Author Topic: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.  (Read 2633 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Xavier

  • Slave of Love consecrated to the Hearts of Jesus and Mary through the Precious Blood of Jesus.
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 918
  • Immaculate Mary Theotokos,Reunite the Churches!
    • Marian Apostolate Life Offering.
  • Faith: Traditional Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Pope - but my heart is for Re-Union!
Catholic Cardinal St. Robert Bellarmine, an official representative of the Roman Church, authored a brief treatise on the Filioque. In it, among other points, he raises one that seems to be definitive. What is the Orthodox answer to the Cardinal?

1. "Omitting these things, then, let us bring forward the Councils that testify the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. First the Council celebrated at Alexandria, from which Council Cyril writes a letter to Nestorius in which are these words, “The Spirit is called the Spirit of truth, and Christ is truth, and so he proceeds from him likewise as from the Father.” This letter was read in the Council of Ephesus and was approved both by the Council of Ephesus itself and by the fourth Synod, and by the fifth Synod and by the sixth and seventh Synods.

We have therefore five general Councils celebrated among the Greeks which receive the most open and clear opinion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as from the Father. What then do they now seek? What do they demand?"

Please see: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/procession.htm for the complete text.

2. The letter of Patriarch St. Cyril that is being discussed is his third letter to Nestorius,"For even though the Spirit exist in His Own Person, and is conceived of by Himself, inasmuch as He is the Spirit and not the Son, yet is He not therefore alien from Him; for He is called the Spirit of truth [John 15:26], and Christ is the Truth [John 14:6], and He proceedeth from Him, just as from God the Father. The Spirit therefore working miracles by the hand too of the holy Apostles after that our Lord Jesus Christ had gone up into Heaven, glorified Him; for He Himself again working through His own Spirit, was believed in, that He is God by Nature. Wherefore He said also, He shall receive of Mine and declare it unto you. [John 16:14]"

Please read: https://orthodoxjointcommission.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/st-cyrils-third-letter-to-nestorius/ for the full letter.

Thoughts? If St. Cyril and the Councils receive as perfectly orthodox the teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Son just as from the Father, isn't it certain that that doctrine cannot be erroneous? Patriarch St. Cyril tells us, as Christ is Truth, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit proceeds from Christ, as He does from God the Father. What can we understand from that?
« Last Edit: June 24, 2019, 05:56:27 AM by Xavier »
"My dear Jesus, before the Holy Trinity, Our Heavenly Mother, and the whole Heavenly Court, united with your most precious Blood and your sacrifice on Calvary, I hereby offer my whole life to the intention of your Sacred Heart and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Together with my life, I place at your disposal all Holy Masses, all my Holy Communions, all my good deeds, all my sacrifices, and the sufferings of my entire life for the adoration ... https://marianapostolate.com/life-offering/

Offline Alpha60

  • A thing of routers, hubs and switches, and dreary web GUIs
  • Technical Director
  • Protokentarchos
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,278
  • OCNet Systems and Network Operations
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
I don’t think St. Cyril is saying what you think he is saying.

Council of Nicea:
Εθη ἀρχαῖα κρατείτω. 
Mores antiqui obtineant.
The ancient ways shall prevail.

The sentiment of Nicea in Greek and Latin, translated into English.

Offline PorphyriosK

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 842
Xavier, I'm not trying to be mean but you're always starting new threads on the Filioque while many of the old threads remain open ended.  We are going in circles on this subject and it will never be resolved.  You are wasting your time.

Offline WPM

  • Holy Catholic Jesus, Intercede with God for us.
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,754
  • Faith: Catholic Pagan
  • Jurisdiction: United States
See the 12 anathemas of St. Cyril against the Nestorian Christological heresy.

Offline noahzarc1

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 530
Robert Bellarmine is like every other theologian in that later arguments pick and choose from those doctors or saints what ever they want in order to make a point. The Sedevacantists love him because they find in his writings that a heretical pope is ipso facto deposed without any sentence and he thus falls from the papacy. It is how they excuse themselves into sedevacantism. Same here, you can twist and turn Bellarmine how you'd like. The fact of the matter is that he lived 1200+ years after the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople and nearly 500 years into the schism of east and west. As a major theologian for Rome in the Counter Reformation, I doubt he would be a Doctor of the Church if he came along writing, preaching and proclaiming anything against Rome's stance on the Filioque. The major focus of his ministry was to Protestants anyway and the focus of the letter was also against Valentinus Gentilis, a tritheist who was tried, condemned, and put to death in the Protestant reformed city of Switzerland, for asserting there were three divine persons of the Trinity as three distinct, eternal spirits.

As PorphyriosK pointed out you have a number of open and unresolved threads on the same topic.
"While we fight about words, take advantage of ambiguities, criticize authors, fight on party questions, have difficulty in agreeing, and prepare to anathematize each other, there is scarce a man who belongs to Christ." - Hilary of Poitiers (367)

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,729
Catholic Cardinal St. Robert Bellarmine, an official representative of the Roman Church, authored a brief treatise on the Filioque. In it, among other points, he raises one that seems to be definitive. What is the Orthodox answer to the Cardinal?

1. "Omitting these things, then, let us bring forward the Councils that testify the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. First the Council celebrated at Alexandria, from which Council Cyril writes a letter to Nestorius in which are these words, “The Spirit is called the Spirit of truth, and Christ is truth, and so he proceeds from him likewise as from the Father.” This letter was read in the Council of Ephesus and was approved both by the Council of Ephesus itself and by the fourth Synod, and by the fifth Synod and by the sixth and seventh Synods.

We have therefore five general Councils celebrated among the Greeks which receive the most open and clear opinion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as from the Father. What then do they now seek? What do they demand?"

Please see: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/procession.htm for the complete text.

2. The letter of Patriarch St. Cyril that is being discussed is his third letter to Nestorius,"For even though the Spirit exist in His Own Person, and is conceived of by Himself, inasmuch as He is the Spirit and not the Son, yet is He not therefore alien from Him; for He is called the Spirit of truth [John 15:26], and Christ is the Truth [John 14:6], and He proceedeth from Him, just as from God the Father. The Spirit therefore working miracles by the hand too of the holy Apostles after that our Lord Jesus Christ had gone up into Heaven, glorified Him; for He Himself again working through His own Spirit, was believed in, that He is God by Nature. Wherefore He said also, He shall receive of Mine and declare it unto you. [John 16:14]"

Please read: https://orthodoxjointcommission.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/st-cyrils-third-letter-to-nestorius/ for the full letter.

Thoughts? If St. Cyril and the Councils receive as perfectly orthodox the teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Son just as from the Father, isn't it certain that that doctrine cannot be erroneous? Patriarch St. Cyril tells us, as Christ is Truth, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit proceeds from Christ, as He does from God the Father. What can we understand from that?
Don't have the time now to go through all this repetitive c****, but
1) It's POPE Cyril.
2) Christ said "from the Father." Even if Pope St. Cyril said what you are claiming, who (or rather, Who) knows better?
3) The Holy Theotokos could not receive the Son if He were not the Spirit's-hence "incarnate of the Holy Spirit"
4) That the Councils accepted Pope St. Cyril's teaching as Orthodox, that says NOTHING about your misunderstanding thereof.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2019, 11:02:41 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Vanhyo

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,032
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: BOC
Quote
What is the Orthodox answer to the Cardinal?
The final conclusion of the filioque "theology" is the clown mass. The middle age scholastics explained the filioque with absolute divine simplicity but ADS inescapably leads to the doctrine of created grace. If all you get in salvation in infused created good or created effect, then as V2 "theologians" put it, all religions have some kind of created goodness and therefor lead to God in some way. This is why you include pegan elements in your novus ordo mass, it is the natural conclusion of your filioque philosophizings.


Quote
"For even though the Spirit exist in His Own Person, and is conceived of by Himself, inasmuch as He is the Spirit and not the Son, yet is He not therefore alien from Him; for He is called the Spirit of truth [John 15:26], and Christ is the Truth [John 14:6], and He proceedeth from Him, just as from God the Father. The Spirit therefore working miracles by the hand too of the holy Apostles after that our Lord Jesus Christ had gone up into Heaven, glorified Him; for He Himself again working through His own Spirit, was believed in, that He is God by Nature. Wherefore He said also, He shall receive of Mine and declare it unto you. [John 16:14]"

What an amazing quote that puts everything in context, clearly the procession that is being spoken of is economia or the temporal mission of the Spirit. Just like Revelation 22:1, where the procession is occurring in time, after the creation of the world, therefor not hypostatic origin proof.

