OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 01, 2014, 10:13:04 PM *
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 2900 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
Warned
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: 1,076


@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: 1,556



« 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: 3,044



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

The filioque supposedly subordinates the Holy Spirit.
Logged

"Rationalists are admirable beings, rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of stock and stone, believing it to be God." (Mahatma Gandhi)
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,433


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: 12,916



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: 2,753



« 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
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 1,511


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: 1,076


@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: 1,076


@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: 12,916



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: 1,556



« 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: 1,076


@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: 1,076


@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
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,320


"It is said to me...where is your God" --Ps. 41:4


« 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

"Any rational society would have either killed me or put me to some good use." -Hannibal Lecter

"First principles...to each particular thing ask what is it in and of itself. What is its nature?" --Hannibal Lecter
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: 1,556



« 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: 12,916



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
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,320


"It is said to me...where is your God" --Ps. 41:4


« 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

"Any rational society would have either killed me or put me to some good use." -Hannibal Lecter

"First principles...to each particular thing ask what is it in and of itself. What is its nature?" --Hannibal Lecter
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: 1,556



« 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: 3,044



« 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

"Rationalists are admirable beings, rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of stock and stone, believing it to be God." (Mahatma Gandhi)
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: 1,556



« 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
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 1,511


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: 31,951


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
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,320


"It is said to me...where is your God" --Ps. 41:4


« 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

"Any rational society would have either killed me or put me to some good use." -Hannibal Lecter

"First principles...to each particular thing ask what is it in and of itself. What is its nature?" --Hannibal Lecter
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,524


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


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: 31,951


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
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,524


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


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: 2,753



« 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: 12,189


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
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,433


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: 1,556



« 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: 602


My great-grandmother, the elderly nun Verena


« 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: 1,076


@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: 1,076


@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: 1,076


@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: 1,556



« 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: 1,076


@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: 1,076


@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: 1,556



« 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: 1,556



« 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: 862



« 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
Warned
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: 1,076


@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: 3,044



« 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

"Rationalists are admirable beings, rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of stock and stone, believing it to be God." (Mahatma Gandhi)
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: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #45 on: March 08, 2014, 03:35:53 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.

"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.

Orthodoxy believes that the Son together with the father is the source of the holy Spirit?
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
vasily
Warned
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #46 on: March 08, 2014, 09:33:32 AM »

You must be kidding. "From" and "through" are far from being the same. "From" something indicates that it originates from that something. "Through" something indicates that it penetrates through that something. St. Hilary or any other early church Father is far from making any claims of support for the filioque. On top of everything else the filioque is not supported in Scriptures. The very fact that the Ecumenical Councils decided on the Creed and that no changes were to be made to it, should end the discussion.
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: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #47 on: March 08, 2014, 09:56:44 AM »

You must be kidding. "From" and "through" are far from being the same. "From" something indicates that it originates from that something. "Through" something indicates that it penetrates through that something. St. Hilary or any other early church Father is far from making any claims of support for the filioque. On top of everything else the filioque is not supported in Scriptures. The very fact that the Ecumenical Councils decided on the Creed and that no changes were to be made to it, should end the discussion.

Do you even know what Catholics mean when they say "from"?

Secondly the second quote of St Hilary may be troublesome to assertion that the western fathers don't teach filioque. They actually and explicitly use the phrase filioque. Further any shallow examination of the Latin tradition from the earliest fathers show a strict continuous adherence to the Latin teaching concerning the procession of the Holy Ghost up to present day. The quote from St.Hilary is in total accordance with the decree of Florence and Lyon as well as the modern Catechism of th Catholic Church.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 10:02:55 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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,951


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #48 on: March 08, 2014, 01:34:29 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,
No, we Orthodox do NOT believe that the Father and the Son are both sources for the Holy Spirit. One who is not yet one of us should not presume to speak for us so boldly when what one says on our behalf is so full of errors.
Logged
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: 1,556



« Reply #49 on: March 12, 2014, 04:09:57 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)

No need to reconcile anything, for St. Hilary wrote in that passage, "qui Patre et Filio auctoribus confitendus est." To read the ablative, "Patre et Filio auctoribus" as being an ablative of separation (which is how the two translations you gave are interpreting it) is questionable grammatically, because to use the ablative in such a manner without some preposition (ab, ex, de, etc.) or verb signalling motion away from or lack or want would be highly unusual. Likewise, to read it as an ablative of origin or descent would also be unusual (also possibly the interpretation of those who made the translations you provided), as there is no verb in the clause which signals origination or birth or any preposition which signals that this is the sense in which the ablative is used. It would be far more reasonable to read it as an ablative of means or of cause (both of which are not preceded by a preposition), such that the Father and the Son are the cause or means by which the Holy Spirit is to be believed, leading to Siecienski's suggested reading of, "we are bound to confess him on the evidence of the Father and the Son."
« Last Edit: March 12, 2014, 04:13:48 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
vasily
Warned
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #50 on: March 13, 2014, 07:52:12 AM »

If the Catholic Church teaches that "from" and "through" are the same, then  they must be more confused that I could imagine. Both words according to Webster have very different definitions.  "To proceed" in the original Greek means to "to be originated" . How can the Holy Spirit have two sources or originate from two sources?
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: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #51 on: March 13, 2014, 08:30:14 AM »

If the Catholic Church teaches that "from" and "through" are the same, then  they must be more confused that I could imagine. Both words according to Webster have very different definitions.  "To proceed" in the original Greek means to "to be originated" . How can the Holy Spirit have two sources or originate from two sources?
From the Son" and "through the Son" are different ways to express the true doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit. A few Fathers used the formulae interchangeably (e.g., Bishop St. Hilary of Poitiers and Patriarch St. Cyril I of Alexandria). According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Greek formula directly expresses the order according to which the Father and Son are the one principle of the Holy Spirit, and implies Their equality as principle. The Latin formula directly expresses the equality of the Father and Son as principle, and implies the order. The great Byzantine Fathers had no reservations about being in communion with those great Latin Fathers and Doctors who openly and dogmatically professed Filioque. Therefore the formulae are complementary, not contradictory.


Photios thought that Filioque entails that the Holy Spirit proceeds from two principles, but because the Father and Son are one in everything in which they are not distinguished by the opposition of relation and they are not relatively opposed in their being the principle of the Holy Spirit, they are the one principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds, as St. Thomas Aquinas showed. The term principle of the Holy Spirit is a substantive name, but we do not say there are two principles because even though the Father and the Son are two supposita spirating, they are one form, God. We use principle in an indeterminate sense when we confess that the Father and the Son are the one principle of the Holy Spirit.

On the Incarnation of the Word Against the Arians 9 in PG 26:1000A: "David sings in the psalm 35:10, saying:
Quote
with You is the font of Life;'because jointly with the Father the Son is indeed the source of the Holy Spirit."

Moreover, the same Saint says in 362 ,Against the Arians 3:25:24 in PG 26:376A :
Quote
Everything the Spirit has, He has from the Word (para tou Logou)
Whatever the Spirit has includes His existence, i.e., it includes His essence and hypostasis. Ergo St. Athanasios explicitly taught that the Father, through and with the Son, communicates consubstantial divinity and thus gives existence to the Holy Spirit, without prejudice to the μοναρχία of the Father.

Archbishop St. Isidore of Seville in 636 says :
Quote
"The Holy Spirit is called God because He proceeds from the Father and the Son and has Their essence."
 "Spiritus sanctus ideo praedicatur Deus, quia ex Patre Filioque procedit, et substantiam eorum habet"
( 7:3 in PL 82:268A)

The saint adds:
Quote
"There is, however, this difference between generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, that the Son is begotten of One, but the Spirit proceeds from Both."
 "Hoc autem interest inter nascentem Filium et procedentum Spiritum sanctum, quod Filius ex uno nascitur; Spiritus sanctus ex utroque procedit." (PG 82:268C),

This, however, does not imply two principles of the Holy Spirit, according to St. Isidore, who says that the Father and the Son are the one principle of the Holy Spirit, in total conformity with the decree of Florence and the faith if the fathers:
Quote
"One thing which is consubstantial with two could not at once proceed from them and be in them, unless the two from which it proceeds were one."

"Non enim res una et duorum consubstantialis poterit simul ab eis procedere et simul inesse, nisi unum fuerit, a quibus procedit."
(The Books of Sentences 1:15:2 in PL 83:568C)
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 08:56:34 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
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,433


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #52 on: March 13, 2014, 09:20:19 AM »

The great Byzantine Fathers had no reservations about being in communion with those great Latin Fathers and Doctors who openly and dogmatically professed Filioque.
Does an "open" profession equate to a "dogmatic" profession?
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.
vasily
Warned
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #53 on: March 16, 2014, 08:08:03 AM »

I am not going to get involved into what this or that church Father might have stated, since I do not have the origin texts. The most important facts are that the filioque was not approved by an Ecumenical Council. The addition goes against the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils that decided on the church Creed. The Ecumenical Councils have spoken. Lastly, the filioque is not supported in Scripture.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #54 on: March 21, 2014, 05:28:08 PM »

The Filioque issue must include potentiality relative to apophaticism.

With the Filioque, there is potential for an infinitely-expanding pleroma of hypostases.  If the mutual love between Father and Son spirate the Holy Spirit, there is then the issue of the mutual love beteen the Father/Holy Spirit and Son/Holy Spirit; which could each then produce another hypostasis from each mutuality of love, to yield Hypostasis 4 and 5.

Then the individually-paired mutual love between Father, Son, Holy Spirit and Hypostasis 4 and 5, could all produce Hypostasis 5/6/7/8/9/10; with Hypostasis 11 produced from the mutual love between Hypostasis 4 and 5.

This could be an exponentially-expanding eternal and infinite endless pleroma of divine hypostases.  Smiley
« Last Edit: March 21, 2014, 05:28:40 PM by PneumaPsucheSoma » Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,524


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #55 on: March 21, 2014, 05:30:19 PM »

With the Filioque, there is potential for an infinitely-expanding pleroma of hypostases.  If the mutual love between Father and Son spirate the Holy Spirit, there is then the issue of the mutual love beteen the Father/Holy Spirit and Son/Holy Spirit; which could each then produce another hypostasis from each mutuality of love, to yield Hypostasis 4 and 5.

Then the individually-paired mutual love between Father, Son, Holy Spirit and Hypostasis 4 and 5, could all produce Hypostasis 5/6/7/8/9/10; with Hypostasis 11 produced from the mutual love between Hypostasis 4 and 5.

This could be an exponentially-expanding eternal and infinite endless pleroma of divine hypostases.  Smiley

It's Filioque, not an orgy.  Tongue
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
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #56 on: March 21, 2014, 05:32:40 PM »

With the Filioque, there is potential for an infinitely-expanding pleroma of hypostases.  If the mutual love between Father and Son spirate the Holy Spirit, there is then the issue of the mutual love beteen the Father/Holy Spirit and Son/Holy Spirit; which could each then produce another hypostasis from each mutuality of love, to yield Hypostasis 4 and 5.

Then the individually-paired mutual love between Father, Son, Holy Spirit and Hypostasis 4 and 5, could all produce Hypostasis 5/6/7/8/9/10; with Hypostasis 11 produced from the mutual love between Hypostasis 4 and 5.

This could be an exponentially-expanding eternal and infinite endless pleroma of divine hypostases.  Smiley

It's Filioque, not an orgy.  Tongue

Smiley  Once it starts...
Logged
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,555


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #57 on: March 21, 2014, 07:39:39 PM »


It's Filioque, not an orgy.  Tongue

POM nomination!!  laugh laugh laugh
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #58 on: March 21, 2014, 07:46:00 PM »

The great Byzantine Fathers had no reservations about being in communion with those great Latin Fathers and Doctors who openly and dogmatically professed Filioque.
Does an "open" profession equate to a "dogmatic" profession?

The word "and" is sometimes confusing.  It can mean a conjunction of two meanings into one or separate two things while addressing them at the same time.

For instance:

Ice cream is cold and sweet.

I like beer and wine.

Logged
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Anglican (Episcopal Church)
Posts: 105



« Reply #59 on: March 23, 2014, 10:46:22 PM »

If we said "from the Father and the Son indescribably," it wouldn't make a difference right?
No one has answered Hawkeye's question.  I will repeat the question in other words that I posted earlier to another thread:

At a synod held in A.D. 680 at Haethfelth, often identified with Hatfield in Hertfordshire: (http://www.hatfield-herts.co.uk/) the English bishops confessed their faith, stating that they accepted the five ecumenical councils and the first council of the Lateran, and went on to state

Quote
We glorify our Lord Jesus in such sort as [the conciliar fathers] have glorified him, adding or diminishing nothing,...glorifying God the Father without beginning, and his only-begotten Son begotten of the Father before the worlds, and the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son indescribably (glorificantes...Spiritum Sanctum procedentem ex Patre et Filio inenarrabiliter) according as these aforementioned holy apostles and prophets and teachers have proclaimed.
 
This confession was accepted as orthodox by St. Theodore, a Greek-speaking monk from Asia minor who was then serving as Archbishop of Canterbury.

Was St. Theodore wrong to accept their confession?
« Last Edit: March 23, 2014, 10:56:07 PM by Mockingbird » Logged

Forþon we sealon efestan þas Easterlican þing to asmeagenne and to gehealdanne, þaet we magon cuman to þam Easterlican daege, þe aa byð, mid fullum glaedscipe and wynsumnysse and ecere blisse.--Byrhtferth of Ramsey
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: 1,556



« Reply #60 on: March 25, 2014, 06:37:12 PM »

If we said "from the Father and the Son indescribably," it wouldn't make a difference right?
No one has answered Hawkeye's question.  I will repeat the question in other words that I posted earlier to another thread:

At a synod held in A.D. 680 at Haethfelth, often identified with Hatfield in Hertfordshire: (http://www.hatfield-herts.co.uk/) the English bishops confessed their faith, stating that they accepted the five ecumenical councils and the first council of the Lateran, and went on to state

Quote
We glorify our Lord Jesus in such sort as [the conciliar fathers] have glorified him, adding or diminishing nothing,...glorifying God the Father without beginning, and his only-begotten Son begotten of the Father before the worlds, and the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son indescribably (glorificantes...Spiritum Sanctum procedentem ex Patre et Filio inenarrabiliter) according as these aforementioned holy apostles and prophets and teachers have proclaimed.
 
This confession was accepted as orthodox by St. Theodore, a Greek-speaking monk from Asia minor who was then serving as Archbishop of Canterbury.

Was St. Theodore wrong to accept their confession?


No, because according to St. Maximus in his Letter to Marinus (if we are to take it as genuine), the Latins at that time meant by the filioque to speak of the προϊέναι (the progression) of the Spirit from the Son, but not to teach that the Son is cause of the Holy Spirit. We object to later formulations where the Son is made cause of the Holy Spirit, like at Florence.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #61 on: March 25, 2014, 08:07:16 PM »

You mean we still disagree on the Filioque?   Wink
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Laird
Not yet able to attend an Orthodox Church
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer (Catechumen soon hopefully)
Jurisdiction: Baptist
Posts: 258


Lord, have mercy on me


« Reply #62 on: March 25, 2014, 08:19:09 PM »

The great Byzantine Fathers had no reservations about being in communion with those great Latin Fathers and Doctors who openly and dogmatically professed Filioque.

No Eastern or Western Father "openly" professed the filioque like how it was proclaimed at Lyons and Florence. St. Augustine is the only Father who probably could be taken to profess the Lyonsian and Florencian filioque.
Logged
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,555


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #63 on: March 25, 2014, 10:46:46 PM »

Quote
Florencian

Florentine.  angel
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #64 on: March 26, 2014, 12:53:57 AM »

You mean we still disagree on the Filioque?   Wink

Imagine that.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #65 on: April 06, 2014, 12:05:11 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.

