last Edit: September 15, 2013, 05:40:18 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
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,263



« Reply #77 on: September 15, 2013, 05:29:37 PM »

Am I the only one who is impressed at how well Wandile can copy/paste from scripturecatholic.com?

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
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: 37,960



« Reply #78 on: September 15, 2013, 05:41:18 PM »

LOL. I actually read about this recently and what the geeks at the council admitted was that the western fathers explicitly taught filioque. What we was in contention is the quotes of the Greek fathers that the Latins presented. The Greeks claimed these were corruptions. it is admitted that a few are suspect but alot were  genuine AND in some cases some of the texts the Greeks presented themselves were actually forgeries and that the Latins had the correct versions.
I was referring to what Fr. John Erikson's article on this refers to.  It's in his "Challenges of our Past."
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: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #79 on: September 15, 2013, 05:41:27 PM »

Am I the only one who is impressed at how well Wandile can copy/paste from scripturecatholic.com?

In Christ,
Andrew

I'm very good at it Grin
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
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,576


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #80 on: September 15, 2013, 05:51:12 PM »


Except if you are Eastern Catholic; there some include it, others don't. Go figure.

If push comes to shove, an Eastern Catholic must agree with Rome on the Filioque......Don't doubt me.
True. EC's just don't have to include it in the Creed.

To me, this doesn't work. ECs can omit a very crucial clause from their confession of faith, but they have to believe it anyway?

Yes because if the clause is added into the Greek, it becomes a heresy
and in what language did the Fathers compose the Creed and set their seal on it?

In what language is it confessed in the roman church?

The fact is Latin can accommodate flioque and Greek can't since the words in the creed make this so

Since a) no Latin was spoken at the Second Ecumenical Council AFAIK, and b) the Roman Church did not fully adopt Latin until that time or shortly thereafter, whatever Latin does is of no interest to anyone except Ultramontanists.

Neither the Lord nor the Evangalists spoke Latin, so your "point" is moot.

Also, if I recall my history, ecclesiastical Latin is not the spoken Latin in use at the time of the Council of Nicea so relying on it is proof of not much of anything.
Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #81 on: September 15, 2013, 05:53:39 PM »


Except if you are Eastern Catholic; there some include it, others don't. Go figure.

If push comes to shove, an Eastern Catholic must agree with Rome on the Filioque......Don't doubt me.
True. EC's just don't have to include it in the Creed.

To me, this doesn't work. ECs can omit a very crucial clause from their confession of faith, but they have to believe it anyway?

Yes because if the clause is added into the Greek, it becomes a heresy
and in what language did the Fathers compose the Creed and set their seal on it?

In what language is it confessed in the roman church?

The fact is Latin can accommodate flioque and Greek can't since the words in the creed make this so

Since a) no Latin was spoken at the Second Ecumenical Council AFAIK, and b) the Roman Church did not fully adopt Latin until that time or shortly thereafter, whatever Latin does is of no interest to anyone except Ultramontanists.

Neither the Lord nor the Evangalists spoke Latin, so your "point" is moot.

Also, if I recall my history, ecclesiastical Latin is not the spoken Latin in use at the time of the Council of Nicea so relying on it is proof of not much of anything.

irrelevant as the latin word for proceed is word in common language as well even at that time.

Further the creed of Constantinople never reached the west until Chalcedon when Latin was spoken by all.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2013, 05:55:12 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
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: 37,960



« Reply #82 on: September 15, 2013, 07:21:31 PM »

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

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,068



« Reply #83 on: September 15, 2013, 09:04:28 PM »

Am I the only one who is impressed at how well Wandile can copy/paste from scripturecatholic.com?

In Christ,
Andrew
Instead of being passiveabout it click the report to moderator button.  That's is what it is there for.  Helps me out as your moderator.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2013, 09:07:16 PM by username! » Logged

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

Posts: 17,753


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #84 on: September 15, 2013, 09:15:49 PM »

No the filioque is based upon other passages in scripture as the fathers explained in their quotes.
Its the faith of the fathers of Alexandria and the west. Even some Eastern ones too

It's funny that you claim the Filioque is based on passages other than the one in which Christ directly addresses the issue using the same language adopted in the Creed.  How sound is a theology that ignores Christ?  

Quote
Again make sure you know what is meant by the west and Alexandrians when they taught filioque as you will see its a tradition of the church.

Maybe you ought to take your own advice and make sure what you're talking about.  Regarding the Alexandrians teaching the Filioque as the Latins profess it, I have no idea what you're talking about.  Neither does anyone else, apparently, including the Alexandrians.  
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,068



« Reply #85 on: September 15, 2013, 09:15:58 PM »

I wish there were a 'report to ialmisry' button underneath every post in the Orthodox-Catholic discussion forum.

There is a report to moderator, I can actually do something about infractions.  ISa can't
Logged

username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,068



« Reply #86 on: September 15, 2013, 09:25:06 PM »

Please use the report to moderator link if you believe there are rules infractions taking place in a thread.  That way the moderator and his team can review your complaint and go from there.  -username! section moderator
Logged

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

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


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


« Reply #87 on: September 15, 2013, 09:38:39 PM »

The Filioque is but a small part of what separates us, and if you think of all the differences one has to wonder what if any true unity will happen between the two churches.
Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #88 on: September 15, 2013, 10:30:32 PM »

So, do you, like St.Maximus, confess that the Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit and the Son?
The Roman Catholic Church has issued a clarification on the filioque, which is really quite inadequate, because it refuses to alter the teaching put forth at the Council of Lyons II and the Council of Florence, neither of which can be conformed to the teaching of the Eastern Churches as exemplified in the letter of St. Maximos to Marinus.

