OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 24, 2014, 07:27:01 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Filioque  (Read 12818 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Sloga
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 830



« on: July 22, 2006, 05:06:02 PM »

I'm a little confused about this topic. Can anyone give me a basic summary about the filioque and why/how it further seperated the church?
Logged

Христе Боже, Распети и Свети!

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Justin Popovic
drewmeister2
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Hellenic Orthodox Traditionalist Church of America
Posts: 415


Christmas at St Markella's Cathedral, Astoria, NY


« Reply #1 on: July 22, 2006, 06:06:21 PM »

I don't know all the details, but here is a basic summary.

Filioque is Latin for "and the Son" (you may have known that, but in case not, I added it Smiley ).ÂÂ  The ultimate problem was that it was added by one person, the Pope, not by a Council.ÂÂ  The Council of Nicea said not to add anything to the Creed.ÂÂ  Now, obviously that decision could be "overridden", as far as I know, by another Council, but a Council was never called to add it.ÂÂ  It was essentially one of the signs that the Pope was beginning to take on the Supreme Pontiff role, which denies many of the earlier councils where it was decided that the faith could only be "changed" by Councils, not individual bishops.ÂÂ  Thus, this heresy of the Catholic Church had started to take root, and the adding of the Filioque was one sign of it.ÂÂ  

This is my understanding of it; if I am wrong, someone correct me.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2006, 06:08:57 PM by drewmeister2 » Logged

Orthodoxia i Thanatos

IC    XC      ...and in ONE HOLY CATHOLIC
    +                   and APOSTOLIC CHURCH...
NI    KA

www.hotca.org | www.YouTube.com/GreekOrthodoxTV
Dismus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 486


« Reply #2 on: July 22, 2006, 06:12:45 PM »

I never got any concrete understanding on this either since I have read both the Orthodox explanations and RCC explanations and they vary widely and leave me unclear on the whole issue. I guess since it is not something that has been a major stumbling block for me I have sort of pushed it aside. But I did find this link for you and am glad you brought it up so I can learn from the posts here on it.

Here is the RCC explanation:http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19901107en.html

Have a good weekend everyone! Smiley
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,095


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #3 on: July 22, 2006, 06:29:01 PM »

The Orthodox believe that, when speaking of God in His essence, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father but not the Son. The Orthodox do believe/concede that in the workings of God in the created universe, the Holy Spirit comes through the Son. But, again, the Orthodox feel it is important to protect the idea about the Holy Spirit not proceeding through the Son as an eternal relationship. In other words, the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father, and the Son was begotten of the Father, from all eternity (ie. there was never a time when the Holy Spirit was not proceeding from the Father, or when the Son was not begotten by the Father). However, according to EO theology there was a time (if you can use the term "time" to describe a relational state before time actually existed) when the Holy Spirit was not proceeding through the Son, but only proceeding from the Father.

The Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father and the son," or "from the Father and through the son," regardless of whether you are talking about God's essence or God's working within the universe. Or to put it simply, the Catholics think that the Holy Spirit's procession through the Son is eternal, while the Orthodox think that it is merely temporal. The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit by St. Photius goes over a number of reasons why the Orthodox have a problem with the filioque.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2006, 07:16:49 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 23, 2006, 06:42:12 AM »

I never got any concrete understanding on this either since I have read both the Orthodox explanations and RCC explanations and they vary widely and leave me unclear on the whole issue. I guess since it is not something that has been a major stumbling block for me I have sort of pushed it aside. But I did find this link for you and am glad you brought it up so I can learn from the posts here on it.

Here is the RCC explanation:http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19901107en.html

Have a good weekend everyone! Smiley

Dismus,

The following links are to posts I wrote on the theological problems surrounding the filioque.  In the posts I explain the distinction that must be made between the Holy Spirit's hypostatic procession from the Father alone, and His manifestation from the Father through the Son in the divine energy:


Problems with the Vatican's "Clarification on the Filioque":
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=1763606&postcount=248

The distinction between hypostatic procession and energetic manifestation:
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=1763628&postcount=249

St. Maximos the Confessor does not support the filioque as taught by the Council of Florence:
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=1763651&postcount=250

St. John Damascene explicitly rejects the filioque:
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=1763670&postcount=251

The Monarchy of the Father, and the Son's energetic "sending" or "manifestation" of the Spirit:
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=1763761&postcount=254


I hope that these posts help you to understand why the Orthodox reject the filioque.

God bless,
Todd
Logged

"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
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 23, 2006, 06:51:50 AM »

The link below is to a brief section of a paper that I wrote on the theology of St. Gregory Palamas:

The Filioque Controversy:
http://www.geocities.com/apotheoun/paper17b
Logged

"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
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,146



« Reply #6 on: July 23, 2006, 10:44:45 PM »

I've been having this same discussion with Lutherans on the Lutheran-Orthodox dialogue.  It's been very frustrating.

Some Lutherans will admit that the filioque was added "unilaterally" by the West in defiance of the canons set forth both at Nicaea and Constantinople and thus they will agree to confess the creed in its original form.  But they still defend the theology behind it!  typical of Lutherans, wanting both unity and diversity of the faith at the same time! Then the Lutherans have the guts to say that when they confess that teh spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, they mean that the Spirit proceeds from the Father with regards to his hypostasis (or origin) but proceeds from the Son with regards to time (i.e. sending) and that the problem is one of vocabulary because the Latin procedere  is used to two translate two Greek words, one dealing with origin and another dealing withtime. Again, Lutherans wanting it both ways.  Even though Orthodox theologians and the fathers admit that there is economy with regards to the sending of the spirit from the Son, the Spirit's origin is from the Father alone!

Teh West claims that the filioque was needed to reinforce the consubstantiality of the Trinity because it was combatting Arianism.  The East combatted it in 325 (with Arius present at the Council, even!) and did not need the filioque!  Well-intentioned and pious as the local bishops may have been, this intent to "safeguard" the Trinity resulted in heresy!  Attempts to "safeguard" God in essence and hypostases resulted in heresies such as Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monotheletism, Sabellianism, etc.

Another problem is that the West cannot (or will not) speak of the Trinity in terms of perichoresis (indwelling of the individual hypostases in one another).  See John 17.  You would think they would reference that to bolster their Trinitarian concept, but I cannot reference one work of the WEst (either Catholic or Protestant) that deals with the filioque in these terms.

Nevertheless, the Western doctrine of filioque is heretical.  Orthodox should not be afraid to say that as long as it is said with love and humility (very easy, I'm sure  Wink.  It's our faith and the faith of the holy fathers.  It needs not other defense. And all of these talks of union are fruitless unless the filioque is renounced as such by those who desire unity with the Holy Orthodox Church.

In IC XC

Scamandrius
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Sloga
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 830



« Reply #7 on: July 24, 2006, 05:11:50 PM »

I have some sort of understanding now from an Orthodox perspective, but what on earth does Rome say to back it up? makes no sense to me...
Logged

Христе Боже, Распети и Свети!

"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope." Saint Justin Popovic
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,146



« Reply #8 on: July 24, 2006, 10:57:14 PM »

Rome will typically reply that the addition of the filioque was part of the continued revelation of God and the faith to His Church and since a pope adopted it, it's confession in the creed is considered necessary for salvation.  I don't think that Rome has ever said that the Orthodox are in heresy for NOT confessing the filioque but the Orthodox have insisted that to confess the filioqe is a heresy.  Rome will never admit that the real reason Rome adopted it was for political reasons.

The Carolingians had become the dominant military power in the West in the early ninth century, though the empire had fragmented under Charlemagne and about 100 years the EAst Franks (the Germans) reasserted themselves over much of northern Italy.  They used the filioque adopted by the synod of Toledo as leverage to distance the new Roman Empire of the West (the so-called Holy Roman EMpire) from that of the Romans (Byzantines) in the East.  If the Eastern Romans did not use the filioque then they must not be the true Romans as the Carolingians were trying to paint themselves.  Since the papcy was under the military domination of the Franks, it was dangerous to continue to confront them on this issue, so eventually the papacy caved and adopted the filioque.  But, I have never heard Roman Catholics admit that a major point of their theology was due to contemporary politics.  Instead, they insist on continued revelation, which is totally foreign and wrong to the Orthodox.

Scamandrius
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Dismus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 486


« Reply #9 on: July 25, 2006, 05:34:03 PM »

Dismus,

The following links are to posts I wrote on the theological problems surrounding the filioque.ÂÂ  In the posts I explain the distinction that must be made between the Holy Spirit's hypostatic procession from the Father alone, and His manifestation from the Father through the Son in the divine energy:


Problems with the Vatican's "Clarification on the Filioque":
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=1763606&postcount=248

The distinction between hypostatic procession and energetic manifestation:
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=1763628&postcount=249

St. Maximos the Confessor does not support the filioque as taught by the Council of Florence:
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=1763651&postcount=250

St. John Damascene explicitly rejects the filioque:
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=1763670&postcount=251

The Monarchy of the Father, and the Son's energetic "sending" or "manifestation" of the Spirit:
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=1763761&postcount=254


I hope that these posts help you to understand why the Orthodox reject the filioque.

God bless,
Todd

Wow. That was pretty hard to get through and I intend on re-reading it. Your information leads me to believe that once again Rome has set itself with having to come up with all kinds of "reasons" why they make all kinds of asserstions that people tend not to question because they make things so absolutely convoluted with each new "organic" change.
This is far worse than the IC dogma. Ouch.
How do they expect union? On what basis? What unioun can there ever be when they have created so many major stumbling blocks along the way?
Had unity been sought earlier perhaps this would be easier to do, but after all these years of persisting to massage the reality to something else...something that should have not been touched.....
I guess it is fair to call it heresy. What else?
Well, maybe I can hope that the intention was for clarity or a deeper understanding of some sort, but it looks like distortion to me on the surface.
How did this benefit Rome to do this? Grave sin is not something one goes into lightly...
Maybe organized religion is just wrong. I wonder if it all is somehow flawed to a degree or another..Each side carries blame...
Not too sure what it is on the OC side but, if it were correct on every matter, why would there be so many RCC theologians that have not swarmed to the OC?
Thanks for all the information in your posts, impressive. This is a hard pill to swallow.
It is not a "throw away" issue.  Sad
Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 26, 2006, 12:18:58 AM »

Wow. That was pretty hard to get through and I intend on re-reading it. Your information leads me to believe that once again Rome has set itself with having to come up with all kinds of "reasons" why they make all kinds of asserstions that people tend not to question because they make things so absolutely convoluted with each new "organic" change.
This is far worse than the IC dogma. Ouch.

Yes.ÂÂ  Sadly, Rome has confused two different realities: (1) the procession of the Holy Spirit as hypostasis (person) from the Father alone, and (2) the Spirit's manifestation as divine energy (i.e., as uncreated grace) from the Father through the Son.ÂÂ  In other words, the Holy Spirit proceeds as hypostasis from the Father alone, but He is manifested -- both temporally and eternally -- from the Father through the Son, not as hypostasis, but as divine energy; and this energetic manifestation expresses the consubstantial communion of the three divine hypostaseis within the Godhead.ÂÂ  As a consequence, the Spirit's energetic manifestation through the Son must not be confused with the hypostatic procession of the Spirit from the Father alone, because that would ultimately lead to Sabellian modalism.
 
Now, this distinction between hypostatic procession and energetic manifestation has been taught by the Holy Fathers (e.g., St. Athanasios, the Cappadocian Fathers, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Maximos the Confessor, St. John Damascene, et al.), including St. Gregory Palamas, who said that, "As energy the Holy Spirit is of Him [i.e., the Son] and from Him, being breathed, sent and manifested; as existence and hypostasis, however, He is 'of Him' and not 'from Him,' but from Him [i.e., the Father] who has begotten Him [i.e., the Son]." [St. Gregory Palamas, First Apodictic Treatise, I, 37, 12-15]

For more information on the difference between hypostatic procession and energetic manifestation, you can click the link below in order to read the Tomus of the Blachernae Council of A.D. 1285, which officially rejected the "union" council of Lyons II.


Exposition of the Tomus of Faith against Beccas:
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/tomos1285.html
« Last Edit: July 26, 2006, 12:20:22 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

"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
Amadeus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 268


I'm a llama!


« Reply #11 on: July 26, 2006, 02:58:50 PM »

The Filioque issue can be understood more clearly by digesting the official
"Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation" issued after their "recent" meeting at Saint Paul’s College, Washington, DC, on October 25, 2003.

It traces the "history" of the controversy. This should be the normative position of the sides in the divide:

From USCCB:

http://www.usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml

From SCOBA:

http://www.scoba.us/resources/filioque-p01.asp

Amado
« Last Edit: July 26, 2006, 03:17:22 PM by Amadeus » Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #12 on: July 26, 2006, 06:14:30 PM »

Oh, yeah...the 'we agree to disagree' statement. My metropolitan did an excellent job.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
chrisb
Working it out in fear and trembling...
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: St. Cyprian of Carthage - OCA|South
Posts: 210


St. Cyprian pray for us.


« Reply #13 on: July 27, 2006, 02:50:47 PM »

Man is this a crazy topic...  Cheesy
Logged

For whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother. - Mark 3:35
Seraph
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #14 on: August 10, 2006, 09:58:44 PM »

Since the Synod of Toledo took place before the East-West schism, and because others of the pre-schism Western fathers seem to use the Filioque at least in their teaching, how does Orthodoxy view the Synod of Toledo and such Western fathers?
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,095


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #15 on: August 10, 2006, 10:38:55 PM »

Seraph,

Though I don't think that anyone would claim that this ended the discussion, here is how St. Photius dealt with that issue:

Quote
You bring forth Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome as well as certain other men as witnesses against the dogma of the Church, because you say they hold the opinion that the Spirit proceeds from the Son... If they slipped and fell into error, therefore, by some negligence or oversight — for such is the human condition — when they were corrected, they neither contradicted nor were they obstinately disobedient. For they were not, even in the slightest degree, participants in those things in which you abound. Though they were admirable by reason of many other qualities that manifest virtue and piety, they professed your teaching either through ignorance or negligence. But if they in no way shared the benefit of your advantages [of being corrected], why do your introduce their human fault as a mandate for your blasphemous belief?

...But I do not admit that what you assert was so plainly taught by those blessed men. Even so, if any among them has fallen into something unseemly — for they were all men and human, and no one composed of dust and ephemeral nature can avoid some trace of defilement — I would then imitate the sons of Noah and cover my father's shame with silence and gratitude instead of a garment. I would not have followed Ham as you do. Indeed, you follow him with even more shamelessness and impudence than he himself, because you publish abroad the shame of those whom you call your Fathers. Ham is cursed, not because he uncovered his father, but because he failed to cover him. You, however, both uncover your Fathers and brag about your audacity. Ham exposes the secret to his brothers; you tell yours not to one or two brothers, but in your rash and reckless abandon, proclaim the shame of your Fathers to the whole world, as if it were your theatre. You behave lewdly towards the shame of their nakedness and seek other revellers with whom to make more conspicuous festival, rejoicing when you expose their nakedness to the light!