How about going to the original source of all theology,  the Holy Scriptures. The Bible only mentions the procession of the Holy Spirit in one passage, St. John 15:26, "But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me;" Thus the correct Biblical teaching is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son. The Greek word translated proceeds is "ἐκπορευόμενον" which means proceeds from its original source. This is the same word that is used in the Creed. The confusion comes with the Latin translation of "ἐκπορευόμενον" as  "procedit" which can mean to proceed through a mediator as through or sent by the Son. Even modern Roman Catholic theologians recognize that the words "and the Son" cannot be added to the original Greek text without committing heresy.
The truth is that after the coronation of Charlemagne in 800 the German rulers sought ways to distance themselves from Constantinople and to show that Constantinople was heretical. They used the filioque for this purpose charging that Eastern Trinitarian theology was heretical because it did not include the filioque. At first the Popes resisted. In  810 Pope Leo III had two silver shields with the original text of the Creed without the filioque hung in St. Peters in Rome to prove his point that the Creed of the Ecumenical Councils could not be changed. However, in 1014, Pope Benedict VIII, who owed his papacy to the intervention of Emperor Henry II of the Holy Roman Empire allowed the chanting of the Creed with the filioque for the first time in Rome.
Although it is possible to express the doctrine of the filioque in an Orthodox way if it means through or sent by the Son, it is not correct to teach that the Holy Spirit has its origin in the Son, because the Father and the Son both come from the Father. In Orthodox theology, we call this the monarchy of the Father. The Son is eternally begotten by the Father and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. This is the ontological Trinity. In time for our salvation, the Son sends the Holy Spirit, but the source of the Holy Spirit is still the Father alone. This the economic Trinity. The filioque mixes up the ontological Trinity with the economic Trinity. 
Thus, I believe that Rome is wrong on the filioque for three reasons. It is clear from St. John 15:26 that the Holy Spirit proceeds, that is has its origin from the Father alone. A translation should  express the intent of the authors, in this case the first two Ecumenical Councils who meant to teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. The words "and the Son" were not in the original text of the Creed as approved by the Ecumenical Councils. Finally, no one, including the Pope has the authority to change the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. Therefore the filioque clause does not belong in the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

« Last Edit: April 06, 2014, 12:09:54 AM by frjohnmorris » Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #66 on: April 07, 2014, 04:55:34 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.

How about going to the original source of all theology,  the Holy Scriptures. The Bible only mentions the procession of the Holy Spirit in one passage, St. John 15:26, "But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me;" Thus the correct Biblical teaching is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son. The Greek word translated proceeds is "ἐκπορευόμενον" which means proceeds from its original source. This is the same word that is used in the Creed. The confusion comes with the Latin translation of "ἐκπορευόμενον" as  "procedit" which can mean to proceed through a mediator as through or sent by the Son. Even modern Roman Catholic theologians recognize that the words "and the Son" cannot be added to the original Greek text without committing heresy.
The truth is that after the coronation of Charlemagne in 800 the German rulers sought ways to distance themselves from Constantinople and to show that Constantinople was heretical. They used the filioque for this purpose charging that Eastern Trinitarian theology was heretical because it did not include the filioque. At first the Popes resisted. In  810 Pope Leo III had two silver shields with the original text of the Creed without the filioque hung in St. Peters in Rome to prove his point that the Creed of the Ecumenical Councils could not be changed. However, in 1014, Pope Benedict VIII, who owed his papacy to the intervention of Emperor Henry II of the Holy Roman Empire allowed the chanting of the Creed with the filioque for the first time in Rome.
Although it is possible to express the doctrine of the filioque in an Orthodox way if it means through or sent by the Son, it is not correct to teach that the Holy Spirit has its origin in the Son, because the Father and the Son both come from the Father. In Orthodox theology, we call this the monarchy of the Father. The Son is eternally begotten by the Father and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. This is the ontological Trinity. In time for our salvation, the Son sends the Holy Spirit, but the source of the Holy Spirit is still the Father alone. This the economic Trinity. The filioque mixes up the ontological Trinity with the economic Trinity. 
Thus, I believe that Rome is wrong on the filioque for three reasons. It is clear from St. John 15:26 that the Holy Spirit proceeds, that is has its origin from the Father alone. A translation should  express the intent of the authors, in this case the first two Ecumenical Councils who meant to teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. The words "and the Son" were not in the original text of the Creed as approved by the Ecumenical Councils. Finally, no one, including the Pope has the authority to change the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. Therefore the filioque clause does not belong in the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris


Poignant.  Cogent.  Concise.  Accurate.  Insightful.  Simple.  And the truth of the one holy faith.
Logged
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #67 on: April 10, 2014, 04:31:47 PM »

Can't we all just get along and say: "...Who proceeds from the Father though the Son"?   Undecided
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
OC.net guru
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 1,511


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


« Reply #68 on: April 10, 2014, 04:42:18 PM »

Can't we all just get along and say: "...Who proceeds from the Father though the Son"?   Undecided

We can say that but not in the Creed in Church.  To say it in the Creed in Church requires approval of an Ecumenical Council.  Only an Ecumenical Council can amend the creed, theoretically.  A mere pope, being only a bishop albeit one with some measure of primacy, has no power to do so. 
Logged
ilyazhito
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 862



« Reply #69 on: April 10, 2014, 06:28:26 PM »

If even the Patriarch of Constantinople, who is primus inter paribus cannot change the Creed without the approval of an Ecumenical Council (which he probably cannot get) then how did whoever was Pope in the 10th century dare to change the creed?
Logged
Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
OC.net guru
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 1,511


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


« Reply #70 on: April 10, 2014, 06:30:43 PM »

If even the Patriarch of Constantinople, who is primus inter paribus cannot change the Creed without the approval of an Ecumenical Council (which he probably cannot get) then how did whoever was Pope in the 10th century dare to change the creed?

Because he thought he was above all councils as the successor of St. Peter.  He had also created a rival Roman Empire under the Franks in an attempt to supplant the original one which was still functioning in the east.  By the 11th century, however, the Popes were tame compared to how they acted in the 10th.  
« Last Edit: April 10, 2014, 06:31:04 PM by Yurysprudentsiya » Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #71 on: April 10, 2014, 09:26:33 PM »

Can't we all just get along and say: "...Who proceeds from the Father though the Son"?   Undecided

We can get along, but we Eastern Orthodox cannot compromise the Faith of the Church. You can be perfectly Orthodox and teach that the Father proceeds through the Son, many Eastern Fathers have written that. However, when we are dealing with the Creed of the Church, no one has the authority to change the words approved by the 7 Ecumenical Councils which are the infallible voice of the ancient undivided Church. The beliefs and practices of the ancient Church of the Holy Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils is the standard in Eastern Orthodoxy, from which we will not deviate.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #72 on: April 10, 2014, 10:07:15 PM »

Can't we all just get along and say: "...Who proceeds from the Father though the Son"?   Undecided

Remember that the purpose for the addition to the Creed by Constantinople I was against the extreme Pneumatomachians and their "graded Triad."  They are the first to utilize "from the Son" referring to the Holy Spirit.  It is for this reason even St. Damasus of Rome wrote that the Spirit in His existence as a person originates from the Father, while elsewhere acknowledging that the Spirit is sent in time by the Father through the Son.  Of course, in the West, Arianism for centuries continued to be a problem, while Pneumatomachianism died out after Constantinople I.   The mission of the Spirit then became evidence that the Son was Divine. 
Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,101


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


« Reply #73 on: April 11, 2014, 10:40:26 AM »

I am not going to get involved into what this or that church Father might have stated, since I do not have the origin texts. The most important facts are that the filioque was not approved by an Ecumenical Council. The addition goes against the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils that decided on the church Creed. The Ecumenical Councils have spoken. Lastly, the filioque is not supported in Scripture.

I think that the Ecumenical Fathers were very explicit when they said that any changes, additions or omissions to the approved Creed was anathema. .........Period.
No amount of gymnastics , jumping through hoops, by trying to convince us that a NON Ecumenical approved term should be acceptable.  Even IF the RCC is correct, which we know they aren't, it would still require the acceptance of the church.  We understand the origin of the "and the Son" and why it was done to combat Arianism in Spain.  But, my question is: when this Heresy abated why did not the western church then revert back to its original Ecumenical approved Creed? 

It really not any more simple than that.....The Western church before Toledo was reciting the original text of the creed, and now they don't.
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: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #74 on: April 11, 2014, 01:47:03 PM »

I am not going to get involved into what this or that church Father might have stated, since I do not have the origin texts. The most important facts are that the filioque was not approved by an Ecumenical Council. The addition goes against the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils that decided on the church Creed. The Ecumenical Councils have spoken. Lastly, the filioque is not supported in Scripture.

I think that the Ecumenical Fathers were very explicit when they said that any changes, additions or omissions to the approved Creed was anathema. .........Period.
No amount of gymnastics , jumping through hoops, by trying to convince us that a NON Ecumenical approved term should be acceptable.  Even IF the RCC is correct, which we know they aren't, it would still require the acceptance of the church.  We understand the origin of the "and the Son" and why it was done to combat Arianism in Spain.  But, my question is: when this Heresy abated why did not the western church then revert back to its original Ecumenical approved Creed?  

It really not any more simple than that.....The Western church before Toledo was reciting the original text of the creed, and now they don't.

The Council banned changes to the faith of the creed, not the words of the creed itself. Then again I could be wrong (I'm working off memory here sorry)

Further The Council of Ephesus made this ban in reference to the creed of Nicaea, not of Constantinople.
So by your own logic, you orthodox are anathematized  Undecided

Ephesus's prohibition of making a new creed in addition to the Nicene prompted questions about the status of the material added by Constantinople I. How this material was to be regarded was settled at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon which stated:


Quote
Therefore this sacred and great and universal synod . . . decrees that the creed of the 318 fathers is, above all else, to remain inviolate. And because of those who oppose the Holy Spirit, it ratifies the teaching about the being of the Holy Spirit handed down by the 150 saintly fathers who met some time later in the imperial city--the teaching they made known to all, not introducing anything left out by their predecessors, but clarifying their ideas about the Holy Spirit. (Definition of the Faith).

According to Chalcedon, it was permissible for the Fathers of Constantinople I to include the material on the Holy Spirit in the Creed of Nicaea. They were not adding substance but clarifying what was already there. Yet if this option of making clarifying notations to the creed was permissible for them, it would be permissible for others also. Nevermind that the ecumenical (in catholic eyes) Council of Florence added "filioque" legitimately as a clarification of the manner of the Spirit's procession.

Also according to your logic, the council fathers at Constantinople were at least anathematized for a period of time as the council of Constantinople was initially a local council ,just like Toledo, that added to the creed and only gained ecumenical status years later
« Last Edit: April 11, 2014, 02:09:23 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
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #75 on: April 11, 2014, 03:31:36 PM »

I am not going to get involved into what this or that church Father might have stated, since I do not have the origin texts. The most important facts are that the filioque was not approved by an Ecumenical Council. The addition goes against the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils that decided on the church Creed. The Ecumenical Councils have spoken. Lastly, the filioque is not supported in Scripture.

I think that the Ecumenical Fathers were very explicit when they said that any changes, additions or omissions to the approved Creed was anathema. .........Period.
No amount of gymnastics , jumping through hoops, by trying to convince us that a NON Ecumenical approved term should be acceptable.  Even IF the RCC is correct, which we know they aren't, it would still require the acceptance of the church.  We understand the origin of the "and the Son" and why it was done to combat Arianism in Spain.  But, my question is: when this Heresy abated why did not the western church then revert back to its original Ecumenical approved Creed? 

It really not any more simple than that.....The Western church before Toledo was reciting the original text of the creed, and now they don't.

The Council banned changes to the faith of the creed, not the words of the creed itself. Then again I could be wrong (I'm working off memory here sorry)

Further The Council of Ephesus made this ban in reference to the creed of Nicaea, not of Constantinople.
So by your own logic, you orthodox are anathematized  Undecided

Ephesus's prohibition of making a new creed in addition to the Nicene prompted questions about the status of the material added by Constantinople I. How this material was to be regarded was settled at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon which stated:


Quote
Therefore this sacred and great and universal synod . . . decrees that the creed of the 318 fathers is, above all else, to remain inviolate. And because of those who oppose the Holy Spirit, it ratifies the teaching about the being of the Holy Spirit handed down by the 150 saintly fathers who met some time later in the imperial city--the teaching they made known to all, not introducing anything left out by their predecessors, but clarifying their ideas about the Holy Spirit. (Definition of the Faith).

According to Chalcedon, it was permissible for the Fathers of Constantinople I to include the material on the Holy Spirit in the Creed of Nicaea. They were not adding substance but clarifying what was already there. Yet if this option of making clarifying notations to the creed was permissible for them, it would be permissible for others also. Nevermind that the ecumenical (in catholic eyes) Council of Florence added "filioque" legitimately as a clarification of the manner of the Spirit's procession.

Also according to your logic, the council fathers at Constantinople were at least anathematized for a period of time as the council of Constantinople was initially a local council ,just like Toledo, that added to the creed and only gained ecumenical status years later

Only an Ecumenical Council has the authority to change or add words to  the Creed adopted by the First Ecumenical Council, Nicaea I in 325. Therefore as an Ecumenical Council, Constantinople I in 381 had full authority to add the final clause to the Creed adopted at Nicaea I in 325. After Constantinople I, the other 5 Ecumenical Councils ruled that no further changes could be made in the Creed. The West had no right to tamper with the Creed of the Church. The West should have translated the Creed exactly as it was approved with no further additions. It is clear from reading the records of the Ecumenical Councils, that Rome was subject to,  not above the Ecumenical Councils.
The Council of Florence was not an Ecumenical Council and was officially repudiated by the Council of Constantinople in 1484. Therefore, an appeal to Florence falls on deaf ears when made to Eastern Orthodox Christians.
This goes to the heart of the dispute between East and West. The Bishop of Rome had no more authority than any other Patriarch. Rome had only a primacy of honor and no more in the age of the ancient undivided Church.  The Pope did not have universal jurisdiction, had no right to interfere in the internal affairs of the other Patriarchs, and had to obey the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. The claims of the modern papacy cannot be supported by a study of the history of the Church before the Western Schism.

Fr. John W. Morris
« Last Edit: April 11, 2014, 03:40:33 PM by frjohnmorris » Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,101


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


« Reply #76 on: April 12, 2014, 09:19:05 AM »

The Filioque only caused more questions with regards to the Eastern Christian church.  And as you say, if we were anathemized, it was the Church that was anathemized ie East and West before Constantinople, which I certainly doubt. 
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #77 on: April 12, 2014, 01:48:10 PM »

I am not going to get involved into what this or that church Father might have stated, since I do not have the origin texts. The most important facts are that the filioque was not approved by an Ecumenical Council. The addition goes against the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils that decided on the church Creed. The Ecumenical Councils have spoken. Lastly, the filioque is not supported in Scripture.

I think that the Ecumenical Fathers were very explicit when they said that any changes, additions or omissions to the approved Creed was anathema. .........Period.
No amount of gymnastics , jumping through hoops, by trying to convince us that a NON Ecumenical approved term should be acceptable.  Even IF the RCC is correct, which we know they aren't, it would still require the acceptance of the church.  We understand the origin of the "and the Son" and why it was done to combat Arianism in Spain.  But, my question is: when this Heresy abated why did not the western church then revert back to its original Ecumenical approved Creed? 

It really not any more simple than that.....The Western church before Toledo was reciting the original text of the creed, and now they don't.

The Council banned changes to the faith of the creed, not the words of the creed itself. Then again I could be wrong (I'm working off memory here sorry)

Further The Council of Ephesus made this ban in reference to the creed of Nicaea, not of Constantinople.
So by your own logic, you orthodox are anathematized  Undecided

Ephesus's prohibition of making a new creed in addition to the Nicene prompted questions about the status of the material added by Constantinople I. How this material was to be regarded was settled at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon which stated:


Quote
Therefore this sacred and great and universal synod . . . decrees that the creed of the 318 fathers is, above all else, to remain inviolate. And because of those who oppose the Holy Spirit, it ratifies the teaching about the being of the Holy Spirit handed down by the 150 saintly fathers who met some time later in the imperial city--the teaching they made known to all, not introducing anything left out by their predecessors, but clarifying their ideas about the Holy Spirit. (Definition of the Faith).

According to Chalcedon, it was permissible for the Fathers of Constantinople I to include the material on the Holy Spirit in the Creed of Nicaea. They were not adding substance but clarifying what was already there. Yet if this option of making clarifying notations to the creed was permissible for them, it would be permissible for others also. Nevermind that the ecumenical (in catholic eyes) Council of Florence added "filioque" legitimately as a clarification of the manner of the Spirit's procession.

