Author Topic: Keep the Filioque  (Read 60589 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,022
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #450 on: April 19, 2015, 02:38:30 AM »
And as God, the Father can be the source from with the Holy Spirit progresseth. No contradiction in terms here as you were pretending.

But now I'm confused  :-\ what are you going on about?

Yes even in Catholic theology the Father is The ultimate origin of the Spirit. Who here denied this?
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


You are welcome to send me private messages but I don't post publicly anymore

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,080
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #451 on: April 19, 2015, 02:47:31 AM »
Confused yourself with your convolutions, then. Take your time rereading the thread.
"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: 2,022
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #452 on: April 19, 2015, 03:22:22 AM »
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.
Yes so that the Son and Holy Spirit are not confused lest we teach modalism

Quote
  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?
Because we must also preserve the natural properties of persons as tradition teaches us about each of them. That is; this principle of necessity of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the father and the son is guided by a grander principle  : The things proper to each person which make then who they are. The father is the father because the son is begotten of him. Not because the spirit proceeds from him. What you advocate (Father and Spirit both begetting) ignores this principle and ends up in modalism. The Son is only begotten of the father in both ways... That he is the only son of the father and that the father is the only one who begets him so scripture has taught us.

 
Quote
"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?

It is about the two persons and is exclusive to them because the Son is testified to be from the Father alone. The third person is addressed by this way : See it is necessary in the sense that the Son proceeds (goes forth) from the father alone. If the Spirit too has this relation then the Son and the Holy Spirit are confused thus it is necessary that the Spirit also proceed from the son.

One of the eastern fathers (slips my mind as to who) was rigorist ,and pretty much an early Photian,  said that how the Son and the Spirit are different in their relations, we cannot speculate. This is the result of excluding the son from the procession. Material admission of Semi modalism. Luckily most of the fathers taught different on this issue as Aquinas showed.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2015, 03:42:51 AM by Wandile »
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


You are welcome to send me private messages but I don't post publicly anymore

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,022
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #453 on: April 19, 2015, 03:23:14 AM »
Confused yourself with your convolutions, then. Take your time rereading the thread.

No you're not making any sense, that's why I'm confused. If you make a charge be man enough to back it up.

You conclude with a statement that we both believe and somehow proclaim
Quote
No contradiction in terms here as you were pretending

Who here said these are contradictory???

All I said from the onset was that the Father is called the Father because he begets the son. He is not called the father because the spirit proceeds from him. The latter is the reason (compounded with the first) why the Father is the principal without principal.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2015, 03:31:24 AM by Wandile »
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


You are welcome to send me private messages but I don't post publicly anymore

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,022
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #454 on: April 19, 2015, 03:49:10 AM »
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."
Grammatically, persons are things in the truest sense of the word :-\

Quote
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.
ROFL what??? How did you get there?  :D The spirit proceeds from the son as by the Son being begotten of the father, the Spirit if the Father also became the Spirit of the Son. Unless you believe the way the Spirit is manifested in the father is by being begotten?  :D

Quote
LOL. Proper wording of an improper word.

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

Ah so you reject dogma and tradition of the fathers. Got it.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2015, 03:50:30 AM by Wandile »
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


You are welcome to send me private messages but I don't post publicly anymore

Offline Kyrillios Anthonios

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #455 on: April 19, 2015, 09:17:18 AM »
:)

The Orthodox Catholic Church, according to Holy Tradition, Scripture and the Holy Fathers reject the heresy of two origins and causes in the Godhead.

For the Fathers have taught most explicitly, telling us that to originate belongs to the Father Alone.  And this is called Monarchy, which is the Principle of Unity and Consubstantiality in the Godhead.

Whereas the heresy Filioque, as professed in Florence and Lyons, explicitly and without fear of God asserted that the Son is a secondary cause and origin of the Holy Spirit, for which Anathema forever and unto the ages of ages.  Amen.

Ecclesiae Locuta Est.
Causa Finita Est.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 32,618
  • Pope Pius XIII, play for us!
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #456 on: April 19, 2015, 05:46:40 PM »
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?
Because we must also preserve the natural properties of persons as tradition teaches us about each of them. That is; this principle of necessity of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the father and the son is guided by a grander principle  : The things proper to each person which make then who they are. The father is the father because the son is begotten of him. Not because the spirit proceeds from him.

So the Father and the Son only have a relation with each other in a fundamental sense, and then, secondarily and together, a relation with the Spirit?   

Quote
What you advocate (Father and Spirit both begetting) ignores this principle and ends up in modalism.


I didn't advocate any such thing.  I asked a question.

Quote
The Son is only begotten of the father in both ways... That he is the only son of the father and that the father is the only one who begets him so scripture has taught us.

OK...

Quote
Quote
"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?

It is about the two persons and is exclusive to them because the Son is testified to be from the Father alone.

Who testified this?  Where? 

Quote
The third person is addressed by this way : See it is necessary in the sense that the Son proceeds (goes forth) from the father alone.

Why are you using "proceeds (goes forth)" to describe the Son?  You claim:

Quote
If the Spirit too has this relation then the Son and the Holy Spirit are confused thus it is necessary that the Spirit also proceed from the son.

And yet you seem to equate procession and begetting when it comes to the Son. 

In any case, I'm not sure how the Son and the Holy Spirit are confused if they come from the Father alone.  One is begotten and the other proceeds.  Each has a different "name".  We are able to tell them apart.  How come you can't? 

Quote
One of the eastern fathers (slips my mind as to who) was rigorist ,and pretty much an early Photian,  said that how the Son and the Spirit are different in their relations, we cannot speculate. This is the result of excluding the son from the procession. Material admission of Semi modalism. Luckily most of the fathers taught different on this issue as Aquinas showed.

"One of the eastern fathers (slips my mind as to who)" is as useful as "..." and "ibid". 

I'm not sure why you want to pin modalism or "Semi modalism" on John 15.26 and the holy fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council.  Does Filioque mean that much to you that you have to make even Jesus a heretic? 
The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Actually, Mor's face shineth like the Sun.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,022
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #457 on: April 20, 2015, 05:48:04 AM »
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?
Because we must also preserve the natural properties of persons as tradition teaches us about each of them. That is; this principle of necessity of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the father and the son is guided by a grander principle  : The things proper to each person which make then who they are. The father is the father because the son is begotten of him. Not because the spirit proceeds from him.

So the Father and the Son only have a relation with each other in a fundamental sense, and then, secondarily and together, a relation with the Spirit?

No they have an opposite relation exclusive to themselves and another exclusive to the holy spirit respectively each of each other (That is the Father and the Son each to the Holy Ghost)

As St Thomas says excellently :

"the divine persons are distinguished from each other only by the relations. Now the relations cannot distinguish the persons except forasmuch as they are opposite relations"

Quote
Quote
What you advocate (Father and Spirit both begetting) ignores this principle and ends up in modalism.


I didn't advocate any such thing.  I asked a question.
Ok well that's what the fundamental premise of your question never took into account

Quote
Quote
The Son is only begotten of the father in both ways... That he is the only son of the father and that the father is the only one who begets him so scripture has taught us.

OK...

Quote
Quote
"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?

It is about the two persons and is exclusive to them because the Son is testified to be from the Father alone.

Who testified this?  Where? 
Besides the obvious (scripture), the Athanasian creed testifies this.

Quote
Quote
The third person is addressed by this way : See it is necessary in the sense that the Son proceeds (goes forth) from the father alone.

Why are you using "proceeds (goes forth)" to describe the Son?
Because the Son goes forth from the the father. That is to proceed. The Son I first said to proceed theologically and thenceforth is substantiated as to how this entails that he can be called "begotten". But yet this is one action and this they are not spoken of separately. Aquinas says "For a just consideration of the truth will convince anyone that the word procession is the one most commonly applied to all that denotes origin of any kind. For we use the term to describe any kind of origin"

Quote
Quote
If the Spirit too has this relation then the Son and the Holy Spirit are confused thus it is necessary that the Spirit also proceed from the son.

And yet you seem to equate procession and begetting when it comes to the Son. 

In any case, I'm not sure how the Son and the Holy Spirit are confused if they come from the Father alone.  One is begotten and the other proceeds.  Each has a different "name".  We are able to tell them apart.  How come you can't? 

Because the Angelic doctor shows without any doubt that :

"the order of the procession of each one agrees with this conclusion. For it was said above (27, 2,4; 28, 4), that the Son proceeds by the way of the intellect as Word, and the Holy Ghost by way of the will as Love. Now love must proceed from a word. For we do not love anything unless we apprehend it by a mental conception. Hence also in this way it is manifest that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

We derive a knowledge of the same truth from the very order of nature itself. For we nowhere find that several things proceed from one without order except in those which differ only by their matter; as for instance one smith produces many knives distinct from each other materially, with no order to each other; whereas in things in which there is not only a material distinction we always find that some order exists in the multitude produced. Hence also in the order of creatures produced, the beauty of the divine wisdom is displayed. So if from the one Person of the Father, two persons proceed, the Son and the Holy Ghost, there must be some order between them. Nor can any other be assigned except the order of their nature, whereby one is from the other. Therefore it cannot be said that the Son and the Holy Ghost proceed from the Father in such a way as that neither of them proceeds from the other, unless we admit in them a material distinction; which is impossible.

Hence also the Greeks themselves recognize that the procession of the Holy Ghost has some order to the Son. For they grant that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit "of the Son"; and that He is from the Father "through the Son." Some of them are said also to concede that "He is from the Son"; or that "He flows from the Son," but not that He proceeds; which seems to come from ignorance or obstinacy. For a just consideration of the truth will convince anyone that the word procession is the one most commonly applied to all that denotes origin of any kind. For we use the term to describe any kind of origin; as when we say that a line proceeds from a point, a ray from the sun, a stream from a source, and likewise in everything else. Hence, granted that the Holy Ghost originates in any way from the Son, we can conclude that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

When the Holy Ghost is said to rest or abide in the Son, it does not mean that He does not proceed from Him; for the Son also is said to abide in the Father, although He proceeds from the Father. Also the Holy Ghost is said to rest in the Son as the love of the lover abides in the beloved; or in reference to the human nature of Christ, by reason of what is written: "On whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is who baptizes" (John 1:33).