In the creed, the saying "proceeds from the Father" is direct quote from the Gospel of John 15:26, where a distinction is made between hypostatic origin and mission, this is why you cannot change this and add the filioque. You are changing the gospel and causing confusion.

This letter was read in the Council of Ephesus and was approved both by the Council of Ephesus itself and by the fourth Synod, and by the fifth Synod and by the sixth and seventh Synods.

We have therefore five general Councils celebrated among the Greeks which receive the most open and clear opinion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as from the Father. What then do they now seek? What do they demand?"

Please read: https://orthodoxjointcommission.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/st-cyrils-third-letter-to-nestorius/ for the full letter.
Cool, look what i found:

according to the ordinance set forth in the Letters of the afore-mentioned most holy and most pious Bishop and our co-minister of the church of the Romans, Celestine.......for this very thing thou hast notified in the Letter written by thee to our most holy brother-bishop of Great Rome, Celestine.


or this

...And verily Peter and John were of equal honour one with another, in that they were both Apostles and holy disciples...

Apparently the pope is not a minister of ministers but only a co-minister. Not a father of bishops but only a brother to them, how many councils you said confirm this ?



« Last Edit: June 25, 2019, 03:00:23 PM by Vanhyo »

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,355
Quote
What is the Orthodox answer to the Cardinal?
The final conclusion of the filioque "theology" is the clown mass. The middle age scholastics explained the filioque with absolute divine simplicity but ADS inescapably leads to the doctrine of created grace. If all you get in salvation in infused created good or created effect, then as V2 "theologians" put it, all religions have some kind of created goodness and therefor lead to God in some way. This is why you include pegan elements in your novus ordo mass, it is the natural conclusion of your filioque philosophizings.

Please let this be trolling.
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Xavier

  • Slave of Love consecrated to the Hearts of Jesus and Mary through the Precious Blood of Jesus.
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 918
  • Immaculate Mary Theotokos,Reunite the Churches!
    • Marian Apostolate Life Offering.
  • Faith: Traditional Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Pope - but my heart is for Re-Union!
Alpha, ok. What do you think St. Cyril is saying, then?

Porphyriosk, I don't think you're being mean, but I don't think there's been a thread on Filioque in the first page here, i.e. the last 3 months.

Ialmisry, I don't know and don't want to know what swear word you're trying to use, but Christians shouldn't swear at all imo. Anyway, the answer to your question, "Even if Pope St. Cyril said what you are claiming, who (or rather, Who) knows better?" is: St. Cyril and the Church are giving us an authorized interpretation of John 15:26-27, and 16:13-15. Christ is the Truth, and the Spirit of Truth proceeds from the Son just as He does from the Father. Your own Church has interpreted the Gospel as "The Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, Who Proceeds from the Father through the Son, and is acknowledged to be Himself God" in Nicaea II. Our Latin Fathers teach us very clearly, Jesus sometimes even says the doctrine He brings not His own; He says such things in humility, because He was in the flesh. But what He means is that it comes from His Father through Him. In the same way, St. Augustine and St. Ambrose teach us, as St. Cyril and St. Tarasius have taught you, that the Holy Spirit, Who is Himself God, proceeds from Father through Son.

Vanhyo, the text of St. Cyril is saying that the Person of the Spirit proceeds from the Son just as He proceeds from the Father. Let's look at the letter more closely.

1. St. Cyril: "For though the Spirit exist in His Own Person ... He is called the Spirit of Truth [John 15:26], and Christ is the Truth [John 14:6], and He proceedeth from Him, just as from God the Father". Who proceeds from Whom? The Person of the Spirit from the Son, as from the Father.

2. St. Cyril: "He Himself again working through His own Spirit, was believed in, that He is God by Nature. Wherefore He said also, He shall receive of Mine and declare it unto you. [John 16:14]" St. Cyril shows, the Son of God is God by Nature, in that the Father has given to His Son His [the Father's] Spirit as His [Christ's] Own Spirit. This is how the Spirit "receives" of Christ's.

[Your own Ancient Eastern Liturgies also bear witness to this fact, "One Father holy, one Son holy, one Spirit holy, in the unity of the Holy Spirit. Amen." (The Liturgy of Patriarch St. Mark of Alexandria: Link), what does it mean to say the Father and the Son are One in the Unity of the Holy Spirit? It means the One Spirit of the Father and of the Son eternally unites Them Both, because He is the Spirit of Both, and Proceeds from the Father through the Son in the Eternal Unity of the Holy Trinity.

This is why our Latin Fathers teach us that it is a holy dogma to be believed by all, "St. Fulgentius of Ruspe (+526 – Feast Day Jan. 3rd) writes: “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” (De Fide 11, Patrologia Latina 65.695). And: “The Holy Spirit is wholly the Father’s and wholly the Son’s, because He is by nature the One Spirit of the Father and the Son; for which cause He proceeds wholly from the Father and the Son, and abides wholly in the Father and the Son; for He so abides as to proceed, and so proceeds as to abide” (Epistle 14, Migne 418)" Link

3. St. Cyril: "The Spirit therefore working miracles by the hand too of the holy Apostles after that our Lord Jesus Christ had gone up into Heaven, glorified Him" The Spirit indeed glorified Jesus by working through the Holy Apostles, but God on earth bore witness to the Truth through His Own Spirit. That is the difference between Jesus and His Apostles. Your opinion would make Jesus no less than any glorified man, an opinion close to Nestorianism. St. Cyril was writing this to Nestorius, and, as St. Robert shows, Theodoret also held a wrong opinion on the matter. To Nestorius and Nestorians, Jesus was just a man in whom God dwelt in some special way. Thus, they could not admit that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Jesus, just as He proceeds from the Father. This is why Theodoret issued his "counter-anathema" to St. Cyril, "But if he speaks of the Spirit as being of the Son, or as having its origin through the Son we shall reject this statement as blasphemous and impious." But the Church anathematized later this 9th counter-anathema of Theodoret.

Papal Presidency is not the subject here, but since you brought it up, this statement can be clearly read in the letter on the Orthodox joint commission website: "Lo then together with the holy Synod that has been gathered together in Great Rome, under the presidency of the Most holy and Most devout our brother and co-minister the Bishop Celestine, we do testify to thee in this third Letter too"Link Examine the matter a little further, and you'll see St. Cyril had requested St. Celestine to intervene, and St. Celestine had delegated authority to excommunicate Nestorius to St. Cyril; just as, for e.g., the canons of Sardica under St. Athanasius had stipulated the Pope of Rome would do in such cases.
"My dear Jesus, before the Holy Trinity, Our Heavenly Mother, and the whole Heavenly Court, united with your most precious Blood and your sacrifice on Calvary, I hereby offer my whole life to the intention of your Sacred Heart and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Together with my life, I place at your disposal all Holy Masses, all my Holy Communions, all my good deeds, all my sacrifices, and the sufferings of my entire life for the adoration ... https://marianapostolate.com/life-offering/

Offline Apotheoun

  • "Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,454
  • St. John Maximovitch
    • The Taboric Light
Please provide the original Greek version of the quotations from St. Cyril.
"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite

Offline PorphyriosK

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 842

Porphyriosk, I don't think you're being mean, but I don't think there's been a thread on Filioque in the first page here, i.e. the last 3 months.


Yes Xavier we've actually had quite an in depth discussion on the Filioque over the course of this month.  This is the thread, started on June 4th:

"Lost and Need Help" by knish:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,76363.0.html

Offline Vanhyo

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,032
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: BOC
Quote
Papal Presidencysupremacy is not the subject here,
Indirectly it is, if your foundational belief that St Peter was the head of the apostles is not true then this in turn invalidates all your other claims. The letter clearly states St Peter to be equal apostle in honor to St John.

Quote
but since you brought it up, this statement can be clearly read in the letter on the Orthodox joint commission website: "Lo then together with the holy Synod that has been gathered together in Great Rome, under the presidency of the Most holy and Most devout our brother and co-minister the Bishop Celestine, we do testify to thee in this third Letter too"Link Examine the matter a little further, and you'll see St. Cyril had requested St. Celestine to intervene, and St. Celestine had delegated authority to excommunicate Nestorius to St. Cyril; just as, for e.g., the canons of Sardica under St. Athanasius had stipulated the Pope of Rome would do in such cases.

The Synod of Jerusalem was under the presidency of St James the Just, the synod of Rome was under the presidency of the Pope, your point ? Appeals are always send to the first seat, and at the time Rome had an honorary position because of the martyrdom of Sts Peter and Paul in there and because it was the imperial city, not because St Peter was a super-apostle and head of the twelve as shown by the letter you kindly provided he was regarded by other bishops are brother, co-minister not as father of bishops.