Also according to your logic, the council fathers at Constantinople were at least anathematized for a period of time as the council of Constantinople was initially a local council ,just like Toledo, that added to the creed and only gained ecumenical status years later

Only an Ecumenical Council has the authority to change or add words to  the Creed adopted by the First Ecumenical Council, Nicaea I in 325. Therefore as an Ecumenical Council, Constantinople I in 381 had full authority to add the final clause to the Creed adopted at Nicaea I in 325. After Constantinople I, the other 5 Ecumenical Councils ruled that no further changes could be made in the Creed. The West had no right to tamper with the Creed of the Church. The West should have translated the Creed exactly as it was approved with no further additions. It is clear from reading the records of the Ecumenical Councils, that Rome was subject to,  not above the Ecumenical Councils.
The Council of Florence was not an Ecumenical Council and was officially repudiated by the Council of Constantinople in 1484. Therefore, an appeal to Florence falls on deaf ears when made to Eastern Orthodox Christians.
This goes to the heart of the dispute between East and West. The Bishop of Rome had no more authority than any other Patriarch. Rome had only a primacy of honor and no more in the age of the ancient undivided Church.  The Pope did not have universal jurisdiction, had no right to interfere in the internal affairs of the other Patriarchs, and had to obey the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. The claims of the modern papacy cannot be supported by a study of the history of the Church before the Western Schism.

Fr. John W. Morris

A thousand thousand amens.
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: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #78 on: April 15, 2014, 01:33:08 AM »

The Filioque only caused more questions with regards to the Eastern Christian church.  And as you say, if we were anathemized, it was the Church that was anathemized ie East and West before Constantinople, which I certainly doubt. 

Nope just the eastern bishops at Constantinople as it was local council for many years before it gained ecumenical status. So did these bishops have the authority to do so?
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: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #79 on: April 15, 2014, 01:35:11 AM »

I am not going to get involved into what this or that church Father might have stated, since I do not have the origin texts. The most important facts are that the filioque was not approved by an Ecumenical Council. The addition goes against the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils that decided on the church Creed. The Ecumenical Councils have spoken. Lastly, the filioque is not supported in Scripture.

I think that the Ecumenical Fathers were very explicit when they said that any changes, additions or omissions to the approved Creed was anathema. .........Period.
No amount of gymnastics , jumping through hoops, by trying to convince us that a NON Ecumenical approved term should be acceptable.  Even IF the RCC is correct, which we know they aren't, it would still require the acceptance of the church.  We understand the origin of the "and the Son" and why it was done to combat Arianism in Spain.  But, my question is: when this Heresy abated why did not the western church then revert back to its original Ecumenical approved Creed? 

It really not any more simple than that.....The Western church before Toledo was reciting the original text of the creed, and now they don't.

The Council banned changes to the faith of the creed, not the words of the creed itself. Then again I could be wrong (I'm working off memory here sorry)

Further The Council of Ephesus made this ban in reference to the creed of Nicaea, not of Constantinople.
So by your own logic, you orthodox are anathematized  Undecided

Ephesus's prohibition of making a new creed in addition to the Nicene prompted questions about the status of the material added by Constantinople I. How this material was to be regarded was settled at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon which stated:


Quote
Therefore this sacred and great and universal synod . . . decrees that the creed of the 318 fathers is, above all else, to remain inviolate. And because of those who oppose the Holy Spirit, it ratifies the teaching about the being of the Holy Spirit handed down by the 150 saintly fathers who met some time later in the imperial city--the teaching they made known to all, not introducing anything left out by their predecessors, but clarifying their ideas about the Holy Spirit. (Definition of the Faith).

According to Chalcedon, it was permissible for the Fathers of Constantinople I to include the material on the Holy Spirit in the Creed of Nicaea. They were not adding substance but clarifying what was already there. Yet if this option of making clarifying notations to the creed was permissible for them, it would be permissible for others also. Nevermind that the ecumenical (in catholic eyes) Council of Florence added "filioque" legitimately as a clarification of the manner of the Spirit's procession.

Also according to your logic, the council fathers at Constantinople were at least anathematized for a period of time as the council of Constantinople was initially a local council ,just like Toledo, that added to the creed and only gained ecumenical status years later

Only an Ecumenical Council has the authority to change or add words to  the Creed adopted by the First Ecumenical Council, Nicaea I in 325. Therefore as an Ecumenical Council, Constantinople I in 381 had full authority to add the final clause to the Creed adopted at Nicaea I in 325. After Constantinople I, the other 5 Ecumenical Councils ruled that no further changes could be made in the Creed. The West had no right to tamper with the Creed of the Church. The West should have translated the Creed exactly as it was approved with no further additions. It is clear from reading the records of the Ecumenical Councils, that Rome was subject to,  not above the Ecumenical Councils.
The Council of Florence was not an Ecumenical Council and was officially repudiated by the Council of Constantinople in 1484. Therefore, an appeal to Florence falls on deaf ears when made to Eastern Orthodox Christians.
This goes to the heart of the dispute between East and West. The Bishop of Rome had no more authority than any other Patriarch. Rome had only a primacy of honor and no more in the age of the ancient undivided Church.  The Pope did not have universal jurisdiction, had no right to interfere in the internal affairs of the other Patriarchs, and had to obey the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. The claims of the modern papacy cannot be supported by a study of the history of the Church before the Western Schism.

Fr. John W. Morris

Florence was ecumenical. But obviously you won't agree. Do you at least admit Constantinople I was local for many years before it achieved ecumenical status/
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
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,101


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


« Reply #80 on: April 15, 2014, 07:35:41 AM »

I am not going to get involved into what this or that church Father might have stated, since I do not have the origin texts. The most important facts are that the filioque was not approved by an Ecumenical Council. The addition goes against the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils that decided on the church Creed. The Ecumenical Councils have spoken. Lastly, the filioque is not supported in Scripture.

I think that the Ecumenical Fathers were very explicit when they said that any changes, additions or omissions to the approved Creed was anathema. .........Period.
No amount of gymnastics , jumping through hoops, by trying to convince us that a NON Ecumenical approved term should be acceptable.  Even IF the RCC is correct, which we know they aren't, it would still require the acceptance of the church.  We understand the origin of the "and the Son" and why it was done to combat Arianism in Spain.  But, my question is: when this Heresy abated why did not the western church then revert back to its original Ecumenical approved Creed? 

It really not any more simple than that.....The Western church before Toledo was reciting the original text of the creed, and now they don't.

The Council banned changes to the faith of the creed, not the words of the creed itself. Then again I could be wrong (I'm working off memory here sorry)

Further The Council of Ephesus made this ban in reference to the creed of Nicaea, not of Constantinople.
So by your own logic, you orthodox are anathematized  Undecided

Ephesus's prohibition of making a new creed in addition to the Nicene prompted questions about the status of the material added by Constantinople I. How this material was to be regarded was settled at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon which stated:


Quote
Therefore this sacred and great and universal synod . . . decrees that the creed of the 318 fathers is, above all else, to remain inviolate. And because of those who oppose the Holy Spirit, it ratifies the teaching about the being of the Holy Spirit handed down by the 150 saintly fathers who met some time later in the imperial city--the teaching they made known to all, not introducing anything left out by their predecessors, but clarifying their ideas about the Holy Spirit. (Definition of the Faith).

According to Chalcedon, it was permissible for the Fathers of Constantinople I to include the material on the Holy Spirit in the Creed of Nicaea. They were not adding substance but clarifying what was already there. Yet if this option of making clarifying notations to the creed was permissible for them, it would be permissible for others also. Nevermind that the ecumenical (in catholic eyes) Council of Florence added "filioque" legitimately as a clarification of the manner of the Spirit's procession.

Also according to your logic, the council fathers at Constantinople were at least anathematized for a period of time as the council of Constantinople was initially a local council ,just like Toledo, that added to the creed and only gained ecumenical status years later

Only an Ecumenical Council has the authority to change or add words to  the Creed adopted by the First Ecumenical Council, Nicaea I in 325. Therefore as an Ecumenical Council, Constantinople I in 381 had full authority to add the final clause to the Creed adopted at Nicaea I in 325. After Constantinople I, the other 5 Ecumenical Councils ruled that no further changes could be made in the Creed. The West had no right to tamper with the Creed of the Church. The West should have translated the Creed exactly as it was approved with no further additions. It is clear from reading the records of the Ecumenical Councils, that Rome was subject to,  not above the Ecumenical Councils.
The Council of Florence was not an Ecumenical Council and was officially repudiated by the Council of Constantinople in 1484. Therefore, an appeal to Florence falls on deaf ears when made to Eastern Orthodox Christians.
This goes to the heart of the dispute between East and West. The Bishop of Rome had no more authority than any other Patriarch. Rome had only a primacy of honor and no more in the age of the ancient undivided Church.  The Pope did not have universal jurisdiction, had no right to interfere in the internal affairs of the other Patriarchs, and had to obey the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. The claims of the modern papacy cannot be supported by a study of the history of the Church before the Western Schism.

Fr. John W. Morris

Florence was ecumenical. But obviously you won't agree. Do you at least admit Constantinople I was local for many years before it achieved ecumenical status/

The Orthodox Church only recognizes 7 Councils to be Ecumenical.....I think you know that already.  I don't know of any council that started off by being Ecumenical.  They gain that status later on....
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #81 on: April 15, 2014, 09:18:24 AM »

The Filioque only caused more questions with regards to the Eastern Christian church.  And as you say, if we were anathemized, it was the Church that was anathemized ie East and West before Constantinople, which I certainly doubt. 

Nope just the eastern bishops at Constantinople as it was local council for many years before it gained ecumenical status. So did these bishops have the authority to do so?

A council only becomes ecumenical after it is recognized by the Church as an Ecumenical Council, the whole Church, not just Rome. Regardless of who was at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, it was recognized by the Church and the remaining 5 Ecumenical Councils as an Ecumenical Council.  The other 5 Ecumenical Councils also ruled that there could be no changes in the Creed as adopted at Nicaea I and amended by I Constantinople. The West had no authority to change or add words to the Creed ratified by the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Even the Popes before 1014 agreed that the filioque could no legitimately be added to the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #82 on: April 17, 2014, 02:53:39 AM »

The Filioque only caused more questions with regards to the Eastern Christian church.  And as you say, if we were anathemized, it was the Church that was anathemized ie East and West before Constantinople, which I certainly doubt. 

Nope just the eastern bishops at Constantinople as it was local council for many years before it gained ecumenical status. So did these bishops have the authority to do so?

A council only becomes ecumenical after it is recognized by the Church as an Ecumenical Council, the whole Church, not just Rome. Regardless of who was at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, it was recognized by the Church and the remaining 5 Ecumenical Councils as an Ecumenical Council.  The other 5 Ecumenical Councils also ruled that there could be no changes in the Creed as adopted at Nicaea I and amended by I Constantinople. The West had no authority to change or add words to the Creed ratified by the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Even the Popes before 1014 agreed that the filioque could no legitimately be added to the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

Amen and amen.  And it's an issue of ontological procession rather than the Filioque's economic procession.  The hypostases all underlie the singular ousia, with the Father as the only uncaused cause.

Maybe you could elaborate further on that relative to the Latins.
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: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #83 on: April 20, 2014, 12:32:19 PM »

The Filioque only caused more questions with regards to the Eastern Christian church.  And as you say, if we were anathemized, it was the Church that was anathemized ie East and West before Constantinople, which I certainly doubt.  

Nope just the eastern bishops at Constantinople as it was local council for many years before it gained ecumenical status. So did these bishops have the authority to do so?

A council only becomes ecumenical after it is recognized by the Church as an Ecumenical Council, the whole Church, not just Rome.

That's not the point. Nicaea was ecumenical from the get go. Constantinople was not... It was local synod of 150 eastern bishops who changed the creed of nicaea. It only later became ecumenical. The issue is why would a bunch of bishops convening local council dare to change the creed? It is immaterial that it became ecumenical later. It would only be material if it was ecumenical from the beginning, but it was not. It was local, just like Toledo and did th exact same thing Toledo did.

Quote
Regardless of who was at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, it was recognized by the Church and the remaining 5 Ecumenical Councils as an Ecumenical Council.  The other 5 Ecumenical Councils also ruled that there could be no changes in the Creed as adopted at Nicaea I and amended by I Constantinople. The West had no authority to change or add words to the Creed ratified by the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Even the Popes before 1014 agreed that the filioque could no legitimately be added to the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

I only know of the ban on the creed of Nicaea, not on the Constantinople-nicaea creed.

Popes like Leo III banned the filioque inclusion (Not its theology) because they knew it would upset Greeks and church unity.

Its funny that if the unanimous understanding was that no word may be added to the creed then why were so many in the west comfortable with adding the filioque clause? Why were the Armenians so comfortable with having other additions in the creed despite recognizing the Council of Ephesus?
« Last Edit: April 20, 2014, 12:39:48 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
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,101


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


« Reply #84 on: April 20, 2014, 12:41:21 PM »

The Filioque only caused more questions with regards to the Eastern Christian church.  And as you say, if we were anathemized, it was the Church that was anathemized ie East and West before Constantinople, which I certainly doubt.  

Nope just the eastern bishops at Constantinople as it was local council for many years before it gained ecumenical status. So did these bishops have the authority to do so?

A council only becomes ecumenical after it is recognized by the Church as an Ecumenical Council, the whole Church, not just Rome.

That's not the point. Nicaea was ecumenical from the get go. Constantinople was not... It was local synod of 150 eastern bishops who changed the creed of nicaea. It only later became ecumenical. The issue is why would a bunch of bishops convening local council dare to change the creed? It is immaterial that it became ecumenical later. It would only be material if it was ecumenical from the beginning, but it was not. It was local, just like Toledo and did th exact same thing Toledo did.

Quote
Regardless of who was at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, it was recognized by the Church and the remaining 5 Ecumenical Councils as an Ecumenical Council.  The other 5 Ecumenical Councils also ruled that there could be no changes in the Creed as adopted at Nicaea I and amended by I Constantinople. The West had no authority to change or add words to the Creed ratified by the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Even the Popes before 1014 agreed that the filioque could no legitimately be added to the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

I only know of the ban on the creed of Nicaea, not on the Constantinople-nicaea creed.

Popes like Leo III banned the filioque inclusion (Not its theology) because they knee it would upset Greeks and church unity. Its funny that if the unanimous understanding was that no word may be added to the creed then why were so many in the west comfortable with adding the filioque clause? Why were the Armenians so comfortable with having other additions in the creed despite recognizing the Council of Ephesus?

I personally don't see why we are even arguing the point here.  Given what we know as Orthodox any argument to the contrary isn't going to fly anywhere.  So all you arguments are more for convincing yourselves and not us.   East is East, and West is West, and........ so the saying goes.  I'm fine , your fine. I guess we can leave it at that.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #85 on: April 20, 2014, 01:02:15 PM »

The Filioque only caused more questions with regards to the Eastern Christian church.  And as you say, if we were anathemized, it was the Church that was anathemized ie East and West before Constantinople, which I certainly doubt.  

Nope just the eastern bishops at Constantinople as it was local council for many years before it gained ecumenical status. So did these bishops have the authority to do so?

A council only becomes ecumenical after it is recognized by the Church as an Ecumenical Council, the whole Church, not just Rome.

That's not the point. Nicaea was ecumenical from the get go. Constantinople was not... It was local synod of 150 eastern bishops who changed the creed of nicaea. It only later became ecumenical. The issue is why would a bunch of bishops convening local council dare to change the creed? It is immaterial that it became ecumenical later. It would only be material if it was ecumenical from the beginning, but it was not. It was local, just like Toledo and did th exact same thing Toledo did.

Quote
Regardless of who was at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, it was recognized by the Church and the remaining 5 Ecumenical Councils as an Ecumenical Council.  The other 5 Ecumenical Councils also ruled that there could be no changes in the Creed as adopted at Nicaea I and amended by I Constantinople. The West had no authority to change or add words to the Creed ratified by the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Even the Popes before 1014 agreed that the filioque could no legitimately be added to the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

I only know of the ban on the creed of Nicaea, not on the Constantinople-nicaea creed.

Popes like Leo III banned the filioque inclusion (Not its theology) because they knee it would upset Greeks and church unity. Its funny that if the unanimous understanding was that no word may be added to the creed then why were so many in the west comfortable with adding the filioque clause? Why were the Armenians so comfortable with having other additions in the creed despite recognizing the Council of Ephesus?

I personally don't see why we are even arguing the point here.  Given what we know as Orthodox any argument to the contrary isn't going to fly anywhere.  So all you arguments are more for convincing yourselves and not us.   East is East, and West is West, and........ so the saying goes.  I'm fine , your fine. I guess we can leave it at that.

Then I guess the Protestants are all fine, too.  There aren't two Orthodoxies, and there certainly can't be thousands.

There's a difference between ontological and economic procession, and whether such was singular or dual.  It's not merely semantics, as Miaphysitism could potentially be considered in Christology.

