OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 30, 2014, 06:44:34 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Filioque  (Read 3463 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
arrow prayer
formily isus
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 113



« on: January 31, 2014, 08:12:02 PM »

i don't really know what it is, i'm having a hard time figureing out what it means theologically and practically.
does it imply there is no holly trinity?
i don't get it.
Logged

grace given you in christ jesus
vasily
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox church in america
Posts: 189



« Reply #1 on: March 01, 2014, 09:07:13 AM »

There exists only one source and that source is the Father. Everything originates from the Father. The filioque creates two sources, from the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit can only originate from the Father.
The Holy Spirit cannot originate from both the Father and the Son. Each Persons of the Holy Trinity have their own characteristics or hypostasis.

An example: the rays of the sun can only originate from the sun. The rays of the sun go through the window glass but do not originate from the window glass. The rays of the sun cannot originate from the window glass.

Hope that clears things up. Any further questions?
Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,116


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #2 on: March 05, 2014, 08:17:00 AM »

There exists only one source and that source is the Father. Everything originates from the Father. The filioque creates two sources, from the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit can only originate from the Father.
The Holy Spirit cannot originate from both the Father and the Son. Each Persons of the Holy Trinity have their own characteristics or hypostasis.

An example: the rays of the sun can only originate from the sun. The rays of the sun go through the window glass but do not originate from the window glass. The rays of the sun cannot originate from the window glass.

Hope that clears things up. Any further questions?

Lol you have no idea what you are talking about.
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
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: 1,591



« Reply #3 on: March 05, 2014, 09:11:11 AM »

There exists only one source and that source is the Father. Everything originates from the Father. The filioque creates two sources, from the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit can only originate from the Father.
The Holy Spirit cannot originate from both the Father and the Son. Each Persons of the Holy Trinity have their own characteristics or hypostasis.

An example: the rays of the sun can only originate from the sun. The rays of the sun go through the window glass but do not originate from the window glass. The rays of the sun cannot originate from the window glass.

Hope that clears things up. Any further questions?

Lol you have no idea what you are talking about.

What a mature and sound rebuttal.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,304



« Reply #4 on: March 05, 2014, 10:22:31 AM »

The filioque supposedly subordinates the Holy Spirit.
Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 05, 2014, 10:40:05 AM »

The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . [Catechism of the Catholic Church, 246; bold added]
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 10:40:45 AM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 13,038



WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 05, 2014, 11:17:01 AM »

There exists only one source and that source is the Father. Everything originates from the Father. The filioque creates two sources, from the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit can only originate from the Father.
The Holy Spirit cannot originate from both the Father and the Son. Each Persons of the Holy Trinity have their own characteristics or hypostasis.

An example: the rays of the sun can only originate from the sun. The rays of the sun go through the window glass but do not originate from the window glass. The rays of the sun cannot originate from the window glass.

Hope that clears things up. Any further questions?

Lol you have no idea what you are talking about.

Since I teach children, I've had to find ways to "dumb down" teachings and concepts.

Forgive me if this is too simplistic, but, this is the example I use to reach young minds.

The Holy Trinity is One, and inseparable.  To better understand how you can have three in one and all equal and indivisible and reliant on each other I use the example of a candle.

God the Father is the lit candle.
God the Son is the light emitted from the candle.  It cannot exist without the candle flame.
God the Holy Spirit is the heat emitted from the candle.  It cannot exist without the candle flame.

All three are reliant on each other, and are nothing without the other....and yet the source is always the candle flame (God the Father).
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 11:17:57 AM by LizaSymonenko » Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
DeniseDenise
Tiredness personified
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen no more!
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,040


What curls do on a bad hair day!


« Reply #7 on: March 05, 2014, 11:23:46 AM »

There exists only one source and that source is the Father. Everything originates from the Father. The filioque creates two sources, from the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit can only originate from the Father.
The Holy Spirit cannot originate from both the Father and the Son. Each Persons of the Holy Trinity have their own characteristics or hypostasis.

An example: the rays of the sun can only originate from the sun. The rays of the sun go through the window glass but do not originate from the window glass. The rays of the sun cannot originate from the window glass.

Hope that clears things up. Any further questions?

Lol you have no idea what you are talking about.

Since I teach children, I've had to find ways to "dumb down" teachings and concepts.

Forgive me if this is too simplistic, but, this is the example I use to reach young minds.

The Holy Trinity is One, and inseparable.  To better understand how you can have three in one and all equal and indivisible and reliant on each other I use the example of a candle.

God the Father is the lit candle.
God the Son is the light emitted from the candle.  It cannot exist without the candle flame.
God the Holy Spirit is the heat emitted from the candle.  It cannot exist without the candle flame.

All three are reliant on each other, and are nothing without the other....and yet the source is always the candle flame (God the Father).




*applause*

sometimes the more simple explanation that one can understand, is better than all the big words of theologians.....
Logged

Please secure your own oxygen mask before assisting other passengers.
Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 1,839


God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!


« Reply #8 on: March 05, 2014, 11:36:02 AM »

There exists only one source and that source is the Father. Everything originates from the Father. The filioque creates two sources, from the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit can only originate from the Father.
The Holy Spirit cannot originate from both the Father and the Son. Each Persons of the Holy Trinity have their own characteristics or hypostasis.

An example: the rays of the sun can only originate from the sun. The rays of the sun go through the window glass but do not originate from the window glass. The rays of the sun cannot originate from the window glass.

Hope that clears things up. Any further questions?

Lol you have no idea what you are talking about.

Since I teach children, I've had to find ways to "dumb down" teachings and concepts.

Forgive me if this is too simplistic, but, this is the example I use to reach young minds.

The Holy Trinity is One, and inseparable.  To better understand how you can have three in one and all equal and indivisible and reliant on each other I use the example of a candle.

God the Father is the lit candle.
God the Son is the light emitted from the candle.  It cannot exist without the candle flame.
God the Holy Spirit is the heat emitted from the candle.  It cannot exist without the candle flame.

All three are reliant on each other, and are nothing without the other....and yet the source is always the candle flame (God the Father).


You, madam, are a modern day St. Patrick.  Well done. 
Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,116


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #9 on: March 05, 2014, 12:21:50 PM »

There exists only one source and that source is the Father. Everything originates from the Father. The filioque creates two sources, from the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit can only originate from the Father.
The Holy Spirit cannot originate from both the Father and the Son. Each Persons of the Holy Trinity have their own characteristics or hypostasis.

An example: the rays of the sun can only originate from the sun. The rays of the sun go through the window glass but do not originate from the window glass. The rays of the sun cannot originate from the window glass.

Hope that clears things up. Any further questions?

Lol you have no idea what you are talking about.

Since I teach children, I've had to find ways to "dumb down" teachings and concepts.

Forgive me if this is too simplistic, but, this is the example I use to reach young minds.

The Holy Trinity is One, and inseparable.  To better understand how you can have three in one and all equal and indivisible and reliant on each other I use the example of a candle.

God the Father is the lit candle.
God the Son is the light emitted from the candle.  It cannot exist without the candle flame.
God the Holy Spirit is the heat emitted from the candle.  It cannot exist without the candle flame.

