OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 20, 2014, 04:45:08 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Keep the Filioque  (Read 7107 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,027


« Reply #90 on: September 16, 2013, 02:36:21 AM »

To quote from Siecienski's book mentioned in the previous post, he notes:

Quote
In Epistula 55 Cyril seemingly did equate the two terms, but only in reference to the Spirit's relationship to the Father, since "the Spirit is poured forth (προχείται), that is, proceeds (εκπορεύεται), as from the fountain of God the Father and is bestowed on creation through the Son." [p. 232, n.114]

This is not the Latin filioque doctrine. Not by a long shot. Once again, the Latins are strainin' to do some explainin'. Forgive me if I, and the entire Church of Alexandria (no matter which communion you're looking at, because in this we agree), remains unconvinced that our Fathers taught this Latin idea.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2013, 02:37:03 AM by dzheremi » Logged

Cyrillic
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow
Posts: 7,955


The Reactionary Rebel


WWW
« Reply #91 on: September 16, 2013, 02:44:14 AM »

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

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

Haha, I know. It's just that I'd like to notify him about silly posts made by Catholics, not rule infractions Smiley
« Last Edit: September 16, 2013, 02:47:37 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo

"J'ai pour les institutions démocratiques un goût de tête, mais je suis aristocrate par instinct"
-A. de Tocqueville

'Don't bother arguing with Cyrillic, he is Dutch or something queer like that.'
-Byron
Nicene
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 491


« Reply #92 on: September 16, 2013, 03:03:14 AM »

I think he ignores the chief reason that the pope has no authority in of himself and by himself without council with the rest of the church to change and alter the creed.
Logged

Thank you.
Cyrillic
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow
Posts: 7,955


The Reactionary Rebel


WWW
« Reply #93 on: September 16, 2013, 03:14:16 AM »

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

I'm positive. I know a thing or two about Dutch, and so should you, being a native of South Africa and all that.

The alternative Dutch translation used by the RC's is 'voortkomen uit' which, too, has the same connotations as ekporeuomai. I bet that the same is true for a lot of languages, not only Greek and Dutch, yet often the filioque is maintained.

Yet what I told about the Greek true. Read up on it

LOL. I am a Classics student.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2013, 03:26:29 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo

"J'ai pour les institutions démocratiques un goût de tête, mais je suis aristocrate par instinct"
-A. de Tocqueville

'Don't bother arguing with Cyrillic, he is Dutch or something queer like that.'
-Byron
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #94 on: September 16, 2013, 08:24:23 AM »

Two things should be noted about the following quotation from St. Cyril of Alexandria:

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

First, this text does not speak about the Holy Spirit's eternal hypostatic origin from the Father; instead, it speaks about His work of conforming the Christian faithful to God (i.e., an economic reality); and second, the text can also be translated from the Greek in the following manner: "Since the Holy Spirit when He is in us effects our being conformed to God, and He actually goes forth of the Father and the Son, it is manifest that He is of the divine essence, essentially in it, and of it coming forth." This translation has the added benefit of preventing confusion by avoiding the Latin tendency to equate all the various Greek terms that speak about the Spirit's "movement" or "sending" from the Father through the Son, with His procession (ἐκπόρευσις) of origin, which comes only from the Father.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2013, 08:33:45 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

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

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #95 on: September 16, 2013, 08:43:27 AM »

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

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

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

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

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

This is rubbish

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

The filioque was taught by Eunomius...

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

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

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

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

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
JoeS2
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 995


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


« Reply #96 on: September 16, 2013, 08:58:13 AM »



This is rubbish

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

Maybe all well and good, but Dogmas at the time were only Dogmas because the whole church approved it via Council.   The Western church rightly should have dropped this 'Filioque' after the Arianism problem faded away.  It wasn't necessary anymore.  This is the rub.  Why didn't Rome recind this in the Creed if it was only used against the Arian heresy???
Logged
TheTrisagion
Jack-of-all-Trades, Master of none
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,974



« Reply #97 on: September 16, 2013, 09:04:02 AM »

I fail to see how the filioque adds any additional defense to trinitarian doctrine that is not covered in other parts of the Creed.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #98 on: September 16, 2013, 09:20:15 AM »

Seems like this has turned into a pretty general filioque thread, without much connection to the article mentioned in the OP. Am I just stating an obvious fact that everyone else already realized?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
TheTrisagion
Jack-of-all-Trades, Master of none
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,974