No matter how small someone attempts to make the difference, ontology and economy are distinct relative to procession.  And all should be speaking the same thing, whatever that same thing is.
Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,101


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


« Reply #86 on: April 20, 2014, 01:53:29 PM »

The Filioque only caused more questions with regards to the Eastern Christian church.  And as you say, if we were anathemized, it was the Church that was anathemized ie East and West before Constantinople, which I certainly doubt.  

Nope just the eastern bishops at Constantinople as it was local council for many years before it gained ecumenical status. So did these bishops have the authority to do so?

A council only becomes ecumenical after it is recognized by the Church as an Ecumenical Council, the whole Church, not just Rome.

That's not the point. Nicaea was ecumenical from the get go. Constantinople was not... It was local synod of 150 eastern bishops who changed the creed of nicaea. It only later became ecumenical. The issue is why would a bunch of bishops convening local council dare to change the creed? It is immaterial that it became ecumenical later. It would only be material if it was ecumenical from the beginning, but it was not. It was local, just like Toledo and did th exact same thing Toledo did.

Quote
Regardless of who was at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, it was recognized by the Church and the remaining 5 Ecumenical Councils as an Ecumenical Council.  The other 5 Ecumenical Councils also ruled that there could be no changes in the Creed as adopted at Nicaea I and amended by I Constantinople. The West had no authority to change or add words to the Creed ratified by the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Even the Popes before 1014 agreed that the filioque could no legitimately be added to the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

I only know of the ban on the creed of Nicaea, not on the Constantinople-nicaea creed.

Popes like Leo III banned the filioque inclusion (Not its theology) because they knee it would upset Greeks and church unity. Its funny that if the unanimous understanding was that no word may be added to the creed then why were so many in the west comfortable with adding the filioque clause? Why were the Armenians so comfortable with having other additions in the creed despite recognizing the Council of Ephesus?

I personally don't see why we are even arguing the point here.  Given what we know as Orthodox any argument to the contrary isn't going to fly anywhere.  So all you arguments are more for convincing yourselves and not us.   East is East, and West is West, and........ so the saying goes.  I'm fine , your fine. I guess we can leave it at that.

Then I guess the Protestants are all fine, too.  There aren't two Orthodoxies, and there certainly can't be thousands.

There's a difference between ontological and economic procession, and whether such was singular or dual.  It's not merely semantics, as Miaphysitism could potentially be considered in Christology.

No matter how small someone attempts to make the difference, ontology and economy are distinct relative to procession.  And all should be speaking the same thing, whatever that same thing is.

All im saying is that this Filioque thingy is getting old on Orthodox forums, and my opinion is that the RC's are trying to sway the fence straddlers into thinking that 'we all worship the same God'.  We complain about the RC's dissecting and getting legalistic in their arguments, and they we go and do the same thing to justify our arguments.  I say fine, you guys go your way, and we will go ours.   There is only one and only Holy Orthodoxy, am im part of it.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #87 on: April 20, 2014, 02:27:02 PM »

The Filioque only caused more questions with regards to the Eastern Christian church.  And as you say, if we were anathemized, it was the Church that was anathemized ie East and West before Constantinople, which I certainly doubt.  

Nope just the eastern bishops at Constantinople as it was local council for many years before it gained ecumenical status. So did these bishops have the authority to do so?

A council only becomes ecumenical after it is recognized by the Church as an Ecumenical Council, the whole Church, not just Rome.

That's not the point. Nicaea was ecumenical from the get go. Constantinople was not... It was local synod of 150 eastern bishops who changed the creed of nicaea. It only later became ecumenical. The issue is why would a bunch of bishops convening local council dare to change the creed? It is immaterial that it became ecumenical later. It would only be material if it was ecumenical from the beginning, but it was not. It was local, just like Toledo and did th exact same thing Toledo did.

Quote
Regardless of who was at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, it was recognized by the Church and the remaining 5 Ecumenical Councils as an Ecumenical Council.  The other 5 Ecumenical Councils also ruled that there could be no changes in the Creed as adopted at Nicaea I and amended by I Constantinople. The West had no authority to change or add words to the Creed ratified by the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Even the Popes before 1014 agreed that the filioque could no legitimately be added to the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

I only know of the ban on the creed of Nicaea, not on the Constantinople-nicaea creed.

Popes like Leo III banned the filioque inclusion (Not its theology) because they knee it would upset Greeks and church unity. Its funny that if the unanimous understanding was that no word may be added to the creed then why were so many in the west comfortable with adding the filioque clause? Why were the Armenians so comfortable with having other additions in the creed despite recognizing the Council of Ephesus?

I personally don't see why we are even arguing the point here.  Given what we know as Orthodox any argument to the contrary isn't going to fly anywhere.  So all you arguments are more for convincing yourselves and not us.   East is East, and West is West, and........ so the saying goes.  I'm fine , your fine. I guess we can leave it at that.

Then I guess the Protestants are all fine, too.  There aren't two Orthodoxies, and there certainly can't be thousands.

There's a difference between ontological and economic procession, and whether such was singular or dual.  It's not merely semantics, as Miaphysitism could potentially be considered in Christology.

No matter how small someone attempts to make the difference, ontology and economy are distinct relative to procession.  And all should be speaking the same thing, whatever that same thing is.

All im saying is that this Filioque thingy is getting old on Orthodox forums, and my opinion is that the RC's are trying to sway the fence straddlers into thinking that 'we all worship the same God'.  We complain about the RC's dissecting and getting legalistic in their arguments, and they we go and do the same thing to justify our arguments.  I say fine, you guys go your way, and we will go ours.   There is only one and only Holy Orthodoxy, am im part of it.

Ah, thank you.  I suppose I had misunderstood your point.  Smiley
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #88 on: April 20, 2014, 02:31:46 PM »

The Filioque only caused more questions with regards to the Eastern Christian church.  And as you say, if we were anathemized, it was the Church that was anathemized ie East and West before Constantinople, which I certainly doubt. 

Nope just the eastern bishops at Constantinople as it was local council for many years before it gained ecumenical status. So did these bishops have the authority to do so?

A council only becomes ecumenical after it is recognized by the Church as an Ecumenical Council, the whole Church, not just Rome.

That's not the point. Nicaea was ecumenical from the get go. Constantinople was not... It was local synod of 150 eastern bishops who changed the creed of nicaea. It only later became ecumenical. The issue is why would a bunch of bishops convening local council dare to change the creed? It is immaterial that it became ecumenical later. It would only be material if it was ecumenical from the beginning, but it was not. It was local, just like Toledo and did th exact same thing Toledo did.

Quote
Regardless of who was at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, it was recognized by the Church and the remaining 5 Ecumenical Councils as an Ecumenical Council.  The other 5 Ecumenical Councils also ruled that there could be no changes in the Creed as adopted at Nicaea I and amended by I Constantinople. The West had no authority to change or add words to the Creed ratified by the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Even the Popes before 1014 agreed that the filioque could no legitimately be added to the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

I only know of the ban on the creed of Nicaea, not on the Constantinople-nicaea creed.

Popes like Leo III banned the filioque inclusion (Not its theology) because they knew it would upset Greeks and church unity.

Its funny that if the unanimous understanding was that no word may be added to the creed then why were so many in the west comfortable with adding the filioque clause? Why were the Armenians so comfortable with having other additions in the creed despite recognizing the Council of Ephesus?

No Council is ecumenical until it is recognized by the Church, or as you put it from the get go. The Council of Toledo was not recognized as an Ecumenical Council, Constantinople I was. Ephesus and the rest of the 7 Ecumenical Councils made it clear that no further changes or additions would be made to the Creed as written by Nicaea I and Constantinople I. My answer is that the West was arrogant and wrong to unilaterally change the Creed of the Church, especially after St. Photius had made it clear that the East strongly objected to the Western changes in the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris
« Last Edit: April 20, 2014, 02:35:44 PM by frjohnmorris » 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: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #89 on: April 20, 2014, 02:41:18 PM »

The Filioque only caused more questions with regards to the Eastern Christian church.  And as you say, if we were anathemized, it was the Church that was anathemized ie East and West before Constantinople, which I certainly doubt.  

Nope just the eastern bishops at Constantinople as it was local council for many years before it gained ecumenical status. So did these bishops have the authority to do so?

A council only becomes ecumenical after it is recognized by the Church as an Ecumenical Council, the whole Church, not just Rome.

That's not the point. Nicaea was ecumenical from the get go. Constantinople was not... It was local synod of 150 eastern bishops who changed the creed of nicaea. It only later became ecumenical. The issue is why would a bunch of bishops convening local council dare to change the creed? It is immaterial that it became ecumenical later. It would only be material if it was ecumenical from the beginning, but it was not. It was local, just like Toledo and did th exact same thing Toledo did.

Quote
Regardless of who was at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, it was recognized by the Church and the remaining 5 Ecumenical Councils as an Ecumenical Council.  The other 5 Ecumenical Councils also ruled that there could be no changes in the Creed as adopted at Nicaea I and amended by I Constantinople. The West had no authority to change or add words to the Creed ratified by the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Even the Popes before 1014 agreed that the filioque could no legitimately be added to the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

I only know of the ban on the creed of Nicaea, not on the Constantinople-nicaea creed.

Popes like Leo III banned the filioque inclusion (Not its theology) because they knew it would upset Greeks and church unity.

Its funny that if the unanimous understanding was that no word may be added to the creed then why were so many in the west comfortable with adding the filioque clause? Why were the Armenians so comfortable with having other additions in the creed despite recognizing the Council of Ephesus?

No Council is ecumenical until it is recognized by the Church, or as you put it from the get go. The Council of Toledo was not recognized as an Ecumenical Council, Constantinople I was. Ephesus and the rest of the 7 Ecumenical Councils made it clear that no further changes or additions would be made to the Creed as written by Nicaea I and Constantinople I. My answer is that the West was arrogant and wrong to unilaterally change the Creed of the Church, especially after St. Photius had made it clear that the East strongly objected to the Western changes in the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

So your argument is an opinion. Fair enough I guess. But what about the additions of the Armenians? Were arrogant also?

What is a fact is Nicaea was ecumenical from the start. It was convened as such and was held as such. From its inception its findings were binding on the whole church as its purpose was to define a unified doctrine of the church AMD any who did not adhere were anathematized from the church.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2014, 02:44:33 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
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #90 on: April 20, 2014, 02:52:06 PM »

The Filioque only caused more questions with regards to the Eastern Christian church.  And as you say, if we were anathemized, it was the Church that was anathemized ie East and West before Constantinople, which I certainly doubt.  

Nope just the eastern bishops at Constantinople as it was local council for many years before it gained ecumenical status. So did these bishops have the authority to do so?

A council only becomes ecumenical after it is recognized by the Church as an Ecumenical Council, the whole Church, not just Rome.

That's not the point. Nicaea was ecumenical from the get go. Constantinople was not... It was local synod of 150 eastern bishops who changed the creed of nicaea. It only later became ecumenical. The issue is why would a bunch of bishops convening local council dare to change the creed? It is immaterial that it became ecumenical later. It would only be material if it was ecumenical from the beginning, but it was not. It was local, just like Toledo and did th exact same thing Toledo did.

Quote
Regardless of who was at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, it was recognized by the Church and the remaining 5 Ecumenical Councils as an Ecumenical Council.  The other 5 Ecumenical Councils also ruled that there could be no changes in the Creed as adopted at Nicaea I and amended by I Constantinople. The West had no authority to change or add words to the Creed ratified by the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Even the Popes before 1014 agreed that the filioque could no legitimately be added to the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

I only know of the ban on the creed of Nicaea, not on the Constantinople-nicaea creed.

Popes like Leo III banned the filioque inclusion (Not its theology) because they knew it would upset Greeks and church unity.

Its funny that if the unanimous understanding was that no word may be added to the creed then why were so many in the west comfortable with adding the filioque clause? Why were the Armenians so comfortable with having other additions in the creed despite recognizing the Council of Ephesus?

No Council is ecumenical until it is recognized by the Church, or as you put it from the get go. The Council of Toledo was not recognized as an Ecumenical Council, Constantinople I was. Ephesus and the rest of the 7 Ecumenical Councils made it clear that no further changes or additions would be made to the Creed as written by Nicaea I and Constantinople I. My answer is that the West was arrogant and wrong to unilaterally change the Creed of the Church, especially after St. Photius had made it clear that the East strongly objected to the Western changes in the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

So your argument is an opinion. Fair enough I guess. But what about the additions of the Armenians? Were arrogant also?

What is a fact is Nicaea was ecumenical from the start. It was convened as such and was held as such. From its inception its findings were binding on the whole church as its purpose was to define a unified doctrine of the church AMD any who did not adhere were anathematized from the church.

The doctrinal decisions of all 7 Ecumenical Councils are binding on the entire Church. The 7 Councils approved the Creed without the filioque and anathematized anyone who adds or subtracts from the Creed. If you claim to follow the Catholic Faith as defined by the 7 Ecumenical Councils, you cannot use the filioque in the Creed. The Pope had no authority to change the Creed of the Church. It is as simple as that.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Laird
Not yet able to attend an Orthodox Church
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer (Catechumen soon hopefully)
Jurisdiction: Baptist
Posts: 258


Lord, have mercy on me


« Reply #91 on: April 20, 2014, 03:03:28 PM »

The Filioque only caused more questions with regards to the Eastern Christian church.  And as you say, if we were anathemized, it was the Church that was anathemized ie East and West before Constantinople, which I certainly doubt.  

Nope just the eastern bishops at Constantinople as it was local council for many years before it gained ecumenical status. So did these bishops have the authority to do so?

A council only becomes ecumenical after it is recognized by the Church as an Ecumenical Council, the whole Church, not just Rome.

That's not the point. Nicaea was ecumenical from the get go. Constantinople was not... It was local synod of 150 eastern bishops who changed the creed of nicaea. It only later became ecumenical. The issue is why would a bunch of bishops convening local council dare to change the creed? It is immaterial that it became ecumenical later. It would only be material if it was ecumenical from the beginning, but it was not. It was local, just like Toledo and did th exact same thing Toledo did.

But Constantinople I was later recognized as Ecumenical by the whole Church, while Toledo was never recognized as Ecumenical by the whole Church.

Quote
Regardless of who was at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, it was recognized by the Church and the remaining 5 Ecumenical Councils as an Ecumenical Council.  The other 5 Ecumenical Councils also ruled that there could be no changes in the Creed as adopted at Nicaea I and amended by I Constantinople. The West had no authority to change or add words to the Creed ratified by the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Even the Popes before 1014 agreed that the filioque could no legitimately be added to the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

Quote
Its funny that if the unanimous understanding was that no word may be added to the creed then why were so many in the west comfortable with adding the filioque clause? Why were the Armenians so comfortable with having other additions in the creed despite recognizing the Council of Ephesus?

Mor explains it best.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2014, 03:05:52 PM by Laird » Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,524


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #92 on: April 20, 2014, 03:13:17 PM »

Quote
Its funny that if the unanimous understanding was that no word may be added to the creed then why were so many in the west comfortable with adding the filioque clause? Why were the Armenians so comfortable with having other additions in the creed despite recognizing the Council of Ephesus?

Mor explains it best.

Thank you.  No matter how many times this is brought up (and how many times it's debunked), it seems some Roman Catholics are dead set on claiming we OO also changed the Creed in order to justify their changes.  It's funny because, typically, they otherwise have no use for non-Byzantine Eastern traditions.  Whatever.  Smiley     
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
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: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #93 on: April 20, 2014, 03:34:35 PM »

The Filioque only caused more questions with regards to the Eastern Christian church.  And as you say, if we were anathemized, it was the Church that was anathemized ie East and West before Constantinople, which I certainly doubt.  

Nope just the eastern bishops at Constantinople as it was local council for many years before it gained ecumenical status. So did these bishops have the authority to do so?

A council only becomes ecumenical after it is recognized by the Church as an Ecumenical Council, the whole Church, not just Rome.

That's not the point. Nicaea was ecumenical from the get go. Constantinople was not... It was local synod of 150 eastern bishops who changed the creed of nicaea. It only later became ecumenical. The issue is why would a bunch of bishops convening local council dare to change the creed? It is immaterial that it became ecumenical later. It would only be material if it was ecumenical from the beginning, but it was not. It was local, just like Toledo and did th exact same thing Toledo did.

Quote
Regardless of who was at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, it was recognized by the Church and the remaining 5 Ecumenical Councils as an Ecumenical Council.  The other 5 Ecumenical Councils also ruled that there could be no changes in the Creed as adopted at Nicaea I and amended by I Constantinople. The West had no authority to change or add words to the Creed ratified by the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Even the Popes before 1014 agreed that the filioque could no legitimately be added to the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

I only know of the ban on the creed of Nicaea, not on the Constantinople-nicaea creed.

