OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 25, 2014, 12:59:03 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 3849 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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: 290


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
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,833


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


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 Ephrem > Justin Kissel
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: 1,145


@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: 11,475


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
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,534


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« 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

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
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: 1,145


@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: 1,145


@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: 1,145


@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
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,833


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


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 Ephrem > Justin Kissel
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
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,833


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


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 Ephrem > Justin Kissel
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
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,833


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


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 Ephrem > Justin Kissel
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,475


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: 1,145


@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
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,833


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


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 Ephrem > Justin Kissel
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: 1,145


@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
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,833


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


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 Ephrem > Justin Kissel
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: 1,145


@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
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,833


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


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 Ephrem > Justin Kissel
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
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,833


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


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 Ephrem > Justin Kissel
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: Christianity
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical
Posts: 221



« 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
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,713



« 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
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
Party per fess argent and gules; in chief a Latin cross bottony sable between two lozenges azure; in base a wheel, or.
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Converting
Jurisdiction: GOC-Kallinikos....one day
Posts: 293



« 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

Where even the last two or three are gathered in His name, He is there in their midst.
Justin Kolodziej
Party per fess argent and gules; in chief a Latin cross bottony sable between two lozenges azure; in base a wheel, or.
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Converting
Jurisdiction: GOC-Kallinikos....one day
Posts: 293



« 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

Where even the last two or three are gathered in His name, He is there in their midst.
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: 1,145


@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
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,713



« 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: 1,145


@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
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: 1,145


@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: 1,621



« 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: 1,198



« 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
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

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 0.225 seconds with 71 queries.