« Reply #99 on: September 16, 2013, 09:22:31 AM »

Seems like this has turned into a pretty general filioque thread, without much connection to the article mentioned in the OP. Am I just stating an obvious fact that everyone else already realized?
I thought that is a given on oc.net.  It doesn't matter what the OP is, it always devolves into a generic argument on whatever the topic might be.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #100 on: September 16, 2013, 09:43:17 AM »

Seems like this has turned into a pretty general filioque thread, without much connection to the article mentioned in the OP. Am I just stating an obvious fact that everyone else already realized?
The article doesn't say anything terribly original, but just recycles trash.  Except point 2, that the Vatican should keep the filioque because the Protestants do, which is so incredibly stupid that it doesn't warrant a lot of attention.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,959


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #101 on: September 16, 2013, 10:13:04 AM »



This is rubbish

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

Maybe all well and good, but Dogmas at the time were only Dogmas because the whole church approved it via Council.   The Western church rightly should have dropped this 'Filioque' after the Arianism problem faded away.  It wasn't necessary anymore.  This is the rub.  Why didn't Rome recind this in the Creed if it was only used against the Arian heresy???
Why didn't everyone drop the Nicene creed after the Arian crisis ended?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #102 on: September 16, 2013, 10:20:04 AM »



This is rubbish

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

Maybe all well and good, but Dogmas at the time were only Dogmas because the whole church approved it via Council.   The Western church rightly should have dropped this 'Filioque' after the Arianism problem faded away.  It wasn't necessary anymore.  This is the rub.  Why didn't Rome recind this in the Creed if it was only used against the Arian heresy???
Why didn't everyone drop the Nicene creed after the Arian crisis ended?
The council of Toledo did.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
scamandrius
Dr., Rdr. Scamandrius to you :)
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,324



« Reply #103 on: September 16, 2013, 10:24:27 AM »

This is rubbish

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

I think the Arians were pretty decisively defeated after Nicaea save for a few Germans in Spain.  If the Nicaea-Constantinopolian Creed was enough to do that, why did it need emendation or "clarification" as RCs would say?

I fail to see how the filioque adds any additional defense to trinitarian doctrine that is not covered in other parts of the Creed.

Precisely.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong." - Carl Kraeff
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12,030


I'm back, Mom...miss Me?


WWW
« Reply #104 on: September 16, 2013, 10:34:55 AM »

Why didn't everyone drop the Nicene creed after the Arian crisis ended?
The council of Toledo did.

Smiley
Logged

"Best of all, Mor Ephrem won't trap you into having his baby." - dzheremi

"Mor Ephrim will not be allowed in(to the getes of heaven) because God doesnt know him." - Cackles

"You are consistently one of the cruelest posters on this forum." - William
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,571


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #105 on: September 16, 2013, 10:49:42 AM »

This is rubbish

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

I think the Arians were pretty decisively defeated after Nicaea save for a few Germans in Spain.  If the Nicaea-Constantinopolian Creed was enough to do that, why did it need emendation or "clarification" as RCs would say?

I fail to see how the filioque adds any additional defense to trinitarian doctrine that is not covered in other parts of the Creed.

Precisely.

Isn't there a theory that many Arians "morphed" into Muslims ?
« Last Edit: September 16, 2013, 10:50:04 AM by podkarpatska » Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,905



« Reply #106 on: September 16, 2013, 10:51:13 AM »

I fail to see how the filioque adds any additional defense to trinitarian doctrine that is not covered in other parts of the Creed.

Supposedly it elevates the Son to the same level as the Father by making the Holy Spirit proceed from Him also. On the other hand, it subordinates the HS to the Son...
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #107 on: September 16, 2013, 10:54:17 AM »

This is rubbish

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

I think the Arians were pretty decisively defeated after Nicaea save for a few Germans in Spain.  If the Nicaea-Constantinopolian Creed was enough to do that, why did it need emendation or "clarification" as RCs would say?

I fail to see how the filioque adds any additional defense to trinitarian doctrine that is not covered in other parts of the Creed.

Precisely.

Isn't there a theory that many Arians "morphed" into Muslims ?
Yes.  It's pure topos with no basis in historic fact.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #108 on: September 16, 2013, 10:54:40 AM »

Seems like this has turned into a pretty general filioque thread, without much connection to the article mentioned in the OP. Am I just stating an obvious fact that everyone else already realized?
The article doesn't say anything terribly original, but just recycles trash.  