Popes like Leo III banned the filioque inclusion (Not its theology) because they knew it would upset Greeks and church unity.

Its funny that if the unanimous understanding was that no word may be added to the creed then why were so many in the west comfortable with adding the filioque clause? Why were the Armenians so comfortable with having other additions in the creed despite recognizing the Council of Ephesus?

No Council is ecumenical until it is recognized by the Church, or as you put it from the get go. The Council of Toledo was not recognized as an Ecumenical Council, Constantinople I was. Ephesus and the rest of the 7 Ecumenical Councils made it clear that no further changes or additions would be made to the Creed as written by Nicaea I and Constantinople I. My answer is that the West was arrogant and wrong to unilaterally change the Creed of the Church, especially after St. Photius had made it clear that the East strongly objected to the Western changes in the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

So your argument is an opinion. Fair enough I guess. But what about the additions of the Armenians? Were arrogant also?

What is a fact is Nicaea was ecumenical from the start. It was convened as such and was held as such. From its inception its findings were binding on the whole church as its purpose was to define a unified doctrine of the church AMD any who did not adhere were anathematized from the church.

The doctrinal decisions of all 7 Ecumenical Councils are binding on the entire Church. The 7 Councils approved the Creed without the filioque and anathematized anyone who adds or subtracts from the Creed. If you claim to follow the Catholic Faith as defined by the 7 Ecumenical Councils, you cannot use the filioque in the Creed. The Pope had no authority to change the Creed of the Church. It is as simple as that.

Fr. John W. Morris

So no refutation to my points then?
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
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,182


WWW
« Reply #94 on: April 20, 2014, 03:38:22 PM »

The Filioque only caused more questions with regards to the Eastern Christian church.  And as you say, if we were anathemized, it was the Church that was anathemized ie East and West before Constantinople, which I certainly doubt.  

Nope just the eastern bishops at Constantinople as it was local council for many years before it gained ecumenical status. So did these bishops have the authority to do so?

A council only becomes ecumenical after it is recognized by the Church as an Ecumenical Council, the whole Church, not just Rome.

That's not the point. Nicaea was ecumenical from the get go. Constantinople was not... It was local synod of 150 eastern bishops who changed the creed of nicaea. It only later became ecumenical. The issue is why would a bunch of bishops convening local council dare to change the creed? It is immaterial that it became ecumenical later. It would only be material if it was ecumenical from the beginning, but it was not. It was local, just like Toledo and did th exact same thing Toledo did.

Quote
Regardless of who was at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, it was recognized by the Church and the remaining 5 Ecumenical Councils as an Ecumenical Council.  The other 5 Ecumenical Councils also ruled that there could be no changes in the Creed as adopted at Nicaea I and amended by I Constantinople. The West had no authority to change or add words to the Creed ratified by the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Even the Popes before 1014 agreed that the filioque could no legitimately be added to the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

I only know of the ban on the creed of Nicaea, not on the Constantinople-nicaea creed.

Popes like Leo III banned the filioque inclusion (Not its theology) because they knew it would upset Greeks and church unity.

Its funny that if the unanimous understanding was that no word may be added to the creed then why were so many in the west comfortable with adding the filioque clause? Why were the Armenians so comfortable with having other additions in the creed despite recognizing the Council of Ephesus?

No Council is ecumenical until it is recognized by the Church, or as you put it from the get go. The Council of Toledo was not recognized as an Ecumenical Council, Constantinople I was. Ephesus and the rest of the 7 Ecumenical Councils made it clear that no further changes or additions would be made to the Creed as written by Nicaea I and Constantinople I. My answer is that the West was arrogant and wrong to unilaterally change the Creed of the Church, especially after St. Photius had made it clear that the East strongly objected to the Western changes in the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

So your argument is an opinion. Fair enough I guess. But what about the additions of the Armenians? Were arrogant also?

What is a fact is Nicaea was ecumenical from the start. It was convened as such and was held as such. From its inception its findings were binding on the whole church as its purpose was to define a unified doctrine of the church AMD any who did not adhere were anathematized from the church.

The doctrinal decisions of all 7 Ecumenical Councils are binding on the entire Church. The 7 Councils approved the Creed without the filioque and anathematized anyone who adds or subtracts from the Creed. If you claim to follow the Catholic Faith as defined by the 7 Ecumenical Councils, you cannot use the filioque in the Creed. The Pope had no authority to change the Creed of the Church. It is as simple as that.

Fr. John W. Morris

So no refutation to my points then?

Christ is Risen!

Your points have been refuted.  What else is there to say on the topic?
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,078


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #95 on: April 20, 2014, 04:26:58 PM »

This thread is really edifying and informative....

...said no one ever.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2014, 04:27:06 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #96 on: April 20, 2014, 04:51:40 PM »

This thread is really edifying and informative....

...said no one ever.

Appropriate correction and standing for truth are very edifying.  Smiley
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: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #97 on: April 21, 2014, 02:42:20 AM »

Quote
Its funny that if the unanimous understanding was that no word may be added to the creed then why were so many in the west comfortable with adding the filioque clause? Why were the Armenians so comfortable with having other additions in the creed despite recognizing the Council of Ephesus?

Mor explains it best.

Thank you.  No matter how many times this is brought up (and how many times it's debunked), it seems some Roman Catholics are dead set on claiming we OO also changed the Creed in order to justify their changes.  It's funny because, typically, they otherwise have no use for non-Byzantine Eastern traditions.  Whatever.  Smiley      

This aremnian source explains that their creed is a Variant of the Nicene creed
http://www.armenianchurch.org/index.jsp?sid=1&id=2430&pid=5&lng=en

the Chaldean Church also doesn't use the Nicea-Constantinopolean Creed but some other variant of the Nicene Creed. This mustn't be strange, as there were different versions of the Nicene Creed in old times (of St Epiphanius, of the 12 Apostles, Athanasian etc).

It should also be noted that the Creed of the Armenian Church is still followed by the anathemas of the Nicene Council. They are pronounced both in the Divine Liturgy, and the prayer office of the 9th hour, immediately after the Creed:
 
As for those who say there was a time when the Son was not, or there was a time when the Holy Spirit was not or that they came into being out of nothing; or who say that the Son of God or the Holy Spirit are of a different substance and that they are changeable or alterable, such do the catholic and apostolic holy Church anathematize.

This again supports the notion of the creed being a variant of the Nicene creed with various additions or as the source says :

Quote
The Nicene Creed is a confession of our Christian faith. According to Holy Tradition, the Nicene Creed was composed on Pentecost by the twelve apostles. The creed contains twelve articles of Faith, each one written by one of the apostles.

When members of the Church began to teach incorrect or heretical opinions, it became necessary to elaborate on the Creed, based on the teaching of our Lord, which would refute false teachings and guard against them.

The Creed of Epiphanius helps to understand the source of the Armenian Creed, that is, that it is some Jerusalemian variant of the Nicene Creed. Proof is this is You may find most of those differences you have highlighted in the Creed of the Armenian Church also in the Creed of St Epiphanius. His creed that he mentions was the Jerusalem variant of the Nicne creed. This creed is thought to be the source of the Armenian Nicene creed as it is nearly identical to the Armenian creed:



Quote
SCHAFF / WACE TRANSLATION (NPNF-2, Vol. XIV, pp. 164-165. The Creed Found in Epiphanius’s Ancoratus (Cap. cxx.)



“And this faith was delivered from the Holy Apostles and in the Church, the Holy City, from all the Holy Bishops together more than three hundred and ten in number.”
“In our generation, that is in the times of Valentinus and Valens, and the ninetieth year from the succession of Diocletian the tyrant, (209 This would be the year 374, that is to say seven years before this Second Ecumenical Council which was held at Constantinople in 381.) you and we and all the orthodox bishops of the whole Catholic Church together, make this address to those who come to baptism, in order that they may proclaim and say as follows:”


Epiphanius then gives this creed:


We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things, invisible and visible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, begotten of God the Father, only begotten, that is of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth, whether they be visible or invisible. Who for us men and for our salvation came down, and was incarnate, that is to say was conceived perfectly through the Holy Ghost of the holy ever-virgin Mary, and was made man, that is to say a perfect man, receiving a soul, and body, and intellect, and all that make up a man, but without sin, not from human seed, nor [that he dwelt] in a man, but taking flesh to himself into one holy entity; not as he inspired the prophets and spake and worked [in them], but was perfectly made man, for the Word was made flesh; neither did he experience any change, nor did he convert his divine nature into the nature of man, but united it to his one holy perfection and Divinity. For there is one Lord Jesus Christ, not two, the same is God, the same is Lord, the same is King. He suffered in the flesh, and rose again, and ascended into heaven in the same body, and with glory he sat down at the right hand of the Father, and in the same body he will come in glory to judge both the quick and the dead, and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
And we believe in the Holy Ghost, who spake in the Law, and preached in the Prophets, and descended at Jordan, and spake in the Apostles, and indwells the Saints. And thus we believe in him, that he is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, the perfect Spirit, the Spirit the Comforter, uncreate, who proceedeth from the Father, receiving of the Son, and believed on.
[We believe] in one Catholic and Apostolic Church. And in one baptism of penitence, and in the resurrection of the dead, and the just judgment of souls and bodies, and in the Kingdom of heaven and in life everlasting.


And those who say that there was a time when the Son was not, or when the Holy Ghost was not, or that either was made of that which previously had no being, or that he is of a different nature or substance, and affirm that the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are subject to change and mutation; all such the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the mother both of you and of us, anathematizes. And further we anathematize such as do not confess the resurrection of the dead, as well as all heresies which are not in accord with the true faith.

And as I have already written, they also add the anathema of the Council of Nicea, but not as it is seen in the variant of St Epiphanius but just as it is concidered to be the authentic anathema of Nicea.


Lastly Romans have nothing else to do with eastern traditions as we are roman, we have our own traditions. So your complaint is pretty futile as it serves no purpose but to highlight the view of all of us regasing other traditions.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2014, 02:44:34 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: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #98 on: April 21, 2014, 02:48:29 AM »

For all curious, here is the Armenian version of the Nicene Creed so you can compare it to the Jerusalem variant :

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible.And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father.God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.Who for us humanity and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate, was made human, was born perfectly of the holy virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance.He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father.He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end.We believe in the Holy Spirit, in the uncreated and the perfect; Who spoke through the Law, prophets, and Gospels; Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles, and lived in the saints.We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic, and [Holy] Church; in one baptism in repentance, for the remission, and forgiveness of sins; and in the resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgement of souls and bodies, and the Kingdom of Heaven and in the everlasting life.

Smiley
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: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #99 on: April 21, 2014, 02:56:08 AM »

The Filioque only caused more questions with regards to the Eastern Christian church.  And as you say, if we were anathemized, it was the Church that was anathemized ie East and West before Constantinople, which I certainly doubt.  

Nope just the eastern bishops at Constantinople as it was local council for many years before it gained ecumenical status. So did these bishops have the authority to do so?

A council only becomes ecumenical after it is recognized by the Church as an Ecumenical Council, the whole Church, not just Rome.

That's not the point. Nicaea was ecumenical from the get go. Constantinople was not... It was local synod of 150 eastern bishops who changed the creed of nicaea. It only later became ecumenical. The issue is why would a bunch of bishops convening local council dare to change the creed? It is immaterial that it became ecumenical later. It would only be material if it was ecumenical from the beginning, but it was not. It was local, just like Toledo and did th exact same thing Toledo did.

Quote
Regardless of who was at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, it was recognized by the Church and the remaining 5 Ecumenical Councils as an Ecumenical Council.  The other 5 Ecumenical Councils also ruled that there could be no changes in the Creed as adopted at Nicaea I and amended by I Constantinople. The West had no authority to change or add words to the Creed ratified by the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Even the Popes before 1014 agreed that the filioque could no legitimately be added to the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

I only know of the ban on the creed of Nicaea, not on the Constantinople-nicaea creed.

Popes like Leo III banned the filioque inclusion (Not its theology) because they knew it would upset Greeks and church unity.

Its funny that if the unanimous understanding was that no word may be added to the creed then why were so many in the west comfortable with adding the filioque clause? Why were the Armenians so comfortable with having other additions in the creed despite recognizing the Council of Ephesus?

No Council is ecumenical until it is recognized by the Church, or as you put it from the get go. The Council of Toledo was not recognized as an Ecumenical Council, Constantinople I was. Ephesus and the rest of the 7 Ecumenical Councils made it clear that no further changes or additions would be made to the Creed as written by Nicaea I and Constantinople I. My answer is that the West was arrogant and wrong to unilaterally change the Creed of the Church, especially after St. Photius had made it clear that the East strongly objected to the Western changes in the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

So your argument is an opinion. Fair enough I guess. But what about the additions of the Armenians? Were arrogant also?

What is a fact is Nicaea was ecumenical from the start. It was convened as such and was held as such. From its inception its findings were binding on the whole church as its purpose was to define a unified doctrine of the church AMD any who did not adhere were anathematized from the church.

The doctrinal decisions of all 7 Ecumenical Councils are binding on the entire Church. The 7 Councils approved the Creed without the filioque and anathematized anyone who adds or subtracts from the Creed. If you claim to follow the Catholic Faith as defined by the 7 Ecumenical Councils, you cannot use the filioque in the Creed. The Pope had no authority to change the Creed of the Church. It is as simple as that.

Fr. John W. Morris

So no refutation to my points then?

Christ is Risen!

Your points have been refuted.  What else is there to say on the topic?
No Father made assertions about the ecumenical council's. He never addressed the fact of the variants in the Armenian creed nor  that Nicaea was ecumenical from its inception and that Constantinople was not. This is a HUGE issue to his argument as Constantinople was a local synod ans the bishops there convened with no intention of it being ecumenical but a council of the east period.

With them only thinking this council was local , which it was for many years, they still dared to alter the creed of nicaea, the creed of an ecumenical council. By what authority could they have done this if they knee that only ecumenical councils could change the creed? The fathers at Ephesus realized that their ban of the creed of nicaea could not be on the words as this would anathematize the holy bishops at Constantinople hence they explained that their additions were allowed as they were mere clarifications, not changes of faith.

That is ultimate proof that the ban on the creed is NOT on adding any words but rather changing the faith of the creed.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2014, 02:59:08 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
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,524


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #100 on: April 21, 2014, 08:05:01 AM »

Christ is risen!

This aremnian source explains that their creed is a Variant of the Nicene creed
http://www.armenianchurch.org/index.jsp?sid=1&id=2430&pid=5&lng=en

Sure, you can call it the Nicene Creed, but it's not.  Just read Nicaea. 

Of course, the Creed we usually call "Nicene" now is not, properly speaking, "Nicene" because it is also "Constantinopolitan".  But saying "Nicene-Constantinopolitan" can get to be an annoying mouthful, so "Nicene" has become an acceptable shorthand.  I suspect the Armenians defaulted to that shorthand above rather than calling their liturgical Creed "Nicene-Constantinagiopolepiphanian" or something insane like that.  It's like how the Latins call their Creed "Nicene" even though it's not.     

Quote
the Chaldean Church also doesn't use the Nicea-Constantinopolean Creed but some other variant of the Nicene Creed. This mustn't be strange, as there were different versions of the Nicene Creed in old times (of St Epiphanius, of the 12 Apostles, Athanasian etc).

What form of the Creed do the Chaldeans use? 

And what do you think "Nicene Creed" means if you think the Athanasian Creed is one of its "variants"? 

Quote
This again supports the notion of the creed being a variant of the Nicene creed with various additions or as the source says :

Quote
The Nicene Creed is a confession of our Christian faith. According to Holy Tradition, the Nicene Creed was composed on Pentecost by the twelve apostles. The creed contains twelve articles of Faith, each one written by one of the apostles.

When members of the Church began to teach incorrect or heretical opinions, it became necessary to elaborate on the Creed, based on the teaching of our Lord, which would refute false teachings and guard against them.

You're quoting a source which claims that the Nicene Creed (~AD 325) was composed on Pentecost by the apostles (~AD 33).  We have examples of "creeds" in the NT, but the Nicene is not one of them.  Right away, you should realise that "Nicene Creed" is not being used in an academic sense.     

Quote
The Creed of Epiphanius helps to understand the source of the Armenian Creed, that is, that it is some Jerusalemian variant of the Nicene Creed. Proof is this is You may find most of those differences you have highlighted in the Creed of the Armenian Church also in the Creed of St Epiphanius. His creed that he mentions was the Jerusalem variant of the Nicne creed. This creed is thought to be the source of the Armenian Nicene creed as it is nearly identical to the Armenian creed:

Whose email response to you was this? 