Quote
[Your own Ancient Eastern Liturgies also bear witness to this fact, "One Father holy, one Son holy, one Spirit holy, in the unity of the Holy Spirit. Amen." (The Liturgy of Patriarch St. Mark of Alexandria: Link), what does it mean to say the Father and the Son are One in the Unity of the Holy Spirit? It means the One Spirit of the Father and of the Son eternally unites Them Both, because He is the Spirit of Both, and Proceeds from the Father through the Son in the Eternal Unity of the Holy Trinity.
Your conclusion is ridiculous. You are not a trinitarian. The Holy Trinity is not two persons and a glue.

It says this:
The People.

Lord, have mercy; Lord, have mercy; Lord, have mercy.

The Priest (aloud).

Holy things for the holy.

The People.

One Father holy, one Son holy, one Spirit holy, in the unity of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

The Deacon.

For salvation and help.

What you should understand by this is the following: One Father holy, one Son holy, one Spirit holy, (we the Church sing/say this) in the unity of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Quote
This is why our Latin Fathers teach us that it is a holy dogma to be believed by all, "St. Fulgentius of Ruspe (+526 – Feast Day Jan. 3rd) writes: “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” (De Fide 11, Patrologia Latina 65.695). And: “The Holy Spirit is wholly the Father’s and wholly the Son’s, because He is by nature the One Spirit of the Father and the Son; for which cause He proceeds wholly from the Father and the Son, and abides wholly in the Father and the Son; for He so abides as to proceed, and so proceeds as to abide” (Epistle 14, Migne 418)" Link
A forgery ? A mistranslation ? Or plain heresy ? Who knows ? I am telling you, the natural conclusion of the filioque "theology" is the clown mass.


Quote
3. St. Cyril: "The Spirit therefore working miracles by the hand too of the holy Apostles after that our Lord Jesus Christ had gone up into Heaven, glorified Him" The Spirit indeed glorified Jesus by working through the Holy Apostles, but God on earth bore witness to the Truth through His Own Spirit. That is the difference between Jesus and His Apostles. Your opinion would make Jesus no less than any glorified man, an opinion close to Nestorianism. St. Cyril was writing this to Nestorius, and, as St. Robert shows, Theodoret also held a wrong opinion on the matter. To Nestorius and Nestorians, Jesus was just a man in whom God dwelt in some special way. Thus, they could not admit that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Jesus, just as He proceeds from the Father. This is why Theodoret issued his "counter-anathema" to St. Cyril, "But if he speaks of the Spirit as being of the Son, or as having its origin through the Son we shall reject this statement as blasphemous and impious." But the Church anathematized later this 9th counter-anathema of Theodoret.
I think you are confused here, you project that confusion on me and it leads you to false conclusion.  In your mind you have connected the procession of the Holy Spirit with the working of miracles and your conclusion is that unless the Holy Spirit proceeds out of the Son, he cannot be a divine person but only a bearer.

This is a false cocadox belief. Both are not connected, Christ is a divine person who works miracles by his own power which is proper to His divine essence or in other words you are confusing power with person.
This is a very common mistake among papal adherers, they think that the Father-Son is the one essence and the Holy Spirit is the power of that essence. This is anti-trinitarian heresy, in orthodox theology, the Lord, the Holy Spirit is not the impersonal power of the Father-Son but essential divine person with will and power. Likewise, the Son works miracles not by another person but by His own power proper to the divine essence.



Offline Katechon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Lol, is it still the point with hypostatic origin not being identical with eternal manifestation?  ::)

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,012
Please provide the original Greek version of the quotations from St. Cyril.

This is of course, the trick the filioquists use, to appeal to the authority of bad translations rather than the original Greek.
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: 2,798
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
 :police:
Please provide the original Greek version of the quotations from St. Cyril.

This is of course, the trick the filioquists use, to appeal to the authority of bad translations rather than the original Greek.

The Filioque is equivalent to proeinai which denotes the act of going forth which is  the Greek word St Cyril used. Ekporeuesthai denotes ultimate origin which is a thing that can only be said of the Father.

In Latin (and English), there is one verb (procedere/to proceed) which covers two different concepts that are expressed in Greek with two different verbs: ekporeuesthai and proeinai. The Creed as formulated by the Second Oecumenical Council, in speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, uses the Greek verb ekporeuesthai, which means "proceeds from" in the ultimate origin  sense of being. This is correctly translated into Latin with the verb procedere (which corresponds to the English to proceed). In Latin, the latins say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father “principalter” (principally/ultimately) to convey this concept.

No problem so far.

However...

The Latin verb procedere also carries a secondary meaning which cannot possibly be gleaned from the original Greek ekporeuesthai. This secondary meaning of procedere/to proceed is the sense of "to go forth", as a physical action. I can proceed to the shop. As an act. the Holy Spirit can be said to have proceeded from the Son, and therefore, it is legitimate to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in so far as this second meaning goes. The latin tradition says that the Holy Spirit proceeds “mediately” from the Son to convey this concept.

This was made clear by the speech of the latin theologian and orator John of Montennero at the council of Florence when debating Mark Eugenikos. The Greeks all accepted this at the instance they heard it. Later that day the Greek recorder of the acts noted after hearing Montennero’s speech that “the first light of union appeared today”
« Last Edit: June 28, 2019, 10:07:21 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


I won’t be posting for the year so I can focus on my studies. God bless you.

Online Eamonomae

  • The Publican who hathn’t repented
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 858
  • Saint Thomas the Apostle, pray for me a sinner!
  • Faith: Truth seeker
  • Jurisdiction: Schism
:police:
Please provide the original Greek version of the quotations from St. Cyril.

This is of course, the trick the filioquists use, to appeal to the authority of bad translations rather than the original Greek.

The Filioque is equivalent to proeinai which denotes the act of going forth which is  the Greek word St Cyril used. Ekporeuesthai denotes ultimate origin which is a thing that can only be said of the Father.

In Latin (and English), there is one verb (procedere/to proceed) which covers two different concepts that are expressed in Greek with two different verbs: ekporeuesthai and proeinai. The Creed as formulated by the Second Oecumenical Council, in speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, uses the Greek verb ekporeuesthai, which means "proceeds from" in the ultimate origin  sense of being. This is correctly translated into Latin with the verb procedere (which corresponds to the English to proceed). In Latin, the latins say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father “principalter” (principally/ultimately) to convey this concept.

No problem so far.

However...

The Latin verb procedere also carries a secondary meaning which cannot possibly be gleaned from the original Greek ekporeuesthai. This secondary meaning of procedere/to proceed is the sense of "to go forth", as a physical action. I can proceed to the shop. As an act. the Holy Spirit can be said to have proceeded from the Son, and therefore, it is legitimate to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in so far as this second meaning goes. The latin tradition says that the Holy Spirit proceeds “mediately” from the Son to convey this concept.

This was made clear by the speech of the latin theologian and orator John of Montennero at the council of Florence when debating Mark Eugenikos. The Greeks all accepted this at the instance they heard it. Later that day the Greek recorder of the acts noted after hearing Montennero’s speech that “the first light of union appeared today”

Can you explain, logically, what this text means?

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

And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."


This Council's declaration seems to very clearly say that both the Father and the Son are cause and principle of the Holy Spirit, such that although externally it may appear that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as two principles, they are actually one principle because both have the same Essence. Nowhere does this infallible text say that the one principle is from the Father alone, or the one cause is from the Father alone; rather, the Spirit takes origin from both the Father and the Son.

Furthermore, the Council solidifies this argument by saying that the Son has all of the properties of the Father, except that He isn't the Father, which seems to very clearly go against the claim that the Father and the Son are somehow distinct in terms of how the Holy Spirit works through the Father and the Son.
Lord have mercy

Offline 123abc

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Faith: Reformed
Xavier is not interested in listening, learning or discussion. He is obstinate and only interested in being right. I don't know why people engage him. If St. Paul had his mindset he would have started quoting rabbinical tradition to explain to Christ why He couldn't be the Messiah after getting knocked off his horse.
Saved by the Grace of Christ apart from works.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.... Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them...

Offline WPM

  • Holy Catholic Jesus, Intercede with God for us.
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,754
  • Faith: Catholic Pagan
  • Jurisdiction: United States
:police:
Please provide the original Greek version of the quotations from St. Cyril.

This is of course, the trick the filioquists use, to appeal to the authority of bad translations rather than the original Greek.

The Filioque is equivalent to proeinai which denotes the act of going forth which is  the Greek word St Cyril used. Ekporeuesthai denotes ultimate origin which is a thing that can only be said of the Father.