...perhaps they spoke out of necessity in attacking [pagan] Greek madness, or whilst refuting heresy, or through some condescension to the weakness of their listeners, or due to the necessity of any one of the many things presented by daily life. If, by chance, such a statement escaped their lips because of one or more of the above reasons, then why do you still dismiss their testimony, and take as a necessary dogma what they did not mean as a dogma? - Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, 68-72

So, basically most Orthodox accept them as Fathers, but consider them to have made an error if they affirmed that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son eternally.

On a side note, I just so happen to be selling my (hardback) copy of this book by St. Photius, which also includes a short piece by St. Justin Popovich, for anyone interested in getting ahold of it for a lot cheaper than the Amazon.com price (which is nearly $100 now, though there is also a different paperback translation available).
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,146



« Reply #16 on: August 10, 2006, 11:41:35 PM »

Since the Synod of Toledo took place before the East-West schism, and because others of the pre-schism Western fathers seem to use the Filioque at least in their teaching, how does Orthodoxy view the Synod of Toledo and such Western fathers?

The  Synod of Toledo in 589 which spawned the heresy of the filioque has not, to my knowledge, been anathematized nor the participants.  The bishops who took part in this--Ugnas of Barcelona, Ubiligisclus of Valencia, Murila of Palencia, Sunnila of Viseo, Gardingus of Tuy, Bechila of Lugo, Argiovitus of Oporto, and Froisclus of Tortosa--I do not believe are regarded as heresiarchs but I cannot find anything to say that they are among the fathers of the Church either.

Of course, we must always remember that Orthodoxy has always maintained and taught that all saints, no matter how godly or holy they seem, are all fallible.  This is why Augustine, no matter how wrong he was on theological matters such as grace and free will and despite how much he was distorted and twisted by the Medieval church, is still one of our great fathers among the saints!

Scamandrius
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Dismus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 486


« Reply #17 on: August 11, 2006, 12:06:59 PM »

Man is this a crazy topic...ÂÂ  Cheesy

I agree and fail to see how this has blown into the mountian it is. It is a molehill.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #18 on: August 11, 2006, 01:08:17 PM »

Hardly a molehill. It's a key issue the Orthodox have with the RCC and by extension - all western churches. The topic has been treated thoroughly here many times before which may explain why so few Orthodox are participating in this particular thread.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,093


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #19 on: August 11, 2006, 01:20:42 PM »

Past threads on the Filioque
==========================================================

Filioque a Dogma
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=2052.0

The Nicene Creed and the Filioque
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=2308.0

Agreed Statement on Filioque
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=2092.0

The Eastern Fathers' Trinitarian Grounds for Repudiating the Filioque
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=3293.0

St. John 15 : 26 & The Filioque
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=818.0

Filioque Clause
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=1807.0

The fathers of the church on the filioque clause
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=7841.0

History of the Filioque Controversy
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=4214.0

Filioque Question
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=7517.0
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Dismus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 486


« Reply #20 on: August 11, 2006, 02:52:19 PM »

[quote author=Αριστοκλής link=topic=9580.msg131168#msg131168 date=1155316097]
Hardly a molehill. It's a key issue the Orthodox have with the RCC and by extension - all western churches. The topic has been treated thoroughly here many times before which may explain why so few Orthodox are participating in this particular thread.
[/quote]

I should not have been so flip. I know it is signifigant , but it just gets so hard for me to see why this seems to be such an unresolved issue with both RCC and OC. It is sad. It seems so clear cut. I guess I am sticking my head in the sand when I say it is a molehill since I wish it would just get resolved already.
sorry. It is a molehill to me since I think the Orthodox are right and the RCC needs to get over their arrogance and admit it already.
Logged
Steve Dennehy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 135



« Reply #21 on: August 14, 2006, 06:05:11 PM »

I'm a little confused about this topic. Can anyone give me a basic summary about the filioque and why/how it further seperated the church?

There are 2 issues involved in the Filioque controversy.

The teaching that God the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son as their mutual love was taught by some Fathers as early as c.400 (including John Chrysostom and Augustine of Hippo). TheÂÂ  regional Council of Toldeo in Spain in 575, dealing with the Arian Visigoths in Spain, defined this teaching and included it in the creed for Spain.ÂÂ  Gradually other parts of the Roman Church included it.ÂÂ  Rome itself included the phrase "and the Son" in the Nicene Creed in 1013 though this was never offically done by the Pope of Rome.ÂÂ  The problem obviously is that you cannot have part of the Church unilaterally adding to the Creed. This has to be done byÂÂ  the whole Church in an Ecumenical Council.

The doctrine itself is a different issue.
 
The Roman Catholic view:
The Father is eternally giving birth to the Son as His Self-Expression (Word), His Self-ReflectionÂÂ  (Image).ÂÂ  The Father and the Son eternally, perfectly love each other; this Love eternally gives birth to Holy Spirit.

The Orthodox view:
The Father is eternally giving birth to the Son as His Self-Expression (Word), His Self-Reflection (Image).ÂÂ  The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from Father.

I think this needs deep prayer and reflection by all of us.

Glory be to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, One in essence and undivided.

Steve



« Last Edit: August 14, 2006, 06:08:58 PM by Steve Dennehy » Logged
francis-christopher
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Richmond
Posts: 366


St. Francis pray for us!


« Reply #22 on: August 22, 2006, 04:51:20 PM »

There are 2 issues involved in the Filioque controversy.

The teaching that God the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son as their mutual love was taught by some Fathers as early as c.400 (including John Chrysostom and Augustine of Hippo). The  regional Council of Toldeo in Spain in 575, dealing with the Arian Visigoths in Spain, defined this teaching and included it in the creed for Spain.  Gradually other parts of the Roman Church included it.  Rome itself included the phrase "and the Son" in the Nicene Creed in 1013 though this was never offically done by the Pope of Rome.  The problem obviously is that you cannot have part of the Church unilaterally adding to the Creed. This has to be done by  the whole Church in an Ecumenical Council.

The doctrine itself is a different issue.
 
The Roman Catholic view:
The Father is eternally giving birth to the Son as His Self-Expression (Word), His Self-Reflection  (Image).  The Father and the Son eternally, perfectly love each other; this Love eternally gives birth to Holy Spirit.

The Orthodox view:
The Father is eternally giving birth to the Son as His Self-Expression (Word), His Self-Reflection (Image).  The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from Father.

I think this needs deep prayer and reflection by all of us.

Glory be to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, One in essence and undivided.

Steve

In nomine Ieus I offer you peace Steve,

With all due respect to both parties I have never dwelt on the mystery of the Trinity and concluded exactly what eternally proceeds from the Father ultimately ment as opposed to eternally proceeds from the Father through the Son as taught by my own Tradition. Both appear to express clarity which I have personally been unable to confirm through direct experience. Personally I understand the rationale for the addition of 'filioque' but I also recognize the real danger in attempting to express depth to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity which we are frankly not privy.

Logged

Francisce-Christophorus

Sancte Francisce, athleta Christi, ora pro nobis. Amen.
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #23 on: August 23, 2006, 01:48:59 PM »

The Father and the Son eternally, perfectly love each other; this Love eternally gives birth to Holy Spirit.

I think you will get a strongly differing of opinion of the  "Love eternally gives birth to the Holy Spirity" from many corners of Roman Catholicism.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2006, 01:49:27 PM by JoeS » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #24 on: August 27, 2006, 09:51:32 PM »

I think you will get a strongly differing of opinion of the  "Love eternally gives birth to the Holy Spirity" from many corners of Roman Catholicism.

We would not say "gives birth to"  because the Holy Spirit is not born. We would rather say that the Holy Spirit is the Love between the Father and the Son and that the Holy Spirit is eternally spirated in this manner. I would also like to point out that the since God the Son is begotten from the Father, when the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, it is really an indirect procession from the Father. Thus the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father directly and from the Father indirectly by proceeding from the Son ("through the Son") who is begotten of the Father. Both modes of procession are ultimately from the Father as if by a single spiration.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2006, 09:55:10 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Panagiotis
Libertarian/Orthodox/Lush
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: The Phanar
Posts: 406


Advocating Liberty Since 1973


WWW
« Reply #25 on: August 27, 2006, 11:48:18 PM »

Quote
The Nicene Creed
The Council declared the text of the "Creed" decreed at the First and Second Ecumenical Councils to be complete and forbade any change (addition or deletion).
found at goarch.org
I believe this rests and therefore, since it was forbidden to do so, we can pretty much assume who is in error, according to the Apostle's successors and Jesus Christ's Church. If we are to support any claims in defense of this act, we defy Christ and His Church, the Apostles and their successors.

Christ is in our midst,
Panagiotis
Logged


"The first condition for the establishment of perpetual peace is the general adoption of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism"
-Ludwig Von Mises
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #26 on: August 28, 2006, 05:44:50 PM »

found at goarch.org
I believe this rests and therefore, since it was forbidden to do so, we can pretty much assume who is in error, according to the Apostle's successors and Jesus Christ's Church. If we are to support any claims in defense of this act, we defy Christ and His Church, the Apostles and their successors.

Christ is in our midst,
Panagiotis
Not so quick my friend, if the first ecumenical council declared that creed was completed and not to be added to, then how was there an addition made at the second ecumenical council to declare the divinity of the Holy Spirit, Hmmmmm?  Grin
Many blessings in Christ.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #27 on: August 28, 2006, 05:56:42 PM »

Not so quick my friend, if the first ecumenical council declared that creed was completed and not to be added to, then how was there an addition made at the second ecumenical council to declare the divinity of the Holy Spirit, Hmmmmm?  Grin
Many blessings in Christ.

The 1st Ecumenical Synod: established the first seven articles of the Creed.
 
The 2nd Ecumenical Synod: The Creed was completed and sealed by the famous Cappadocians (Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus).

Please note that the Creed was "Sealed" at this Synod and cannot be added to or divided unless it is appproved by another Synod of the Whole church.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2006, 05:59:59 PM by JoeS » Logged
Panagiotis
Libertarian/Orthodox/Lush
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: The Phanar
Posts: 406


Advocating Liberty Since 1973


WWW
« Reply #28 on: August 28, 2006, 05:58:24 PM »

Then where was the council for the Filioque change, which represented all the Church in union, together discussing the change?
I am not talking about a council of Five or more/less bihops in one little region, I am talking about the whole, Catholic and Orthodox Church, in council?

Christ is in our midst,
Panagiotis
Logged


"The first condition for the establishment of perpetual peace is the general adoption of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism"
-Ludwig Von Mises
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #29 on: August 28, 2006, 06:01:14 PM »

Then where was the council for the Filioque change, which represented all the Church in union, together discussing the change?
I am not talking about a council of Five or more/less bihops in one little region, I am talking about the whole, Catholic and Orthodox Church, in council?

Christ is in our midst,
Panagiotis
Well, since the Catholic Church and not the Eastern Orthodox Church is the true Church Grin, I'd say Florence.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #30 on: August 28, 2006, 06:06:37 PM »

Well, since the Catholic Church and not the Eastern Orthodox Church is the true Church Grin, I'd say Florence.

Well, you'll definitely get a bodacious NO from Orthodoxy on your point here.   Cool

Florence was flawed from the start and just got worse as it progressed.

St.MarkEofE Rules.

« Last Edit: August 28, 2006, 06:08:56 PM by JoeS » Logged
Panagiotis
Libertarian/Orthodox/Lush
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: The Phanar
Posts: 406


Advocating Liberty Since 1973


WWW
« Reply #31 on: August 28, 2006, 06:07:13 PM »

Well, since the Catholic Church and not the Eastern Orthodox Church is the true Church Grin, I'd say Florence.
Seriously. Who has the right, after it was commisioned that no one add or subtract from the Nicene Creed, to change it?

I have heard the excuses that since it was adopted by the Pope due to Papal Primacy that he is the voice of God, therefore it was his right to change it without council, from the seat of Peter.

Blessings,
Panagiotis
Logged


"The first condition for the establishment of perpetual peace is the general adoption of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism"
-Ludwig Von Mises
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #32 on: August 28, 2006, 06:23:01 PM »

Seriously. Who has the right, after it was commisioned that no one add or subtract from the Nicene Creed, to change it?

I have heard the excuses that since it was adopted by the Pope due to Papal Primacy that he is the voice of God, therefore it was his right to change it without council, from the seat of Peter.

Blessings,
Panagiotis
Seriously dude, the Church does.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #33 on: August 28, 2006, 06:29:04 PM »

Well, you'll definitely get a bodacious NO from Orthodoxy on your point here.   Cool

Florence was flawed from the start and just got worse as it progressed.

St.MarkEofE Rules.


Being right means being flawed in your lexicon? Grin You are funny. (Btw, I am just playing, this conversation is getting bogged down).
« Last Edit: August 28, 2006, 06:30:40 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #34 on: August 29, 2006, 08:16:08 AM »

Seriously dude, the Church does.

I agree; the Church does and the Church did not make any changes.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #35 on: August 29, 2006, 10:14:28 AM »

Well, since the Catholic Church and not the Eastern Orthodox Church is the true Church Grin, I'd say Florence.

This is kind of the equivalent of a guest urinating on the host's carpet is it not Roll Eyes
Logged
francis-christopher
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Richmond
Posts: 366


St. Francis pray for us!


« Reply #36 on: August 29, 2006, 10:42:06 AM »

In nomine Ieus I offer you all peace,

With all due respect I don't see this as big an issue as you all appear to be making it. Our Blessed St. Maximus the Confessor didn't appear to look at it this way and I'm inclined to take his stand on it.

Pax
Logged

Francisce-Christophorus

Sancte Francisce, athleta Christi, ora pro nobis. Amen.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #37 on: August 29, 2006, 10:52:43 AM »

Our Blessed St. Maximus the Confessor didn't appear to look at it this way and I'm inclined to take his stand on it.
What? Urinating on people's carpets?
And why on earth would anyone "stand on it"?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
francis-christopher
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Richmond
Posts: 366


St. Francis pray for us!


« Reply #38 on: August 29, 2006, 11:06:28 AM »

What? Urinating on people's carpets?
And why on earth would anyone "stand on it"?

In nomine Ieus I offer you continued peace ozgeorge,

Please note in my post a 'general greeting'. I am not replying to prodromos' analogy.

