Author Topic: Keep the Filioque  (Read 80643 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,112
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #585 on: June 21, 2015, 04:06:18 PM »
etc etc stuff thangs etc

So did you copy and paste that long post from this site, or another?  8)

Offline Pravoslavac

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 714
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #586 on: June 21, 2015, 04:14:31 PM »
From a YouTube comment actually.

The broken English part is my doing.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2015, 04:16:50 PM by Pravoslavac »
"Bullets comrades! Not candies! Bullets will save us from the US imperialists!" - Comrade Kim Jong Il

Offline JoeS2

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,662
  • St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #587 on: June 23, 2015, 07:32:47 PM »
Stupid. It cites St. Gregory Palamas as a proponent of the filioque.

Definitely NOT happening...

Bottom Line: If the Catholics like it , great, let them keep it .
Bottom Line: Catholics, stop trying to convince us of this heresy
« Last Edit: June 23, 2015, 07:35:04 PM by JoeS2 »

Offline Xavier

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 640
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, Pray for US!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #588 on: June 28, 2015, 07:42:31 AM »
Quote from: Pravoslavac
Well, we know that saint Mark of Epheus at the Robber Council of Florence accused Latins that "quotes of the Fathers" which were supporting Filioque were forged.

You have very little hope in trying to prove the Latin Fathers did not teach Filioque, it would be better to claim they were mistaken, or corrected by later Greek writers. At least 8 passages from the Latin Fathers and Roman Pontiffs of the first millenium were cited earlier in this thread St. Ambrose, "The Holy Spirit also, when He proceeds from the Father and the Son, is not separated from the Father nor separated from the Son. For how could He be separated from the Father Who is the Spirit of His mouth?", St. Augustine, "The Father begot a Son and, by begetting Him, gave it to Him that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him as well. If He did not proceed from Him, He would not say to His disciples, "Receive the Holy Spirit" [Jn 20:22], and give the Spirit by breathing on them. He signified that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from Him and showed outwardly by blowing what He was giving inwardly by breathing.", St. Isidore of Seville, ""There is, however, this difference between generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, that the Son is begotten of One, but the Spirit proceeds from Both." and St. Fulgentius, "Believe most firmly, and never doubt, that the same Holy Spirit, the One Spirit of the Father and the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son. That He proceeds also from the Son is supported by the teaching both of Prophets and Apostles." 

Pope St. Leo the Great, "as though there were not one Who begat, another Who is begotten, another Who proceeds from Both", Pope St. Hormisdas, "characteristic of the Spirit to proceed from Father and Son in one substance of deity", Pope St. Gregory the Great, "The Spirit proceeds essentially from the Son.", St. Leo III "The Father, complete God in Himself, the Son, complete God begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit, complete God proceeding from the Father and the Son..."

Show me a single scholar, Catholic or Orthodox, Protestant or secularist, who thinks these are forgeries. Mark of Ephesus claimed a citation of St. Basil that the Latin side brought forth was a forgery and this is still disputed among scholars, yes, but the passages I cited are not. I think you'd be hard pressed to find even many Orthodox scholars today who deny St. Augustine taught the Filioque.

Quote
What was proven to be forgery at that Robber Council is Latin's fake claim that Fathers of the 7th Ecumenical Council used Creed with the Filioque, while the truth was that they used legal Creed without Filioque.

Who are you talking about that made this claim, Charlemagne? In the Seventh Council, St. Tarasius proclaimed that the "Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son." He did not profess the Filioque, but he did profess a doctrine substantially identical with it. As we saw earlier, St. Leontios at Nicaea I had already professed, that the Spirit "is proper to the Son and gushes forth from Him."

When Mark of Ephesus wrote his treatise against the Latins,  he said, "If the Greek Church ... has said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, but has never said ... that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, then what else does this signify than that she affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone? If He is not from the Son evidently, He is from the Father alone.", even comparing this to the way "begotten of the Father" is understood to mean "begotten of the Father alone". This was, to him, the major reason to be opposed to the decrees of Florence, but of course it contradicts what St. Isidore of Seville and St. Leo the Great have taught from antiquity, that the entire distinction of Persons in the unity of Essence within the consubstantial Trinity arises from the fact that the Son is begotten of the Father alone, but the Spirit of Both.

It's all well and good to say "You keep the Filioque, we will not use it" today, but Rome and the Latin side said pretty much the same thing to the Greeks at Lyons II and again at Florence, which they did not agree with, and was without a doubt the greatest reason the schism was not healed and the desired union not attained. The Apostolic See has every right to scrutinize closely the faith of those it suspects to be in error and, with the solicitude of a Father and a Shepherd, to ask the faithful to openly profess the Faith that they may be secured from new errors that crop up. To say or to think the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone is an error and a novelty comparable to the error of those who misunderstand the saying of Scripture that we are justified by faith, thinking it proves we are justified by faith alone, not faith through works. That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is the incontestable teaching of the Latin Fathers and of so many Saintly Roman Pontiffs of the first Christian millenium whom the Greek Orthodox still profess to accept and revere as witnesses and teachers of the orthodox Faith.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2015, 07:45:32 AM by Xavier »
"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #589 on: June 28, 2015, 07:48:32 AM »
That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is the incontestable teaching of the Latin Fathers and of so many Saintly Roman Pontiffs of the first Christian millenium whom the Greek Orthodox still profess to accept and revere as witnesses and teachers of the orthodox Faith.

Latin Fathers and Popes aren't infallible.

that the entire distinction of Persons in the unity of Essence within the consubstantial Trinity arises from the fact that the Son is begotten of the Father alone, but the Spirit of Both.

