Author Topic: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.  (Read 5119 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,249
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #45 on: July 28, 2018, 09:13:26 AM »
The Holy Spirit is not generated. The Son is. So you believe in the filioque. What you have expressed is  exactly what saint Augustine taught.

But not what St. Thomas taught though, right?  I thought St. Thomas and the Catholic Church as a whole taught that the Father and the Son are both the ultimate cause of the Spirit.

No not even close hey. St Thomas like St Augustine and Lyons II and the council of Florence and Lateran the IV strictly uphold the father as ultimate cause. What they teach is this :

[FATHER——-> SON (mediate) ]/(one principle)——-> Holy Spirit

Or simply FATHER——>SON——> Holy Spirit

First, let me just say that in my post above, when I used the word "generation" I meant "cause", not "begotteness." But yes, I do believe in a type of filioque. My problem arises however with your statement quote above - the idea of the Father and Son as one principle. See, for me, principle implies cause. And as far as my reading of St. Augustine goes, he only uses the term "principaliter" with regards to the Father.

”"If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver,[b{ then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle[/b]" (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]).

He then again says:

"[The one] from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term ‘principally’ because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son" (ibid., 15:17:29).


Quote
I could be missing something of his, but it never occurs in conjunction with the Son. So when I read the canons of Florence and Lateran IV, I really think that the Catholic bishops were remarkably confused to say the least
As shows above I would agree with the gilded part. The Latins theologians are not confused it’s you Rhozek that is confused. The problem, as with many EO, is that you refuse to understand how othe traditions use terms like “cause”, “origin, “principle” and “proceed” in their own understanding of those terms” but seek to force a Byzantine understanding of those words on the other tradition and then seem surprised when their words don’t make sense. You and the Byzantine tradition keep committing the same old mistake since Chalcedon which cause unnecessary schisms purely based on different usuages of the same the terms.


Quote
So to put the problem in brief, many Orthodox would follow along the Catholic argument just nicely with, "In a broader definition of procession - as is possible in X, Y, and Z languages - we believe the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father and the Son, yet let it be known that the Father alone is the cause of the Holy Spirit." However, when you insert that last segment of "Because the Father and the Son are one principle," it basically just erases all the progress made in the previous lines of the argument.

As shown above it shouldn’t if you can identify HOW the Latins use them. Principle has a wide definition and can be used in two different senses in the same topic of discussion. When speaking of the father as total Unoriginate cause we can say he is the principle alone of the trinity. Yet in another sense ,equally valid, we can say the Father and the Son are one principle in that together (compoundly) they are responsible for the Holy Spirit as the Holy Spirit does not and cannot proceed without the Son.

It’s like the patristic example of St Gregory of Nyssa who gave the example of the three flames:

Ultimately he says the third flame comes from the first flame (Principalter). However the third flame was only lit because the second flame was lit which lit the third flame. Thus the first two flames can be said to be a single principle.

I'm staying away from Christology in this thread.

At any rate, you've forgotten to include an important piece of context in your first quote of St. Augustine:

Quote
Principium quomodo in Trinitate relative dicatur. Dicitur ergo relative Pater, idemque relative dicitur principium, et si quid forte aliud: sed Pater ad Filium dicitur, principium vero ad omnia quae ab ipso sunt. Item dicitur relative Filius, relative dicitur et Verbum et Imago; et in omnibus his vocabulis ad Patrem refertur: nihil autem horum Pater dicitur. Et principium dicitur Filius: cum enim diceretur ei, Tu quis es? respondit, Principium, qui et loquor vobis (Joan. VIII, 25). Sed numquid Patris principium? Creatorem se quippe ostendere voluit, cum se dixit esse principium; sicut et Pater principium est creaturae, eo quod ab ipso sunt omnia. Nam et creator relative dicitur ad creaturam, sicut dominus ad servum. Et ideo cum dicimus, et Patrem principium, et Filium principium, non duo principia creaturae dicimus; quia et Pater et Filius simul ad creaturam unum principium est, sicut unus creator, sicut unus Deus.

The Father is called so, therefore, relatively, and He is also relatively said to be the Principle, and whatever else there may be of the kind; but He is called the Father in relation to the Son, the Principle in relation to all things, which are from Him. So the Son is relatively so called; He is called also relatively the Word and the Image. And in all these appellations He is referred to the Father, but the Father is called by none of them. And the Son is also called the Principle; for when it was said to Him, Who are You? He replied, Even the Principle, who also speak to you. But is He, pray, the Principle of the Father? For He intended to show Himself to be the Creator when He said that He was the Principle, as the Father also is the Principle of the creature in that all things are from Him. For creator, too, is spoken relatively to creature, as master to servant. And so when we say, both that the Father is the Principle, and that the Son is the Principle, we do not speak of two principles of the creature; since both the Father and the Son together is one principle in respect to the creature, as one Creator, as one God.

Translation borrowed and modified from New Advent: http://newadvent.org/fathers/130105.htm

The rest of the passage ends with the brief line you had quoted more or less. So yeah, I stand corrected on this point, Wandile. Many thanks. It seems here that St. Augustine is speaking of principle as something other than cause because he is treating the term more relatively, which puts Florence, etc. in a more understandable light.

As for your second quote, I would argue that Augustine is shifting towards an absolute description of the Trinity here. He is using "principaliter" here to refer to the Father's role as cause. This is why he says immediately afterwards:

Quote
sed hoc quoque illi pater dedit (non iam exsistenti et nondum habenti), sed quidquid unigenito uerbo dedit gignendo dedit.

But this [i.e. the Holy Spirit] too the Father gives to him [i.e. the Son] (not of having existence or of having), but whatever he gives by means of the only-begotten Son he gives by means of begetting.

He says elsewhere too:

Quote
Filius autem de Patre natus est: et Spiritus sanctus de Patre principaliter, et ipso sine ullo temporis intervallo dante, communiter de utroque procedit.

But the Son is begotten from the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds principally from the Father. And without any rendering interval of time itself, the Holy Spirit proceeds from both communitively.

De Trinitate Book 15, Chapter 26, Section 47

What say you?
« Last Edit: July 28, 2018, 09:14:16 AM 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 WPM

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,964
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #46 on: July 28, 2018, 09:39:08 AM »
May the Blessed Light shine Forth
The Sign and Prayers to the Blessed Virgin Mary

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,662
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #47 on: July 28, 2018, 09:53:59 AM »
As for your second quote, I would argue that Augustine is shifting towards an absolute description of the Trinity here. He is using "principaliter" here to refer to the Father's role as cause. This is why he says immediately afterwards:

Quote
sed hoc quoque illi pater dedit (non iam exsistenti et nondum habenti), sed quidquid unigenito uerbo dedit gignendo dedit.

But this [i.e. the Holy Spirit] too the Father gives to him [i.e. the Son] (not of having existence or of having), but whatever he gives by means of the only-begotten Son he gives by means of begetting.

He says elsewhere too:

Quote
Filius autem de Patre natus est: et Spiritus sanctus de Patre principaliter, et ipso sine ullo temporis intervallo dante, communiter de utroque procedit.

But the Son is begotten from the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds principally from the Father. And without any rendering interval of time itself, the Holy Spirit proceeds from both communitively.

De Trinitate Book 15, Chapter 26, Section 47

What say you?

I wholeheartedly agree.

The whole point of posting the second quote was to show how the same word “principle” can be used in two different senses without contradiction.
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 Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,479
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #48 on: July 28, 2018, 09:54:53 AM »
Also, St. Augustine says the Father and Son are One Principle of the Holy Spirit in De Trinitate. Principle and Cause don't mean the same thing.
In a sort of Pneumatic Arianism.  He goes to say, beautifully and poetically as only St. Augustine can, that the Holy Spirit is the personification of the love between the Father and the Son.  Unfortunately, since love is an act of the will, it also makes the Spirit a creature of their wills.  Like the Arians, one could say, after this aphorism, that once the Spirit was not.

Church Fathers were not infallible, only the unanimity of the Church is.  And, on this, the Filioque, the Roman Church has been alone for nigh over a millennium.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2018, 10:02:29 AM by Sharbel »
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,479
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #49 on: July 28, 2018, 09:59:45 AM »
This is Catholicism after Vatican I.  The modernists deny that PP JPII declared infallibly the impossibility of ordaining women in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, in spite of the highly technical language.
It most certainly was not modernists but the CDF itself (which was the bane of modernists) which proclaimed that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not ex cathedra but was just as true on account of it being a reiteration of Holy Tradition.
So, the bureaucracy of the CDF is the true interpreter of papal documents?  Is it passing judgement on the pope, contradicting Pastor Eternus?  Or does the CDF interpret VI differently?  Which CDF, PP JPII's, BXVI's or FI's?  Because, when it comes to the Vatican, one has to ask.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2018, 10:07:23 AM by Sharbel »
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,662
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #50 on: July 28, 2018, 10:08:15 AM »
This is Catholicism after Vatican I.  The modernists deny that PP JPII declared infallibly the impossibility of ordaining women in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, in spite of the highly technical language.
It most certainly was not modernists but the CDF itself (which was the bane of modernists) which proclaimed that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not ex cathedra but was just as true on account of it being a reiteration of Holy Tradition.
So, the bureaucracy of the CDF is the true interpreter of papal documents?  Is it passing judgement on the pope, contradicting Pastor Eternus?  Or does the CDF interpret VI differently?  Which CDF, PP JPII's, BXVI's or FI's?