My post, linked to above, made one major point: "variant" Creeds exist and are used liturgically, but they must agree with the faith of the only authoritative Creed, which is the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, or else they couldn't be used by the Church for anything.  For example, AFAIK no one has ever had a problem with Roman use of the "Apostles' Creed" despite it not being identical to the Nicene.  Other than pointing out that the formulae are not identical, no one has demonstrated that the Armenian liturgical Creed is heterodox.  But all of us, EO and OO, have a problem with the current Roman liturgical version of the Nicene Creed.   

You're so focused on proving that the formula can have different words that you miss the part about how it has to be Orthodox and not heretical.   

Quote
Lastly Romans have nothing else to do with eastern traditions as we are roman, we have our own traditions. So your complaint is pretty futile as it serves no purpose but to highlight the view of all of us regasing other traditions.

I'm aware that the Romans have their own traditions.  Are the Romans aware that they have their own traditions? 

My complaint, if you had understood it properly, was that when RC's think of "the East", they think "Byzantine".  Very, very little think to look further East and explore points of contact between Roman and non-Byzantine Eastern traditions.  For instance, Roman and Coptic liturgical traditions share things which Rome shares with no other Eastern Church, but no RC ever talks about those even though it would be beneficial to the RC's.  There are some points of contact with the Latin West and the Syriac Church, but they don't care to examine those.  When it comes to the Armenians, they only know about bishops' mitres, use of Judica me at the beginning of the Liturgy, and apparently the Creed (for Filioque Defence purposes).  For RC's, "East = Byzantine", and that's lamentable for them.       
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
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #101 on: April 21, 2014, 08:30:53 AM »

Quote
The Nicene Creed is a confession of our Christian faith. According to Holy Tradition, the Nicene Creed was composed on Pentecost by the twelve apostles. The creed contains twelve articles of Faith, each one written by one of the apostles.

Who would ever write such a revisionist paragraph as the above?!  The Nicene Creed composed on Pentecost?  That's just the type of absurdity of lack of credibility that serves to draw ire and criticism from outside the faith to attack Holy Tradition.

Just reading Ante-Nicene Patristic writings, this is ridiculously untenable.  And to build a pattern of such would draw much more into question that IS legitimately Holy Tradition.

The Trinity doctrine was a gradual Patristic formulation, not given at Pentecost by the Apostles.  To insist otherwise is to undermine true Holy Tradition and everything Patristic within the faith.  So to introduce such a source to justify the inclusion of the Filioque, goes far beyond just allegedly defending the Filioque.  It impugns ALL subtle variance in geographical traditions beyond such minutiae, and renders ALL of them suspect.

And it sure feels like I'm on a Protestant board with sectarians duking it out over whatever they've corporately or individually DEnominated themselves about as mini-popes and mini-pillars.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,524


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #102 on: April 21, 2014, 12:26:37 PM »

Quote
The Nicene Creed is a confession of our Christian faith. According to Holy Tradition, the Nicene Creed was composed on Pentecost by the twelve apostles. The creed contains twelve articles of Faith, each one written by one of the apostles.

Who would ever write such a revisionist paragraph as the above?!  The Nicene Creed composed on Pentecost?  That's just the type of absurdity of lack of credibility that serves to draw ire and criticism from outside the faith to attack Holy Tradition.

Just reading Ante-Nicene Patristic writings, this is ridiculously untenable.  And to build a pattern of such would draw much more into question that IS legitimately Holy Tradition.

You don't believe in "simple", do you?  Tongue
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
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #103 on: April 21, 2014, 12:49:34 PM »

Quote
The Nicene Creed is a confession of our Christian faith. According to Holy Tradition, the Nicene Creed was composed on Pentecost by the twelve apostles. The creed contains twelve articles of Faith, each one written by one of the apostles.

Who would ever write such a revisionist paragraph as the above?!  The Nicene Creed composed on Pentecost?  That's just the type of absurdity of lack of credibility that serves to draw ire and criticism from outside the faith to attack Holy Tradition.

Just reading Ante-Nicene Patristic writings, this is ridiculously untenable.  And to build a pattern of such would draw much more into question that IS legitimately Holy Tradition.

You don't believe in "simple", do you?  Tongue

Yes.  John 15:26.  Very simple.  Smiley

I'm not the one appealing to obscure and fallacious quotations in going to any extreme to justify and excuse the Filioque.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2014, 12:52:19 PM by PneumaPsucheSoma » Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,524


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #104 on: April 21, 2014, 12:53:11 PM »

Yes.  John 15:26.  Very simple.  Smiley

I agree, but that wasn't my point.  The text quoted above is a simple description of the Creed most likely intended for people with little or no prior theological understanding.  Most people would benefit from this in a way they wouldn't from a PhD dissertation on the Spirit's procession. 
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
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,182


WWW
« Reply #105 on: April 21, 2014, 03:28:51 PM »

No Father made assertions about the ecumenical council's. He never addressed the fact of the variants in the Armenian creed nor  that Nicaea was ecumenical from its inception and that Constantinople was not. This is a HUGE issue to his argument as Constantinople was a local synod ans the bishops there convened with no intention of it being ecumenical but a council of the east period.

With them only thinking this council was local , which it was for many years, they still dared to alter the creed of nicaea, the creed of an ecumenical council. By what authority could they have done this if they knee that only ecumenical councils could change the creed? The fathers at Ephesus realized that their ban of the creed of nicaea could not be on the words as this would anathematize the holy bishops at Constantinople hence they explained that their additions were allowed as they were mere clarifications, not changes of faith.

That is ultimate proof that the ban on the creed is NOT on adding any words but rather changing the faith of the creed.

To me, at first glance, the Armenians haven't changed the faith of the creed.  However, the Council of Toledo did change the faith of the creed and that change was propagated throughout the west and what is now the Roman Catholic Church.
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: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #106 on: April 28, 2014, 01:58:04 PM »

No Father made assertions about the ecumenical council's. He never addressed the fact of the variants in the Armenian creed nor  that Nicaea was ecumenical from its inception and that Constantinople was not. This is a HUGE issue to his argument as Constantinople was a local synod ans the bishops there convened with no intention of it being ecumenical but a council of the east period.

With them only thinking this council was local , which it was for many years, they still dared to alter the creed of nicaea, the creed of an ecumenical council. By what authority could they have done this if they knee that only ecumenical councils could change the creed? The fathers at Ephesus realized that their ban of the creed of nicaea could not be on the words as this would anathematize the holy bishops at Constantinople hence they explained that their additions were allowed as they were mere clarifications, not changes of faith.

That is ultimate proof that the ban on the creed is NOT on adding any words but rather changing the faith of the creed.

To me, at first glance, the Armenians haven't changed the faith of the creed.  However, the Council of Toledo did change the faith of the creed and that change was propagated throughout the west and what is now the Roman Catholic Church.

The council of Toledo did no such thing.

Filioque is this :

[In some crazy world where water systems work like this] There are three components to this system namely The Sea, The Rivers and The Ponds. Now the Sea (Father) is the ultimate source of all water(Divinity).  The water in the sea is not fixated in the sea but flows to the rivers and ponds. How this happens is that the water(Divinity) flows from the seas into the rivers (Son). The rivers then in turn allow for the water to flow to the ponds (Holy Spirit). Now it can be said that the source of the water in the pond is the sea. This is true as all water in this system finds its ultimate origin/source in the sea. However it can also be said that the water in the pond finds its source from the river because without the river, the water from the sea could not reach the pond. It is from the river that the pond receives its water. Thus it is true to say the water in the pond is from the sea and the river. The sea and the river are both components in the flow (Spiration) of water  and thus they are one principal from which the pond received its water.

Another analogy:

If a human father and son go into their back yard to play a game of catch, it is the father who initiates the game of catch by throwing the ball to his son.  In this sense, one can say that the game of catch "proceeds" from this human father (an "aition"); and this is the original, Greek sense of the Constantinopolitan Creed's use of the term "proceeds" ("ekporeusis").  However, taking this very same scenario, one can also justly say that the game of catch "proceeds" from both the father and his son.  And this is because the son has to be there for the game of catch to exist.  For, unless the son is there, then the father would have no one to throw the ball to; and so there would be no game of catch.  And, it is in this sense (one might say a "collective" sense) that the West uses the term "proceeds" ("procedit") in the Filioque.  Just as acknowledging the necessity of the human son's presence in order for the game of catch to exist does not, in any way, challenge or threaten the human father's role as the source or initiator (aition) of the game of catch


So the Filioque does not deny the Father's singular role as the Cause (Aition) of the Spirit; but merely acknowledges the Son's necessary Presence (i.e., participation) for the Spirit's eternal procession. The  Father and Son are thus collectively identified as accounting for the Spirit's procession.  This is all that the Filioque was ever intended to address; and it was included in the Creed by the Western fathers at Toledo in order to counter the claims of the 6th Century Spanish (Germanic) Arians.  These Arians were of course denying this essential and orthodox truth, that is, the Son's eternal participation in the Spirit's procession and thus the Son being somewhat less divine than the Father
« Last Edit: April 28, 2014, 02:08:01 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
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,524


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #107 on: April 28, 2014, 02:35:06 PM »

Filioque is this :

[In some crazy world where water systems work like this] There are three components to this system namely The Sea, The Rivers and The Ponds. Now the Sea (Father) is the ultimate source of all water(Divinity).  The water in the sea is not fixated in the sea but flows to the rivers and ponds. How this happens is that the water(Divinity) flows from the seas into the rivers (Son). The rivers then in turn allow for the water to flow to the ponds (Holy Spirit). Now it can be said that the source of the water in the pond is the sea. This is true as all water in this system finds its ultimate origin/source in the sea. However it can also be said that the water in the pond finds its source from the river because without the river, the water from the sea could not reach the pond. It is from the river that the pond receives its water. Thus it is true to say the water in the pond is from the sea and the river. The sea and the river are both components in the flow (Spiration) of water  and thus they are one principal from which the pond received its water.

What about land-locked ponds?

Quote
Another analogy:

If a human father and son go into their back yard to play a game of catch, it is the father who initiates the game of catch by throwing the ball to his son.  In this sense, one can say that the game of catch "proceeds" from this human father (an "aition"); and this is the original, Greek sense of the Constantinopolitan Creed's use of the term "proceeds" ("ekporeusis").  However, taking this very same scenario, one can also justly say that the game of catch "proceeds" from both the father and his son.  And this is because the son has to be there for the game of catch to exist.  For, unless the son is there, then the father would have no one to throw the ball to; and so there would be no game of catch.  And, it is in this sense (one might say a "collective" sense) that the West uses the term "proceeds" ("procedit") in the Filioque.  Just as acknowledging the necessity of the human son's presence in order for the game of catch to exist does not, in any way, challenge or threaten the human father's role as the source or initiator (aition) of the game of catch

So if the father and the son are necessary for the game of Catch to exist, then the father and the son can be said to originate or proceed from the game of Catch, right?   
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
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: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #108 on: April 28, 2014, 02:48:07 PM »

Filioque is this :

[In some crazy world where water systems work like this] There are three components to this system namely The Sea, The Rivers and The Ponds. Now the Sea (Father) is the ultimate source of all water(Divinity).  The water in the sea is not fixated in the sea but flows to the rivers and ponds. How this happens is that the water(Divinity) flows from the seas into the rivers (Son). The rivers then in turn allow for the water to flow to the ponds (Holy Spirit). Now it can be said that the source of the water in the pond is the sea. This is true as all water in this system finds its ultimate origin/source in the sea. However it can also be said that the water in the pond finds its source from the river because without the river, the water from the sea could not reach the pond. It is from the river that the pond receives its water. Thus it is true to say the water in the pond is from the sea and the river. The sea and the river are both components in the flow (Spiration) of water  and thus they are one principal from which the pond received its water.

What about land-locked ponds?

The simplicity of the analogy obviously ignores this as well as many other things for purposes of explaining an idea. You know this. You are being unnecessarily difficult

Quote
Quote
Another analogy:

If a human father and son go into their back yard to play a game of catch, it is the father who initiates the game of catch by throwing the ball to his son.  In this sense, one can say that the game of catch "proceeds" from this human father (an "aition"); and this is the original, Greek sense of the Constantinopolitan Creed's use of the term "proceeds" ("ekporeusis").  However, taking this very same scenario, one can also justly say that the game of catch "proceeds" from both the father and his son.  And this is because the son has to be there for the game of catch to exist.  For, unless the son is there, then the father would have no one to throw the ball to; and so there would be no game of catch.  And, it is in this sense (one might say a "collective" sense) that the West uses the term "proceeds" ("procedit") in the Filioque.  Just as acknowledging the necessity of the human son's presence in order for the game of catch to exist does not, in any way, challenge or threaten the human father's role as the source or initiator (aition) of the game of catch

So if the father and the son are necessary for the game of Catch to exist, then the father and the son can be said to originate or proceed from the game of Catch, right?   

What? To be Frank, This is utter nonsense.
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
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #109 on: April 28, 2014, 02:54:55 PM »

The Filioque only caused more questions with regards to the Eastern Christian church.  And as you say, if we were anathemized, it was the Church that was anathemized ie East and West before Constantinople, which I certainly doubt.  

Nope just the eastern bishops at Constantinople as it was local council for many years before it gained ecumenical status. So did these bishops have the authority to do so?

A council only becomes ecumenical after it is recognized by the Church as an Ecumenical Council, the whole Church, not just Rome.

That's not the point. Nicaea was ecumenical from the get go. Constantinople was not... It was local synod of 150 eastern bishops who changed the creed of nicaea. It only later became ecumenical. The issue is why would a bunch of bishops convening local council dare to change the creed? It is immaterial that it became ecumenical later. It would only be material if it was ecumenical from the beginning, but it was not. It was local, just like Toledo and did th exact same thing Toledo did.

Quote
Regardless of who was at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, it was recognized by the Church and the remaining 5 Ecumenical Councils as an Ecumenical Council.  The other 5 Ecumenical Councils also ruled that there could be no changes in the Creed as adopted at Nicaea I and amended by I Constantinople. The West had no authority to change or add words to the Creed ratified by the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Even the Popes before 1014 agreed that the filioque could no legitimately be added to the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

I only know of the ban on the creed of Nicaea, not on the Constantinople-nicaea creed.

Popes like Leo III banned the filioque inclusion (Not its theology) because they knew it would upset Greeks and church unity.

Its funny that if the unanimous understanding was that no word may be added to the creed then why were so many in the west comfortable with adding the filioque clause? Why were the Armenians so comfortable with having other additions in the creed despite recognizing the Council of Ephesus?

No Council is ecumenical until it is recognized by the Church, or as you put it from the get go. The Council of Toledo was not recognized as an Ecumenical Council, Constantinople I was. Ephesus and the rest of the 7 Ecumenical Councils made it clear that no further changes or additions would be made to the Creed as written by Nicaea I and Constantinople I. My answer is that the West was arrogant and wrong to unilaterally change the Creed of the Church, especially after St. Photius had made it clear that the East strongly objected to the Western changes in the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

So your argument is an opinion. Fair enough I guess. But what about the additions of the Armenians? Were arrogant also?

What is a fact is Nicaea was ecumenical from the start. It was convened as such and was held as such. From its inception its findings were binding on the whole church as its purpose was to define a unified doctrine of the church AMD any who did not adhere were anathematized from the church.

The doctrinal decisions of all 7 Ecumenical Councils are binding on the entire Church. The 7 Councils approved the Creed without the filioque and anathematized anyone who adds or subtracts from the Creed. If you claim to follow the Catholic Faith as defined by the 7 Ecumenical Councils, you cannot use the filioque in the Creed. The Pope had no authority to change the Creed of the Church. It is as simple as that.

Fr. John W. Morris
Which Pope?  The Pope in Rome didn't change it, it was already being used even within Orthodoxy.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,524


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #110 on: April 28, 2014, 03:18:52 PM »

The simplicity of the analogy obviously ignores this as well as many other things for purposes of explaining an idea. You know this. You are being unnecessarily difficult

No.  If you are positing the Sea as the source of all water for Rivers and Ponds, and I ask about land-locked Ponds (which definitely exist), the implication is that there is another source for the Water.  That's not "being unnecessarily difficult" when this is an analogy about the one God. 

I agree that it is a simple analogy, but I don't think it is a helpful one.     