That's ridiculous, especially from the pov of Cappadocian triadology. This theory would take away the unique hypostatic quality of the Father - i.e. being the archè.

Who are you talking about that made this claim, Charlemagne? In the Seventh Council, St. Tarasius proclaimed that the "Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son." He did not profess the Filioque, but he did profess a doctrine substantially identical with it. As we saw earlier, St. Leontios at Nicaea I had already professed, that the Spirit "is proper to the Son and gushes forth from Him."

Learn the difference between the hypostatic and the energetic procession.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2015, 07:54:01 AM by Cyrillic »

Offline Alpo

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,788
  • Why am I still here?
  • Faith: Mongol-Finnic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Priestly Society of St. John Ireland
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #590 on: June 28, 2015, 08:15:29 AM »
That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is the incontestable teaching of the Latin Fathers and of so many Saintly Roman Pontiffs of the first Christian millenium whom the Greek Orthodox still profess to accept and revere as witnesses and teachers of the orthodox Faith.

I'd suggest reading your own church's teaching on the issue before advocating a heresy. ;)

Quote
The Father alone is the principle without principle (arch anarcoV) of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source (phgh) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit therefore takes his origin from the Father alone (ek monou tou PatroV) in a principal, proper and immediate manner.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM
« Last Edit: June 28, 2015, 08:19:05 AM by Alpo »
I just need to find out how to say it in Slavonic!

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,752
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #591 on: June 28, 2015, 10:57:42 AM »
That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is the incontestable teaching of the Latin Fathers and of so many Saintly Roman Pontiffs of the first Christian millenium whom the Greek Orthodox still profess to accept and revere as witnesses and teachers of the orthodox Faith.

I'd suggest reading your own church's teaching on the issue before advocating a heresy. ;)

Quote
The Father alone is the principle without principle (arch anarcoV) of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source (phgh) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit therefore takes his origin from the Father alone (ek monou tou PatroV) in a principal, proper and immediate manner.

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

Ummn you what you quote hasn't contradicted Xavier. That teaching is straight from St.Thomas Aquinas, the Latin fathers and the Councils of Lyons, Lateran and Florence.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #592 on: June 28, 2015, 11:00:17 AM »
Quote
The Father alone is the principle without principle (arch anarcoV) of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source (phgh) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit therefore takes his origin from the Father alone (ek monou tou PatroV) in a principal, proper and immediate manner.

If only they had left it at that.

Offline Alpo

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,788
  • Why am I still here?
  • Faith: Mongol-Finnic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Priestly Society of St. John Ireland
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #593 on: June 28, 2015, 11:46:25 AM »
That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is the incontestable teaching of the Latin Fathers and of so many Saintly Roman Pontiffs of the first Christian millenium whom the Greek Orthodox still profess to accept and revere as witnesses and teachers of the orthodox Faith.

I'd suggest reading your own church's teaching on the issue before advocating a heresy. ;)

Quote
The Father alone is the principle without principle (arch anarcoV) of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source (phgh) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit therefore takes his origin from the Father alone (ek monou tou PatroV) in a principal, proper and immediate manner.

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

Ummn you what you quote hasn't contradicted Xavier. That teaching is straight from St.Thomas Aquinas, the Latin fathers and the Councils of Lyons, Lateran and Florence.

Of course I might have misread Xavier. Where exactly is he saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only?
I just need to find out how to say it in Slavonic!

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,752
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #594 on: June 28, 2015, 12:06:02 PM »
That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is the incontestable teaching of the Latin Fathers and of so many Saintly Roman Pontiffs of the first Christian millenium whom the Greek Orthodox still profess to accept and revere as witnesses and teachers of the orthodox Faith.

I'd suggest reading your own church's teaching on the issue before advocating a heresy. ;)

Quote
The Father alone is the principle without principle (arch anarcoV) of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source (phgh) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit therefore takes his origin from the Father alone (ek monou tou PatroV) in a principal, proper and immediate manner.

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

Ummn you what you quote hasn't contradicted Xavier. That teaching is straight from St.Thomas Aquinas, the Latin fathers and the Councils of Lyons, Lateran and Florence.

Of course I might have misread Xavier. Where exactly is he saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only?

Nowhere as neither what you quote says that. It only affirms the idea of the Father being the principal without principal and the ultimate origin/source of the Holy Spirit.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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

Offline Alpo

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,788
  • Why am I still here?
  • Faith: Mongol-Finnic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Priestly Society of St. John Ireland
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #595 on: June 28, 2015, 01:59:40 PM »
An imprecise choice of words perhaps on my part but if you read the article you know perfectly well what I meant. It makes a sharp distinction between immanent and economic procession. Xavier doesn't seem to make that distinction. Hence the argument still stands. Read what your church teaches.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2015, 02:00:50 PM by Alpo »
I just need to find out how to say it in Slavonic!

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,752
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #596 on: June 28, 2015, 02:35:49 PM »
An imprecise choice of words perhaps on my part but if you read the article you know perfectly well what I meant. It makes a sharp distinction between immanent and economic procession. Xavier doesn't seem to make that distinction. Hence the argument still stands. Read what your church teaches.

I know exactly what my church teaches. It teaches what Florence teaches. Read the catechism. Its is you who is mistaken in thinking Xavier is contradicting the church.

"246 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."

- Catechism of the Catholic Church

What you seek to highlight is the paragraph saying :

Quote
The Father alone is the principle without principle (arch anarcoV) of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source (phgh) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit therefore takes his origin from the Father alone (ek monou tou PatroV) in a principal, proper and immediate manner.