In Latin (and English), there is one verb (procedere/to proceed) which covers two different concepts that are expressed in Greek with two different verbs: ekporeuesthai and proeinai. The Creed as formulated by the Second Oecumenical Council, in speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, uses the Greek verb ekporeuesthai, which means "proceeds from" in the ultimate origin  sense of being. This is correctly translated into Latin with the verb procedere (which corresponds to the English to proceed). In Latin, the latins say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father “principalter” (principally/ultimately) to convey this concept.

No problem so far.

However...

The Latin verb procedere also carries a secondary meaning which cannot possibly be gleaned from the original Greek ekporeuesthai. This secondary meaning of procedere/to proceed is the sense of "to go forth", as a physical action. I can proceed to the shop. As an act. the Holy Spirit can be said to have proceeded from the Son, and therefore, it is legitimate to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in so far as this second meaning goes. The latin tradition says that the Holy Spirit proceeds “mediately” from the Son to convey this concept.

This was made clear by the speech of the latin theologian and orator John of Montennero at the council of Florence when debating Mark Eugenikos. The Greeks all accepted this at the instance they heard it. Later that day the Greek recorder of the acts noted after hearing Montennero’s speech that “the first light of union appeared today”

Can you explain, logically, what this text means?

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

And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."


This Council's declaration seems to very clearly say that both the Father and the Son are cause and principle of the Holy Spirit, such that although externally it may appear that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as two principles, they are actually one principle because both have the same Essence. Nowhere does this infallible text say that the one principle is from the Father alone, or the one cause is from the Father alone; rather, the Spirit takes origin from both the Father and the Son.

Furthermore, the Council solidifies this argument by saying that the Son has all of the properties of the Father, except that He isn't the Father, which seems to very clearly go against the claim that the Father and the Son are somehow distinct in terms of how the Holy Spirit works through the Father and the Son.

It clarifies and corrects the erroneous opinions and misunderstandings about the Source and Substance of the Trinity.

Offline PorphyriosK

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 842
:police:
Please provide the original Greek version of the quotations from St. Cyril.

This is of course, the trick the filioquists use, to appeal to the authority of bad translations rather than the original Greek.

The Filioque is equivalent to proeinai which denotes the act of going forth which is  the Greek word St Cyril used. Ekporeuesthai denotes ultimate origin which is a thing that can only be said of the Father.

In Latin (and English), there is one verb (procedere/to proceed) which covers two different concepts that are expressed in Greek with two different verbs: ekporeuesthai and proeinai. The Creed as formulated by the Second Oecumenical Council, in speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, uses the Greek verb ekporeuesthai, which means "proceeds from" in the ultimate origin  sense of being. This is correctly translated into Latin with the verb procedere (which corresponds to the English to proceed). In Latin, the latins say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father “principalter” (principally/ultimately) to convey this concept.

No problem so far.

However...

The Latin verb procedere also carries a secondary meaning which cannot possibly be gleaned from the original Greek ekporeuesthai. This secondary meaning of procedere/to proceed is the sense of "to go forth", as a physical action. I can proceed to the shop. As an act. the Holy Spirit can be said to have proceeded from the Son, and therefore, it is legitimate to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in so far as this second meaning goes. The latin tradition says that the Holy Spirit proceeds “mediately” from the Son to convey this concept.

This was made clear by the speech of the latin theologian and orator John of Montennero at the council of Florence when debating Mark Eugenikos. The Greeks all accepted this at the instance they heard it. Later that day the Greek recorder of the acts noted after hearing Montennero’s speech that “the first light of union appeared today”

Can you explain, logically, what this text means?

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

And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."


This Council's declaration seems to very clearly say that both the Father and the Son are cause and principle of the Holy Spirit, such that although externally it may appear that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as two principles, they are actually one principle because both have the same Essence. Nowhere does this infallible text say that the one principle is from the Father alone, or the one cause is from the Father alone; rather, the Spirit takes origin from both the Father and the Son.

Furthermore, the Council solidifies this argument by saying that the Son has all of the properties of the Father, except that He isn't the Father, which seems to very clearly go against the claim that the Father and the Son are somehow distinct in terms of how the Holy Spirit works through the Father and the Son.

Yes, Wandile, in the last Filioque thread you asserted that Rome teaches that the Holy Spirit receives His origin equally from both the Father and the Son eternally.  Now you claim that Rome essentially teaches the Orthodox view.  Well, which is it?


« Last Edit: June 28, 2019, 08:29:29 PM by PorphyriosK »

Offline Alpha60

  • A thing of routers, hubs and switches, and dreary web GUIs
  • Technical Director
  • Protokentarchos
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,278
  • OCNet Systems and Network Operations
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Alpha, ok. What do you think St. Cyril is saying, then?

Porphyriosk, I don't think you're being mean, but I don't think there's been a thread on Filioque in the first page here, i.e. the last 3 months.

Ialmisry, I don't know and don't want to know what swear word you're trying to use, but Christians shouldn't swear at all imo. Anyway, the answer to your question, "Even if Pope St. Cyril said what you are claiming, who (or rather, Who) knows better?" is: St. Cyril and the Church are giving us an authorized interpretation of John 15:26-27, and 16:13-15. Christ is the Truth, and the Spirit of Truth proceeds from the Son just as He does from the Father. Your own Church has interpreted the Gospel as "The Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, Who Proceeds from the Father through the Son, and is acknowledged to be Himself God" in Nicaea II. Our Latin Fathers teach us very clearly, Jesus sometimes even says the doctrine He brings not His own; He says such things in humility, because He was in the flesh. But what He means is that it comes from His Father through Him. In the same way, St. Augustine and St. Ambrose teach us, as St. Cyril and St. Tarasius have taught you, that the Holy Spirit, Who is Himself God, proceeds from Father through Son.

Vanhyo, the text of St. Cyril is saying that the Person of the Spirit proceeds from the Son just as He proceeds from the Father. Let's look at the letter more closely.

1. St. Cyril: "For though the Spirit exist in His Own Person ... He is called the Spirit of Truth [John 15:26], and Christ is the Truth [John 14:6], and He proceedeth from Him, just as from God the Father". Who proceeds from Whom? The Person of the Spirit from the Son, as from the Father.

2. St. Cyril: "He Himself again working through His own Spirit, was believed in, that He is God by Nature. Wherefore He said also, He shall receive of Mine and declare it unto you. [John 16:14]" St. Cyril shows, the Son of God is God by Nature, in that the Father has given to His Son His [the Father's] Spirit as His [Christ's] Own Spirit. This is how the Spirit "receives" of Christ's.

[Your own Ancient Eastern Liturgies also bear witness to this fact, "One Father holy, one Son holy, one Spirit holy, in the unity of the Holy Spirit. Amen." (The Liturgy of Patriarch St. Mark of Alexandria: Link), what does it mean to say the Father and the Son are One in the Unity of the Holy Spirit? It means the One Spirit of the Father and of the Son eternally unites Them Both, because He is the Spirit of Both, and Proceeds from the Father through the Son in the Eternal Unity of the Holy Trinity.


FAIL!  I don’t know the provenance of that text, but neither the Greek Orthodox form of the Divine Liturgy of St. Mark, or the related Coptic Orthodox Divine Liturgy of St. Cyril, contain the phrase “In the unity of the Holy Spirit”; that phrase appears only in Western liturgical texts that are more recent; the Strasbourg Papyrus shows the Divine Liturgy of St. Mark and its derivatives (St. Cyril, the liturgy in the Euchologion of St. Serapion of Thmuis) is the oldest attested liturgy, dating from the second century (compared to the fourth century for the Anaphora of Hippolytus).

Alas of these liturgies, only the Divine Liturgy of St. Cyril is in regular use, being used a few times each year by the Copts, so using a quote from a corrupt edition of it to score points against an EO, who unless they are a seminarian has probably never celebrated the liturgy of St. Mark, probably never even heard of it, is not a brilliant strategy.

I would link you to the actual text of the liturgy except I’m too tired.  My guess is the version on New Advent was used by the Coptic Catholics pre-Vatican II and thus contains, like all of the Eastern Catholic liturgies, “corrections”, e.g. Latinizations.

Council of Nicea:
Εθη ἀρχαῖα κρατείτω. 
Mores antiqui obtineant.
The ancient ways shall prevail.

The sentiment of Nicea in Greek and Latin, translated into English.

Offline Xavier

  • Slave of Love consecrated to the Hearts of Jesus and Mary through the Precious Blood of Jesus.
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 918
  • Immaculate Mary Theotokos,Reunite the Churches!
    • Marian Apostolate Life Offering.
  • Faith: Traditional Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Pope - but my heart is for Re-Union!
Vanhyo, we can discuss Papal Supremacy elsewhere. If, as Alpha says, "In the Unity of the Holy Spirit" is not found in the earliest manuscripts of the Liturgy of St. Mark, then we'll pass over that for now until further study.