Quote
Quote
Quote
Another analogy:

If a human father and son go into their back yard to play a game of catch, it is the father who initiates the game of catch by throwing the ball to his son.  In this sense, one can say that the game of catch "proceeds" from this human father (an "aition"); and this is the original, Greek sense of the Constantinopolitan Creed's use of the term "proceeds" ("ekporeusis").  However, taking this very same scenario, one can also justly say that the game of catch "proceeds" from both the father and his son.  And this is because the son has to be there for the game of catch to exist.  For, unless the son is there, then the father would have no one to throw the ball to; and so there would be no game of catch.  And, it is in this sense (one might say a "collective" sense) that the West uses the term "proceeds" ("procedit") in the Filioque.  Just as acknowledging the necessity of the human son's presence in order for the game of catch to exist does not, in any way, challenge or threaten the human father's role as the source or initiator (aition) of the game of catch

So if the father and the son are necessary for the game of Catch to exist, then the father and the son can be said to originate or proceed from the game of Catch, right?   

What? To be Frank, This is utter nonsense.

Your example requires the father and the son to exist in order for the game of Catch to exist: as I bolded above, if they don't go out into their backyard in order to play Catch, there is no game of Catch. 

But the game of Catch needed to exist in order for the father to think of suggesting he and his son play it, the son would need to know and understand this game of Catch in order to play with his dad, etc.  The game of Catch is older than the son (since it's the father's idea), and most likely it is older than the father (unless the father just created it).  So if the game of Catch precedes the father and the son in some way, we can say that the father and the son originate or proceed from the game of Catch: it was the game of Catch that brought them together in a common purpose to go outside and play. 

The implications I've drawn from your analogy are as nonsensical as your analogy itself.  And yes, your analogy is utter nonsense. 
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
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: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #111 on: April 28, 2014, 03:21:30 PM »

The simplicity of the analogy obviously ignores this as well as many other things for purposes of explaining an idea. You know this. You are being unnecessarily difficult

No.  If you are positing the Sea as the source of all water for Rivers and Ponds, and I ask about land-locked Ponds (which definitely exist), the implication is that there is another source for the Water.  That's not "being unnecessarily difficult" when this is an analogy about the one God.  

I agree that it is a simple analogy, but I don't think it is a helpful one.    

Quote
Quote
Quote
Another analogy:

If a human father and son go into their back yard to play a game of catch, it is the father who initiates the game of catch by throwing the ball to his son.  In this sense, one can say that the game of catch "proceeds" from this human father (an "aition"); and this is the original, Greek sense of the Constantinopolitan Creed's use of the term "proceeds" ("ekporeusis").  However, taking this very same scenario, one can also justly say that the game of catch "proceeds" from both the father and his son.  And this is because the son has to be there for the game of catch to exist.  For, unless the son is there, then the father would have no one to throw the ball to; and so there would be no game of catch.  And, it is in this sense (one might say a "collective" sense) that the West uses the term "proceeds" ("procedit") in the Filioque.  Just as acknowledging the necessity of the human son's presence in order for the game of catch to exist does not, in any way, challenge or threaten the human father's role as the source or initiator (aition) of the game of catch

So if the father and the son are necessary for the game of Catch to exist, then the father and the son can be said to originate or proceed from the game of Catch, right?    

What? To be Frank, This is utter nonsense.

Your example requires the father and the son to exist in order for the game of Catch to exist: as I bolded above, if they don't go out into their backyard in order to play Catch, there is no game of Catch.  

But the game of Catch needed to exist in order for the father to think of suggesting he and his son play it, the son would need to know and understand this game of Catch in order to play with his dad, etc.  The game of Catch is older than the son (since it's the father's idea), and most likely it is older than the father (unless the father just created it).  So if the game of Catch precedes the father and the son in some way, we can say that the father and the son originate or proceed from the game of Catch: it was the game of Catch that brought them together in a common purpose to go outside and play.  

The implications I've drawn from your analogy are as nonsensical as your analogy itself.  And yes, your analogy is utter nonsense.  

OH MY GOSH

Wow... Just... WOW

To quote you:

"
You don't believe in "simple", do you?"
« Last Edit: April 28, 2014, 03:27:49 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
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,524


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #112 on: April 28, 2014, 07:55:39 PM »

OH MY GOSH

Wow... Just... WOW

To quote you:

"
You don't believe in "simple", do you?"

Yes, I believe in simple:

Quote
"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father; who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified; who spoke through the prophets."

No need to make the Holy Spirit into a pond or a children's game in order to understand that. 
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
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #113 on: May 11, 2014, 03:56:26 PM »

Though it sounds like an appeal to scholasticism (though it most certainly isn't and needn't be); it's much simpler to address ontology versus economy, and phenomenologicality versus noumenologicality in regards to existence.

I remain amazed at the few who have made the effort within theosis to grasp that which the early Fathers have made available to us in depth, breadth, height, and glory of Theology Proper and its appropriate formulative processes and components.

God cannot be analogized with temporal examples like bodies of water and casual sporting activities.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,524


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #114 on: May 11, 2014, 04:50:51 PM »

What?
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
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #115 on: May 11, 2014, 11:42:56 PM »

I said... God can't be analogized, and the Filioque represents economy rather than inherent and intrinsic "static" ontology.  And accessing the early Patristic works is preferable to modern lesser attempts at conceptualizing.
Logged
Godspell
Arch-layman
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: (Sorta) Protestant Christian
Jurisdiction: Methodist
Posts: 207



« Reply #116 on: July 23, 2014, 01:57:33 AM »

Growing up Protestant I've thought the filloque controversy to be a rather minor controversy and you may correct me if I'm wrong, but is the controversy not about the filloque per se but about what appeared a Roman unilateral intrusion on settled doctrine?
Personally I see it as irrelevant because the Trinity is coeternal and coequal.

Now my position is that the Holy Spirit proceeded exactly at the same time as the Logos was begotten, and in that case both understandings (filloque or no) are true.
Logged

Just as the thought of fire does not warm the body, so faith without love does not actualize the light of spiritual knowledge in the soul.

Just as the light of the sun attracts a healthy eye, so through love knowledge of God naturally draws to itself the pure intellect.

– St Maximos
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,455



« Reply #117 on: July 23, 2014, 09:42:48 AM »

Growing up Protestant I've thought the filloque controversy to be a rather minor controversy and you may correct me if I'm wrong, but is the controversy not about the filloque per se but about what appeared a Roman unilateral intrusion on settled doctrine?
Personally I see it as irrelevant because the Trinity is coeternal and coequal.

Now my position is that the Holy Spirit proceeded exactly at the same time as the Logos was begotten, and in that case both understandings (filloque or no) are true.
Technically it is Arianism to say "time" because that would imply that there was a time when the Holy Spirit did not proceed and a time that the Son was not begotten. The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son is eternally begotten of the Father. The filioque claims that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son rather than from the Father through the Son. From the Orthodox perspective, it is an erroneous understanding of the Trinity.

Apart from that, yes, I agree that a unilateral change to settled doctrine is a significant issue, especially when there was no reason to do so.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2014, 09:44:37 AM by TheTrisagion » Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Ekdikos
Warned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Serbia - Diocese of Banja Luka
Posts: 397



« Reply #118 on: July 23, 2014, 10:48:48 AM »


The council of Toledo did no such thing.


Where previously you can find formula like this?
Quote
Quicumque spiritum sanctum non credit aut non crediderit a patre et filio procedere, eumque non dixerit coaeternum esse patri et filio et coessentialem, anathema sit.
Logged

Justin Kolodziej
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (Carmelite wannabe)
Jurisdiction: The Bishop of Raleigh
Posts: 272


which way's mt. carmel again???


« Reply #119 on: July 23, 2014, 12:23:32 PM »

I said... God can't be analogized, and the Filioque represents economy rather than inherent and intrinsic "static" ontology.  And accessing the early Patristic works is preferable to modern lesser attempts at conceptualizing.
Agreed...Attempting to analogize God reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw  Cheesy
Logged

St. Justin Martyr, St. John Cassian, St. Simon Stock, St. Theresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, pray for me!
Justin Kolodziej
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (Carmelite wannabe)
Jurisdiction: The Bishop of Raleigh
Posts: 272


which way's mt. carmel again???


« Reply #120 on: July 23, 2014, 12:58:00 PM »


The council of Toledo did no such thing.


Where previously you can find formula like this?
Quote
Quicumque spiritum sanctum non credit aut non crediderit a patre et filio procedere, eumque non dixerit coaeternum esse patri et filio et coessentialem, anathema sit.
St. Ambrose said as much. Here is what my copy of St. Ambrose On the Holy Spirit says, in Book 1, Chapter 11, Paragraphs 19-20:
Quote
119. The Spirit is not, then, sent as it were from a place, nor does He proceed as from a place, when He proceeds from the Son, as the Son Himself, when He says, I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world, destroys all fancies, which can be reckoned as from place to place. In like manner, also, when we read that God is within or without, we certainly do not either enclose God within anybody or separate Him from anybody, but weighing these things in a deep and ineffable estimation, we comprehend the hiddenness of the divine nature.

120. Lastly, Wisdom so says that she came forth from the mouth of the Most High, Word was with God; John 1:1 and not only with God but also in God; for He says: I am in the Father and the Father is in Me. But neither when He goes forth from the Father does He retire from a place, nor is He separated as a body from a body; nor when He is in the Father is He as if a body enclosed as it were in a body. The Holy Spirit also, when He proceeds from the Father and the Son, is not separated from the Father nor separated from the Son. For how could He be separated from the Father Who is the Spirit of His mouth? Which is certainly both a proof of His eternity, and expresses the Unity of this Godhead.

Also the idea is implied in Book 3 Chapter 20 Paragraph 153-154:
Quote
153. And this, again, is not a trivial matter that we read that a river goes forth from the throne of God. For you read the words of the Evangelist John to this purport: And He showed me a river of living water, bright as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street thereof, and on either side, was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruits, yielding its fruit every month, and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of all nations. Revelation 22:1-2

154. This is certainly the River proceeding from the throne of God, that is, the Holy Spirit, Whom he drinks who believes in Christ, as He Himself says: If any man thirst, let him come to Me and drink. He that believes in Me, as says the Scripture, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spoke He of the Spirit. John 7:37-38 Therefore the river is the Spirit.

Now of course you may make the usual excuses: that St. Ambrose is not perfect and is in error on this item, that he may have written it before Constantinople I, he meant economically and not ontologically, my source has been adulterated by the Latins, etc. But if this is what he wrote the the idea is there in the West before 400 AD.
Logged

St. Justin Martyr, St. John Cassian, St. Simon Stock, St. Theresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, pray for me!
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: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #121 on: July 23, 2014, 01:53:14 PM »

Growing up Protestant I've thought the filloque controversy to be a rather minor controversy and you may correct me if I'm wrong, but is the controversy not about the filloque per se but about what appeared a Roman unilateral intrusion on settled doctrine?
Personally I see it as irrelevant because the Trinity is coeternal and coequal.

Now my position is that the Holy Spirit proceeded exactly at the same time as the Logos was begotten, and in that case both understandings (filloque or no) are true.
Technically it is Arianism to say "time" because that would imply that there was a time when the Holy Spirit did not proceed and a time that the Son was not begotten. The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son is eternally begotten of the Father. The filioque claims that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son rather than from the Father through the Son. From the Orthodox perspective, it is an erroneous understanding of the Trinity.

Incorrect, The filioque claims that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son which if understood, is equivalent to the eastern formula " from the Father through the Son". The Catholic Church simply teaches that all 3 persons are eternal. They are equally God and only differs in rank according to relationships. The Father is the Father becasue he begets the son. The son is son because he is begotten of the father. The Holy Spirit  does not beget nor is he begotten, but proceeds from the father and the son as from one principle. The main issue is the understanding of "as from one principle". The Father is the ultimate origin of the Holy Ghost alone. However the procession of the the Holy Ghost  involves the Son as the father gave everything to the Son except being the father. That is except the property to Beget. So the son inherits the Spirit of the Father as his own and the spirit is manifested through Son. As the Father is the origin of deity and in having the Holy Ghost proceeding, the son is a participant in transmission of being. Thus it is  by way of the son that the spirit proceeds from the Father. He gets his being from the father and the Son as from one principle. That is what is meant to proceed from the son. The  only reason the Holy Ghost proceeds from the son is because the Son is begotten of the Father. As such monarchy of the father is still maintained as everything is only becasue it has ultimate origin in the father.

Quote
Apart from that, yes, I agree that a unilateral change to settled doctrine is a significant issue, especially when there was no reason to do so.

There was a reason; Arianism. A new western form of Arianism that used the creed without the filioque as proof of their beliefs. The filioque was inserted to clarify the understanding of the creed and preserve the full divinity of the son.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2014, 01:59:43 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
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,455



« Reply #122 on: July 23, 2014, 02:01:14 PM »

Growing up Protestant I've thought the filloque controversy to be a rather minor controversy and you may correct me if I'm wrong, but is the controversy not about the filloque per se but about what appeared a Roman unilateral intrusion on settled doctrine?
Personally I see it as irrelevant because the Trinity is coeternal and coequal.

Now my position is that the Holy Spirit proceeded exactly at the same time as the Logos was begotten, and in that case both understandings (filloque or no) are true.
Technically it is Arianism to say "time" because that would imply that there was a time when the Holy Spirit did not proceed and a time that the Son was not begotten. The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son is eternally begotten of the Father. The filioque claims that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son rather than from the Father through the Son. From the Orthodox perspective, it is an erroneous understanding of the Trinity.

Incorrect, The filioque claims that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son which if understood, is equivalent to the eastern formula " from the Father through the Son". The Catholic Church simply teaches that all 3 persons are eternal. They are equally God and only differs in rank according to relationships. The Father is the Father becasue he begets the son. The son is son,because he. Is begotten of the father. The Holy Spirit  does not beget nor is he begotten, but proceeds from the father and the son as from one principle. The main issue is the understanding of "as from one principle". The Father is the ultimate origin of the Holy Ghost alone. However the procession of the the Holy Ghost  involves the Son as the father gave everything to the Son except being the father. That is except the property to Beget. So the son inherits the Spirit of the Father as his own and the spirit is manifested through Son as the Father is the origin of deity and in having the Holy Ghost proceeding, the son is a participant in transmission of being. Thus it is  by way of the son that the spirit proceeds from the Father. He gets  his being from the father and the Son as from one principle. That is what is meant to proceed from the son. The  only reason the Holy Ghost proceeds from the son is because the Son is begotten of the Father. As such monarchy of the father is still maintained as everything is only becasue it has ultimate origin in the father.

Perhaps that is how you choose to interpret it, but that is not what the language states.

Quote
Quote
Apart from that, yes, I agree that a unilateral change to settled doctrine is a significant issue, especially when there was no reason to do so.

There was a reason; Arianism. A new western form of Arianism that used the creed without the filioque as proof of their beliefs. The filioque was inserted to clarify the understanding of the creed and preserve the full divinity of the son.
So you allege.  If it is a problem, the Church as a whole ought to deal with it, not a couple of bishops adding things to the Creed because they think it is necessary. No matter how noble the intention is, it is not acceptable to add language to a creed that an ecumenical council has laid down.  With that, I'm out, because this convo will go in circles ad infinitum.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
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: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #123 on: July 23, 2014, 02:21:20 PM »

Growing up Protestant I've thought the filloque controversy to be a rather minor controversy and you may correct me if I'm wrong, but is the controversy not about the filloque per se but about what appeared a Roman unilateral intrusion on settled doctrine?
Personally I see it as irrelevant because the Trinity is coeternal and coequal.

Now my position is that the Holy Spirit proceeded exactly at the same time as the Logos was begotten, and in that case both understandings (filloque or no) are true.
Technically it is Arianism to say "time" because that would imply that there was a time when the Holy Spirit did not proceed and a time that the Son was not begotten. The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son is eternally begotten of the Father. The filioque claims that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son rather than from the Father through the Son. From the Orthodox perspective, it is an erroneous understanding of the Trinity.

Incorrect, The filioque claims that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son which if understood, is equivalent to the eastern formula " from the Father through the Son". The Catholic Church simply teaches that all 3 persons are eternal. They are equally God and only differs in rank according to relationships. The Father is the Father becasue he begets the son. The son is son,because he. Is begotten of the father. The Holy Spirit  does not beget nor is he begotten, but proceeds from the father and the son as from one principle. The main issue is the understanding of "as from one principle". The Father is the ultimate origin of the Holy Ghost alone. However the procession of the the Holy Ghost  involves the Son as the father gave everything to the Son except being the father. That is except the property to Beget. So the son inherits the Spirit of the Father as his own and the spirit is manifested through Son as the Father is the origin of deity and in having the Holy Ghost proceeding, the son is a participant in transmission of being. Thus it is  by way of the son that the spirit proceeds from the Father. He gets  his being from the father and the Son as from one principle. That is what is meant to proceed from the son. The  only reason the Holy Ghost proceeds from the son is because the Son is begotten of the Father. As such monarchy of the father is still maintained as everything is only becasue it has ultimate origin in the father.

