Author Topic: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.  (Read 2334 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Xavier

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 344
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Wiki says "The basis of John Bekkos’s quarrel with his contemporaries was a disagreement with them over the implications of a traditional patristic formula, that states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (in Greek, διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ). Already in the ninth century, this expression was being pushed in two different directions: Latin writers saw it as implying the Augustinian doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (Filioque); Greek writers, especially from the time of Patriarch Photios onward, saw it as consistent with the view that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. Bekkos originally agreed with the Photian view, but his reading of the Greek fathers, and of medieval Greek writers like Nicephorus Blemmydes and Nicetas of Maroneia, caused him to change his mind. Much of John XI Bekkos’s debate with Gregory II was a debate over the meaning of texts from St. Cyril and other fathers, whose wording (the Spirit “exists from the Son”; the Spirit “fountains forth eternally” from the Son, etc.) Bekkos saw as consistent with the Latin doctrine, while Gregory of Cyprus interpreted such texts as necessarily referring to an eternal manifestation of the Holy Spirit through or from the Son. This thirteenth-century debate has considerable relevance for current-day ecumenical discussions between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church."

1. The two texts of relevance are the dogmatic confession of St. Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople at Nicaea II, "το Πνευμα το αγιον, το κυριον και ζωοποιον, το εκ του Πατροσ δια του Υιου εκπορευομενον." the Church believes "in the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father through the Son, and Who is acknowledged to be Himself God." A plain and explicit statement proving the doctrine of St. Augustine, for this can only refer to the divine Essence. Firstly, the Saintly Patriarch said the hypostasis of the Spirit, the same Who Proceeds from the Father, proceeds through the Son. Second, St. Tarasius also says He Who Proceeds through the Son is acknowledged to be Himself God by nature, which clearly refers to the divine hypostasis of the Spirit. If, as some of the Greeks hold, Patriarch Tarasius wished to say something absurd like, "Although the Person of the Spirit proceeds from the Father, yet we must dogmatically confess only that (allegedly) the grace and energies and these alone of the Spirit are mediated through the Son", he would have done so. That's not what he said. [Original text and Greek here http://catholicpatristics.blogspot.in/2009/08/filioque.html]

2. The two texts of St. Cyril " the Spirit is from God the Father and, for that matter, from the Son, being poured forth substantially from both, that is to say, from the Father through the Son." and [/i]"in that the Son is God, and from God according to nature (for He has had His birth from God the Father), the Spirit is both proper to Him and in Him and from Him, just as, to be sure, the same thing is understood to hold true in the case of God the Father Himself."[/i] These texts are so wondrously clear that to add anything to them by way of commentary is to subtract from them.

Gregory II is wrong, and Patriarch Bekkos is right. He and many others of the learned Greeks were able to convincingly show after lengthy study that hypostatic procession of the Spirit mediated through the Son (i.e. the eternal act of spiration of the Spirit from the Father, where the Spirit receives His divine hypostasis, is eternally through the Son) is clearly the teaching of the Greek Fathers, in admirable agreement with the Latin Fathers.
An empty tomb is there to prove my Savior lives!

"This is the night when Christ broke the prison-bars of death and rose victorious from the underworld.
Our birth would have been no gain, had we not been redeemed. O wonder of your humble care for us!
O love, O charity beyond all telling, to ransom a slave you gave away your Son!
O truly necessary sin of Adam, destroyed completely by the Death of Christ!
O happy fault - that earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer!" ~ The Exsultet

Offline Alpo

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,440
  • Faith: Finnish Orthodox
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #1 on: November 30, 2017, 04:33:57 AM »
And Pope Saint John Paul II accepted the Monopatrism of Photius. Haters gonna hate.  8)

Anyway, this is silly. No Orthodox particularly cares what happened at Lyons. We are Orthodox. It wasn't our council.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2017, 04:35:20 AM by Alpo »
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,103
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2017, 10:29:42 AM »
I am actually intensely interested right now in this thirteenth-century showdown between John Beccus and Gregory II. Both of them have very serious arguments and I have not yet decided who is more right on this issue. I am leaning towards Gregory II at the moment. At any rate, I'm primarily interested so as to understand some previous Latin Fathers on the issue, such as St. Faustus of Riez. In short, whose theology reconciles with the majority of the Latin Fathers? This is a question that I am seeking to answer myself at the moment.

I disagree with your interpretation of St. Cyril of Alexandria, however Xavier. Besides, I am not certain why you think the term "substantially" is so significant to your case. It is the Orthodox position that at least in Greek, the terms from the Son and through the Son are quite different in meaning. We will not compromise on this issue.
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 737
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2017, 12:35:58 PM »
Speaking of the false union of lyons, when the patriarch of constantinople accepted the so called unia, the monks of mount athos removed his name from the diptychs, excommunicating him from the Church, in return the emperor send some latins to the holy mountain to enforce the unia by the sword, the rest of the story is well known, how the Lord and His Mother intervened and repudiated both, the latins and the monks who accepted the unia. Their accursed corpses are located even today in a cave, so their dreadful look can serve as a remainder of what took place.

And the holy martyrs, who refused the unia were glorified by God in another miraculous event.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2017, 12:39:26 PM by Vanhyo »

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,179
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #4 on: December 15, 2017, 04:27:04 PM »
Speaking of the false union of lyons, when the patriarch of constantinople accepted the so called unia, the monks of mount athos removed his name from the diptychs, excommunicating him from the Church, in return the emperor send some latins to the holy mountain to enforce the unia by the sword, the rest of the story is well known, how the Lord and His Mother intervened and repudiated both, the latins and the monks who accepted the unia. Their accursed corpses are located even today in a cave, so their dreadful look can serve as a remainder of what took place.

And the holy martyrs, who refused the unia were glorified by God in another miraculous event.

Tales like this exist for both Catholics and Orthodox. I don’t think these do anything to prove either case.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,133
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #5 on: December 15, 2017, 04:31:41 PM »
Speaking of the false union of lyons, when the patriarch of constantinople accepted the so called unia, the monks of mount athos removed his name from the diptychs, excommunicating him from the Church, in return the emperor send some latins to the holy mountain to enforce the unia by the sword, the rest of the story is well known, how the Lord and His Mother intervened and repudiated both, the latins and the monks who accepted the unia. Their accursed corpses are located even today in a cave, so their dreadful look can serve as a remainder of what took place.

And the holy martyrs, who refused the unia were glorified by God in another miraculous event.

Tales like this exist for both Catholics and Orthodox. I don’t think these do anything to prove either case.

Really? A Pope successfully excommunicated by a powerful pious subset of the church, in spite of armed coercion? You mean Avignon?
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,179
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #6 on: December 16, 2017, 07:15:06 AM »
Speaking of the false union of lyons, when the patriarch of constantinople accepted the so called unia, the monks of mount athos removed his name from the diptychs, excommunicating him from the Church, in return the emperor send some latins to the holy mountain to enforce the unisex  by the sword, the rest of the story is well known, how the Lord and His Mother intervened and repudiated both, the latins and the monks who accepted the unia. Their accursed corpses are located even today in a cave, so their dreadful look can serve as a remainder of what took place.

And the holy martyrs, who refused the unia were glorified by God in another miraculous event.

Tales like this exist for both Catholics and Orthodox. I don’t think these do anything to prove either case.

Really? A Pope successfully excommunicated by a powerful pious subset of the church, in spite of armed coercion? You mean Avignon?

No because a pope can’t be excommunicated.

Besides I meant miracles against supposed heretics or schismatics. Like St Dominic’s miracle against the Albigensian heretics with the trial by fire.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,133
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #7 on: December 16, 2017, 03:18:12 PM »
No because a pope can’t be excommunicated.

The Pope was excommunicated for almost a thousand years. Hence, the forum you are on. Try to keep up.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,179
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #8 on: December 16, 2017, 05:19:31 PM »
No because a pope can’t be excommunicated.

The Pope was excommunicated for almost a thousand years. Hence, the forum you are on. Try to keep up.

Depends from which side of the divide you stand.

Obviously I was speaking from our perspective. Try to keep up.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,133
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #9 on: December 16, 2017, 06:53:31 PM »
No because a pope can’t be excommunicated.

The Pope was excommunicated for almost a thousand years. Hence, the forum you are on. Try to keep up.

Depends from which side of the divide you stand.

Obviously I was speaking from our perspective. Try to keep up.

Then use English, i.e., I prefer to believe a Pope could never be excommunicated.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,179
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #10 on: December 18, 2017, 04:03:04 AM »
No because a pope can’t be excommunicated.

The Pope was excommunicated for almost a thousand years. Hence, the forum you are on. Try to keep up.

Depends from which side of the divide you stand.

Obviously I was speaking from our perspective. Try to keep up.

