Author Topic: Keep the Filioque  (Read 60630 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ZealousZeal

  • Cosmic Knowledge Fish
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,956
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #630 on: July 01, 2015, 07:22:15 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.

Oh man, just think of the icons they'll make to commenorate this. A bunch of people in sweatpants sitting in front of their computers, their faces glowing. Is it from their screens, or is it the uncreated light?
You want your belt to buckle, not your chair.

Offline Theophania

  • Ecumenical Dissipation Association *OF* America
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,808
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #631 on: July 01, 2015, 07:24:22 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.

Oh man, just think of the icons they'll make to commenorate this. A bunch of people in sweatpants sitting in front of their computers, their faces glowing. Is it from their screens, or is it the uncreated light?

Yeah but you will be depicted in yoga pants.
It's common knowledge that you secretly want to be born in early 17th century Russia.  As a serf or a royal, I know not.  Chances are serf.

Offline ZealousZeal

  • Cosmic Knowledge Fish
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,956
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #632 on: July 01, 2015, 07:30:05 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.

Oh man, just think of the icons they'll make to commenorate this. A bunch of people in sweatpants sitting in front of their computers, their faces glowing. Is it from their screens, or is it the uncreated light?

Yeah but you will be depicted in yoga pants.

Yoga leggings.
You want your belt to buckle, not your chair.

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 #633 on: July 01, 2015, 07:57:25 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.

Oh man, just think of the icons they'll make to commenorate this. A bunch of people in sweatpants sitting in front of their computers, their faces glowing. Is it from their screens, or is it the uncreated light?

I'm naked.
The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Actually, Mor's face shineth like the Sun.

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,017
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: Candle-lighting Cross Kisser
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #634 on: July 02, 2015, 01:15:55 AM »
Rachel vomited.
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

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 #635 on: July 02, 2015, 04:24:24 AM »
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.

Let me ask you something, how in any way can the Holy Spirit said to be from the father and the son?
Especially in the context if the creed?

And a touch on the Syrians and orientals in general. Of note, during the Council of Florence, among the Orientals (Armenians, Copts, Ethiopians, Syriacs, Maronites, "and" ACOE), only the Syriac representative is recorded to have expressed a theological ambivalence about the filioque, though subsequently affirmed the faith of the Church of Rome on the matter after it was explained to him.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2015, 04:40:48 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 Mountain

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #636 on: July 02, 2015, 06:30:35 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.

Typical Gay Latin arguments. First, if the most educated Patriarch saint Photius the Great claimed that Rome forged the quotes of the fathers, and saint Mark of Ephesus claimed that as well and saint Gregory Palamas, and if Rome was called the city of forgeries, then those father quotes were probably forged. The first Liturgy celebrated in Rome with the Filioque was in 11th century.

Second, Canon 7 of the Ecumenical Council puts anyone under ANATHEMA who dares to change a single word or add a single word to the Holy Creed. So you guys are anathema of the fathers of the Ecumenical Council.

The Holy Council of Constantinople in 880 condemned Filioque and Papal universal jurisdiction claims, this Council was rejected by Rome 300 years later in 12th century.

You guys better deal with Liturgical abuse, Filioque is too complicated thing for you. You should know that no quote of any father and bishop goes over the authority of Ecumenical Council. But how could you know this, look what have you done with the bishop of Rome.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2015, 06:31:35 AM by Mountain »
The face i make when Mor Ephrem sets me up. http://www.novinar.de/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/patrijarh.jpg

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 #637 on: July 02, 2015, 08:14:04 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.

Typical Gay Latin arguments. First, if the most educated Patriarch saint Photius the Great claimed that Rome forged the quotes of the fathers, and saint Mark of Ephesus claimed that as well and saint Gregory Palamas, and if Rome was called the city of forgeries, then those father quotes were probably forged. The first Liturgy celebrated in Rome with the Filioque was in 11th century.

Second, Canon 7 of the Ecumenical Council puts anyone under ANATHEMA who dares to change a single word or add a single word to the Holy Creed. So you guys are anathema of the fathers of the Ecumenical Council.

The Holy Council of Constantinople in 880 condemned Filioque and Papal universal jurisdiction claims, this Council was rejected by Rome 300 years later in 12th century.

You guys better deal with Liturgical abuse, Filioque is too complicated thing for you. You should know that no quote of any father and bishop goes over the authority of Ecumenical Council. But how could you know this, look what have you done with the bishop of Rome.

Gay?
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 Mountain

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #638 on: July 02, 2015, 10:11:05 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.

Typical Gay Latin arguments. First, if the most educated Patriarch saint Photius the Great claimed that Rome forged the quotes of the fathers, and saint Mark of Ephesus claimed that as well and saint Gregory Palamas, and if Rome was called the city of forgeries, then those father quotes were probably forged. The first Liturgy celebrated in Rome with the Filioque was in 11th century.

Second, Canon 7 of the Ecumenical Council puts anyone under ANATHEMA who dares to change a single word or add a single word to the Holy Creed. So you guys are anathema of the fathers of the Ecumenical Council.

The Holy Council of Constantinople in 880 condemned Filioque and Papal universal jurisdiction claims, this Council was rejected by Rome 300 years later in 12th century.

You guys better deal with Liturgical abuse, Filioque is too complicated thing for you. You should know that no quote of any father and bishop goes over the authority of Ecumenical Council. But how could you know this, look what have you done with the bishop of Rome.

Gay?

You know, fake and pathetic when put next to the truth.
The face i make when Mor Ephrem sets me up. http://www.novinar.de/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/patrijarh.jpg

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #639 on: July 02, 2015, 10:12:53 AM »
I know that word 'gay' has exponentially expanded its definitions, but I don't think that that is one of them.
God bless!

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 #640 on: July 02, 2015, 10:19:58 AM »
Let me ask you something, how in any way can the Holy Spirit said to be from the father and the son?

From the Father (origins) and the Son (mission). 
 
Quote
Especially in the context if the creed?

Since you have not provided "the Aramaic text of the creed" upon which you seem to be basing your argument, I can only go by the versions of the Creed currently in use in the Syriac speaking Churches not in communion with Rome. 