Pax
Logged

Francisce-Christophorus

Sancte Francisce, athleta Christi, ora pro nobis. Amen.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #39 on: August 29, 2006, 11:10:23 AM »

[quote author=Αριστοκλής link=topic=9580.msg133723#msg133723 date=1156853768]
I agree; the Church does and the Church did not make any changes.
[/quote]
Yeah it did. At florence. Smiley
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #40 on: August 29, 2006, 11:11:50 AM »

This is kind of the equivalent of a guest urinating on the host's carpet is it not Roll Eyes
I don't think so. I would expect that because I am Catholic, you would know that it is my view point that Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and that I could articulate that view point in the Orhtodox-Catholic section of the OC.net forums.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
francis-christopher
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Richmond
Posts: 366


St. Francis pray for us!


« Reply #41 on: August 29, 2006, 11:24:43 AM »

I don't think so. I would expect that because I am Catholic, you would know that it is my view point that Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and that I could articulate that view point in the Orhtodox-Catholic section of the OC.net forums.

But we, as Catholics, should be respectful in 'another's house'.

Triumphalism is ugly no matter who does it.

Pax
Logged

Francisce-Christophorus

Sancte Francisce, athleta Christi, ora pro nobis. Amen.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #42 on: August 29, 2006, 11:35:28 AM »

But we, as Catholics, should be respectful in 'another's house'.

Triumphalism is ugly no matter who does it.

Pax
It is not triumphalism. I was just stating that I believe that Church did add the filioque to the creed because the Catholic Church is the Church. It has nothing to do with triumphalism. In fact, my Jab at the Eastern Orthodox Church was done in jest. I was trying to be light hearted avout it. notic the smilie face after my comment.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #43 on: August 29, 2006, 11:48:26 AM »

Yeah it did. At florence. Smiley
Yes it did, thanks to this Atlas of Orthodoxy who carried the entire Church on his shoulders:

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
dantxny
OC.net Mineshaft gap
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian
Posts: 769



« Reply #44 on: August 29, 2006, 12:00:57 PM »

Troparion of St Mark of Ephesus Tone 3
Holy Mark, in thee the Church has found a zealot/ by thy confession of the sacred Faith;/ for thou didst champion the Fathers' doctrine/ and cast down the pride of boastful darkness./ Pray to Christ our God for those who honour thee,/ that we may be granted the forgiveness of sins.

Kontakion of St Mark of Ephesus Tone 3
As one clad in invincible armour,/ thou didst cast down the pride of the Western rebellion;/ thou didst become an instrument of the Comforter/ and shine forth as Orthodoxy's defender./ Therefore we cry to thee: Rejoice, O Mark, boast of the Orthodox.
Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.
Panagiotis
Libertarian/Orthodox/Lush
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: The Phanar
Posts: 406


Advocating Liberty Since 1973


WWW
« Reply #45 on: August 29, 2006, 12:40:28 PM »

I seem to be the blunt poster who spurned this "jab" regarding the filioque. I would love to take it back- but I cannot. This "little" issue is one which touches my heart especially when my Protestant companions see it as one of those divisional trivialities which splinter the Church and we (Orthodox) are splitting hairs and should compromise, according to said Protestants. The trouble is if we take our view back what is stopping us from stepping further into heresy by allowing our stances, (BigT)raditions, (little t)raditions and our Faith from becoming something like a minute triviality? We ourselves would become nothing more than a denomination, which the Protestant heretics/apostates in the West already consider us.

We should keep our Creed, our Traditions, our customs and our heritage in Jesus Christ intact. We should compel others into negotiating with us to become us and not the other way around by looking for trivial truths within their heresies as means of unification. Jesus Christ in the Gospels was never an ecumenist to the Pharisees and negotiated peace talks with them. Instead they hid in the darkness and talked with Him secretly as did Nicodemus. The Orthodox Church is the One, unbending Truth which can never be denied because we have kept our faith intact by keeping Jesus Christ as the head of His Church and serving Him, not ourselves to our own ends. Our once Western counterparts cannot say the same to this claim, nor can they deny that their attempt at taking the reins of the Church only separated them from His Church, His truths, and His grace.

Therefore, in sincere truth, I cannot take back my hard-nosed stance regarding the Filioque. It should have been something that was not changed and but instead it was enacted without the consent of the undivided body of Jesus Christ. When this happened it severed our union. But this was only the beginning of the trail of heresies to change before unification could ever occur.

Sadly I doubt there will ever be union between the Orthodox the Roman Catholic Church- Papal Primacy being the issue.

Kyrie Eleison,
Panagiotis
Logged


"The first condition for the establishment of perpetual peace is the general adoption of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism"
-Ludwig Von Mises
francis-christopher
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Richmond
Posts: 366


St. Francis pray for us!


« Reply #46 on: August 29, 2006, 12:54:40 PM »

I seem to be the blunt poster who spurned this "jab" regarding the filioque. I would love to take it back- but I cannot. This "little" issue is one which touches my heart especially when my Protestant companions see it as one of those divisional trivialities which splinter the Church and we (Orthodox) are splitting hairs and should compromise, according to said Protestants. The trouble is if we take our view back what is stopping us from stepping further into heresy by allowing our stances, (BigT)raditions, (little t)raditions and our Faith from becoming something like a minute triviality? We ourselves would become nothing more than a denomination, which the Protestant heretics/apostates in the West already consider us.

We should keep our Creed, our Traditions, our customs and our heritage in Jesus Christ intact. We should compel others into negotiating with us to become us and not the other way around by looking for trivial truths within their heresies as means of unification. Jesus Christ in the Gospels was never an ecumenist to the Pharisees and negotiated peace talks with them. Instead they hid in the darkness and talked with Him secretly as did Nicodemus. The Orthodox Church is the One, unbending Truth which can never be denied because we have kept our faith intact by keeping Jesus Christ as the head of His Church and serving Him, not ourselves to our own ends. Our once Western counterparts cannot say the same to this claim, nor can they deny that their attempt at taking the reins of the Church only separated them from His Church, His truths, and His grace.

Therefore, in sincere truth, I cannot take back my hard-nosed stance regarding the Filioque. It should have been something that was not changed and but instead it was enacted without the consent of the undivided body of Jesus Christ. When this happened it severed our union. But this was only the beginning of the trail of heresies to change before unification could ever occur.

Sadly I doubt there will ever be union between the Orthodox the Roman Catholic Church- Papal Primacy being the issue.

Kyrie Eleison,
Panagiotis

In nomine Ieus I offer you much filial affection and peace Panagiotis,

Well, I can of course respect your view on the matter but If you consider Blessed St. Maximus the Confessor as orthodox then I would offer his voice for further reflection. As a Roman Catholic I can only say that in the context of history many in the western Church felt a deep need to add the Filioque to more deeply illuminate the truth of our Creed. I have deep conviction that such was not arbitrary nor was it offering an understanding of our doctrine on the Trinity which was heretical although I will admit that some have evolved heterodox views which are in need of correction.

In my humble opinion I believe it is always a risk to cling to a disagreement for the sheer purpose of maintaining division, or identity for such division, if such a disagreement is simply not there. Such is not orthodox nor is it particularly Christian in my humble opinion. Whither this is one of those cases is ultimately left at the feet of those who desire to more deeply dialogue with Theologians on both sides of the divide. I pray that such dialogues bear fruit. Amen.

Pax.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2006, 01:07:11 PM by francis-christopher » Logged

Francisce-Christophorus

Sancte Francisce, athleta Christi, ora pro nobis. Amen.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #47 on: August 29, 2006, 01:21:20 PM »



Sadly I doubt there will ever be union between the Orthodox the Roman Catholic Church- Papal Primacy being the issue.

Kyrie Eleison,
Panagiotis
I must agree that communion between CAtholics and the Eastern Orthodox would be highly unlikely. My reasons? Well take to falling two situations into account:
1) If all the eastern orthodox patriarchs in the world suddenly said, "we are wrong" and joined back up with the Catholic Church, some eastern orthodox clergy and laymen would say this is heresy, and there would be a schism between the different eastern orthodox believers. Thus, some would be in communion with Rome and others would not.
2) If the pope suddenly said, "We were wrong" and joined the Eastern Orthodox Church, even taking most of the bishops with him, orthodox Catholics like myself would have to believe that the Pope was not a true Pope but an anti-Pope and thus believe the chair of peter is empty. In effect we would remain Catholics as sedevacantists. And thus there would still be a Catholic Church outside of the Easten Orthdox.
Many blessings in Christ.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Panagiotis
Libertarian/Orthodox/Lush
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: The Phanar
Posts: 406


Advocating Liberty Since 1973


WWW
« Reply #48 on: August 29, 2006, 01:24:47 PM »

Quote
In my humble opinion I believe it is always a risk to cling to a disagreement for the sheer purpose of maintaining division if such a disagreement is simply not there. Such is not orthodox nor is it particularly Christian in my humble opinion. Whither this is one of those cases is ultimately left at the feet of those who desire to more deeply dialogue with Theologians on both sides of the divine. I pray that such dialogues bear fruit. Amen.
So what do we do then? Should we accept the alteration and then what next do we give into? When will Rome give in? Is this "big brother" in the West trying to push its weight onto the "broken" East? Are the Orthodox painted again as "stubborn" for holding onto Truth and ceasing change? How much do we have to give up for our "precious dialogues"? Is it until we simply bare the Papacy on our shoulders and have our Patriarchs bow to the Papacy as the voice of Infallibility and ruler of the Church? Such an act would splinter us again and again.

Peaceful negotiations under the guise of dialogue only make one admit fault and one admit truth. Rome has never altered itself to the East in negotiation from what I know since the Schism nor has Rome pondered the Filioque to ever be removed for what I know. Until Rome relinquishes some of its heresies, it is in error and needs to come back to the truth.

Christ is in our midst,
Panagiotis
Logged


"The first condition for the establishment of perpetual peace is the general adoption of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism"
-Ludwig Von Mises
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #49 on: August 29, 2006, 01:34:04 PM »

Yeah it did. At florence. Smiley

Proof of that is self-evident. Coerced councils do not count, obviously.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #50 on: August 29, 2006, 01:42:15 PM »

I must agree that communion between CAtholics and the Eastern Orthodox would be highly unlikely. My reasons? Well take to falling two situations into account:
1) If all the eastern orthodox patriarchs in the world suddenly said, "we are wrong" and joined back up with the Catholic Church, some eastern orthodox clergy and laymen would say this is heresy, and there would be a schism between the different eastern orthodox believers. Thus, some would be in communion with Rome and others would not.

Doesn't take a crystal ball to predict that, does it?
The Church's natural defense - equality among bishops insures protection.
Quote
2) If the pope suddenly said, "We were wrong" and joined the Eastern Orthodox Church, even taking most of the bishops with him, orthodox Catholics like myself would have to believe that the Pope was not a true Pope but an anti-Pope and thus believe the chair of peter is empty. In effect we would remain Catholics as sedevacantists. And thus there would still be a Catholic Church outside of the Easten Orthdox.
Many blessings in Christ.

Yes, we are aware of the Catch-22 Rome has put herself in with that Infallibility rot. IMO, the Schism was not final until 1871. It is now, irretrievably so.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2006, 01:42:42 PM by ΑριστÎÂà » Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
francis-christopher
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Richmond
Posts: 366


St. Francis pray for us!


« Reply #51 on: August 29, 2006, 02:08:36 PM »

So what do we do then? Should we accept the alteration and then what next do we give into? When will Rome give in? Is this "big brother" in the West trying to push its weight onto the "broken" East? Are the Orthodox painted again as "stubborn" for holding onto Truth and ceasing change? How much do we have to give up for our "precious dialogues"? Is it until we simply bare the Papacy on our shoulders and have our Patriarchs bow to the Papacy as the voice of Infallibility and ruler of the Church? Such an act would splinter us again and again.

In nomine Ieus I offer you continued peace panagiotis,

To dialogue one gives nothing but one's time as is clearly seen on this forum but I believe we must be patient and reflect deeply on what the Filioque means for those in the west and what it's absense means for those in the east. With regards to 'holding onto Truth and ceasing change' I would suggest that we, as the Church of the Living God have been in a state of dynamic participation with the divine nature since the first Apostolic Council. Perhaps the ultimate 'truth' revealed to us is one deposit given to us through God's Incarnation but it continues to be revealed to us in every generation of the faithful in deeper and deeper richness through our continued participation in the Holy Spirit. It is my humble opinion that to deny this ultimately articulates an inert belief and not a Living Faith ever growing in Divine Wisdom. Truly such a perspective can be distorted and misused but never-the-less it is one which I believe reflects the nature of our participation in the Godhead.

Quote
Peaceful negotiations under the guise of dialogue only make one admit fault and one admit truth. Rome has never altered itself to the East in negotiation from what I know since the Schism nor has Rome pondered the Filioque to ever be removed for what I know. Until Rome relinquishes some of its heresies, it is in error and needs to come back to the truth.

If the Filioque is truly heresy, is the Blessed St. Maximus the Confessor a heretic?

It is my belief that our divisions have been polarized over time and it would be a wiser approach to reflect deeply on our teachings and determine if they are merely different perspectives of the same divine mysteries or truly distortions in need of correction. Within the case of the Filioque, I believe it's teaching to be orthodox even if there exists questions as to the legitimacy of the Council from which it was born. That of course is my opinion and you and others are free to disagree with it but I will simply wait patiently for our betters to come together and discuss it. Ultimately I will abide with the decision of my Patriarch.

Pax
Logged

Francisce-Christophorus

Sancte Francisce, athleta Christi, ora pro nobis. Amen.
Panagiotis
Libertarian/Orthodox/Lush
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: The Phanar
Posts: 406


Advocating Liberty Since 1973


WWW
« Reply #52 on: August 29, 2006, 03:12:45 PM »

Quote
To dialogue one gives nothing but one's time as is clearly seen on this forum but I believe we must be patient and reflect deeply on what the Filioque means for those in the west and what it's absense means for those in the east.
This is the same thing St. Maximos the Confessor related. Charlemagne changed this, with the support of the Papacy.