Then use English, i.e., I prefer to believe a Pope could never be excommunicated.

I used English. Just not the way you would like. You’re being unnecessary now.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,133
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #11 on: December 18, 2017, 01:54:28 PM »
No because a pope can’t be excommunicated.

The Pope was excommunicated for almost a thousand years. Hence, the forum you are on. Try to keep up.

Depends from which side of the divide you stand.

Obviously I was speaking from our perspective. Try to keep up.

Then use English, i.e., I prefer to believe a Pope could never be excommunicated.

I used English. Just not the way you would like. You’re being unnecessary now.

Then you were wrong. A Pope can be excommunicated and had been.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 737
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #12 on: December 18, 2017, 02:46:14 PM »
Quote
Tales like this exist for both Catholics and Orthodox. I don’t think these do anything to prove either case.
You can always visit mount athos, tell them that you are roman catholic and you want to see the cave with the excommunicated bodies of the uniates.

But sure, show me your tales and ill consider their validity, remember Pharaoh's magicians were also able to turn their rods into snakes but their snakes were eaten - Exodus 7:12.

Quote
Besides I meant miracles against supposed heretics or schismatics. Like St Dominic’s miracle against the Albigensian heretics with the trial by fire.
This is a good example of nothing, if a magician's defeats another magician, all the proves if something is going on which we don't understand. In other words - what happened within roman catholicism have nothing to do with The Orthodox Church.

If however the Orthodox Church and the Roman catholicism are involved, then we have a direct encounter, so why would God let those who are supposedly his own to be humiliated by what a middle age latin might call "schismatics" "heretics" and all sorts of other slurs ?

Since you mention your-st Dominic’s miracle, which had nothing to do with us, now let me mention some miracles that have infact something to do with the refutation of latins by the Theotokos Herself,clearly She prefers orthodoxy over popery.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2017, 02:58:54 PM by Vanhyo »

Offline WPM

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,593
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #13 on: December 18, 2017, 02:51:38 PM »
Perhaps there is no such thing as 'Orthodoxy' and 'Orthodox Church' in the United States.
Learn meditation.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,179
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #14 on: December 18, 2017, 03:36:40 PM »
No because a pope can’t be excommunicated.

The Pope was excommunicated for almost a thousand years. Hence, the forum you are on. Try to keep up.

Depends from which side of the divide you stand.

Obviously I was speaking from our perspective. Try to keep up.

Then use English, i.e., I prefer to believe a Pope could never be excommunicated.

I used English. Just not the way you would like. You’re being unnecessary now.

Then you were wrong. A Pope can be excommunicated and had been.

Not from our view. He can only be shown to be deprived. The act of attempting to excommunicate a pope is no more valid than a layman seeming to consecrate the bread and wine
« Last Edit: December 18, 2017, 03:37:11 PM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,179
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #15 on: December 18, 2017, 03:41:35 PM »
Quote
Tales like this exist for both Catholics and Orthodox. I don’t think these do anything to prove either case.
You can always visit mount athos, tell them that you are roman catholic and you want to see the cave with the excommunicated bodies of the uniates.

But sure, show me your tales and ill consider their validity, remember Pharaoh's magicians were also able to turn their rods into snakes but their snakes were eaten - Exodus 7:12.
This argument is useless as it can be easily used against you.

Quote
Quote
Besides I meant miracles against supposed heretics or schismatics. Like St Dominic’s miracle against the Albigensian heretics with the trial by fire.
This is a good example of nothing, if a magician's defeats another magician, all the proves if something is going on which we don't understand. In other words - what happened within roman catholicism have nothing to do with The Orthodox Church.
Magicians invoke the power of demons and spirits not the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. This is an argument tantamount to blasphemy. Use your words carefully brother.

Quote
If however the Orthodox Church and the Roman catholicism are involved, then we have a direct encounter, so why would God let those who are supposedly his own to be humiliated by what a middle age latin might call "schismatics" "heretics" and all sorts of other slurs ?
Pride for one? Were not the Jews humiliated by pagans on multiple occasions despite the truth of their faith at the time?

Quote
Since you mention your-st Dominic’s miracle, which had nothing to do with us, now let me mention some miracles that have infact something to do with the refutation of latins by the Theotokos Herself,clearly She prefers orthodoxy over popery.


The Mother Of God who appeared in Ecuador and prophesied the glorious proclamation of the dogma of pontifical infallibility and her immaculate conception? The same Mother if God who appeared at Fatima or at Lourdes and called hereself the immaculate conception? Yeah sure.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2017, 03:45:49 PM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,133
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #16 on: December 18, 2017, 03:48:23 PM »
Quote
Tales like this exist for both Catholics and Orthodox. I don’t think these do anything to prove either case.
You can always visit mount athos, tell them that you are roman catholic and you want to see the cave with the excommunicated bodies of the uniates.

But sure, show me your tales and ill consider their validity, remember Pharaoh's magicians were also able to turn their rods into snakes but their snakes were eaten - Exodus 7:12.
This argument is useless as it can be easily used against you.

Quote
Quote
Besides I meant miracles against supposed heretics or schismatics. Like St Dominic’s miracle against the Albigensian heretics with the trial by fire.
This is a good example of nothing, if a magician's defeats another magician, all the proves if something is going on which we don't understand. In other words - what happened within roman catholicism have nothing to do with The Orthodox Church.
Magicians invoke the power of demons and spirits not the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. This is an argument tantamount to blasphemy. Use your words carefully brother.

Since it's taking you a while to catch on, I'll help: We consider certain excesses of the papacy blasphemous and demonic.

Quote
Quote
If however the Orthodox Church and the Roman catholicism are involved, then we have a direct encounter, so why would God let those who are supposedly his own to be humiliated by what a middle age latin might call "schismatics" "heretics" and all sorts of other slurs ?
Pride for one? Were not the Jews humiliated by pagans on multiple occasions despite the truth of their faith at the time?

Quote
Since you mention your-st Dominic’s miracle, which had nothing to do with us, now let me mention some miracles that have infact something to do with the refutation of latins by the Theotokos Herself,clearly She prefers orthodoxy over popery.


The Mother Of God who appeared in Ecuador and prophesied the glorious proclamation of the dogma of pontifical infallibility and her immaculate conception? The same Mother if God who appeared at Fatima or at Lourdes and called hereself the immaculate conception? Yeah sure.

No, not the same Mother of God.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 737
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #17 on: December 18, 2017, 04:00:05 PM »
Quote
Pride for one?
More like comfort that i am in the right Church

Quote
Were not the Jews humiliated by pagans on multiple occasions despite the truth of their faith at the time?
Physically and materially ? Yes, never spiritually or in matters of faith.
Quote
called hereself the immaculate conception?
And you don't find this odd at all ?
« Last Edit: December 18, 2017, 04:01:13 PM by Vanhyo »

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,179
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #18 on: December 18, 2017, 04:12:22 PM »
Quote
Pride for one?
More like comfort that i am in the right Church
An evil generation looks for a miracle as a sign

Quote
Quote
Were not the Jews humiliated by pagans on multiple occasions despite the truth of their faith at the time?
Physically and materially ? Yes, never spiritually or in matters of faith.
Quote
Antiochus Epiphanes and the temple of God.

Quote
Quote
called hereself the immaculate conception?
And you don't find this odd at all ?
Not at all. For the prophecies of these apparitions have come true and miracles accompany them even until this day! Seeing as you posed this question, You don’t find it odd at all that she has never once appeared to you guys or the OO and denied these titles she claimed for herself in front of Catholics?
« Last Edit: December 18, 2017, 04:14:24 PM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,179
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #19 on: December 18, 2017, 04:42:23 PM »
Quote
Tales like this exist for both Catholics and Orthodox. I don’t think these do anything to prove either case.
You can always visit mount athos, tell them that you are roman catholic and you want to see the cave with the excommunicated bodies of the uniates.

But sure, show me your tales and ill consider their validity, remember Pharaoh's magicians were also able to turn their rods into snakes but their snakes were eaten - Exodus 7:12.
This argument is useless as it can be easily used against you.

Quote
Quote
Besides I meant miracles against supposed heretics or schismatics. Like St Dominic’s miracle against the Albigensian heretics with the trial by fire.
This is a good example of nothing, if a magician's defeats another magician, all the proves if something is going on which we don't understand. In other words - what happened within roman catholicism have nothing to do with The Orthodox Church.
Magicians invoke the power of demons and spirits not the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. This is an argument tantamount to blasphemy. Use your words carefully brother.

Since it's taking you a while to catch on, I'll help: We consider certain excesses of the papacy blasphemous and demonic.
This is off topic and frankly irrelevant.