As I said before, it exceeded my expectations, in terms of how bad it would be. (Although for the sake of full disclosure I should add that I read very little of it -- basically just the section headings.) If everyone agrees about that, then I guess there's no need to discuss the article further ... so I guess I agree with you.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2013, 10:56:48 AM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #109 on: September 16, 2013, 10:57:35 AM »



This is rubbish

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

Maybe all well and good, but Dogmas at the time were only Dogmas because the whole church approved it via Council.   The Western church rightly should have dropped this 'Filioque' after the Arianism problem faded away.  It wasn't necessary anymore.  This is the rub.  Why didn't Rome recind this in the Creed if it was only used against the Arian heresy???
Why didn't everyone drop the Nicene creed after the Arian crisis ended?
The council of Toledo did.

Not deliberately.
Logged

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

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow
Posts: 7,955


The Reactionary Rebel


WWW
« Reply #110 on: September 16, 2013, 11:11:52 AM »

This is rubbish

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

Maybe all well and good, but Dogmas at the time were only Dogmas because the whole church approved it via Council.   The Western church rightly should have dropped this 'Filioque' after the Arianism problem faded away.  It wasn't necessary anymore.  This is the rub.  Why didn't Rome recind this in the Creed if it was only used against the Arian heresy???
Why didn't everyone drop the Nicene creed after the Arian crisis ended?

A miaphysite bishop from Syria who lived in the late 5th-century was the first to have the creed chanted in the liturgy iirc. So there was nothing to drop when the Arian crisis ended in the late 4th century.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2013, 11:12:16 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo

"J'ai pour les institutions démocratiques un goût de tête, mais je suis aristocrate par instinct"
-A. de Tocqueville

'Don't bother arguing with Cyrillic, he is Dutch or something queer like that.'
-Byron
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #111 on: September 16, 2013, 11:15:07 AM »

This is rubbish

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

Maybe all well and good, but Dogmas at the time were only Dogmas because the whole church approved it via Council.   The Western church rightly should have dropped this 'Filioque' after the Arianism problem faded away.  It wasn't necessary anymore.  This is the rub.  Why didn't Rome recind this in the Creed if it was only used against the Arian heresy???
Why didn't everyone drop the Nicene creed after the Arian crisis ended?

A miaphysite bishop from Syria who lived in the late 5th-century was the first to have the creed chanted in the liturgy iirc. So there was nothing to drop when the Arian crisis ended in the late 4th century.
Moreover, Rome could not drop the filioque from the recitation of the creed at the end of the Arian crisis because the filioque was not added to the creed in Rome until the 11th century.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2013, 11:15:32 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

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

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

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,473



« Reply #112 on: September 16, 2013, 01:10:01 PM »

This is rubbish

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

I think the Arians were pretty decisively defeated after Nicaea save for a few Germans in Spain.  If the Nicaea-Constantinopolian Creed was enough to do that, why did it need emendation or "clarification" as RCs would say?

I fail to see how the filioque adds any additional defense to trinitarian doctrine that is not covered in other parts of the Creed.

Precisely.

Isn't there a theory that many Arians "morphed" into Muslims ?

There is a theory that the Quran originates from a non-Nicene Syriac lectionary, and that the existence of a prophet 'Muhammad' only comes later, after it was forgotten that Muhammad functions as a gerundive, which originally applied to Jesus, the messenger of God. Even if this theory is not true, St. John of Damascus quite clearly recognized the Islam of his time as being heavily influenced by Arianism.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #113 on: September 16, 2013, 01:34:18 PM »

This is rubbish

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

I think the Arians were pretty decisively defeated after Nicaea save for a few Germans in Spain.  If the Nicaea-Constantinopolian Creed was enough to do that, why did it need emendation or "clarification" as RCs would say?

I fail to see how the filioque adds any additional defense to trinitarian doctrine that is not covered in other parts of the Creed.

Precisely.

Isn't there a theory that many Arians "morphed" into Muslims ?

There is a theory that the Quran originates from a non-Nicene Syriac lectionary, and that the existence of a prophet 'Muhammad' only comes later, after it was forgotten that Muhammad functions as a gerundive, which originally applied to Jesus, the messenger of God. Even if this theory is not true, St. John of Damascus quite clearly recognized the Islam of his time as being heavily influenced by Arianism.
Not really. There were no Arians to influence Muhammad or his followers.

That did not stop the Orthodox from blaming the Arians, however.