Quote
With regards to 'holding onto Truth and ceasing change' I would suggest that we, as the Church of the Living God have been in a state of dynamic participation with the divine nature since the first Apostolic Council.
I disagree, on the grounds of Roman Catholic Doctrine established after the schism which have altered its course to regard my next stated position below this:

Quote
Perhaps the ultimate 'truth' revealed to us is one deposit given to us through God's Incarnation but it continues to be revealed to us in every generation of the faithful in deeper and deeper richness through our continued participation in the Holy Spirit. It is my humble opinion that to deny this ultimately articulates an inert belief and not a Living Faith ever growing in Divine Wisdom. Truly such a perspective can be distorted and misused but never-the-less it is one which I believe reflects the nature of our participation in the Godhead.
Progressive theology i.e. every generation of Christians grow closer with new revelation is a deviation from the Early Church Fathers. I reject the position of "the saints in one age could have a deeper understanding of the faith than saints in another". This Western ideal, which I upheld in my earlier years is now more foreign to me than ever. How could anyone claim to be as closer to the truth than say, St. John the Apostle, St. Polycarp or St. Vasilios? Teresa of Avila has wisdom, but I could never say that she had a new revelation to give or even be closer than the three I mentioned though I profess to have no insight into their hearts except through the legacy they left behind. So essentially with this type of thinking, every generation is given more and more of God's revelation. Well it is definitely not visible.

Quote
If the Filioque is truly heresy, is the Blessed St. Maximus the Confessor a heretic?
No. He put a band-aid on the issue and attempted to keep the peace. The Devil within Charlemagne put the bullet in St. Maximos' dialogue.

Quote
t is my belief that our divisions have been polarized over time and it would be a wiser approach to reflect deeply on our teachings and determine if they are merely different perspectives of the same divine mysteries or truly distortions in need of correction. Within the case of the Filioque, I believe it's teaching to be orthodox even if there exists questions as to the legitimacy of the Council from which it was born. That of course is my opinion and you and others are free to disagree with it but I will simply wait patiently for our betters to come together and discuss it. Ultimately I will abide with the decision of my Patriarch.
And may our betters come to the Truth and be able to humbly lay aside heresy.

Blessings,
Panagiotis
Logged


"The first condition for the establishment of perpetual peace is the general adoption of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism"
-Ludwig Von Mises
francis-christopher
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Richmond
Posts: 366


St. Francis pray for us!


« Reply #53 on: August 29, 2006, 04:25:30 PM »

This is the same thing St. Maximos the Confessor related. Charlemagne changed this, with the support of the Papacy.

In nomine Ieus I offer you continued peace Panagiotis,

I do believe, regardless of the historical baggage thrown around to obscure it, it to be a wisest course of action to take, then and now. Please be aware that 'many' Orthodox and Catholic Saints articulated what the western Church expressed in the inclusion of the Filioque. it was nothing new nor innovative and it was clearly not heretical.

As early as St. Athanasius (d. 373), in at least three places, refers to the "dependence in origination of the Spirit in the Son." He uses the expression para tou Logou in Contra Arian. III, 24 (PG 26, 376A) - Ad Ser. I, 20 (PG 26, 580A) - Id., III, 5 (PG 26, 632C).

My beloved St. Epiphanius (367-403) refers to the Spirit as proceeding from the Father and receiving from the Son in Ancoratus, 6 (PG 43, 25C) - Id., 7 (PG 43, 28A) - Id., 11 (PG 43, 36C) - Id., 67 (PG 43, 137B) - Id., 73 (PG 43, 153A) - Id., 120 (PG 43, 236 B) - Panarion, Haer. LXII (PG 41, 1056). He also said that the Spirit is "has his consubstantial being" from the Father and the Son in  Ancoratus, 8 (PG 43, 29C) - Id., 9 (PG 43, 32C) - Id., 67 (PG 43, 137B) - Id., 70 (PG 43, 148A) - Id., 71 (PG 43, 148B) - Id., 72 (PG 43, 152B) - Id., 75 (PG 43, 157A) - Panarion, Haer. LXIX, 54 (PG 42, 285D).

St. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) used a great variety of formulae to express the relationship between the Spirit and the Son:

The Spirit is proper to the Son in Comm. in Ioel XXXV (PG 71, 377D) --De recta fide ad Theod. XXXVII (PG 76, 1189A) --De SS. Trin. Dial. VII (PG 75, 1093A) --Comm. in Ioan. II (PG 71, 212B) He comes from the Son - see texts above; He proceeds from the Son in Adv. Nest. IV, 1 (PG 76, 173A-B); He proceeds from the Father and the Son in De recta fide ad Reg. Or. alt. LI (PG 76, 1408B) - De ador. I (PG 68, 148A); He proceeds from the Father through the Son in De ador. I (PG 68, 148A) - Adv. Nest. IV, 3 (PG 76, 184D)

I have already mentioned the evidence from St. Maximus the Confessor for the "through the Son." He also used the expression: dia mesou tou Logou, "by means of the Word." - Quaestiones et dubia, Interr. XXXIV (PG 90, 813B).

As much as I can appreciate St. Photius, I ultimately believe he used this thorne to create great division between the East and the West through polemics and polarization. Much of modern polemics for this comes from Photius and his rhetoric. Upon deeper reflection I do believe that we can and well heal the wounds which such activities have borne on both sides and the orthodoxy and catholicity of the Filioque will be brought to the light of day. Amen.

Quote
Progressive theology i.e. every generation of Christians grow closer with new revelation is a deviation from the Early Church Fathers. I reject the position of "the saints in one age could have a deeper understanding of the faith than saints in another". This Western ideal, which I upheld in my earlier years is now more foreign to me than ever. How could anyone claim to be as closer to the truth than say, St. John the Apostle, St. Polycarp or St. Vasilios? Teresa of Avila has wisdom, but I could never say that she had a new revelation to give or even be closer than the three I mentioned though I profess to have no insight into their hearts except through the legacy they left behind. So essentially with this type of thinking, every generation is given more and more of God's revelation. Well it is definitely not visible.

As much as I would love to discuss this, this position has little bearing to a discussion of the Filioque. I would like to address this on perhaps another thread though.

Quote
No. He put a band-aid on the issue and attempted to keep the peace. The Devil within Charlemagne put the bullet in St. Maximos' dialogue. And may our betters come to the Truth and be able to humbly lay aside heresy.

Just be sure whom you believe on this matter. I have listed the ones whom I am willing to stand or fall.

Pax
Logged

Francisce-Christophorus

Sancte Francisce, athleta Christi, ora pro nobis. Amen.
Panagiotis
Libertarian/Orthodox/Lush
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: The Phanar
Posts: 406


Advocating Liberty Since 1973


WWW
« Reply #54 on: August 29, 2006, 08:19:28 PM »

Quote
Just be sure whom you believe on this matter. I have listed the ones whom I am willing to stand or fall.
I guess let us first look to the Sacred Scripture for where this orignal quotation came from:
The original text used in the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church for the Nicene Creed
John 15:26 "When the Paraclete comes, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father — and whom I myself will send from the Father — he will bear witness on my behalf." New Jerusalem Translation.

The original is written as so:


"You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Do you tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, and I will then explain to you the physiology of the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God."
— Saint Gregory the Theologian

"We have learned that there is a difference between begetting and procession, but the nature of the difference we in no wise understand."
— Saint John of Damascus

Pope Leo III (795-816) forbade any interpolations or alterations in the Nicene Creed. He ordered the Creed, without Filioque, to be engraved in Latin and Greek on two silver plates on the wall of St. Peter's in Rome.

St. Gregory of Nazianzus, the Theologian, in fact, characterizes the Spirit's relationship of origin from the Father by the proper term ekporeusis, distinguishing it from that of procession (to proienai) which the Spirit has in common with the Son. "The Spirit is truly the Spirit proceeding (proion) from the Father, not by filiation, for it is not by generation, but by ekporeusis" (Discourse 39. 12, Sources chretiennes 358, p. 175).

Even if St. Cyril of Alexandria happens at times to apply the verb ekporeusthai to the Son's relationship of origin from the Father, he never uses it for the relationship of the Spirit to the Son (c.f. Commentary on St. John, X, 2, P.G. 74, 910D; Ep 55, P.G. 77, 316D, etc.). Even for St. Cyril, the term ekporeusis as distinct from the term "proceed" (proienai), can only characterize a relationship of origin to the principle without principle of the Trinity: the Father.

Everything I posted I received from this site.
Since I am a relatively new convert to Orthodoxy, I am ignorant as to which Saint I have read who said what, when and where. LOL There are so many to dig through to find this particular topic, so I just quoted from this site.

Blessings,
Panagiotis
« Last Edit: August 29, 2006, 08:20:24 PM by Panagiotis » Logged


"The first condition for the establishment of perpetual peace is the general adoption of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism"
-Ludwig Von Mises
francis-christopher
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Richmond
Posts: 366


St. Francis pray for us!


« Reply #55 on: August 29, 2006, 09:08:46 PM »

I guess let us first look to the Sacred Scripture for where this orignal quotation came from:
The original text used in the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church for the Nicene Creed
John 15:26 "When the Paraclete comes, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father — and whom I myself will send from the Father — he will bear witness on my behalf." New Jerusalem Translation.

In nomine Ieus I offer you continued peace Panagiotis,

Let me say that it is all fine and well to draw from resources like this website but be aware that such resources are available to champion a particular point-of-view. So just be careful from which fountains you draw nourishment.

Quote
"You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Do you tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, and I will then explain to you the physiology of the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God."— Saint Gregory the Theologian

This is one of many struggles which the Fathers contended with when reflecting on the Sacred Scriptures and what it spoke concerning the nature of God.

Quote
"We have learned that there is a difference between begetting and procession, but the nature of the difference we in no wise understand."— Saint John of Damascus

Again our Fathers continued to struggle with these terms which suggest ‘changes of states’ within an ‘immutable’ and ‘perfect’ God. This has little bearing on the Filioque.

Quote
Pope Leo III (795-816) forbade any interpolations or alterations in the Nicene Creed. He ordered the Creed, without Filioque, to be engraved in Latin and Greek on two silver plates on the wall of St. Peter's in Rome.

A couple of thoughts:

First, it is quite right that Leo affirmed the Constantinopolitan Creed. It is the Creed of the Church. It is wholly right, good, and true. Roman Catholics don't dispute this. In fact, most Eastern Catholics sing the Creed that way. The present pope has sung it that way, too. But, I would posit, the Creed with the Filioque is also wholly right, good, and true.

(2) The idea of the inviolability of the Creed is both true and false. It is true that no new faith may be introduced. It is false that there may be no actual expansion of the Creed that clarifies and solidifies the faith.

from an old essay:

Just as at the First Council of Nicea (325), the Creed ("of the 318 Fathers," i.e., of the 318 bishops at Nicea) agreed upon simply states: Kai eis to Hagion Pneuma. It says nothing about the procession of the Spirit, or His adoration or glorification, etc. This was "remedied" at the First Council of Constantinople (381). But the Constantinopolitan Creed (the "Creed of the 150 Fathers") was not immediately agreed upon by the whole Church, and both Creeds existed side-by-side. The agreement happened only at Chalcedon (451). Even then, the Fathers of that great Council proposed yet another credal formulation that concentrates on Christological definitions. But wait, we're not done yet. The Third Council of Constantinople (680) "enlarged the Creed of Chalcedon, notwithstanding the solemn prohibition of the Council of Chalcedon, by adding a horos, or dogmatic definition to the effect that Jesus Christ had two distinct and inseparable wills," etc.--Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (1931), vol. 2, p. 72. The Creed has been neither as static nor as exhaustive as you might believe. The Filioque is yet another addition to our credal understanding.

And this from another essay:

The history of the Creed makes clear that it was never as sacrosanct as the Orthodox would make it out to be. There are even differences between the Greek and Latin textus recepti about which the Orthodox don't complain (the Latin has the additional Deum de Deo ("God from God") clause, e.g., which DOES appear in the Creed of Nicea but NOT in the Creed of Constantinople).

Quote
St. Gregory of Nazianzus, the Theologian, in fact, characterizes the Spirit's relationship of origin from the Father by the proper term ekporeusis, distinguishing it from that of procession (to proienai) which the Spirit has in common with the Son. "The Spirit is truly the Spirit proceeding (proion) from the Father, not by filiation, for it is not by generation, but by ekporeusis" (Discourse 39. 12, Sources chretiennes 358, p. 175).

Please note that the Filioque does not dispute the procession from the Father in the since of origin but proceeding.

The problem is one of translation. The Latin processio is used in two senses, originating (which the Spirit does from the Father alone) and proceeding (more specifically) (which the Spirit does from the Father and the Son, or through the Son). Take some time to read these two translations:

But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me. - John 15:26 DRB

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: - John 15:26 KJVA

Are you getting the western point? We're not suggesting that the original Creed was in error but due to disputes with Muslims in Spain the western Church felt the need to point out that the Holy Spirit did actually proceed 'through' Christ from the Father.

Quote
Even if St. Cyril of Alexandria happens at times to apply the verb ekporeusthai to the Son's relationship of origin from the Father, he never uses it for the relationship of the Spirit to the Son (c.f. Commentary on St. John, X, 2, P.G. 74, 910D; Ep 55, P.G. 77, 316D, etc.). Even for St. Cyril, the term ekporeusis as distinct from the term "proceed" (proienai), can only characterize a relationship of origin to the principle without principle of the Trinity: the Father.

Please remember:

St. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) used a great variety of formulae to express the relationship between the Spirit and the Son:

The Spirit is proper to the Son

--Comm. in Ioel XXXV (PG 71, 377D) --De recta fide ad Theod. XXXVII (PG 76, 1189A) --De SS. Trin. Dial. VII (PG 75, 1093A) --Comm. in Ioan. II (PG 71, 212B)

He comes from the Son

- see texts above

He proceeds from the Son

- Adv. Nest. IV, 1 (PG 76, 173A-B)

He proceeds from the Father and the Son

- De recta fide ad Reg. Or. alt. LI (PG 76, 1408B) - De ador. I (PG 68, 148A)

He proceeds from the Father through the Son - My personal choice  Wink

- De ador. I (PG 68, 148A) - Adv. Nest. IV, 3 (PG 76, 184D)

Pax
Logged

Francisce-Christophorus

Sancte Francisce, athleta Christi, ora pro nobis. Amen.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #56 on: August 29, 2006, 10:33:35 PM »

[quote author=Αριστοκλής link=topic=9580.msg133781#msg133781 date=1156872844]
Proof of that is self-evident. Coerced councils do not count, obviously.
[/quote]
Coerced? LOL. By God maybe. Anyway, the bishop of Rome approved it so that is good enough for me. Smiley
Many blessings in Christ.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #57 on: August 30, 2006, 02:39:47 AM »

Are you getting the western point? We're not suggesting that the original Creed was in error but due to disputes with Muslims in Spain the western Church felt the need to point out that the Holy Spirit did actually proceed 'through' Christ from the Father.