Quote
Quote
Quote
If however the Orthodox Church and the Roman catholicism are involved, then we have a direct encounter, so why would God let those who are supposedly his own to be humiliated by what a middle age latin might call "schismatics" "heretics" and all sorts of other slurs ?
Pride for one? Were not the Jews humiliated by pagans on multiple occasions despite the truth of their faith at the time?

Quote
Since you mention your-st Dominic’s miracle, which had nothing to do with us, now let me mention some miracles that have infact something to do with the refutation of latins by the Theotokos Herself,clearly She prefers orthodoxy over popery.


The Mother Of God who appeared in Ecuador and prophesied the glorious proclamation of the dogma of pontifical infallibility and her immaculate conception? The same Mother if God who appeared at Fatima or at Lourdes and called hereself the immaculate conception? Yeah sure.

No, not the same Mother of God.

You hope. We know it was the Mother of God who visited us at Lourdes, Fatima, Soufanieh, Akita, Ruwanda,Ecuador, Ngome in South Africa, Guadalupe etc.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2017, 04:52:33 PM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,133
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #20 on: December 18, 2017, 04:44:20 PM »
You don’t find it odd at all that she has never once appeared to you guys or the OO and denied these titles she claimed for herself in front of Catholics?

This is really how your mind works, huh?
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,179
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #21 on: December 18, 2017, 04:51:01 PM »
You don’t find it odd at all that she has never once appeared to you guys or the OO and denied these titles she claimed for herself in front of Catholics?

This is really how your mind works, huh?

It was a poke at his question in the prior post.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2017, 04:51:16 PM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 737
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #22 on: December 18, 2017, 04:51:21 PM »
Quote
An evil generation looks for a miracle as a sign
This is completely out of context, talking about things that have occurred and seeking signs are different things, nevertheless lets bring your point into context, Christ told the Pharasies that he will give them the sign of Jonah, meaning like Jonas spend 3 days in the belly of the whale, likewise He will die, be burried for 3 days and be raised again.

Interesting enough, every year on holy pascha the sign of jonah is also symbolically given for all generations through the miracle of the Holy Fire of Jerusalem as a reminder of the Truth... now... do you know that story ?

Quote
Antiochus Epiphanes and the temple of God.
Do you even know how this antiochus ended up ? Read the full story, God will not be mocked.

Quote
You don’t find it odd at all that she has never once appeared to you guys or the OO and denied these titles she claimed for herself in front of Catholics?
How about this:
"for the God-opposing latins have attacked this, my chosen Moutain"
Source


« Last Edit: December 18, 2017, 04:53:15 PM by Vanhyo »

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,179
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #23 on: December 18, 2017, 05:01:41 PM »
Quote
An evil generation looks for a miracle as a sign
This is completely out of context, talking about things that have occurred and seeking signs are different things, nevertheless lets bring your point into context, Christ told the Pharasies that he will give them the sign of Jonah, meaning like Jonas spend 3 days in the belly of the whale, likewise He will die, be burried for 3 days and be raised again.

Interesting enough, every year on holy pascha the sign of jonah is also symbolically given for all generations through the miracle of the Holy Fire of Jerusalem as a reminder of the Truth... now... do you know that story ?

Lol that miracle is even disputed by some EO. I’m inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt but there is a lot of evidence against it even being a miracle and the claims of EO clergy sometimes saying it isn’t even miracle doesn’t help.  The sign of Johah was the resurrection not holy fire.

We have annual miracles of our own too like the Blood Miracle of Saint Januarius which occurs up to 18 Times each year. This a mindless argument at this point

Quote
Quote
Antiochus Epiphanes and the temple of God.
Do you even know how this Antiochus ended up ? Read the full story, God will not be mocked.
Yes. It serves proof that even though in the end God triumphs, God’s true faith can be mocked on account of the sins of its people as a chastisement. For your whole point was that God will never let the true faith be mocked. Many times in history it has been and this is one example of that.

Even the great tribulation is prophetic proof of that as the mockery and deception will be of such great proprotions that the Son of God asked if upon his return he would even find faith on the earth.

Quote
Quote
You don’t find it odd at all that she has never once appeared to you guys or the OO and denied these titles she claimed for herself in front of Catholics?
How about this:
"for the God-opposing latins have attacked this, my chosen Moutain"
Source

That is not what I mentioned. Where does the Mothe of God appear to you guys denying she is the immaculate conception?

Lastly this more shows the sins of the latin soldiers for they went there with an evil attitude seeking to forcefully impose on the monks with the threat of death.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2017, 05:10:27 PM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline ErmyCath

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 275
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #24 on: December 18, 2017, 06:27:21 PM »
An evil generation looks for a miracle as a sign

We know it was the Mother of God who visited us at Lourdes, Fatima, Soufanieh, Akita, Ruwanda,Ecuador, Ngome in South Africa, Guadalupe etc.

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,103
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #25 on: December 18, 2017, 07:32:58 PM »
Well this thread sure devolved into mere sausage waiving.
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Xavier

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 344
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #26 on: December 19, 2017, 02:01:14 AM »
Rohzek, the term substantial is important in St. Cyril because some of the later Greeks claimed it was an "energetic procession" only. It is not. It pertains to the Essence of God and the Spirit is consubstantial with the Son because He proceeds from Him. The term proper to the Son in St. Cyril is important for the same reason, it shows it is a personal property of the Spirit to proceed from the Son, and doesn't refer only to the grace of the Spirit, as some claim, which is not proper to any one but common to all Three Divine Persons.
An empty tomb is there to prove my Savior lives!

"This is the night when Christ broke the prison-bars of death and rose victorious from the underworld.
Our birth would have been no gain, had we not been redeemed. O wonder of your humble care for us!
O love, O charity beyond all telling, to ransom a slave you gave away your Son!
O truly necessary sin of Adam, destroyed completely by the Death of Christ!
O happy fault - that earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer!" ~ The Exsultet

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,103
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #27 on: December 22, 2017, 10:36:02 AM »
Rohzek, the term substantial is important in St. Cyril because some of the later Greeks claimed it was an "energetic procession" only. It is not. It pertains to the Essence of God and the Spirit is consubstantial with the Son because He proceeds from Him. The term proper to the Son in St. Cyril is important for the same reason, it shows it is a personal property of the Spirit to proceed from the Son, and doesn't refer only to the grace of the Spirit, as some claim, which is not proper to any one but common to all Three Divine Persons.

I think the key thing that you have yet to consider is the term used for procession in this quote. St. Cyril is using πρχεόμενον, which is quite different from έκπορεύεσθαι. I cannot speak about what he means exactly for the former, but it is clear that he distinguishes the two throughout his writings. It's clear that St. Cyril taught some form of Spirit flowing forth through the Son that is eternal, not just economical. But this difference becomes more clear from his arguments with St. Theodoret of Cyprus, when St. Cyril explicitly denies that the Spirit has its subsistence from or through the Son. Ergo, it seems clear to me that St. Cyril believes in the monarchy of the Father and that any procedere from or through the Son is quite different from the procedere from the Father in his Trinitarian framework.

My knowledge of Greek is next to nil, but if you want to dig deeper, I recommend reading pages 47-50 of A. Edward Siecienski's The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy. He is much more detailed than I am.
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,179
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #28 on: December 22, 2017, 11:13:23 AM »
Rohzek, the term substantial is important in St. Cyril because some of the later Greeks claimed it was an "energetic procession" only. It is not. It pertains to the Essence of God and the Spirit is consubstantial with the Son because He proceeds from Him. The term proper to the Son in St. Cyril is important for the same reason, it shows it is a personal property of the Spirit to proceed from the Son, and doesn't refer only to the grace of the Spirit, as some claim, which is not proper to any one but common to all Three Divine Persons.

I think the key thing that you have yet to consider is the term used for procession in this quote. St. Cyril is using πρχεόμενον, which is quite different from έκπορεύεσθαι. I cannot speak about what he means exactly for the former, but it is clear that he distinguishes the two throughout his writings. It's clear that St. Cyril taught some form of Spirit flowing forth through the Son that is eternal, not just economical. But this difference becomes more clear from his arguments with St. Theodoret of Cyprus, when St. Cyril explicitly denies that the Spirit has its subsistence from or through the Son. Ergo, it seems clear to me that St. Cyrilbelieves in the monarchy of the Father and that any procedere from or through the Son is quite different from the procedere from the Father in his Trinitarian framework.

My knowledge of Greek is next to nil, but if you want to dig deeper, I recommend reading pages 47-50 of A. Edward Siecienski's The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy. He is much more detailed than I am.

But St Cyril contradicts :laugh: what you say in his Thesaurus:

”Thus, Paul knows no difference of nature between the Son and the Holy Spirit, but because the Spirit exists from Him and in Him by nature, He calls Him by the name of Lordship." [/center

He also goes on to say :
”Therefore, when Christ lays down the law, He lays it down that His Spirit naturally exists in Him and from Him."