The Assyrian and Syriac versions used liturgically differ from one another slightly when speaking of the Holy Spirit.  I will try to transliterate them below, but my transliteration of the Assyrian version may have to be corrected because I'm not as familiar with its alphabet (the transliteration will be in West Syriac pronunciation for the same reason)

Assyrian:

Quote
wab'had ruho d'qudsho, ruho dashroro, haw d'men abo (x*) falet, ruho mahyono

and in one Spirit of Holiness, (the) Spirit of Truth, who from the Father (x*) proceeds, the Quickening Spirit

Syriac:

Quote
wab'had ruho qadeesho, deethaw moryo mahyono d'kul, haw d'men abo nofeq, w'am abo w'am bro mestged w'meshtabah, haw d'malel banbiye w'bashleehe

and in one Holy Spirit, being the Lord (the) Quickener of All, who from the Father proceeds, who with the Father and with the Son is worshipped and glorified, who spoke through the prophets and through the apostles

In the phrase about procession, even if the verb differs in each version, only one person is mentioned: the Father.  It is not dmin aba wabra or whatever you claimed was in "the Aramaic text of the creed".  So you will need to provide that text for us to go any further on this point. 

*There is a "word" here, perhaps a particle, which I can't make out except to say that it is definitely not "wabro" because it does not have the letters to say that.  Unless Isa or someone else chimes in to correct me, I'll have to look at this a bit more when I have some free time because it's annoying me. 

Quote
And a touch on the Syrians and orientals in general. Of note, during the Council of Florence, among the Orientals (Armenians, Copts, Ethiopians, Syriacs, Maronites, "and" ACOE), only the Syriac representative is recorded to have expressed a theological ambivalence about the filioque, though subsequently affirmed the faith of the Church of Rome on the matter after it was explained to him.

We do not accept the Council of Florence.  Since I am not familiar with the history of this council and our involvement, I can't say more than that at this time. 
« Last Edit: July 02, 2015, 10:20:38 AM by Mor Ephrem »
The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Actually, Mor's face shineth like the Sun.

Offline Xavier

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #641 on: July 02, 2015, 12:56:08 PM »
Just a brief comment on the disputed Seleucian synod for now, I will address the other responses subsequently. The Catholic Encyclopedia has this,
Quote
"St. Epiphanius writes (Ancor., viii, in P.G., XLIII, 29, 30) that the Paraclete "is not to be considered as unconnected with the Father and the Son, for He is with Them one in substance and divinity", and states that "He is from the Father and the Son"; a little further, he adds (op. cit., xi, in P.G., XLIII, 35): "No one knows the Spirit, besides the Father, except the Son, from Whom He proceeds and of Whom He receives." Lastly, a council held at Seleucia in 410 proclaims its faith "in the Holy Living Spirit, the Holy Living Paraclete, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son" (Lamy, "Concilium Seleuciæ", Louvain, 1868).

However, when we compare the Latin writers, as a body, with the Eastern writers, we notice a difference in language: while the former almost unanimously affirm that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son, the latter generally say that He proceeds from the Father through the Son. In reality the thought expressed by both Greeks and Latins is one and the same, only the manner of expressing it is slightly different: the Greek formula ek tou patros dia tou ouiou expresses directly the order according to which the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Ghost, and implies their equality as principle; the Latin formula expresses directly this equality, and implies the order. As the Son Himself proceeds from the Father, it is from the Father that He receives, with everything else, the virtue that makes Him the principle of the Holy Ghost. Thus, the Father alone is principium absque principio, aitia anarchos prokatarktike, and, comparatively, the Son is an intermediate principle. The distinct use of the two prepositions, ek (from) and dia (through), implies nothing else. In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the Greek theologians Blemmidus, Beccus, Calecas, and Bessarion called attention to this, explaining that the two particles have the same signification, but that from is better suited to the First Person, Who is the source of the others, and through to the Second Person, Who comes from the Father.

Long before their time St. Basil had written (On the Holy Spirit 8.21): "The expression di ou expresses acknowledgment of the primordial principle [ tes prokatarktikes aitias]"; and St. Chrysostom (Homily 5 on the Gospel of John, no. 2): "If it be said through Him, it is said solely in order that no one may imagine that the Son is not generated": It may be added that the terminology used by the Eastern and Western writers, respectively, to express the idea is far from being invariable. Just as Cyril, Epiphanius, and other Greeks affirm the Procession ex utroque, so several Latin writers did not consider they were departing from the teaching of their Church in expressing themselves like the Greeks. Thus Tertullian (Against Praxeas 4): "Spiritum non aliunde puto quam a Patre per Filium"; and St. Hilary (On the Holy Trinity XII.57), addressing himself to the Father, protests that he wishes to adore, with Him and the Son "Thy Holy Spirit, Who comes from Thee through thy only Son". And yet the same writer had said, a little higher (op. cit., lib. II, 29, in P.L., X, 69), "that we must confess the Holy Ghost coming from the Father and the Son", a clear proof that the two formulæ were regarded as substantially equivalent. "
« Last Edit: July 02, 2015, 01:21:50 PM 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 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 #642 on: July 02, 2015, 01:47:58 PM »
Just a brief comment on the disputed Seleucian synod for now, I will address the other responses subsequently. The Catholic Encyclopedia has this,
Quote
"St. Epiphanius writes (Ancor., viii, in P.G., XLIII, 29, 30) that the Paraclete "is not to be considered as unconnected with the Father and the Son, for He is with Them one in substance and divinity", and states that "He is from the Father and the Son"; ...

No problem.

Quote
Quote
...a little further, he adds (op. cit., xi, in P.G., XLIII, 35): "No one knows the Spirit, besides the Father, except the Son, from Whom He proceeds and of Whom He receives."

I am unable to look at the original text, so I will leave this to someone else who can. 

Quote
Quote
Lastly, a council held at Seleucia in 410 proclaims its faith "in the Holy Living Spirit, the Holy Living Paraclete, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son"[/b] (Lamy, "Concilium Seleuciæ", Louvain, 1868).

Interestingly, Wandile cited an article above (reply no. 618?) in which this passage is quoted in Syriac (note no. 305).  "Proceeds" is not in the text.  It says:

Quote
w'maudenan b'ruho hayo, faraklito hayo d'men abo wabro

and we confess (in) the Living Spirit, the Living Paraclete who is from the Father and the Son

Someone has added a verb into the translation you offered that is neither in the original text nor even in the translation given in the body of the article.  I don't think this Lamy is responsible for that because it is his work that is cited in that article.  Perhaps the Catholic Encyclopedia is playing fast and loose with dogma. 
The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Actually, Mor's face shineth like the Sun.

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 #643 on: July 02, 2015, 02:02:04 PM »


Quote
...a little further, he adds (op. cit., xi, in P.G., XLIII, 35): "No one knows the Spirit, besides the Father, except the Son, from Whom He proceeds and of Whom He receives."