All three are reliant on each other, and are nothing without the other....and yet the source is always the candle flame (God the Father).


Lol Clearly you dont know what you are talking about also. It seems as if you too think the west doesn't teach the monarchy of the father *FACEPALM*
Logged

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

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,116


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #10 on: March 05, 2014, 12:23:39 PM »

The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . [Catechism of the Catholic Church, 246; bold added]

Yes for without the role of the son in the procession, the Holy Spirit cannot manifest himself nor be as procession is completed with the son. Hence from the father and the son.

Father -----> Son -----> Holy spirit
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 12:26:13 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 13,038



WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 05, 2014, 12:57:18 PM »


It seems to me that you are the one who doesn't know what he is talking about.

So sad.
Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
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: 1,591



« Reply #12 on: March 05, 2014, 01:04:32 PM »

The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . [Catechism of the Catholic Church, 246; bold added]

Yes for without the role of the son in the procession, the Holy Spirit cannot manifest himself nor be as procession is completed with the son. Hence from the father and the son.

Father -----> Son -----> Holy spirit

From the father through the Son. The Spirit, as St. John of Damascus teaches, is not said to be the Spirit from the Son.

You also falsely equate the Latin teaching of proceeding from the Father and the Son as one principle with the patristic teaching that the Spirit is manifested through the Son. The Latin model, as one can see from the teaching of the schoolmen like Aquinas, has it so that the Father shares with the Son the power of Spiration, making both the cause of the Spirit, and from the Orthodox perspective, improperly mixing the unique hypostatic property of the Father with the Son. The Orthodox do not accept this teaching, understanding as St. Maximus did that the Father alone is cause of the Holy Spirit, and differentiating between the Spirit's having existence (which is from the Father alone), and the Spirit's existing through the Son (or equivalently, the Spirit's being manifested by the Son), thus preserving involate the hypostatic difference between the Father and the Son.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 01:13:44 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,116


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #13 on: March 05, 2014, 01:29:25 PM »


It seems to me that you are the one who doesn't know what he is talking about.

So sad.


Go read the catechism, Hilary of Pottiers, Augustine, Ambrose of Milan and Pope Leo the great with regards to the procession of the holy Ghost. Then come back to me
Logged

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

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,116


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #14 on: March 05, 2014, 01:32:19 PM »

The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . [Catechism of the Catholic Church, 246; bold added]

Yes for without the role of the son in the procession, the Holy Spirit cannot manifest himself nor be as procession is completed with the son. Hence from the father and the son.

Father -----> Son -----> Holy spirit

From the father through the Son. The Spirit, as St. John of Damascus teaches, is not said to be the Spirit from the Son.

You also falsely equate the Latin teaching of proceeding from the Father and the Son as one principle with the patristic teaching that the Spirit is manifested through the Son. The Latin model, as one can see from the teaching of the schoolmen like Aquinas, has it so that the Father shares with the Son the power of Spiration, making both the cause of the Spirit, and from the Orthodox perspective, improperly mixing the unique hypostatic property of the Father with the Son. The Orthodox do not accept this teaching, understanding as St. Maximus did that the Father alone is cause of the Holy Spirit, and differentiating between the Spirit's having existence (which is from the Father alone), and the Spirit's existing through the Son (or equivalently, the Spirit's being manifested by the Son), thus preserving involate the hypostatic difference between the Father and the Son.

I don't falsely equate but you falsely misrepresent the filioque to uphold your objection. I am sure you e seen the decree of Florence right? On this issue? Further you have read Hilary of Pottiers... Or must I give eastern fathers teaching filioque. Through and from are the same and a father as early as Hilary of pottiers uses them interchangeably yet he explicitly teaches the Latin filoque.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 01:33:13 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
wainscottbl
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,714


A woman's beauty with the steadiness of the man.


« Reply #15 on: March 05, 2014, 01:32:57 PM »

The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . [Catechism of the Catholic Church, 246; bold added]

Yes for without the role of the son in the procession, the Holy Spirit cannot manifest himself nor be as procession is completed with the son. Hence from the father and the son.

Father -----> Son -----> Holy spirit

Maybe I just find the whole Filioque a problem and annoying, but I find the simple definition helpful for someone who is looking for a simple explanation like the OP. He would not be asked this if he wanted a complex theological argument. Plenty of Orthodox stuff like that. And the Latins make it no simpler in justifying the addition while and the same time saying they believe in the monarchy of the Father. Yes, these illustrations can lead to errors regarding the Godhead, but so can the idea of monarchy. It can make it look like the Son is created, not co-eternal. At a certain point we have to either simplify or make a complex argument. In this case a candle and the light and heat which come from it are the best example. I really find the Latin arguments more confusing. Besides the Filioque was added by the West, and even if it was not meant to deny the monarchy, it created all this stupid debate over the matter. And then we get into all this hairsplitting over terms.

The substance is God (essence) but the accidents are persons, which are understood by accidental ideas of begetting and proceeding for a source. Just like the substance of the Eucharist is God in body, blood, soul and divinity, but the accident is bread and wine, which we understand, accidentally, how Christ is the blood and drink of life. I could say, "The bread we eat is like the bread that nourishes us. The wine is like the wine that quenches our thirst and makes us merry in the life of Christ."

The Trinity is a mystery, but like all mysteries we try to understand the surface, often by illustration. Sometimes illustrations are sort of stupid once you think about, even heretical. We eat the bread that nourishes us. Heresy! It really all is in a certain way. I don't see how it's nonsense, even for a Roman Catholic to compare the godhead to a candle.
Logged

Had to change that last animated signature. It's sure to trigger a seizure in anyone....but Kel does love orange soda and I like red wine.
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: 1,591



« Reply #16 on: March 05, 2014, 01:33:47 PM »


It seems to me that you are the one who doesn't know what he is talking about.

So sad.


Go read the catechism, Hilary of Pottiers, Augustine, Ambrose of Milan and Pope Leo the great with regards to the procession of the holy Ghost. Then come back to me

Go read St. Maximus the Confess, St. John of Damascus, St. Photius, Patriarch Gregory II of Cyprus, St. Gregory Palamas, Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus on the procession of the Holy Spirit, then get back to us.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 13,038



WWW
« Reply #17 on: March 05, 2014, 01:34:16 PM »


It seems to me that you are the one who doesn't know what he is talking about.

So sad.


Go read the catechism, Hilary of Pottiers, Augustine, Ambrose of Milan and Pope Leo the great with regards to the procession of the holy Ghost. Then come back to me

Read up on Photios I of Constantinople, Gregory Palamas and Mark of Ephesus, and then get back to me.
Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
wainscottbl
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,714


A woman's beauty with the steadiness of the man.