The Muslims thought that Christ was just a man, like the old Ebionite heresy.  The Arians thought He was an angelic being.
Logged

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

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 856


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #114 on: September 16, 2013, 01:46:34 PM »

irrelevant as the latin word for proceed is word in common language as well even at that time.
Oh?  Languages such as what?
Latin...

Quote
Further the creed of Constantinople never reached the west until Chalcedon when Latin was spoken by all.
Everyone at Chalcedon spoke Greek.  It would seem the same at Constantionple I, which sent a letter to several bishops of the West with the Creed in 382.

Latin was spoken by all in the west.

Officially it was received by Rome at the time of chalcedon. Secondly the word for "proceed" in Latin accommodates the idea and not the Greek word due to what the words mean.
Logged

For it is a matter of necessity that every Church
should agree with this Church [of Rome] , on account of
its preeminent authority
St Irenaeus of Lyon

Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?
St. Cyprian
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,571


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #115 on: September 16, 2013, 03:08:26 PM »

irrelevant as the latin word for proceed is word in common language as well even at that time.
Oh?  Languages such as what?
Latin...

Quote
Further the creed of Constantinople never reached the west until Chalcedon when Latin was spoken by all.
Everyone at Chalcedon spoke Greek.  It would seem the same at Constantionple I, which sent a letter to several bishops of the West with the Creed in 382.

Latin was spoken by all in the west.

Officially it was received by Rome at the time of chalcedon. Secondly the word for "proceed" in Latin accommodates the idea and not the Greek word due to what the words mean.

I'm not a linguist, but if I recall my history of western civ. (the fact I took that subject dates me as an old fogey I suppose) spoken Greek was as, if not more common, as spoken Latin across the breadth of the undivided Empire and that while the local rulers governed with Latin it morphed by the fourth century into the precursors of modern Romance languages.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #116 on: September 16, 2013, 03:30:50 PM »

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

Latin was spoken by all in the west.
Hardly.  Southern Italy, for instance, was still speaking Greek.
Officially it was received by Rome at the time of chalcedon.
So the Vatican claims now.  Chalcedon, however, was convened because Eutyches and Pope Dioscoros and their council of Ephesus were judged according to standards the Council of Constantinople I set up.

Secondly the word for "proceed" in Latin accommodates the idea and not the Greek word due to what the words mean.
Since no one was expressing any idea in Latin, your point is moot.
Logged

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

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 856


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #117 on: September 16, 2013, 03:42:35 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

This is rubbish

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

The filioque was taught by Eunomius...

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

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

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

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

Without addressing the bit of byzantine triumphalism... I'm not here to,convince bur rather to defend what's true. The west and Alexandria taught the same thing. Yet the west and Alexandria expressed differently.

The problem here is A HUGE amount of time is spent accusing Latins of teaching things they actually don't and then claim that other never taught this. Yet even the Latins themselves never teach against the monarchy of the father.

Further the Latins have proved the truth of their case tile and time again. Yet the east continually misunderstands what we actually teach. Simply Latin theology is foreign to eastern theology yet both are true. A lot of the time we are speaking about two different things.

I would quote some sources but anything that isn't orthodox is considered amateur and not true. Oh and I'll get in trouble with the moderator...AGAIN
Logged

For it is a matter of necessity that every Church
should agree with this Church [of Rome] , on account of
its preeminent authority
St Irenaeus of Lyon

Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?
St. Cyprian
Wandile
Peter the Roman
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 856


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #118 on: September 16, 2013, 03:42:35 PM »

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

I'm positive. I know a thing or two about Dutch, and so should you, being a native of South Africa and all that.

Why should I know about Dutch? Afrikaans is barely like Dutch and I speak no Afrikaans at all. Bit if I use the very little Afrikaans I know, "uitgaan van" should mean "outgoing from" which is more in line with Latin proceeds  than the Greek word.

Quote
The alternative Dutch translation used by the RC's is 'voortkomen uit' which, too, has the same connotations as ekporeuomai. I bet that the same is true for a lot of languages, not only Greek and Dutch, yet often the filioque is maintained.

Yet what I told about the Greek true. Read up on it

LOL. I am a Classics student.

Then I guess you should know
Logged

For it is a matter of necessity that every Church
should agree with this Church [of Rome] , on account of
its preeminent authority
St Irenaeus of Lyon

Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?
St. Cyprian
Wandile
Peter the Roman
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 856


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #119 on: September 16, 2013, 03:42:35 PM »



This is rubbish

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

Maybe all well and good, but Dogmas at the time were only Dogmas because the whole church approved it via Council.   The Western church rightly should have dropped this 'Filioque' after the Arianism problem faded away.  It wasn't necessary anymore.  This is the rub.  Why didn't Rome recind this in the Creed if it was only used against the Arian heresy???

