Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[Peter_J]

Down in adoration falling,
Lo! the sacred Host we hail,
Lo! o’er ancient forms departing
Newer rites of grace prevail;
Faith for all defects supplying,
Where the feeble senses fail.
To the everlasting Father,
And the Son Who reigns on high
With the Holy Ghost proceeding
Forth from Each eternally,
Be salvation, honor, blessing,
Might and endless majesty.
Amen.

Council of Trent, Article VIII

With regard to the words immediately succeeding: who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, the faithful are to be taught that the Holy Ghost proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son, as from one principle. This truth is proposed for our belief by the Creed of the Church, from which no Christian may depart, and is confirmed by the authority of the Sacred Scriptures and of Councils.

Both true. But on a positive note, when we say the creed – or more precisely, when LC parishes, which I go to on some weekends instead of my Melkite parish, say the creed – it’s “who proceeds from the Father and the Son”, not “who proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son”. Thomas Aquinas’ hymn is popular, but it isn’t the creed.

 

[Zekariya]

Such theology is not only confusing, it also makes the Spirit inferior to the Father and the Son and not an equal person of the Holy Trinity. Could you also say that everything that belongs to the Father also belongs to the Spirit?

St Cyril does not seem to see that as making the Holy Spirit inferior:

For that the Spirit impresses the Saviour’s Image on the hearts of those who receive Him surely does not admit of question; for Paul plainly exhorteth those who had fallen through weakness into observance of the Law, in the words: My little children, of whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you. For he says that Christ will not be formed in them save by partaking of the Holy Spirit, and living according to the law of the Gospel. Therefore, as in the firstfruits of creation, which is made regenerate into incorruption and glory and into the Image of God, Christ establishes anew His own Spirit in His disciples. For it was necessary that we should also perceive this truth, namely, that He brings down and grants the Spirit unto us. Therefore, also, He said: All things, whatsoever the Father hath, are Mine. And as the Father hath, of Himself and in Himself, His own Spirit, so also the Son hath the Spirit in Himself, because He is Consubstantial with Him, and essentially proceeded from Him, having by Nature in Himself all the attributes of His Father.

• St Cyril of Alexandria, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Book 12

 

[GaryTaylor]

Such theology is not only confusing, it also makes the Spirit inferior to the Father and the Son and not an equal person of the Holy Trinity. Could you also say that everything that belongs to the Father also belongs to the Spirit?
The Orthodox version is much more Biblical. The Father is unbegotten and unproceeding. The Son is begotten of the Father and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son.

Archpriest John W. Morris

The theology protects against heresy namely the Divinity of the Son. Its not only Biblical its consistent with Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa and St Cyril of Alexandria.

Is it more confusing than explaining a double procession? As far as reduction in equality of the Holy Spirit, you’ll have to elaborate. There is no double procession.

Athanasius - We find that the same property that the Son has to the Father, the Holy Ghost has to the Son.

“The Son is the Font of the Holy Ghost”

Cyril- “Since therefore the Holy Ghost dwelling in us makes us comfortable to the Father, He truly proceeds from the Father and the Son, and its clear from the Divine essence that He is essentially in it and proceeding from it, just as breath comes from the human mouth, although this is a humble and unworthy illustration of such a sublime thing.”

Same as Basil and Ambrose are speaking on above.

Also presented by the bishops of Africa to King Hunneric 5th century “We believe that the unbegotten Father and the Son begotten of the Father and the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, are of one substance”.

Synod of Alexandria St Cyril wrote that the Holy Ghost, “proceeded from the Father and the Son” and this letter was latter applauded by the Councils of Ephesus, Chalcedon and Constantinople.

The logic follows as such that nothing can be willed unless first it is known. The Holy Spirit is willed through love because He is known and to the Father and the Son who are eternally in prefect communion, thus the Son being the Word, love precedes from the Word, so too the perfection of love being the Spirit of God both of the Father and the Son. I don’t see a reduction in viewing the HS as I do. Perhaps I’m not seeing something else.

 

[Zekariya]

Synod of Alexandria St Cyril wrote that the Holy Ghost, “proceeded from the Father and the Son” and this letter was latter applauded by the Councils of Ephesus, Chalcedon and Constantinople.

I believe that you are referring to this:

“For even if the Spirit exists in his own hupostasis [sic], and moreover is considered by himself insofar as he is the Spirit and not the Son, yet he is not therefore alien from the Son, for he is called the Spirit of truth and Christ is the truth, and the Spirit proceeds from him, just as undoubtedly he also proceeds from God the Father.” - St Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 17:17 (Third Letter to Nestorius)
From: “The Fathers of the Church, St Cyril of Alexandria, Letters 1-50” translated by John I. McEnerney

Another translation:
“For even though the Spirit exist in His Own Person, and is conceived of by Himself, inasmuch as He is the Spirit and not the Son, yet is He not therefore alien from Him; for He is called the Spirit of truth, and Christ is the Truth, and He proceedeth from Him, just as from God the Father.” - St Cyril of Alexandria, The Three Epistles of S. Cyril, Third Letter to Nestorius
Edited and translated by P. E. Pusey, Oxford, 1872