« Reply #18 on: March 05, 2014, 01:35:19 PM »

Yes, certain Greek fathers even seem to lean towards double procession but the problem is when it becomes part of the Creed, especially without the consent of the whole Church. If a theologian wants to explain some idea of double procession he might have that liberty as long as he understand the monarchy. The problem I find is that Rome made it part of the Creed and then the Latins get mad when Greeks have a problem with the filioque.
Logged

Had to change that last animated signature. It's sure to trigger a seizure in anyone....but Kel does love orange soda and I like red wine.
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: 1,591



« Reply #19 on: March 05, 2014, 01:42:05 PM »

The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . [Catechism of the Catholic Church, 246; bold added]

Yes for without the role of the son in the procession, the Holy Spirit cannot manifest himself nor be as procession is completed with the son. Hence from the father and the son.

Father -----> Son -----> Holy spirit

From the father through the Son. The Spirit, as St. John of Damascus teaches, is not said to be the Spirit from the Son.

You also falsely equate the Latin teaching of proceeding from the Father and the Son as one principle with the patristic teaching that the Spirit is manifested through the Son. The Latin model, as one can see from the teaching of the schoolmen like Aquinas, has it so that the Father shares with the Son the power of Spiration, making both the cause of the Spirit, and from the Orthodox perspective, improperly mixing the unique hypostatic property of the Father with the Son. The Orthodox do not accept this teaching, understanding as St. Maximus did that the Father alone is cause of the Holy Spirit, and differentiating between the Spirit's having existence (which is from the Father alone), and the Spirit's existing through the Son (or equivalently, the Spirit's being manifested by the Son), thus preserving involate the hypostatic difference between the Father and the Son.

I don't falsely equate but you falsely misrepresent the filioque to uphold your objection. I am sure you e seen the decree of Florence right? On this issue? Further you have read Hilary of Pottiers... Or must I give eastern fathers teaching filioque. Through and from are the same and a father as early as Hilary of pottiers uses them interchangeably yet he explicitly teaches the Latin filoque.

Prooftext all you wish, but you have proved in the past that your grasp of this topic matter is facile and superficial. And no, through and from are not the same in theology (a condemned proposition in Orthodoxy, which is why we cannot say ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς καἰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον, but we can say ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον), something which you would know if you had done some homework and read up on the Synod of Blachernae and the basic contentions behind the filioque controversy. If you are interested in some real modern scholarship and not some inaccurate pop-apologetics on the matter, I should recommend that you pick up a book like Sieciensky's Filioque or Papadakis' Crisis in Byzantium.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 01:43:01 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,304



« Reply #20 on: March 05, 2014, 01:45:36 PM »


It seems to me that you are the one who doesn't know what he is talking about.

So sad.


Go read the catechism, Hilary of Pottiers, Augustine, Ambrose of Milan and Pope Leo the great with regards to the procession of the holy Ghost. Then come back to me

Read up on Photios I of Constantinople, Gregory Palamas and Mark of Ephesus, and then get back to me.


What about St. Basil the Great and John of Damascus? They support the Orthodox view.
Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
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: 1,591



« Reply #21 on: March 05, 2014, 01:47:10 PM »

Yes, certain Greek fathers even seem to lean towards double procession but the problem is when it becomes part of the Creed, especially without the consent of the whole Church. If a theologian wants to explain some idea of double procession he might have that liberty as long as he understand the monarchy. The problem I find is that Rome made it part of the Creed and then the Latins get mad when Greeks have a problem with the filioque.

I doubt that the Greek fathers came close to advocating a 'double procession' considering that a true double procession from two sources was considered heretical in both the East and West. Some reference the fact that the Son has a role in the existence of the Spirit, but in holding to the monarchy of the Father as the sole cause of the Spirit, they did not ever seem to deny that the Spirit has existence from the Father alone.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 1,839


God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!


« Reply #22 on: March 05, 2014, 02:22:29 PM »


It seems to me that you are the one who doesn't know what he is talking about.

So sad.


Go read the catechism, Hilary of Pottiers, Augustine, Ambrose of Milan and Pope Leo the great with regards to the procession of the holy Ghost. Then come back to me

Any reference to the history of the Filioque and how it was received by Rome at first, and under what circumstances Rome later adopted it, should make clear that the Filioque as it expresses eternal procession it is not of apostolic origin. 

I have no problem with what I believe is the modern understanding, proceeds through, temporally as it were.  But it still doesn't belong in the creed.   
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #23 on: March 05, 2014, 02:25:25 PM »

which is why we cannot say ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς καἰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον, but we can say ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον
I have no idea what you just said. Could you translate this for me, please?
Logged
wainscottbl
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,714


A woman's beauty with the steadiness of the man.


« Reply #24 on: March 05, 2014, 02:42:55 PM »


It seems to me that you are the one who doesn't know what he is talking about.

So sad.


Go read the catechism, Hilary of Pottiers, Augustine, Ambrose of Milan and Pope Leo the great with regards to the procession of the holy Ghost. Then come back to me

Any reference to the history of the Filioque and how it was received by Rome at first, and under what circumstances Rome later adopted it, should make clear that the Filioque as it expresses eternal procession it is not of apostolic origin.  

I have no problem with what I believe is the modern understanding, proceeds through, temporally as it were.  But it still doesn't belong in the creed.  

Yes, that is what I meant if the Greek fathers, or any of the blessed fathers, ever alluded to some idea of procession form the Son which might, whether by our own prejudices or their poor human errors, be taken as a defense of the Filioque. But just as Augustine is ranked among the saints despite clear errors, so we must read the fathers, not as one, but as a whole in the spirit of tradition. And tradition is against the Filioque, except the idea of proceeding from the Father by the Son. A sort of relation with the Son because the Son is the revelation of God "in the beginning"

EDIT: I have yet to read what Aquinas says on this, excepts bits in peaces in his work on the "Errors of the Greeks" but it seems he is splitting hairs with words as usual, playing with the terms "origin" and "cause". But to be fair I need to read the whole thing. It just seems that he defends the Latin argument by saying, "Well we believe what the Greeks believe, but we believe in the right way because we believe it such and such." It's sort of like OJ Simpson being guilty of murder but saying, "I am innocent because the jury found me not guilty." Yes, OJ is "not guilty" but he is not innocent. Not guilty is a subjective legal term based on evidence, but objectively he is guilty. But in essence OJ is guilty and that's all that matters in the end.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 02:46:50 PM by wainscottbl » Logged

Had to change that last animated signature. It's sure to trigger a seizure in anyone....but Kel does love orange soda and I like red wine.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,379


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #25 on: March 05, 2014, 02:58:36 PM »

There exists only one source and that source is the Father. Everything originates from the Father. The filioque creates two sources, from the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit can only originate from the Father.
The Holy Spirit cannot originate from both the Father and the Son. Each Persons of the Holy Trinity have their own characteristics or hypostasis.

An example: the rays of the sun can only originate from the sun. The rays of the sun go through the window glass but do not originate from the window glass. The rays of the sun cannot originate from the window glass.

Hope that clears things up. Any further questions?

Lol you have no idea what you are talking about.

Since I teach children, I've had to find ways to "dumb down" teachings and concepts.

Forgive me if this is too simplistic, but, this is the example I use to reach young minds.

The Holy Trinity is One, and inseparable.  To better understand how you can have three in one and all equal and indivisible and reliant on each other I use the example of a candle.