Because it became part of the western tradition.

Now you gonna say that its is prohibited to change the creed and all when infact it prohibits the changing of the "faith" of the creed. Yet the creed has been changed even after this prohibition at Constantinople.

But lets not get into this. battling 50000 orthodox on one issue is tough enough... Wow
Logged

For it is a matter of necessity that every Church
should agree with this Church [of Rome] , on account of
its preeminent authority
St Irenaeus of Lyon

Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?
St. Cyprian
Wandile
Peter the Roman
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 856


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #120 on: September 16, 2013, 03:42:35 PM »

This is rubbish

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

I think the Arians were pretty decisively defeated after Nicaea save for a few Germans in Spain.  If the Nicaea-Constantinopolian Creed was enough to do that, why did it need emendation or "clarification" as RCs would say?

I fail to see how the filioque adds any additional defense to trinitarian doctrine that is not covered in other parts of the Creed.

Precisely.

Because the Ariana In the west used this very creed that defeated the Ariana in the east to prove how the son is not divine due to the procession of the spirit from the father.

There was more than one type of Arianism you know
Logged

For it is a matter of necessity that every Church
should agree with this Church [of Rome] , on account of
its preeminent authority
St Irenaeus of Lyon

Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?
St. Cyprian
Wandile
Peter the Roman
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 856


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #121 on: September 16, 2013, 03:42:35 PM »

irrelevant as the latin word for proceed is word in common language as well even at that time.
Oh?  Languages such as what?
Latin...

Quote
Further the creed of Constantinople never reached the west until Chalcedon when Latin was spoken by all.
Everyone at Chalcedon spoke Greek.  It would seem the same at Constantionple I, which sent a letter to several bishops of the West with the Creed in 382.

Latin was spoken by all in the west.

Officially it was received by Rome at the time of chalcedon. Secondly the word for "proceed" in Latin accommodates the idea and not the Greek word due to what the words mean.

I'm not a linguist, but if I recall my history of western civ. (the fact I took that subject dates me as an old fogey I suppose) spoken Greek was as, if not more common, as spoken Latin across the breadth of the undivided Empire and that while the local rulers governed with Latin it morphed by the fourth century into the precursors of modern Romance languages.

you are slightly mistaken. Latin was spoken in the west after the time of chalcedon. The creed was even received in Latin and by this time Latin had long become the language of the church.
Logged

For it is a matter of necessity that every Church
should agree with this Church [of Rome] , on account of
its preeminent authority
St Irenaeus of Lyon

Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?
St. Cyprian
Wandile
Peter the Roman
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 856


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #122 on: September 16, 2013, 03:43:13 PM »

Two things should be noted about the following quotation from St. Cyril of Alexandria:

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

First, this text does not speak about the Holy Spirit's eternal hypostatic origin from the Father; instead, it speaks about His work of conforming the Christian faithful to God (i.e., an economic reality); and second, the text can also be translated from the Greek in the following manner: "Since the Holy Spirit when He is in us effects our being conformed to God, and He actually goes forth of the Father and the Son, it is manifest that He is of the divine essence, essentially in it, and of it coming forth." This translation has the added benefit of preventing confusion by avoiding the Latin tendency to equate all the various Greek terms that speak about the Spirit's "movement" or "sending" from the Father through the Son, with His procession (ἐκπόρευσις) of origin, which comes only from the Father.

Pope St. Cyril of Alexendria explicitly taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds (proienai) from the Father and the Son (btw, the Latin original of the line in question of the Athanasian Creed uses the word procedens - if you have not made the connection yet, the Latin procedit is actually a more equivalent translation of the Greek proienai intead of the Greek ekporeusai).

St. Athanasius also taught about the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Son:
"All other things partake of the Spirit, but He, according to you, of what is He partaker? Of the Spirit? Nay, rather the Spirit Himself takes from the Son...When the Father says, "This is my beloved Son," and when the Son says that God is His own Father, it follows that what is partaken is not external, but from the essence of the Father."
(Discourse 1 Against the Arians, Ch. V)

In his Epistles 56 and 61, St. Athanasius also asserts that the Arian's heresy against the Son is also a blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Why? Because if the Son is not Divine, then Divinity would not have been transmitted to the Spirit, and the Spirit would be a creature.

