OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 06:33:25 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 12779 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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: 12,255


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: 12,255


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: 12,255


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: 12,255


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: 12,255


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 .
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 0.182 seconds with 72 queries.