Lastly he says again :

”The Spirit is assuredly in no way changeable; or even if some think Him to be so infirm as to change, the disgrace will be traced back to the divine nature itself, if in fact the Spirit is from God the Father and, for that matter, from the Son, being poured forth substantially from both, that is to say, from the Father through the Son.”
« Last Edit: December 22, 2017, 11:27:16 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,103
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #29 on: December 22, 2017, 12:45:55 PM »
Rohzek, the term substantial is important in St. Cyril because some of the later Greeks claimed it was an "energetic procession" only. It is not. It pertains to the Essence of God and the Spirit is consubstantial with the Son because He proceeds from Him. The term proper to the Son in St. Cyril is important for the same reason, it shows it is a personal property of the Spirit to proceed from the Son, and doesn't refer only to the grace of the Spirit, as some claim, which is not proper to any one but common to all Three Divine Persons.

I think the key thing that you have yet to consider is the term used for procession in this quote. St. Cyril is using πρχεόμενον, which is quite different from έκπορεύεσθαι. I cannot speak about what he means exactly for the former, but it is clear that he distinguishes the two throughout his writings. It's clear that St. Cyril taught some form of Spirit flowing forth through the Son that is eternal, not just economical. But this difference becomes more clear from his arguments with St. Theodoret of Cyprus, when St. Cyril explicitly denies that the Spirit has its subsistence from or through the Son. Ergo, it seems clear to me that St. Cyrilbelieves in the monarchy of the Father and that any procedere from or through the Son is quite different from the procedere from the Father in his Trinitarian framework.

My knowledge of Greek is next to nil, but if you want to dig deeper, I recommend reading pages 47-50 of A. Edward Siecienski's The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy. He is much more detailed than I am.

But St Cyril contradicts :laugh: what you say in his Thesaurus:

”Thus, Paul knows no difference of nature between the Son and the Holy Spirit, but because the Spirit exists from Him and in Him by nature, He calls Him by the name of Lordship." [/center

He also goes on to say :
”Therefore, when Christ lays down the law, He lays it down that His Spirit naturally exists in Him and from Him."

Lastly he says again :

”The Spirit is assuredly in no way changeable; or even if some think Him to be so infirm as to change, the disgrace will be traced back to the divine nature itself, if in fact the Spirit is from God the Father and, for that matter, from the Son, being poured forth substantially from both, that is to say, from the Father through the Son.”
So either St. Cyril contradicted himself in two different works, or there is something else he means in the passage you quote. As you all too often do, you don't give a page number, an edition, or anything from the excerpt you quote. If you could please do that, I'd be grateful. It should behoove both of us to look at the wider text. Here is what he says in his Apologeticus contra Thedoretum found in the Patrologia Graeca 76: 432:

Quote
Si vero tamquam ex Filio, aut per Filium exisistentiam habeat, hoc ut blasphemiam et impium rejiciemus. Credimus enim Domino dicenti: "Spiritus qui ex Patre procedit," sed et sacratissimo Paulo dicenti similiter: "Nos autem non spiritum mundi accepimus, sed Spiritum qui ex Deo Patre est.

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=ofDBwLB9iAQC&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA131

The Greek and Latin are side by side and I have linked them above. I will translate the Latin and someone else will have to compare the Greek and see if I got it right.

Quote
But if the Holy Spirit should have its existence either from the Son or through the Son, we would reject this notion as blasphemous and impious. Indeed, we believe the Lord saying, "The Spirit proceeds from the Father," (John 15:26) but also we believe the most sacred Paul saying similarly: "But we do not receive the Spirit of the wold, but the Spirit who is from God the Father." (1 Corinthians 2:12)
« Last Edit: December 22, 2017, 12:47:26 PM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,179
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #30 on: December 22, 2017, 01:41:21 PM »
Rohzek, the term substantial is important in St. Cyril because some of the later Greeks claimed it was an "energetic procession" only. It is not. It pertains to the Essence of God and the Spirit is consubstantial with the Son because He proceeds from Him. The term proper to the Son in St. Cyril is important for the same reason, it shows it is a personal property of the Spirit to proceed from the Son, and doesn't refer only to the grace of the Spirit, as some claim, which is not proper to any one but common to all Three Divine Persons.

I think the key thing that you have yet to consider is the term used for procession in this quote. St. Cyril is using πρχεόμενον, which is quite different from έκπορεύεσθαι. I cannot speak about what he means exactly for the former, but it is clear that he distinguishes the two throughout his writings. It's clear that St. Cyril taught some form of Spirit flowing forth through the Son that is eternal, not just economical. But this difference becomes more clear from his arguments with St. Theodoret of Cyprus, when St. Cyril explicitly denies that the Spirit has its subsistence from or through the Son. Ergo, it seems clear to me that St. Cyrilbelieves in the monarchy of the Father and that any procedere from or through the Son is quite different from the procedere from the Father in his Trinitarian framework.

My knowledge of Greek is next to nil, but if you want to dig deeper, I recommend reading pages 47-50 of A. Edward Siecienski's The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy. He is much more detailed than I am.

But St Cyril contradicts :laugh: what you say in his Thesaurus:

”Thus, Paul knows no difference of nature between the Son and the Holy Spirit, but because the Spirit exists from Him and in Him by nature, He calls Him by the name of Lordship." [/center

He also goes on to say :
”Therefore, when Christ lays down the law, He lays it down that His Spirit naturally exists in Him and from Him."

Lastly he says again :

”The Spirit is assuredly in no way changeable; or even if some think Him to be so infirm as to change, the disgrace will be traced back to the divine nature itself, if in fact the Spirit is from God the Father and, for that matter, from the Son, being poured forth substantially from both, that is to say, from the Father through the Son.”
So either St. Cyril contradicted himself in two different works, or there is something else he means in the passage you quote.
I think he means exactly what the words say. Which concurs with other statements made by St Cyril to the same effect. I think in your passage he is speaking of the ultimate origin of the Spirit as in the Greek verb of proceed which is used in the creed.

Quote
As you all too often do, you don't give a page number, an edition, or anything from the excerpt you quote. If you could please do that, I'd be grateful.

PG 75:576B, PG 75:600D and PG 68:148A in that order :)

Quote
It should behoove both of us to look at the wider text. Here is what he says in his Apologeticus contra Thedoretum found in the Patrologia Graeca 76: 432:

Quote
Si vero tamquam ex Filio, aut per Filium exisistentiam habeat, hoc ut blasphemiam et impium rejiciemus. Credimus enim Domino dicenti: "Spiritus qui ex Patre procedit," sed et sacratissimo Paulo dicenti similiter: "Nos autem non spiritum mundi accepimus, sed Spiritum qui ex Deo Patre est.

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=ofDBwLB9iAQC&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA131

The Greek and Latin are side by side and I have linked them above. I will translate the Latin and someone else will have to compare the Greek and see if I got it right.

Quote
But if the Holy Spirit should have its existence either from the Son or through the Son, we would reject this notion as blasphemous and impious. Indeed, we believe the Lord saying, "The Spirit proceeds from the Father," (John 15:26) but also we believe the most sacred Paul saying similarly: "But we do not receive the Spirit of the wold, but the Spirit who is from God the Father." (1 Corinthians 2:12)

This confirms my earlier assumption as I think here he speaks of the ultimate origin of the Holy Spirit which only can be said to be from the the Father and not the Son even in catholic theology. This makes his texts agree as in many places he confirms Xavier’s and pretty much the catholic teaching concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit (as you have seen which you called a contradiction in his writings). Within that framework his statements even including yours are consistent but within the EO theological framework he appears to be contradicting himself.

St Cyril says again PG 71:377D :

”For, in that the Son is God, and from God according to nature (for He has had His birth from God the Father), the Spirit is both proper to Him and in Him and from Him, just as, to be sure, the same thing is understood to hold true in the case of God the Father Himself.”
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,103
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #31 on: December 22, 2017, 01:58:03 PM »
Wandile, it seems to me that there are probably no differences between us in the understanding of the Trinity, at least from what I am reading here. As I said before, either St. Cyril either contradicts himself between two of his works OR he is writing about something different. You argue that he is writing about something different. At the same time, you argue that only the Father is the ultimate cause of the Spirit. I firmly agree with this latter sentiment. The former sentiment, I will tacitly agree to, although I hope to look at the citations you provided later to verify it. I am a bit short on time at the moment. I personally, as well as many Orthodox, have no problem with asserting that there is an eternal procession from the Father and the Son or from the Father through the Son, so long as we are not talking about the ultimate origin/cause.