Any pronouncement of the CDF is approved by the pope. So St John Paul II agreed it was not ex cathedra. It was St John Paul II’s CDF headed by Cardinal Ratzinger.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2018, 10:09:17 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 Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,479
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #51 on: July 28, 2018, 10:21:05 AM »
Any pronouncement of the CDF is approved by the pope. So St John Paul II agreed it was not ex cathedra. It was St John Paul II’s CDF headed by Cardinal Ratzinger.
I love PP BXVI, but why would PP JPII need to hide behind his assistant, a cardinal?  While I also think that PP JPII respected the cardinal a lot, it's nothing but conjecture to think that each and every statement by the CDF bears papal authority.
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,662
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #52 on: July 28, 2018, 10:49:41 AM »
Any pronouncement of the CDF is approved by the pope. So St John Paul II agreed it was not ex cathedra. It was St John Paul II’s CDF headed by Cardinal Ratzinger.
I love PP BXVI, but why would PP JPII need to hide behind his assistant, a cardinal?  While I also think that PP JPII respected the cardinal a lot, it's nothing but conjecture to think that each and every statement by the CDF bears papal authority.
It’s not conjecture but actual fact. The CDF and all Roman dicastries serve as help for the pope and only obtain their legitimacy to act from the pope. They cannot do anything without papal approval.
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: 2,662
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #53 on: July 28, 2018, 11:15:13 AM »
Also, St. Augustine says the Father and Son are One Principle of the Holy Spirit in De Trinitate. Principle and Cause don't mean the same thing.
In a sort of Pneumatic Arianism.  He goes to say, beautifully and poetically as only St. Augustine can, that the Holy Spirit is the personification of the love between the Father and the Son.  Unfortunately, since love is an act of the will, it also makes the Spirit a creature of their wills. Like the Arians, one could say, after this aphorism, that once the Spirit was not.
I totally disagree and urge you to realize Gregory Palamas had no problems using the analogy of Love to apply to the Holy Spirit.

For the sake of argument entertaining your logic leading up to the last line:
For the Holy Spirit to be a creature, there would have to be a time the Son did not exist and further a time where God did not love. God is love so it’s imposisble and secondly St Augustine believed in the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father making him coeternal. So even with this the Holy Spirit can never be relegated to a creature for if God is eternal and his Love is eternal, the Holy Spirit would be eternal too. The only eternal is God. So the Holy Spirit is God not a creature. Thus the model still keeps the Holy Spirit as divine and not a creature. Your logic fails.

Quote
Church Fathers were not infallible, only the unanimity of the Church is.  And, on this, the Filioque, the Roman Church has been alone for nigh over a millennium.


Yeah the only tradition to speak extensively on this issue is the latin tradition and it was unanimous that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Of the Byzantines who did, they affirmed it when they spoke on it like St Epiphinaius in many places. St Basil, St terasius etc. Same with the Alexandrians who did  in St Cyril and especially St Athanasius himself in many places. The only church father who can be said to come close to anything denying the Filioque is St John of Damascus. As you said fathers can err so we must take the unanimous consensus . Thus unanimously the church taught the Filioque.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2018, 11:19:54 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

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 636
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, Pray for US!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #54 on: July 28, 2018, 11:24:15 AM »
In PL 42: 770, Against Maximus, St. Augustine exegetes a text in Jn 20, "The Son comes from the Father; the Holy Spirit comes from the Father. The former is born; the latter proceeds. Hence, the former is the Son of the Father from Whom He is born, but the latter is the Spirit of both because He proceeds from both. When the Son spoke of the Spirit, He said, "He proceeds from the Father" [Jn 15:26], because the Father is the author of His procession. The Father begot a Son and, by begetting Him, gave it to Him that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him as well. If He did not proceed from Him, He would not say to His disciples, "Receive the Holy Spirit" [Jn 20:22], and give the Spirit by breathing on them. He signified that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from Him and showed outwardly by blowing what He was giving inwardly by breathing."

There's no doubt all the great Latin Fathers - St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Leo, St. Isidore, St. Fulgentius, St. Gregory the Great etc etc - taught the Filioque. The Son is born of the Father. And in His eternal birth from His eternal Father, the Father gives His Son His Spirit. So that the Spirit proceeds eternally from Both.

We see almost the identical doctrine in St. Cyril, "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." That is PG 71:377, Commentary on the Prophet Joel.

The Spirit is proper to and from the Son i.e. it is a personal property of the Spirit to proceed from the Son just as He proceeds from the Father. The only difference being the Father is the source of this procession, as St. Augustine says, because He eternally gives His Spirit to His Son. Thus, the Spirit is proper to and in and from the Son just as He is from the Father.

This is the same teaching of Bp. St. Leontius at Nicaea. St. Fulgentius expresses the unanimous consent of at least the Latin and arguably all the Fathers when he says, "Believe most firmly, and never doubt, that the same Holy Spirit, the One Spirit of the Father and the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son. That He proceeds also from the Son is supported by the teaching both of Prophets and Apostles." [PL 65:696 Rule of Faith, 11:52]

This is not a single Father, dear Sharbel. This appears to be a clear ancient Tradition in both East and West. Can you show us a single patristic authority that says "The Spirit proceeds from the Father only", or "the Spirit does not proceed from the Son" or the like?
"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 982
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #55 on: July 28, 2018, 12:21:15 PM »
Quote
Maybe you can start a new thread to discuss energies, Vanyho?
who is vany-ho ? it is pronounced like  V-A-N-I-O. the "H" is only there to prevent the need of placing a 3digit number after the name because all the 2digit ones are already taken. Btw how are you not Xavier167 ?

No, i am not interested in discussions, debates, and getting too involved for the next reasons:
- It is not productive.
- It is very expensive and self-taxing.
- It is time consuming .
- It is annoying.
- all the above combined cause disruption to me during prayer, so it is overall unhealthy waste of time.

I only give short answers to people who get too pushy.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,699
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #56 on: July 28, 2018, 01:27:52 PM »
So now, in this synod in 410 A.D. we similarly find two versions of a Creed already in use. Wiki notes: "The creed is found in two different recensions, both of them recorded in much later manuscripts. First recension is East Syriac and comes from the Church of the East sources. Second is West Syriac and comes from Syrian Orthodox sources. [5] The East Syriac recension contains: "And in the Holy Spirit"[6] while the West Syriac recension contains: "And we confess the living and Holy Spirit, the living Paraclete, who is from the Father and the Son".[7][6] There has been a long controversy among scholars over the relationship between these two texts. The development of a Persian creed is difficult to track since there were several recensions prior to 410.[4][a] First recension is textually closer to original Nicene Creed. On the other hand, some scholars are claiming that second recension represents the original. Further more, they claim that words "who is from the Father and the Son" in the second recension represent the earliest example of the Filioque clause.[8]"

Would it not be a reasonable interpretation of this historical evidence that both formulations were seen as complementary rather than contradictory, even at this early date, in the Church?

Of course, the sleight of hand here is that we are told the West Syriac recension is an early instance of Filioque, but the quote given does not mention or address the procession of the Spirit at all.

In the eternal context of the creed concerning how they persons come to being... is there any other way the Holy Spirit  can be said to be “from” someone other than by way of procession? Tradition doesn’t teach us any other. It’s not sleight of hand, it’s just fact that this was a filioque statement.

You are assuming "eternal context" and "how they (sic) persons come to being" and reading it into that creed.  The words given above as the translation of the Syriac simply do not make that clear.  It could be talking about "eternal", about "temporal", about "eternal" in one person's case and "temporal" in another's, about both applying to one but not the other, etc.  You're reading a creed from fifth century Persia in light of a creed from hundreds of years later on the other side of the world and assuming it's the same thing.  It's not.   

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,699
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #57 on: July 28, 2018, 01:30:53 PM »
So now, in this synod in 410 A.D. we similarly find two versions of a Creed already in use. Wiki notes: "The creed is found in two different recensions, both of them recorded in much later manuscripts. First recension is East Syriac and comes from the Church of the East sources. Second is West Syriac and comes from Syrian Orthodox sources. [5] The East Syriac recension contains: "And in the Holy Spirit"[6] while the West Syriac recension contains: "And we confess the living and Holy Spirit, the living Paraclete, who is from the Father and the Son".[7][6] There has been a long controversy among scholars over the relationship between these two texts. The development of a Persian creed is difficult to track since there were several recensions prior to 410.[4][a] First recension is textually closer to original Nicene Creed. On the other hand, some scholars are claiming that second recension represents the original. Further more, they claim that words "who is from the Father and the Son" in the second recension represent the earliest example of the Filioque clause.[8]"

Would it not be a reasonable interpretation of this historical evidence that both formulations were seen as complementary rather than contradictory, even at this early date, in the Church?