The dispute addressed by the Council of Toledo was with Arian Goths, not Muslims. Given that the Creed sans filioque was sufficient to defeat Arianism in the east, one wonders why the Spanish bishops needed to add it to defeat the same heresy in the west. At best it was an ill conceived blunder to do so. I fully accept what you say about processio but this is the problem. The Creed was written in Greek and clearly speaks not of temporal procession but eternal. Temporal procession through the Son is indeed perfectly Orthodox (and this is what you see in those Fathers who mention any procession through the Son) but it has no place in the Creed as the context means that said procession is eternal.

Of course, discussion of this issue might be easier if the RCC was actually clear on what is meant by the filioque. For every RC who claims the filioque is about temporal procession, such as yourself, I meet at least five who claim that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from Father and Son as of one principle. That is heresy. Your position is not and all it would take for us to accept it would be for the RC to clarify that this is indeed the meaning of the filioque and remove the word from the Creed. Of course, I doubt this will ever happen.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #58 on: August 30, 2006, 06:35:42 AM »

We're not suggesting that the original Creed was in error but due to disputes with Muslims in Spain the western Church felt the need to point out that the Holy Spirit did actually proceed 'through' Christ from the Father.

Can someone PLEASE explain why the Creed was inadequate to defend the Christology of the Church against Arianism and Islam, and what adding the filioque actually achieved towards this goal? I asked this question on this very forum over a year ago, and not one person, Roman Catholic or otherwise has been able to give me an answer to date. So let me ask again:

If the Nicene-Constantinoplian Creed states that the "One Lord Jesus Christ" is:
"the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made."


and that the Holy Spirit is "the Lord, the Giver of Life" Who:
"With the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified."

why was this inadequate to defend the doctrine of the Trinity and the Christology of the Church; and what was missing in this that the filioque "clarifies" for Muslims and Arians?
« Last Edit: August 30, 2006, 08:58:28 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #59 on: August 30, 2006, 07:34:33 AM »

Coerced? LOL. By God maybe. Anyway, the bishop of Rome approved it so that is good enough for me. Smiley
Many blessings in Christ.

I wouldn't expect otherwise  Wink  but he was/is in schism - not good enough for me.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #60 on: August 30, 2006, 07:46:42 AM »

In nomine Ieus I offer you continued peace Panagiotis,

Let me say that it is all fine and well to draw from resources like this website but be aware that such resources are available to champion a particular point-of-view. So just be careful from which fountains you draw nourishment.

.........................

The Latin processio is used in two senses, originating (which the Spirit does from the Father alone) and proceeding (more specifically) (which the Spirit does from the Father and the Son, or through the Son). Take some time to read these two translations:

Why? The Greek original without translation is plain enough.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
francis-christopher
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Richmond
Posts: 366


St. Francis pray for us!


« Reply #61 on: August 30, 2006, 10:37:19 AM »

Can someone PLEASE explain why the Creed was inadequate to defend the Christology of the Church against Arianism and Islam, and what adding the filioque actually achieved towards this goal? I asked this question on this very forum over a year ago, and not one person, Roman Catholic or otherwise has been able to give me an answer to date. So let me ask again:

If the Nicene-Constantinoplian Creed states that the "One Lord Jesus Christ" is:
"the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made."


and that the Holy Spirit is "the Lord, the Giver of Life" Who:
"With the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified."

why was this inadequate to defend the doctrine of the Trinity and the Christology of the Church; and what was missing in this that the filioque "clarifies" for Muslims and Arians?

In nomine Ieus I offer you continued peace ozgeorge,

It clarifies the unique position held by our Lord Jesus Christ as the sole 'door' of participation in the divine nature (i.e. Holy Spirit).

I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. - John 10:9

Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me. - John 14:6

The Creed appears to give preeminence to the Father alone. Do you believe St. Epiphanius of Salamis refutes the Creed with his statement:

"The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son" (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374])?

What of St. Cyril of Alexandria:

"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it" (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).

"[T]he Holy Spirit flows from the Father in the Son" (ibid.).

"Just as the Son says ‘All that the Father has is mine’ [John 16:15], so shall we find that through the Son it is all also in the Spirit" (Letters 3:4:33 [A.D. 433]).

I don't see this as a continuing issue honestly...

The expression "from the Father through the Son" is accepted by many Eastern Orthodox. This, in fact, led to a reunion of the Eastern Orthodox with the Catholic Church in 1439 at the Council of Florence: "The Greek prelates believed that every saint, precisely as a saint, was inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore could not err in faith. If they expressed themselves differently, their meanings must substantially agree. . . . Once the Greeks accepted that the Latin Fathers had really written Filioque (they could not understand Latin), the issue was settled (May 29). The Greek Fathers necessarily meant the same; the faiths of the two churches were identical; union was not only possible but obligatory (June 3); and on June 8 the Latin cedula [statements of belief] on the procession [of the Spirit] was accepted by the Greek synod" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 5:972—3).

Pax
« Last Edit: August 30, 2006, 12:03:14 PM by francis-christopher » Logged

Francisce-Christophorus

Sancte Francisce, athleta Christi, ora pro nobis. Amen.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #62 on: August 30, 2006, 12:51:00 PM »

Sorry, now you're engaging in webological argument.

But then I imagine RCs do have the tendency to "develop" their case.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
francis-christopher
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Richmond
Posts: 366


St. Francis pray for us!


« Reply #63 on: August 30, 2006, 12:54:02 PM »

[quote author=Αριστοκλής link=topic=9580.msg133994#msg133994 date=1156956660]
Sorry, now you're engaging in webological argument.

But then I imagine RCs do have the tendency to "develop" their case.
[/quote]

In nomine Ieus I offer you continued peace Αριστοκλής,

Actually I am asking a question. Please note the question marks populating my many quotes...

Pax
Logged

Francisce-Christophorus

Sancte Francisce, athleta Christi, ora pro nobis. Amen.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #64 on: August 30, 2006, 01:39:23 PM »

In nomine Ieus I offer you continued peace Αριστοκλής,

Actually I am asking a question. Please note the question marks populating my many quotes...

Pax

One question mark, actually. Again, sorry I am unfamiliar with this source so exerpted.

As to Florence, it DID NOT lead to any reunion except with the duped Eastern Catholics. The RC communion is still in denial on the failed efforts.
Have you read Deno John Geanakopolos's Byzantine East & Latin West? A rare treat - a study of the period from first hand Orthodox sources of the council and the silencing/muzzling of the bishops by the emperor, first of all St. Mark of Ephesus along with further treatment of the beginning of the 'western captivity' of the Church including editing the publication of the Pedalion to suit papal tastes.
(Historical and ecclesiatical revisionism rarely holds for long).
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
francis-christopher
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Richmond
Posts: 366


St. Francis pray for us!


« Reply #65 on: August 30, 2006, 02:16:34 PM »

[quote author=Αριστοκλής link=topic=9580.msg134000#msg134000 date=1156959563]
One question mark, actually. Again, sorry I am unfamiliar with this source so exerpted.

As to Florence, it DID NOT lead to any reunion except with the duped Eastern Catholics. The RC communion is still in denial on the failed efforts.
Have you read Deno John Geanakopolos's Byzantine East & Latin West? A rare treat - a study of the period from first hand Orthodox sources of the council and the silencing/muzzling of the bishops by the emperor, first of all St. Mark of Ephesus along with further treatment of the beginning of the 'western captivity' of the Church including editing the publication of the Pedalion to suit papal tastes.
(Historical and ecclesiatical revisionism rarely holds for long).
[/quote]

In nomine Ieus I offer you continued peace Αριστοκλής,

Ouch! I haven't read the book by Geanakopolos' but I'm not opposed to such reading. I am currectly reading Popes and Patriarchs: An Orthodox Perspective on Roman Catholic Claims by Michael Whelton. I'm not sure this is covered particularly but I do know he touches on the Filioque.

Pax
Logged

Francisce-Christophorus

Sancte Francisce, athleta Christi, ora pro nobis. Amen.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #66 on: August 31, 2006, 08:33:16 AM »

It clarifies the unique position held by our Lord Jesus Christ as the sole 'door' of participation in the divine nature (i.e. Holy Spirit).
How does the filioque "clarify" this? If the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, how does that make it "clear" that the Son holds a "unique position" as the "sole door"?
« Last Edit: August 31, 2006, 08:58:17 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
francis-christopher
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Richmond
Posts: 366


St. Francis pray for us!


« Reply #67 on: August 31, 2006, 10:40:29 AM »

How does the filioque "clarify" this? If the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, how does that make it "clear" that the Son holds a "unique position" as the "sole door"?

In nomine Ieus I offer you continued ozgeorge,

Well, in all fairness to you the filioque alone doesn't clarify this but it does attribute the procession of the Spirit to the Son because it allows the second sense of the The Latin word processio to be used and understood to include the Son which, in my opinion is the normative way of understanding it even with reflection of primary Eastern Fathers. This is of course where I am with this whole issue of the Filioque. As I have delved into it so much more is revealed to me. Clearly I have not exhausted my study of it but I find that I am bolstered with what I've found to continue to assert that the Filioque is valid and not heresy as many of my good Orthodox Brothers and Sisters contend.

When the East argues 'origination' we really should be careful how we cling to this because ultimately no part of the triune God is truly generate (unbegotten, begotten, and precedent). I forgot which early Father wrote this but I recall one suggesting that the only 'begotten-ness' of the Son exists solely in his taking on flesh in the Incarnation and the only 'procession' of the Spirit exists solely in him being sent to reside within us from the All-Holy Godhead and to be careful with interpreting the Trinity as a 'process' in or outside of 'time'. I do believe that several of the quotes offered in this thread articulate the real difficulty the early Fathers had with these terms and I continue to believe that a Dogma of the Trinity which ultimately recognizes the 'equality' and 'unity' of all three persons is the most complete understanding of the All-Holy Trinity; at least as far was we lesser creatures can grasp.

Let us remember John 16:13: "All that the Father has is mine".

Pax



Logged

Francisce-Christophorus

Sancte Francisce, athleta Christi, ora pro nobis. Amen.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #68 on: August 31, 2006, 10:54:25 AM »

FC,
You keep coming back to apologetics for the filioque. That's not what I'm asking. What I am askingfor is an explanation of the often made claim that the filioque was "necessary" to counter Islam and/or Arianism on the Iberian Peninsular (or anywhere for that matter). From what I can see, it actually does nothing of the sort.
You and I can argue about whether or not the filioque was heresy until the cows come home, (you say no, I say yes) but I'm not asking whether the filioque right or wrong. What I am asking is "why was it added to the creed"? The answer I've always been given is that it was to counter Islam and/or Arianism in Spain, yet I can't see how it does.
And I still can't.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
francis-christopher
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Richmond
Posts: 366


St. Francis pray for us!


« Reply #69 on: August 31, 2006, 11:14:38 AM »

FC,
You keep coming back to apologetics for the filioque. That's not what I'm asking. What I am askingfor is an explanation of the often made claim that the filioque was "necessary" to counter Islam and/or Arianism on the Iberian Peninsular (or anywhere for that matter). From what I can see, it actually does nothing of the sort.
You and I can argue about whether or not the filioque was heresy until the cows come home, (you say no, I say yes) but I'm not asking whether the filioque right or wrong. What I am asking is "why was it added to the creed"? The answer I've always been given is that it was to counter Islam and/or Arianism in Spain, yet I can't see how it does.
And I still can't.

In nomine Ieus I offer you continued peace ozgeorge,

I thought that I offered you such rationale but perhaps I should offer the kind of arguments I receive from Muslims.

In the earliest articulations of the Trinity we see a certain kind of 'metamorphosis' (i.e. God the Father begets the Son 'before time'). Arians and Muslims attack, in it's most literal sense, as such articulations of the simplicity of God is unnecessary and does injustice to the One True God who is unbegotten and does not beget for He is, was and always 'is' immutable in his nature.

This was a serious concern for the early Fathers who chaffed over the implications of 'complexity' and 'metamorphosis' in the One True God who is immutable. You may also recognize when reflecting on the Council of Florence and Toledo that such topics concerning the nature of God were at the top of discussion.

It is necessary and just to recognize 'equality' and 'unity' in the Trinity and the Filioque ultimately seeks to establish such 'equality' between the Father and the Son which is the been concern for Arian and Muslims. Once equality is established then one can see that the Son is the 'door of all graces' and no 'backdoor' through the Father alone merits further argument.

I will keep this post short but there honestly is a great deal more which we can draw from Sacred Scripture to flesh this understanding out.

I don't think we can need to get argumentative here as I am honestly just trying to express the real concerns the west faced and all of Christianity will face as Islam continues to challenge us.

Pax
« Last Edit: August 31, 2006, 11:47:57 AM by francis-christopher » Logged

Francisce-Christophorus

Sancte Francisce, athleta Christi, ora pro nobis. Amen.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #70 on: August 31, 2006, 05:34:10 PM »

Once equality is established then one can see that the Son is the 'door of all graces' and no 'backdoor' through the Father alone merits further argument.
But equality was already established:

"the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,

begotten, not made,
of one Being/Essence with the Father.
Through Him all things were made."
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
francis-christopher
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Richmond
Posts: 366


St. Francis pray for us!


« Reply #71 on: October 12, 2006, 12:42:03 AM »

But equality was already established:

"the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,

begotten, not made,
of one Being/Essence with the Father.
Through Him all things were made."

In nomine Iesu I offer you continued peace ozgeorge,

forgive me for not picking this topic back up earlier.

I might argue that regardless what one might 'believe' the Credo, pre-filioque' might have affirmed the position can be taken that the 'Son' is ultimately 'less than' the Father by the mere recognition of His 'begotten-ness'. I certain 'sense' of superiority exists between the 'unbegotten' nature of the personhood of the Father and the 'begotten' nature of the personhood of the Son. The additional fact that it is from this 'unbegotten' Father that the Spirit 'solely' proceeds and you have a questionable 'equality'. The appearence of 'inequality' allows criticism from Arians and Muslims as well.

I continued to contend that the filioque was 'valid' and 'trustworthy' and not an error but a 'preceived' need for clarity in the west. I would ask that our Eastern Brothers and Sisters exercise charity and restraint in their criticism of it knowing not the circumstances in which the west was placed which might have legitimately prompted it's inclusion.

Pax
Logged

Francisce-Christophorus

Sancte Francisce, athleta Christi, ora pro nobis. Amen.
Panagiotis
Libertarian/Orthodox/Lush
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: The Phanar
Posts: 406


Advocating Liberty Since 1973


WWW
« Reply #72 on: October 12, 2006, 12:54:27 AM »

After reading this for reasons wasted this evening I have come to one simple conclusion regarding the filioque:

If Roman Catholics feel it necessary to divide for their own reason, let them divide.
Why should we Orthodox argue with them on their reasons for the addition especially if they choose to keep it as a dividing line? It was originally left alone for centuries for good reasons, the Roman Church changed it for their supposed reasons and now they blame us for being stubborn for keeping it in its orignal form. So why argue? Let them slip further into more heresy as they change more truths in the next century by their "illumination".