God the Father is the lit candle.
God the Son is the light emitted from the candle.  It cannot exist without the candle flame.
God the Holy Spirit is the heat emitted from the candle.  It cannot exist without the candle flame.

All three are reliant on each other, and are nothing without the other....and yet the source is always the candle flame (God the Father).


Lol Clearly you dont know what you are talking about also. It seems as if you too think the west doesn't teach the monarchy of the father *FACEPALM*

Why are you reading antagonism where it is not present?  Liza explained a theological concept in a way that children would better understand, and she admitted it was "dumbed down" and perhaps "too simplistic".  You respond by ignoring those disclaimers, basically calling her dumb, and telling her to read various Latin Fathers (notably absent from your list of suggestions were our holy fathers Ibid. and Op. cit.). 

You have no business trying to talk theology when you fail at basic manners, reading comprehension, etc.     
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

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


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #26 on: March 05, 2014, 03:02:30 PM »


It seems to me that you are the one who doesn't know what he is talking about.

So sad.


Go read the catechism, Hilary of Pottiers, Augustine, Ambrose of Milan and Pope Leo the great with regards to the procession of the holy Ghost. Then come back to me

Any reference to the history of the Filioque and how it was received by Rome at first, and under what circumstances Rome later adopted it, should make clear that the Filioque as it expresses eternal procession it is not of apostolic origin.  

I have no problem with what I believe is the modern understanding, proceeds through, temporally as it were.  But it still doesn't belong in the creed.  

Yes, that is what I meant if the Greek fathers, or any of the blessed fathers, ever alluded to some idea of procession form the Son which might, whether by our own prejudices or their poor human errors, be taken as a defense of the Filioque. But just as Augustine is ranked among the saints despite clear errors, so we must read the fathers, not as one, but as a whole in the spirit of tradition. And tradition is against the Filioque, except the idea of proceeding from the Father by the Son. A sort of relation with the Son because the Son is the revelation of God "in the beginning"

EDIT: I have yet to read what Aquinas says on this, excepts bits in peaces in his work on the "Errors of the Greeks" but it seems he is splitting hairs with words as usual, playing with the terms "origin" and "cause". But to be fair I need to read the whole thing. It just seems that he defends the Latin argument by saying, "Well we believe what the Greeks believe, but we believe in the right way because we believe it such and such." It's sort of like OJ Simpson being guilty of murder but saying, "I am innocent because the jury found me not guilty." Yes, OJ is "not guilty" but he is not innocent. Not guilty is a subjective legal term based on evidence, but objectively he is guilty. But in essence OJ is guilty and that's all that matters in the end.
Bad argument, for you don't know for a certainty that OJ is guilty. Unless you were an eyewitness to the event, all you have is your own opinion based on what little you know of the facts of the case.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,379


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #27 on: March 05, 2014, 03:30:50 PM »

LOL, what am I reading?  Filioque --> OJ Simpson?
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

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


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
DeniseDenise
Tiredness personified
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen no more!
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,040


What curls do on a bad hair day!


« Reply #28 on: March 05, 2014, 03:31:32 PM »

LOL, what am I reading?  Filioque --> OJ Simpson?


if the glove don't fit...you must proceed....   Undecided
Logged

Please secure your own oxygen mask before assisting other passengers.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #29 on: March 05, 2014, 04:12:15 PM »

I Latin theology, since everything the Son has is from the Father, even the Son's participation of the spiration of the Holy Spirit comes from the Father. Thus, what comes from the Son is ultimately from the Father through the Son. The Father is the ultimate monarch of the Holy Trinity.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #30 on: March 05, 2014, 04:36:29 PM »

even the Son's participation of the spiration of the Holy Spirit comes from the Father.
Shocked
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
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: 1,591



« Reply #31 on: March 05, 2014, 06:21:34 PM »

which is why we cannot say ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς καἰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον, but we can say ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον
I have no idea what you just said. Could you translate this for me, please?

"Proceeding from the Father and the Son," vs "proceeding from the Father through the Son."
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Hawkeye
Onomatodoxicologist
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: With a schismatic twist.
Jurisdiction: An Old Rite soglasie
Posts: 620


My grandfather, the mad Mike


« Reply #32 on: March 05, 2014, 06:28:10 PM »

which is why we cannot say ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς καἰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον, but we can say ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον
I have no idea what you just said. Could you translate this for me, please?

"Proceeding from the Father and the Son," vs "proceeding from the Father through the Son."

If we said "from the Father and the Son indescribably," it wouldn't make a difference right?
Logged

Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,116


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #33 on: March 06, 2014, 01:19:26 AM »


It seems to me that you are the one who doesn't know what he is talking about.

So sad.


Go read the catechism, Hilary of Pottiers, Augustine, Ambrose of Milan and Pope Leo the great with regards to the procession of the holy Ghost. Then come back to me

Read up on Photios I of Constantinople, Gregory Palamas and Mark of Ephesus, and then get back to me.


Photius had a poor understanding of the filioque
Gregory palamas is not really a catholic father but is allowed to be venerated due to respect of carried over eastern traditions upon reunion
Mark of Ephesus , lets not even go there...

Archbishop St. Athanasius the Great of Alexandria
*On the Incarnation of the Word Against the Arians 9 in PG 26:1000A: "David sings in the psalm [35:10], :
Quote
'For with You is the Font of Life;' because jointly with the Father the Son is indeed the source of the Holy Spirit." Greek: "Πατρὶ ὄντα τὸυ Υιὸν τὴν πηγὴν τοῦ ἀγίου Πνεὐματος

*Orations Against the Arians 3:25:24 in PG 26:376A:

"For He, as has been said, gives to the Spirit, and whatever the Spirit has, He has from the Word" Greek: "Αὐτὸς γἀρ, ὥσπερ εἵρηται, τῷ Πνεύματι δίδωσι, καὶ ὄσα ἓχει τὸ Πνεῦμα παρἀ τοῦ Λόγου ὲχει."

Bishop St. Gregory of Nyssa
Quote
the Spirit both is said to be from the Father, and is further testified to be from the Son. For, it says, "if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His" [Romans 8:9]. Therefore the Spirit, Who is from God, is also the Spirit of Christ; but the Son, Who is from God, neither is nor is said to be "of the Spirit," nor does this relative order become reversed.

Bishop St. Basil the Great of Caesarea [Against Eunomius 3:1 in PG 29:655A]:

Quote
"Even if the Holy Spirit is third in dignity and order, why need He be third also in nature? For that He is second to the Son, having His being from Him and receiving from Him and announcing to us and being completely dependent on Him, pious tradition recounts; but that His nature is third we are not taught by the Saints nor can we conclude logically from what has been said."


this is in total accordance with the degree of Florence teaching a procession of both as from one principle as both roles of the father and son are inseparable i the procession
Logged

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

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,116


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #34 on: March 06, 2014, 01:20:16 AM »

I Latin theology, since everything the Son has is from the Father, even the Son's participation of the spiration of the Holy Spirit comes from the Father. Thus, what comes from the Son is ultimately from the Father through the Son. The Father is the ultimate monarch of the Holy Trinity.

exactly
Logged

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

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,116


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #35 on: March 06, 2014, 01:22:06 AM »

There exists only one source and that source is the Father. Everything originates from the Father. The filioque creates two sources, from the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit can only originate from the Father.
The Holy Spirit cannot originate from both the Father and the Son. Each Persons of the Holy Trinity have their own characteristics or hypostasis.