Of course, the sleight of hand here is that we are told the West Syriac recension is an early instance of Filioque, but the quote given does not mention or address the procession of the Spirit at all.

In the eternal context of the creed concerning how they persons come to being... is there any other way the Holy Spirit  can be said to be “from” someone other than by way of procession? Tradition doesn’t teach us any other. It’s not sleight of hand, it’s just fact that this was a filioque statement.

Actually it matters a lot and it is surprising that you say this considering your earlier acknowledgments of the different levels of lifting that are inherent in the Latin verb "procedere" and the Greek verb, whose meaning is far more narrow.

It’s “from” in an eternal context...what more could it be. It’s saying eternally he is from the father and the son. The word proceed has not been used here so the intricacies of ultimate verses general are missed here.

How convenient.  The one word which would make the others clear is not present, but it's still crystal clear.

Quote
The word “from” is closer to Latin proceeds as it’s more generals not denoting ultimate origin. So YES this is a filioque statement and only EO who are struck with the awkwardness of this early non-latin testimony would have a problem admitting this.

The word "from" is probably "men".  I am "men New York".  I don't eternally proceed from New York.  It's just a preposition.   

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,662
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #58 on: July 28, 2018, 01:39:02 PM »
So now, in this synod in 410 A.D. we similarly find two versions of a Creed already in use. Wiki notes: "The creed is found in two different recensions, both of them recorded in much later manuscripts. First recension is East Syriac and comes from the Church of the East sources. Second is West Syriac and comes from Syrian Orthodox sources. [5] The East Syriac recension contains: "And in the Holy Spirit"[6] while the West Syriac recension contains: "And we confess the living and Holy Spirit, the living Paraclete, who is from the Father and the Son".[7][6] There has been a long controversy among scholars over the relationship between these two texts. The development of a Persian creed is difficult to track since there were several recensions prior to 410.[4][a] First recension is textually closer to original Nicene Creed. On the other hand, some scholars are claiming that second recension represents the original. Further more, they claim that words "who is from the Father and the Son" in the second recension represent the earliest example of the Filioque clause.[8]"

Would it not be a reasonable interpretation of this historical evidence that both formulations were seen as complementary rather than contradictory, even at this early date, in the Church?

Of course, the sleight of hand here is that we are told the West Syriac recension is an early instance of Filioque, but the quote given does not mention or address the procession of the Spirit at all.

In the eternal context of the creed concerning how they persons come to being... is there any other way the Holy Spirit  can be said to be “from” someone other than by way of procession? Tradition doesn’t teach us any other. It’s not sleight of hand, it’s just fact that this was a filioque statement.

Actually it matters a lot and it is surprising that you say this considering your earlier acknowledgments of the different levels of lifting that are inherent in the Latin verb "procedere" and the Greek verb, whose meaning is far more narrow.

It’s “from” in an eternal context...what more could it be. It’s saying eternally he is from the father and the son. The word proceed has not been used here so the intricacies of ultimate verses general are missed here.

How convenient.  The one word which would make the others clear is not present, but it's still crystal clear.

Quote
The word “from” is closer to Latin proceeds as it’s more generals not denoting ultimate origin. So YES this is a filioque statement and only EO who are struck with the awkwardness of this early non-latin testimony would have a problem admitting this.

The word "from" is probably "men".  I am "men New York".  I don't eternally proceed from New York.  It's just a preposition.   

Ummm yeah that’s my point. It’s closer to Latin procedit... which is best translated as from... in purely English words with no borrowing from Latin.
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: 2,662
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #59 on: July 28, 2018, 01:41:54 PM »
So now, in this synod in 410 A.D. we similarly find two versions of a Creed already in use. Wiki notes: "The creed is found in two different recensions, both of them recorded in much later manuscripts. First recension is East Syriac and comes from the Church of the East sources. Second is West Syriac and comes from Syrian Orthodox sources. [5] The East Syriac recension contains: "And in the Holy Spirit"[6] while the West Syriac recension contains: "And we confess the living and Holy Spirit, the living Paraclete, who is from the Father and the Son".[7][6] There has been a long controversy among scholars over the relationship between these two texts. The development of a Persian creed is difficult to track since there were several recensions prior to 410.[4][a] First recension is textually closer to original Nicene Creed. On the other hand, some scholars are claiming that second recension represents the original. Further more, they claim that words "who is from the Father and the Son" in the second recension represent the earliest example of the Filioque clause.[8]"

Would it not be a reasonable interpretation of this historical evidence that both formulations were seen as complementary rather than contradictory, even at this early date, in the Church?

Of course, the sleight of hand here is that we are told the West Syriac recension is an early instance of Filioque, but the quote given does not mention or address the procession of the Spirit at all.

In the eternal context of the creed concerning how they persons come to being... is there any other way the Holy Spirit  can be said to be “from” someone other than by way of procession? Tradition doesn’t teach us any other. It’s not sleight of hand, it’s just fact that this was a filioque statement.

You are assuming "eternal context" and "how they (sic) persons come to being" and reading it into that creed.  The words given above as the translation of the Syriac simply do not make that clear.  It could be talking about "eternal", about "temporal", about "eternal" in one person's case and "temporal" in another's, about both applying to one but not the other, etc.  You're reading a creed from fifth century Persia in light of a creed from hundreds of years later on the other side of the world and assuming it's the same thing.  It's not.   

It’s not assumed at all. The creed which was very close ,if not the nicene creed which it is 99% the same as, was written up to deal with christiological and other errors concerning the persons in the  Godhead. The only temporal parts of any creed are the salvation narratives. A comment of the Holy Spirit is eternal always with regards to his consubstantiality. The line “from the Father and Son” was in relation to the divine life of the trinity and consubstantiality.

« Last Edit: July 28, 2018, 01:44:19 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 Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,699
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #60 on: July 28, 2018, 01:44:08 PM »
Non it literally references Nicaea I not Constantinople.
It says :

”When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.”

Ephesus's prohibition of making a new creed in addition to the Nicene prompted questions about the status of the material added by Constantinople I. How this material was to be regarded was settled at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451), which stated:

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

Are you trying to shoot yourself in the foot ?
LOL really? Let it go Vanhyo...Unless your English isn’t at a first language level the only explanation for this comment is that you are in the height of denial.

Why are you picking on his English but we're supposed to trust you on Syriac?  Get a life. 

Quote
Everyonewas changing the creed already. The Latins, Armenians and even the Assyrians. ONLY the Byzantines understood this canon the way you’re proposing. An understanding which the councils own words show to be mistaken.

I would agree with you that what is of primary importance is not the words of the creed as a sort of legal formula but rather the faith they express.  That said, Filioque is the perfect example of why it would've been better to treat the creed as a legal formula.  That first "Deum de Deo" in the Latin text of the creed may not have been in the original Greek, but it is not heterodox.  Filioque is an entirely different matter. 

As for the Armenians "changing the creed", I'd dispute that.  The creed they use is an older creed.  I don't think they pretend to pass it off as the creed of Nicaea and Constantinople except perhaps as a shorthand way of referring to it, similar to how we refer to the creed as "Nicene" even though it's also "Constantinopolitan".

Quote
Quote
The 8th ecumenical council and the orthodox popes understood this canon to also apply for constantinople and this is why they believed the filioque addition to be unlawful one.
Whose 8th council? The popes weren’t even reciting the creed in the liturgy until just before the great schism. Pope Leo III never justified his prohibition on the basis of Ephesus. He nowhere even mentions it. Not once. Considering how he dealt with the addition it would have been a lot easier to just point out Ephesus taught against what he did but instead he asked them to not include it for the sake of unity.

Interesting.  Ephesus was not mentioned anywhere at all by Pope Leo III, so it cannot be read into his prohibition.  But "procession" can be read into a Syriac creed even though it's not mentioned anywhere at all in the text. 

Quote
Quote
According to your standards, doesn't displaying the Creed in both latin and greek without the filioque for all the faithful to see, on top of the grave of St Peter counts as ex-cathedra ? If that doesn't count what does ?
You believe in ex cathedra now? LOL you’re getting desperate. No... ex cathedra are dogmatic confessions. That was disciplinary action on amending the creed to explain more clearly its faith.

How is that not ultimately a dogmatic declaration?

Quote
Remember this same Leo approved of the filioque. He was not denying it. He was seeking to just maintain the creed as it is. That’s a disciplinary. It would be dogmatic if he was doing so on account of a denial of the faith of the creed which obviously he didn’t think wasn’t happening. He did that for he cause of unity.

As if ecclesiastical unity is something insignificant. 
« Last Edit: July 28, 2018, 01:44:34 PM by Mor Ephrem »

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,699
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #61 on: July 28, 2018, 01:45:43 PM »
Furthermore, it would be best to post the whole creed here. We cannot expect to have a fruitful discussion about a creed written in Syriac without having at least both the original language and a full English translation. Even then, it would be highly reliant on someone being kind enough to go through the Syriac for us.