I recommend reading the following Orthodox article by Metropolitan Zizioulas of Pergamon. I am not certain where I stand with his remaining reservations, but he speaks to what you just distinguished in your post just now: http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/zizioulas.htm
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • A Wretched Sinner
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,021
  • Saint Philaret of Moscow, Pray for Us!
  • Faith: Inquirer, still heterodox.
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #32 on: December 22, 2017, 03:26:27 PM »
This confirms my earlier assumption as I think here he speaks of the ultimate origin of the Holy Spirit which only can be said to be from the the Father and not the Son even in catholic theology. This makes his texts agree as in many places he confirms Xavier’s and pretty much the catholic teaching concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit (as you have seen which you called a contradiction in his writings). Within that framework his statements even including yours are consistent but within the EO theological framework he appears to be contradicting himself.

St Cyril says again PG 71:377D :

”For, in that the Son is God, and from God according to nature (for He has had His birth from God the Father), the Spirit is both proper to Him and in Him and from Him, just as, to be sure, the same thing is understood to hold true in the case of God the Father Himself.”

Could you explain the Council of Florence's infallible declaration in this regard?

"In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father.[/u]"

I have yet to find a consistent explanation of this, especially when it seems the Roman Catholic Church infallible declared the Son to be a cause - according to the Greeks - of the Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both eternally as if the Father and the Son are one principle and one spiration.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2017, 03:29:27 PM by LivenotoneviL »
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • A Wretched Sinner
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,021
  • Saint Philaret of Moscow, Pray for Us!
  • Faith: Inquirer, still heterodox.
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #33 on: December 22, 2017, 03:47:46 PM »
I keep quoting this and - although I got an interesting defense at one point - I still find this declaration problematic.
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,179
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #34 on: December 23, 2017, 03:06:52 AM »
Florence is pretty much saying what I have said earlier in the thread and Xavier has alluded to it. It’s what St Cyril has been saying too. I guess many get confused by the scholastic formulations used by the decree of Florence but It really isn’t that confusing.

Quote
”and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration.”

This speaks to the fact that the Holy Spirit does not only proceed energetically or temporally from the the Son but substantially from the Son obtaining his being from the Son. This just simply declares that the procession from the Father and the procession from the Son are exactly the same.  Why the decree says “as from one principle and a single spiration” is to condemn the idea of two processions in the holy trinity creating two principles/ultimate origins as The Father and Son are one principle because they are one God. Rather it’s one single spiration starting out in then Father and concluding in the Son.

Quote
”this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father.

This just confirms that the Holy Spirit obtains his being from the Son and is not a mere conduit in the procession of the Holy Spirit. He is a principle singularly also as a reservoir is a principle of water though a tap is a principle too, just that one is immediate and the other mediate. Thus the Holy Spirit proceeds immediately from the Father and mediately from the Son.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2017, 03:17:24 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • A Wretched Sinner
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,021
  • Saint Philaret of Moscow, Pray for Us!
  • Faith: Inquirer, still heterodox.
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #35 on: December 23, 2017, 03:47:57 AM »
This just confirms that the Holy Spirit obtains his being from the Son and is not a mere conduit in the procession of the Holy Spirit. He is a principle singularly also as a reservoir is a principle of water though a tap is a principle too, just that one is immediate and the other mediate. Thus the Holy Spirit proceeds immediately from the Father and mediately from the Son.

So, what is the difference between the Holy Spirit "receiving His existence" from the Son and the Holy Spirit "obtaining His being from the Son"?

"But if the Holy Spirit should have its existence either from the Son or through the Son, we would reject this notion as blasphemous and impious. Indeed, we believe the Lord saying, "The Spirit proceeds from the Father," (John 15:26) but also we believe the most sacred Paul saying similarly: "But we do not receive the Spirit of the wold, but the Spirit who is from God the Father.""
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline Xavier

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 344
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #36 on: December 23, 2017, 05:28:23 AM »
But surely you know it was the Nestorians who wrote that against St. Cyril. Here is the full context. It was Theodore the Nestorian who wrote this against St. Cyril and the Church forbad us to defend his statement. See the link for more.

"But we maintain that it was not God the Word, of one substance and co-eternal with the Father, that was formed by the Holy Ghost and anointed, but the human nature which was assumed by Him at the end of days. We shall confess that the Spirit of the Son was His own if he spoke of it as of the same nature and proceeding from the Father, and shall accept the expression as consistent with true piety. But if he speaks of the Spirit as being of the Son, or as having its origin through the Son we shall reject this statement as blasphemous and impious. For we believe the Lord when He says, The spirit which proceeds from the Father; and likewise the very divine Paul saying, We have received not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God."

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2701.htm

See anathema 9 of St. Cyril and the erroneous counter statement of Theodore the Nestorian.

And so St. Thomas Aquinas correctly says "The Nestorians were the first to invent the error that the Spirit does not proceed from the Son, as appears in a condemned Nestorian creed". The Nestorians invented this error to slight the dignity of the Son of God.

Eta: Anathema 9 of St. Cyril which Theodoret raves against above was as follows "If any one says that the one Lord Jesus Christ is glorified by the Spirit, using the power that works through Him as a foreign power, and receiving from Him the ability to operate against unclean spirits, and to complete His miracles among men; and does not rather say that the Spirit is His own, whereby also He wrought His miracles, let him be anathema." So we see we are bound to confess the Spirit belongs to the Son as properly His own; which the Nestorians very much disliked. Too bad for them. The Church didn't like their dislike; and we follow the Church.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2017, 05:39:19 AM by Xavier »
An empty tomb is there to prove my Savior lives!

"This is the night when Christ broke the prison-bars of death and rose victorious from the underworld.
Our birth would have been no gain, had we not been redeemed. O wonder of your humble care for us!
O love, O charity beyond all telling, to ransom a slave you gave away your Son!
O truly necessary sin of Adam, destroyed completely by the Death of Christ!
O happy fault - that earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer!" ~ The Exsultet

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 737
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #37 on: December 23, 2017, 05:34:47 AM »
But surely you know it was the Nestorians who wrote that against St. Cyril. Here is the full context. It was Theodore the Nestorian who wrote this against St. Cyril and the Church forbad us to defend his statement. See the link for more.

"But we maintain that it was not God the Word, of one substance and co-eternal with the Father, that was formed by the Holy Ghost and anointed, but the human nature which was assumed by Him at the end of days. We shall confess that the Spirit of the Son was His own if he spoke of it as of the same nature and proceeding from the Father, and shall accept the expression as consistent with true piety. But if he speaks of the Spirit as being of the Son, or as having its origin through the Son we shall reject this statement as blasphemous and impious. For we believe the Lord when He says, The spirit which proceeds from the Father; and likewise the very divine Paul saying, We have received not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God."

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2701.htm

See anathema 9 of St. Cyril and the erroneous counter statement of Theodore the Nestorian.

And so St. Thomas Aquinas correctly says "The Nestorians were the first to invent the error that the Spirit does not proceed from the Son, as appears in a condemned Nestorian creed". The Nestorians invented this error to slight the dignity of the Son of God.
Hehe, i was waiting for someone to throw this argument for long time, its my favorite. Stay tuned and you will see how it is turned against you.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2017, 05:35:16 AM by Vanhyo »

Offline Xavier

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 344
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #38 on: December 23, 2017, 05:43:09 AM »
Sure, Vanyho. Go ahead. Give us your best shot. The way we read it, the Spirit belongs to the Son as properly His own, as St. Cyril also appears to affirm elsewhere. How do you read it?
An empty tomb is there to prove my Savior lives!

"This is the night when Christ broke the prison-bars of death and rose victorious from the underworld.
Our birth would have been no gain, had we not been redeemed. O wonder of your humble care for us!
O love, O charity beyond all telling, to ransom a slave you gave away your Son!
O truly necessary sin of Adam, destroyed completely by the Death of Christ!
O happy fault - that earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer!" ~ The Exsultet

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,179
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #39 on: December 23, 2017, 06:03:43 AM »
This just confirms that the Holy Spirit obtains his being from the Son and is not a mere conduit in the procession of the Holy Spirit. He is a principle singularly also as a reservoir is a principle of water though a tap is a principle too, just that one is immediate and the other mediate. Thus the Holy Spirit proceeds immediately from the Father and mediately from the Son.

So, what is the difference between the Holy Spirit "receiving His existence" from the Son and the Holy Spirit "obtaining His being from the Son"?

Depends on what is meant. It could mean that he obtains his being or substance from the Son (Substantial procession) and St Cyril says in many places as seen in the other quotes provided here or it could mean from whom the Holy Spirit ultimately obtains his existence from.

Quote
"But if the Holy Spirit should have its existence either from the Son or through the Son, we would reject this notion as blasphemous and impious. Indeed, we believe the Lord saying, "The Spirit proceeds from the Father," (John 15:26) but also we believe the most sacred Paul saying similarly: "But we do not receive the Spirit of the wold, but the Spirit who is from God the Father.""