I am unable to look at the original text, so I will leave this to someone else who can. 

«οὐδεὶς οἶδε τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς καὶ οὐδεὶς οἶδε τὸν υἱὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ», οὕτως τολμῶ λέγειν, οὐδὲ τὸ πνεῦμά τις οἶδεν εἰ μὴ ὁ πατὴρ, καὶ ὁ υἱός, παρ’ οὗ ἐκπορεύεται καὶ παρ’ οὗ λαμβάνει.

Hmmmm.

The translation of the Catholic University is a bit unsure about St. Epiphanius and the filioque, as they should be.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2015, 02:08:56 PM by Cyrillic »

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 #644 on: July 02, 2015, 02:12:23 PM »


Quote
...a little further, he adds (op. cit., xi, in P.G., XLIII, 35): "No one knows the Spirit, besides the Father, except the Son, from Whom He proceeds and of Whom He receives."

I am unable to look at the original text, so I will leave this to someone else who can. 

«οὐδεὶς οἶδε τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς καὶ οὐδεὶς οἶδε τὸν υἱὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ», οὕτως τολμῶ λέγειν, οὐδὲ τὸ πνεῦμά τις οἶδεν εἰ μὴ ὁ πατὴρ, καὶ ὁ υἱός, παρ’ οὗ ἐκπορεύεται καὶ παρ’ οὗ λαμβάνει.

Hmmmm.

Interesting...

Quote
The translation of the Catholic University is a bit unsure about St. Epiphanius and the filioque, as they should be.

Your link does not work for me.  According to Google Translate, it's telling me that I've reached my limit on viewing that book (which I can't recall ever having seen in my life) or that I'm otherwise not allowed to see it. 
The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Actually, Mor's face shineth like the Sun.

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 #645 on: July 02, 2015, 02:15:02 PM »

Quote
The translation of the Catholic University is a bit unsure about St. Epiphanius and the filioque, as they should be.

Your link does not work for me.  According to Google Translate, it's telling me that I've reached my limit on viewing that book (which I can't recall ever having seen in my life) or that I'm otherwise not allowed to see it.

Does this link work? Note 4 is relevant.

This (esp. note 240) is the passage of Kösters' book the note refers to.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2015, 02:22:10 PM by Cyrillic »

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 #646 on: July 02, 2015, 02:33:05 PM »

Quote
The translation of the Catholic University is a bit unsure about St. Epiphanius and the filioque, as they should be.

Your link does not work for me.  According to Google Translate, it's telling me that I've reached my limit on viewing that book (which I can't recall ever having seen in my life) or that I'm otherwise not allowed to see it.

Does this link work? Note 4 is relevant.

Thanks, that worked.

Quote
This (esp. note 240) is the passage of Kösters' book the note refers to.

Ack, another language I did not learn.
The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Actually, Mor's face shineth like the Sun.

Offline MalpanaGiwargis

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
  • Māran etraḥam 'lay!
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #647 on: July 02, 2015, 03:26:12 PM »
*There is a "word" here, perhaps a particle, which I can't make out except to say that it is definitely not "wabro" because it does not have the letters to say that.  Unless Isa or someone else chimes in to correct me, I'll have to look at this a bit more when I have some free time because it's annoying me. 

My Assyrian is not as strong as Syriac, and not sure which version you're looking at, but I think the word in question is "ke" (kaph-alaph - sorry for my Eastern pronunciation!) which is a particle placed before a verb and here denotes a habitual present, i.e., the procession is eternal.
Woe is me, that I have read the commandments,
   and have become learned in the Scriptures,
and have been instructed in Your glories,
   and yet I have become occupied in shameful things!

(Giwargis Warda, On Compunction of Soul)

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 #648 on: July 02, 2015, 05:08:43 PM »
*There is a "word" here, perhaps a particle, which I can't make out except to say that it is definitely not "wabro" because it does not have the letters to say that.  Unless Isa or someone else chimes in to correct me, I'll have to look at this a bit more when I have some free time because it's annoying me. 

My Assyrian is not as strong as Syriac, and not sure which version you're looking at, but I think the word in question is "ke" (kaph-alaph - sorry for my Eastern pronunciation!) which is a particle placed before a verb and here denotes a habitual present, i.e., the procession is eternal.

Thanks! 

FYI, I referred to this text.
The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Actually, Mor's face shineth like the Sun.

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,941
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #649 on: July 02, 2015, 06:49:20 PM »


Quote
...a little further, he adds (op. cit., xi, in P.G., XLIII, 35): "No one knows the Spirit, besides the Father, except the Son, from Whom He proceeds and of Whom He receives."

I am unable to look at the original text, so I will leave this to someone else who can. 

«οὐδεὶς οἶδε τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς καὶ οὐδεὶς οἶδε τὸν υἱὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ», οὕτως τολμῶ λέγειν, οὐδὲ τὸ πνεῦμά τις οἶδεν εἰ μὴ ὁ πατὴρ, καὶ ὁ υἱός, παρ’ οὗ ἐκπορεύεται καὶ παρ’ οὗ λαμβάνει.

Hmmmm.

The translation of the Catholic University is a bit unsure about St. Epiphanius and the filioque, as they should be.

To me, it seems to be no big puzzle. The translator translates it in a way which forces the reader to see the filioque where it probably wasn't in the original text, by destroying the grammatical parallelism present in the original clause ("'Nobody knows the father but the Son, and nobody knows the Son but the Father', in this way I dare to say, nor does anybody know the Spirit but the Father and the Son, from Whom He proceeds, and from Whom he receives.") Since οὗ agrees with in number and gender with both πατήρ and υἱός, it stands to reason that either could be the antecedent, and that St. Epiphanius likely meant that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Spirit receives from the Son, something which his Scripture-literate readers would have understood as references to John 15:26 and John 16:14 respectively.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Peter J

  • still a CAF poster
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,457
  • Faith: Christian
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #650 on: July 03, 2015, 10:14:34 AM »

The proper title for this topic should have read: "YOU Keep the Filioque"

I'll keep You the Filioque!
- Peter Jericho

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 #651 on: July 10, 2015, 04:02:57 PM »
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  :-\

::crickets::
The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Actually, Mor's face shineth like the Sun.