The idea that the Father and the Son together cause the subsistent being of the Holy Spirit (see the Florentine decree [1]), is not compatible with the doctrine of the procession (ἐκπόρευσις) of origin of the Spirit as understood in the East. Moreover, the teaching of Lyons II, which introduced the novel idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son together as from "one principle" [2], is again contrary to the Eastern understanding that procession (ἐκπόρευσις) can be said to come only from the Father as the font of divinity. It is important to note that the Eastern Fathers make a real distinction between procession (ἐκπόρευσις) and progression (προϊέναι), a distinction that Westerners - at least since the Medieval period - do not make, where the former term concerns the Spirit's origin as person coming from the Father alone as cause (αἰτία), while the latter term concerns the manifesting progression (προϊέναι) of the Spirit's energies from the Father through the Son, understood both temporally and eternally. That said, the division between the East and the West will continue until the West unequivocally affirms the monarchy of God the Father as the sole cause (αἰτία) of the Son by generation (γέννησιν), and the sole cause of the Spirit by procession (ἐκπόρευσιν) [3], and although it does appear that the Roman authorities are moving in that direction, it is clear that they are reluctant to affirm the monarchy of God the Father as that doctrine has been traditionally understood in the East.


Notes:

[1] Norman P. Tanner, S.J., (Editor), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (London and Washington, D.C.: Sheed & Ward, and Georgetown University Press, 1990), pages 526-527.

[2] Norman P. Tanner, S.J., (Editor), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (London and Washington, D.C.: Sheed & Ward, and Georgetown University Press, 1990), page 314.

[3] St. Maximos the Confessor, Letter to Marinus, no. 2 (Greek text).
Novel idea? It was being taught as far as 600 -700 years before the great schism and the east knew about the wester teaching on filioque yet kept communion.
Yes, it is a novel idea, because the doctrine of the filioque continued to develop in the West and so the 13th - 15th century version of that doctrine is not the same as the doctrine held by the Carolingian divines or St. Augustine.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,618



« Reply #89 on: September 16, 2013, 01:42:19 AM »

oh that verse is interesting because nowhere does it say The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father "ONLY". As such we too believe what is written  Grin

So because Jn 15.26 doesn't explicitly say that the Holy Spirit proceeds ONLY from the Father, we can come up with our own conclusions and add them to the faith?  Talk about straining gnats and swallowing camels.  Maybe the Protestants are right about Matthew 1.25 after all.  

I'm sorry, but yours is a fairly worthless observation.  I hope you weren't serious.     

No the filioque is based upon other passages in scripture as the fathers explained in their quotes.
Its the faith of the fathers of Alexandria and the west. Even some Eastern ones too

Again make sure you know what is meant by the west and Alexandrians when they taught filioque as you will see its a tradition of the church.
The only Alexandrians who taught filioque were the Arians.  Neither OO nor EO have ever.

This is rubbish

Filioque was specifically taught to defeat Arianism and prove the divinity of all three persons.

The filioque was taught by Eunomius...

His theology does not accommodate the idea . Its is nothing near to what the catholic church teaches.

Further all theological circles admit Alexandria and the Latins taught filioque. A simple google search shows this  Undecided

Weasel words. I can cite right off the top of my head one serious theological study on the matter of the Filioque, Siecienski's book (simply titled, The Filioque), which shows rather well that the Alexandrian fathers did not teach the Son participating in the hypostatic origination of the Holy Spirit, and that later Latin theologians, who could not grasp the difference in connotation between the verbs προειμι, εκχεω, and εκπορευω, were unable adequately to grasp their meaning, and were also thereby confused when the Greeks interpreted the writings of Ss. Cyril and Athanasius not to point towards the Son having a causal role in the Spirit's existence, but to point towards the Spirit's procession through the Son, and the Son's pouring forth and manifestation of the Spirit (Papadakis also argues this in Crisis in Byzantium, although he does not treat the topic as fully). Frankly, the Latins have always been out of their depth when it comes to the Filioque, because they were unable to understand the intricacies involved in the distinction between proceeding through and proceeding from, and the distinction between the three aforementioned verbs. Thomas Aquinas for example, has no better answer to the insistence by the Greeks that proceeding through is not identical to proceeding from than to exclaim somewhat exasperatedly that they do so out of intransigence.

A simple google search, is going to pick up a bunch of blogs written by amateur Roman Catholic apologists who demonstrate little more knowledge on the topic of the Filioque than the Latins did 800 years ago, and who have no interest in understanding how the Alexandrian fathers have traditionally been understood by Greek-speaking Christians, but only have interest in scoring some apologetics points. If you really want to be convincing, perhaps you could provide some citations from these "theological circles," (which of course should be credible theological circles, not amateurs writing on the web), which you claim believe that the Alexandrians taught the Filioque. And if you really wanted to be convincing (instead of appealing to unnamed theological circles, all of which apparently are of the opinion that the Alexandrian fathers taught the Filioque, and whose opinions are readily available for access through a simple google search), you could even imbibe the arguments they use to support this claim, and attempt to show us through the use of reason how it is sound to believe that the Alexandrian fathers taught the Filioque. But as it stands, pontificating on the matter will convince very few minds.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
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 0.261 seconds with 73 queries.