Quote from: Vanhyo
A forgery ? A mistranslation ? Or plain heresy ? Who knows ? I am telling you, the natural conclusion of the filioque "theology" is the clown mass.

It's nothing of the sort. The text of St. Fulgentius is universally admitted as authentic; can you admit you disagree with our Latin Fathers? We Latins have the conviction that Greek and Latin Fathers cannot and do not contradict each other, but only express the same mystery in different terminology.

You object, as expected, to the Holy Spirit being like the Spirit of Love eternally given by the Eternal Father to the Eternally Beloved Son. Yet, your own Archbishop Gregory Palamas has taught this: "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 (chretai) towards the Father: but insofar as he has the Spirit coming with him (sunproelthonta) from the Father and reposing connaturally in him" https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1176

And St. Augustine among Latins has expressed it like this:"And yet it is not to no purpose that in this Trinity the Son and none other is called the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit and none other the Gift of God, and God the Father alone is He from whom the Word is born, and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. And therefore I have added the word principally, because we find that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also. But the Father gave Him this too, not as to one already existing, and not yet having it; but whatever He gave to the only-begotten Word, He gave by begetting Him. Therefore He so begat Him as that the common Gift should proceed from Him also, and the Holy Spirit should be the Spirit of both ... in that simple and highest nature, substance should not be one thing and love another, but that substance itself should be love, and love itself should be substance, whether in the Father, or in the Son, or in the Holy Spirit; and yet that the Holy Spirit should be specially called Love." http://www.voskrese.info/spl/cyr3.html

As Scripture says that God is Love, St. Augustine is saying that, in a special way, the Holy Spirit can be called the Spirit of Love, because He is the Eternal Gift of the Eternal Father to His Eternally Beloved Son. Because Scripture calls the Son the Word and Wisdom of the Father, the Arians were told that to deny the Son was eternal was like saying there was a time when the Father was without Wisdom, which is heretical; in the same way, to say there was a time when the Father did not give His Son His Spirit is like saying there was a time when the Father did not love His Son, which is likewise heretical. That's why procession cannot be temporal. Do you think if creation never existed, the Son would not have received the Holy Spirit from the Father in eternity?

The study of Greek and Latin theologians above concludes with this: "So a Tradition dating back to St Augustine has seen in the Holy Spirit, through whom "God's love has been poured into our hearts" (Rom 5:5), love as the eternal Gift of the Father to his "beloved Son" (Mk 1:11, 9:7; Lk 20:13; Eph 1:6).11 The divine Love which has its origin in the Father reposes in "the Son of his Love" in order to exist consubstantially through the Son in the Person of the Spirit, the Gift of Love ... This role of the Spirit in the innermost human existence of the Son of God made man derives from an eternal Trinitarian relationship through which the Spirit, in his mystery as Gift of Love, characterises the relation between the Father, as source of love, and his beloved Son."

Quote
In your mind you have connected the procession of the Holy Spirit with the working of miracles and your conclusion is that unless the Holy Spirit proceeds out of the Son, he cannot be a divine person but only a bearer.

This is the text of St. Cyril: "He Himself again working through His own Spirit, was believed in, that He is God by Nature." The difference between the Spirit's dwelling in the Apostles is that was a dwelling by grace only, but in Christ, the Holy Spirit dwells as His own Consubstantial Spirit. St. Cyril is saying, Christ worked miracles by His own Spirit, to show He was God by Nature. The meaning is, the Holy Spirit is Consubstantial with Christ. This is linked to His proceeding [Greek is proeinai] from the Son, just as from the Father. The Spirit is Consubstantial with the Father just as with the Son, because He proceeds from the Father, just as from the Son.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2019, 04:52:01 AM by Xavier »
"My dear Jesus, before the Holy Trinity, Our Heavenly Mother, and the whole Heavenly Court, united with your most precious Blood and your sacrifice on Calvary, I hereby offer my whole life to the intention of your Sacred Heart and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Together with my life, I place at your disposal all Holy Masses, all my Holy Communions, all my good deeds, all my sacrifices, and the sufferings of my entire life for the adoration ... https://marianapostolate.com/life-offering/

Offline Xavier

  • Slave of Love consecrated to the Hearts of Jesus and Mary through the Precious Blood of Jesus.
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 918
  • Immaculate Mary Theotokos,Reunite the Churches!
    • Marian Apostolate Life Offering.
  • Faith: Traditional Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Pope - but my heart is for Re-Union!
Porphyriosk, thanks, I was going by thread title, and so the first one I found with Filioque in the title was this one from February. But you are right.

Anyway, in the thread you mention started by Knish, where we were discussing "one principle terminology", Wandile showed that teaching is already present in St. Augustine; in fact, you said Scholastic Theologians invented a new idea, but St. Thomas cites St. Augustine, " Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 20), "The Father is the Principle of the whole Deity." and again, "Augustine says (De Trin. v, 14) that the Father and the Son are not two principles, but one principle of the Holy Ghost." http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1036.htm#article4

I think, lol, at this point, people may be wondering what on earth is meant by principle, and whether or not Latins and Greeks use it in the same way: St. Thomas defines it like this, "I answer that, The word "principle" signifies only that whence another proceeds: since anything whence something proceeds in any way we call a principle; and conversely." So, when the Latin Doctors say that the Father and the Son are One Principle of the Holy Spirit (St. Thomas even says, They are Two Spirators Spirating, but there is Only Only Procession/Spiration of the Holy Spirit), they mean only, that there is Only One Spiration of the Holy Spirit, not Two. If there were two Spirations, there would be two Spirits, which is impossible; there is One Spiration, and One Spirit, from the Father through the Son.

This is shown by the fact that, at Florence, the two formulations of Eastern and Western Tradition were considered complementary and identical: "For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, ]b]they do not intend to exclude the Son[/b]; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind." https://pages.uoregon.edu/sshoemak/325/texts/florence.htm

Do you think this is wrong, Porphyriosk? I really believe, there are no impediments, to making a common declaration like this once more.

Quote from: Apotheoun
Please provide the original Greek version of the quotations from St. Cyril.

Ok. Aeterna Press has it in St. Cyril: Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. You can find the relevant parts of the letter cited, along with numerous other testimonies from Patriarch St. Cyril of Aleaxandria on the same subject,here

Quote from: Katechon
Lol, is it still the point with hypostatic origin not being identical with eternal manifestation?

Please explain how the two differ. I've heard 3 views explained by Orthodox Christians here, and to summarize them with a convenient acronym, it would be, something like, (1) TMO: The Holy Spirit's relation to the Son is that of a temporal mission only. (2) EEP: Eternal Energetic Procession. This is the viewpoint of Orthodox writer Perry Robinson: https://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/ This is how Robinson explains it, "Energetic Procession as a term refers to an eternal manifestation of the divine Person of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, and so is distinguished from the Filioque as a hypostatic procession." The third alternative would be (3) EHP: Eternal Hypostatic Procession. I would say ruling out (1) and (2) from the Fathers comes close to proving (3) must be the true Patristic Tradition, even Eastern. Now, just to clarify: by "eternal manifestation", do you mean something like energetic procession? The main objection to energetic procession that Western Christians would raise is - the divine energies are common to each of the Three Divine Persons. I think even Orthodox will agree with this. Do you, Katechon? If you do, then whenever in the text of any Father, by the very fact that Son and Spirit are distinguished, it is clear that an energetic manifestation is not being spoken of: we do not speak of the Grace of the Holy Spirit as something distinct from the Grace of the Son, because the Grace of The Three Persons is one and the same. Would you disagree? Therefore, for e.g. in a text like that in the OP, I cannot see how, when the Person of the Spirit and of the Son and of the Father are being distinguished, it is said that this does not refer to hypostatic procession. Do you mean to say, the Spirit's Grace is eternally manifested through the Son?

God bless.
"My dear Jesus, before the Holy Trinity, Our Heavenly Mother, and the whole Heavenly Court, united with your most precious Blood and your sacrifice on Calvary, I hereby offer my whole life to the intention of your Sacred Heart and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Together with my life, I place at your disposal all Holy Masses, all my Holy Communions, all my good deeds, all my sacrifices, and the sufferings of my entire life for the adoration ... https://marianapostolate.com/life-offering/

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,355
Quote from: Katechon
Lol, is it still the point with hypostatic origin not being identical with eternal manifestation?