For the reason that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father perfectly, not only is it not superfluous to say He proceeds from the Son, but rather it is absolutely necessary. Forasmuch as one power belongs to the Father and the Son; and because whatever is from the Father, must be from the Son unless it be opposed to the property of filiation; for the Son is not from Himself, although He is from the Father.

The Holy Ghost is distinguished from the Son, inasmuch as the origin of one is distinguished from the origin of the other; but the difference itself of origin comes from the fact that the Son is only from the Father, whereas the Holy Ghost is from the Father and the Son; for otherwise the processions would not be distinguished from each other as explained above


Quote
I'm not sure why you want to pin modalism or "Semi modalism" on John 15.26 and the holy fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council.  Does Filioque mean that much to you that you have to make even Jesus a heretic?

They were not modalists. They were nit even addressing the same issues as the filioque. At Constantinople they we responding to the heresy that the Spirit is a creation of the Son and thus not divine. The statement of procession from the father is used to demonstrate that he is of the father eternally, not created nor not of the son exclusively as a creation.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2015, 05:53:42 AM by Wandile »
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


You are welcome to send me private messages but I don't post publicly anymore

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,173
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #458 on: April 20, 2015, 05:58:50 AM »
Christus resurrexit!
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?
Because we must also preserve the natural properties of persons as tradition teaches us about each of them. That is; this principle of necessity of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the father and the son is guided by a grander principle  : The things proper to each person which make then who they are. The father is the father because the son is begotten of him. Not because the spirit proceeds from him.

So the Father and the Son only have a relation with each other in a fundamental sense, and then, secondarily and together, a relation with the Spirit?

No they have an opposite relation exclusive to themselves and another exclusive to the holy spirit respectively each of each other (That is the Father and the Son each to the Holy Ghost)

As St Thomas says excellently :

"the divine persons are distinguished from each other only by the relations. Now the relations cannot distinguish the persons except forasmuch as they are opposite relations"

Quote
Quote
What you advocate (Father and Spirit both begetting) ignores this principle and ends up in modalism.


I didn't advocate any such thing.  I asked a question.
Ok well that's what the fundamental premise of your question never took into account

Quote
Quote
The Son is only begotten of the father in both ways... That he is the only son of the father and that the father is the only one who begets him so scripture has taught us.

OK...

Quote
Quote
"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?

It is about the two persons and is exclusive to them because the Son is testified to be from the Father alone.

Who testified this?  Where? 
Besides the obvious (scripture), the Athanasian creed testifies this.
Don't have time for all this pile of....but just to note that besides Scripture contradicting the filioque, the Athanasian creed is a Western forgery which has nothing to do with Pope St. Athanasius (its text shows that it was originally composed in Latin).

Yet again Vatican claims based on falsified documents.
Quote
Quote
The third person is addressed by this way : See it is necessary in the sense that the Son proceeds (goes forth) from the father alone.

Why are you using "proceeds (goes forth)" to describe the Son?
Because the Son goes forth from the the father. That is to proceed. The Son I first said to proceed theologically and thenceforth is substantiated as to how this entails that he can be called "begotten". But yet this is one action and this they are not spoken of separately. Aquinas says "For a just consideration of the truth will convince anyone that the word procession is the one most commonly applied to all that denotes origin of any kind. For we use the term to describe any kind of origin"

Quote
Quote
If the Spirit too has this relation then the Son and the Holy Spirit are confused thus it is necessary that the Spirit also proceed from the son.

And yet you seem to equate procession and begetting when it comes to the Son. 

In any case, I'm not sure how the Son and the Holy Spirit are confused if they come from the Father alone.  One is begotten and the other proceeds.  Each has a different "name".  We are able to tell them apart.  How come you can't? 

Because the Angelic doctor shows without any doubt that :

"the order of the procession of each one agrees with this conclusion. For it was said above (27, 2,4; 28, 4), that the Son proceeds by the way of the intellect as Word, and the Holy Ghost by way of the will as Love. Now love must proceed from a word. For we do not love anything unless we apprehend it by a mental conception. Hence also in this way it is manifest that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

We derive a knowledge of the same truth from the very order of nature itself. For we nowhere find that several things proceed from one without order except in those which differ only by their matter; as for instance one smith produces many knives distinct from each other materially, with no order to each other; whereas in things in which there is not only a material distinction we always find that some order exists in the multitude produced. Hence also in the order of creatures produced, the beauty of the divine wisdom is displayed. So if from the one Person of the Father, two persons proceed, the Son and the Holy Ghost, there must be some order between them. Nor can any other be assigned except the order of their nature, whereby one is from the other. Therefore it cannot be said that the Son and the Holy Ghost proceed from the Father in such a way as that neither of them proceeds from the other, unless we admit in them a material distinction; which is impossible.

Hence also the Greeks themselves recognize that the procession of the Holy Ghost has some order to the Son. For they grant that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit "of the Son"; and that He is from the Father "through the Son." Some of them are said also to concede that "He is from the Son"; or that "He flows from the Son," but not that He proceeds; which seems to come from ignorance or obstinacy. For a just consideration of the truth will convince anyone that the word procession is the one most commonly applied to all that denotes origin of any kind. For we use the term to describe any kind of origin; as when we say that a line proceeds from a point, a ray from the sun, a stream from a source, and likewise in everything else. Hence, granted that the Holy Ghost originates in any way from the Son, we can conclude that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

When the Holy Ghost is said to rest or abide in the Son, it does not mean that He does not proceed from Him; for the Son also is said to abide in the Father, although He proceeds from the Father. Also the Holy Ghost is said to rest in the Son as the love of the lover abides in the beloved; or in reference to the human nature of Christ, by reason of what is written: "On whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is who baptizes" (John 1:33).

For the reason that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father perfectly, not only is it not superfluous to say He proceeds from the Son, but rather it is absolutely necessary. Forasmuch as one power belongs to the Father and the Son; and because whatever is from the Father, must be from the Son unless it be opposed to the property of filiation; for the Son is not from Himself, although He is from the Father.

The Holy Ghost is distinguished from the Son, inasmuch as the origin of one is distinguished from the origin of the other; but the difference itself of origin comes from the fact that the Son is only from the Father, whereas the Holy Ghost is from the Father and the Son; for otherwise the processions would not be distinguished from each other as explained above


Quote
I'm not sure why you want to pin modalism or "Semi modalism" on John 15.26 and the holy fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council.  Does Filioque mean that much to you that you have to make even Jesus a heretic?

They were not modalists. They were nit even addressing the same issues as the filioque. At Constantinople they we responding to the heresy that the Spirit is a creation of the Son and thus not divine. The statement of procession from the father is used to demonstrate that he is of the father eternally, not created nor not of the son exclusively as a creation.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2015, 05:59:43 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 Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,706
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #459 on: April 20, 2015, 05:59:20 AM »
Ecclesiae Locuta Est.
Causa Finita Est.

It's either ecclesiae locutae sunt or ecclesia locuta est.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2015, 06:00:48 AM by Cyrillic »

Offline Xavier

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #460 on: April 20, 2015, 06:46:26 AM »
True, the original phrase is actually Roma Locuta Est, Causa Finita Est, derived from a similar passage in St. Augustine.

1. Yes, Wandile, St. Thomas proves that there must be an eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit, as you say. For, if the Son and the Spirit come forth from the Father without an eternal relationship between them, there would be no mutual relation and consequently no distinction of Person between them, and then only two Persons in the Trinity, which is heretical. The distinction of Person between the Son and the Spirit demands a mutual relation between them, which can only be that taught by St. Leo long ago, "they [Sabellians] assert that there is one and the same person of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, as though the same God should at one time be named Father, at another time Son, at another time Holy Spirit; and as though there were not one Who begat, another Who is begotten, another Who proceeds from both." clearly showing it is this order of procession that distinguishes the divine Persons.

Anyone who wants more ancient sources will find about a 100 teaching the Filioque here http://catholicpatristics.blogspot.in/2009/08/filioque.html

For those who want Ecumenical approval, here's a brief consideration - Theodoret, who defended Nestorius before the Council of Chalcedon, was among the first to defend the heresy that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son and receive His existence from Him and the Father, attacking St. Cyril of Alexandria for clearly stating the contrary. The Fifth Ecumenical Council pronounced a solemn anathema on anyone who would defend Theodoret's ideas against St. Cyril's, as all those who deny that eternal subsistence still do. Wiki: "Photius's position that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone has been described as only a restatement of Theodoret's. In spite of Theodoret's attack on him for saying "the Spirit has his existence either from the Son or through the Son", Cyril continued to use such formulae.[31][32]Under persistent urging by the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon (451), Theodoret finally pronounced an anathema on Nestorius.[33] He died in 457. Almost exactly one hundred years later, the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553) declared anathema anyone who would defend the writings of Theodoret against Saint Cyril and his Twelve Anathemas,[34] the ninth of which Theodoret had attacked for what it said of the procession of the Holy Spirit.[22]" Clearly, no orthodox or Catholic Christian can do such a thing. Those who presume to anathematize this teaching really only succeed in anathematizing St. Cyril and Constantinople II, that is, in anathematizing themselves from St. Cyril and Constantinople II's communion.

2. There are not two origins in the Godhead, nor does Florence ever say such a thing. The Monarchy of the Father is preserved in the Western Tradition no less admirably in the legitimate Eastern one, since the Holy Ghost is called the Love of the Father as He is in Himself, but in the Son is as the Love of the Father in the Beloved Son. Therefore, the Father remains the unoriginate source of divinity, but the Holy Ghost receives His eternal subsistence from the Father and the Son together, inasmuch as He is the Eternal Love of Both, as the Son is the Eternal Word of the Father alone. Both Florence and the present Catechism of the Catholic Church teach and express the complementarity of the formulations, "from the Father and the Son" and "from the Father through the Son" -

"St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian Tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447 A.D. ... The Latin Tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)". The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, 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." ... At the outset the Eastern Tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western Tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque) ... This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of Faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed."

To those who still contest it, compare St. Cyril saying that since the Son is "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."