If I offend any Roman Catholics here, yes it is intentional, but prove me wrong that the RCC doesnt change things every sixty to one hundred years and make declarations which add and fracture their own heresies over and over again. I have grwon tired of the changes seen just in the last millenium and it saddens me when they question why we leave things alone and they do not, as though they have some added illumination to alter what God has clearly set forth into perfection, like the Creed.

Christ is in His Church,
Panagiotis
Logged


"The first condition for the establishment of perpetual peace is the general adoption of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism"
-Ludwig Von Mises
francis-christopher
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Richmond
Posts: 366


St. Francis pray for us!


« Reply #73 on: October 12, 2006, 02:05:31 AM »

After reading this for reasons wasted this evening I have come to one simple conclusion regarding the filioque:

If Roman Catholics feel it necessary to divide for their own reason, let them divide.
Why should we Orthodox argue with them on their reasons for the addition especially if they choose to keep it as a dividing line? It was originally left alone for centuries for good reasons, the Roman Church changed it for their supposed reasons and now they blame us for being stubborn for keeping it in its orignal form. So why argue? Let them slip further into more heresy as they change more truths in the next century by their "illumination".

In nomine Iesu I offer you peace Panagiotis,

You make the assumption that it was the intention for the addition to create division. Although such an assertion places the 'blame' squarely on the shoulders of the West I see no other rationale for one to posit such a position outside of casting blame.

Quote
If I offend any Roman Catholics here, yes it is intentional, but prove me wrong that the RCC doesnt change things every sixty to one hundred years and make declarations which add and fracture their own heresies over and over again. I have grwon tired of the changes seen just in the last millenium and it saddens me when they question why we leave things alone and they do not, as though they have some added illumination to alter what God has clearly set forth into perfection, like the Creed.

Offended 'no' confusion with baseless assertions 'yes'.

You appear to suggest that it was Roman Catholics, alone as a tradition, who added something to ‘what God has clearly set forth into perfection...’ Such a position begs the question... If the Credo was so 'perfectly set forth' why was it repeatedly amended by the Ecumenical Councils? Why are you pointing your assertions of meddling with what God has clearly set forth only on the Romans… convenient scapegoat for your ridicule maybe?

When we show a historic trend of evidence pointing to the fact that the addition of the 'filioque' merits legitimacy and not heresy then it demonstrates a lack of charity in the East and not a desire for division in the West.

Regardless Pax
Logged

Francisce-Christophorus

Sancte Francisce, athleta Christi, ora pro nobis. Amen.
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #74 on: October 12, 2006, 03:06:30 AM »

If the Credo was so 'perfectly set forth' why was it repeatedly amended by the Ecumenical Councils?

Since when can the word repeatedly be used to describe once? First recension was at Nicea, second at Constantinople, and all further changes were forbidden save if made by an Ecumenical Council. Even for the RCC, the council of Toledo (which is the only other to have ammended the Creed) is not an Ecumenical Council.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #75 on: October 12, 2006, 08:52:32 AM »

Sorry, now you're engaging in webological argument.

But then I imagine RCs do have the tendency to "develop" their case.

I think we are missing a very important point here.  The "Filioque" right or wrong has to be debated and approved by a council.  One cannot willy nilly add, subtract or modify the Creed because it sounds more definitive.  If a council approved the Filioque then I will believe in it, but until such council convenes and approves I will not believe what we in the east consider heresy.

Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #76 on: October 12, 2006, 09:02:00 AM »

Again, not my quote...something's screwed up in reply code, methinks.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Panagiotis
Libertarian/Orthodox/Lush
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: The Phanar
Posts: 406


Advocating Liberty Since 1973


WWW
« Reply #77 on: October 12, 2006, 11:54:16 AM »

I debated whether or not responding to this, but since I decided to I will follow through with it.

Quote
You make the assumption that it was the intention for the addition to create division. Although such an assertion places the 'blame' squarely on the shoulders of the West I see no other rationale for one to posit such a position outside of casting blame.

Who's shoulders should it fall towards? Constantinople? Who changed it for purposes still in question? Who refused to change it back after the heresy retreated it was originally intended to quench? Rome.

Quote
Offended 'no' confusion with baseless assertions 'yes'.
Would you like a list to make a base? I could get you a list of what has arisen since the Schism and lets just see how many things have been added that have clearly separated us from each other to the point of no return. Though we can look at each other and see similiarities, Rome has gone beyond the marker.

Quote
You appear to suggest that it was Roman Catholics, alone as a tradition, who added something to ‘what God has clearly set forth into perfection...’ Such a position begs the question... If the Credo was so 'perfectly set forth' why was it repeatedly amended by the Ecumenical Councils? Why are you pointing your assertions of meddling with what God has clearly set forth only on the Romans… convenient scapegoat for your ridicule maybe?

Two Councils, the First and the Second, are what is used and accepted. Period.And Rome uses something different by choice, outside of what was established. WHy should this be argued foir legitimacy and ridicule? Who is wrong here? Can you honestly tell me that it should remain and still be called the Constantinoplian Creed? No, it is a Roman Catholic Creed when the Filioque is in it.

As far as ridicule is concerned, I have a great love for the Roman Catholic Church. It was the place that made me see and enter Orthodoxy.

Quote
When we show a historic trend of evidence pointing to the fact that the addition of the 'filioque' merits legitimacy and not heresy then it demonstrates a lack of charity in the East and not a desire for division in the West.

What charity is there to show? And I have seen the evidence on the Filioque and it merits nothing. There was no purpose for it. It intentions were sincere, but is it necessary now, or after the heresy it supposedly quenched?

More to follow:

Blessings,
Panagiotis
« Last Edit: October 12, 2006, 11:59:52 AM by Panagiotis » Logged


"The first condition for the establishment of perpetual peace is the general adoption of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism"
-Ludwig Von Mises
francis-christopher
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Richmond
Posts: 366


St. Francis pray for us!


« Reply #78 on: October 12, 2006, 03:53:59 PM »

Who's shoulders should it fall towards? Constantinople? Who changed it for purposes still in question? Who refused to change it back after the heresy retreated it was originally intended to quench? Rome.

As I have posited here I believe a 'very' strong case can be made that the filioque further clarifies the Credo. The assertions that it is 'heresy' is frankly politics plain and simple.

Quote
Two Councils, the First and the Second, are what is used and accepted. Period. And Rome uses something different by choice, outside of what was established. WHy should this be argued foir legitimacy and ridicule? Who is wrong here? Can you honestly tell me that it should remain and still be called the Constantinoplian Creed? No, it is a Roman Catholic Creed when the Filioque is in it.

This gets into a discussion of the authority of a Synod over it's own jurisdiction and the power of tradition from a bottom/top recognition even in the West. Which is what it was. I'd have to look into the details to discuss this in depth.

Quote
What charity is there to show? And I have seen the evidence on the Filioque and it merits nothing. There was no purpose for it. It intentions were sincere, but is it necessary now, or after the heresy it supposedly quenched?

Well I have had multiple dialogues with Muslims where both the Credo and the Scriptures have been used to establish a firm Christocentric view of God. Can it be done without a filioque? Of course but the filioque has helped and I believe it was the motivation for it's inclusion in the West with the Arians.

Am I, personally, concerned about 'keeping it'? Not if it could aid in union no but I believe it establishes a legitimate line of Patristic Thought which has been proven on this thread and elsewhere.

Pax
Logged

Francisce-Christophorus

Sancte Francisce, athleta Christi, ora pro nobis. Amen.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #79 on: October 12, 2006, 05:14:37 PM »

As I have posited here I believe a 'very' strong case can be made that the filioque further clarifies the Credo.
You may indeed believe this, but as the numerous responses in this thread have shown, is it not at all apparent that a "very strong case", or simply a "strong case", or even just "a case" can be made for adding the filioque to "clarify" the Creed. Not only does this thread show that it clarifies nothing, it also shows that it's addition to the Symbol of Faith decreed by an Ecumenical Synod, (particularly after that Synod decreed that nothing was to be altered in the Creed), is unacceptable. So "very strong case" would have to be "poetic license" at best.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
francis-christopher
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Richmond
Posts: 366


St. Francis pray for us!


« Reply #80 on: October 12, 2006, 05:29:39 PM »

You may indeed believe this, but as the numerous responses in this thread have shown, is it not at all apparent that a "very strong case", or simply a "strong case", or even just "a case" can be made for adding the filioque to "clarify" the Creed. Not only does this thread show that it clarifies nothing, it also shows that it's addition to the Symbol of Faith decreed by an Ecumenical Synod, (particularly after that Synod decreed that nothing was to be altered in the Creed), is unacceptable. So "very strong case" would have to be "poetic license" at best.

In nomine Iesu I offer you continued peace ozgeorge,

I'll have to file this post under hostile witness.  Wink

Pax
Logged

Francisce-Christophorus

Sancte Francisce, athleta Christi, ora pro nobis. Amen.
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #81 on: October 12, 2006, 06:19:05 PM »

As I have posited here I believe a 'very' strong case can be made that the filioque further clarifies the Credo. The assertions that it is 'heresy' is frankly politics plain and simple

Pax

It is heresy until proven otherwise by council.
Logged
francis-christopher
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Richmond
Posts: 366


St. Francis pray for us!


« Reply #82 on: October 12, 2006, 06:49:01 PM »

It is heresy until proven otherwise by council.

In nonine Iesu I offer you peace JoeS,

Doesn't the charge of 'heresy' bring with it Damnation?

Pax
Logged

Francisce-Christophorus

Sancte Francisce, athleta Christi, ora pro nobis. Amen.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #83 on: October 12, 2006, 09:38:43 PM »

Face it, folks. the Pope and the Church of Rome messed up with the filioque and has spent 1000+ years defending the indefensible. No amount of rationalization trumps an Ecumenical council. <---note 'period'). They just cannot stomach backing down even where they should.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #84 on: October 15, 2006, 07:08:00 PM »

Face it, folks. the Pope and the Church of Rome messed up with the filioque and has spent 1000+ years defending the indefensible. No amount of rationalization trumps an Ecumenical council. <---note 'period'). They just cannot stomach backing down even where they should.
We cannot back away from truth. And really, there is not much to defend. I could never understand the big deal that Easterners make concerning this issue. I have heard all of the arguements and just seems like fighting for the sake of fighting.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Panagiotis
Libertarian/Orthodox/Lush
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: The Phanar
Posts: 406


Advocating Liberty Since 1973


WWW
« Reply #85 on: October 15, 2006, 07:13:45 PM »

We cannot back away from truth. And really, there is not much to defend. I could never understand the big deal that Easterners make concerning this issue. I have heard all of the arguements and just seems like fighting for the sake of fighting.

What is the Orthodox argument on the Filioque? What do you see it as? Maybe we can show you if you let us know what you see and maybe we can clarify.

Blessings,
Panagiotis
Logged


"The first condition for the establishment of perpetual peace is the general adoption of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism"
-Ludwig Von Mises
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #86 on: October 15, 2006, 07:24:56 PM »

What is the Orthodox argument on the Filioque? What do you see it as? Maybe we can show you if you let us know what you see and maybe we can clarify.

Blessings,
Panagiotis
Has it not been presented on this thread already?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Panagiotis
Libertarian/Orthodox/Lush
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: The Phanar
Posts: 406


Advocating Liberty Since 1973


WWW
« Reply #87 on: October 15, 2006, 08:48:20 PM »

Your interpretetation of what the Orthodox are saying.

Lord, Have Mercy,
Panagiotis
« Last Edit: October 15, 2006, 08:48:56 PM by Panagiotis » Logged


"The first condition for the establishment of perpetual peace is the general adoption of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism"
-Ludwig Von Mises
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #88 on: October 15, 2006, 08:55:09 PM »

We cannot back away from truth. And really, there is not much to defend. I could never understand the big deal that Easterners make concerning this issue. I have heard all of the arguements and just seems like fighting for the sake of fighting.

The big deal is simply this: To the Orthodox the Filioque relegates the Holy Spirit an unequal personage than the Father and Son and it makes the Holy Spirit totally dependent on Both.  You may not see it this way but we do.  It IS a BIG DEAL to us.  This western mindset that the procession of the Holy Spirit is also dependent on the Son is an insult to the council that approved the Creed in it's original form.   It (Rome) alone feels that it can change the foundation of the faith when it so desires.  We believe it takes a council to do this plain and simple.  

Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #89 on: October 15, 2006, 10:08:03 PM »

The big deal is simply this: To the Orthodox the Filioque relegates the Holy Spirit an unequal personage than the Father and Son and it makes the Holy Spirit totally dependent on Both.
Does this mean that you do not see God the Son as equal to God the Father because he is begotten of the Father? Do you see as the Holy Spirit as less than the Father because he proceeds from the Father?
 You may not see it this way but we do.  It IS a BIG DEAL to us.  This western mindset that the procession of the Holy Spirit is also dependent on the Son is an insult to the council that approved the Creed in it's original form.   It (Rome) alone feels that it can change the foundation of the faith when it so desires.  We believe it takes a council to do this plain and simple.  
Well, first of all, for us a council has, Florence. Second, yeah we believe that the Churches in union with Rome can change it. So then, is it a matter of substance to you guys or is it a matter of, we can't accept it just because the West added the filioque without our permission?

Many Blessings in Christ
« Last Edit: October 15, 2006, 10:08:44 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #90 on: October 15, 2006, 10:11:41 PM »

Your interpretetation of what the Orthodox are saying.

Lord, Have Mercy,
Panagiotis
Objection #1: The scriptures do not mention it.
Reply: It doesn't matter if they do or not because the Church accepts both scripture and tradition. Furthermore, It seems implicit in some of the statements concerning the Holy Spirit coming from the Son as well.
Objection #2: The Fathers do not mention it.
Reply: Some of them do.
Objection #3: You can't change the creed.
Reply: The creed didn't exist prior to 325 A.D. and was changed at the next council.
etc...etc...etc..
Many blessings in Christ
« Last Edit: October 15, 2006, 10:11:59 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #91 on: October 15, 2006, 11:53:40 PM »

Does this mean that you do not see God the Son as equal to God the Father because he is begotten of the Father? Do you see as the Holy Spirit as less than the Father because he proceeds from the Father?Well, first of all, for us a council has, Florence. Second, yeah we believe that the Churches in union with Rome can change it. So then, is it a matter of substance to you guys or is it a matter of, we can't accept it just because the West added the filioque without our permission?