So the statement "The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding [procedens]" is perfectly in line with the Alexandrian theology, as expressed by her two greatest popes. Keep in mind that the term procedit/procedens (the best translation of St. Cyril's proienai) seeks only to express the "transmission" of the Essence of Divinity, and does not seek to denote ontological origination.
Logged

For it is a matter of necessity that every Church
should agree with this Church [of Rome] , on account of
its preeminent authority
St Irenaeus of Lyon

Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?
St. Cyprian
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,408


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #123 on: September 16, 2013, 03:46:11 PM »

I would quote some sources but anything that isn't orthodox is considered amateur and not true. Oh and I'll get in trouble with the moderator...AGAIN
Not if you give proper credit to your sources. Wink
« Last Edit: September 16, 2013, 03:46:26 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
JoeS2
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 995


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


« Reply #124 on: September 16, 2013, 04:07:08 PM »



This is rubbish

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

Maybe all well and good, but Dogmas at the time were only Dogmas because the whole church approved it via Council.   The Western church rightly should have dropped this 'Filioque' after the Arianism problem faded away.  It wasn't necessary anymore.  This is the rub.  Why didn't Rome recind this in the Creed if it was only used against the Arian heresy???
Why didn't everyone drop the Nicene creed after the Arian crisis ended?

Why? Because the Nicean Creed is the expression of our Faith.  It is a reminder of what we believe in, and an answer to anyone wanting to know what our Faith stands for.....That's why!
Logged
JoeS2
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 995


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


« Reply #125 on: September 16, 2013, 04:09:07 PM »



This is rubbish

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

Maybe all well and good, but Dogmas at the time were only Dogmas because the whole church approved it via Council.   The Western church rightly should have dropped this 'Filioque' after the Arianism problem faded away.  It wasn't necessary anymore.  This is the rub.  Why didn't Rome recind this in the Creed if it was only used against the Arian heresy???

Because it became part of the western tradition.

Now you gonna say that its is prohibited to change the creed and all when infact it prohibits the changing of the "faith" of the creed. Yet the creed has been changed even after this prohibition at Constantinople.

But lets not get into this. battling 50000 orthodox on one issue is tough enough... Wow

Unity, its a pipe dream, viva la diference!
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #126 on: September 16, 2013, 04:10:46 PM »

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

I'm positive. I know a thing or two about Dutch, and so should you, being a native of South Africa and all that.

Why should I know about Dutch? Afrikaans is barely like Dutch and I speak no Afrikaans at all. Bit if I use the very little Afrikaans I know, "uitgaan van" should mean "outgoing from" which is more in line with Latin proceeds  than the Greek word.

Quote
The alternative Dutch translation used by the RC's is 'voortkomen uit' which, too, has the same connotations as ekporeuomai. I bet that the same is true for a lot of languages, not only Greek and Dutch, yet often the filioque is maintained.

Yet what I told about the Greek true. Read up on it

LOL. I am a Classics student.

Then I guess you should know
and he does.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,473



« Reply #127 on: September 16, 2013, 04:11:18 PM »

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

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

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

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

Without addressing the bit of byzantine triumphalism... I'm not here to,convince bur rather to defend what's true. The west and Alexandria taught the same thing. Yet the west and Alexandria expressed differently.

Yes, the pre-schism West taught the same thing as Alexandria and the preschism East did, namely that the Spirit proceeds through the Son, but not that the Son participates in the hypostatic origination of the Spirit.

The problem here is A HUGE amount of time is spent accusing Latins of teaching things they actually don't and then claim that other never taught this. Yet even the Latins themselves never teach against the monarchy of the father.

They claim they do not, and yet the Council of Florence teaches explicitly that it is a doctrine of faith that the Son should be accorded as cause of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, something foreign to the Alexandrian fathers, the Greek fathers, and even the ancient and venerable Latin fathers who in using the filioque never intended to teach such a thing (as St. Maximus the Confessor himself witnesses).

Further the Latins have proved the truth of their case tile and time again. Yet the east continually misunderstands what we actually teach. Simply Latin theology is foreign to eastern theology yet both are true. A lot of the time we are speaking about two different things.