3. Ialmisry, I answered your question, please answer mine. St. Hormisdas' statement is a profession of Faith, St. Leo the Great's statement is an official teaching or Magisterial document, the others are the Fathers engaged in controversies, or Popes writing unofficially as private theologians, as can be seen from the source attributed in each case. Whether official or unofficial, how can you claim this is a heresy now without anathematizing those Popes, Saints and Fathers? If you recognize from the Father through the Son, which St. John Damascene in your quote above says, how can you deny the eternal spiration of the Holy Ghost is mediated (not caused) through the Son? That's why I quoted the study saying, before commenting on St. John. "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." The Holy Ghost receives His eternal subsistence in one eternal act of spiration from the Father and the Son.

Lastly, Joe, I am happy to agree to disagree, if that's what you mean.  But obviously, I'm not happy for there to be continued division on account of this and I would be a schismatic if I was. St. Augustine says the sin of schism consists in "taking pleasure at the mere disunion of the community" by separating from those who "have the same Faith and the same worship". So, I do not regard it as a matter of indifference, either the Filioque is heretical and a continued reason for division, or in fact a doctrine, and there should be no grounds for disunity on this point between East and West.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2015, 06:52:16 AM by Xavier »
The All-Holy Theotokos, the Panagia, is the perfect model of theosis, an image of the Church, Bride of God without "stain or blemish" (cf. Eph 5:27, SoS 4:7)

St. Ephraem of Syria, Thou alone and Thy Mother are in all things fair; there is no flaw in Thee and no stain in Thy Mother

St. Proclus of Constantinople, As He formed Her without any stain of Her own, so He proceeded from Her contracting no stain.

St. Sophronius of Jerusalem, No one has been purified in advance as Thou (Mary) hast been

Offline Kyrillios Anthonios

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #461 on: April 20, 2015, 06:59:20 AM »
You are condemned by your own speech.  No need to make long and turtous excuses.

The Church condemns the heresy of two origins and causes.  Anathema upon the Filioquists.  Amen.

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #462 on: April 20, 2015, 07:46:45 AM »
Regarding the Athanasian Creed, Metropolitan Kalliatos Ware states in the Orthodox Church that copies of it,,sans the Filioque,,are found in some Orthodox prayer books.  Did St. Arhanasius personally write it?  I rather doubt it; it's density, verbosity and rigorism are at odds with the style one encounters in De Incarnatione, The Life of St. Anthony, and the canons attributed to him.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline Jonathan Gress

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,541
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #463 on: April 20, 2015, 01:38:45 PM »
Regarding the Athanasian Creed, Metropolitan Kalliatos Ware states in the Orthodox Church that copies of it,,sans the Filioque,,are found in some Orthodox prayer books.  Did St. Arhanasius personally write it?  I rather doubt it; it's density, verbosity and rigorism are at odds with the style one encounters in De Incarnatione, The Life of St. Anthony, and the canons attributed to him.

I wonder just how sound stylistic arguments of that nature are in actual fact. They seem to rely a lot on the subjective impressions of the critic.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,173
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #464 on: April 20, 2015, 02:01:33 PM »
Christus resurrexit!
3. Ialmisry, I answered your question

No, you did not.
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.

please answer mine.

I did.
How can one accuse the Filioque of being heretical?
Easy, because it is.

St. Hormisdas' statement is a profession of Faith, St. Leo the Great's statement is an official teaching or Magisterial document, the others are the Fathers engaged in controversies, or Popes writing unofficially as private theologians, as can be seen from the source attributed in each case. Whether official or unofficial, how can you claim this is a heresy now without anathematizing those Popes, Saints and Fathers?

their contemporaries refuted their claims without anathematizing them, why should I? "Move not the boundaries which your Fathers have set up." You Vaticanistas get in so much trouble forgetting that.

If you recognize from the Father through the Son, which St. John Damascene in your quote above says, how can you deny the eternal spiration of the Holy Ghost is mediated (not caused) through the Son?

Because I follow what the Fathers passed on from Apostles what God revealed to them, neither adding nor subtracting.  You Scholastics get into so much trouble trying to know better than God.

That's why I quoted the study saying, before commenting on St. John. "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." The Holy Ghost receives His eternal subsistence in one eternal act of spiration from the Father and the Son.
Sorry, St. John wasn't into spooftexting, and neither am I.
Lastly, Joe, I am happy to agree to disagree, if that's what you mean.  But obviously, I'm not happy for there to be continued division on account of this and I would be a schismatic if I was. St. Augustine says the sin of schism consists in "taking pleasure at the mere disunion of the community" by separating from those who "have the same Faith and the same worship". So, I do not regard it as a matter of indifference, either the Filioque is heretical and a continued reason for division, or in fact a doctrine, and there should be no grounds for disunity on this point between East and West.
your Supreme Pontiff Leo IX should have thought of that before he sent Card. Umberto on his ill-conceived mission, and wrote his epistle on the basis of forgeries.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2015, 02:02:32 PM 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 Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,080
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #465 on: April 20, 2015, 02:09:23 PM »
Regarding the Athanasian Creed, Metropolitan Kalliatos Ware states in the Orthodox Church that copies of it,,sans the Filioque,,are found in some Orthodox prayer books.  Did St. Arhanasius personally write it?  I rather doubt it; it's density, verbosity and rigorism are at odds with the style one encounters in De Incarnatione, The Life of St. Anthony, and the canons attributed to him.

I wonder just how sound stylistic arguments of that nature are in actual fact. They seem to rely a lot on the subjective impressions of the critic.

Not only that, but how is it possible to compare between such different genres? A creed is not like a polemic or a biography. The critic might as well say, Lewis Carroll does not rhyme: these poems are interpolations.
"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 Jonathan Gress

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,541
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #466 on: April 20, 2015, 02:10:47 PM »
Regarding the Athanasian Creed, Metropolitan Kalliatos Ware states in the Orthodox Church that copies of it,,sans the Filioque,,are found in some Orthodox prayer books.  Did St. Arhanasius personally write it?  I rather doubt it; it's density, verbosity and rigorism are at odds with the style one encounters in De Incarnatione, The Life of St. Anthony, and the canons attributed to him.

I wonder just how sound stylistic arguments of that nature are in actual fact. They seem to rely a lot on the subjective impressions of the critic.

Not only that, but how is it possible to compare between such different genres? A creed is not like a polemic or a biography. The critic might as well say, Lewis Carroll does not rhyme: these poems are interpolations.

Good point!

I like agreeing with you now and then. ;)

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #467 on: April 20, 2015, 02:18:05 PM »
Well congratulations, you've in fact actually voiced, ironically through my own anuse of it, my discomfort with most so called Higher Criticism.

But the fact that the Quicunque Vult doesn't read like St. Athanasius is one matter; the lack of contemporary attest action, another, more compelling.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,790
    • Vida Ortodoxa
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #468 on: April 20, 2015, 02:25:07 PM »
Regarding the Athanasian Creed, Metropolitan Kalliatos Ware states in the Orthodox Church that copies of it,,sans the Filioque,,are found in some Orthodox prayer books.  Did St. Arhanasius personally write it?  I rather doubt it; it's density, verbosity and rigorism are at odds with the style one encounters in De Incarnatione, The Life of St. Anthony, and the canons attributed to him.

I wonder just how sound stylistic arguments of that nature are in actual fact. They seem to rely a lot on the subjective impressions of the critic.

Not only that, but how is it possible to compare between such different genres? A creed is not like a polemic or a biography. The critic might as well say, Lewis Carroll does not rhyme: these poems are interpolations.

Good point!

I like agreeing with you now and then. ;)

I don't buy the stylistic arguments either. It assumes authors are unable to write in different ways while actually, being able to switch styles is a skill that some great writers have. Fernando Pessoa and his many heteornyms is a case in point.
Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,080
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #469 on: April 20, 2015, 02:36:10 PM »
Regarding the Athanasian Creed, Metropolitan Kalliatos Ware states in the Orthodox Church that copies of it,,sans the Filioque,,are found in some Orthodox prayer books.  Did St. Arhanasius personally write it?  I rather doubt it; it's density, verbosity and rigorism are at odds with the style one encounters in De Incarnatione, The Life of St. Anthony, and the canons attributed to him.

I wonder just how sound stylistic arguments of that nature are in actual fact. They seem to rely a lot on the subjective impressions of the critic.

Not only that, but how is it possible to compare between such different genres? A creed is not like a polemic or a biography. The critic might as well say, Lewis Carroll does not rhyme: these poems are interpolations.

Good point!

I like agreeing with you now and then. ;)

I don't buy the stylistic arguments either. It assumes authors are unable to write in different ways while actually, being able to switch styles is a skill that some great writers have. Fernando Pessoa and his many heteornyms is a case in point.

Okay now you're going to another extreme. If we're dealing with "skilled heteronymists," then all the Fathers of a certain age could be the same man.
"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 Jonathan Gress

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,541
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #470 on: April 20, 2015, 02:41:17 PM »
Regarding the Athanasian Creed, Metropolitan Kalliatos Ware states in the Orthodox Church that copies of it,,sans the Filioque,,are found in some Orthodox prayer books.  Did St. Arhanasius personally write it?  I rather doubt it; it's density, verbosity and rigorism are at odds with the style one encounters in De Incarnatione, The Life of St. Anthony, and the canons attributed to him.

I wonder just how sound stylistic arguments of that nature are in actual fact. They seem to rely a lot on the subjective impressions of the critic.

Not only that, but how is it possible to compare between such different genres? A creed is not like a polemic or a biography. The critic might as well say, Lewis Carroll does not rhyme: these poems are interpolations.

Good point!

I like agreeing with you now and then. ;)

I don't buy the stylistic arguments either. It assumes authors are unable to write in different ways while actually, being able to switch styles is a skill that some great writers have. Fernando Pessoa and his many heteornyms is a case in point.

Note that I'm not saying there's no way to determine objectively if a text's attribution is correct (over and above whatever attribution has been handed down by tradition). But I would prefer something more rigorous than vague impressions of "verbosity", especially if we're looking at different textual genres.