Many Blessings in Christ

No, but Rome by adopting the Filioque have lessened the Holy Spirit as I have explained before.   Well you are right on one thing here, and that is, we cant and wont accept it.   
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #92 on: October 15, 2006, 11:54:49 PM »

No, but Rome by adopting the Filioque have lessened the Holy Spirit as I have explained before.   Well you are right on one thing here, and that is, we cant and wont accept it.   
How has that lessened the Holy Spirit? If I follow your logic to its conclusion, the fact that the Son is begotten of the Father would lessen the Son. But neither you nor I believe that.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
dantxny
OC.net Mineshaft gap
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian
Posts: 769



« Reply #93 on: October 16, 2006, 01:20:06 AM »


Objection #1: The scriptures do not mention it.
Reply: It doesn't matter if they do or not because the Church accepts both scripture and tradition. Furthermore, It seems implicit in some ofthe statements concerning the Holy Spirit coming from the Son as well.
I answer that, Yet, these are almost exclusivly western fathers and often fathers that taught other heresies as well.  Further more, many more western and eastern saints have argued against it.  Even many of the popes have argued against it.
Objection #2: The Fathers do not mention it.
Reply: Some of them do.

Objection #3: You can't change the creed.
Reply: The creed didn't exist prior to 325 A.D. and was changed at the next council.
etc...etc...etc..
I answer that: this was done with the consent of the Church.  A few rogue bishops or a pope is not The Church.  Furthermore, the Creed cannot change.  It was added on to, but this was with the consent of the entire Church.  The filoque on the other hand was done by a pope trying to increase his power and done on faulty theology.

"From Spain, the Filioque spread to the Germanic tribe of the Franks (in present-day France). It was embraced by Charlemagne who went so far as to accuse the East of having deliberately omitted it from the ancient Symbol. Pope Leo III (795-816) intervened, and forbade any interpolations or alterations in the Second Ecumenical Synod's Symbol of Faith. He ordered the Symbol — without Filioque — to be engraved in Latin and Greek on two silver plates and mounted on a wall of St. Peter's in Rome. The Franks ignored the pope and continued to use the Filioque. Many historians think Charlemagne used the Filioque in an attempt to justify his claim to be emperor in opposition to the Roman Empire (located in New Rome, also known as Constantinople). The dispute between East and West grew and became the focus of the Synod of Constantinople which met A.D. 879-880. This synod (recognised as the Eighth Ecumenical Synod by Orthodox Christians) reaffirmed the Symbol of A.D. 381 and declared any and all additions to the creed invalid. This synod's teaching was affirmed by the patriarchs of Old Rome (John VIII), New Rome [Constantinople] (Photius), Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria and by Emperor Basil I.

Still, the Filioque continued to be used by the Franks and even spread to other Germanic tribes. Eventually, even Rome began to use the Filioque — at the coronation of Henry II in 1014 as emperor of the so-called Holy Roman Empire. Most historians agree the pope (Benedict VIII), due to his dependence on the Holy Roman Empire for military protection, acquiesed to its use. But from that point, Rome continued using the Filioque. In time, belief in the Filioque became dogma in Roman Catholicism"

Saint Cyril of Alexandria, The Twelve Anathemas, Error 9

We must not say that the one Lord Jesus Christ has been glorified by the Spirit, in such a way as to suggest that through the Spirit He made use of a power foreign to Himself, and from the Spirit received the ability to work against unclean spirits, and to perform divine signs among men; but must rather say that the Spirit, through whom He did indeed work His divine signs, is his own.

Saint Gregory of Palamas
On the one hand, the Holy Spirit is, together with the Father and the Son, without beginning, since He is eternal; yet, on the other, He is not without beginning, since He also — by way of procession, not by way of generation — has the Father as foundation, source, and cause. He also [like the Son] came forth from the Father before all ages, without change, impassibly, not by generation, but by procession; He is inseparable from the Father and the Son, since He proceeds from the Father, and reposes in the Son; He possesses union without losing His identity, and division without involving separation. He, also, is God from God; He is not different since He is God, yet He is different since He is the Comforter; as Spirit, He possesses hypostatic existence, proceeds from the Father, and is sent — that is, manifested — through the Son; He also is the cause of all created things, since it is in the Spirit that they are perfected. He is identical and equal with the Father and the Son, with the exception of unbegottenness and generation. He was sent — that is, made known — from the Son to His own disciples. By what other means — the Spirit which is inseparable from the Son — could He have been sent? By what other means could He — Who is everywhere — come to me? Wherefore, He is sent not only from the Son, but from the Father and through the Son, and is manifested through Himself.


Many blessings in Christ
[/quote]
Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #94 on: October 16, 2006, 07:39:22 AM »

Furthermore, It seems implicit in some of the statements concerning the Holy Spirit coming from the Son as well.
................
Reply: The creed didn't exist prior to 325 A.D. and was changed at the next council.
etc...etc...etc..


Above are two of the weakest arguments I've ever read at OC.net

1) Implicit?
2) So what?
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #95 on: October 16, 2006, 11:33:09 AM »

Objection #1: The scriptures do not mention it.
Reply: It doesn't matter if they do or not because the Church accepts both scripture and tradition. Furthermore, It seems implicit in some ofthe statements concerning the Holy Spirit coming from the Son as well.
I answer that, Yet, these are almost exclusivly western fathers and often fathers that taught other heresies as well.  Further more, many more western and eastern saints have argued against it.  Even many of the popes have argued against it.
Objection #2: The Fathers do not mention it.
Reply: Some of them do.

Objection #3: You can't change the creed.
Reply: The creed didn't exist prior to 325 A.D. and was changed at the next council.
etc...etc...etc..
I answer that: this was done with the consent of the Church.  A few rogue bishops or a pope is not The Church.  Furthermore, the Creed cannot change.  It was added on to, but this was with the consent of the entire Church.  The filoque on the other hand was done by a pope trying to increase his power and done on faulty theology.

"From Spain, the Filioque spread to the Germanic tribe of the Franks (in present-day France). It was embraced by Charlemagne who went so far as to accuse the East of having deliberately omitted it from the ancient Symbol. Pope Leo III (795-816) intervened, and forbade any interpolations or alterations in the Second Ecumenical Synod's Symbol of Faith. He ordered the Symbol — without Filioque — to be engraved in Latin and Greek on two silver plates and mounted on a wall of St. Peter's in Rome. The Franks ignored the pope and continued to use the Filioque. Many historians think Charlemagne used the Filioque in an attempt to justify his claim to be emperor in opposition to the Roman Empire (located in New Rome, also known as Constantinople). The dispute between East and West grew and became the focus of the Synod of Constantinople which met A.D. 879-880. This synod (recognised as the Eighth Ecumenical Synod by Orthodox Christians) reaffirmed the Symbol of A.D. 381 and declared any and all additions to the creed invalid. This synod's teaching was affirmed by the patriarchs of Old Rome (John VIII), New Rome [Constantinople] (Photius), Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria and by Emperor Basil I.

Still, the Filioque continued to be used by the Franks and even spread to other Germanic tribes. Eventually, even Rome began to use the Filioque — at the coronation of Henry II in 1014 as emperor of the so-called Holy Roman Empire. Most historians agree the pope (Benedict VIII), due to his dependence on the Holy Roman Empire for military protection, acquiesed to its use. But from that point, Rome continued using the Filioque. In time, belief in the Filioque became dogma in Roman Catholicism"

Saint Cyril of Alexandria, The Twelve Anathemas, Error 9

We must not say that the one Lord Jesus Christ has been glorified by the Spirit, in such a way as to suggest that through the Spirit He made use of a power foreign to Himself, and from the Spirit received the ability to work against unclean spirits, and to perform divine signs among men; but must rather say that the Spirit, through whom He did indeed work His divine signs, is his own.

Saint Gregory of Palamas
On the one hand, the Holy Spirit is, together with the Father and the Son, without beginning, since He is eternal; yet, on the other, He is not without beginning, since He also — by way of procession, not by way of generation — has the Father as foundation, source, and cause. He also [like the Son] came forth from the Father before all ages, without change, impassibly, not by generation, but by procession; He is inseparable from the Father and the Son, since He proceeds from the Father, and reposes in the Son; He possesses union without losing His identity, and division without involving separation. He, also, is God from God; He is not different since He is God, yet He is different since He is the Comforter; as Spirit, He possesses hypostatic existence, proceeds from the Father, and is sent — that is, manifested — through the Son; He also is the cause of all created things, since it is in the Spirit that they are perfected. He is identical and equal with the Father and the Son, with the exception of unbegottenness and generation. He was sent — that is, made known — from the Son to His own disciples. By what other means — the Spirit which is inseparable from the Son — could He have been sent? By what other means could He — Who is everywhere — come to me? Wherefore, He is sent not only from the Son, but from the Father and through the Son, and is manifested through Himself.


Many blessings in Christ

Some Fathers and great theologians disagree with what is stated above. As for heresy in the west, the east spent like a quater of its existence in heresy with regard to the incarnation and trinity. Rome, on the other hand, has been a bed-rock of orthodoxy.
Many Blessings in Christ
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
dantxny
OC.net Mineshaft gap
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian
Posts: 769



« Reply #96 on: October 16, 2006, 01:13:16 PM »

Then those fathers are incorrect and definitly in the minorty.
Yes, the East has been in heresy in the past; especially, during the Arian crisis and iconoclastic heresy.  However we have repented.  Rome on the other hand has been in heresy for over half its existence and has shown no motive to repent, instead relying on its pride and history of powermongering.  What's your point?
Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #97 on: October 16, 2006, 08:40:23 PM »

Then those fathers are incorrect and definitly in the minorty.
Yes, the East has been in heresy in the past; especially, during the Arian crisis and iconoclastic heresy.  However we have repented.  Rome on the other hand has been in heresy for over half its existence and has shown no motive to repent, instead relying on its pride and history of powermongering.  What's your point?
Well, no Rome is not in heresy. But my point is this, you state that western Fathers have taught heresy. Well I say, sure, but so have eastern Fathers, and in fact I think the east has had more trouble with heresy than the west, when it comes to those who are supposedly in the Church. In any case, this whole, well some western fathers have taught heresy thing does not help to bolster you view.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
dantxny
OC.net Mineshaft gap
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian
Posts: 769



« Reply #98 on: October 16, 2006, 09:01:56 PM »

Sure Rome's in heresy.  I have many Church Father's to back me up, especially against such arguments that you have provided.  You dissagree.  So, once again, what's the point?  We can sit here all day calling each other heretics, that's a waste of one's time.  So, what's your point? 
« Last Edit: October 16, 2006, 09:38:32 PM by dantxny » Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.
drewmeister2
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Hellenic Orthodox Traditionalist Church of America
Posts: 415


Christmas at St Markella's Cathedral, Astoria, NY


« Reply #99 on: October 16, 2006, 09:57:47 PM »

Some Fathers and great theologians disagree with what is stated above. As for heresy in the west, the east spent like a quater of its existence in heresy with regard to the incarnation and trinity. Rome, on the other hand, has been a bed-rock of orthodoxy.
Many Blessings in Christ

Orthodox teach heresy according to Catholicism?  Since when?  At least not since Vatican II.  Now your Pope considers the Orthodox to be schismatic at worst, in reality not even that.  If you are going to be under the Pope you might as well believe the same thing he does, otherwise you should seperate from him, if you believe he is wrong.
Logged

Orthodoxia i Thanatos

IC    XC      ...and in ONE HOLY CATHOLIC
    +                   and APOSTOLIC CHURCH...
NI    KA

www.hotca.org | www.YouTube.com/GreekOrthodoxTV
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #100 on: October 17, 2006, 12:21:55 AM »

Sure Rome's in heresy.  I have many Church Father's to back me up, especially against such arguments that you have provided.  You dissagree.  So, once again, what's the point?  We can sit here all day calling each other heretics, that's a waste of one's time.  So, what's your point? 
My point was that your claim that the west is in heresy does not add support to your argument because, objectively speaking, Rome is not in heresy. But you are correct, calling eachother heretics will not get us anywhere.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #101 on: October 17, 2006, 12:22:26 AM »

Orthodox teach heresy according to Catholicism?  Since when?  At least not since Vatican II.  Now your Pope considers the Orthodox to be schismatic at worst, in reality not even that.  If you are going to be under the Pope you might as well believe the same thing he does, otherwise you should seperate from him, if you believe he is wrong.
Catholics are not required to believe everything the Pope says.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
dantxny
OC.net Mineshaft gap
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian
Posts: 769



« Reply #102 on: October 17, 2006, 12:58:34 AM »

My point was that your claim that the west is in heresy does not add support to your argument because, objectively speaking, Rome is not in heresy. But you are correct, calling eachother heretics will not get us anywhere.

So, I guess we're two objectivests arguing subjectivly in an unobjective argument . . . objectivly Wink  unless you wish to analyze it with uncritical partiallity.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2006, 01:18:36 AM by dantxny » Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #103 on: October 17, 2006, 01:04:29 AM »

So, I guess we're two objectivest arguing subjectivly in an unobjective argument . . . objectivly Wink  unless you wish to analyze it with uncritical partiallity.
Grin Wink Grin LOL
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #104 on: October 17, 2006, 09:11:02 AM »

Hi all. Hope you don't mind my coming late to the discussion.

I'd like to start by saying that as a Catholic, I am simply appalled by the Catholic point of view has been presented by my fellow Catholics on this thread. If anyone wants to do justice to the Catholic position and Catholic arguments, I would strongly suggest that you read something like the Vatican's Clarification On the Filioque, rather than a bunch of hear-say from individual Catholics. (Of course, then, I'm an individual Catholic too Smiley )
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #105 on: October 17, 2006, 09:16:01 AM »

Now concerning the filioque being used to "counter Islam and/or Arianism in Spain", the first point to keep in mind is that western Christians didn't believe the filioque because of Arianism; the belief in the filioque was there already, it simply became emphasized more because of Arianism.

Why was that? Well, my understanding is that those countering Arianism sought to emphasize any similarities they could between the Father and the Son. Now the relationship of the Spirit to the Father (ekporeusis) and the relationship of the Spirit to the Son (proienai) are/were both described in Latin by the verb procedere. So, in a certain sense, this is a similarity between the Father and the Son (notwithstanding the fact that procedere has a slightly different meaning in each case -- which I don't think they were too keenly aware of anyway) and hence this is one of the things they emphasized.