Which evidently you quoted earlier. This is a distinction made at the council of Florence and Augustine, Aquinas and all the Latin fathers.  This is simply assuring ultimate origin. It is not a denial of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2015, 02:52:46 PM 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

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,999
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #597 on: June 28, 2015, 11:20:12 PM »
Essentially, it is a garbled mess. The attempt to show that the Greek fathers from St. Basil to St. Maximus taught identically to Thomas has proved to be a failure which has stretched across almost six centuries. Thomas Aquinas' teaching on the matter is fundamentally incompatible with St. Maximus' letter to Marinus, for Thomas teaches that the Father and the Son share equally in causing the Spirit, and that no distinction can be drawn up between the manner of the two being cause (i.e., one cannot be first cause and another second), whereas St. Maximus teaches that the Son is not cause of the Holy Spirit. What I find particularly amusing though, is that some follow Bessarion into his solution, which is to posit that St. Maximus did not mean to deny that the Son could be a secondary cause. This of course falls right back into the procession from two principles which Thomas wished to avoid by positing that the Father and Son spirate as one principle by the same power of spiration.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2015, 11:20:40 PM by Cavaradossi »
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Alpo

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,788
  • Why am I still here?
  • Faith: Mongol-Finnic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Priestly Society of St. John Ireland
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #598 on: June 29, 2015, 01:11:53 AM »
An imprecise choice of words perhaps on my part but if you read the article you know perfectly well what I meant. It makes a sharp distinction between immanent and economic procession. Xavier doesn't seem to make that distinction. Hence the argument still stands. Read what your church teaches.

I know exactly what my church teaches. It teaches what Florence teaches. Read the catechism. Its is you who is mistaken in thinking Xavier is contradicting the church.

"246 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."

- Catechism of the Catholic Church

What you seek to highlight is the paragraph saying :

Quote
The Father alone is the principle without principle (arch anarcoV) of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source (phgh) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit therefore takes his origin from the Father alone (ek monou tou PatroV) in a principal, proper and immediate manner.

Which evidently you quoted earlier. This is a distinction made at the council of Florence and Augustine, Aquinas and all the Latin fathers.  This is simply assuring ultimate origin. It is not a denial of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.

I didn't say anything about Florence or Latin Fathers. I was saying something about the document I linked earlier and teaching found on the document and something about Xavier's posts on this forum. Yet you keep referring to Florence and Latin Saints. Sense this makes none.

Anyway, my point was intended to Xavier. Hopefully he has read the document and understood that internet apologetics (?) are really quite dull mostly.
I just need to find out how to say it in Slavonic!

Offline Xavier

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 640
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, Pray for US!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #599 on: June 29, 2015, 03:13:22 AM »
Well, Alpo, surely you know that to say the Holy Spirit proceeds principally from the Father, as your theological study does, goes back to St. Augustine - "God the Father alone is He from whom the Word is born, and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. And therefore I have added the word principally, because we find that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also. But the Father gave Him this too, not as to one already existing, and not yet having it; but whatever He gave to the only-begotten Word, He gave by begetting Him." Shortly afterward in the same passage, St. Augustine goes on to explain that the Holy Spirit is like the eternal love spirated from the Father and the Son, "that in that simple and highest nature, substance should not be one thing and love another, but that substance itself should be love, and love itself should be substance, whether in the Father, or in the Son, or in the Holy Spirit; and yet that the Holy Spirit should be specially called Love." Even Gregory Palamas attests to the Tradition that just as the Son is called the Word or Wisdom of the Father alone in Scripture and Tradition, so too the Holy Spirit is styled the Love and Life of the Father eternally given to the Son, "The Spirit of the most high Word is like an ineffable love of the Father for this Word ineffably generated. A love which this same Word and beloved Son of the Father entertains towards the Father: but insofar as He has the Spirit coming with Him from the Father and reposing connaturally in Him.", though He limits it to a purely energetic procession. And the study you cites says, "The divine love which has its origin in the Father reposes in "the Son of his love" in order to exist consubstantially through the Son in the person of the Spirit, the Gift of love. "

2. Here meanwhile are four Eastern authorities attesting to the fact that the Holy Spirit receives His being and eternal subsistence at once from the Father and the Son, with this difference though, that the Son received from the Father in the eternal act of generation that the Spirit should proceed from Him also. Notice how closely St. Cyril's thought follows St. Augustine cited earlier, St. Athanasius follows St. Ambrose etc.

St. Cyril, "in that the Son is God, and from God according to nature (for He has had His birth from God the Father), the Spirit is both proper to Him and in Him and from Him, just as, to be sure, the same thing is understood to hold true in the case of God the Father Himself.", St. Athanasius "David sings in the psalm [35:10], saying: 'For with You is the font of Life;'because jointly with the Father the Son is indeed the source of the Holy Spirit." (St. Ambrose had said, "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 the Lord says: 'The words which I speak unto you are Spirit and Life,' for where the Spirit is, there also is Life; and where Life is, is also the Holy Spirit."), St. Maximus ("By nature the Holy Spirit in His being takes substantially His origin from the Father through the Son Who is begotten" similar to St. Hillary,  "May I receive your Spirit Who takes His being from You through Your only Son."  and St. Tarasius ""And in the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father through the Son, and Who is acknowledged to be Himself God." similar to St. Hormisdas cited earlier.

This is not merely energetic procession, Cyrillic, but clearly refers to essence and substance, speak of consubtantiality and equality of the divine Essence in the Three Persons. The divine energies are common to each of the Three Persons and do not proceed from either one to the exclusion of the other, nor can it be said that the energies are begotten, or spirated. Persons proceed, are begotten, or are spirated. It is ad hoc to say St. Tarasius or any of the others are referring to simply energetic procession and such a hypothesis is excluded by the context which uses words like "takes substantially His being", "receives His being" is "acknowledged to be Himself God", "the same is understood to be true of God the Father Himself" etc.