One thing I admire about St Photius is that, on studying his Bibliotheca (a list of summaries and short reviews of books he read), he was often willing to entertain ideas that went against tradition or consensus (and, apparently, others at the time were similarly willing). For example, in one case he mentions a book that disputed the traditional attribution of the Epistle to the Hebrews to St Paul (this is an old dispute, apparently): he is not persuaded by the arguments, but at the same time he doesn't dismiss them out of hand as "heresy". It seems the Fathers were not always as close-minded as one might think.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2015, 02:41:59 PM by Jonathan Gress »

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,080
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #471 on: April 20, 2015, 02:45:38 PM »
My favorite tradition of the author of the Hebrews is Apollos.
"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 Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,790
    • Vida Ortodoxa
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #472 on: April 20, 2015, 04:58:36 PM »
Regarding the Athanasian Creed, Metropolitan Kalliatos Ware states in the Orthodox Church that copies of it,,sans the Filioque,,are found in some Orthodox prayer books.  Did St. Arhanasius personally write it?  I rather doubt it; it's density, verbosity and rigorism are at odds with the style one encounters in De Incarnatione, The Life of St. Anthony, and the canons attributed to him.

I wonder just how sound stylistic arguments of that nature are in actual fact. They seem to rely a lot on the subjective impressions of the critic.

Not only that, but how is it possible to compare between such different genres? A creed is not like a polemic or a biography. The critic might as well say, Lewis Carroll does not rhyme: these poems are interpolations.

Good point!

I like agreeing with you now and then. ;)

I don't buy the stylistic arguments either. It assumes authors are unable to write in different ways while actually, being able to switch styles is a skill that some great writers have. Fernando Pessoa and his many heteornyms is a case in point.

Okay now you're going to another extreme. If we're dealing with "skilled heteronymists," then all the Fathers of a certain age could be the same man.

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

Offline Xavier

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #473 on: April 21, 2015, 03:12:37 AM »
Quote from: Ialmisry
their contemporaries refuted their claims without anathematizing them, why should I?

Well, which of the Fathers specifically attempted to refute these Popes? The Tradition of the East and West in the first Christian millenium cannot be radically opposed to each other. Let's start with St. Hormisdas' confession in 517 A.D. , "characteristic of the Spirit to proceed from Father and Son in one substance of deity", this is a profession of Faith. Under the same St. Hormisdas, Eastern bishops said they were in agreement with St. Hormisdas on all things, in A.D. 519, how, then, can such a profession of Faith contain a manifest heresy? And this is not even a personal statement by one misguided Pope, but the Tradition of the Roman Church professed uninterruptedly by a series of many Popes, already from St. Leo the Great to St. Gregory the Great, to subsequent ones.

Secondly, if the Filioque was at one time believed widely in the West, but later condemned by the Church as heretical, you should be able to show us the Ecumenical Council where this happened. But you will find no such Council, as documented above, the closest is where the Fifth Ecumenical Council condemned Thodoret's former anathemas against St. Cyril, specifically the ninth, for saying the Spirit has His existence from and through the Son with the Father. St. Cyril is perhaps among the clearest of the Greek Fathers to express this teaching, as he does in many passages "since He is the Word from God the Father, and from His own nature He causes Him to fountain upon us." as well as the complementarity of the two traditional formulations of East and West, "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." Please address, if you anathematize this statement, how you are not doing what Constantinople II said you shouldn't do?

As for us "scholastics" who you accuse of adding to the Faith, we have received from our Fathers, especially in the Latin West, by universal consent that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. (1) St. Maximus says it is the unanimous consent of the Latin Fathers, before teaching himself that "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 ", something the Church has always regarded as an admirable expression of the Eastern Tradition, complementary with the Western. (2) St. Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, made this public profession in Nicaea II, (το Πνευμα το αγιον, το κυριον και ζωοποιον, το εκ του Πατροσ δια του Υιου εκπορευομενον.") "And in the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father through the Son, and Who is acknowledged to be Himself God.", there are other sources from the East, using essentially the same formulation, (3) St. John Damascene, "I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word coming from himself and, through his Word, the Spirit issuing from him" (4) St. Athanasius, "David sings in the psalm [35:10], saying: 'For with You is the Fount of Life;'because jointly with the Father the Son is indeed the Fount of the Holy Spirit." (something confirmed by St. Ambrose, ("Learn now that as the Father is the Fount of Life, so, too, many have stated that the Son is signified as the Fount of Life; so that, he says, with Thee, Almighty God, Thy Son is the Fount of Life. That is the Fount of the Holy Spirit, for the Spirit is Life)

As far as the Athanasian Creed is concerned, its origin is shrouded in mystery. Traditionally, it was thought that St. Athanasius presented it to Pope St. Julius, as proof of his orthodoxy at a time when the Saintly Patriarch of Alexandria had many foes in the Church. Many scholars think the Quicunque Vult in its present form was substantially added to by St. Vincent of Lerins, especially the part that concerns the Incarnation, after Ephesus, because of the remarkable precision of its teaching against Nestorianism and later errors, and because of similar phraseology in St. Vincent. A few others, admittedly a minority, think this is no great obstacle to its being originally composed by St. Athanasius, who was divinely enlightened in refuting future errors. We know at least that the creed was certainly cited in a sermon of St. Caesarius of Arles, and had begun to be widely used in the West by his time, with no one accusing it of heresy. In any case, the undisputed statement of St. Athanasius above leaves no doubt that the saintly Doctor held, with St. Ambrose and other Latin Doctors, that together with the Father, the Son is the fountain of Life, that is of the Holy Spirit.

After these and other such texts in the Fathers were studied, Florence decreed, "Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. " On the strength of the Tradition mentioned above, in both East and West in the first millenium, the Catholic Church justly holds the two formulations to be  complementary and consequently no grounds for division to be prolonged.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2015, 03:13:53 AM by Xavier »
The All-Holy Theotokos, the Panagia, is the perfect model of theosis, an image of the Church, Bride of God without "stain or blemish" (cf. Eph 5:27, SoS 4:7)

St. Ephraem of Syria, Thou alone and Thy Mother are in all things fair; there is no flaw in Thee and no stain in Thy Mother

St. Proclus of Constantinople, As He formed Her without any stain of Her own, so He proceeded from Her contracting no stain.

St. Sophronius of Jerusalem, No one has been purified in advance as Thou (Mary) hast been

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,985
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • St. Gregory the Theologian Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox (former WR)
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Boston
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #474 on: April 21, 2015, 09:03:35 AM »
Quote
from the Father through the Son.
Through is WAY different than FROM. Its like having the postman deliver a letter from my Aunt. THe letter is FROM my Aunt, delivered by the postman. The letter is not from the postman as well.

Quote
As far as the Athanasian Creed is concerned, its origin is shrouded in mystery
Just like the Donation of Constantine?  ;)

PP
"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,941
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #475 on: April 21, 2015, 12:06:57 PM »
Secondly, if the Filioque was at one time believed widely in the West, but later condemned by the Church as heretical, you should be able to show us the Ecumenical Council where this happened. But you will find no such Council, as documented above, the closest is where the Fifth Ecumenical Council condemned Thodoret's former anathemas against St. Cyril, specifically the ninth, for saying the Spirit has His existence from and through the Son with the Father. St. Cyril is perhaps among the clearest of the Greek Fathers to express this teaching, as he does in many passages "since He is the Word from God the Father, and from His own nature He causes Him to fountain upon us." as well as the complementarity of the two traditional formulations of East and West, "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." Please address, if you anathematize this statement, how you are not doing what Constantinople II said you shouldn't do?

St. Cyril, in response to this anathema, clarified that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, according to the words of Lord, but that the Spirit is not alien to the Son, for the Spirit glorifies Jesus, performing incomprehensible works, but he does so as Jesus' own Spirit and not as an an alien power or something greater. (You can see his response in PG 76 433). St. Cyril does not, to my knowledge, dispute Theodoret's assertion that the Holy Spirit does not have existence from or through the Son, but only clarifies his own Christological concerns. Theodoret was seemingly satisfied with this answer, as he later remarked that he found St. Cyril's answer to be orthodox.

Insofar as Theodoret's anti-Cyrillian writings were condemned in general for their opposition to Cyril and the Twelve Chapters (the council, in other words, did not conjure up specific counter-anathematisms to dispute doctrinal points in the letters), to say that the proposition that the Holy Spirit does not have existence from or through the Son was condemned would be a real stretch, since the proposition was neither denied by St. Cyril (indeed, he seems to affirm it, though only weakly), nor is it directly opposed to the teachings of the Twelve Chapters.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 32,618
  • Pope Pius XIII, play for us!
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #476 on: April 21, 2015, 01:28:52 PM »
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?
Because we must also preserve the natural properties of persons as tradition teaches us about each of them. That is; this principle of necessity of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the father and the son is guided by a grander principle  : The things proper to each person which make then who they are. The father is the father because the son is begotten of him. Not because the spirit proceeds from him.

So the Father and the Son only have a relation with each other in a fundamental sense, and then, secondarily and together, a relation with the Spirit?

No they have an opposite relation exclusive to themselves and another exclusive to the holy spirit respectively each of each other (That is the Father and the Son each to the Holy Ghost)

As St Thomas says excellently :

"the divine persons are distinguished from each other only by the relations. Now the relations cannot distinguish the persons except forasmuch as they are opposite relations"

What is an "opposite relation"? 

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
"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?

It is about the two persons and is exclusive to them because the Son is testified to be from the Father alone.

Who testified this?  Where? 
Besides the obvious (scripture), the Athanasian creed testifies this.

Where in Scripture?  Citations, please. 

As for the Athanasian creed, I'm not sure I can accept that as a legitimate source if your Church couldn't accept the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed as it is.  But if you can cite something specific within it, please go ahead.

Quote
Quote
Quote
The third person is addressed by this way : See it is necessary in the sense that the Son proceeds (goes forth) from the father alone.

Why are you using "proceeds (goes forth)" to describe the Son?
Because the Son goes forth from the the father. That is to proceed. The Son I first said to proceed theologically and thenceforth is substantiated as to how this entails that he can be called "begotten". But yet this is one action and this they are not spoken of separately. Aquinas says "For a just consideration of the truth will convince anyone that the word procession is the one most commonly applied to all that denotes origin of any kind. For we use the term to describe any kind of origin"

So "begetting" is just a name attached to a particular instance of "proceeding" only because the result of that "procession" is something named "Son"? 

Quote
Quote
Quote
If the Spirit too has this relation then the Son and the Holy Spirit are confused thus it is necessary that the Spirit also proceed from the son.

And yet you seem to equate procession and begetting when it comes to the Son. 

In any case, I'm not sure how the Son and the Holy Spirit are confused if they come from the Father alone.  One is begotten and the other proceeds.  Each has a different "name".  We are able to tell them apart.  How come you can't? 