Offline MalpanaGiwargis

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
  • Māran etraḥam 'lay!
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #652 on: July 10, 2015, 05:34:03 PM »
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  :-\

::crickets::

Of interest to the discussion of the East Syrian use of the filioque, I was reading Theodore of Mopsuestia's commentary on the Nicene Creed. Interestingly, especially since Theodore reposed in 428 and in light of the council of 410, Theodore (called by East Syrians "the Blessed Interpreter") does not mention the Son a single time in his discussion of the phrase "who proceeds from the Father," which he gives as "haw lam d-men abba napeq," where "lam" is effectively a quotation mark and "napeq" is the technical Syriac translation for "ekporeumenon." It is significant that the creed of Seleucia-Ctesiphon omits the word "napeq"; I think the very fact that that creed has no verb at all would argue against assuming it necessarily means "from" in the sense of eternal procession - it's hard to argue from silence, especially when one of the luminaries of East Syrian theology makes no mention of the Son.
Woe is me, that I have read the commandments,
   and have become learned in the Scriptures,
and have been instructed in Your glories,
   and yet I have become occupied in shameful things!

(Giwargis Warda, On Compunction of Soul)

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 #653 on: July 10, 2015, 05:37:27 PM »
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  :-\

::crickets::

Of interest to the discussion of the East Syrian use of the filioque, I was reading Theodore of Mopsuestia's commentary on the Nicene Creed. Interestingly, especially since Theodore reposed in 428 and in light of the council of 410, Theodore (called by East Syrians "the Blessed Interpreter") does not mention the Son a single time in his discussion of the phrase "who proceeds from the Father," which he gives as "haw lam d-men abba napeq," where "lam" is effectively a quotation mark and "napeq" is the technical Syriac translation for "ekporeumenon." It is significant that the creed of Seleucia-Ctesiphon omits the word "napeq"; I think the very fact that that creed has no verb at all would argue against assuming it necessarily means "from" in the sense of eternal procession - it's hard to argue from silence, especially when one of the luminaries of East Syrian theology makes no mention of the Son.

The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Actually, Mor's face shineth like the Sun.

Offline Xavier

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #654 on: July 18, 2015, 12:42:59 PM »
Well, in case a single text is disputed, we can always look at the other writings of the same Saint in order to discern the mind of the holy writer on the question that is being treated, in this case, the eternal procession of the Holy Ghost. Thus, for example, St. Epiphanius has also written, "he [St. Paul the Apostle] calls the one Who is from Him the Son, and the one Who is from Both (παρ᾽ ἀμφοτέρων) the Holy Spirit" which seems rather clear, no less clear in fact than St. Leo ("another Who proceeds from Both") or St. Isidore ("the Son is begotten of One, but the Spirit proceeds from Both."), whom the Orthodox generally admit to have taught the Filioque. Earlier in this thread, a text in St. Hilary of Poitiers was also disputed, but likewise St. Hilary elsewhere very clearly confesses, "May I receive your Spirit Who takes His being from You through Your only Son." These words most plainly refer not to some supposed manifestation or mere temporal mission but to the Holy Ghost receiving His divine being, namely His eternal subsistence, from the Father and through the Son, thus disproving the error of Monopatrism.

Dear Mor Ephrem, as for the Seleucian synod, pray tell, what is the great difference in saying the Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son, or that He is from the Father and the Son, or that He proceeds from the Father and the Son? The truth is, these are complementary formulations that express the same underlying mystery in different linguistic styles. I too have not read Lamy's original work, written over 150 years ago, but the Catholic Encyclopedia is a peer-reviewed scholarly publication, I doubt it would misquote him. In general, the Latin Church does not see that much of a difference between is and proceeds.

Dear Cyrillic, you say St. Maximus himself teaches and also exegetes other Fathers as teaching a mere energetic procession. But if that were so, please answer,

1. Why does St. Maximus say, in the passage you cite, " 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…"? Even in this very passage, the saintly monk is clearly talking not about the dispensing of grace, of divine attributes or of energies but about how consubstantiality of the Three Persons and the unity of the divine Essence is preserved. In your view, how is unity of Essence preserved through a merely energetic procession? Whereas in our view, because the Person of the Spirit is manifested through the Son, His divine Essence is consubstantial with Him and united with Him in all things save only the distinction of relation (namely, that the Spirit is from the Son, but the Son is not from the Spirit).

2. In case there were any doubt about this text, as we saw before, St. Maximus clearly says elsewhere, "By nature the Holy Spirit in His being takes substantially His origin from the Father through the Son Who is begotten". How do you understand this? These words clearly indicate a substantial eternal procession. If they do not, then what phraseology would you admit as settling the matter beyond any dispute? At any rate, if you would still disagree that these words indicate an eternal ontological relation between the Person of the Son and the Spirit, we will agree to differ and leave it at that.

Dear friends, a few additional authorities not previously cited, St. Eucherius of Lyons, "The Holy Spirit is neither generate nor ingenerate, but rather is He who proceeds from the Father and the Son, as a harmony, we may say, of Both.", St. Anicius Boethius, "He who proceeds of God the Father is the Son of God, He who is of Both is the Holy Ghost", ("processisse quidem ex Deo Patre Filium Deum, et ex utrisque Spiritum sanctum") In full harmony with these teachings, St. Cyril, illustrious Doctor of the Greek Church, most clearly confesses, as we saw earlier, what the modern Greek Church most unfortunately does not, "the Spirit is from God the Father and, for that matter, from the Son, being poured forth substantially from both, that is to say, from the Father through the Son." From which it is manifest and incontrovertible that it is the substance or essence of the Holy Ghost that He receives from the Father and the Son.

This can also be shown from the clear testimony of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. St. Patriarch Tarasius, another leading light of the East in Constantinople, dogmatically confesses at Nicaea II "And in the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father through the Son, and Who is acknowledged to be Himself God.", the addendum "is acknowledged to be Himself God" (that is, is of the substance of the Father and the Son) very strongly suggests that St. Tarasius is talking about the divine Essence of the Holy Spirit as being from the Father through the Son. Earlier and more clearer still, St. Leontios at Nicaea I openly professed, "the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and is proper to the Son and gushes forth from Him." now, the divine energies cannot in any absolute sense be said to be proper to one Person, as they are common to the whole Trinity. Hence, it is plain that St. Leontios describes the hypostatic relation of the Son to the Spirit, when He declares the latter is proper to the former and gushes forth from Him. Recall St. Cyril would later write, ("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.") and thus St. Leontios confession is another dogmatic proof of the doctrine of the Filioque.
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 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 #655 on: July 18, 2015, 02:38:54 PM »
Well, in case a single text is disputed, we can always look at the other writings of the same Saint in order to discern the mind of the holy writer on the question that is being treated, in this case, the eternal procession of the Holy Ghost. Thus, for example, St. Epiphanius has also written, "he [St. Paul the Apostle] calls the one Who is from Him the Son, and the one Who is from Both (παρ᾽ ἀμφοτέρων) the Holy Spirit" which seems rather clear, no less clear in fact than St. Leo ("another Who proceeds from Both") or St. Isidore ("the Son is begotten of One, but the Spirit proceeds from Both."), whom the Orthodox generally admit to have taught the Filioque. Earlier in this thread, a text in St. Hilary of Poitiers was also disputed, but likewise St. Hilary elsewhere very clearly confesses, "May I receive your Spirit Who takes His being from You through Your only Son." These words most plainly refer not to some supposed manifestation or mere temporal mission but to the Holy Ghost receiving His divine being, namely His eternal subsistence, from the Father and through the Son, thus disproving the error of Monopatrism.