3. The Father remains the cause of both the Son and the Spirit, the Word said to be caused by generation, the Spirit caused by love, but while the Holy Spirit is in the Father as the Love of the Father is in Himself, He is eternally from, in and through the Son and proper to Him (thus St. Cyril does not hesitate to say, "since He is the Word from God the Father, and from His own nature He causes Him (i.e. the Holy Spirit) to fountain upon us"), as the Love of the Father is in the Beloved Son. And thus the monarchy of the Father is preserved in the Western Tradition no less than in the truly orthodox Eastern one before Patriarch Photius. St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure and the other medieval Latin Doctors often speak about the Father's Monarchy, while excluding the Monopatrite view of Patriarch Photius. In his Mystagogy, he is aware of what St. Augustine says, and does not try to explain it away as some modern Orthodox do, but rejects it as false, though excusing St. Augustine for holding it.

As for the Filioque being necessary to preserve distinction of Person, that is proved by the authority of St. Leo the Great, "it is shown what impious notions they hold concerning the divine Trinity, when they assert that there is one and the same person of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, as though the same God should at one time be named Father, at another time Son, at another time Holy Spirit; and as though there were not one Who begat, another Who is begotten, another Who proceeds from both." and though authority is preferable to reason, especially on such questions, the same was proved from theological first principles also by St. Isidore and St. Thomas from theological reason as follows - that if the Word and the Spirit came forth from the Father without a mutual eternal relationship between Them (i.e. either the Spirit being of and from the Word or, per impossible, the Word being of and from the Spirit), then they could not in any way be distinct from each other, but would be only one Person, and true Faith in the Trinity would be destroyed. Thus, there must be some eternal relationship between the Word and the Spirit and this is the relation taught by the Fathers, Doctors, Saints and Popes, that the Holy Spirit in His essence takes substantially His being from the Father through the Son who is begotten.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2015, 03:17:33 AM by Xavier »
"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #600 on: June 29, 2015, 11:55:41 AM »
Essentially, it is a garbled mess. The attempt to show that the Greek fathers from St. Basil to St. Maximus taught identically to Thomas has proved to be a failure which has stretched across almost six centuries. Thomas Aquinas' teaching on the matter is fundamentally incompatible with St. Maximus' letter to Marinus, for Thomas teaches that the Father and the Son share equally in causing the Spirit, and that no distinction can be drawn up between the manner of the two being cause (i.e., one cannot be first cause and another second), whereas St. Maximus teaches that the Son is not cause of the Holy Spirit. What I find particularly amusing though, is that some follow Bessarion into his solution, which is to posit that St. Maximus did not mean to deny that the Son could be a secondary cause. This of course falls right back into the procession from two principles which Thomas wished to avoid by positing that the Father and Son spirate as one principle by the same power of spiration.

One essential principle.  Not one hypostatic principle.  In essence the Father is originate cause and the Son, bearing the same essence as mediate cause, spirates the essence of the Holy Spirit, one in essence and undivided.  I don't know why that is so difficult.  The Son does NOT generate the Person of the Holy Spirit.  That is the generative act of the archon, the Father.  That's the Catholic teaching. 

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,752
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #601 on: July 01, 2015, 07:02:28 AM »
Funny thing is many attribute the addition of the filioque in the creed as western in origin (Council of Toledo) but actually the first instance of this is in the east, at the Synod of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in 410.

The creed composed in Aramaic has the phrase "dmin aba wabra" and means "From the Father and the Son". The council also has explicit references to "the dominion of the Romans over the whole church". Just an interesting piece of history that many here seem unaware of.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2015, 07:29:22 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

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #602 on: July 01, 2015, 07:18:27 AM »
St. Cyril, "in that the Son is God, and from God according to nature (for He has had His birth from God the Father), the Spirit is both proper to Him and in Him and from Him, just as, to be sure, the same thing is understood to hold true in the case of God the Father Himself.", St. Athanasius "David sings in the psalm [35:10], saying: 'For with You is the font of Life;'because jointly with the Father the Son is indeed the source of the Holy Spirit." (St. Ambrose had said, "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 the Lord says: 'The words which I speak unto you are Spirit and Life,' for where the Spirit is, there also is Life; and where Life is, is also the Holy Spirit."), St. Maximus ("By nature the Holy Spirit in His being takes substantially His origin from the Father through the Son Who is begotten" similar to St. Hillary,  "May I receive your Spirit Who takes His being from You through Your only Son."  and St. Tarasius ""And in the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father through the Son, and Who is acknowledged to be Himself God." similar to St. Hormisdas cited earlier.

This is not merely energetic procession, Cyrillic, but clearly refers to essence and substance, speak of consubtantiality and equality of the divine Essence in the Three Persons. The divine energies are common to each of the Three Persons and do not proceed from either one to the exclusion of the other, nor can it be said that the energies are begotten, or spirated. Persons proceed, are begotten, or are spirated. It is ad hoc to say St. Tarasius or any of the others are referring to simply energetic procession and such a hypothesis is excluded by the context which uses words like "takes substantially His being", "receives His being" is "acknowledged to be Himself God", "the same is understood to be true of God the Father Himself" etc.

From St. Maximus' letter to Marinus on the filioque, when some accused Rome of teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds hypostatically from the Son:

Quote
With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the sacred commentary he composed on the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit — they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession; but [they use this expression] in order to manifest the Spirit’s coming-forth (προϊέναι) through him and, in this way, to make clear the unity and identity of the essence….