Because the Angelic doctor shows without any doubt[ that :

"the order of the procession of each one agrees with this conclusion. For it was said above (27, 2,4; 28, 4), that the Son proceeds by the way of the intellect as Word, and the Holy Ghost by way of the will as Love. Now love must proceed from a word. For we do not love anything unless we apprehend it by a mental conception. Hence also in this way it is manifest that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

What is this?  "Proceeds by way of the intellect" vs "proceeds by way of the will"?  You claimed that the East sans Filioque tended toward modalism, but what is this if not modalism? 

Quote
Quote
We derive a knowledge of the same truth from the very order of nature itself. For we nowhere find that several things proceed from one without order except in those which differ only by their matter; as for instance one smith produces many knives distinct from each other materially, with no order to each other; whereas in things in which there is not only a material distinction we always find that some order exists in the multitude produced. Hence also in the order of creatures produced, the beauty of the divine wisdom is displayed. So if from the one Person of the Father, two persons proceed, the Son and the Holy Ghost, there must be some order between them. Nor can any other be assigned except the order of their nature, whereby one is from the other. Therefore it cannot be said that the Son and the Holy Ghost proceed from the Father in such a way as that neither of them proceeds from the other, unless we admit in them a material distinction; which is impossible.

Hence also the Greeks themselves recognize that the procession of the Holy Ghost has some order to the Son. For they grant that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit "of the Son"; and that He is from the Father "through the Son." Some of them are said also to concede that "He is from the Son"; or that "He flows from the Son," but not that He proceeds; which seems to come from ignorance or obstinacy. For a just consideration of the truth will convince anyone that the word procession is the one most commonly applied to all that denotes origin of any kind. For we use the term to describe any kind of origin; as when we say that a line proceeds from a point, a ray from the sun, a stream from a source, and likewise in everything else. Hence, granted that the Holy Ghost originates in any way from the Son, we can conclude that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

When the Holy Ghost is said to rest or abide in the Son, it does not mean that He does not proceed from Him; for the Son also is said to abide in the Father, although He proceeds from the Father. Also the Holy Ghost is said to rest in the Son as the love of the lover abides in the beloved; or in reference to the human nature of Christ, by reason of what is written: "On whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is who baptizes" (John 1:33).

For the reason that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father perfectly, not only is it not superfluous to say He proceeds from the Son, but rather it is absolutely necessary. Forasmuch as one power belongs to the Father and the Son; and because whatever is from the Father, must be from the Son unless it be opposed to the property of filiation; for the Son is not from Himself, although He is from the Father.

The Holy Ghost is distinguished from the Son, inasmuch as the origin of one is distinguished from the origin of the other; but the difference itself of origin comes from the fact that the Son is only from the Father, whereas the Holy Ghost is from the Father and the Son; for otherwise the processions would not be distinguished from each other as explained above

Why does the Father emanate two persons, and the Son emanate one person, but the Spirit emanates none? 
The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Actually, Mor's face shineth like the Sun.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,173
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #477 on: April 21, 2015, 02:22:18 PM »
Christus resurrexit!
Quote from: Ialmisry
their contemporaries refuted their claims without anathematizing them, why should I?

Well, which of the Fathers specifically attempted to refute these Popes? The Tradition of the East and West in the first Christian millenium cannot be radically opposed to each other.
it wasn't-the descent of the West's ignorance into heresy was slow and gradual.
Let's start with St. Hormisdas' confession in 517 A.D. , "characteristic of the Spirit to proceed from Father and Son in one substance of deity", this is a profession of Faith. Under the same St. Hormisdas, Eastern bishops said they were in agreement with St. Hormisdas on all things, in A.D. 519, how, then, can such a profession of Faith contain a manifest heresy?

LOL. The Formula of Hormisdas. Yes, let's start with that. We already have.
On another forum  :police: ::) :police: there is a thread on the OP here, on the "Eastern Catholicism Forum":Eastern Catholic opinion wanted on Formula of Hormisdas."  Mardukm, of course, is busy there.   I thought we might get to the truth here.

The thread there was started on this:
http://energeticprocession.com/2009/02/16/some-notes-on-the-acacian-schism/

where he makes the interesting observation:
Quote
It is also noteworthy that not all of the eastern churches subscribed to the Formula. The Church of Jerussalem would not do so even under threat of imperial force. And it is important to recall that Justinian designated the church of Jerusalem as “the Mother of the Christian name, from which no one dares to separate.” (PL 63, 503) This is important to keep in mind, say during the monothelite controversy under the patriarch of Jersualem Sophronius  as opposed to Pope Honorius of Rome.

As I've posted, Patriarch John wrote an introduction:
The patriarch of Constantinople, John II of Cappadocia (518-20), signed only after affixing his own preamble to the text: “Know therefore, most holy one, that, according to what I have written, agreeing in the truth with thee, I too, loving peace, renounce all the heretics repudiated by thee: for I hold the most holy churches of the elder and of the new Rome to be one; I define that see of the apostle Peter and this of the imperial city to be one see.”


Dorotheus, bishop of Thessalonica, tore the Formula of Hormisdas in two in front of the people. He was brought to Constantinople for trial, exiled to Heraclea while his case was being considered, but then restored to his see in Thessalonica without ever signing the Formula. The emperor Justin wrote to Hormisdas that many found it difficult to sign the libellus: they “esteem life harder than death, if they should condemn those, when dead, whose life, when they were alive, was the glory of their people.” In reply, Pope Hormisdas urged the emperor to use force to compel them to sign.

According to Denny’s Papalism (referenced in Moss’s The Old Catholic Movement) the other patriarchates of the East refused to sign this statement, and were reconciled through a different agreement. Patriarch John was succeeded by Epiphanius in 520. Patriarch Epiphanius (520-35) wrote to the pope to explain that "very many of the holy bishops of Pontus and Asia and, above all, those referred to as of the Orient, found it to be difficult and even impossible to expunge the names of their former bishops … they were prepared to brave any danger rather than commit such a deed.” Pope Hormisdas wrote to Patriarch Epiphanius and gave him authority to act on his behalf in the East. In this letter, Hormisdas made restoration of communion dependent on agreeing to a declaration of faith that left unmentioned the claimed prerogatives of the bishop of Rome.
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/chron6.htm

The Vatican's present Ecumenical Council (869:Only promoted as such when the Vatican, embroiled in its own investiture contraversy dug up an anti-Photian treatise (the fragmentary record of the 869 Council only survives in this) and its canons. This was post 1054) required the members to sign on to the Formula of Hormisdas, which is odd as the apologists of the Vatican claim it showed papal supremacy in the sixth century. The 869 was dealing with the fact that as many bishops as the emperor couldn't strong arm (Pope Hormisdas told him to use force), refused to sign, included bishops under Rome.
http://books.google.com/books?id=tsE9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=Hormisdas+Epiphanius+Dorotheus&source=bl&ots=M8hMT4fq-z&sig=kjanGS3WQvFV8rYFW-LafylN2sQ&hl=en&ei=kBIoSoODPKPYMKSc4IoF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#PPA108,M1
has a few interesting things to say on this issue.  Bottom line, Pope Hormisdas' supremacy wasn't recognized in the East, even by his own sufragans.
Quote
First it should be noted that if one reads the controversial literature of the 19th and early 20th centuries on the papacy on the anti-papal side, these facts are brought up often enough. (For example in Fr. Puller’s Primitive Saints and the See of Rome. John of Constantinople’s comments can be read in the Patrologia Latina Lxiii. 314, 343, 418, & 443-45. The Pope’s statements in part recognizing that not all of the conditions could be met can be found at Collect. Avellan., Epist. Clviii, sec. 6-8, p.606.

A secondary formula was drawn up to reconcile with the majority of eastern bishops who would not sign the formula of Hormisdas even under threat of torture (Coleti, v. 667) and this included nothing regarding papal perogatives. This is Patrologia Latina lxiii, 512-521. This was the means of reconciliation for the other Patriarchates, with Alexandria signing the modified formula in 538 ad.

The variant Greek and Latin readings of the formula can be seen in the letter of Pope Hadrian to Basil and Constantine in the acts of the 869 council in Mansi, xvi. 21. That council was revoked by both east and west alike, until the late 12th century when Rome reversed itself and re-recognized it, designating it as the Eighth Ecumenical Council.
http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2009/02/16/some-notes-on-the-acacian-schism/feed/
btw, the formula of 519 says nothing about the filioque. I know you want to include it in the catch-all "whatever Rome says"-except when it is convenient to claim it wasn't ex cathedra (e.g. Pope Honorius)-but then as we see, they didn't go with that either. Though they didn't anathematize Abp. Hormisdas.

And this is not even a personal statement by one misguided Pope, but the Tradition of the Roman Church professed uninterruptedly by a series of many Popes, already from St. Leo the Great to St. Gregory the Great, to subsequent ones.
which heresy are you referring to, the filioque or papal supremacy?
Secondly, if the Filioque was at one time believed widely in the West, but later condemned by the Church as heretical, you should be able to show us the Ecumenical Council where this happened. But you will find no such Council, as documented above, the closest is where the Fifth Ecumenical Council condemned Thodoret's former anathemas against St. Cyril, specifically the ninth, for saying the Spirit has His existence from and through the Son with the Father. St. Cyril is perhaps among the clearest of the Greek Fathers to express this teaching, as he does in many passages "since He is the Word from God the Father, and from His own nature He causes Him to fountain upon us." as well as the complementarity of the two traditional formulations of East and West, "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." Please address, if you anathematize this statement, how you are not doing what Constantinople II said you shouldn't do?
You should read the first canon of that Council correctly. And the seventh canon of the Third Council.

As for us "scholastics" who you accuse of adding to the Faith, we have received from our Fathers, especially in the Latin West, by universal consent that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. (1) St. Maximus says it is the unanimous consent of the Latin Fathers, before teaching himself that "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 ", something the Church has always regarded as an admirable expression of the Eastern Tradition, complementary with the Western.

St. Maximus reports on when the filioque became known to the East-who immediately complained of it-and that the Latins at Old Rome did not mean to express heresy (of course, Old Rome gives all sorts of excuses for it depending on the audience). Nonetheless, he saw the danger and had to concede to the demand of the Orthodox to Old Rome returning to the boundaries the Fathers set up.