An example: the rays of the sun can only originate from the sun. The rays of the sun go through the window glass but do not originate from the window glass. The rays of the sun cannot originate from the window glass.

Hope that clears things up. Any further questions?

Lol you have no idea what you are talking about.

Since I teach children, I've had to find ways to "dumb down" teachings and concepts.

Forgive me if this is too simplistic, but, this is the example I use to reach young minds.

The Holy Trinity is One, and inseparable.  To better understand how you can have three in one and all equal and indivisible and reliant on each other I use the example of a candle.

God the Father is the lit candle.
God the Son is the light emitted from the candle.  It cannot exist without the candle flame.
God the Holy Spirit is the heat emitted from the candle.  It cannot exist without the candle flame.

All three are reliant on each other, and are nothing without the other....and yet the source is always the candle flame (God the Father).


Lol Clearly you dont know what you are talking about also. It seems as if you too think the west doesn't teach the monarchy of the father *FACEPALM*

Why are you reading antagonism where it is not present?  Liza explained a theological concept in a way that children would better understand, and she admitted it was "dumbed down" and perhaps "too simplistic".  You respond by ignoring those disclaimers, basically calling her dumb, and telling her to read various Latin Fathers (notably absent from your list of suggestions were our holy fathers Ibid. and Op. cit.). 

You have no business trying to talk theology when you fail at basic manners, reading comprehension, etc.     

cool
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
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: 1,591



« Reply #36 on: March 06, 2014, 04:55:31 AM »

Photius had a poor understanding of the filioque
Gregory palamas is not really a catholic father but is allowed to be venerated due to respect of carried over eastern traditions upon reunion
Mark of Ephesus , lets not even go there...

So you refuse to attempt to understand the Filioque controversy in full by reading key figures involved in it. What a narrow-minded approach.

Archbishop St. Athanasius the Great of Alexandria
*On the Incarnation of the Word Against the Arians 9 in PG 26:1000A: "David sings in the psalm [35:10], :
Quote
'For with You is the Font of Life;' because jointly with the Father the Son is indeed the source of the Holy Spirit." Greek: "Πατρὶ ὄντα τὸυ Υιὸν τὴν πηγὴν τοῦ ἀγίου Πνεὐματος

What a translation hack job. Why is it that it translates πηγὴ ζωῆς correctly as, "the Font of Life," but then imposes filioquism on St. Athanasius by taking τὴν πηγὴν τοῦ αγίου Πνεύματος and rendering it as "the source of the Holy Spirit," rather than keeping the parallelism and translating it correctly as, "the Font of the Holy Spirit?" If the case for the heresy of the filioque were so strong among the Greek fathers, why is it that the proponents of the filioque almost always engage in such dishonest practices when translating the Greek, such as translating the verbs εκπορεύω, εκχέω and προείμι all as 'proceeds' instead of preserving the distinction between these terms, or as seen in the quotation above, translating equivocally a term which is clearly used univocally as part of a parallel construction? It is clear, when one references the Greek, that St. Athanasius, by drawing parallels between the "Font of Life" and the "Font of the Holy Spirit" is speaking of the energetic manifestation of the Holy Spirit through the Son, as Life is an uncreated energy of God, and the Holy Spirit qua Life is thereby made manifest through the Son.

*Orations Against the Arians 3:25:24 in PG 26:376A:

Quote
"For He, as has been said, gives to the Spirit, and whatever the Spirit has, He has from the Word" Greek: "Αὐτὸς γἀρ, ὥσπερ εἵρηται, τῷ Πνεύματι δίδωσι, καὶ ὄσα ἓχει τὸ Πνεῦμα παρἀ τοῦ Λόγου ὲχει."

Receiving from the Son is not equivalent to being from the Son.

Bishop St. Gregory of Nyssa
Quote
the Spirit both is said to be from the Father, and is further testified to be from the Son. For, it says, "if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His" [Romans 8:9]. Therefore the Spirit, Who is from God, is also the Spirit of Christ; but the Son, Who is from God, neither is nor is said to be "of the Spirit," nor does this relative order become reversed.

I like how you did not provide a citation (is that not in violation of the forum's rules?). This is allegedly from St. Gregory of Nyssa's 3rd Sermon on the Lord's Prayer, but there is a problem with this, insofar as the presence of the Greek word ἐκ is a variant reading, one which prominent editors of Gregory of Nyssa's works such as Johannes Callahan and Werner Jaeger agree is attested to paleographically, but is unlikely to be original to Gregory of Nyssa, as the ἐκ does not fit in with the actual argument made by Gregory of Nyssa in that passage. Indeed, it is far more likely that the correct reading of this passage does not include the preposition ἐκ, considering that Gregory of Nyssa does not in his other extant and detailed works on the Trinity promote the idea that the Spirit is from the Son, but only that the Spirit proceeds through the Son, and furthermore because this variant reading would put Gregory of Nyssa in direct contradiction with St. John of Damascus if it were original.


Bishop St. Basil the Great of Caesarea [Against Eunomius 3:1 in PG 29:655A]:

Quote
"Even if the Holy Spirit is third in dignity and order, why need He be third also in nature? For that He is second to the Son, having His being from Him and receiving from Him and announcing to us and being completely dependent on Him, pious tradition recounts; but that His nature is third we are not taught by the Saints nor can we conclude logically from what has been said."

Again, I see that you fail to do your homework with your prooftexts. Radde-Gallwitz in his edition of St. Basil's Against Eunomius omits this passage, noting in the footnote that it is certainly not genuine to St. Basil. A. Edward Sieciensky also points out in Filioque that the Modern scholarly consensus is that this text is not original to St. Basil; rather it supports St. Mark of Ephesus' understanding that St. Basil was quoting Eunomius' doctrine by way of concession. St. Basil in the passage, if this passage is genuine, is granting Eunomius his minor premise (that the Holy Spirit is third in dignity), but denying Eunomius' major premise (that being third in nature follows from being third in dignity). And if you doubt that St. Basil is arguing by way of concession, then consider this: in his his dispute with Eunomius, St. Basil was careful to lay out the groundwork to show that the Son is equal in dignity to the Father; why then would St. Basil throw that framework out the window and grant that the Spirit is third (implying that the Son is second) unless he were granting Eunomius' minor premise by way of concession?

this is in total accordance with the degree of Florence teaching a procession of both as from one principle as both roles of the father and son are inseparable i the procession

Perhaps the Decree of Florence is in total accordance with the Eunomian doctrine that the Spirit is third in dignity and the Son second. I am glad, however, that we Orthodox Catholic Christians do not participate in such heretical blasphemies.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,116


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #37 on: March 06, 2014, 10:24:25 AM »

Photius had a poor understanding of the filioque
Gregory palamas is not really a catholic father but is allowed to be venerated due to respect of carried over eastern traditions upon reunion
Mark of Ephesus , lets not even go there...