St. Maximus was under the impression that the Latins taught the filioque in the sense of an energetic sending (proienai), not a hypostatic procession. This is how you should interpret Greek fathers talking about the Spirit proceeding 'through' the Son.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2015, 07:21:36 AM by Cyrillic »

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #603 on: July 01, 2015, 07:42:11 AM »
Funny thing is many attribute the addition of the filioque in the creed as western in origin (Council of Toledo) but actually the first instance of this is in the east, at the Synod of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in 410.

The creed composed in Aramaic has the phrase "dmin aba wabra" and means "From the Father and the Son". The council also has explicit references to "the dominion of the Romans over the whole church". Just an interesting piece of history that many here seem unaware of.

Considering that the council was held in the Persian Sassanid Empire the "the dominion of the Romans over the whole church" probably referred to the huge ecclesiastical power wielded in the Roman Empire, not in the city of Rome.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2015, 07:43:30 AM by Cyrillic »

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,752
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #604 on: July 01, 2015, 08:00:31 AM »
Funny thing is many attribute the addition of the filioque in the creed as western in origin (Council of Toledo) but actually the first instance of this is in the east, at the Synod of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in 410.

The creed composed in Aramaic has the phrase "dmin aba wabra" and means "From the Father and the Son". The council also has explicit references to "the dominion of the Romans over the whole church". Just an interesting piece of history that many here seem unaware of.

Considering that the council was held in the Persian Sassanid Empire the "the dominion of the Romans over the whole church" probably referred to the huge ecclesiastical power wielded in the Roman Empire, not in the city of Rome.

No its a reference to the roman church. The first instance of that statement is made in reference to the synod receiving acts from the west. They say they received it from the Romans who have dominion over all the church. They are explicit in stating it was the western clergy in Rome who they were speaking about and from whom they received the acts of Nicaea and a certain set of canons

To your credit they do mention in other passages the church of the roman empire and the bishops they remember but quickly they state these bishops are the bishops of see like Antioch and other eastern sees.

Either way this is not of importance for this thread. The main issue was to show in 410 an eastern synod included the filioque in their creed and that this practice did not start in the west at Toledo
« Last Edit: July 01, 2015, 08:11:52 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

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,999
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #605 on: July 01, 2015, 08:05:59 AM »
Funny thing is many attribute the addition of the filioque in the creed as western in origin (Council of Toledo) but actually the first instance of this is in the east, at the Synod of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in 410.

The creed composed in Aramaic has the phrase "dmin aba wabra" and means "From the Father and the Son". The council also has explicit references to "the dominion of the Romans over the whole church". Just an interesting piece of history that many here seem unaware of.

Considering that the council was held in the Persian Sassanid Empire the "the dominion of the Romans over the whole church" probably referred to the huge ecclesiastical power wielded in the Roman Empire, not in the city of Rome.

No its a reference to the roman church. The first instance of that statement is made in reference to the synod receiving acts from the west. They say they received it from the Romans who have dominion over all the church. They are explicit in stating it was the western clergy in Rome who they were speaking about and from whom they received the acts of Nicae.

The West being what? All of the Roman Empire was geographically West of Seleucia-Ctesiphon. Why not quote the text you believe supports your position and let us see for ourselves?
« Last Edit: July 01, 2015, 08:07:05 AM by Cavaradossi »
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,752
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #606 on: July 01, 2015, 08:14:40 AM »
Funny thing is many attribute the addition of the filioque in the creed as western in origin (Council of Toledo) but actually the first instance of this is in the east, at the Synod of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in 410.

The creed composed in Aramaic has the phrase "dmin aba wabra" and means "From the Father and the Son". The council also has explicit references to "the dominion of the Romans over the whole church". Just an interesting piece of history that many here seem unaware of.

Considering that the council was held in the Persian Sassanid Empire the "the dominion of the Romans over the whole church" probably referred to the huge ecclesiastical power wielded in the Roman Empire, not in the city of Rome.

No its a reference to the roman church. The first instance of that statement is made in reference to the synod receiving acts from the west. They say they received it from the Romans who have dominion over all the church. They are explicit in stating it was the western clergy in Rome who they were speaking about and from whom they received the acts of Nicae.

The West being what? All of the Roman Empire was geographically West of Seleucia-Ctesiphon. Why not quote the text you believe supports your position and let us see for ourselves?

Gladly but another time in another thread. This thread is not about primacy and universal jurisdiction. It was just an interesting piece of info.

Nevermind that you guys make an important point about what is "west". Just skimmed through the file on my phone and the acts actually seem to speaking of the roman empire. I remembered wrong lol my apologies for that. They speak of the "Catholic church in the dominion of the Romans" which merely is geographical reference. Further they reference synods in the eastern half of the roman empire. Which makes sense since the churches in the Syriac tradition within the empire were nearest to the Assyrians.

I sincerely apologise for this. My memory has failed me. Forgive me. Luckily I have the file to look at lol
« Last Edit: July 01, 2015, 08:27:09 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

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,999
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #607 on: July 01, 2015, 08:21:37 AM »
At least according to this book, the letter from the West which they received was signed by the Bishop of Antioch and the bishops of other major Syrian cities.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,752
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #608 on: July 01, 2015, 08:25:39 AM »
At least according to this book, the letter from the West which they received was signed by the Bishop of Antioch and the bishops of other major Syrian cities.

Just corrected what I remembered after reading the acts.

Anyway I just wanted to highlight the addition to the creed in the council.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2015, 08:29:29 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

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,999
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #609 on: July 01, 2015, 10:53:12 AM »
At least according to this book, the letter from the West which they received was signed by the Bishop of Antioch and the bishops of other major Syrian cities.