+1

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,699
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #62 on: July 28, 2018, 01:49:36 PM »
Thanks, Mor. Would you happen to know more about the particular Syriac texts mentioned in the article? And have any idea of how the word "Who is from" should be translated? As Rohzek mentioned, that would be useful in going forward. If in fact it is a Syrian translation or rendering or version of the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed, it seems the relevant part would have been a translation of some sort of the part referring to the procession of the Holy Spirit. I confess I don't know much about it. Perhaps MalpanaGiwargis, who knows Aramaic and related languages IIRC, can help us out.

I don't have a copy of the text in question, but if someone provides it here, we can have a look at it.  Based on my familiarity with other texts, however, I strongly suspect that "Who is from" can only be translated "Who is from".  We're not talking about complicated words here..."from" is "from", for example.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,699
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #63 on: July 28, 2018, 01:53:35 PM »
So we need a fallible wandile to tell us which dogmatic teachings of the infallible pope are infact infallible?

This is how absurd your religion is.
This is Catholicism after Vatican I.  The modernists deny that PP JPII declared infallibly the impossibility of ordaining women in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, in spite of the highly technical language.  The traditionalists deny that PP Honorious I was teaching magisterially when he was answering an inquiry by a patriarch.  Whatever furthers their version of Catholicism, except the Lord's.

Indeed.  Here is another example:

The Latins theologians are not confused it’s you Rhozek that is confused. The problem, as with many EO, is that you refuse to understand how othe traditions use terms like “cause”, “origin, “principle” and “proceed” in their own understanding of those terms” but seek to force a Byzantine understanding of those words on the other tradition and then seem surprised when their words don’t make sense. You and the Byzantine tradition keep committing the same old mistake since Chalcedon which cause unnecessary schisms purely based on different usuages of the same the terms.

When Chalcedon is convenient to the advancement of the Roman position, it's great.  When it's not, it's the source of errors which caused unnecessary schisms. 

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,662
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #64 on: July 28, 2018, 01:55:12 PM »
Non it literally references Nicaea I not Constantinople.
It says :

”When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.”

Ephesus's prohibition of making a new creed in addition to the Nicene prompted questions about the status of the material added by Constantinople I. How this material was to be regarded was settled at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451), which stated:

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

Are you trying to shoot yourself in the foot ?
LOL really? Let it go Vanhyo...Unless your English isn’t at a first language level the only explanation for this comment is that you are in the height of denial.

Why are you picking on his English but we're supposed to trust you on Syriac?  Get a life.
oh get a life won’t you. I actually wasn’t picking on his English but using it as the only reasonable out he has that would cut him some slack for the response he gave to the text.

Quote
The councils soundly refute you in their own words. Lastly,  this was a point proven at Florence that even your WHOLE delegation conceded that they had erred on this matter.

Quote
Everyonewas changing the creed already. The Latins, Armenians and even the Assyrians. ONLY the Byzantines understood this canon the way you’re proposing. An understanding which the councils own words show to be mistaken.

I would agree with you that what is of primary importance is not the words of the creed as a sort of legal formula but rather the faith they express.  That said, Filioque is the perfect example of why it would've been better to treat the creed as a legal formula.  That first "Deum de Deo" in the Latin text of the creed may not have been in the original Greek, but it is not heterodox.  Filioque is an entirely different matter. 

Quote
As for the Armenians "changing the creed", I'd dispute that.  The creed they use is an older creed.  I don't think they pretend to pass it off as the creed of Nicaea and Constantinople except perhaps as a shorthand way of referring to it, similar to how we refer to the creed as "Nicene" even though it's also "Constantinopolitan".
This is something I can entertain although I think it’s fair to assume they adapted the nicene creed to a manner more suitable for them. It follows the exact order of nicene creed but words thing different. Which to me hints at an adaptation not a separate creed. At least from my POV

Quote
Quote
Quote
The 8th ecumenical council and the orthodox popes understood this canon to also apply for constantinople and this is why they believed the filioque addition to be unlawful one.
Whose 8th council? The popes weren’t even reciting the creed in the liturgy until just before the great schism. Pope Leo III never justified his prohibition on the basis of Ephesus. He nowhere even mentions it. Not once. Considering how he dealt with the addition it would have been a lot easier to just point out Ephesus taught against what he did but instead he asked them to not include it for the sake of unity.

Interesting.  Ephesus was not mentioned anywhere at all by Pope Leo III, so it cannot be read into his prohibition.  But "procession" can be read into a Syriac creed even though it's not mentioned anywhere at all in the text.
He doesn’t even allude to it unlike the creed in question. You’re reaching.

Quote
Quote
Quote
According to your standards, doesn't displaying the Creed in both latin and greek without the filioque for all the faithful to see, on top of the grave of St Peter counts as ex-cathedra ? If that doesn't count what does ?
You believe in ex cathedra now? LOL you’re getting desperate. No... ex cathedra are dogmatic confessions. That was disciplinary action on amending the creed to explain more clearly its faith.

How is that not ultimately a dogmatic declaration?
Dogmatics are those which relate to the faith. The orthodoxy of the faith of the Spanish fathers and he filioque nor its insertion were matters of faith. As pointed out Pope Leo III agreed with their faith. There as not attack on the faith. His main concern was purely unity and forbade its addition. That’s disciplinary. Like how no additions to the liturgy which may be orthodox is disciplinary though the liturgy is dogmatic in nature.

Quote
Quote
Remember this same Leo approved of the filioque. He was not denying it. He was seeking to just maintain the creed as it is. That’s a disciplinary. It would be dogmatic if he was doing so on account of a denial of the faith of the creed which obviously he didn’t think wasn’t happening. He did that for he cause of unity.

As if ecclesiastical unity is something insignificant.
Nobody said it isn’t . But it’s not heresy. It’s a different matter all together. You’re just picking figh now for mere amusement.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2018, 01:59:25 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: 2,662
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #65 on: July 28, 2018, 01:56:59 PM »
So we need a fallible wandile to tell us which dogmatic teachings of the infallible pope are infact infallible?

This is how absurd your religion is.
This is Catholicism after Vatican I.  The modernists deny that PP JPII declared infallibly the impossibility of ordaining women in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, in spite of the highly technical language.  The traditionalists deny that PP Honorious I was teaching magisterially when he was answering an inquiry by a patriarch.  Whatever furthers their version of Catholicism, except the Lord's.

Indeed.  Here is another example:

The Latins theologians are not confused it’s you Rhozek that is confused. The problem, as with many EO, is that you refuse to understand how othe traditions use terms like “cause”, “origin, “principle” and “proceed” in their own understanding of those terms” but seek to force a Byzantine understanding of those words on the other tradition and then seem surprised when their words don’t make sense. You and the Byzantine tradition keep committing the same old mistake since Chalcedon which cause unnecessary schisms purely based on different usuages of the same the terms.

When Chalcedon is convenient to the advancement of the Roman position, it's great.  When it's not, it's the source of errors which caused unnecessary schisms.

No we aren’t Byzantines. We don’t see councils in the “magical” way a lot of them tend to do. Chalcedon was ultimately right but the way a lot of the bishops dealt with theological expression can be criticized heavily. It resulted in a very unnecessary schism because nobody was listenting to each other. The council was made of mainly Byzantine bishops.
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 Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,699
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #66 on: July 28, 2018, 01:58:09 PM »
So now, in this synod in 410 A.D. we similarly find two versions of a Creed already in use. Wiki notes: "The creed is found in two different recensions, both of them recorded in much later manuscripts. First recension is East Syriac and comes from the Church of the East sources. Second is West Syriac and comes from Syrian Orthodox sources. [5] The East Syriac recension contains: "And in the Holy Spirit"[6] while the West Syriac recension contains: "And we confess the living and Holy Spirit, the living Paraclete, who is from the Father and the Son".[7][6] There has been a long controversy among scholars over the relationship between these two texts. The development of a Persian creed is difficult to track since there were several recensions prior to 410.[4][a] First recension is textually closer to original Nicene Creed. On the other hand, some scholars are claiming that second recension represents the original. Further more, they claim that words "who is from the Father and the Son" in the second recension represent the earliest example of the Filioque clause.[8]"

Would it not be a reasonable interpretation of this historical evidence that both formulations were seen as complementary rather than contradictory, even at this early date, in the Church?

Of course, the sleight of hand here is that we are told the West Syriac recension is an early instance of Filioque, but the quote given does not mention or address the procession of the Spirit at all.

In the eternal context of the creed concerning how they persons come to being... is there any other way the Holy Spirit  can be said to be “from” someone other than by way of procession? Tradition doesn’t teach us any other. It’s not sleight of hand, it’s just fact that this was a filioque statement.

Actually it matters a lot and it is surprising that you say this considering your earlier acknowledgments of the different levels of lifting that are inherent in the Latin verb "procedere" and the Greek verb, whose meaning is far more narrow.