Please explain how the two differ. I've heard 3 views explained by Orthodox Christians here, and to summarize them with a convenient acronym, it would be, something like, (1) TMO: The Holy Spirit's relation to the Son is that of a temporal mission only. (2) EEP: Eternal Energetic Procession. This is the viewpoint of Orthodox writer Perry Robinson: https://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/ This is how Robinson explains it, "Energetic Procession as a term refers to an eternal manifestation of the divine Person of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, and so is distinguished from the Filioque as a hypostatic procession." The third alternative would be (3) EHP: Eternal Hypostatic Procession. I would say ruling out (1) and (2) from the Fathers comes close to proving (3) must be the true Patristic Tradition, even Eastern. Now, just to clarify: by "eternal manifestation", do you mean something like energetic procession? The main objection to energetic procession that Western Christians would raise is - the divine energies are common to each of the Three Divine Persons. I think even Orthodox will agree with this. Do you, Katechon? If you do, then whenever in the text of any Father, by the very fact that Son and Spirit are distinguished, it is clear that an energetic manifestation is not being spoken of: we do not speak of the Grace of the Holy Spirit as something distinct from the Grace of the Son, because the Grace of The Three Persons is one and the same. Would you disagree? Therefore, for e.g. in a text like that in the OP, I cannot see how, when the Person of the Spirit and of the Son and of the Father are being distinguished, it is said that this does not refer to hypostatic procession. Do you mean to say, the Spirit's Grace is eternally manifested through the Son?

God bless.

You've butchered this part. Eternal Hypostatic Procession is not even the Catholic position, as they clarified in the Munich statement of 1982: http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/statement.htm . The Catholic position, or at least the modern one, is exactly the same at the Orthodox position stated at the Council of Blachernae in 1285. I hate to plug this in shamelessly, but I've written some blog posts on the Filioque and I suggest you read them, if only for its source material:

https://shamelessorthodoxy.com/2019/04/14/the-filioque-a-brief-opinion/

https://shamelessorthodoxy.com/2019/04/30/the-filioque-a-response-to-critics/

It should be stated that some Orthodox have even argued against the Orthodox position espoused at the Council of Blachernae in 1285, that is the position of an eternal manifestation through the Son. Instead, they argue for only a temporal procession. However, let it be stated, that no Orthodox synod whatsoever has formally overturned the ruling of Blachernae on the issue of the Filioque. Therefore, its ruling is still the official position of the Orthodox Church, no matter what any Orthodox believer or theologian says.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2019, 08:05:20 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

  • Holy Catholic Jesus, Intercede with God for us.
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,754
  • Faith: Catholic Pagan
  • Jurisdiction: United States
So we have the Authority of the Five Ecumenical Councils.

Offline Apotheoun

  • "Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,454
  • St. John Maximovitch
    • The Taboric Light
Please provide the original Greek version of the quotations from St. Cyril.

This is of course, the trick the filioquists use, to appeal to the authority of bad translations rather than the original Greek.
Agreed.

Sadly, the link Xavier provided in his response to me doesn't give access to the Greek original version of any of the quotations he has provided in English. I still want to see the Greek so that I can determine for myself what St. Cyril is saying.
"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite

Offline WPM

  • Holy Catholic Jesus, Intercede with God for us.
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,754
  • Faith: Catholic Pagan
  • Jurisdiction: United States
The Son the Word ~ Hypostasized One Divine Nature of Christ. (Against the Nestorian heresy) While Christ is God is also the Man Jesus.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2019, 11:49:30 PM by WPM »

Offline WPM

  • Holy Catholic Jesus, Intercede with God for us.
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,754
  • Faith: Catholic Pagan
  • Jurisdiction: United States
:police:
Please provide the original Greek version of the quotations from St. Cyril.

This is of course, the trick the filioquists use, to appeal to the authority of bad translations rather than the original Greek.

The Filioque is equivalent to proeinai which denotes the act of going forth which is  the Greek word St Cyril used. Ekporeuesthai denotes ultimate origin which is a thing that can only be said of the Father.

In Latin (and English), there is one verb (procedere/to proceed) which covers two different concepts that are expressed in Greek with two different verbs: ekporeuesthai and proeinai. The Creed as formulated by the Second Oecumenical Council, in speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, uses the Greek verb ekporeuesthai, which means "proceeds from" in the ultimate origin  sense of being. This is correctly translated into Latin with the verb procedere (which corresponds to the English to proceed). In Latin, the latins say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father “principalter” (principally/ultimately) to convey this concept.

No problem so far.

However...

The Latin verb procedere also carries a secondary meaning which cannot possibly be gleaned from the original Greek ekporeuesthai. This secondary meaning of procedere/to proceed is the sense of "to go forth", as a physical action. I can proceed to the shop. As an act. the Holy Spirit can be said to have proceeded from the Son, and therefore, it is legitimate to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in so far as this second meaning goes. The latin tradition says that the Holy Spirit proceeds “mediately” from the Son to convey this concept.

This was made clear by the speech of the latin theologian and orator John of Montennero at the council of Florence when debating Mark Eugenikos. The Greeks all accepted this at the instance they heard it. Later that day the Greek recorder of the acts noted after hearing Montennero’s speech that “the first light of union appeared today”

Can you explain, logically, what this text means?

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

And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."


This Council's declaration seems to very clearly say that both the Father and the Son are cause and principle of the Holy Spirit, such that although externally it may appear that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as two principles, they are actually one principle because both have the same Essence. Nowhere does this infallible text say that the one principle is from the Father alone, or the one cause is from the Father alone; rather, the Spirit takes origin from both the Father and the Son.

Furthermore, the Council solidifies this argument by saying that the Son has all of the properties of the Father, except that He isn't the Father, which seems to very clearly go against the claim that the Father and the Son are somehow distinct in terms of how the Holy Spirit works through the Father and the Son.


It's basically a Study of how Cyril is different from Severus.  (Antioch)

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,798
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
:police:
Please provide the original Greek version of the quotations from St. Cyril.

This is of course, the trick the filioquists use, to appeal to the authority of bad translations rather than the original Greek.

The Filioque is equivalent to proeinai which denotes the act of going forth which is  the Greek word St Cyril used. Ekporeuesthai denotes ultimate origin which is a thing that can only be said of the Father.

In Latin (and English), there is one verb (procedere/to proceed) which covers two different concepts that are expressed in Greek with two different verbs: ekporeuesthai and proeinai. The Creed as formulated by the Second Oecumenical Council, in speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, uses the Greek verb ekporeuesthai, which means "proceeds from" in the ultimate origin  sense of being. This is correctly translated into Latin with the verb procedere (which corresponds to the English to proceed). In Latin, the latins say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father “principalter” (principally/ultimately) to convey this concept.

No problem so far.

However...

The Latin verb procedere also carries a secondary meaning which cannot possibly be gleaned from the original Greek ekporeuesthai. This secondary meaning of procedere/to proceed is the sense of "to go forth", as a physical action. I can proceed to the shop. As an act. the Holy Spirit can be said to have proceeded from the Son, and therefore, it is legitimate to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in so far as this second meaning goes. The latin tradition says that the Holy Spirit proceeds “mediately” from the Son to convey this concept.

This was made clear by the speech of the latin theologian and orator John of Montennero at the council of Florence when debating Mark Eugenikos. The Greeks all accepted this at the instance they heard it. Later that day the Greek recorder of the acts noted after hearing Montennero’s speech that “the first light of union appeared today”

Can you explain, logically, what this text means?

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

And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."


This Council's declaration seems to very clearly say that both the Father and the Son are cause and principle of the Holy Spirit, such that although externally it may appear that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as two principles, they are actually one principle because both have the same Essence. Nowhere does this infallible text say that the one principle is from the Father alone, or the one cause is from the Father alone; rather, the Spirit takes origin from both the Father and the Son.

Furthermore, the Council solidifies this argument by saying that the Son has all of the properties of the Father, except that He isn't the Father, which seems to very clearly go against the claim that the Father and the Son are somehow distinct in terms of how the Holy Spirit works through the Father and the Son.

Yes, Wandile, in the last Filioque thread you asserted that Rome teaches that the Holy Spirit receives His origin equally from both the Father and the Son eternally.  Now you claim that Rome essentially teaches the Orthodox view.  Well, which is it?

What I said is directly from St Augustine. It seems you misunderstand what the latins are actually saying. I’m not saying Rome teaches the EO view. What is meant by equal procession refers not to order of origin but rather the nature of the procession. If there isn’t an equal procession then there are two and not one spiration.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2019, 03:22:02 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


I won’t be posting for the year so I can focus on my studies. God bless you.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,798
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
One principle has been explained adequately by Xavier.