So you refuse to attempt to understand the Filioque controversy in full by reading key figures involved in it. What a narrow-minded approach.

Archbishop St. Athanasius the Great of Alexandria
*On the Incarnation of the Word Against the Arians 9 in PG 26:1000A: "David sings in the psalm [35:10], :
Quote
'For with You is the Font of Life;' because jointly with the Father the Son is indeed the source of the Holy Spirit." Greek: "Πατρὶ ὄντα τὸυ Υιὸν τὴν πηγὴν τοῦ ἀγίου Πνεὐματος

What a translation hack job. Why is it that it translates πηγὴ ζωῆς correctly as, "the Font of Life," but then imposes filioquism on St. Athanasius by taking τὴν πηγὴν τοῦ αγίου Πνεύματος and rendering it as "the source of the Holy Spirit," rather than keeping the parallelism and translating it correctly as, "the Font of the Holy Spirit?" If the case for the heresy of the filioque were so strong among the Greek fathers, why is it that the proponents of the filioque almost always engage in such dishonest practices when translating the Greek, such as translating the verbs εκπορεύω, εκχέω and προείμι all as 'proceeds' instead of preserving the distinction between these terms, or as seen in the quotation above, translating equivocally a term which is clearly used univocally as part of a parallel construction? It is clear, when one references the Greek, that St. Athanasius, by drawing parallels between the "Font of Life" and the "Font of the Holy Spirit" is speaking of the energetic manifestation of the Holy Spirit through the Son, as Life is an uncreated energy of God, and the Holy Spirit qua Life is thereby made manifest through the Son.

You criticize yet this the most common translation I see. further 'font of life' is a phrase that encompasses source. in fact font is synonymous with source so it is an accurate translation. one that upsets you evidently.

Quote
I like how you did not provide a citation (is that not in violation of the forum's rules?). This is allegedly from St. Gregory of Nyssa's 3rd Sermon on the Lord's Prayer, but there is a problem with this, insofar as the presence of the Greek word ἐκ is a variant reading, one which prominent editors of Gregory of Nyssa's works such as Johannes Callahan and Werner Jaeger agree is attested to paleographically, but is unlikely to be original to Gregory of Nyssa, as the ἐκ does not fit in with the actual argument made by Gregory of Nyssa in that passage. Indeed, it is far more likely that the correct reading of this passage does not include the preposition ἐκ, considering that Gregory of Nyssa does not in his other extant and detailed works on the Trinity promote the idea that the Spirit is from the Son, but only that the Spirit proceeds through the Son, and furthermore because this variant reading would put Gregory of Nyssa in direct contradiction with St. John of Damascus if it were original.
yet this whole argument is speculation. nothing concrete but what ifs...
Against Eunomius 1:22 in PG 45:464BC

Bishop St. Basil the Great of Caesarea [Against Eunomius 3:1 in PG 29:655A]:

Quote
"Even if the Holy Spirit is third in dignity and order, why need He be third also in nature? For that He is second to the Son, having His being from Him and receiving from Him and announcing to us and being completely dependent on Him, pious tradition recounts; but that His nature is third we are not taught by the Saints nor can we conclude logically from what has been said."

Quote
Again, I see that you fail to do your homework with your prooftexts. Radde-Gallwitz in his edition of St. Basil's Against Eunomius omits this passage, noting in the footnote that it is certainly not genuine to St. Basil. A. Edward Sieciensky also points out in Filioque that the Modern scholarly consensus is that this text is not original to St. Basil; rather it supports St. Mark of Ephesus' understanding that St. Basil was quoting Eunomius' doctrine by way of concession. St. Basil in the passage, if this passage is genuine, is granting Eunomius his minor premise (that the Holy Spirit is third in dignity), but denying Eunomius' major premise (that being third in nature follows from being third in dignity). And if you doubt that St. Basil is arguing by way of concession, then consider this: in his his dispute with Eunomius, St. Basil was careful to lay out the groundwork to show that the Son is equal in dignity to the Father; why then would St. Basil throw that framework out the window and grant that the Spirit is third (implying that the Son is second) unless he were granting Eunomius' minor premise by way of concession?

Mark of Ephesus was absolutely struck by the unmistakable Filioquism of this passage was forced to maintain that it is not genuine. However, he was wrong, according to the Rev. Reuben Parsons, D.D.  :
Quote
"the archbishop of Nicea tells us that out of six codices of St. Basel's works brought by his countrymen to Florence, five gave this passage in its entirety; while the one that wanted it "was defective in some parts, and had many additions, according to the pleasure of the corrupter." When he returned to Constantinople, Bessarion searched the libraries, and he found some new codices, written after the Council of Florence had terminated, and in which the above passage was wanting; whereas in other ancient MSS. which he consulted it was given."

« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 10:31:49 AM by Wandile » Logged

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

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,116


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #38 on: March 06, 2014, 10:33:50 AM »


Receiving from the Son is not equivalent to being from the Son.

Bishop St. Hilary of Poitiers
 The saintly bishop of Poitiers says 357 [On the Trinity 2:29 in PL 10:69A]:

Quote
"Concerning the Holy Spirit I ought not to be silent, and yet I have no need to speak; still, for the sake of those who are in ignorance, I cannot refrain. There is no need to speak, because we are bound to confess Him, proceeding, as He does, from Father and Son."

In 8:20 of the same work [PL 10:250C-251A], the holy Doctor clarifies:

Quote
For the present I forbear to expose their license of speculation, some of them holding that the Paraclete Spirit comes from the Father or from the Son. For our Lord has not left this in uncertainty, for after these same words He spoke thus,-- "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He shall guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak from Himself: but what things soever He shall hear, these shall He speak; and He shall declare unto you the things that are to come. He shall glorify Me: for He shall receive of Mine and stroll declare it unto you. All things whatsoever the Father hath are Mine: therefore said I, He shall receive of Mine and shall declare it unto you" [Jn 16:12-15]. Accordingly He receives from the Son, Who is both sent by Him, and proceeds from the Father. Now I ask whether to receive from the Son is the same thing as to proceed from the Father. But if one believes that there is a difference between receiving from the Son and proceeding from the Father, surely to receive from the Son and to receive from the Father will be regarded as one and the same thing.

Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
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: 1,591



« Reply #39 on: March 06, 2014, 05:41:11 PM »

Photius had a poor understanding of the filioque
Gregory palamas is not really a catholic father but is allowed to be venerated due to respect of carried over eastern traditions upon reunion
Mark of Ephesus , lets not even go there...

So you refuse to attempt to understand the Filioque controversy in full by reading key figures involved in it. What a narrow-minded approach.