Just corrected what I remembered after reading the acts.

Anyway I just wanted to highlight the addition to the creed in the council.

But you are always about investigating the nuances of such and such language. If we do not know the nuances of the Aramaic word which is translated as 'from', do you not think it would be very careless to equate it with 'εκπορευεσθαι εκ' without a thorough investigation of the uses of both? I thought that you all contended that the Filioque originally started over such a linguistic misunderstanding caused by hasty formulaic translation.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,752
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #610 on: July 01, 2015, 11:44:31 AM »
At least according to this book, the letter from the West which they received was signed by the Bishop of Antioch and the bishops of other major Syrian cities.

Just corrected what I remembered after reading the acts.

Anyway I just wanted to highlight the addition to the creed in the council.

But you are always about investigating the nuances of such and such language. If we do not know the nuances of the Aramaic word which is translated as 'from', do you not think it would be very careless to equate it with 'εκπορευεσθαι εκ'
Its not equated with that. The word proceeds is not even in the Aramaic text of the creed. Rather it says "and in the Holy Sprit who is from The Father and the Son". The translation I gave earlier in my reply was supplied to me from a Chaldean on CAF. Further every source that I have consulted all affirm the filioque implications of the words without question. They all affirm it as the earliest known instance of the insertion of the filioque in the creed


Quote
without a thorough investigation of the uses of both? I thought that you all contended that the Filioque originally started over such a linguistic misunderstanding caused by hasty formulaic translation.
Yeah on Latin use of the word procedere vs the greek 'εκπορευεσθαι... They are not equal. For the statement in the synod in question to make sense, "from" would have to be understood in the filioque Latin sense. In the context of the Greek word, it would be heretical to say this.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2015, 11:46:52 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

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,999
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #611 on: July 01, 2015, 12:32:22 PM »
At least according to this book, the letter from the West which they received was signed by the Bishop of Antioch and the bishops of other major Syrian cities.

Just corrected what I remembered after reading the acts.

Anyway I just wanted to highlight the addition to the creed in the council.

But you are always about investigating the nuances of such and such language. If we do not know the nuances of the Aramaic word which is translated as 'from', do you not think it would be very careless to equate it with 'εκπορευεσθαι εκ'
Its not equated with that. The word proceeds is not even in the Aramaic text of the creed. Rather it says "and in the Holy Sprit who is from The Father and the Son". The translation I gave earlier in my reply was supplied to me from a Chaldean on CAF. Further every source that I have consulted all affirm the filioque implications of the words without question. They all affirm it as the earliest known instance of the insertion of the filioque in the creed

Your special pleading does nothing to answer the linguistic question at hand. The same question applies to the Greek 'εκ'. Does the Aramaic word have the same force as this word?

Quote
without a thorough investigation of the uses of both? I thought that you all contended that the Filioque originally started over such a linguistic misunderstanding caused by hasty formulaic translation.
Yeah on Latin use of the word procedere vs the greek 'εκπορευεσθαι... They are not equal. For the statement in the synod in question to make sense, "from" would have to be understood in the filioque Latin sense. In the context of the Greek word, it would be heretical to say this.

I wonder if they thought that at Lyons. Didn't they sing the Creed in Greek there with the Filioque to celebrate the supposed union?
« Last Edit: July 01, 2015, 12:32:53 PM by Cavaradossi »
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,752
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #612 on: July 01, 2015, 01:05:09 PM »
At least according to this book, the letter from the West which they received was signed by the Bishop of Antioch and the bishops of other major Syrian cities.

Just corrected what I remembered after reading the acts.

Anyway I just wanted to highlight the addition to the creed in the council.

But you are always about investigating the nuances of such and such language. If we do not know the nuances of the Aramaic word which is translated as 'from', do you not think it would be very careless to equate it with 'εκπορευεσθαι εκ'
Its not equated with that. The word proceeds is not even in the Aramaic text of the creed. Rather it says "and in the Holy Sprit who is from The Father and the Son". The translation I gave earlier in my reply was supplied to me from a Chaldean on CAF. Further every source that I have consulted all affirm the filioque implications of the words without question. They all affirm it as the earliest known instance of the insertion of the filioque in the creed

Your special pleading does nothing to answer the linguistic question at hand. The same question applies to the Greek 'εκ'. Does the Aramaic word have the same force as this word?
I don't know but I'm sure from means from as in "a principal at which something has come". What else can "from" mean...What does ek entail if not the same thing?The whole filioque controversy has been over the procession and the word "proceed" and what it entails or how it is understood, not on "from".
The text has been translated by scholars and all sources affirm it to being a filioque statement. I'm pretty sure I trust those who workers in this field especially since nobody has supplied a different opinion to this day.

Quote
Quote
without a thorough investigation of the uses of both? I thought that you all contended that the Filioque originally started over such a linguistic misunderstanding caused by hasty formulaic translation.
Yeah on Latin use of the word procedere vs the greek 'εκπορευεσθαι... They are not equal. For the statement in the synod in question to make sense, "from" would have to be understood in the filioque Latin sense. In the context of the Greek word, it would be heretical to say this.

I wonder if they thought that at Lyons. Didn't they sing the Creed in Greek there with the Filioque to celebrate the supposed union?

No they didn't. A false equivalence was equated. This is due to the limited discussion that went on at the council. This is affirmed by the CC. Why did you remark like you don't know about this? The recent "discovery" on false equivalence between the words. This is due to modern common discussion between the two communions
« Last Edit: July 01, 2015, 01:09:31 PM 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

Online Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,877
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #613 on: July 01, 2015, 01:08:24 PM »
At least according to this book, the letter from the West which they received was signed by the Bishop of Antioch and the bishops of other major Syrian cities.