Lastly do not confuse Principlater (principally in English) with principle in the Florentine decree. The former refers to the concept of ultimate origin of the procession of The Holy Spirit. The second refers to the object of origin of going forth from the vantage point of The Holy Spirit. An example of the two views can be:

There are three candles lit. The first is on fire and lights that second and second lights the third

- The third flame is lit ultimately by the first as without the first, the second would not be lit which lights the third. Thus the third flame proceeds principally (Principalter) from the first.

- Since the second directly lights the third, it’s accurate to say the third flame is lit by the second and comes from it. Additionally, since the second could not light the third without the first, it’s accurate to say the third flame is lit by the first and second flames. Thus they first and second constitute one principle of the third as they together (from the first through the second)  light the third.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2019, 03:44:06 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


I won’t be posting for the year so I can focus on my studies. God bless you.

Offline brlon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 60
  • Faith: None
  • Jurisdiction: None
And if the first candle alone lights both the second candle and the third candle - simultaneously, even?

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,798
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
And if the first candle alone lights both the second candle and the third candle - simultaneously, even?

Simultaneously but independently or simultaneously and dependently?
The former is the EO view, the second is the Catholic and patristic view.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2019, 04:19:31 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


I won’t be posting for the year so I can focus on my studies. God bless you.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,798
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
And if the first candle alone lights both the second candle and the third candle - simultaneously, even?

Simultaneously but independently or simultaneously and dependently?
The former is the EO view, the second is the Catholic and patristic view.

I saw that you used the word “alone”. In that case it would be the EO view and not the catholic and is not relevant as I was trying to explain the rationale of the catholic view and how it works in this analogy which demonstrates the difference in meaning of princpalter and “as from principle”.
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


I won’t be posting for the year so I can focus on my studies. God bless you.

Offline WPM

  • Holy Catholic Jesus, Intercede with God for us.
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,754
  • Faith: Catholic Pagan
  • Jurisdiction: United States
Yes, the Holy Trinity ~ Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,355
Your candle analogy sucks. Make a better one.
"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 Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,012
One principle has been explained adequately by Xavier.

Lastly do not confuse Principlater (principally in English) with principle in the Florentine decree. The former refers to the concept of ultimate origin of the procession of The Holy Spirit. The second refers to the object of origin of going forth from the vantage point of The Holy Spirit. An example of the two views can be:

There are three candles lit. The first is on fire and lights that second and second lights the third

- The third flame is lit ultimately by the first as without the first, the second would not be lit which lights the third. Thus the third flame proceeds principally (Principalter) from the first.

- Since the second directly lights the third, it’s accurate to say the third flame is lit by the second and comes from it. Additionally, since the second could not light the third without the first, it’s accurate to say the third flame is lit by the first and second flames. Thus they first and second constitute one principle of the third as they together (from the first through the second)  light the third.

Your analogy isn’t even consistent with Thomas on the subject insofar as he argues that the Spirit proceeds from the Father both immediately and mediately in ST I, 36, iii, ad. 1, giving the example of Abel being born of Adam and Eve (though he admits this material example is somewhat inept). In your example, the third flame proceeds from the first only mediately. For your example to be consistent in general with Thomistic thought, the first and second candles as a single principle with respect to the faculty of lighting the third candle should both light the third candle, the second candle somehow having received the faculty to light the third candle from the first candle which properly has this faculty (indeed in ad. 2 of the same question, Thomas glosses principaliter to refer to the fact that the power of spiration is proper to the Father while the Son has this power from the Father).
« Last Edit: July 06, 2019, 10:39:39 AM by Cavaradossi »
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,715
  • A well-sexed theologian
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Your candle analogy sucks. Make a better one.

How do you feel about shamrocks? 
Quote
Oh you Greeks, you are all dumb!

An Athonite

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,355
Your candle analogy sucks. Make a better one.

How do you feel about shamrocks?

That's Sabellianism.

Seriously though. Wandile and Xavier have come here about the Filioque like 12 times in different threads. We eventually get to the point that they admit that they don't attribute causality to the Son. And then they just blow it all up with a bad analogy or by quoting some Catholic saint with awful theology, who does attribute causality to the Son. It's kinda frustrating.
"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 PorphyriosK

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 842
Your candle analogy sucks. Make a better one.

How do you feel about shamrocks?

That's Sabellianism.

Seriously though. Wandile and Xavier have come here about the Filioque like 12 times in different threads. We eventually get to the point that they admit that they don't attribute causality to the Son. And then they just blow it all up with a bad analogy or by quoting some Catholic saint with awful theology, who does attribute causality to the Son. It's kinda frustrating.

I've recently decided not to engage these conversations anymore, as it always results in endless circular discussions that go nowhere.   

Here's all I need to know about the Filioque issue: 

- Christ Himself says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. 
- The Church composed the Creed restating Christ's teaching directly from Scripture. 
- The Church formally stated that no change could ever be made to that Creed. 

That's enough for me.

To Wandile's credit, he only tries to defend the Roman position on existing threads and doesn't constantly start new threads.

Offline Xavier

  • Slave of Love consecrated to the Hearts of Jesus and Mary through the Precious Blood of Jesus.
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 918
  • Immaculate Mary Theotokos,Reunite the Churches!
    • Marian Apostolate Life Offering.
  • Faith: Traditional Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Pope - but my heart is for Re-Union!
Rohzek, I read your link, and I very much appreciate that you cite St. Augustine in De Trinitate, in Latin no less! However, I would ask those who can (it's not light reading, to be sure, but very well worth the effort, even just for our spirituality, and deeper knowledge and love of the Holy Trinity, irrespective of the controversies) to try to make the effort to read De Trinitate in full. It's online at New Advent here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1301.htm As to the conclusion of your first link, the formula of St. Tarasius is acceptable.

But as to the confusion regarding Cause, it arises because "Cause" in the Greek Fathers" corresponds to "Principle without Principle" in the Latin Fathers. Nothing else. The Latin Fathers say the Eternal Father is the Sole Principle without Principle. The Greek Fathers say the Eternal Father is the Sole Unorginate Cause. Neither of this precludes eternal hypostatic procession being mediated though the Son.

Wandile's Analogy is Patristic, this is St. Gregory of Nyssa: "It is as if a man were to see a separate flame burning on three torches (and we will suppose that the third flame is caused by that of the first being transmitted to the middle, and then kindling the end torch ), and were to maintain that the heat in the first exceeded that of the others; that next it showed a variation from it in the direction of the less; and that the third could not be called fire at all, though it burnt and shone just like fire, and did everything that fire does. But if there is really no hindrance to the third torch being fire, though it has been kindled from a previous flame, what is the philosophy of these men, who profanely think that they can slight the dignity of the Holy Spirit because He is named by the Divine lips after the Father and the Son?"(On the Holy Spirit, Against the Macedonians)

And elsewhere, the same Saint writes "one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another by that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the interposition of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father." (On "Not Three Gods")

Some excerpts from De Trinitate, which plainly show beyond reasonable doubt that St. Augustine the Great of Hippo teaches EHP:

"When we say, therefore, the gift of the giver, and the giver of the gift, we speak in both cases relatively in reciprocal reference. Therefore the Holy Spirit is a certain unutterable communion of the Father and the Son; and on that account, perhaps, He is so called, because the same name is suitable to both the Father and the Son. For He Himself is called specially that which they are called in common; because both the Father is a spirit and the Son a spirit, both the Father is holy and the Son holy. In order, therefore, that the communion of both may be signified from a name which is suitable to both, the Holy Spirit is called the gift of both. And this Trinity is one God, alone, good, great, eternal, omnipotent; itself its own unity, deity, greatness, goodness, eternity, omnipotence.” (De Trinitate, Book V, Ch. 11)

“And it is proved by many other testimonies of the Divine Word, that the Spirit, who is specially called in the Trinity the Holy Spirit, is of the Father and of the Son: of whom likewise the Son Himself says, Whom I will send unto you from the Father; and in another place, Whom the Father will send in my name. And we are so taught that He proceeds from both, because the Son Himself says, He proceeds from the Father. And when He had risen from the dead, and had appeared to His disciples, He breathed upon them, and said, Receive the Holy Ghost, so as to show that He proceeded also from Himself ... Wherefore let him who can understand the generation of the Son from the Father without time, understand also the procession of the Holy Spirit from both without time. And let him who can understand, in that which the Son says, As the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself, not that the Father gave life to the Son already existing without life, but that He so begot Him apart from time, that the life which the Father gave to the Son by begetting Him is co-eternal with the life of the Father who gave it: let him, I say, understand, that as the Father has in Himself that the Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, so has He given to the Son that the same Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, and be both apart from time: and that the Holy Spirit is so said to proceed from the Father as that it be understood that His proceeding also from the Son, is a property derived by the Son from the Father. For if the Son has of the Father whatever He has, then certainly He has of the Father, that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from Him....
« Last Edit: July 06, 2019, 02:07:35 PM by Xavier »
"My dear Jesus, before the Holy Trinity, Our Heavenly Mother, and the whole Heavenly Court, united with your most precious Blood and your sacrifice on Calvary, I hereby offer my whole life to the intention of your Sacred Heart and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Together with my life, I place at your disposal all Holy Masses, all my Holy Communions, all my good deeds, all my sacrifices, and the sufferings of my entire life for the adoration ... https://marianapostolate.com/life-offering/