Do you have citations?  Or will we just have to take your word for it? 

And LOL @ Pope Leo

Quote
Dear Mor Ephrem, as for the Seleucian synod, pray tell, what is the great difference in saying the Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son, or that He is from the Father and the Son, or that He proceeds from the Father and the Son?

The difference is verbs.  If you had read earlier posts, you would have known that because MalpanaGiwargis and I, among others, discussed it.

Quote
The truth is, these are complementary formulations that express the same underlying mystery in different linguistic styles.

And you are, no doubt, basing this on your own knowledge of Syriac? 

Quote
I too have not read Lamy's original work, written over 150 years ago, but the Catholic Encyclopedia is a peer-reviewed scholarly publication, I doubt it would misquote him.

IIRC, I demonstrated that it did, at least from the sources your fellow RC Wandile brought forward. 

Quote
In general, the Latin Church does not see that much of a difference between is and proceeds.

The Son is of the Father.
The Spirit is of the Father. 
The Spirit is a Son. 
« Last Edit: July 18, 2015, 02:40:37 PM by Mor Ephrem »
The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Actually, Mor's face shineth like the Sun.

Offline Xavier

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #656 on: July 19, 2015, 12:12:53 AM »
Quote
Do you have citations?  Or will we just have to take your word for it?

Sure, you could take my word for it, but anyway the citations are respectively St. Epiphanius' The Well-Anchored Man, 374 A.D., Pope St. Leo's letter to Bishop St. Turibius of Astorga, 447 A.D., St. Isidore's Etymologies, 636 A.D. I'm aware of the controversies surrounding Pope St. Leo and Chalcedon discussed elsewhere on the board, I don't intend to get into that here since it is off-topic, I quoted him here only for those who accept his authority. The identical doctrine is found in earlier Saints and Fathers whom the Oriental Orthodox also accept, such as Augustine, Athanasius, Cyril, Ambrose and Hilary, who were cited at length earlier. Do you accept the testimony of these Saints?

As for the synod in Seleucia, my point is different scholars render it alternately the Holy Spirit is from the Son and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.  But alright, you are correct I don't speak a word of Syriac, so I concede Seleucia to you and it is a matter of indifference to me, as it was only a regional synod, and there are authorities far greater than Seleucia to establish this. So, how do you understand the confession of faith made by St. Tarasius at Nicaea II and St. Leontios at Nicaea I, the former of which is an Ecumenical Synod where the word proceeds is used to describe the Spirit's coming forth the Father through the Son, the latter of which is an Ecumenical Synod all Christians accept, where the Spirit is described as being proper to the Son and gushing forth from Him?

Quote
The Son is of the Father.
The Spirit is of the Father.
The Spirit is a Son. 

Rather, the Son is of the Father alone. The Spirit is of the Father. But, the Spirit is not the Son. Therefore, the Spirit is not of the Father alone, for if He was from the Father alone, He could not in any way be distinguished from the Son - therefore, He is from, or He proceeds from, or He is of the Father and of the Son.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2015, 12:14:19 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 Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,941
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #657 on: July 19, 2015, 12:55:01 AM »
Quote
Do you have citations?  Or will we just have to take your word for it?

Sure, you could take my word for it, but anyway the citations are respectively St. Epiphanius' The Well-Anchored Man, 374 A.D., Pope St. Leo's letter to Bishop St. Turibius of Astorga, 447 A.D., St. Isidore's Etymologies, 636 A.D. I'm aware of the controversies surrounding Pope St. Leo and Chalcedon discussed elsewhere on the board, I don't intend to get into that here since it is off-topic, I quoted him here only for those who accept his authority. The identical doctrine is found in earlier Saints and Fathers whom the Oriental Orthodox also accept, such as Augustine, Athanasius, Cyril, Ambrose and Hilary, who were cited at length earlier. Do you accept the testimony of these Saints?

As for the synod in Seleucia, my point is different scholars render it alternately the Holy Spirit is from the Son and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.  But alright, you are correct I don't speak a word of Syriac, so I concede Seleucia to you and it is a matter of indifference to me, as it was only a regional synod, and there are authorities far greater than Seleucia to establish this. So, how do you understand the confession of faith made by St. Tarasius at Nicaea II and St. Leontios at Nicaea I, the former of which is an Ecumenical Synod where the word proceeds is used to describe the Spirit's coming forth the Father through the Son, the latter of which is an Ecumenical Synod all Christians accept, where the Spirit is described as being proper to the Son and gushing forth from Him?

Quote
The Son is of the Father.
The Spirit is of the Father.
The Spirit is a Son. 

Rather, the Son is of the Father alone. The Spirit is of the Father. But, the Spirit is not the Son. Therefore, the Spirit is not of the Father alone, for if He was from the Father alone, He could not in any way be distinguished from the Son - therefore, He is from, or He proceeds from, or He is of the Father and of the Son.

Normally when people ask for a citation, they are asking for the chapter and paragraph of the work in question, a page and letter from the PG or PL, etc. What you did hardly qualifies as citation.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline JoeS2

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,646
  • St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #658 on: July 19, 2015, 01:29:59 AM »
How is this:
-
You guys in the West Keep the Filioque
-
We in the East will somehow survive without it...

Can we settle this once and for all?

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,153
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #659 on: July 19, 2015, 02:19:17 AM »
How is this:
-
You guys in the West Keep the Filioque
-
We in the East will somehow survive without it...

Can we settle this once and for all?