Just corrected what I remembered after reading the acts.

Anyway I just wanted to highlight the addition to the creed in the council.

But you are always about investigating the nuances of such and such language. If we do not know the nuances of the Aramaic word which is translated as 'from', do you not think it would be very careless to equate it with 'εκπορευεσθαι εκ'
Its not equated with that. The word proceeds is not even in the Aramaic text of the creed. Rather it says "and in the Holy Sprit who is from The Father and the Son". The translation I gave earlier in my reply was supplied to me from a Chaldean on CAF. Further every source that I have consulted all affirm the filioque implications of the words without question. They all affirm it as the earliest known instance of the insertion of the filioque in the creed

Where can I read this Creed in the original language? 
I think you can say ~ In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and post with charitable and prayerful intentions.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,752
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #614 on: July 01, 2015, 01:10:32 PM »
At least according to this book, the letter from the West which they received was signed by the Bishop of Antioch and the bishops of other major Syrian cities.

Just corrected what I remembered after reading the acts.

Anyway I just wanted to highlight the addition to the creed in the council.

But you are always about investigating the nuances of such and such language. If we do not know the nuances of the Aramaic word which is translated as 'from', do you not think it would be very careless to equate it with 'εκπορευεσθαι εκ'
Its not equated with that. The word proceeds is not even in the Aramaic text of the creed. Rather it says "and in the Holy Sprit who is from The Father and the Son". The translation I gave earlier in my reply was supplied to me from a Chaldean on CAF. Further every source that I have consulted all affirm the filioque implications of the words without question. They all affirm it as the earliest known instance of the insertion of the filioque in the creed

Where can I read this Creed in the original language?

The Chaldean on CAF had a picture of it. Let me contact  him. The only other instance I know of it where it can be seen in Aramaic is some book which I will link shortly although the book has to be purchased  :-\

Translate this is you speak Aramaic/syriac : "dmin aba wabra
« Last Edit: July 01, 2015, 01:14:39 PM 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

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #615 on: July 01, 2015, 01:15:52 PM »
The text has been translated by scholars and all sources affirm it to being a filioque statement. I'm pretty sure I trust those who workers in this field especially since nobody has supplied a different opinion to this day.

Please do provide some of those scholarly articles. I'd love to read them.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,752
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #617 on: July 01, 2015, 01:54:58 PM »
"National Catholic Reporter"

"New Short History of the Catholic Church"

Something written in 1902.

Apologetics by the Anglican Tractarian Pusey.

Not very scholarly, now is it?

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,752
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #618 on: July 01, 2015, 01:58:48 PM »
At least according to this book, the letter from the West which they received was signed by the Bishop of Antioch and the bishops of other major Syrian cities.

Just corrected what I remembered after reading the acts.

Anyway I just wanted to highlight the addition to the creed in the council.

But you are always about investigating the nuances of such and such language. If we do not know the nuances of the Aramaic word which is translated as 'from', do you not think it would be very careless to equate it with 'εκπορευεσθαι εκ'
Its not equated with that. The word proceeds is not even in the Aramaic text of the creed. Rather it says "and in the Holy Sprit who is from The Father and the Son". The translation I gave earlier in my reply was supplied to me from a Chaldean on CAF. Further every source that I have consulted all affirm the filioque implications of the words without question. They all affirm it as the earliest known instance of the insertion of the filioque in the creed

Where can I read this Creed in the original language?

The Chaldean on CAF had a picture of it. Let me contact  him. The only other instance I know of it where it can be seen in Aramaic is some book which I will link shortly although the book has to be purchased  :-\

Translate this is you speak Aramaic/syriac : "dmin aba wabra

Here is an image of the phrase in one of the canons. See reference 305 of the paragraph titled "33 on the procession of the holy spirit ..."

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/philoxenus_three_02_part1.htm
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,752
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #619 on: July 01, 2015, 02:00:11 PM »
"National Catholic Reporter"

"New Short History of the Catholic Church"

Something written in 1902.

Apologetics by the Anglican Tractarian Pusey.

Not very scholarly, now is it?

The references are. But I guess you would critique them too. Look at the links please or don't bother asking
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #620 on: July 01, 2015, 02:02:11 PM »
"National Catholic Reporter"

"New Short History of the Catholic Church"

Something written in 1902.

Apologetics by the Anglican Tractarian Pusey.

Not very scholarly, now is it?

The references are. But I guess you would critique them too. Look at the links please or don't bother asking

The first link is a 404. I couldn't even look it up even if I wanted to.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,752
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #621 on: July 01, 2015, 02:32:35 PM »
"National Catholic Reporter"

"New Short History of the Catholic Church"

Something written in 1902.

Apologetics by the Anglican Tractarian Pusey.

Not very scholarly, now is it?

The references are. But I guess you would critique them too. Look at the links please or don't bother asking

The first link is a 404. I couldn't even look it up even if I wanted to.

http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word0523.htm
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

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

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

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #622 on: July 01, 2015, 02:34:08 PM »
"National Catholic Reporter"

"New Short History of the Catholic Church"

Something written in 1902.

Apologetics by the Anglican Tractarian Pusey.

Not very scholarly, now is it?

The references are. But I guess you would critique them too. Look at the links please or don't bother asking

The first link is a 404. I couldn't even look it up even if I wanted to.

http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word0523.htm

Really?

Quote
U.S. vs. Vatican: a clash of cultures; Document on seminary admission of homosexuals not likely; Fr. Claude Geffré on Christian challenges in the 21st century

This is the article?