Archbishop St. Athanasius the Great of Alexandria
*On the Incarnation of the Word Against the Arians 9 in PG 26:1000A: "David sings in the psalm [35:10], :
Quote
'For with You is the Font of Life;' because jointly with the Father the Son is indeed the source of the Holy Spirit." Greek: "Πατρὶ ὄντα τὸυ Υιὸν τὴν πηγὴν τοῦ ἀγίου Πνεὐματος

What a translation hack job. Why is it that it translates πηγὴ ζωῆς correctly as, "the Font of Life," but then imposes filioquism on St. Athanasius by taking τὴν πηγὴν τοῦ αγίου Πνεύματος and rendering it as "the source of the Holy Spirit," rather than keeping the parallelism and translating it correctly as, "the Font of the Holy Spirit?" If the case for the heresy of the filioque were so strong among the Greek fathers, why is it that the proponents of the filioque almost always engage in such dishonest practices when translating the Greek, such as translating the verbs εκπορεύω, εκχέω and προείμι all as 'proceeds' instead of preserving the distinction between these terms, or as seen in the quotation above, translating equivocally a term which is clearly used univocally as part of a parallel construction? It is clear, when one references the Greek, that St. Athanasius, by drawing parallels between the "Font of Life" and the "Font of the Holy Spirit" is speaking of the energetic manifestation of the Holy Spirit through the Son, as Life is an uncreated energy of God, and the Holy Spirit qua Life is thereby made manifest through the Son.

You criticize yet this the most common translation I see. further 'font of life' is a phrase that encompasses source. in fact font is synonymous with source so it is an accurate translation. one that upsets you evidently.

You don't even deal with the fact that the passage refers to the manifestation of the Spirit qua life, not the proceeding of the Spirit. As for the translation issue, it is true that in English, font may have a figurative meaning of source, but it also could just have plain meaning of a fountain. The problem is that by translating πηγή as source, one limits its potential meanings, whereas font does not. Font here is indeed the more accurate translation, as the image of a font relates to the doctrine of the St. Cyril that the spirit is poured out (ἐκχεῖται) by the Son in the economy rather than to the doctrine of the Spirit's proceeding (ἐκπορεύεται) from the Father as the sole source (πηγή) of divinity.

Quote
I like how you did not provide a citation (is that not in violation of the forum's rules?). This is allegedly from St. Gregory of Nyssa's 3rd Sermon on the Lord's Prayer, but there is a problem with this, insofar as the presence of the Greek word ἐκ is a variant reading, one which prominent editors of Gregory of Nyssa's works such as Johannes Callahan and Werner Jaeger agree is attested to paleographically, but is unlikely to be original to Gregory of Nyssa, as the ἐκ does not fit in with the actual argument made by Gregory of Nyssa in that passage. Indeed, it is far more likely that the correct reading of this passage does not include the preposition ἐκ, considering that Gregory of Nyssa does not in his other extant and detailed works on the Trinity promote the idea that the Spirit is from the Son, but only that the Spirit proceeds through the Son, and furthermore because this variant reading would put Gregory of Nyssa in direct contradiction with St. John of Damascus if it were original.
yet this whole argument is speculation. nothing concrete but what ifs...

There are no what ifs here. Two of the foremost experts involved in editing St. Gregory's works expressed their doubt that the textual variant with ἐκ is genuine to Gregory of Nyssa, despite the fact that the textual variant with ἐκ is attested paleographically. For this reason, in GNO, the ἐκ is placed in brackets, to show its dubious authenticity. You will frankly find nowhere else where St. Gregory uses that preposition as the relation between the Son and the Spirit, and to build a doctrine upon a dubious textual variant would be most unwise.

Quote
Again, I see that you fail to do your homework with your prooftexts. Radde-Gallwitz in his edition of St. Basil's Against Eunomius omits this passage, noting in the footnote that it is certainly not genuine to St. Basil. A. Edward Sieciensky also points out in Filioque that the Modern scholarly consensus is that this text is not original to St. Basil; rather it supports St. Mark of Ephesus' understanding that St. Basil was quoting Eunomius' doctrine by way of concession. St. Basil in the passage, if this passage is genuine, is granting Eunomius his minor premise (that the Holy Spirit is third in dignity), but denying Eunomius' major premise (that being third in nature follows from being third in dignity). And if you doubt that St. Basil is arguing by way of concession, then consider this: in his his dispute with Eunomius, St. Basil was careful to lay out the groundwork to show that the Son is equal in dignity to the Father; why then would St. Basil throw that framework out the window and grant that the Spirit is third (implying that the Son is second) unless he were granting Eunomius' minor premise by way of concession?

Mark of Ephesus was absolutely struck by the unmistakable Filioquism of this passage was forced to maintain that it is not genuine. However, he was wrong, according to the Rev. Reuben Parsons, D.D.  :
Quote
"the archbishop of Nicea tells us that out of six codices of St. Basel's works brought by his countrymen to Florence, five gave this passage in its entirety; while the one that wanted it "was defective in some parts, and had many additions, according to the pleasure of the corrupter." When he returned to Constantinople, Bessarion searched the libraries, and he found some new codices, written after the Council of Florence had terminated, and in which the above passage was wanting; whereas in other ancient MSS. which he consulted it was given."

You again show that you have no idea what you're taking about (because you do not research these things, but are only interested in acquiring proof texts). St. Mark of Ephesus doubted the authenticity of the passage, but also argued that even if the passage were genuine, it was clearly meant to be an argument by concession. St. Basil in the passage does not actually believe the Spirit to be third in dignity or completely dependent on the Son as cause (a statement which smacks of subordinationism and which would contradict St. Maximus' teaching that the Son is not cause of the Spirit), but is simply conceding Eunomius' minor premise to show that his major premise is false. As for your quote from Reuben Parsons, it is outdated scholarship, over 100 years old. As Siecienski points out modern scholarship on the matter sides with St. Mark of Ephesus' interpretation. Radde-Gallwitz, as I pointed out earlier, in his recent edition of St. Basil's Against Eunomius omits the text entirely, remarking, 'At this point several mss. add: "having his being from him and receiving from him, announcing to us and entirely dependent upon this cause." This text is not original to Basil. On this controversial addition, see PG 29.655 n. 79; SC 305.146–47 n. 1; M. van Parys "Quelques remarques à propos d'un texte controversé de saint Basile au Concile de Florence," Irénikon 40 (1967): 6–14; G.M de Durand, "Un passage du IIIe livre contre Eunome de S. Basile dans la tradition manuscrite," Irénikon 54 (1981): and Anastos, "Basil's Κατα Ευνομίου," 112–13 n. 153."
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 05:44:56 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
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: 1,591



« Reply #40 on: March 06, 2014, 06:17:50 PM »


Receiving from the Son is not equivalent to being from the Son.

Bishop St. Hilary of Poitiers
 The saintly bishop of Poitiers says 357 [On the Trinity 2:29 in PL 10:69A]:

Quote
"Concerning the Holy Spirit I ought not to be silent, and yet I have no need to speak; still, for the sake of those who are in ignorance, I cannot refrain. There is no need to speak, because we are bound to confess Him, proceeding, as He does, from Father and Son."

More poorly researched foolishness from you, I see. Had you consulted the Latin, you would see that procedere is not even used in that quotation. Rather St. Hilary wrote, "qui Patre et Filio auctoribus confitendus est," which Siecienski points out is probably better translated as, "we are bound to confess him on the evidence of the Father and the Son."