(2) St. Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, made this public profession in Nicaea II, (το Πνευμα το αγιον, το κυριον και ζωοποιον, το εκ του Πατροσ δια του Υιου εκπορευομενον.") "And in the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father through the Son, and Who is acknowledged to be Himself God.", there are other sources from the East, using essentially the same formulation,
"per Filium", not "filioque."

See, Latin can make the distinction.
(3) St. John Damascene, "I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word coming from himself and, through his Word, the Spirit issuing from him" (4) St. Athanasius, "David sings in the psalm [35:10], saying: 'For with You is the Fount of Life;'because jointly with the Father the Son is indeed the Fount of the Holy Spirit." (something confirmed by St. Ambrose, ("Learn now that as the Father is the Fount of Life, so, too, many have stated that the Son is signified as the Fount of Life; so that, he says, with Thee, Almighty God, Thy Son is the Fount of Life. That is the Fount of the Holy Spirit, for the Spirit is Life)
you seem to be unaware that your spooftexts make as much as defending filioque as does defending the position that the Spirit begets the Son because the Creed confesses that the Son is incarnate "of the Holy Spirit."


btw, you should attribute your quote mine.
http://catholicpatristics.blogspot.com/2009/08/filioque.html
As far as the Athanasian Creed is concerned, its origin is shrouded in mystery. Traditionally, it was thought that St. Athanasius presented it to Pope St. Julius, as proof of his orthodoxy at a time when the Saintly Patriarch of Alexandria had many foes in the Church. Many scholars think the Quicunque Vult in its present form was substantially added to by St. Vincent of Lerins, especially the part that concerns the Incarnation, after Ephesus, because of the remarkable precision of its teaching against Nestorianism and later errors, and because of similar phraseology in St. Vincent. A few others, admittedly a minority, think this is no great obstacle to its being originally composed by St. Athanasius, who was divinely enlightened in refuting future errors. We know at least that the creed was certainly cited in a sermon of St. Caesarius of Arles, and had begun to be widely used in the West by his time, with no one accusing it of heresy.

given that the West was showing itself incapable of distinguishing heresy from Orthodoxy, that isn't surprising. And being in Latin, knowledge of its heresy was contained in the East.
In any case, the undisputed statement of St. Athanasius above leaves no doubt that the saintly Doctor held, with St. Ambrose and other Latin Doctors, that together with the Father, the Son is the fountain of Life, that is of the Holy Spirit.
latching onto quotes wretched out of context doesn't ground heresy, it just gives it the rope to hang itself.

No, Pope St. Athanasius did not confess the filioque.

After these and other such texts in the Fathers were studied, Florence decreed, "Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. "
the decrees of robber councils which have been anathematized do not interest us. Especially, as was stated the the time and has been subsequently vindicated, that they deal with interpolated texts and forgeries (unlike the Ecumenical Councils, the well stocked libraries of the East were not available at the latrocinium of Florence), on top of deficiencies in divine knowledge shown by the Latin Scholastics in their pile of spooftexts. The Vatican's side said that Mark Eugenicus was the only thinker on the Greek side. They were right.

The claim is made that Latin cannot express the difference. Romanian can ("care din Tatăl purcede" vs. the heretical "Care de la Tatăl și de la Fiul purcede"). You just have to want to distinguish Orthodoxy from heresy.

"Same meaning in different words." The Vatican resembles the Anglicans more and more.
On the strength of the Tradition mentioned above, in both East and West in the first millenium, the Catholic Church justly holds the two formulations to be  complementary
The Vatican so holds, which is why she was outside the Catholic Church the whole second millenium. We'll see if she persists in her errors in the third millenium.
and consequently no grounds for division to be prolonged.
Well then, just renounce the false doctrine that, for the expression of the dogma touching the Procession of the Holy Spirit the declaration of our Savior Christ himself: 'who proceedeth from the Father': doth not suffice; and that the addition, of man's invention: 'and from the Son': is required, renounce the erroneous belief that it doth not suffice to confess our Lord Jesus Christ as the head of the Universal Church; and that a man, to wit, the Bishop of Rome, can be the head of Christ’s Body, that is to say, of the whole Church, renounce the erroneous belief that the Holy Apostles did not receive from our Lord equal spiritual power, but that the holy Apostle Peter was their Prince: And that the Bishop of Rome alone is his successor: And that the Bishops of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, and other are not, equally with the Bishop of Rome, successors of the Apostles, renounce the erroneous belief of those who think that the Pope of Rome is superior to the Ecumenical Councils, and infallible in faith, notwithstanding the fact that several of the Popes have been heretics, and condemned as such by the Councils, and renounce all the other doctrines of the Western Confession, both old and new, which are contrary to the Word of God, and to the true traditions of the Church, and to the decrees of the seven Ecumenical Councils, and the division will disappear with your repentance and reception into the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
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 ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,173
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #478 on: April 21, 2015, 02:31:59 PM »
Christ is risen!
Secondly, if the Filioque was at one time believed widely in the West, but later condemned by the Church as heretical, you should be able to show us the Ecumenical Council where this happened. But you will find no such Council, as documented above, the closest is where the Fifth Ecumenical Council condemned Thodoret's former anathemas against St. Cyril, specifically the ninth, for saying the Spirit has His existence from and through the Son with the Father. St. Cyril is perhaps among the clearest of the Greek Fathers to express this teaching, as he does in many passages "since He is the Word from God the Father, and from His own nature He causes Him to fountain upon us." as well as the complementarity of the two traditional formulations of East and West, "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." Please address, if you anathematize this statement, how you are not doing what Constantinople II said you shouldn't do?

St. Cyril, in response to this anathema, clarified that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, according to the words of Lord, but that the Spirit is not alien to the Son, for the Spirit glorifies Jesus, performing incomprehensible works, but he does so as Jesus' own Spirit and not as an an alien power or something greater. (You can see his response in PG 76 433). St. Cyril does not, to my knowledge, dispute Theodoret's assertion that the Holy Spirit does not have existence from or through the Son, but only clarifies his own Christological concerns. Theodoret was seemingly satisfied with this answer, as he later remarked that he found St. Cyril's answer to be orthodox.

Insofar as Theodoret's anti-Cyrillian writings were condemned in general for their opposition to Cyril and the Twelve Chapters (the council, in other words, did not conjure up specific counter-anathematisms to dispute doctrinal points in the letters), to say that the proposition that the Holy Spirit does not have existence from or through the Son was condemned would be a real stretch, since the proposition was neither denied by St. Cyril (indeed, he seems to affirm it, though only weakly), nor is it directly opposed to the teachings of the Twelve Chapters.
not to mention that the Fathers of the Fifth Council went through Theodoret's writings, including his contention that Pope St. Cyril "also blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, saying that He does not proceed from the Father, in accordance with the Lord's saying [St. John 15:26], but has His existence from the Son," but passes over it in silence for the reasons you posted.
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 Marc1152

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 14,838
  • Probiotic .. Antibiotic
  • Jurisdiction: Rocor
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #479 on: April 22, 2015, 03:04:57 PM »
skip
« Last Edit: April 22, 2015, 03:06:58 PM by Marc1152 »
Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Offline Xavier

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #480 on: April 25, 2015, 08:01:43 AM »
St. Cyril, in response to this anathema, clarified that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, according to the words of Lord, but that the Spirit is not alien to the Son, for the Spirit glorifies Jesus, performing incomprehensible works, but he does so as Jesus' own Spirit and not as an an alien power or something greater. (You can see his response in PG 76 433). St. Cyril does not, to my knowledge, dispute Theodoret's assertion that the Holy Spirit does not have existence from or through the Son, but only clarifies his own Christological concerns. Theodoret was seemingly satisfied with this answer, as he later remarked that he found St. Cyril's answer to be orthodox.

Well, Cavaradossi, St. Cyril says the Spirit is in the Son as being His own by Nature and flows forth from Him essentially. "He anoints him, again, with His own Spirit, infusing Him Himself, since He is the Word from God the Father, and from His own nature He causes Him to fountain upon us." It is to this that Theodoret objects strenuously, it being incompatible with his semi-Nestorian view that degraded the dignity of Christ. The Ninth Anathema read, "But if he [St. Cyril] speaks of the Spirit as being of the Son, or as having its origin through the Son we shall reject this statement as blasphemous and impious" and we are all forbidden to defend this line of thought by Constantinople II. Is it really a stretch to say those who claim the Filioque is heretical do are repeating Theodoret's condemned statements?

In any case, the Fifth Ecumenical Council also declared, "We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary ... Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo, and their writings on the true Faith." Firstly, this endorses the teaching of Pope St. Leo the Great and these other Fathers including St. Augustine on the orthodox Trinitarian Faith. Their teaching, therefore, is guaranteed by this Council to be true and safe and cannot be false and harmful, let alone heretical. Second, it endorses St. Cyril in particular and St. Cyril expresses the equality and complementarity of the two formulations in these clear words, " 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."

Opposition to the teaching that the Holy Ghost flows forth eternally and naturally from the Son originates with a semi-Nestorian or Nestorian sympathizer and is practically unknown among the ancient Fathers otherwise. St. Cyril of Alexandria is vindicated by the Fifth Ecumenical Council and Theodoret's writing is condemned by the same, that should be all anyone needs to decide which doctrine is right and which is wrong here. In point of fact, though, even the Fathers of the First Council believed in the doctrine that the Spirit is from the Son and gushes forth from Him.

Quote from: Ialmisry
St. Maximus reports on when the filioque became known to the East -who immediately complained of it-

You neglect to mention, Ialmisry, that it was not St. Maximus or other orthodox Christians but the Monothelites in his day who complained of it - hardly even a start in establishing that a doctrine taught by so many Saints, Fathers and Popes in the West is actually heretical - while St. Maximus himself defended Rome and the Latins from their charges. St. Maximus' states that the Roman Church proved the Filioque was supported by "the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers" as well as "[St.] Cyril of Alexandria's commentary on the Gospel of St. John" and that so "The Romans have therefore been accused of things of which it is wrong to accuse them, whereas of the things of which the Byzantines have quite rightly been accused (Monothelitism), they have to date, made no self-defense." The formula of St. Hormisdas is authentic and was in fact taken by Patriarch John II, but I won't go into that here, since it relates more to the authority of the Pope, we will discuss that on another thread.