If they had proved their case, instead of trying to steamroll over the concerns of the East, then we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now. But they haven't yet proved their case. Even the official 'clarification' on the Filioque (which is anything but clear) accomplishes little, because it basically straddles the fence the entire time without discussing what is the crux of the matter, namely, how does the confession that the Son is cause of the Spirit's subsistence not conflict with the monarchy of the Father, who alone is Cause.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #128 on: September 16, 2013, 04:18:12 PM »

Without addressing the bit of byzantine triumphalism...
LOL.  The very phrase reeks of Ultramontanist revisionism.

I'm not here to,convince bur rather to defend what's true.
When are you going to start?

The west and Alexandria taught the same thing. Yet the west and Alexandria expressed differently.
Like black and white.

The problem here is A HUGE amount of time is spent accusing Latins of teaching things they actually don't and then claim that other never taught this. Yet even the Latins themselves never teach against the monarchy of the father.
they just reduce it to the monarchy of Burger King.

Further the Latins have proved the truth of their case tile and time again.
Repeating it doesn't count.

Yet the east continually misunderstands what we actually teach.
We understand it; hence our rejection of it.

Simply Latin theology is foreign to eastern theology yet both are true.
Odd how that doesn't work when it gets too near to the supremacy of your supreme pontiff.

A lot of the time we are speaking about two different things.
Yes, Orthodoxy and heresy are too different things.

I would quote some sources but anything that isn't orthodox is considered amateur and not true. Oh and I'll get in trouble with the moderator...AGAIN
Logged

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

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 856


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #129 on: September 16, 2013, 04:22:14 PM »

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

Latin was spoken by all in the west.
Hardly.  Southern Italy, for instance, was still speaking Greek.

At the time of Nicea, they knew Greek. By the time of Constantinople, many knew Greek, but not all. The ones who knew Greek would likely have been in Italy. The rest of the Roman empire by this time would have used Latin, the language of the common people

Quote
Officially it was received by Rome at the time of chalcedon.
So the Vatican claims now.  Chalcedon, however, was convened because Eutyches and Pope Dioscoros and their council of Ephesus were judged according to standards the Council of Constantinople I set up.

ok....  the only creed in the west before chalcedon was the Nicene crees. The Constantinople one came after Chalcedon and was receives in Latin.

Quote
Secondly the word for "proceed" in Latin accommodates the idea and not the Greek word due to what the words mean.
Since no one was expressing any idea in Latin, your point is moot.

except that the Latins received the creed in Latin and expresses theology as much. Further you can't doge the point because the word is the the issue at hand. Stop trying to avoid this truth of this issue. Procedit is the issue as it does not connote origin but motion.

Proceeds" in the original Latin Creed is procedit

"Proceeds" in the original Greek Creed is ekporeusai

Both ekporeusai and procedit can mean "to go forth," but ekporeusai denotes something that procedit does not - namely, the concept of ontological origination.

The difference can be perceived between the two phrases:

"I proceeded from the house to go play." and "I proceeded from my mother at birth."

The first only denotes a going forth, but the second denotes a going forth in terms of ontological origination.

If ekporeusai and procedit were equivalent, then I can see where the subordination argument comes in because the Son would share in the Father's arche.

But procedit only refers to "a going forth" not an origination, So what is "going forth" (procedit) from Father and the Son to the Holy Spirit? The Essence of divinity. But from Whom does this Essence of divinity originate (ekporeusai) that goes forth to the Holy Spirit through the Son? The Father alone.
Logged

For it is a matter of necessity that every Church
should agree with this Church [of Rome] , on account of
its preeminent authority
St Irenaeus of Lyon

Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?
St. Cyprian
Wandile
Peter the Roman
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 856


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #130 on: September 16, 2013, 04:22:14 PM »

Also what should be considerrd..., take the passage "proceeds from both as from one principle" in the context of Trinitarian theology. In order to understand what the passage means, one must necessarily go beyond it's Pneumatological significance. You're thinking only in terms of the Holy Spirit's relationship to the Father and Son. It seems you are forgetting to take into account the relationship of the Son to the Father. You can assume all you want from the ambiguity of the text in question that there are two Sources of the Spirit, but there is no way you can inject that ambiguity on the Catholic teaching that the Father is the Source of the Son. My point is that even if the Son can be mistakenly interpreted to be a source of Spirit, the Father must still be the actual Source of the Spirit, because the Father is the Source of the Son.