Yes as said earlier, this seems to refer to the ultimate origin of the Holy Spirit which can only be said of God the Father only.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,179
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #40 on: December 23, 2017, 06:06:02 AM »
But surely you know it was the Nestorians who wrote that against St. Cyril. Here is the full context. It was Theodore the Nestorian who wrote this against St. Cyril and the Church forbad us to defend his statement. See the link for more.

"But we maintain that it was not God the Word, of one substance and co-eternal with the Father, that was formed by the Holy Ghost and anointed, but the human nature which was assumed by Him at the end of days. We shall confess that the Spirit of the Son was His own if he spoke of it as of the same nature and proceeding from the Father, and shall accept the expression as consistent with true piety. But if he speaks of the Spirit as being of the Son, or as having its origin through the Son we shall reject this statement as blasphemous and impious. For we believe the Lord when He says, The spirit which proceeds from the Father; and likewise the very divine Paul saying, We have received not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God."

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2701.htm

See anathema 9 of St. Cyril and the erroneous counter statement of Theodore the Nestorian.

And so St. Thomas Aquinas correctly says "The Nestorians were the first to invent the error that the Spirit does not proceed from the Son, as appears in a condemned Nestorian creed". The Nestorians invented this error to slight the dignity of the Son of God.
Hehe, i was waiting for someone to throw this argument for long time, its my favorite. Stay tuned and you will see how it is turned against you.

Just of interests sake, the first instance of rejection of the filioque being popularised was done by the monothelites.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2017, 06:10:38 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 737
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #41 on: December 23, 2017, 07:49:28 AM »
Sure, Vanyho. Go ahead. Give us your best shot. The way we read it, the Spirit belongs to the Son as properly His own, as St. Cyril also appears to affirm elsewhere. How do you read it?
St Cyril's goal in his 12 anathemas are designed to completely repudiate from all angles the idea that there is one person who is the son of mary and another person who is god and work miracles

The 9 anathema states

9. If any man shall say that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Holy Ghost, so that he used through him a power not his own and from him received power against unclean spirits and power to work miracles before men and shall not rather confess that it was his own Spirit through which he worked these divine signs; let him be anathema.

Key words here: Holy Ghost and His own Spirit, in that sense it wouldn't make sense for St Cyril to say that Christ works miracles through another person, rather he is saying that Christ works miracles by His own power/spirit.

In order to read this anathema the way you read it you have to say that Christ is working miracles only through another person.

This reading of yours is easily refutable with the next question: Who raised Lazaros from the dead ?
A) God the Father ?
B) Jesus Christ the Son of God ?
C) The Holy Ghost ?
The scripture clearly tell us that it was the person of Jesus Christ who raised Lazaros from the dead.

And if you would say that he did so but through the Holy Spirit you will be anathemized by St Cyril who clearly states that Christ is fully God and does things by His own power. You will be also erroneously demoting the person of the Holy Spirit into energy/power.

As for Theodore's accusations of St'Cyril, they are due to misunderstanding, in other words he is accusing him with strawman arguments.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2017, 07:52:14 AM by Vanhyo »

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,103
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #42 on: December 23, 2017, 10:50:39 AM »
But surely you know it was the Nestorians who wrote that against St. Cyril. Here is the full context. It was Theodore the Nestorian who wrote this against St. Cyril and the Church forbad us to defend his statement. See the link for more.

"But we maintain that it was not God the Word, of one substance and co-eternal with the Father, that was formed by the Holy Ghost and anointed, but the human nature which was assumed by Him at the end of days. We shall confess that the Spirit of the Son was His own if he spoke of it as of the same nature and proceeding from the Father, and shall accept the expression as consistent with true piety. But if he speaks of the Spirit as being of the Son, or as having its origin through the Son we shall reject this statement as blasphemous and impious. For we believe the Lord when He says, The spirit which proceeds from the Father; and likewise the very divine Paul saying, We have received not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God."

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2701.htm

See anathema 9 of St. Cyril and the erroneous counter statement of Theodore the Nestorian.

And so St. Thomas Aquinas correctly says "The Nestorians were the first to invent the error that the Spirit does not proceed from the Son, as appears in a condemned Nestorian creed". The Nestorians invented this error to slight the dignity of the Son of God.

Eta: Anathema 9 of St. Cyril which Theodoret raves against above was as follows "If any one says that the one Lord Jesus Christ is glorified by the Spirit, using the power that works through Him as a foreign power, and receiving from Him the ability to operate against unclean spirits, and to complete His miracles among men; and does not rather say that the Spirit is His own, whereby also He wrought His miracles, let him be anathema." So we see we are bound to confess the Spirit belongs to the Son as properly His own; which the Nestorians very much disliked. Too bad for them. The Church didn't like their dislike; and we follow the Church.

St. Theodoret of Cyrus was not Nestorian. But yes, I was mistaken in what I was quoting. What I quoted was St. Cyril's excerpt of St. Theodoret's argument. Here is St. Cyril's response:

Quote
Procedit enim ex Deo et Patre Spiritus sanctus secundum Salvatoris vocem; sed non est alienus a Filio: Omnia enim habet cum Patre, et hoc ipse edocuit dicens de Spiritu sancto: "Omnia quaecunque habet Pater, mea sunt. Propterea dixi vobis, quia de meo accipiet, et annuntiabit vobis."

Quote
Indeed, the Holy Spirit proceeds from God and Father according to the saying of the Savior (John 15:26); but the Spirit is not alienated from the Son. Indeed, he has everything with the Father, and this he taught himself, saying about the Holy Spirit, "Everything whatsoever the Father has are mine" (John 16:15).

St. Cyril agrees with St. Theodoret that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but also stresses that there is an eternal connection between the Holy Spirit and the Son, which he explicitly does NOT call a procedere. Thus he avoids ascribing a causal role to the Son.

This can be found in PG 76: 434: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=ofDBwLB9iAQC&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA433

St. Theodoret was satisfied with this response, as is indicated in his Epistula 171: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2707171.htm
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • A Wretched Sinner
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,021
  • Saint Philaret of Moscow, Pray for Us!
  • Faith: Inquirer, still heterodox.
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #43 on: December 23, 2017, 02:46:01 PM »
error post
« Last Edit: December 23, 2017, 02:47:58 PM by LivenotoneviL »
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • A Wretched Sinner
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,021
  • Saint Philaret of Moscow, Pray for Us!
  • Faith: Inquirer, still heterodox.
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #44 on: December 23, 2017, 03:11:20 PM »
Never mind.

This just confirms that the Holy Spirit obtains his being from the Son and is not a mere conduit in the procession of the Holy Spirit. He is a principle singularly also as a reservoir is a principle of water though a tap is a principle too, just that one is immediate and the other mediate. Thus the Holy Spirit proceeds immediately from the Father and mediately from the Son.

As a neophyte, especially when it comes to this issue (I decided on Orthodoxy over the issue of Papal Primacy), how exactly is the tap of water analogous to being a mediate cause rather than a conduit? After all, both the "conduit" and the "tap of water" are the same flow of water that have an origin with the reservoir, correct? How does the tap of water serve as a cause of the flow of water, and how is this analogous to the Son being a cause of the Holy Spirit? I mean, I guess you can turn the tap on and off in terms of the flow - but is that valid for the Son?
« Last Edit: December 23, 2017, 03:13:25 PM by LivenotoneviL »
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • A Wretched Sinner
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,021
  • Saint Philaret of Moscow, Pray for Us!
  • Faith: Inquirer, still heterodox.
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #45 on: December 23, 2017, 03:12:27 PM »
And I'm curious - what is the Orthodox position on the Son providing a more significant role than merely being an energetic procession? Is such an idea rejected?
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 737
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #46 on: December 23, 2017, 03:35:09 PM »
As a neophyte, especially when it comes to this issue (I decided on Orthodoxy over the issue of Papal Primacy), how exactly is the tap of water analogous to being a mediate cause rather than a conduit? After all, both the "conduit" and the "tap of water" are the same flow of water that have an origin with the reservoir, correct? How does the tap of water serve as a cause of the flow of water, and how is this analogous to the Son being a cause of the Holy Spirit? I mean, I guess you can turn the tap on and off in terms of the flow - but is that valid for the Son?
Think of it this way: the person of the Holy Spirit originates eternally from God the father, and is send to us by The Son of God, this sending is not the eternal hypostatic beginning(origin) of the Holy Spirit, but His temporal mission.

« Last Edit: December 23, 2017, 03:36:13 PM by Vanhyo »

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,103
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #47 on: December 23, 2017, 07:36:05 PM »
And I'm curious - what is the Orthodox position on the Son providing a more significant role than merely being an energetic procession? Is such an idea rejected?