Btw, I did attribute the link in one of my prior posts, saying "Anyone who wants more ancient sources will find about a 100 teaching the Filioque here http://catholicpatristics.blogspot.in/2009/08/filioque.html. " The last part of your post is taken from a routine formula used in the East, but you didn't give a link to it, did you? Anyway, here is another site that documents many other sources teaching it. http://scripturecatholic.com/the_holy_spirit.html#tradition-II Among other things, here is an excerpt from the first that establishes this well known fact in Nicaea I,

"Gelasios of Cyzicus testifies in History of the Council of Nicaea 2:22 [PG 85:1296C] that Bishop St. Leontios of Caesarea (1/13) declared on behalf of the Holy Fathers assembled there that "the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and is proper to the Son and gushes forth from Him." This statement can be found in Mansi II:868CD."

The Fathers there clearly believed the Holy Spirit is proper to the Son and gushes forth from Him. That they did not see the need to define it at the time shows nothing and is worse than an argument from silence, just as they didn't condemn Nestorianism, Monothelitism or errors the Church would condemn later. So, the First Seven Ecumenical Councils are in fact against you, and for the eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit that you deny, as St. Leontius and St. Tarasius show. Your assertion that there is some unspecified difference between per Filium, ex Filio and Filioque (which roughly each mean, through the Son, from the Son, or of the Son) is not true either, and the Latin Fathers use each expression from antiquity, (e.g. St. Leo III, "Spiritus Sanctus plenus Deus a Patre et Filio procedens.", St. Hormisdas, "ut de Patre et Filio procederet", St. Isidore, "quia ex Patre Filioque procedit", St. Leo I, "alius qui de utroque [from Both] procedit.", St. Boethius "processisse quidem ex Deo Patre Filium Deum, et ex utrisque Spiritum sanctum" etc, further citations above) whereas Patriarch Photius and others in the East later rejected per Filium no less than Filioque, as documented earlier, something admitted by non-Catholics Schaff and Bulgakov. If you reject Per Filium knowingly (Photius may have been in good faith), you are in opposition to Nicaea II, and now Nicaea I as well, where as we have seen, St. Leontius taught the Spirit gushes forth from the Son and is proper to Him. The reason for this, as St. Cyril explains is that "For He [the Holy Spirit] is called the Spirit of Truth, and Christ is the Truth, and He is poured forth from Him [the Son] just as He is also from God the Father."
The All-Holy Theotokos, the Panagia, is the perfect model of theosis, an image of the Church, Bride of God without "stain or blemish" (cf. Eph 5:27, SoS 4:7)

St. Ephraem of Syria, Thou alone and Thy Mother are in all things fair; there is no flaw in Thee and no stain in Thy Mother

St. Proclus of Constantinople, As He formed Her without any stain of Her own, so He proceeded from Her contracting no stain.

St. Sophronius of Jerusalem, No one has been purified in advance as Thou (Mary) hast been

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,173
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #481 on: April 26, 2015, 12:26:50 AM »
Christus resurrexit!
St. Cyril, in response to this anathema, clarified that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, according to the words of Lord, but that the Spirit is not alien to the Son, for the Spirit glorifies Jesus, performing incomprehensible works, but he does so as Jesus' own Spirit and not as an an alien power or something greater. (You can see his response in PG 76 433). St. Cyril does not, to my knowledge, dispute Theodoret's assertion that the Holy Spirit does not have existence from or through the Son, but only clarifies his own Christological concerns. Theodoret was seemingly satisfied with this answer, as he later remarked that he found St. Cyril's answer to be orthodox.

Well, Cavaradossi, St. Cyril says the Spirit is in the Son as being His own by Nature and flows forth from Him essentially. "He anoints him, again, with His own Spirit, infusing Him Himself, since He is the Word from God the Father, and from His own nature He causes Him to fountain upon us." It is to this that Theodoret objects strenuously, it being incompatible with his semi-Nestorian view that degraded the dignity of Christ. The Ninth Anathema read, "But if he [St. Cyril] speaks of the Spirit as being of the Son, or as having its origin through the Son we shall reject this statement as blasphemous and impious" and we are all forbidden to defend this line of thought by Constantinople II. Is it really a stretch to say those who claim the Filioque is heretical do are repeating Theodoret's condemned statements?
Given, as Cavaradossi points out, that the matter came to a head in Theodoret and Pope St. Cyril's lifetime, and Pope St. Cyril condemned the heretical filioquist misunderstanding of his words, yes-quite a stretch. Which is why the Fathers of the Fifth Council didn't include this in their condemnation of Theodoret's writings against Pope St. Cyril.
I pointed that out for you above. Do keep up.
In any case, the Fifth Ecumenical Council also declared, "We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary ... Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo, and their writings on the true Faith." Firstly, this endorses the teaching of Pope St. Leo the Great and these other Fathers including St. Augustine on the orthodox Trinitarian Faith. Their teaching, therefore, is guaranteed by this Council to be true and safe and cannot be false and harmful, let alone heretical. Second, it endorses St. Cyril in particular and St. Cyril expresses the equality and complementarity of the two formulations in these clear words, " 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."
none of which saves the filoque from heresy.
Opposition to the teaching that the Holy Ghost flows forth eternally and naturally from the Son originates with a semi-Nestorian or Nestorian sympathizer and is practically unknown among the ancient Fathers otherwise. St. Cyril of Alexandria is vindicated by the Fifth Ecumenical Council and Theodoret's writing is condemned by the same, that should be all anyone needs to decide which doctrine is right and which is wrong here. In point of fact, though, even the Fathers of the First Council believed in the doctrine that the Spirit is from the Son and gushes forth from Him.
Not to be redundant, but to repeat what I have already said: the Fathers of the Fifth Council mentioned Theodoret's condemnation of the filioquist understanding of Pope St. Cyril, and they didn't condemn Theodoret it on it.
Quote from: Ialmisry
St. Maximus reports on when the filioque became known to the East -who immediately complained of it-

You neglect to mention, Ialmisry, that it was not St. Maximus or other orthodox Christians but the Monothelites in his day who complained of it - hardly even a start in establishing that a doctrine taught by so many Saints, Fathers and Popes in the West is actually heretical
I can't neglect to mention what St. Maximus didn't say.
He does say that the Monothelites objected to the filioque, but does not limit the objection to them. All monothelites in the East objected to the filioque (whether the monothelites in the West, including Pope Honorius objected is a different question), but not all the objectors in the East were monothelites. A distinction which I know, like so many, conveniently lost on you.
- while St. Maximus himself defended Rome and the Latins from their charges.
according to what they told him-the rationalization keeps changing.  In any case, he said he'd talk to them to fix it.
St. Maximus' states that the Roman Church proved the Filioque was supported by "the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers" as well as "[St.] Cyril of Alexandria's commentary on the Gospel of St. John" and that so "The Romans have therefore been accused of things of which it is wrong to accuse them, whereas of the things of which the Byzantines have quite rightly been accused (Monothelitism), they have to date, made no self-defense."
do link to your quote mine. For one thing, "Romans" means what you call "Byzantines"-a term no one used until you invented it a millennium after the time we are speaking of.
The formula of St. Hormisdas is authentic

an authentic expression of heresy, yes, it was. Which is why it didn't get approved, and he eventually had to back down on it.
and was in fact taken by Patriarch John II
after he revised it to bring it into line with Orthodoxy.
but I won't go into that here, since it relates more to the authority of the Pope
for you Ultramontanists, what doesn't?
we will discuss that on another thread.

Btw, I did attribute the link in one of my prior posts, saying "Anyone who wants more ancient sources will find about a 100 teaching the Filioque here http://catholicpatristics.blogspot.in/2009/08/filioque.html. " The last part of your post is taken from a routine formula used in the East, but you didn't give a link to it, did you?
I gave the attribution right there.
Anyway, here is another site that documents many other sources teaching it. http://scripturecatholic.com/the_holy_spirit.html#tradition-II Among other things, here is an excerpt from the first that establishes this well known fact in Nicaea I,

"Gelasios of Cyzicus testifies in History of the Council of Nicaea 2:22 [PG 85:1296C] that Bishop St. Leontios of Caesarea (1/13) declared on behalf of the Holy Fathers assembled there that "the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and is proper to the Son and gushes forth from Him." This statement can be found in Mansi II:868CD."

The Fathers there clearly believed the Holy Spirit is proper to the Son and gushes forth from Him. That they did not see the need to define it at the time shows nothing and is worse than an argument from silence, just as they didn't condemn Nestorianism, Monothelitism or errors the Church would condemn later. So, the First Seven Ecumenical Councils are in fact against you, and for the eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit that you deny, as St. Leontius and St. Tarasius show. Your assertion that there is some unspecified difference between per Filium, ex Filio and Filioque (which roughly each mean, through the Son, from the Son, or of the Son) is not true either, and the Latin Fathers use each expression from antiquity, (e.g. St. Leo III, "Spiritus Sanctus plenus Deus a Patre et Filio procedens.", St. Hormisdas, "ut de Patre et Filio procederet", St. Isidore, "quia ex Patre Filioque procedit", St. Leo I, "alius qui de utroque [from Both] procedit.", St. Boethius "processisse quidem ex Deo Patre Filium Deum, et ex utrisque Spiritum sanctum" etc, further citations above) whereas Patriarch Photius and others in the East later rejected per Filium no less than Filioque, as documented earlier, something admitted by non-Catholics Schaff and Bulgakov. If you reject Per Filium knowingly (Photius may have been in good faith), you are in opposition to Nicaea II, and now Nicaea I as well, where as we have seen, St. Leontius taught the Spirit gushes forth from the Son and is proper to Him. The reason for this, as St. Cyril explains is that "For He [the Holy Spirit] is called the Spirit of Truth, and Christ is the Truth, and He is poured forth from Him [the Son] just as He is also from God the Father."
all that Scholastic sophistry for naught.
If the Fathers of the Second Council meant "and from the Son," as you claim they and their predecessors did, they would have said so.

"Do not overturn the boundary mark which your Fathers have set up."
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 Pravoslavac

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 714
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #482 on: April 26, 2015, 03:26:24 AM »


Don't bother with Filioque your holiness the pope, i will deal with that.

