"As From One Principle"

[mardukm]

Not at all. It is a valid and well thought out synopsis of the issue and Latin errors.

When you begin your insults, I know that it has merit.

I recommend everyone to read the article.

I see, no response. Typical.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ghosty]

The rule of “common to two, common to all” is not an airtight rule to begin with. Both the Holy Spirit and the Son receive Divinity, and both are sent to Creation, but the Father lacks these characteristics. Is the Father “less” because He lacks these Personal features?

We must be careful not to push this rule too far.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

I recall when I first became an Eastern Catholic and the term “Filioque” came to my attention. I had never heard it before in all my life as a Roman Catholic (38 years)! I came to my priest and asked him about it. He told me that the Latins were in error by its inclusion and directed me to the Gospel of St John:

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.

---

That’s about it in a nut shell. All the Latin theological hoop jumping and spin doctoring cannot twist this one.** **

 

[mardukm]

That’s about it in a nut shell. All the Latin theological hoop jumping and spin doctoring cannot twist this one.** **

If that were true, surely you’d have some response to what I had written aside from “spin, spin, spin…” We’ll be waiting to see if you can offer a response. Otherwise, your triumphalistic one-liners are pretty hollow.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

I see, no response.

I have given thorough arguments that the Latins are in error through theology and semantics. It has been an issue for more than a thousand years and debated by brilliant theolgians. And yet the “genius” of markudm has shown that it has all been one massive misunderstanding and/or “mere words”—and he has the real solutions.

Buyer beware.

 

[Mickey]

surely you’d have some response

Read the article. It refutes all your Mardukisms.

Scripture gives the best response.

 

[dzheremi]

What do you mean “if that were true”, Mardukm? Did our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ say that as recorded in the Gospel or not?

(I really hope I’m reading you wrong and you are not doubting the truth that comes from His holy mouth for the sake of maintaining your fidelity to the Latin church and its doctrines…)

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ghosty,

The rule of “common to two, common to all” is not an airtight rule to begin with. Both the Holy Spirit and the Son receive Divinity, and both are sent to Creation, but the Father lacks these characteristics. Is the Father “less” because He lacks these Personal features?

We must be careful not to push this rule too far.

You have correctly pointed out yet another inconsistency in the EO polemic against the Latins.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

What do you mean “if that were true”, Mardukm? Did our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ say that as recorded in the Gospel or not?

What are you referring to? Thanks.

Blesisngs

 

[mardukm]

Read the article. It refutes all your Mardukisms.

So your argument comes down to, “I can’t respond.” We already know that.

But can you please demonstrate specifically how your article addresses the arguments I proposed?

Thanks.

Blessings

 

[dzheremi]

It is unclear to me to what part of Mickey’s post you are referring to in post #64 when you state “If that were true…”

If you mean the quote from the Gospels, then of course it is true, but if you don’t mean that then…well, what do you mean?

 

[Mickey]

EO polemic against the Latins.

LOL! Funny how these so-called polemics sometimes eminate from the Eastern Catholics also.

 

[mardukm]

It is unclear to me to what part of Mickey’s post you are referring to in post #64 when you state “If that were true…”

If you mean the quote from the Gospels, then of course it is true, but if you don’t mean that then…well, what do you mean?

Thanks. I was referring to his statement “that’s it in a nutshell.” The issue is more complicated than a reference to Scripture because ever since St. Jerome, there has been a difference in the use of ekporeusai (for the Greeks) and procedit (for the Latins) in that very verse, a difference that translated to the Creeds, and to the distinct understandings of what “proceeding” means in each Tradition.

The issue has gone far beyond an appeal to Scripture. Modern EO have used artifical arguments based on scholastic reasoning (such as the essay given by brother Mickey). I offered a response to the essay, and brother Mickey can’t offer a like response. That’s what it comes down to.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

LOL! Funny how these so-called polemics sometimes eminate from the Eastern Catholics also.

But their source is always EO. Can you point to official or magisterial EC sources that preach or teach against filioque?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

Modern EO have used artifical arguments based on scholastic reasoning

Hey wait a minute—Anselm and Aquinas are your guys.

It is not a modern issue (as I have pointed out). And the merry-go-round logic which the Latins have adopted will not solve it.

 

[Mickey]

But their source is always EO.

Thank God!

 

[mardukm]

Thank God!

Amen! Again we are in agreement. I’m glad the source of these inconsistencies and misrepresentatinos is not Catholic!

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

I’m glad the source of these inconsistencies and misrepresentatinos is not Catholic!

Oh but it is!

 

[Mickey]

My question is: what does “as from one principle” mean? Does it mean “as if he proceeded from both as from one person”? What does “principle” mean in this context? Any elaboration on this topic would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Your question has been answered from an Orthodox perspective…and a mardukm perspective. The debate has been raging for hundreds of years. In the end, the Holy Orthodox Church sees the non-inclusion of the Filioque according to Sacred Scriptures and the creed as formulated in 381AD.

I do not expect the debate to diminish, or the disagreement to be resolved in my lifetime—but with God all things are possible. I am going to bow out of this one-millionth thread on the Filioque because it always descends into a flurry of insults.

Peace and prayers to you dcointin,
Mickey

 

[dvdjs]

Your question has been answered from an Orthodox perspective…and a mardukm perspective. The debate has been raging for hundreds of years. In the end, the Holy Orthodox Church sees the non-inclusion of the Filioque according to Sacred Scriptures and the creed as formulated in 381AD.

I do not expect the debate to diminish, or the disagreement to be resolved in my lifetime—but with God all things are possible. I am going to bow out of this one-millionth thread on the Filioque because it always descends into a flurry of insults.

Peace and prayers to you dcointin,
Mickey

Actually, Ghosty answered the question posed originall, quickly and thoroughly. You are the only EO posting in response and you did not respond to the question about the meaning of “principle”, only on tangential points about who was a filioquist, and the usual quesitons about the meaning of “equally”, “through” and, of all lthings “and”.

The debate is, of course, really over. The is broad agreement from those educated on the matter that this debate is ill-conceived, and that the filioque is not a church dividing issue. That is what the joint theological commissions say. Communicating this to the level of rank and file may be difficult; some seem to relish the interminable debate - raising, even when off-topic, their favorite debate points again and again even in the “one-millionth thread”.