 Read the official clarification on Filioque promulgated by HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory (http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM) back in 1995. I very strongly recommend you read the whole thing, though I will give you a pertinent quote here:
"On the basis of Jn 15:26, this Symbol confesses the Spirit “to ek tou PatroV ekporeuomenon” (“who takes his origin from the Father”). The Father alone is the principle without principle (arch anarcoV) of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source (phgh) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit therefore takes his origin from the Father alone (ek monou tou PatroV) in a principal, proper and immediate manner."

Read the original conciliar documents. The Council of Florence made a specific distinction between the term "Source" and the term "cause." In fact, the term "principle" is grammatically connected with the term "cause," not the term "Source." The Son shares as the causating principle of the Spirit, but the Son does not share in the Father's character as Source. There is only ONE Source in the Trinity according to the Latin Catholic Church, as with ALL the Catholic Churches. This important distinction between "cause" and "Source" is intimately related to the distinction between procedit and ekporeusai, on the one hand, as well as the distinction between proving the divinity of the Spirit through consubstantiality and proving His divinity through origin.

To be concise, the following two sets of words basically define the distinction between the Eastern and Western understanding on the matter, both of which are completely Catholic and Orthodox:

CAUSE, PROCEDIT, CONSUBSTANTIALITY, OUSIA

SOURCE, EKPOREUSAI, ORIGIN, HYPOSTASIS
Logged

For it is a matter of necessity that every Church
should agree with this Church [of Rome] , on account of
its preeminent authority
St Irenaeus of Lyon

Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?
St. Cyprian
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #131 on: September 16, 2013, 04:22:53 PM »



This is rubbish

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

Maybe all well and good, but Dogmas at the time were only Dogmas because the whole church approved it via Council.   The Western church rightly should have dropped this 'Filioque' after the Arianism problem faded away.  It wasn't necessary anymore.  This is the rub.  Why didn't Rome recind this in the Creed if it was only used against the Arian heresy???

Because it became part of the western tradition.
Heresy isn't Tradition.
Now you gonna say that its is prohibited to change the creed and all when infact it prohibits the changing of the "faith" of the creed.

another strike against filioque.
Yet the creed has been changed even after this prohibition at Constantinople.
your creed has, our Creed has not.

But lets not get into this. battling 50000 orthodox on one issue is tough enough... Wow
Logged

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

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow
Posts: 7,955


The Reactionary Rebel


WWW
« Reply #132 on: September 16, 2013, 04:23:37 PM »

Because the Ariana In the west used this very creed that defeated the Ariana in the east to prove how the son is not divine due to the procession of the spirit from the father.

Yeah right....

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father."
Logged

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo

"J'ai pour les institutions démocratiques un goût de tête, mais je suis aristocrate par instinct"
-A. de Tocqueville

'Don't bother arguing with Cyrillic, he is Dutch or something queer like that.'
-Byron
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #133 on: September 16, 2013, 04:24:19 PM »

This is rubbish

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

I think the Arians were pretty decisively defeated after Nicaea save for a few Germans in Spain.  If the Nicaea-Constantinopolian Creed was enough to do that, why did it need emendation or "clarification" as RCs would say?

I fail to see how the filioque adds any additional defense to trinitarian doctrine that is not covered in other parts of the Creed.

Precisely.

Because the Ariana In the west used this very creed that defeated the Ariana in the east to prove how the son is not divine due to the procession of the spirit from the father.

There was more than one type of Arianism you know
and filioque defeated none of them.

I'd like to know when this story that the filioque was an anti-Arian measure was dreamed up.  I don't recall seeing it in the sources.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #134 on: September 16, 2013, 04:25:11 PM »

irrelevant as the latin word for proceed is word in common language as well even at that time.
Oh?  Languages such as what?
Latin...

Quote
Further the creed of Constantinople never reached the west until Chalcedon when Latin was spoken by all.
Everyone at Chalcedon spoke Greek.  It would seem the same at Constantionple I, which sent a letter to several bishops of the West with the Creed in 382.

Latin was spoken by all in the west.

Officially it was received by Rome at the time of chalcedon. Secondly the word for "proceed" in Latin accommodates the idea and not the Greek word due to what the words mean.

I'm not a linguist, but if I recall my history of western civ. (the fact I took that subject dates me as an old fogey I suppose) spoken Greek was as, if not more common, as spoken Latin across the breadth of the undivided Empire and that while the local rulers governed with Latin it morphed by the fourth century into the precursors of modern Romance languages.

you are slightly mistaken. Latin was spoken in the west after the time of chalcedon. The creed was even received in Latin and by this time Latin had long become the language of the church.
the language of what church?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.217 seconds with 72 queries.