In 8:20 of the same work [PL 10:250C-251A], the holy Doctor clarifies:

Quote
For the present I forbear to expose their license of speculation, some of them holding that the Paraclete Spirit comes from the Father or from the Son. For our Lord has not left this in uncertainty, for after these same words He spoke thus,-- "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He shall guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak from Himself: but what things soever He shall hear, these shall He speak; and He shall declare unto you the things that are to come. He shall glorify Me: for He shall receive of Mine and stroll declare it unto you. All things whatsoever the Father hath are Mine: therefore said I, He shall receive of Mine and shall declare it unto you" [Jn 16:12-15]. Accordingly He receives from the Son, Who is both sent by Him, and proceeds from the Father. Now I ask whether to receive from the Son is the same thing as to proceed from the Father. But if one believes that there is a difference between receiving from the Son and proceeding from the Father, surely to receive from the Son and to receive from the Father will be regarded as one and the same thing.

More sloppy proof texts from one unlearned in this topic matter (indeed, you seem overly dependent upon these proof texts, refusing to engage in actual interpretation or analysis). As you yourself in the past have admitted, there is a certain vagueness in the Latin language, such that procedere could mean either προιέναι or εκπορεύεσθαι. So which is it that St. Hilary wishes to equate with receiving? If it is the idea that the Spirit progresses (πρόεισι) from the Father, then it is true, for the Spirit's progression from the Father and the Son is identical with his receiving from the Son and his being manifested through the Son. But if it is the Spirit's procession (εκπορεύεται) from the Father, then this is false, for the Spirit proceeds (εκπορεύεται) from the Father alone through the Son, as taught by numerous Eastern Fathers. The non-equivalence of these two is how St. John of Damascus could admit that the Spirit receives from the Son but deny that the Spirit is from the Son. Furthermore, there is good reason for us to believe that the term procedere is used here in the sense of προιέναι, because as St. Maximus points out, the Latins of his day meant by procedere ex filio to show the non-causal progression (προιέναι) of the Spirit through the Son, whereas to believe that St. Hilary meant it in the sense of εκπορεύεσθαι would put St. Hilary in discord with the Eastern Fathers.

Frankly none of the proof texts you posted so far have demonstrated how the Filioque of Florence (where the Son is made Cause of the Holy Spirit) is consistent with St. Maximus' understanding of the Latins of his time or the insistence of the Greek Fathers that the Father alone is cause. Indeed, all of the authentic texts you have presented are completely compatible with the views of St. Gregory Palamas, St. Mark of Ephesus, and Gregory II of Cyprus and the Synod of Blachernae, giving us no sound reason for why we should prefer the Florentine doctrine, which contradicts numerous Eastern Fathers on whether the Son is cause of the Holy Spirit, over the doctrine of the above-mentioned figures.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 06:37:44 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
ilyazhito
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 907



« Reply #41 on: March 06, 2014, 06:25:05 PM »

i don't really know what it is, i'm having a hard time figuring out what it means theologically and practically.
does it imply there is no holly trinity?
i don't get it.
The Filioque is the clause of the creed that says "... And in the Holy Spirit ... who proceedeth from the Father and the Son". In the standard Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed used by the Orthodox Church, the phrase is "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the Giver of Life who proceedeth from the Father.  It is an addition that gained popularity in the West in the 6th century AD, where it was used to combat Arianism, which was alive in the West among barbarian tribes such as the Goths. However, no Eastern Church has approved of it, as the addition came to be without an ecumenical council, and the creed can only be legitimately changed by an ecumenical council. This is one of the major reasons for the theological furore between East and West.
Logged
vasily
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox church in america
Posts: 189



« Reply #42 on: March 07, 2014, 09:05:26 AM »

Catholic apologists like to play the "church Fathers" game which proves nothing.None of the early church Fathers are espousing the Latin's filioque, that the Father and Son are the eternal source of the Holy Spirit. They speak of the Orthodox understanding of the Son's role in the temporal procession of the Holy Spirit. St .Hilary of Poitiers is an example: " In the fact that before times eternal your(the Father's) only begotten Son was born of you, when we put an end to every ambiguity of words and difficulty of understanding, there remains only this: he was born. So too, even if I do not gasp it in my understanding, I hold fast in my consciousness to the fact that your Holy Spirit is from Him THROUGH HIM." Maximus the Confessor: 'By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten.

The filioque addition goes against the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. The 3rd Ecumenical Council condemns changes to the Creed. Canon VII. The filioque was added by a local council, Toledo, and even after 400 years after Toledo Rome condemned anyone from adding it due to it not being seen as Orthodox.
Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,116


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #43 on: March 07, 2014, 07:33:28 PM »

Catholic apologists like to play the "church Fathers" game which proves nothing.None of the early church Fathers are espousing the Latin's filioque, that the Father and Son are the eternal source of the Holy Spirit. They speak of the Orthodox understanding of the Son's role in the temporal procession of the Holy Spirit. St .Hilary of Poitiers is an example: " In the fact that before times eternal your(the Father's) only begotten Son was born of you, when we put an end to every ambiguity of words and difficulty of understanding, there remains only this: he was born. So too, even if I do not gasp it in my understanding, I hold fast in my consciousness to the fact that your Holy Spirit is from Him THROUGH HIM." Maximus the Confessor: 'By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten.

The filioque addition goes against the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. The 3rd Ecumenical Council condemns changes to the Creed. Canon VII. The filioque was added by a local council, Toledo, and even after 400 years after Toledo Rome condemned anyone from adding it due to it not being seen as Orthodox.

"From" and "through" are one and the same as the Catholic Church explicitly teaches or else how do you reconcile what St. Hilary also said here :

Quote
Hilary of Poitiers

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

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,304



« Reply #44 on: March 07, 2014, 08:22:16 PM »

Catholic apologists like to play the "church Fathers" game which proves nothing.None of the early church Fathers are espousing the Latin's filioque, that the Father and Son are the eternal source of the Holy Spirit. They speak of the Orthodox understanding of the Son's role in the temporal procession of the Holy Spirit. St .Hilary of Poitiers is an example: " In the fact that before times eternal your(the Father's) only begotten Son was born of you, when we put an end to every ambiguity of words and difficulty of understanding, there remains only this: he was born. So too, even if I do not gasp it in my understanding, I hold fast in my consciousness to the fact that your Holy Spirit is from Him THROUGH HIM." Maximus the Confessor: 'By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten.

The filioque addition goes against the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. The 3rd Ecumenical Council condemns changes to the Creed. Canon VII. The filioque was added by a local council, Toledo, and even after 400 years after Toledo Rome condemned anyone from adding it due to it not being seen as Orthodox.

"From" and "through" are one and the same as the Catholic Church explicitly teaches or else how do you reconcile what St. Hilary also said here :

Quote
Hilary of Poitiers

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

That's what Orthodox believe too, problem is the Latin creed does not say that.
Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 »  All   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 0.199 seconds with 71 queries.