Online Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,877
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #623 on: July 01, 2015, 02:39:58 PM »
Translate this is you speak Aramaic/syriac : "dmin aba wabra

Can you supersize that for me?  I would like a verb.
I think you can say ~ In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and post with charitable and prayerful intentions.

Online Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,877
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #624 on: July 01, 2015, 02:50:02 PM »
Here is an image of the phrase in one of the canons. See reference 305 of the paragraph titled "33 on the procession of the holy spirit ..."

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/philoxenus_three_02_part1.htm

As far as I can tell, there is no verb that goes with d'men abo wabro, so translating this as equivalent to the Latin Filioque is not going to work.   

But again, this is not the Creed.  You made a claim about the Creed in the Aramaic language and it would be good to read this Creed and see what it says.
I think you can say ~ In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and post with charitable and prayerful intentions.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,752
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #625 on: July 01, 2015, 04:12:16 PM »
"National Catholic Reporter"

"New Short History of the Catholic Church"

Something written in 1902.

Apologetics by the Anglican Tractarian Pusey.

Not very scholarly, now is it?

The references are. But I guess you would critique them too. Look at the links please or don't bother asking

The first link is a 404. I couldn't even look it up even if I wanted to.

http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word0523.htm

Really?

Quote
U.S. vs. Vatican: a clash of cultures; Document on seminary admission of homosexuals not likely; Fr. Claude Geffré on Christian challenges in the 21st century

This is the article?

Scroll down to the mention of the history lesson given by a priest.

Here:

At the last minute, I was able to squeeze in a roundtable discussion at Santa Croce University Friday, May 16, on church history, based on the new book La Chiesa Nella Storia (“The Church in History”) by Bishop Andrea Maria Erba and Italian scholar Pier Luigi Guiducci.

Fr. Johannes Grohe, an Opus Dei priest who teaches church history at Santa Croce, spoke on the history of church councils. He offered several interesting nuggets, such as the fact that a regional council in Persia in 410 produced one of the earliest insertions of the famed filioque clause into the Creed, specifying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “and from the Son.” This council, as Grohe points out, was an Eastern affair, and its adoption of the filioque came out of the rich theological reflection of early Persian Christianity. Hence the notion that the filioque is solely an imposition of the medieval Western Church upon the East, born of later controversies between Rome and Byzantium, is historically dubious
« Last Edit: July 01, 2015, 04:27:08 PM 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

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,752
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #626 on: July 01, 2015, 04:16:49 PM »
Here is an image of the phrase in one of the canons. See reference 305 of the paragraph titled "33 on the procession of the holy spirit ..."

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/philoxenus_three_02_part1.htm

As far as I can tell, there is no verb that goes with d'men abo wabro, so translating this as equivalent to the Latin Filioque is not going to work.
"d'men" means "from" right? Abo = Abba = "daddy/Father" (I recognize from the bible) and "wabro" is a conjunted noun like in Zulu if you say nendoda... And son right?

Lol this is just a fun attempt to translate what I think I recognize.

Quote
But again, this is not the Creed.  You made a claim about the Creed in the Aramaic language and it would be good to read this Creed and see what it says.

I wish I could get the picture but its up to when the poster on caf replies. However I'm pretty sure it means what it says right? There was a translation given in the article of the picture
« Last Edit: July 01, 2015, 04:29:22 PM 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

Online Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,877
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #627 on: July 01, 2015, 05:03:10 PM »
Here is an image of the phrase in one of the canons. See reference 305 of the paragraph titled "33 on the procession of the holy spirit ..."

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/philoxenus_three_02_part1.htm

As far as I can tell, there is no verb that goes with d'men abo wabro, so translating this as equivalent to the Latin Filioque is not going to work.
"d'men" means "from" right? Abo = Abba = "daddy/Father" (I recognize from the bible) and "wabro" is a conjunted noun like in Zulu if you say nendoda... And son right?

Lol this is just a fun attempt to translate what I think I recognize.

Yes, d'men abo wabro means "from (the) Father and the Son", but usually that d' is connected to a verb.  Without that, the phrase does not have the technical meaning associated with Filioque.   

Quote
Quote
But again, this is not the Creed.  You made a claim about the Creed in the Aramaic language and it would be good to read this Creed and see what it says.

I wish I could get the picture but its up to when the poster on caf replies. However I'm pretty sure it means what it says right? There was a translation given in the article of the picture

The problem is that both the Assyrian and Syriac Orthodox versions of the Creed do not have the phrase you think "the Aramaic text of the creed" contains.  Each reflects the Greek much more than the Latin because each includes a verb and not just a random prepositional phrase.  So I am interested in seeing the "picture" your CAFriend will produce. 
I think you can say ~ In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and post with charitable and prayerful intentions.

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,999
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #628 on: July 01, 2015, 06:03:29 PM »
I don't know but I'm sure from means from as in "a principal at which something has come". What else can "from" mean...What does ek entail if not the same thing?The whole filioque controversy has been over the procession and the word "proceed" and what it entails or how it is understood, not on "from".
The text has been translated by scholars and all sources affirm it to being a filioque statement. I'm pretty sure I trust those who workers in this field especially since nobody has supplied a different opinion to this day.

Now you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. If it's a filioque statement, then it should involve something which translates to «ἐκ τίνος τε καὶ τίνος ἐκπορεύεσθαι». But with no verb supplied, as Mor Ephrem has pointed out, such an equivalence cannot be established, as the implied verb could be any verb.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #629 on: July 01, 2015, 06:05:24 PM »
Do you know what is really cool? The fact that the filioque debate will be resolved in this thread... and the schism will end.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.