Yup, and the West will continue to fragment into thousands of denominations, while we remain unified.
“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 Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,941
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #660 on: July 19, 2015, 02:45:41 AM »
Well, in case a single text is disputed, we can always look at the other writings of the same Saint in order to discern the mind of the holy writer on the question that is being treated, in this case, the eternal procession of the Holy Ghost. Thus, for example, St. Epiphanius has also written, "he [St. Paul the Apostle] calls the one Who is from Him the Son, and the one Who is from Both (παρ᾽ ἀμφοτέρων) the Holy Spirit" which seems rather clear, no less clear in fact than St. Leo ("another Who proceeds from Both") or St. Isidore ("the Son is begotten of One, but the Spirit proceeds from Both."), whom the Orthodox generally admit to have taught the Filioque. Earlier in this thread, a text in St. Hilary of Poitiers was also disputed, but likewise St. Hilary elsewhere very clearly confesses, "May I receive your Spirit Who takes His being from You through Your only Son." These words most plainly refer not to some supposed manifestation or mere temporal mission but to the Holy Ghost receiving His divine being, namely His eternal subsistence, from the Father and through the Son, thus disproving the error of Monopatrism.

Dear Mor Ephrem, as for the Seleucian synod, pray tell, what is the great difference in saying the Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son, or that He is from the Father and the Son, or that He proceeds from the Father and the Son? The truth is, these are complementary formulations that express the same underlying mystery in different linguistic styles. I too have not read Lamy's original work, written over 150 years ago, but the Catholic Encyclopedia is a peer-reviewed scholarly publication, I doubt it would misquote him. In general, the Latin Church does not see that much of a difference between is and proceeds.

Dear Cyrillic, you say St. Maximus himself teaches and also exegetes other Fathers as teaching a mere energetic procession. But if that were so, please answer,

1. Why does St. Maximus say, in the passage you cite, " 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…"? Even in this very passage, the saintly monk is clearly talking not about the dispensing of grace, of divine attributes or of energies but about how consubstantiality of the Three Persons and the unity of the divine Essence is preserved. In your view, how is unity of Essence preserved through a merely energetic procession? Whereas in our view, because the Person of the Spirit is manifested through the Son, His divine Essence is consubstantial with Him and united with Him in all things save only the distinction of relation (namely, that the Spirit is from the Son, but the Son is not from the Spirit).

2. In case there were any doubt about this text, as we saw before, St. Maximus clearly says elsewhere, "By nature the Holy Spirit in His being takes substantially His origin from the Father through the Son Who is begotten". How do you understand this? These words clearly indicate a substantial eternal procession. If they do not, then what phraseology would you admit as settling the matter beyond any dispute? At any rate, if you would still disagree that these words indicate an eternal ontological relation between the Person of the Son and the Spirit, we will agree to differ and leave it at that.

Dear friends, a few additional authorities not previously cited, St. Eucherius of Lyons, "The Holy Spirit is neither generate nor ingenerate, but rather is He who proceeds from the Father and the Son, as a harmony, we may say, of Both.", St. Anicius Boethius, "He who proceeds of God the Father is the Son of God, He who is of Both is the Holy Ghost", ("processisse quidem ex Deo Patre Filium Deum, et ex utrisque Spiritum sanctum") In full harmony with these teachings, St. Cyril, illustrious Doctor of the Greek Church, most clearly confesses, as we saw earlier, what the modern Greek Church most unfortunately does not, "the Spirit is from God the Father and, for that matter, from the Son, being poured forth substantially from both, that is to say, from the Father through the Son." From which it is manifest and incontrovertible that it is the substance or essence of the Holy Ghost that He receives from the Father and the Son.

This can also be shown from the clear testimony of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. St. Patriarch Tarasius, another leading light of the East in Constantinople, dogmatically confesses at Nicaea II "And in the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father through the Son, and Who is acknowledged to be Himself God.", the addendum "is acknowledged to be Himself God" (that is, is of the substance of the Father and the Son) very strongly suggests that St. Tarasius is talking about the divine Essence of the Holy Spirit as being from the Father through the Son. Earlier and more clearer still, St. Leontios at Nicaea I openly professed, "the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and is proper to the Son and gushes forth from Him." now, the divine energies cannot in any absolute sense be said to be proper to one Person, as they are common to the whole Trinity. Hence, it is plain that St. Leontios describes the hypostatic relation of the Son to the Spirit, when He declares the latter is proper to the former and gushes forth from Him. Recall St. Cyril would later write, ("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.") and thus St. Leontios confession is another dogmatic proof of the doctrine of the Filioque.

You don't even seem to understand the energetic manifestation, to be frank. Of course, since you seem to hold to a completely outmoded form of manualist Thomism, I am not surprised, since if you cannot conceive of the energy of God being uncreated, you likewise cannot conceive of how the energetic procession of the Spirit can be something which is not temporal, and hence you must criticize it inaccurately as "merely" an energetic procession.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2015, 02:46:13 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: 2,022
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #661 on: July 19, 2015, 05:15:36 AM »
How is this:
-
You guys in the West Keep the Filioque
-
We in the East will somehow survive without it...

Can we settle this once and for all?

Yup, and the West will continue to fragment into thousands of denominations, while we remain unified.

The east is far from unified
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 Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,941
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #662 on: July 19, 2015, 07:51:24 AM »
How is this:
-
You guys in the West Keep the Filioque
-
We in the East will somehow survive without it...

Can we settle this once and for all?

Yup, and the West will continue to fragment into thousands of denominations, while we remain unified.

The east is far from unified

Says the one living in the same glass house as Cardinal Burke and Cardinal Kasper.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Xavier

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #663 on: July 19, 2015, 10:36:12 AM »
Dear Cavaradossi, if you think so, well, please address why this is incorrect, "the divine energies cannot in any absolute sense be said to be proper to one Person, as they are common to the whole Trinity. Hence, it is plain that St. Leontios describes the hypostatic relation of the Son to the Spirit, when He declares the latter is proper to the former and gushes forth from Him". Do you claim this is inaccurate? If so, please establish it. I'm well aware of what you mean when you say the grace and eternal energies of the Spirit are dispensed or even mediated through the Son (and it is not incorrect by the way, but only insufficient) but not His Person and divine hypostasis Himself (which is where the inaccuracy lies). I was explaining why the words of the Saints and Doctors alike preclude both a mere temporal mission (as suggested by Mor Ephrem) and an energetic procession alone (which Cyrillic made reference to) above. Hence the "merely". Yes, both a temporal mission and an energetic manifestation are true, but they are not the complete truth, the Person of the Spirit also proceeds from the Father through the Son eternally, receiving His nature and eternal subsistence at once from Both, in one eternal act of Love and Life, as the Son of God receives His essence from the Father alone, in one eternal act of Word and Wisdom, according to all Scripture and Tradition. The passages above on the procession of the Holy Ghost make plenty of references to substantial procession and procession by way of nature or essence. 