Was this line of reasoning short-sighted? In a way yes: after all, obviously there no divine person proceeding from the Holy Spirit, yet the Holy Spirit is equal to the Father and to the Son. But the bottom line is, when we are talking about the filioque in 6th century Spain, we are, at worse, talking about Christians believing the right thing for the wrong reason. (Which isn't all that uncommon. For example, I've actually heard Catholics say that Mary must have been without Original Sin, because if she had it she would have passed it on to Jesus. This reasoning is not only wrong but downright absurd -- it would immediately follow that Mary's mother must have been without Original Sin as well -- but I would say that the conclusion that Mary was without Original Sin is true nonetheless.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #106 on: October 17, 2006, 09:19:37 AM »

ozgeorge, you asked -- leaving the question of why the filioque was believed in to begin with -- why was it added to the creed? First I’d like to quote a couple passages from The Filioque : A Church-Dividing Issue? (An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, Saint Paul’s College, Washington, DC, October 25, 2003)

---------------------------------
The earliest use of Filioque language in a credal context is in the profession of faith formulated for the Visigoth King Reccared at the local Council of Toledo in 589. This regional council anathematized those who did not accept the decrees of the first four Ecumenical Councils (canon 11), as well as those who did not profess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (canon 3). It appears that the Spanish bishops and King Reccared believed at that time that the Greek equivalent of Filioque was part of the original creed of Constantinople, and apparently understood that its purpose was to oppose Arianism by affirming the intimate relationship of the Father and Son. On Reccared’s orders, the Creed began to be recited during the Eucharist, in imitation of the Eastern practice. From Spain, the use of the Creed with the Filioque spread throughout Gaul.

... Charlemagne convened a council in Aachen in 809-810 to affirm the doctrine of the Spirit’s proceeding from the Father and the Son, which had been questioned by Greek theologians. Following this council, Charlemagne sought Pope Leo’s approval of the use of the creed with the Filioque (Mansi 14.23-76). A meeting between the Pope and a delegation from Charlemagne’s council took place in Rome in 810. While Leo III affirmed the orthodoxy of the term Filioque , and approved its use in catechesis and personal professions of faith, he explicitly disapproved its inclusion in the text of the Creed of 381, since the Fathers of that Council - who were, he observes, no less inspired by the Holy Spirit than the bishops who had gathered at Aachen - had chosen not to include it. Pope Leo stipulated that the use of the Creed in the celebration of the Eucharist was permissible, but not required, and urged that in the interest of preventing scandal it would be better if the Carolingian court refrained from including it in the liturgy. Around this time, according to the Liber Pontificalis , the Pope had two heavy silver shields made and displayed in St. Peter’s, containing the original text of the Creed of 381 in both Greek and Latin. Despite his directives and this symbolic action, however, the Carolingians continued to use the Creed with the Filioque during the Eucharist in their own dioceses.
---------------------------------

So from the Catholic point of view, the use of the filioque in the creed went through three phases:
(1) used illegally but innocently (i.e. out of ignorance)
(2) used illegally and in deliberate defiance of instructions from the pope (and other patriarchs)
(3) used legally, having received papal permission (although I would like to add that, even from a Catholic pov, the use of the filioque was still unfortunate , even once it became legal)

Some remarks:

- Of course, I speaking of a Catholic pov, not a general western pov. From a Protestant pov, insertion of the filioque into the universal creed was never illegal. Indeed, I suspect that the very concept of a "universal creed" would be impossible for most Protestants.

- I'm not sure how much we care about assigning dates to the three phases I mentioned; but for what it's worth I reckon that phase (1) began in 589, phase (2) began in 810 or slightly earlier, phase (3) might be said to begin in 1014 (that was the year that the "creed with the filioque" was first recited in Rome -- although I can think of arguments for dating it earlier, and other arguments for dating it later).

- Getting back to ozgeorge's question of "why was it added to the creed?" ... while I hope that what I have said sheds some light, it definitely leaves some unanswered questions: why did Pope Benedict VIII give in to the Carolingians, when his predecessors had been resisting them for hundreds of years? More importantly, perhaps, why did all of his successors follow in his footsteps, rather than trying to return to the policy of Leo III et al? I might have more to say about these questions in a later post, but I'm not going to try to tackle them right now.

God bless.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #107 on: October 17, 2006, 10:23:05 AM »

Thank you for taking the time to put these posts together.
My question was actually more about the reasoning for the Filioque. You say:
Well, my understanding is that those countering Arianism sought to emphasize any similarities they could between the Father and the Son.
But my question of over 14 months ago on this thread remains unanswered:
And can someone please explain to me why the Creed was inadequate to fight Arianism when it already said that Christ is:
"The Only Son of God, Eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, Begotten not made, of one Essence with the Father, through Whom all things were made...."
How was adding the filioque supposed to confirm that Christ is God?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
francis-christopher
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Richmond
Posts: 366


St. Francis pray for us!


« Reply #108 on: October 17, 2006, 11:11:20 AM »

Quote
And can someone please explain to me why the Creed was inadequate to fight Arianism when it already said that Christ is:
"The Only Son of God, Eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, Begotten not made, of one Essence with the Father, through Whom all things were made...."

In nomine Iesu I offer you continued peace ozgeorge,

I've attempt to point out a few times that 'begotten' and 'unbegotten' as modes of 'origination' appear to create a position which Arians 'can and have' argued points to an inequality between the Father and the Son.

To every Muslim I have every dialogued on this issue 'Eternally begotten' is considered a logical contradiction. The earliest Church Fathers couched this in terms of begotteness 'before time' which again is considered a logical contradiction. This has made arguing the equality of the Father and the Son difficult to argue with Muslims and I would conclude Arians.

I am cautious to continue this discussion after being rebuked by my Catholic Brother PJ but I will contend that I have offered, to the best of my knowledge, my understanding of the filioque.

I am ever open to learn more.

Pax

Logged

Francisce-Christophorus

Sancte Francisce, athleta Christi, ora pro nobis. Amen.
drewmeister2
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Hellenic Orthodox Traditionalist Church of America
Posts: 415


Christmas at St Markella's Cathedral, Astoria, NY


« Reply #109 on: October 17, 2006, 11:11:36 AM »

Catholics are not required to believe everything the Pope says.

Yes, but if you see the Roman "Catholic" church as officially saying that the Orthodox are in heresy according to his church, and the Pope is saying otherwise, then the Pope is essentially preaching heresy himself by denying the Orthodox are heretics, and thus he is wrong and you would need to seperate from him (Note to Orthodox members here: this is from a Catholic perspective, not an Orthodox perspective.  Of course I believe that Catholicism is the heresy and not Orthodoxy).  
Logged

Orthodoxia i Thanatos

IC    XC      ...and in ONE HOLY CATHOLIC
    +                   and APOSTOLIC CHURCH...
NI    KA

www.hotca.org | www.YouTube.com/GreekOrthodoxTV
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #110 on: October 17, 2006, 11:22:13 AM »

To every Muslim I have every dialogued on this issue 'Eternally begotten' is considered a logical contradiction.
You've skipped the rest of the quote: "God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, Begotten not made".
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
francis-christopher
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Richmond
Posts: 366


St. Francis pray for us!


« Reply #111 on: October 17, 2006, 11:47:03 AM »

You've skipped the rest of the quote: "God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, Begotten not made".

In nomine Iesu I offer you continued peace ozgeorge,

Yes I understand that but I'm just telling you that all of this comes across as a logical contradiction. Begotten still speaks of 'origination' and origination speaks of a beginning whither we are are suggesting that the Son is 'not made' we appear to contradict ourselves and suggest that the only part of the Trinity which does not originate in some fashion 'inside or outside of time' is the Father alone. This falls right in the lap of a Muslim's or Arian's argument against the Son being equal to the Father. How can something Begotten be 'equal' to something Unbegotten? How can something unoriginate be 'equal' with something 'originate'?

I've been in so many of these discussions with Muslims and I ultimately have to acknowledge that one can and some do misunderstand the Credo even with the help of the filioque but I must conceed that the 'filioque' does help. Perhaps not in the sense that Orthodox hold criticism toward Catholics for belittling the Holy Spirit but it does help to affirm equality between the Father and the Son.

The Orthodox position as holding the Credo sans filioque is 'not' heresy unless they posit an inequality between the Father and the Son. I don't think the Orthodox do this but neither do the Catholics.

Frankly the filioque is not something that I would allow to bar unity if it was my decision.

Pax
Logged

Francisce-Christophorus

Sancte Francisce, athleta Christi, ora pro nobis. Amen.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #112 on: October 18, 2006, 03:15:20 PM »

I'd like to start by saying that as a Catholic, I am simply appalled by the Catholic point of view has been presented by my fellow Catholics on this thread.

Oops, sorry, that was supposed to be "by the way the Catholic point of view has been presented".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #113 on: October 18, 2006, 03:19:01 PM »

Quote from: drewmeister2 on October 16, 2006, 09:57:47 PM
Orthodox teach heresy according to Catholicism?  Since when?  At least not since Vatican II.  Now your Pope considers the Orthodox to be schismatic at worst, in reality not even that.  If you are going to be under the Pope you might as well believe the same thing he does, otherwise you should seperate from him, if you believe he is wrong.
---------------------------------

Catholics are not required to believe everything the Pope says.

Dear Papist,

So if understand this exchange correctly, basically the Pope and the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs are all agreeing that such-and-such belief is orthodox, and you are responding "Not so fast. I say that it's heretical."

If that's the case, then it seems to me that you've really missed your calling. You ought to be this century's Martin Luther.

God bless,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #114 on: October 18, 2006, 03:31:58 PM »

Thank you for taking the time to put these posts together.

But my question of over 14 months ago on this thread remains unanswered:
And can someone please explain to me why the Creed was inadequate to fight Arianism when it already said that Christ is:
"The Only Son of God, Eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, Begotten not made, of one Essence with the Father, through Whom all things were made...."
How was adding the filioque supposed to confirm that Christ is God?

I actually wouldn't describe the Creed of 381 as being "inadequate".

And I'm pretty sure the pope wouldn't describe it that way, either. In fact, the 1995 Vatican clarification affirmed the “conciliar, ecumenical, normative and irrevocable value” of the original Greek version of the creed.

God bless,
Peter.

P.S. I'm a little pressed for time today, but I'll try to post more tomorrow or Friday and give you a more complete answer.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #115 on: October 18, 2006, 03:43:01 PM »

I actually wouldn't describe the Creed of 381 as being "inadequate".

And I'm pretty sure the pope wouldn't describe it that way, either. In fact, the 1995 Vatican clarification affirmed the “conciliar, ecumenical, normative and irrevocable value” of the original Greek version of the creed.


PJ,

Just to head off a potential misconception---

Ozgeorge's statement was that the Creed was fully adequate to fight off Arianism, and so the filioque was never needed in the first place.

It sounded as if perhaps you were about to take this very point. Please accept my apologies if I misinterpreted your introduction.
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #116 on: October 19, 2006, 12:52:24 AM »

Quote
Ozgeorge's statement was that the Creed was fully adequate to fight off Arianism, and so the filioque was never needed in the first place.

The first chapter of St. John's Gospel was all that was needed.  Since Arianism lasted for some time in the West, despite the presence of the Creed - perhaps a different approach was needed. 
« Last Edit: October 19, 2006, 12:56:30 AM by Νεκτάριος » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #117 on: October 19, 2006, 08:59:12 AM »

PJ,

Just to head off a potential misconception---

Ozgeorge's statement was that the Creed was fully adequate to fight off Arianism, and so the filioque was never needed in the first place.

I don't have any problem with that statement.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #118 on: October 19, 2006, 09:11:51 AM »

I am cautious to continue this discussion after being rebuked by my Catholic Brother PJ but I will contend that I have offered, to the best of my knowledge, my understanding of the filioque.

I am ever open to learn more.

Pax

Always happy to help.  Wink

BTW, you might understand my feelings better if you contrast, for example, Papist’s question “If the Credo was so 'perfectly set forth' why was it repeatedly amended by the Ecumenical Councils?” with the Vatican’s statement (already alluded to) of the “conciliar, ecumenical, normative and irrevocable value” of the original version of the creed.

God bless.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #119 on: October 19, 2006, 03:13:41 PM »

Ozgeorge, Chris, and everyone,

I’m not saying that adding the filioque to the creed is necessary, but simply that it is permissible. What’s more, I don’t see Catholics’ ability to use “the creed with the filioque in it” as an unqualified right; rather, I think Catholics can do so as long as they have the pope’s permission. (That’s as regards Latin-rite Catholics. If we’re talking about, say, Maronite Catholics, they can do so because they have permission from the Maronite Patriarch and synod.)

For example, in the time of Leo III, the filioque was permitted for catechesis and personal professions of faith, but not permitted to be inserted in the creed for the liturgy – cf. my earlier post about the “three phases”. On the other hand, the current pope has (thus far, anyways) permitted “the creed with the filioque” to be recited in the public liturgy – as have all the popes for about a millennium.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #120 on: October 20, 2006, 09:53:43 AM »

In fact, the 1995 Vatican clarification affirmed the “conciliar, ecumenical, normative and irrevocable value” of the original Greek version of the creed.

This is the passage to which I was referring:

Quote
The Catholic Church acknowledges the conciliar, ecumenical, normative, and irrevocable value, as expression of the one common faith of the church and of all Christians, of the Symbol professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the Second Ecumenical Council. No profession of faith peculiar to a particular liturgical tradition can contradict this expression of the faith taught and professed by the undivided Church.

On the basis of Jn 15: 26, this Symbol confesses the Spirit "to ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon" ("who takes his origin from the Father"). The Father alone is the principle without principle (arche anarchos) of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source (peghe) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, therefore, takes his origin from the Father alone (ek monou tou Patros) in a principal, proper, and immediate manner. [1]

(The Clarification can be found at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8410/filioque.html . As I've said before, if you want to do justice to the Catholic position and arguments -- and I think it is reasonable to assume that people on this board do -- I would recommend reading that document.)

Thus, Catholics and Orthodox both agree that the ekporeusis of the Holy Spirit is from the Father alone. When Catholics say that the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Father and the Son, the verb we are using is not ekporeuomenon but proeisi (in Latin, procedentum).
« Last Edit: October 20, 2006, 09:59:48 AM by PJ » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #121 on: October 21, 2006, 07:18:48 AM »

I’m not saying that adding the filioque to the creed is necessary, but simply that it is permissible.
"Permissable" according to whom? What authority is there above the Third Oecumenical Council (which strictly forbad alterations to the Creed in it's 7th Canon) other than a sunsequent Oecumenical Council? "Permissible" presumes that the primacy of the authority of the Pope of Old Rome was a reality, rather than the primacy of honour.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #122 on: October 21, 2006, 08:30:45 AM »

Couldn't have said it better myself.

They don't have an answer.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #123 on: October 21, 2006, 09:01:07 AM »

Couldn't have said it better myself.
Well, I could have said it better by spelling "subsequent" correctly. Wink
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Tags: filioque Trinity 
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.372 seconds with 151 queries.