It’s “from” in an eternal context...what more could it be. It’s saying eternally he is from the father and the son. The word proceed has not been used here so the intricacies of ultimate verses general are missed here.

How convenient.  The one word which would make the others clear is not present, but it's still crystal clear.

Quote
The word “from” is closer to Latin proceeds as it’s more generals not denoting ultimate origin. So YES this is a filioque statement and only EO who are struck with the awkwardness of this early non-latin testimony would have a problem admitting this.

The word "from" is probably "men".  I am "men New York".  I don't eternally proceed from New York.  It's just a preposition.   

Ummm yeah that’s my point. It’s closer to Latin procedit... which is best translated as from... in purely English words with no borrowing from Latin.

So "procedit" is Latin for "from"?  I thought "ex" was "from".   

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,662
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #67 on: July 28, 2018, 02:02:05 PM »
So now, in this synod in 410 A.D. we similarly find two versions of a Creed already in use. Wiki notes: "The creed is found in two different recensions, both of them recorded in much later manuscripts. First recension is East Syriac and comes from the Church of the East sources. Second is West Syriac and comes from Syrian Orthodox sources. [5] The East Syriac recension contains: "And in the Holy Spirit"[6] while the West Syriac recension contains: "And we confess the living and Holy Spirit, the living Paraclete, who is from the Father and the Son".[7][6] There has been a long controversy among scholars over the relationship between these two texts. The development of a Persian creed is difficult to track since there were several recensions prior to 410.[4][a] First recension is textually closer to original Nicene Creed. On the other hand, some scholars are claiming that second recension represents the original. Further more, they claim that words "who is from the Father and the Son" in the second recension represent the earliest example of the Filioque clause.[8]"

Would it not be a reasonable interpretation of this historical evidence that both formulations were seen as complementary rather than contradictory, even at this early date, in the Church?

Of course, the sleight of hand here is that we are told the West Syriac recension is an early instance of Filioque, but the quote given does not mention or address the procession of the Spirit at all.

In the eternal context of the creed concerning how they persons come to being... is there any other way the Holy Spirit  can be said to be “from” someone other than by way of procession? Tradition doesn’t teach us any other. It’s not sleight of hand, it’s just fact that this was a filioque statement.

Actually it matters a lot and it is surprising that you say this considering your earlier acknowledgments of the different levels of lifting that are inherent in the Latin verb "procedere" and the Greek verb, whose meaning is far more narrow.

It’s “from” in an eternal context...what more could it be. It’s saying eternally he is from the father and the son. The word proceed has not been used here so the intricacies of ultimate verses general are missed here.

How convenient.  The one word which would make the others clear is not present, but it's still crystal clear.

Quote
The word “from” is closer to Latin proceeds as it’s more generals not denoting ultimate origin. So YES this is a filioque statement and only EO who are struck with the awkwardness of this early non-latin testimony would have a problem admitting this.

The word "from" is probably "men".  I am "men New York".  I don't eternally proceed from New York.  It's just a preposition.   

Ummm yeah that’s my point. It’s closer to Latin procedit... which is best translated as from... in purely English words with no borrowing from Latin.

So "procedit" is Latin for "from"?  I thought "ex" was "from".   

I said what procedit could be translated into of words purely English without latin influence.

I could say I proceed from my house. The sentence would be exactly the same if I drop the word proceeds as from encompasses the concept of procession in this context.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2018, 02:02:45 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 Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,699
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #68 on: July 28, 2018, 02:02:37 PM »
So now, in this synod in 410 A.D. we similarly find two versions of a Creed already in use. Wiki notes: "The creed is found in two different recensions, both of them recorded in much later manuscripts. First recension is East Syriac and comes from the Church of the East sources. Second is West Syriac and comes from Syrian Orthodox sources. [5] The East Syriac recension contains: "And in the Holy Spirit"[6] while the West Syriac recension contains: "And we confess the living and Holy Spirit, the living Paraclete, who is from the Father and the Son".[7][6] There has been a long controversy among scholars over the relationship between these two texts. The development of a Persian creed is difficult to track since there were several recensions prior to 410.[4][a] First recension is textually closer to original Nicene Creed. On the other hand, some scholars are claiming that second recension represents the original. Further more, they claim that words "who is from the Father and the Son" in the second recension represent the earliest example of the Filioque clause.[8]"

Would it not be a reasonable interpretation of this historical evidence that both formulations were seen as complementary rather than contradictory, even at this early date, in the Church?

Of course, the sleight of hand here is that we are told the West Syriac recension is an early instance of Filioque, but the quote given does not mention or address the procession of the Spirit at all.

In the eternal context of the creed concerning how they persons come to being... is there any other way the Holy Spirit  can be said to be “from” someone other than by way of procession? Tradition doesn’t teach us any other. It’s not sleight of hand, it’s just fact that this was a filioque statement.

You are assuming "eternal context" and "how they (sic) persons come to being" and reading it into that creed.  The words given above as the translation of the Syriac simply do not make that clear.  It could be talking about "eternal", about "temporal", about "eternal" in one person's case and "temporal" in another's, about both applying to one but not the other, etc.  You're reading a creed from fifth century Persia in light of a creed from hundreds of years later on the other side of the world and assuming it's the same thing.  It's not.   

It’s not assumed at all. The creed which was very close ,if not the nicene creed which it is 99% the same as, was written up to deal with christiological and other errors concerning the persons in the  Godhead. The only temporal parts of any creed are the salvation narratives. A comment of the Holy Spirit is eternal always with regards to his consubstantiality. The line “from the Father and Son” was in relation to the divine life of the trinity and consubstantiality.

Produce the Syriac text of the creed in question and let's have a look at it. 

Also, very funny re: "the only temporal parts of any creed are the salvation narratives".  What foolishness.  The one who was "crucified under Pontius Pilate" is also the "Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world".  Salvation history happened in time, but it cannot be limited only to time.  That doesn't mean that everything in any creed is both eternal and temporal.  What it means is that words matter, and when you don't use the right words, you say the wrong things.   

Words matter. 

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,662
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #69 on: July 28, 2018, 02:06:22 PM »
So now, in this synod in 410 A.D. we similarly find two versions of a Creed already in use. Wiki notes: "The creed is found in two different recensions, both of them recorded in much later manuscripts. First recension is East Syriac and comes from the Church of the East sources. Second is West Syriac and comes from Syrian Orthodox sources. [5] The East Syriac recension contains: "And in the Holy Spirit"[6] while the West Syriac recension contains: "And we confess the living and Holy Spirit, the living Paraclete, who is from the Father and the Son".[7][6] There has been a long controversy among scholars over the relationship between these two texts. The development of a Persian creed is difficult to track since there were several recensions prior to 410.[4][a] First recension is textually closer to original Nicene Creed. On the other hand, some scholars are claiming that second recension represents the original. Further more, they claim that words "who is from the Father and the Son" in the second recension represent the earliest example of the Filioque clause.[8]"

Would it not be a reasonable interpretation of this historical evidence that both formulations were seen as complementary rather than contradictory, even at this early date, in the Church?

Of course, the sleight of hand here is that we are told the West Syriac recension is an early instance of Filioque, but the quote given does not mention or address the procession of the Spirit at all.

In the eternal context of the creed concerning how they persons come to being... is there any other way the Holy Spirit  can be said to be “from” someone other than by way of procession? Tradition doesn’t teach us any other. It’s not sleight of hand, it’s just fact that this was a filioque statement.

You are assuming "eternal context" and "how they (sic) persons come to being" and reading it into that creed.  The words given above as the translation of the Syriac simply do not make that clear.  It could be talking about "eternal", about "temporal", about "eternal" in one person's case and "temporal" in another's, about both applying to one but not the other, etc.  You're reading a creed from fifth century Persia in light of a creed from hundreds of years later on the other side of the world and assuming it's the same thing.  It's not.   

It’s not assumed at all. The creed which was very close ,if not the nicene creed which it is 99% the same as, was written up to deal with christiological and other errors concerning the persons in the  Godhead. The only temporal parts of any creed are the salvation narratives. A comment of the Holy Spirit is eternal always with regards to his consubstantiality. The line “from the Father and Son” was in relation to the divine life of the trinity and consubstantiality.

Produce the Syriac text of the creed in question and let's have a look at it.
I did once here and YOU identified it very quickly and left the matter. I’ll try find it again

Quote
Also, very funny re: "the only temporal parts of any creed are the salvation narratives".  What foolishness.  The one who was "crucified under Pontius Pilate" is also the "Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world".  Salvation history happened in time, but it cannot be limited only to time.  That doesn't mean that everything in any creed is both eternal and temporal.  What it means is that words matter, and when you don't use the right words, you say the wrong things.   

Words matter.