As far as citations are concerned, I gave two sites earlier where most of these works are referenced in full (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_holy_spirit.html#tradition-II and http://catholicpatristics.blogspot.in/2009/08/filioque.html) Anyway, since you asked, here is a more complete citation: respectively, St. Epiphanius, The Well-Anchored Man 71 in PG 43:148B, St. Leo's letter 15:2 to Bishop St. Turibius of Astorga PL 54:680, St. Isidore's Etymologies 7:3 in PL 82:268A. You can find hyperlinks in the sites mentioned and you can also find google books references for most, if you would paste the passages there.

Also, please provide some positive proof for your assertions from the Fathers. In particular, show me where they preclude eternal hypostatic procession, as you believe they do. You have not established this crucial point, you have merely claimed it, in spite of the clear words of the Fathers to the contrary explicitly speaking of substantial procession.

If you disagree with what I've said, please directly address the passages cited above. Do you agree with this from the Fifth Council, "We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John [Chrysostom] of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo, and their writings on the true faith." At least 5 of these ancient authorities indisputably teach the Filioque and a further 4 arguably do so, as has been proved above.

To name just two of these authorities, St. Ambrose says [On The Holy Spirit 1:11:120 in PL 16:739AB], "The Holy Spirit also, when He proceeds from the Father and the Son, is not separated from the Father nor separated from the Son." and later in the same work [1:15:172] "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" [St. Athanasius, who is one of the "many", has comparatively written, "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 source of the Holy Spirit." (On the Incarnation of the Word Against the Arians 9 in PG 26:1000A)] This teaching of the Fathers that the Holy Ghost is signified in the sacred writings as a flowing fountain and as a river of life is seen clearly in Sacred Scripture itself, especially in the Prophet Ezekiel and St. John the Apostle. The same St. Ambrose comments on Rev 22:1, "And this, again, is not a trivial matter that we read that a river goes forth from the throne of God. For you read the words of the Evangelist John to this purport: "And He showed me a river of living water, bright as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb ... This is certainly the River proceeding from the throne of God, that is, the Holy Spirit." (The Greek word here of course is the same word εκπόρευσις (ekporeusis) we're all familiar with Like a select few among the holy Fathers, the great Doctor of Milan was fluent in both Latin and Greek. ) These two Fathers will do for now, St. Cyril of course was cited at length above. Now, where do you disagree and where is your own proof from patristic Tradition for your position?
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 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 #664 on: July 19, 2015, 10:45:14 AM »
and an energetic procession alone (which Cyrillic made reference to) above.

Energetic and temporal.

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 #665 on: July 19, 2015, 10:50:10 AM »
according to all Scripture and Tradition.

You wish.

These two Fathers will do for now, St. Cyril of course was cited at length above. Now, where do you disagree and where is your own proof from patristic Tradition for your position?

St. Maximus' letter to Marinus (PG 91, 134D-136C):

Quote
With regard to the first matter, they [the Latin Christians] 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. John of Damascus' De Fide Orthodoxa 1:8 (read the whole chapter instead of this abridged version):

Quote
Likewise we believe also in one Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life: Who proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son: the object of equal adoration and glorification with the Father and Son, since He is co-essential and co-eternal: the Spirit of God, direct, authoritative , the fountain of wisdom, and life, and holiness: God existing and addressed along with Father and Son: uncreate, full, creative, all-ruling, all-effecting, all-powerful, of infinite power, Lord of all creation and not under any lord : deifying, not deified : filling, not filled: shared in, not sharing in: sanctifying, not sanctified: the intercessor, receiving the supplications of all: in all things like to the Father and Son: proceeding from the Father and communicated through the Son, and participated in by all creation

[...]

Further, it should be understood that we do not speak of the Father as derived from any one, but we speak of Him as the Father of the Son. And we do not speak of the Son as Cause or Father, but we speak of Him both as from the Father, and as the Son of the Father. And we speak likewise of the Holy Spirit as from the Father, and call Him the Spirit of the Father. And we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son: but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son. For if any one has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His, says the divine apostle. And we confess that He is manifested and imparted to us through the Son. For He breathed upon His Disciples, says he, and said, Receive the Holy Spirit. It is just the same as in the case of the sun from which come both the ray and the radiance (for the sun itself is the source of both the ray and the radiance), and it is through the ray that the radiance is imparted to us, and it is the radiance itself by which we are lightened and in which we participate. Further we do not speak of the Son of the Spirit, or of the Son as derived from the Spirit.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2015, 11:04:21 AM by Cyrillic »

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 #666 on: July 19, 2015, 11:59:33 AM »
1. Why does St. Maximus say, in the passage you cite, " 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…"?

Even in this very passage, the saintly monk is clearly talking not about the dispensing of grace, of divine attributes or of energies but about how consubstantiality of the Three Persons and the unity of the divine Essence is preserved. In your view, how is unity of Essence preserved through a merely energetic procession? Whereas in our view, because the Person of the Spirit is manifested through the Son, His divine Essence is consubstantial with Him and united with Him in all things save only the distinction of relation (namely, that the Spirit is from the Son, but the Son is not from the Spirit).

Ask Cavaradossi about what is meant by energies. I can't be bothered to explain it.

EDIT: Nvm, I just saw he already addressed it a bit.

In case there were any doubt about this text, as we saw before, St. Maximus clearly says elsewhere, "By nature the Holy Spirit in His being takes substantially His origin from the Father through the Son Who is begotten". How do you understand this?

Through the Letter of Marinus.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2015, 12:00:25 PM by Cyrillic »

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 #667 on: July 19, 2015, 01:36:39 PM »
The identical doctrine is found in earlier Saints and Fathers whom the Oriental Orthodox also accept, such as Augustine, Athanasius, Cyril, Ambrose and Hilary, who were cited at length earlier. Do you accept the testimony of these Saints?

We accept the Church.  Insofar as the holy fathers teach the Orthodox faith of the Catholic Church, we accept their teachings as authoritative.  When they teach or propose ideas which do not coincide with this faith, we do not consider ourselves bound to accept such ideas. 