I believe it is rejected. You might need to read the works of Gregory II of Cyprus or St. Gregory Palamas to know for sure. Gregory II was the first to address such an issue directly, but unfortunately I don't know of any translations of his works. You might have better luck finding a translation of St. Gregory's works on the matter.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2017, 07:37:36 PM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,179
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #48 on: December 24, 2017, 07:28:34 AM »
Never mind.

This just confirms that the Holy Spirit obtains his being from the Son and is not a mere conduit in the procession of the Holy Spirit. He is a principle singularly also as a reservoir is a principle of water though a tap is a principle too, just that one is immediate and the other mediate. Thus the Holy Spirit proceeds immediately from the Father and mediately from the Son.

As a neophyte, especially when it comes to this issue (I decided on Orthodoxy over the issue of Papal Primacy), how exactly is the tap of water analogous to being a mediate cause rather than a conduit? After all, both the "conduit" and the "tap of water" are the same flow of water that have an origin with the reservoir, correct? How does the tap of water serve as a cause of the flow of water, and how is this analogous to the Son being a cause of the Holy Spirit? I mean, I guess you can turn the tap on and off in terms of the flow - but is that valid for the Son?

That analogy of the reservoir and tap was just to demeonstarte the difference between immediate and mediate. Not to touch on the finer details of substantial procession.

You get water ultimately from the reservoir but where you actually also get it is from the tap when you open it. The water is immediately from the reservoir and mediately from the tap.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2017, 07:32:46 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Xavier

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 344
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #49 on: December 24, 2017, 11:41:03 AM »
Quote from: Vanyho
St Cyril's goal in his 12 anathemas are designed to completely repudiate from all angles the idea that there is one person who is the son of mary and another person who is god

1. Correct. For this is the Nestorian heresy in a nutshell. The heretic held that Christ is not truly God incarnate, but only a kind of temple in whom God dwelt in a special way, so that the Word is one Person, and the Man Jesus another; that His sacred body is not to be adored with the true and proper worship of latria we give to the Holy Trinity, but is only to receive a veneration, apart from a separate adoration we supposedly give to the Word; that consequently Mary is not truly the Mother of God; and that God did not redeem us truly in His own blood, etc, which Scripture explicitly says. Most of these false ideas are also found, with some changes and sophistry, in Theodoret the Nestorian, who was twice condemned and himself refused to condemn Nestorius; even after Rome's supreme and timely intervention saw Nestorius of Constantinople condemned by the whole Church; later at Pope St. Leo's urging Theodoret had to condemned Nestorius. Thus ended the Nestorian heresy, but not all its remnants. (see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14574b.htm)

But the part you write after this is incorrect. Miracles are always to be attributed to the whole Trinity; not to one Person to the exclusion of the others. Even in the case of Lazarus, was the Person of the Father excluded? By no means, for Jesus explicitly prays to the Father, and hence you are wrong in trying to place distinction of Person in acts such as miracles, which is always done by the whole Trinity.

2. Distinction of Person in the Consubstantial Essence of the Holy Trinity comes from only one thing - the mutual relations by which the Triune Hypostases of the Godhead are relationally distinct from one another, this is how the Athanasian Creed distinguishes the Persons and so does Pope St. Leo the Great explicitly against the Sabellians - now the Sabellians denied the distinction of relation in the Trinity, thus the below clearly refers to hypostatic procession in the divine Essence. "in the first chapter it is shown what impious notions they hold concerning the divine Trinity, when they assert that there is one and the same person of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit ... as though there were not one Who begat, another Who is begotten, another Who proceeds from both." How do you reconcile this with energetic procession only?

St. Thomas Aquinas proved this even more forcefully; "the divine persons are distinguished from each other only by the relations. Now the relations cannot distinguish the persons except forasmuch as they are opposite relations ... Therefore the Son and the Holy Ghost must be related to each other by opposite relations." and the Greeks not only at Lyons but even after that were never able to refute this Catholic argument; can you? And that's why many of them acknowledged the eternal hypostatic relationship of the Spirit to the Son upon closer study; all pious and serious study will necessarily lead to the same conclusion. Again, just look at the dogmatic statement of St. Tarasius, the Spirit "Who Proceeds from the Father through the Son is Himself God", the Same Person who Proceeds from the Father is acknowledged to be God in His Procession through the Son; therefore it is the divine hypostasis that Proceeds and not His grace only;  according to you, St. Tarasius is speaking about two completely different things in one and the same context using one and the same word to describe two completely different processions. One, a procession from the Father of the divine Hypostasis; another, a merely energetic procession only of the grace of the Spirit through the Son; which is refuted by the words "And is Himself God" among other things. It is the divine Person Who is God Who Proceeds through the Son, and in this way alone is relationally distinct from Him.

(Nor would anyone use the technical term procession to refer to the Holy Trinity giving grace to us anymore we would say the Father generates the Son when He gives us the grace of His Son e.g. at Baptism. Generation and Procession are used of the eternal relations of the hypostases only. The grace of the Spirit is identical to the Son and not at all distinct from it; there is only one grace of the whole Trinity; hence all descriptions of the Spirit as proper to the Son also necessarily describe properties of hypostases, because grace is not proper to any one, but common to the whole Trinity)

3. But even beside that, and at the same time, Patriarch Bekkus and many others of the Greeks came to the same conclusion from reading the Greek Fathers. After that, they explained some things to us that they understood better, because they were native Greek speakers; e.g. that when the Fathers say the Father is Cause in Greek, they are referring to His unique Hypostatic Property of Producing a Divine Person; thus the Father produces His Son and His Spirit; the Word receives the Spirit from the Father as an eternal gift of His Love.

Thus, among many other examples, the Greek Fathers like St. Maximus say ""By nature (ϕυσει) the Holy Spirit in His being (κατ’ ουσιαν) takes substantially (ουσιοδως) His origin (εκπορευομενον) from the Father through the Son Who is begotten" while also saying the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit". The Son does not produce the Holy Spirit, He receives Him from the Father as proper to His own Person, in an eternal procession of Love, so He is not called cause in this sense. The other text makes clear that a substantial or hypostatic procession is not excluded by this understanding of cause "the Holy Spirit in His being (κατ’ ουσιαν) takes substantially (ουσιοδως) His origin (εκπορευομενον) from the Father through the Son"
« Last Edit: December 24, 2017, 11:45:33 AM by Xavier »
An empty tomb is there to prove my Savior lives!

"This is the night when Christ broke the prison-bars of death and rose victorious from the underworld.
Our birth would have been no gain, had we not been redeemed. O wonder of your humble care for us!
O love, O charity beyond all telling, to ransom a slave you gave away your Son!
O truly necessary sin of Adam, destroyed completely by the Death of Christ!
O happy fault - that earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer!" ~ The Exsultet

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 737
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #50 on: December 24, 2017, 12:37:12 PM »
@Xavier, you are confused precisely because you want to defend an addition to the faith which in indefensible, it is much easier to revert back to orthodoxy, there is no confusion, no misunderstanding, no apologies, no contradictions... everything is simply correct.

So let me try to demonstrate to you where you err
Quote
But the part you write after this is incorrect. Miracles are always to be attributed to the whole Trinity; not to one Person to the exclusion of the others. Even in the case of Lazarus, was the Person of the Father excluded? By no means, for Jesus explicitly prays to the Father, and hence you are wrong in trying to place distinction of Person in acts such as miracles, which is always done by the whole Trinity.
He didn't pray to the Father to give him the power to raise lazaros from the dead, He prayed to the Father that they might believe. Then He Himself commanded Lazarus to come from the dead. John 11:40-44.

And while we can say that the Holy trinity is undivided, we also understand God as tri-personal, that means some acts are attributed to one person and others to another person, for example: This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him Matthew 17:5, can it be said that this miraculous saying is attributed to the entire Holy Trinity or to God the Father who personally said that ?