Oh whatever. You’re just reaching now and it’s getting pathetic,. I never said those parts are temporal in nature only  and you know this. You’re knitpicking.. Like I said you’re just picking a fight.
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 Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,699
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #70 on: July 28, 2018, 02:13:00 PM »
This is something I can entertain although I think it’s fair to assume they adapted the nicene creed to a manner more suitable for them. It follows the exact order of nicene creed but words thing different. Which to me hints at an adaptation not a separate creed. At least from my POV

Your POV is wrong.  The Armenian creed is an older baptismal creed from Jerusalem which was one of the sources on which the Nicene Creed was based.  If the words and order are similar, it's not the Nicene on which the Armenian is based, but vice versa. 

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
The 8th ecumenical council and the orthodox popes understood this canon to also apply for constantinople and this is why they believed the filioque addition to be unlawful one.
Whose 8th council? The popes weren’t even reciting the creed in the liturgy until just before the great schism. Pope Leo III never justified his prohibition on the basis of Ephesus. He nowhere even mentions it. Not once. Considering how he dealt with the addition it would have been a lot easier to just point out Ephesus taught against what he did but instead he asked them to not include it for the sake of unity.

Interesting.  Ephesus was not mentioned anywhere at all by Pope Leo III, so it cannot be read into his prohibition.  But "procession" can be read into a Syriac creed even though it's not mentioned anywhere at all in the text.
He doesn’t even allude to it unlike the creed in question. You’re reaching.

Your allegation that 5th century Persians are alluding to the theology of 6th to 9th century Spaniards and Carolingians is the real reach. 

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
According to your standards, doesn't displaying the Creed in both latin and greek without the filioque for all the faithful to see, on top of the grave of St Peter counts as ex-cathedra ? If that doesn't count what does ?
You believe in ex cathedra now? LOL you’re getting desperate. No... ex cathedra are dogmatic confessions. That was disciplinary action on amending the creed to explain more clearly its faith.

How is that not ultimately a dogmatic declaration?
Dogmatics are those which relate to the faith. The orthodoxy of the faith of the Spanish fathers and he filioque nor its insertion were matters of faith. As pointed out Pope Leo III agreed with their faith. There as not attack on the faith. His main concern was purely unity and forbade its addition. That’s disciplinary. Like how no additions to the liturgy which may be orthodox is disciplinary though the liturgy is dogmatic in nature.

This is all very muddled in your head, I'm not sure how to begin to fix it. 

A creed is a declaration of faith.  Contrary to the liturgical usages of the Chalcedonians, it's not a personal declaration of faith, it's a communal declaration: the conciliar creeds say "We believe".  If Pope Leo III preserved the older form of the creed in order to preserve ecclesiastical unity, that's not simply a disciplinary matter.  By definition it cannot be.  He's affirming what "We believe", and placing that and the unity of faith and communion engendered by that common belief above local quirks. 

Quote
You’re just picking figh now for mere amusement.

Don't project.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2018, 02:13:46 PM by Mor Ephrem »

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,699
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #71 on: July 28, 2018, 02:16:26 PM »
Also, very funny re: "the only temporal parts of any creed are the salvation narratives".  What foolishness.  The one who was "crucified under Pontius Pilate" is also the "Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world".  Salvation history happened in time, but it cannot be limited only to time.  That doesn't mean that everything in any creed is both eternal and temporal.  What it means is that words matter, and when you don't use the right words, you say the wrong things.   

Words matter.

Oh whatever. You’re just reaching now and it’s getting pathetic,. I never said those parts are temporal in nature only  and you know this.

The only temporal parts of any creed are the salvation narratives.

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,998
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #72 on: July 28, 2018, 02:22:31 PM »
There is some irony here in the appeals to St. Maximus insofar as the Greek party attempted to introduce St. Maximus' explanation of the filioque as a grounds for union at Florence—something the Latins rejected. The filioque after Florence is quite clearly a different belief than the filioque as confessed by the Western fathers and explained by St. Maximus in his letter to Marinus, because as St. Maximus explains, the Latins of his time did not intend to make the Son a cause of the Holy Spirit.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,249
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #73 on: July 28, 2018, 03:16:34 PM »
There is some irony here in the appeals to St. Maximus insofar as the Greek party attempted to introduce St. Maximus' explanation of the filioque as a grounds for union at Florence—something the Latins rejected. The filioque after Florence is quite clearly a different belief than the filioque as confessed by the Western fathers and explained by St. Maximus in his letter to Marinus, because as St. Maximus explains, the Latins of his time did not intend to make the Son a cause of the Holy Spirit.

This is a good point, and I've perhaps spoken too soon with regards to St. Augustine's framework serving as a clarification to Florence.
"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 Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,699
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #74 on: July 28, 2018, 03:35:28 PM »
Ummm yeah that’s my point. It’s closer to Latin procedit... which is best translated as from... in purely English words with no borrowing from Latin.

So "procedit" is Latin for "from"?  I thought "ex" was "from".   

I said what procedit could be translated into of words purely English without latin influence.

I could say I proceed from my house. The sentence would be exactly the same if I drop the word proceeds as from encompasses the concept of procession in this context.

If you drop "proceed", you no longer have a sentence.  You have "I from my house".  There is no verb, not even implicitly.

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,479
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #75 on: July 28, 2018, 10:36:55 PM »
It’s not conjecture but actual fact. The CDF and all Roman dicastries serve as help for the pope and only obtain their legitimacy to act from the pope. They cannot do anything without papal approval.
Legitimacy to exist, but their bureaucratic pronouncements are not the same thing as the pope's.  According to VI, nobody speaks for the pope except himself.

Yeah the only tradition to speak extensively on this issue is the latin tradition and it was unanimous that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
You say Latin, but it was a Frankish phenomenon.  Whether the Franks in Francia, the Goth, Ostrogoth and Visigoth Goth Franks, etc.  Latin Christianity died with the coronation of Charlemagne and it was reshaped in his image and likeness.  To this day, through the Reformation and the contemporary German bishops, the Franks have been chipping Christianity away from Rome.  But, through is minimalistic legalism, Rome painted itself in a corner when it dogmatized their barbarous theology.
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,249
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #76 on: July 28, 2018, 11:42:45 PM »
It’s not conjecture but actual fact. The CDF and all Roman dicastries serve as help for the pope and only obtain their legitimacy to act from the pope. They cannot do anything without papal approval.
Legitimacy to exist, but their bureaucratic pronouncements are not the same thing as the pope's.  According to VI, nobody speaks for the pope except himself.

Yeah the only tradition to speak extensively on this issue is the latin tradition and it was unanimous that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
You say Latin, but it was a Frankish phenomenon.  Whether the Franks in Francia, the Goth, Ostrogoth and Visigoth Goth Franks, etc.  Latin Christianity died with the coronation of Charlemagne and it was reshaped in his image and likeness.  To this day, through the Reformation and the contemporary German bishops, the Franks have been chipping Christianity away from Rome.  But, through is minimalistic legalism, Rome painted itself in a corner when it dogmatized their barbarous theology.

Carolingian theology remains remarkably understudied and therefore is not well-understood. We can be upset that Charlemagne was abrasive and intrusive, but it would be a stretch to say their theology is irredeemable. Furthermore, the filioque was used by the Franks, the Gauls before the Franks, and the Visigoths. There is indication that the Anglo-Saxons used it as well. Whether they used it in the Nicene Creed before Charlemagne or Toledo is a different matter, but it cannot be disputed that they spoke of a filioque in other creeds and in their theological writings.
"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 MalpanaGiwargis

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 549
  • Māran etraḥam 'lay!
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #77 on: July 29, 2018, 12:10:11 AM »
I think Theodore of Mopsuestia's Commentary on the Nicene Creed would be a good indication of the mind of the East Syriac tradition in that period, given his status as the "blessed interpreter" of the Church of the East. On the procession of the Spirit (English page 107, Syriac 229), he quotes the Creed as ܗܘ݁ ܠܡ ܕܡܢ ܐܒܐ ܢ݁ܦܩ. (Here ܠܡ is just a postpositive particle indicating a quote.) Literally, "he who from the Father goes out." His commentary on this phrase gives absolutely no whiff of the Filioque. The Son is only mentioned in terms of the temporal mission of the Spirit-as-Paraclete, as Theodore's references to John 15 make clear. His quotation appears slightly harmonized to the language of the Creed (ܗܘ݁ ܕܡܢ ܐܒܐ ܢ݁ܦܩ instead of Peshitta ܗܘ݁ ܕܡܢ ܠܘܬ ܐܒܝ ܢ݁ܦܩ).
Woe is me, that I have read the commandments,
   and have become learned in the Scriptures,
and have been instructed in Your glories,
   and yet I have become occupied in shameful things!

(Giwargis Warda, On Compunction of Soul)

Offline WPM

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,964
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #78 on: July 29, 2018, 03:47:21 AM »
The Councils weren't Ecumenical until addressed by the Pope of Rome.
The Sign and Prayers to the Blessed Virgin Mary

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,662
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #79 on: July 29, 2018, 04:32:13 AM »
It’s not conjecture but actual fact. The CDF and all Roman dicastries serve as help for the pope and only obtain their legitimacy to act from the pope. They cannot do anything without papal approval.
Legitimacy to exist, but their bureaucratic pronouncements are not the same thing as the pope's.  According to VI, nobody speaks for the pope except himself.
Sharbel... NO.