And Mor dealt with your exceedingly large image.  Use the tags next time.  Mor Ephrem, section moderator.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2015, 03:11:23 PM by Mor Ephrem »
"Bullets comrades! Not candies! Bullets will save us from the US imperialists!" - Comrade Kim Jong Il

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #483 on: April 26, 2015, 10:48:52 AM »
Xavier asked:

Quote
Secondly, if the Filioque was at one time believed widely in the West, but later condemned by the Church as heretical, you should be able to show us the Ecumenical Council where this happened.

It happened at the Eighth Ecumenical Council, which refuted an earlier anti-Photian synod and which Rome initially agreed to, before later going back on their word.  I believe the Eighth council happened in 879 or thereabouts, and the anti-Photian Synod the Romans later embraced in place of it, at the end of the 860s.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline Kyrillios Anthonios

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #484 on: April 26, 2015, 09:45:10 PM »
The Orthodox Catholic Church condemns the heresy of two origins and causes in the Godhead.

Which part of this God-Pleasing Truth is too difficult for you to comprehend?

Offline Apotheoun

  • "Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,435
  • St. John Maximovitch
    • The Taboric Light
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #485 on: April 27, 2015, 01:23:56 AM »
It is best to simply chant the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed as it was originally written by the Holy Fathers in A.D. 381.
"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

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,151
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #486 on: April 27, 2015, 01:46:38 AM »
Xavier asked:

Quote
Secondly, if the Filioque was at one time believed widely in the West, but later condemned by the Church as heretical, you should be able to show us the Ecumenical Council where this happened.

It happened at the Eighth Ecumenical Council, which refuted an earlier anti-Photian synod and which Rome initially agreed to, before later going back on their word.  I believe the Eighth council happened in 879 or thereabouts, and the anti-Photian Synod the Romans later embraced in place of it, at the end of the 860s.

Or, you could just read Ephesus where it says in Canon VII nobody can create another faith (aeteran pistis) than that of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.
“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”- St. Ambrose of Milan

"Now one cannot be a half-hearted Christian, but only entirely or not at all." -Fr. Seraphim Rose

"He who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." (1 John 4:20)

Offline JoeS2

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,646
  • St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #487 on: April 27, 2015, 08:41:28 AM »
It is best to simply chant the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed as it was originally written by the Holy Fathers in A.D. 381.

Very simple when you think about it. 

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,917
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #488 on: April 29, 2015, 12:43:55 PM »
Xavier asked:

Quote
Secondly, if the Filioque was at one time believed widely in the West, but later condemned by the Church as heretical, you should be able to show us the Ecumenical Council where this happened.

It happened at the Eighth Ecumenical Council, which refuted an earlier anti-Photian synod and which Rome initially agreed to, before later going back on their word.  I believe the Eighth council happened in 879 or thereabouts, and the anti-Photian Synod the Romans later embraced in place of it, at the end of the 860s.

Or, you could just read Ephesus where it says in Canon VII nobody can create another faith (aeteran pistis) than that of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

The problem with that canon is that it was referring to the creed of Nicaea and not the augmented creed of Constantinople I. There are a lot of good reasons to leave the filioque out, but this procedural argument doesn't fly.
Quote
“A goose to hatch the Crystal Egg after an Eagle had half-hatched it! Aye, aye, to be sure, that’s right,” said the Old Woman of Beare. “And now you must go find out what happened to it. Go now, and when you come back I will give you your name.”
- from The King of Ireland's Son, by Padraic Colum

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,173
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #489 on: April 29, 2015, 01:05:29 PM »
Christ is risen!
Xavier asked:

Quote
Secondly, if the Filioque was at one time believed widely in the West, but later condemned by the Church as heretical, you should be able to show us the Ecumenical Council where this happened.

It happened at the Eighth Ecumenical Council, which refuted an earlier anti-Photian synod and which Rome initially agreed to, before later going back on their word.  I believe the Eighth council happened in 879 or thereabouts, and the anti-Photian Synod the Romans later embraced in place of it, at the end of the 860s.

Or, you could just read Ephesus where it says in Canon VII nobody can create another faith (aeteran pistis) than that of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

The problem with that canon is that it was referring to the creed of Nicaea and not the augmented creed of Constantinople I. There are a lot of good reasons to leave the filioque out, but this procedural argument doesn't fly.
except that the augmented Creed of Constantinople I was, and still is, referred to as the Creed of Nicea. There is even commentaries (e.g. Theodore of Mopsuestia) which claim to expound on the "Profession of Faith of the 318 Fathers of Nicea" but the text is that of the 150 Fathers of Constantinople I. It was on a clause of the latter that Eutyches was deposed, starting the lead up to Chalcedon.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2015, 01:06:27 PM 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 Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,917
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #490 on: April 29, 2015, 01:28:49 PM »
Christ is risen!
Xavier asked:

Quote
Secondly, if the Filioque was at one time believed widely in the West, but later condemned by the Church as heretical, you should be able to show us the Ecumenical Council where this happened.

It happened at the Eighth Ecumenical Council, which refuted an earlier anti-Photian synod and which Rome initially agreed to, before later going back on their word.  I believe the Eighth council happened in 879 or thereabouts, and the anti-Photian Synod the Romans later embraced in place of it, at the end of the 860s.

Or, you could just read Ephesus where it says in Canon VII nobody can create another faith (aeteran pistis) than that of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

The problem with that canon is that it was referring to the creed of Nicaea and not the augmented creed of Constantinople I. There are a lot of good reasons to leave the filioque out, but this procedural argument doesn't fly.
except that the augmented Creed of Constantinople I was, and still is, referred to as the Creed of Nicea. There is even commentaries (e.g. Theodore of Mopsuestia) which claim to expound on the "Profession of Faith of the 318 Fathers of Nicea" but the text is that of the 150 Fathers of Constantinople I. It was on a clause of the latter that Eutyches was deposed, starting the lead up to Chalcedon.

The original creed of Nicaea is the one which is read out at Ephesus and which is also quoted in St. Cyril's epistle read out to the council.
Quote
“A goose to hatch the Crystal Egg after an Eagle had half-hatched it! Aye, aye, to be sure, that’s right,” said the Old Woman of Beare. “And now you must go find out what happened to it. Go now, and when you come back I will give you your name.”
- from The King of Ireland's Son, by Padraic Colum

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,151
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #491 on: April 29, 2015, 01:31:40 PM »
Christ is risen!
Xavier asked:

Quote
Secondly, if the Filioque was at one time believed widely in the West, but later condemned by the Church as heretical, you should be able to show us the Ecumenical Council where this happened.

It happened at the Eighth Ecumenical Council, which refuted an earlier anti-Photian synod and which Rome initially agreed to, before later going back on their word.  I believe the Eighth council happened in 879 or thereabouts, and the anti-Photian Synod the Romans later embraced in place of it, at the end of the 860s.

Or, you could just read Ephesus where it says in Canon VII nobody can create another faith (aeteran pistis) than that of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

The problem with that canon is that it was referring to the creed of Nicaea and not the augmented creed of Constantinople I. There are a lot of good reasons to leave the filioque out, but this procedural argument doesn't fly.
except that the augmented Creed of Constantinople I was, and still is, referred to as the Creed of Nicea. There is even commentaries (e.g. Theodore of Mopsuestia) which claim to expound on the "Profession of Faith of the 318 Fathers of Nicea" but the text is that of the 150 Fathers of Constantinople I. It was on a clause of the latter that Eutyches was deposed, starting the lead up to Chalcedon.

The original creed of Nicaea is the one which is read out at Ephesus and which is also quoted in St. Cyril's epistle read out to the council.

The principle applies all the same. The Nicene creed was edited by Constantinople I precisely because heretics were making another faith.
“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”- St. Ambrose of Milan

"Now one cannot be a half-hearted Christian, but only entirely or not at all." -Fr. Seraphim Rose

"He who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." (1 John 4:20)

Offline Apotheoun

  • "Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,435
  • St. John Maximovitch
    • The Taboric Light
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #492 on: April 29, 2015, 01:59:40 PM »
It is probably best to just accept the fact that East and West view the Trinity, and the procession of the Holy Spirit, differently. It is unlikely there will ever be a common approach acceptable to the two sides.
"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

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,917
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #493 on: April 29, 2015, 02:01:35 PM »
It is probably best to just accept the fact that East and West view the Trinity, and the procession of the Holy Spirit, differently. It is unlikely there will ever be a common approach acceptable to the two sides.

The Melkite kumbaya. No thanks.
Quote
“A goose to hatch the Crystal Egg after an Eagle had half-hatched it! Aye, aye, to be sure, that’s right,” said the Old Woman of Beare. “And now you must go find out what happened to it. Go now, and when you come back I will give you your name.”
- from The King of Ireland's Son, by Padraic Colum

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,173
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #494 on: April 29, 2015, 02:27:47 PM »
Christ is risen!
Christ is risen!
Xavier asked:

Quote
Secondly, if the Filioque was at one time believed widely in the West, but later condemned by the Church as heretical, you should be able to show us the Ecumenical Council where this happened.

It happened at the Eighth Ecumenical Council, which refuted an earlier anti-Photian synod and which Rome initially agreed to, before later going back on their word.  I believe the Eighth council happened in 879 or thereabouts, and the anti-Photian Synod the Romans later embraced in place of it, at the end of the 860s.

Or, you could just read Ephesus where it says in Canon VII nobody can create another faith (aeteran pistis) than that of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

The problem with that canon is that it was referring to the creed of Nicaea and not the augmented creed of Constantinople I. There are a lot of good reasons to leave the filioque out, but this procedural argument doesn't fly.
except that the augmented Creed of Constantinople I was, and still is, referred to as the Creed of Nicea. There is even commentaries (e.g. Theodore of Mopsuestia) which claim to expound on the "Profession of Faith of the 318 Fathers of Nicea" but the text is that of the 150 Fathers of Constantinople I. It was on a clause of the latter that Eutyches was deposed, starting the lead up to Chalcedon.

The original creed of Nicaea is the one which is read out at Ephesus and which is also quoted in St. Cyril's epistle read out to the council.
not exactly: Pope St. Cyril's epistle, for example, calls Christ the "Only Begotten" Son, a phrase that the Fathers of Constantinople I supplied, as well as the reference to the Holy Theotokos Virgin Mary.

The Acts of Ephesus only have the first few words, which do not differ at all between Nicea I and Constantinople I.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2015, 02:28:05 PM 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