Before I can say whether I accept the testimony of the saints you named, we have to see if they in fact teach the Spirit's double procession.  These threads are full of RC's quoting selectively or reading into the text, so I'm not automatically convinced by name-dropping. 

Quote
As for the synod in Seleucia, my point is different scholars render it alternately the Holy Spirit is from the Son and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. 

And it's rather dishonest to take a text without verbs and put your own verbs into it and then claim that it is an ancient instance of a later doctrine.  Verbs matter.  Especially in Syriac. 

Quote
But alright, you are correct I don't speak a word of Syriac, so I concede Seleucia to you and it is a matter of indifference to me, as it was only a regional synod, and there are authorities far greater than Seleucia to establish this.

Thanks.

Quote
So, how do you understand the confession of faith made by St. Tarasius at Nicaea II...

Ask someone who recognises Nicaea II. 

Quote
...and St. Leontios at Nicaea I, the former of which is an Ecumenical Synod where the word proceeds is used to describe the Spirit's coming forth the Father through the Son, the latter of which is an Ecumenical Synod all Christians accept, where the Spirit is described as being proper to the Son and gushing forth from Him?

Was this quoted somewhere in this thread?  I don't recall having read it. 

Quote
Quote
The Son is of the Father.
The Spirit is of the Father.
The Spirit is a Son. 

Rather, the Son is of the Father alone. The Spirit is of the Father. But, the Spirit is not the Son. Therefore, the Spirit is not of the Father alone, for if He was from the Father alone, He could not in any way be distinguished from the Son - therefore, He is from, or He proceeds from, or He is of the Father and of the Son.

So now you can see what happens if you have no verbs and yet try to make rather open-ended statements mean something very precise and technical. 
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 #668 on: July 20, 2015, 08:49:05 AM »
How is this:
-
You guys in the West Keep the Filioque
-
We in the East will somehow survive without it...

Can we settle this once and for all?

Yup, and the West will continue to fragment into thousands of denominations, while we remain unified.

The east is far from unified

Says the one living in the same glass house as Cardinal Burke and Cardinal Kasper.
St Hilary and St Athanasius were part of the same church as Arians. Unless heretics do not exist in you communion? :o

Eastern Orthodox, True Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Macedonian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox Kiev Patriarchate, Eastern Catholics, Assyrian Church of the East

Far from unified
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 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 #669 on: July 20, 2015, 12:15:02 PM »
How is this:
-
You guys in the West Keep the Filioque
-
We in the East will somehow survive without it...

Can we settle this once and for all?

Yup, and the West will continue to fragment into thousands of denominations, while we remain unified.

The east is far from unified

Says the one living in the same glass house as Cardinal Burke and Cardinal Kasper.
St Hilary and St Athanasius were part of the same church as Arians. Unless heretics do not exist in you communion? :o

Eastern Orthodox, True Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Macedonian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox Kiev Patriarchate, Eastern Catholics, Assyrian Church of the East

Far from unified

To be fair to Cavaradossi, I have struck out those with whom his Church is not in communion (far more unified when you look at it that way).  If we're not going to be fair, though, let me know.  I love to play this game.
The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Actually, Mor's face shineth like the Sun.

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,732
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #670 on: July 20, 2015, 12:44:46 PM »
Reading this reminds me that neither within Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism all of their respective communicants do not agree on what it is to be 'unified.'

Is agreement on the essentials of faith and theology, but differences in hierarchical organization (say the Ukrainian situation or the American diaspora as alternate examples (as they are not the same example) ) enough to make EO 'disunified.'  Is a 'tent' which allows for disparate views of SOME subjects (ecumenism or the calendar are examples) a sign of true unity or is such a tent a sign of 'disunity'? Ripples or tsunamis?

I could list similar examples within OO or RCC but I think my point is clear.

Cardinals Burke and Kaspar? Metropolitan Seraphim or Metropolitan John of Pergamon? Are their profound disagreements within their communion signs of fatal disunity or simply a recognition that for human beings with shared beliefs a broad range of perhaps acceptable opinion exists?  I honestly don't know, but I sense that to many of any persuasion a goal of marching lockstep in place is the ideal, rather than a robust exchange of varying opinions.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,153
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #671 on: July 20, 2015, 12:51:10 PM »
Heretics exist within the EO and OO Churches too. So? Heretical bodies are not the same as heretical individuals within canonical bodies.
“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 podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,732
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: Keep the Filioque
« Reply #672 on: July 20, 2015, 01:07:13 PM »
I am not speaking of heretics or even schismatics for that matter (the terms are often misused) , but divergent opinions within communions..Do such represent disunity?

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 #673 on: July 20, 2015, 05:01:32 PM »
How is this:
-
You guys in the West Keep the Filioque
-
We in the East will somehow survive without it...

Can we settle this once and for all?

Yup, and the West will continue to fragment into thousands of denominations, while we remain unified.

The east is far from unified

Says the one living in the same glass house as Cardinal Burke and Cardinal Kasper.
St Hilary and St Athanasius were part of the same church as Arians. Unless heretics do not exist in you communion? :o

Eastern Orthodox, True Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Macedonian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox Kiev Patriarchate, Eastern Catholics, Assyrian Church of the East

Far from unified

To be fair to Cavaradossi, I have struck out those with whom his Church is not in communion (far more unified when you look at it that way).  If we're not going to be fair, though, let me know.  I love to play this game.
The claim was the west will keep dividing and that the east was unified. If the west is spoken of as a whole, we have have to match like with like. The east neither is unified.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2015, 05:14:36 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


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

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 #674 on: July 20, 2015, 05:18:40 PM »
How is this:
-
You guys in the West Keep the Filioque
-
We in the East will somehow survive without it...

Can we settle this once and for all?

Yup, and the West will continue to fragment into thousands of denominations, while we remain unified.

The east is far from unified

Says the one living in the same glass house as Cardinal Burke and Cardinal Kasper.
St Hilary and St Athanasius were part of the same church as Arians. Unless heretics do not exist in you communion? :o

Eastern Orthodox, True Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Macedonian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox Kiev Patriarchate, Eastern Catholics, Assyrian Church of the East

Far from unified

To be fair to Cavaradossi, I have struck out those with whom his Church is not in communion (far more unified when you look at it that way).  If we're not going to be fair, though, let me know.  I love to play this game.
The claim was the west will keep dividing and th east was unified. If the west is spoken of as a whole. We have to match like with like. The east neither is unified.

Cavaradossi compared two Cardinals of the Church of Rome.  You were not matching like with like. 
The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Actually, Mor's face shineth like the Sun.