They are not independent bodies but literally are extensions of the power of the bishop of Rome. They only act with his approval because they act in his name.
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: 2,662
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #80 on: July 29, 2018, 04:33:49 AM »
Ummm yeah that’s my point. It’s closer to Latin procedit... which is best translated as from... in purely English words with no borrowing from Latin.

So "procedit" is Latin for "from"?  I thought "ex" was "from".   

I said what procedit could be translated into of words purely English without latin influence.

I could say I proceed from my house. The sentence would be exactly the same if I drop the word proceeds as from encompasses the concept of procession in this context.

If you drop "proceed", you no longer have a sentence.  You have "I from my house".  There is no verb, not even implicitly.

The sentence becomes “I’m from my house” if you are aware of English grammar rules.
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: 2,662
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #81 on: July 29, 2018, 04:35:12 AM »
Also, very funny re: "the only temporal parts of any creed are the salvation narratives".  What foolishness.  The one who was "crucified under Pontius Pilate" is also the "Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world".  Salvation history happened in time, but it cannot be limited only to time.  That doesn't mean that everything in any creed is both eternal and temporal.  What it means is that words matter, and when you don't use the right words, you say the wrong things.   

Words matter.

Oh whatever. You’re just reaching now and it’s getting pathetic,. I never said those parts are temporal in nature only  and you know this.

The only temporal parts of any creed are the salvation narratives.

Grammar grammar grammar. LOL

“The only temporary parts” is differently to “those parts are temporal only”. You’re getting desperate.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2018, 04:35:53 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 Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,662
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #82 on: July 29, 2018, 04:36:55 AM »
There is some irony here in the appeals to St. Maximus insofar as the Greek party attempted to introduce St. Maximus' explanation of the filioque as a grounds for union at Florence—something the Latins rejected. The filioque after Florence is quite clearly a different belief than the filioque as confessed by the Western fathers and explained by St. Maximus in his letter to Marinus, because as St. Maximus explains, the Latins of his time did not intend to make the Son a cause of the Holy Spirit.

St Maximus meant cause in the Greek sense of ultimate origin especially in reference to the creed. Something Florence does not do and John Montnerro made very clear.
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: 2,662
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #83 on: July 29, 2018, 04:47:29 AM »
This is something I can entertain although I think it’s fair to assume they adapted the nicene creed to a manner more suitable for them. It follows the exact order of nicene creed but words thing different. Which to me hints at an adaptation not a separate creed. At least from my POV

Your POV is wrong.  The Armenian creed is an older baptismal creed from Jerusalem which was one of the sources on which the Nicene Creed was based.  If the words and order are similar, it's not the Nicene on which the Armenian is based, but vice versa.
Prove it... because they even call it the nicene creed. Their creed liturgically even ends with anathemas of Nicaea attached to the end of the Nicene creed and the prayer office of the 9th hour, immediately after the Creed.


Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
The 8th ecumenical council and the orthodox popes understood this canon to also apply for constantinople and this is why they believed the filioque addition to be unlawful one.
Whose 8th council? The popes weren’t even reciting the creed in the liturgy until just before the great schism. Pope Leo III never justified his prohibition on the basis of Ephesus. He nowhere even mentions it. Not once. Considering how he dealt with the addition it would have been a lot easier to just point out Ephesus taught against what he did but instead he asked them to not include it for the sake of unity.

Interesting.  Ephesus was not mentioned anywhere at all by Pope Leo III, so it cannot be read into his prohibition.  But "procession" can be read into a Syriac creed even though it's not mentioned anywhere at all in the text.
He doesn’t even allude to it unlike the creed in question. You’re reaching.

Your allegation that 5th century Persians are alluding to the theology of 6th to 9th century Spaniards and Carolingians is the real reach.
Theology of the 9th century Spaniards... that must be news to pope St Damasus and the latin fathers of the 3rd, 4th and 5th centuries openly confessing Filioque. But okay let’s play along with your narrative  ;)

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
According to your standards, doesn't displaying the Creed in both latin and greek without the filioque for all the faithful to see, on top of the grave of St Peter counts as ex-cathedra ? If that doesn't count what does ?
You believe in ex cathedra now? LOL you’re getting desperate. No... ex cathedra are dogmatic confessions. That was disciplinary action on amending the creed to explain more clearly its faith.

How is that not ultimately a dogmatic declaration?
Dogmatics are those which relate to the faith. The orthodoxy of the faith of the Spanish fathers and he filioque nor its insertion were matters of faith. As pointed out Pope Leo III agreed with their faith. There as not attack on the faith. His main concern was purely unity and forbade its addition. That’s disciplinary. Like how no additions to the liturgy which may be orthodox is disciplinary though the liturgy is dogmatic in nature.

This is all very muddled in your head, I'm not sure how to begin to fix it.
Nothing to fix.   

Quote
creed is a declaration of faith.  Contrary to the liturgical usages of the Chalcedonians, it's not a personal declaration of faith, it's a communal declaration: the conciliar creeds say "We believe".  If Pope Leo III preserved the older form of the creed in order to preserve ecclesiastical unity, that's not simply a disciplinary matter.
It is. He was not defending dogma nor defining dogma. He was stoping a practice which was orthodox in nature. That is discipline.

Quote
By definition it cannot be.  He's affirming what "We believe", and placing that and the unity of faith and communion engendered by that common belief above local quirks.
No he’s affirming the minimum of what we are required to recite in order to be called Christian universally. The creed is dogmatic but his action is disciplinary in nature. The liturgy is the best example of this distinction. A distinction you pretend does not exist so as to perpetuate your agenda. Additions to the liturgy, though orthodox, are not allowed as a disciplinary matter despite the liturgy being dogmatic in nature.

Quote
Quote
You’re just picking figh now for mere amusement.

Don't project.

Lol oh you’re cute. You’re the one whose been charged regularly with being bully on this site by many members even if your own communion for this very behavior I speak on and you tell me not project? LOL the audacity   ::)
« Last Edit: July 29, 2018, 04:57:29 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

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 636
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, Pray for US!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #84 on: July 29, 2018, 05:28:35 AM »
Also, Sharbel, are you aware of the 675 Council of Toledo, in its beautiful widely praised opening statement glorifying the Trinity, it both describes the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father and Son, and being like the eternal Love of the Father and the Son, just like the Son is the eternal Word of the Father. "He is called the Spirit not of the Father alone, nor of the Son alone, but of both Father and Son.  For He does not proceed from the Father to the Son, nor from the Son to sanctify creatures, but He is shown to have proceeded from both at once, because He is known as the Love or the sanctity of both.  Hence we believe that the Holy Spirit is sent by both, as the Son is sent by the Father."

Quote
Like the Arians, one could say, after this aphorism, that once the Spirit was not

How does that follow? The Arians said, there was a time when the Word and Wisdom of God did not exist. The Fathers answered, in that case, there was a time when God was without Wisdom! Since that is impossible, the Word must be co-eternal with the eternal Father.

Similarly, was there a time when the Father did not love His Son? Impossible! Then, it must be that the procession of the Spirit of Love is co-eternal with that eternal Love. St. Gregory Palamas puts it better than I could when he says, "The Spirit of the most high Word is like an ineffable Love of the Father for this Word ineffably generated. A love which this same Word and beloved Son of the Father entertains (crhtai) towards the Father: but insofar as he has the Spirit coming with him (sunproelqonta) from the Father and reposing connaturally in him" (Capita physica XXXVI, PG 150, 1144 D-1145 A). Your thoughts on this?
"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

Offline Xavier

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 636
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, Pray for US!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #85 on: July 29, 2018, 05:47:21 AM »
Thanks, Mor. Would you happen to know more about the particular Syriac texts mentioned in the article? And have any idea of how the word "Who is from" should be translated? As Rohzek mentioned, that would be useful in going forward. If in fact it is a Syrian translation or rendering or version of the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed, it seems the relevant part would have been a translation of some sort of the part referring to the procession of the Holy Spirit. I confess I don't know much about it. Perhaps MalpanaGiwargis, who knows Aramaic and related languages IIRC, can help us out.

I don't have a copy of the text in question, but if someone provides it here, we can have a look at it.  Based on my familiarity with other texts, however, I strongly suspect that "Who is from" can only be translated "Who is from".  We're not talking about complicated words here..."from" is "from", for example.

Thanks for the intuition, Mor. It seems to me there are 2 considerations before we begin (1) unless the version in the West Syriac recension of interest is completely different from the Greek and Latim versions, the portion of relevance here would be a translation from the part that in Greek is styled ekperoumenon and in Latin is procedit. Thus, it is unclear how the part under consideration would not be a reference to Spiration.

(2) further, just as we cannot say the Father is from the Son, but we can and must say, the Son is from the Father, then to say the Holy Spirit is He "Who is from the Father and the Son" would seem to indicate He is Third in hypostatic relation. Would you disagree?