Perhaps that is how you choose to interpret it, but that is not what the language states.

No that's what the Catholic Church means by those words. It is you who refuses to accept this. Read the testimony of the pre-schism Latin fathers. Further read the discussions at Florence and the sevree of Florence itself.

St Athanasius himself even expresses the western formula when he said in 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"


Quote
Quote
Quote
Apart from that, yes, I agree that a unilateral change to settled doctrine is a significant issue, especially when there was no reason to do so.

There was a reason; Arianism. A new western form of Arianism that used the creed without the filioque as proof of their beliefs. The filioque was inserted to clarify the understanding of the creed and preserve the full divinity of the son.
So you allege.  If it is a problem, the Church as a whole ought to deal with it, not a couple of bishops adding things to the Creed because they think it is necessary. No matter how noble the intention is, it is not acceptable to add language to a creed that an ecumenical council has laid down.  With that, I'm out, because this convo will go in circles ad infinitum.

No it was a western problem ,not a church wide problem , and the western church dealt with it.  Secondly The Council of Ephesus allowed for clarifications in the creed. Secondly th ban is on the actual creed of Nicaea which makes no mention on the procession of th Holy Ghost.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2014, 02:29:33 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
Ekdikos
Warned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Serbia - Diocese of Banja Luka
Posts: 397



« Reply #124 on: July 23, 2014, 02:29:40 PM »


St. Ambrose said as much. Here is what my copy of St. Ambrose On the Holy Spirit says, in Book 1, Chapter 11, Paragraphs 19-20:
Quote
119. The Spirit is not, then, sent as it were from a place, nor does He proceed as from a place, when He proceeds from the Son, as the Son Himself, when He says, I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world, destroys all fancies, which can be reckoned as from place to place. In like manner, also, when we read that God is within or without, we certainly do not either enclose God within anybody or separate Him from anybody, but weighing these things in a deep and ineffable estimation, we comprehend the hiddenness of the divine nature.

120. Lastly, Wisdom so says that she came forth from the mouth of the Most High, Word was with God; John 1:1 and not only with God but also in God; for He says: I am in the Father and the Father is in Me. But neither when He goes forth from the Father does He retire from a place, nor is He separated as a body from a body; nor when He is in the Father is He as if a body enclosed as it were in a body. The Holy Spirit also, when He proceeds from the Father and the Son, is not separated from the Father nor separated from the Son. For how could He be separated from the Father Who is the Spirit of His mouth? Which is certainly both a proof of His eternity, and expresses the Unity of this Godhead.

Also the idea is implied in Book 3 Chapter 20 Paragraph 153-154:

Quote
153. And this, again, is not a trivial matter that we read that a river goes forth from the throne of God. For you read the words of the Evangelist John to this purport: And He showed me a river of living water, bright as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street thereof, and on either side, was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruits, yielding its fruit every month, and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of all nations. Revelation 22:1-2

154. This is certainly the River proceeding from the throne of God, that is, the Holy Spirit, Whom he drinks who believes in Christ, as He Himself says: If any man thirst, let him come to Me and drink. He that believes in Me, as says the Scripture, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spoke He of the Spirit. John 7:37-38 Therefore the river is the Spirit.


So impersonal thing like river is representation of Holy Spirit?  Why dont take interpretation of Blessed Jerome, which is quite Eastern Orthodox if I may say.


Now of course you may make the usual excuses: that St. Ambrose is not perfect and is in error on this item, that he may have written it before Constantinople I, he meant economically and not ontologically, my source has been adulterated by the Latins, etc. But if this is what he wrote the the idea is there in the West before 400 AD.

And there is problem there is no such idea nowehre on East... I mean, you could allways use usual exsuces, to use any mention of Spirit by Eastern Father, where is used some word which may, or may not resemble term proceeding, or tell me how Filioque has a lot of sense in Latin, but in Greek it is indeed erronous concept.

Oh, and if I may add, all "proofs of Filioque" among Eastern Fathers are just plying with words...
« Last Edit: July 23, 2014, 02:33:14 PM by Ekdikos » Logged

Chrismated
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox
Posts: 68


« Reply #125 on: August 20, 2014, 05:47:50 PM »

Man, lots of great discussion here. A lot to think on, and to try and digest. Great stuff folks. I appreciate the level-headedness of the main contributors to this thread. I look forward to continued reading on this.
I doubt that Heaven is divided into an Eastern part, for the Orthodox, and a Western part for the Roman Catholics, and Anglicans? Some Anglicans are now bracketing the filioque clause in their BCP, and making it "optional" to recite. Is this a partial step closer to Orthodoxy? I wonder if some are going to say "I didn't expect to see you here", or "where's so and so, I was sure he'd be here". I think, if we are saved by what's in our heads, we will all go to hell. If we are saved by what's been put into our hearts, by the Holy Spirit, then we have hope. Just a thought.
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #126 on: August 21, 2014, 02:05:01 AM »

Growing up Protestant I've thought the filloque controversy to be a rather minor controversy and you may correct me if I'm wrong, but is the controversy not about the filloque per se but about what appeared a Roman unilateral intrusion on settled doctrine?
Personally I see it as irrelevant because the Trinity is coeternal and coequal.

Now my position is that the Holy Spirit proceeded exactly at the same time as the Logos was begotten, and in that case both understandings (filloque or no) are true.

The bolded above is an Orthodox position (if we remove the "at the same time" and replace it with "coincident", since it was before time came into being).  Filioque, by the definition of Florence, is not.  Both cannot be true at the same time.  But even long before Florence, St. Photios pointed out that the "and the Son" addition makes the relationship of the Trinity that of father, son, and grandchild.   But if we are looking at the Psalms, the Logos and Breath (Spirit) proceed from God that Father coincidentally (or "simultaneously" by its old definition) in eternity, the one by begottenness, the other by spiration.  
« Last Edit: August 21, 2014, 02:10:09 AM by Father H » 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: 1,076


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #127 on: August 21, 2014, 02:36:08 AM »

Growing up Protestant I've thought the filloque controversy to be a rather minor controversy and you may correct me if I'm wrong, but is the controversy not about the filloque per se but about what appeared a Roman unilateral intrusion on settled doctrine?
Personally I see it as irrelevant because the Trinity is coeternal and coequal.

Now my position is that the Holy Spirit proceeded exactly at the same time as the Logos was begotten, and in that case both understandings (filloque or no) are true.

The bolded above is an Orthodox position (if we remove the "at the same time" and replace it with "coincident", since it was before time came into being).  Filioque, by the definition of Florence, is not.  Both cannot be true at the same time.  But even long before Florence, St. Photios pointed out that the "and the Son" addition makes the relationship of the Trinity that of father, son, and grandchild.   But if we are looking at the Psalms, the Logos and Breath (Spirit) proceed from God that Father coincidentally (or "simultaneously" by its old definition) in eternity, the one by begottenness, the other by spiration.  

With All due respect Father, Photius had an extremely poor understanding of the Filioque...
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: 1,556



« Reply #128 on: August 21, 2014, 03:57:57 AM »

Growing up Protestant I've thought the filloque controversy to be a rather minor controversy and you may correct me if I'm wrong, but is the controversy not about the filloque per se but about what appeared a Roman unilateral intrusion on settled doctrine?
Personally I see it as irrelevant because the Trinity is coeternal and coequal.

Now my position is that the Holy Spirit proceeded exactly at the same time as the Logos was begotten, and in that case both understandings (filloque or no) are true.

The bolded above is an Orthodox position (if we remove the "at the same time" and replace it with "coincident", since it was before time came into being).  Filioque, by the definition of Florence, is not.  Both cannot be true at the same time.  But even long before Florence, St. Photios pointed out that the "and the Son" addition makes the relationship of the Trinity that of father, son, and grandchild.   But if we are looking at the Psalms, the Logos and Breath (Spirit) proceed from God that Father coincidentally (or "simultaneously" by its old definition) in eternity, the one by begottenness, the other by spiration. 

With All due respect Father, Photius had an extremely poor understanding of the Filioque...

Have you ever read and studied the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, attributed to Saint Photius? If your answer is anything but yes, what qualifies you to make such a judgment?
« Last Edit: August 21, 2014, 04:03:42 AM by Cavaradossi » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #129 on: August 21, 2014, 04:00:31 AM »

Growing up Protestant I've thought the filloque controversy to be a rather minor controversy and you may correct me if I'm wrong, but is the controversy not about the filloque per se but about what appeared a Roman unilateral intrusion on settled doctrine?
Personally I see it as irrelevant because the Trinity is coeternal and coequal.

Now my position is that the Holy Spirit proceeded exactly at the same time as the Logos was begotten, and in that case both understandings (filloque or no) are true.

The bolded above is an Orthodox position (if we remove the "at the same time" and replace it with "coincident", since it was before time came into being).  Filioque, by the definition of Florence, is not.  Both cannot be true at the same time.  But even long before Florence, St. Photios pointed out that the "and the Son" addition makes the relationship of the Trinity that of father, son, and grandchild.   But if we are looking at the Psalms, the Logos and Breath (Spirit) proceed from God that Father coincidentally (or "simultaneously" by its old definition) in eternity, the one by begottenness, the other by spiration.  

With All due respect Father, Photius had an extremely poor understanding of the Filioque...

With all due respect, atheists, Muslims, and Jews have claimed that St. Athanasius had a poor understanding of the Incarnation of Christ instead of addressing the particular point.  If you would like to disprove the actual CLAIM, then be my guest.  However, now you must prove two claims, namely that what I posted from St. Photios was wrong, and also you must now substantiate your claim that St. Photios had a "poor understanding"  Roll Eyes of the filioque.  
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #130 on: August 21, 2014, 04:01:54 AM »

Growing up Protestant I've thought the filloque controversy to be a rather minor controversy and you may correct me if I'm wrong, but is the controversy not about the filloque per se but about what appeared a Roman unilateral intrusion on settled doctrine?
Personally I see it as irrelevant because the Trinity is coeternal and coequal.

Now my position is that the Holy Spirit proceeded exactly at the same time as the Logos was begotten, and in that case both understandings (filloque or no) are true.

The bolded above is an Orthodox position (if we remove the "at the same time" and replace it with "coincident", since it was before time came into being).  Filioque, by the definition of Florence, is not.  Both cannot be true at the same time.  But even long before Florence, St. Photios pointed out that the "and the Son" addition makes the relationship of the Trinity that of father, son, and grandchild.   But if we are looking at the Psalms, the Logos and Breath (Spirit) proceed from God that Father coincidentally (or "simultaneously" by its old definition) in eternity, the one by begottenness, the other by spiration. 

With All due respect Father, Photius had an extremely poor understanding of the Filioque...

Have you read the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, attributed to Saint Photius?

No, but he's read many blogs that state that "St. Photius had a poor understanding of filioque," and decided to parrot it here
Logged
Santagranddad
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCA
Posts: 1,047



« Reply #131 on: August 21, 2014, 06:46:37 AM »

Growing up Protestant I've thought the filloque controversy to be a rather minor controversy and you may correct me if I'm wrong, but is the controversy not about the filloque per se but about what appeared a Roman unilateral intrusion on settled doctrine?
Personally I see it as irrelevant because the Trinity is coeternal and coequal.

Now my position is that the Holy Spirit proceeded exactly at the same time as the Logos was begotten, and in that case both understandings (filloque or no) are true.

The bolded above is an Orthodox position (if we remove the "at the same time" and replace it with "coincident", since it was before time came into being).  Filioque, by the definition of Florence, is not.  Both cannot be true at the same time.  But even long before Florence, St. Photios pointed out that the "and the Son" addition makes the relationship of the Trinity that of father, son, and grandchild.   But if we are looking at the Psalms, the Logos and Breath (Spirit) proceed from God that Father coincidentally (or "simultaneously" by its old definition) in eternity, the one by begottenness, the other by spiration.  

With All due respect Father, Photius had an extremely poor understanding of the Filioque...

Certainly someone has a poor understanding, but I am sure it isn't Saint Photios.
Logged
Chrismated
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox
Posts: 68


« Reply #132 on: August 21, 2014, 09:50:32 AM »

Santagrad, who is the Saint represented in the Icon attached to your posts? Thank you.
Logged
Chrismated
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox
Posts: 68


« Reply #133 on: August 21, 2014, 09:51:24 AM »

Sorry, Santagranddad!
Logged
Ekdikos
Warned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Serbia - Diocese of Banja Luka
Posts: 397



« Reply #134 on: August 21, 2014, 10:30:33 AM »

Santagrad, who is the Saint represented in the Icon attached to your posts? Thank you.

Saint Patrick of Ireland.
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: 37,483



« Reply #135 on: August 21, 2014, 11:11:38 AM »

Growing up Protestant I've thought the filloque controversy to be a rather minor controversy and you may correct me if I'm wrong, but is the controversy not about the filloque per se but about what appeared a Roman unilateral intrusion on settled doctrine?
Personally I see it as irrelevant because the Trinity is coeternal and coequal.

Now my position is that the Holy Spirit proceeded exactly at the same time as the Logos was begotten, and in that case both understandings (filloque or no) are true.

The bolded above is an Orthodox position (if we remove the "at the same time" and replace it with "coincident", since it was before time came into being).  Filioque, by the definition of Florence, is not.  Both cannot be true at the same time.  But even long before Florence, St. Photios pointed out that the "and the Son" addition makes the relationship of the Trinity that of father, son, and grandchild.   But if we are looking at the Psalms, the Logos and Breath (Spirit) proceed from God that Father coincidentally (or "simultaneously" by its old definition) in eternity, the one by begottenness, the other by spiration.  

With All due respect Father, Photius had an extremely poor understanding of the Filioque...
he knew it was heretical, which is more than can be said for Thomas Aquinas.
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
Ekdikos
Warned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Serbia - Diocese of Banja Luka
Posts: 397



« Reply #136 on: August 21, 2014, 11:21:59 AM »

Growing up Protestant I've thought the filloque controversy to be a rather minor controversy and you may correct me if I'm wrong, but is the controversy not about the filloque per se but about what appeared a Roman unilateral intrusion on settled doctrine?
Personally I see it as irrelevant because the Trinity is coeternal and coequal.

Now my position is that the Holy Spirit proceeded exactly at the same time as the Logos was begotten, and in that case both understandings (filloque or no) are true.

The bolded above is an Orthodox position (if we remove the "at the same time" and replace it with "coincident", since it was before time came into being).  Filioque, by the definition of Florence, is not.  Both cannot be true at the same time.  But even long before Florence, St. Photios pointed out that the "and the Son" addition makes the relationship of the Trinity that of father, son, and grandchild.   But if we are looking at the Psalms, the Logos and Breath (Spirit) proceed from God that Father coincidentally (or "simultaneously" by its old definition) in eternity, the one by begottenness, the other by spiration.  

With All due respect Father, Photius had an extremely poor understanding of the Filioque...

Then councils of Ferara-Florence and Lyons had extremly poor understanding of it also... since they speak about Son as cause of Spirit.
Logged

Santagranddad
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCA
Posts: 1,047



« Reply #137 on: August 21, 2014, 02:13:44 PM »

Santagrad, who is the Saint represented in the Icon attached to your posts? Thank you.

Saint Patrick of Ireland.

Sorry, just got a look at this thread. Just so, Saint Patrick, as a helpful contributor has posted. And no offence taken.....
Logged
Chrismated
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox
Posts: 68


« Reply #138 on: August 21, 2014, 07:04:59 PM »

It appears that we have a couple of really great historians on this forum. I have a question. This whole issue of the filioque seems to run much deeper than just some words added. It is obviously an "authority" issue as well, as, who had the authority to add those words. Also, the rejection of those words, by those who didn't recognize the "authority" that did so. From my personal reading, this issue, as well as a few others, were around way before 1056, but "officially"came to a head then. My question is, when did Rome, and the East, really start to go their own ways, and cause the one undivided Church, to begin to separate into a "split" one undivided Church? From my personal reading, it seems to have begun in the 4th century. I look forward to some serious debate on this. Comments appreciated. Thank you.
Logged
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 0.56 seconds with 165 queries.