Quote
2. Distinction of Person in the Consubstantial Essence of the Holy Trinity comes from only one thing - the mutual relations by which the Triune Hypostases of the Godhead are relationally distinct from one another, this is how the Athanasian Creed distinguishes the Persons and so does Pope St. Leo the Great explicitly against the Sabellians - now the Sabellians denied the distinction of relation in the Trinity, thus the below clearly refers to hypostatic procession in the divine Essence. "in the first chapter it is shown what impious notions they hold concerning the divine Trinity, when they assert that there is one and the same person of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit ... as though there were not one Who begat, another Who is begotten, another Who proceeds from both." How do you reconcile this with energetic procession only?
Does your conscience condemn you for holding two contradicting views ?
Quote
St. Thomas Aquinas proved this even more forcefully; "the divine persons are distinguished from each other only by the relations. Now the relations cannot distinguish the persons except forasmuch as they are opposite relations ... Therefore the Son and the Holy Ghost must be related to each other by opposite relations." and the Greeks not only at Lyons but even after that were never able to refute this Catholic argument; can you? And that's why many of them acknowledged the eternal hypostatic relationship of the Spirit to the Son upon closer study; all pious and serious study will necessarily lead to the same conclusion. Again, just look at the dogmatic statement of St. Tarasius, the Spirit "Who Proceeds from the Father through the Son is Himself God", the Same Person who Proceeds from the Father is acknowledged to be God in His Procession through the Son; therefore it is the divine hypostasis that Proceeds and not His grace only;  according to you, St. Tarasius is speaking about two completely different things in one and the same context using one and the same word to describe two completely different processions. One, a procession from the Father of the divine Hypostasis; another, a merely energetic procession only of the grace of the Spirit through the Son; which is refuted by the words "And is Himself God" among other things. It is the divine Person Who is God Who Proceeds from the Son, and in this way alone is relationally distinct from Him.
This is a salad of non-sense, Thomas Aquinas was a confused non-orthodox, learning from him you get you confused as well.

Quote
3. But even beside that, and at the same time, Patriarch Bekkus and many others of the Greeks came to the same conclusion from reading the Greek Fathers. After that, they explained some things to us that they understood better, because they were native Greek speakers; e.g. that when the Fathers say the Father is Cause in Greek, they are referring to His unique Hypostatic Property of Producing a Divine Person; thus the Father produces His Son and His Spirit; but in such
Unfortunately there will be always those bishops who sell out under political pressure and for earthly gains. They are here even today: the ecumenists.

Quote
Thus, among many other examples, the Greek Fathers like St. Maximus say ""By nature (ϕυσει) the Holy Spirit in His being (κατ’ ουσιαν) takes substantially (ουσιοδως) His origin (εκπορευομενον) from the Father through the Son Who is begotten
Whenever i see someone quoting from the Father through the Son from a Church father as proof for the filioque, i outright see this as dishonesty, you are either dishonest with us or with yourself. The latins in their robber synods completely rejected the word "through" and insisted to the word "and", and don't try to explain to me how it means the same, when it is clear that this is not the case.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2017, 12:38:41 PM by Vanhyo »

Offline Xavier

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 344
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #51 on: December 24, 2017, 12:54:23 PM »
Heh. You are so wrong one hardly knows where to start. Let's take this demonstrably false claim "The latins in their robber synods completely rejected the word "through". Refutation of the false statement: "For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words." https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM So that's either a lie or an error. Which is it?
« Last Edit: December 24, 2017, 12:56:30 PM by Xavier »
An empty tomb is there to prove my Savior lives!

"This is the night when Christ broke the prison-bars of death and rose victorious from the underworld.
Our birth would have been no gain, had we not been redeemed. O wonder of your humble care for us!
O love, O charity beyond all telling, to ransom a slave you gave away your Son!
O truly necessary sin of Adam, destroyed completely by the Death of Christ!
O happy fault - that earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer!" ~ The Exsultet

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,133
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #52 on: January 05, 2018, 10:04:20 PM »
... Let's take this demonstrably false claim "The latins in their robber synods completely rejected the word "through". Refutation of the false statement: "For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words." https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM So that's either a lie or an error. Which is it?

It's both a lie and an error. Surely you can't be so naive as to take a sentence of apologetics from an EWTN resource and expect us to accept it like the Word, can you?

Quote
Heh. You are so wrong one hardly knows where to start.

A mantra for your mirror.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Xavier

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 344
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #53 on: January 06, 2018, 05:39:54 AM »
That's not a sentence from a writer on EWTN, that is the explicit text of the Council of Florence. It shows the Council Fathers did not reject "from the Father through the Son" at Florence.

And so the claim in Vanyho's statement that "The latins in their robber synods completely rejected the word "through" is not correct.
An empty tomb is there to prove my Savior lives!

"This is the night when Christ broke the prison-bars of death and rose victorious from the underworld.
Our birth would have been no gain, had we not been redeemed. O wonder of your humble care for us!
O love, O charity beyond all telling, to ransom a slave you gave away your Son!
O truly necessary sin of Adam, destroyed completely by the Death of Christ!
O happy fault - that earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer!" ~ The Exsultet

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,133
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #54 on: January 06, 2018, 02:40:43 PM »
That's not a sentence from a writer on EWTN, that is the explicit text of the Council of Florence. It shows the Council Fathers did not reject "from the Father through the Son" at Florence.

Are you really this obtuse? No, it's not from the Council; it's from an old Roman Catholic apologetic about the Council reproduced in the EWTN archives. However, that's barely the point.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,133
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #55 on: January 06, 2018, 02:44:34 PM »
And, by the way, your constant sly insistence that the council at Florence was an Orthodox Council is deeply offensive to the Orthodox faith and most of the posters you interact with here.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Xavier

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 344
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #56 on: January 06, 2018, 08:26:20 PM »
You will find the same Council text verbatim here or on any other site. It has nothing to do with ewtn.

http://pages.uoregon.edu/sshoemak/325/texts/florence.htm

Porter, please don't attribute to me what I did not say. I know you disagree with Florence. I was describing that both "from the Father and the Son" and "from the Father through the Son" are acceptable to Catholics as Catholic Councils explicitly teach.
An empty tomb is there to prove my Savior lives!

"This is the night when Christ broke the prison-bars of death and rose victorious from the underworld.
Our birth would have been no gain, had we not been redeemed. O wonder of your humble care for us!
O love, O charity beyond all telling, to ransom a slave you gave away your Son!
O truly necessary sin of Adam, destroyed completely by the Death of Christ!
O happy fault - that earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer!" ~ The Exsultet

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,133
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #57 on: January 06, 2018, 08:56:11 PM »
You will find the same Council text verbatim here or on any other site. It has nothing to do with ewtn.

http://pages.uoregon.edu/sshoemak/325/texts/florence.htm

"Text taken from http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM" -- but EWTN isn't the issue. The issue is you're quoting indiscriminately from a compiled resource (which includes a short essay by a Norman P. Tanner), taking no care whether the words you find apply to the concern you are replying to as long as you can find them.

Quote
I was describing that both "from the Father and the Son" and "from the Father through the Son" are acceptable to Catholics as Catholic Councils explicitly teach.

Is there anyone who doesn't know this? Is this relevant in any way to the argument at hand? Naturally Rome is going to be generous and forgiving with itself and its ancient errors; if anything this confirms the cynicism of that See. If instead you see this as generous to erring sons, then you are naive but also would have a point -- yet that point would remain irrelevant to the argument at hand.

Quote
Porter, please don't attribute to me what I did not say. I know you disagree with Florence.

You are continually applying to Florence, to the coerced responses of Mark of Ephesus, etc., as tho you do us some favor. It is your side that erred against the Church, it is your side that highhandedly persists. If there is generosity and forgiveness to be granted here, it is from our side. If the sly condescension of your posts could in fact be sincere in some way, after all the years you've been presented with simple facts, then God help you.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2018, 08:58:26 PM by Porter ODoran »
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline kabane52

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #58 on: January 16, 2018, 05:24:14 AM »
Sure- Bekkos was a unionist.

You’re just spoof-texting, as far as I can tell. The quotations which you’re using seem to be drawn from the standard list of patristic quotations cribbed from Catholic apologetic sites. I’m sorry if I’m wrong here- it’s just my perception.

The best work on the controversy between Bekkos and Gregory of Cyprus is Papadakis’ “Crisis in Byzantium.” In fact, next to Siecenski, it is often said to be the best work on the Filioque controversy in general.

Both “from the Son” and “through the Son” are fine, since, as Athanasius says, the words don’t matter so much as the theological intent does. I can easily interpret both statements in an Orthodox and heterodox manner. If “through the Son” refers to the Spirit’s being the Spirit coming by the participation of the Son in the procession, then it’s heterodox. But if it means that in the singular movement of the Spirit out from the Father (on which account He is the Holy Spirit) He participates in the glory of the Son, thereby manifesting the unity of their activity (and thus essence, which is the ground of activity), then it’s Orthodox.

Florence was dominated on the Latin side by Dominican theologians who wanted to reduce the Greek patristic tradition to Thomism. Fr. Christiaan Kappes, a Latin Catholic priest, suggests that there was an alternative, non-Thomistic interpretation of the Filioque which is more concordant with the Orthodox teaching than the Thomistic understanding. While Thomas was a man of incredible personal sanctity and brilliance, his teaching on the procession is not compatible with what is said by the Greek patristic tradition. As I mentioned on another thread, the easiest way to see this is by comparing how Fathers like Gregory and John Damascene distinguished procession and generation to how St. Thomas did- the former stated it was manner of origin from the Father. The latter said it was the participation of the Son in the procession.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2018, 05:30:19 AM by kabane52 »