I have not been able to find the original Syrian text. The studies referenced in the article, especially the one by Thomas Panicker, say the translation was made by Sebastian Brock a few decades ago. I thought the text in Syrian should be in one of those studies referenced in the footnotes, so far I've only been able to find the same translation repeated, though. Will keep looking.
"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

Offline Xavier

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 636
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, Pray for US!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #86 on: July 29, 2018, 06:18:16 AM »
Before I forget, Apologies, Vanhyo, for unintentionally getting your name incorrect, very many times now. I must have read it wrong once, and that mistake was stuck in my mind. Apologies again. Good to know you spend much time in prayer. Do keep the cause of Holy Unia between East and West in your prayers. I will not disturb you with a long discussion if you do not wish it. Peace be with you.

My opinion is even if union takes 10,20,30 years or more, it is worth working toward it, one small step at a time; above all by continual prayer.

Quote from: Cavaradossi
There is some irony here in the appeals to St. Maximus insofar as the Greek party attempted to introduce St. Maximus' explanation of the filioque as a grounds for union at Florence—something the Latins rejected. The filioque after Florence is quite clearly a different belief than the filioque as confessed by the Western fathers and explained by St. Maximus in his letter to Marinus, because as St. Maximus explains, the Latins of his time did not intend to make the Son a cause of the Holy Spirit.

Well, have you read the explanations Abp. Bessarion - who unlike us Latins, knew the Greek tongue from the perspective of a native speaker, and could provide us with solutions to difficulties to which we ourselves were clueless - provided on just this matter at Florence? https://bekkos.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/st-maximus-on-the-filioque/

A brief excerpt from this Greek pro-Unia site below, to elucidate further where the difficulty in translation lies: "St. Maximus’s teaching here is not unambiguous, and both Orthodox and Catholics have claimed him as supporting their position; but at least this much seems clear: Maximus thinks that part of the reason why the Latin teaching sounds odd to Greek ears is that the Latin phrase has been translated into Greek in a misleading way; by using the Greek term ἐκπορεύεσθαι to translate the Latin procedere, the translators of Pope Martin’s document have given the impression to their Greek-speaking readers that the Latins regard the Son as an originating cause of the Spirit in the same sense that the Father is. In Maximus’s own restatement of the Latin teaching, the word προϊέναι (“coming-forth”) is used instead ...

...Maximus has lived in the West, and he doubtless knows that that [temporal mission only] is not what the Western Church, whose orthodoxy he is defending here, was saying ...

Bessarion, in the fifteenth century, argued that, when St. Maximus says here that the Father is the “only cause,” he means “cause” in the sense of προκαταρκτικὴ αἰτία, that is, original, initial cause. By and large, that is Bekkos’s view, too; and I think that Bekkos is justified in seeing St. Maximus as supporting beforehand the position of the Greek unionists. For Bekkos, although Father and Son constitute a single principle of the Holy Spirit’s procession, the Father remains the sole cause, because all the Son’s causality gets referred back to the Father, according to St. Basil (see January 5th’s post, John Bekkos on unity of cause in the Trinity) ... To depict St. Maximus as anti-Western and anti-papal is to replace historical reality with a crude cartoon. All of that makes me think that the interpretation Bekkos and Bessarion give of this passage is essentially right ... St. Maximus, like John Bekkos, saw the filioque as orthodox."
"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,998
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #87 on: July 29, 2018, 09:16:29 AM »
There is some irony here in the appeals to St. Maximus insofar as the Greek party attempted to introduce St. Maximus' explanation of the filioque as a grounds for union at Florence—something the Latins rejected. The filioque after Florence is quite clearly a different belief than the filioque as confessed by the Western fathers and explained by St. Maximus in his letter to Marinus, because as St. Maximus explains, the Latins of his time did not intend to make the Son a cause of the Holy Spirit.

St Maximus meant cause in the Greek sense of ultimate origin especially in reference to the creed. Something Florence does not do and John Montnerro made very clear.

That is a boatload of bologna. So the four causes of Aristotle were four ultimate origins? Come on.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,662
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #88 on: July 29, 2018, 09:29:08 AM »
There is some irony here in the appeals to St. Maximus insofar as the Greek party attempted to introduce St. Maximus' explanation of the filioque as a grounds for union at Florence—something the Latins rejected. The filioque after Florence is quite clearly a different belief than the filioque as confessed by the Western fathers and explained by St. Maximus in his letter to Marinus, because as St. Maximus explains, the Latins of his time did not intend to make the Son a cause of the Holy Spirit.

St Maximus meant cause in the Greek sense of ultimate origin especially in reference to the creed. Something Florence does not do and John Montnerro made very clear.

That is a boatload of bologna. So the four causes of Aristotle were four ultimate origins? Come on.

Xavier just elucidated and  validated my suspicion. St Maximus was  speaking of ultimate origin and the  two native Greek speaking theologians (Bekkos and Bessarion, heavyweights in their day) of reunion efforts confirmed what I’m saying. The whole issue was over the Greek word in the creed for “proceeds” which denotes ultimate origin. The Latins have never made the Son the Ultimate origin but mediate as St Augustine, The councils of Florence, Lyons II and Lateran IV taught. Again John of Montennero made this very clear when debating with Mark of Ephesus and once he said that, a large portion of the Greek delegation were moved and satisfied with his arguement.

The last bit of proof is St. Maximus, in his Question 63 to Thalassius (PG 90, 672), writes:

”For just as the Holy Spirit exists, by nature, according to substance, as belonging to the Father, so also does he, according to substance, belong to the Son, in that, in an ineffable way, he proceeds substantially from the Father through the begotten Son.”
« Last Edit: July 29, 2018, 09:38:42 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

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 636
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, Pray for US!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.
« Reply #89 on: July 29, 2018, 09:51:13 AM »
There is some irony here in the appeals to St. Maximus insofar as the Greek party attempted to introduce St. Maximus' explanation of the filioque as a grounds for union at Florence—something the Latins rejected. The filioque after Florence is quite clearly a different belief than the filioque as confessed by the Western fathers and explained by St. Maximus in his letter to Marinus, because as St. Maximus explains, the Latins of his time did not intend to make the Son a cause of the Holy Spirit.

St Maximus meant cause in the Greek sense of ultimate origin especially in reference to the creed. Something Florence does not do and John Montnerro made very clear.

That is a boatload of bologna. So the four causes of Aristotle were four ultimate origins? Come on.

Xavier just elucidated and  validated my suspicion. St Maximus was  speaking of ultimate origin and the  two native Greek speaking theologians (Bekkos and Bessarion, heavyweights in their day) of reunion efforts confirmed what I’m saying. The whole issue was over the Greek word in the creed for “proceeds” which denotes ultimate origin. The Latins have never made the Son the Ultimate origin but mediate as St Augustine, The councils of Florence, Lyons II and Lateran IV taught. Again John of Montennero made this very clear when debating with Mark of Ephesus and once he said that, a large portion of the Greek delegation were moved and satisfied with his arguement.

The last bit of proof is St. Maximus, in his Question 63 to Thalassius (PG 90, 672), writes:

”For just as the Holy Spirit exists, by nature, according to substance, as belonging to the Father, so also does he, according to substance, belong to the Son, in that, in an ineffable way, he proceeds substantially from the Father through the begotten Son.”

+1

Also, can we take as our guide an illustrious Doctor who knew both Latin and Greek (and, for that matter, Hebrew, for the Holy Spirit seemed anew to have bestowed the gift of tongues upon him)? The Councils sing his praises as "The extraordinary Doctor, the most learned man of the latter ages, the latest ornament of the Catholic Church, always to be pronounced with reverence, Isidore (of Seville)". Then we can study the sense in both Greek and Latin and see the Filioque is taught as dogma by Latin Fathers well acquainted with the Greek tongue.

In Etymologies 7:3, which is in PL 82:268A, St. Isidore states: "The Holy Spirit is called God because He proceeds from the Father and the Son and has Their essence."

In Latin this is "Spiritus sanctus ideo praedicatur Deus, quia ex Patre Filioque procedit, et substantiam eorum habet."

St. Isidore goes on, "There is, however, this difference between generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, that the Son is begotten of One, but the Spirit proceeds from Both."

In Latin: "Hoc autem interest inter nascentem Filium et procedentum Spiritum sanctum, quod Filius ex uno nascitur; Spiritus sanctus ex utroque procedit."

Finally the illustrious Spanish Archbishop, a glory of the Catholic Church, explains the sense in which the Father and the Son are the one principle of the Holy Spirit. In Three Books of Sentences 1:15:2, PL 83:568C: "One thing which is consubstantial with two could not at once proceed from them and be in them, unless the two from which it proceeds were one."

In Latin: "Non enim res una et duorum consubstantialis poterit simul ab eis procedere et simul inesse, nisi unum fuerit, a quibus procedit."

This is in the sense that the sun and its light are one principle of heat, or sunlight is one principle of heat; a tree and its branch are one principle of their fruit or a tree-branch is one principle of the fruit that comes from both and etc.
"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.