Offline Xavier

  • Slave of Love consecrated to the Hearts of Jesus and Mary through the Precious Blood of Jesus.
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 918
  • Immaculate Mary Theotokos,Reunite the Churches!
    • Marian Apostolate Life Offering.
  • Faith: Traditional Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Pope - but my heart is for Re-Union!
... And the Son is born of the Father; and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father principally, the Father giving the procession without any interval of time, yet in common from both [Father and Son] ... Therefore the Spirit of both is not begotten of both, but proceeds from both. (De Trinitate, Book 15, Ch. 26)

“But because it is most difficult to distinguish generation from procession in that co-eternal, and equal, and incorporeal, and ineffably unchangeable and indivisible Trinity, let it suffice meanwhile to put before those who are not able to be drawn on further, what we said upon this subject in a sermon to be delivered in the ears of Christian people, and after saying wrote it down. For when, among other things, I had taught them by testimonies of the Holy Scriptures that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both, I continue: If, then, the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father and from the Son, why did the Son say, ‘He proceeds from the Father.’ Why, think you, except as He is wont to refer to Him, that also which is His own, from whom also He Himself is? Whence also is that which He says, ‘My doctrine is not my own, but His that sent me?’ If, therefore, it is His doctrine that is here understood, which yet He said was not His own, but His that sent Him, how much more is it there to be understood that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from Himself, where He so says, He proceeds from the Father, as not to say, He proceeds not from me?

From Him, certainly, from whom the Son had his Divine nature, for He is God of God, He has also, that from Him too proceeds the Holy Spirit; and hence the Holy Spirit has from the Father Himself, that He should proceed from the Son also, as He proceeds from the Father. ... For we cannot say that the Holy Spirit is not life, while the Father is life, and the Son is life: and hence as the Father, while He has life in Himself, has given also to the Son to have life in Himself; so has He given also to Him that life should proceed from Him, as it also proceeds from Himself. I have transferred this from that sermon into this book, but I was speaking to believers, not to unbelievers…. Lift up your eyes to the light itself, and fix them upon it if you can. For so you will see how the birth of the Word of God differs from the procession of the Gift of God, on account of which the only-begotten Son did not say that the Holy Spirit is begotten of the Father, otherwise He would be His brother, but that He proceeds from Him. Whence, since the Spirit of both is a kind of consubstantial communion of Father and Son” (De Trinitate, Book 15, Ch. 27) To study the matter further, https://erickybarra.org/2018/07/07/st-augustine-of-hippo-procession-of-the-holy-spirit-from-the-father-and-son/

(1) It is clear St. Augustine teaches Eternal Procession of the Holy Spirit from Both the Father and the Son, so TMO is ruled out.
(2) Can EEP really explain these texts? No, very unlikely, St. Augustine is speaking of Who the Holy Spirit is within the Holy Trinity. The Holy Spirit, explains St. Augustine, would be all these things even if creation never existed and no grace ever needed to be dispensed. The Holy Spirit has it from the Father that He should proceed from the Son, for the Father gave this to the Son eternally in begetting Him. Distinct Hypostatic Relation.
(3) Therefore, the true doctrine, contra the Synod of Blachernae, and as Patriarch Bekkus defended, is Eternal Hypostatic Procession.

I forgot to mention regarding the earlier issue of the Liturgy of St. Mark and whether "In the Unity of the Holy Spirit" is used in the earliest extant manuscripts: well, it is a matter of certainty that the Traditional Roman Liturgy uses that expression, "P. O God, + who established the nature of man in wondrous dignity, and still more admirably restored it, grant that by the mystery of this water and wine, may we come to share in His Divinity, who humbled himself to share in our humanity, Jesus Christ, Your Son, our Lord. who lives and reigns with You in the Unity of the holy Spirit, one God, forever and ever. Amen." Roman Liturgy So, the expression "The Father and the Son Reign In the Unity of the Holy Spirit" is a common liturgical doctrinal expression, at least in the West. The history of the Liturgy of St. Mark I have not had time yet to study in more detail. God bless.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2019, 02:20:38 PM by Xavier »
"My dear Jesus, before the Holy Trinity, Our Heavenly Mother, and the whole Heavenly Court, united with your most precious Blood and your sacrifice on Calvary, I hereby offer my whole life to the intention of your Sacred Heart and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Together with my life, I place at your disposal all Holy Masses, all my Holy Communions, all my good deeds, all my sacrifices, and the sufferings of my entire life for the adoration ... https://marianapostolate.com/life-offering/

Online Eamonomae

  • The Publican who hathn’t repented
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 858
  • Saint Thomas the Apostle, pray for me a sinner!
  • Faith: Truth seeker
  • Jurisdiction: Schism
Your candle analogy sucks. Make a better one.

How do you feel about shamrocks?

That's Sabellianism.


Nope, it’s Partialism.

Saint Patrick’s Bad Analogies
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw

Lord have mercy

Offline platypus

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 420
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
"Eternal truth finds no favorable soil where one encounters at every turn the skeptical, sarcastic query 'what is truth,' where life insurance takes the place of eternal hope." -Hieromonk Antonius

Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity. -Ecclesiastes 12:8

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,355
Again Xavier, you're attributing causality to the Son. That's not even the current Catholic position. From official Vatican documents:

Quote
In this way the presence of the Spirit itself is extended by the sharing in the sacrament of the word made flesh to all the body of the church. Without wishing to resolve yet the difficulties which have arisen between the East and the West concerning the relationship between the Son and the Spirit, we can already say together that this Spirit, which proceeds from the Father (Jn 15:26) as the sole source in the Trinity and which has become the Spirit of our sonship (Rom 8:15) since he is also the Spirit of the Son (Gal 4:6), is communicated to us particularly in the eucharist by this Son upon whom he reposes in time and in eternity (Jn 1:32).

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19820706_munich_en.html

The Father isn't just principle without principle for Catholicism. In the absolute sense, he is the only source. Making the Son a cause of the hypostatic coming into being of the Holy Spirit violates Divine Simplicity.
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Vanhyo

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,032
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: BOC
Quote
What is the Orthodox answer to the Cardinal?
The final conclusion of the filioque "theology" is the clown mass. The middle age scholastics explained the filioque with absolute divine simplicity but ADS inescapably leads to the doctrine of created grace. If all you get in salvation in infused created good or created effect, then as V2 "theologians" put it, all religions have some kind of created goodness and therefor lead to God in some way. This is why you include pegan elements in your novus ordo mass, it is the natural conclusion of your filioque philosophizings.

Please let this be trolling.

Not trolling.

Please tell me that you have rejected the theory of evolution. It is sort of silly to talk about theology and yet lack the basic foundation(that genesis is true) by which the entire faith is made solid and coherent.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2019, 05:00:32 AM by Vanhyo »

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,355
Quote
What is the Orthodox answer to the Cardinal?
The final conclusion of the filioque "theology" is the clown mass. The middle age scholastics explained the filioque with absolute divine simplicity but ADS inescapably leads to the doctrine of created grace. If all you get in salvation in infused created good or created effect, then as V2 "theologians" put it, all religions have some kind of created goodness and therefor lead to God in some way. This is why you include pegan elements in your novus ordo mass, it is the natural conclusion of your filioque philosophizings.

Please let this be trolling.

Not trolling.

Please tell me that you have rejected the theory of evolution. It is sort of silly to talk about theology and yet lack the basic foundation(that genesis is true) by which the entire faith is made solid and coherent.

Spell out step by step how Filioque leads to clown masses. They had it for 1200 years more or less and only recently got clown masses, which are actually not the norm. I want to see how you got to your conclusion.

Also, Xavier is a young earth creationist just like you, yet he still managed to mess it all up according to you. It doesn't seem relevant here at all. But if I was forced at gunpoint to make some sort of rash connection between orthodoxy and creationism, I'd have to say that creationism serves as a pretty good indicator of whether an Orthodox believer believes OJ didn't do it (creationist), or if an Orthodox believer believes OJ did do it (evolutionist). Exhibit A - sedevacantist.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2019, 09:16:23 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