Ει γαρ και εστιν εν υποστει το Πνευμα ιδικη, και δη και νοειται καθ εαυτο, καθο Πνευμα εστι, και ουχ Υιος αλλ ουν εστιν ουκ αλλοτριον αυτου Πνευμα γαρ αληθειας ωνομασται, και εστι Χριστος η αληθεια και προχειται παρ αυτου, καθαπερ αμελει και εκ του Θεου και Πατρος. - Αγιος Κυριλλος Αλεξανδρειας, Επιστολή 17:17

Nam etsi Spiritus in propria persona subsistat, eatenusque in seipso consideretur, quatenus Spiritus et non Filius; non est tamen ab eo alienus; quandoquidem Spiritus veritatis nominatur; Christus autem veritas est; et proinde quoque abillo, atque a Deo Patre procedit. - Cyrillus Alexandrinus Sanctus, Epistula 17:17

 

[GaryTaylor]

I believe that you are referring to this:

“For even if the Spirit exists in his own hupostasis [sic], and moreover is considered by himself insofar as he is the Spirit and not the Son, yet he is not therefore alien from the Son, for he is called the Spirit of truth and Christ is the truth, and the Spirit proceeds from him, just as undoubtedly he also proceeds from God the Father.” - St Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 17:17 (Third Letter to Nestorius)
From: “The Fathers of the Church, St Cyril of Alexandria, Letters 1-50” translated by John I. McEnerney

Another translation:
“For even though the Spirit exist in His Own Person, and is conceived of by Himself, inasmuch as He is the Spirit and not the Son, yet is He not therefore alien from Him; for He is called the Spirit of truth, and Christ is the Truth, and He proceedeth from Him, just as from God the Father.” - St Cyril of Alexandria, The Three Epistles of S. Cyril, Third Letter to Nestorius
Edited and translated by P. E. Pusey, Oxford, 1872

Ει γαρ και εστιν εν υποστει το Πνευμα ιδικη, και δη και νοειται καθ εαυτο, καθο Πνευμα εστι, και ουχ Υιος αλλ ουν εστιν ουκ αλλοτριον αυτου Πνευμα γαρ αληθειας ωνομασται, και εστι Χριστος η αληθεια και προχειται παρ αυτου, καθαπερ αμελει και εκ του Θεου και Πατρος. - Αγιος Κυριλλος Αλεξανδρειας, Επιστολή 17:17

Nam etsi Spiritus in propria persona subsistat, eatenusque in seipso consideretur, quatenus Spiritus et non Filius; non est tamen ab eo alienus; quandoquidem Spiritus veritatis nominatur; Christus autem veritas est; et proinde quoque abillo, atque a Deo Patre procedit. - Cyrillus Alexandrinus Sanctus, Epistula 17:17

Right, Thanks.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I believe that you are referring to this:

“For even if the Spirit exists in his own hupostasis [sic], and moreover is considered by himself insofar as he is the Spirit and not the Son, yet he is not therefore alien from the Son, for he is called the Spirit of truth and Christ is the truth, and the Spirit proceeds from him, just as undoubtedly he also proceeds from God the Father.” - St Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 17:17 (Third Letter to Nestorius)
From: “The Fathers of the Church, St Cyril of Alexandria, Letters 1-50” translated by John I. McEnerney

Orthodox do not base their theology on one Father. Therefore if the quote from St. Cyril is authentic, it does not really make any difference. No individual Father was infallible. For example, St. Cyril thought that he was quoting St. Athanasius, when he used the phrase, “One nature of the incarnate Logos” but was actually quoting the heretic Appolonarius. We also know that St. Cyril
St. John of Damascus who is recognized as a Doctor of the Church by Rome wrote, “For the Father alone is ingenerate, no other subsistence having given Him being. And the Son alone is generate, for He was begotten of the Father’s essence without beginning and without time. And only the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father’s essence, not having been generated but simply proceeding. For this is the doctrine of Holy Scripture. But the nature of the generation and the procession is quite beyond
comprehension.”
We all know that the filioque was not in the original version of the Creed as approved by the Ecumenical Councils For example, the version of the Creed given by Pope Agatho in his correspondence with the III Council of Constantinople in 680 does not contain the filioque. Therefore, I do not understand the controversy. Why cannot we both agree to use the Creed as written by the Ecumenical Councils? I also do no understand why we cannot simply limit our definitions of the procession of the Holy Spirit to the only one given in the Holy Scriptures which in John 15:26 teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son and leave it at that.

Archpriest John Morris

 

[Zekariya]

I believe that you are referring to this:Orthodox do not base their theology on one Father. Therefore if the quote from St. Cyril is authentic, it does not really make any difference. No individual Father was infallible. For example, St. Cyril thought that he was quoting St. Athanasius, when he used the phrase, “One nature of the incarnate Logos” but was actually quoting the heretic Appolonarius. We also know that St. Cyril
St. John of Damascus who is recognized as a Doctor of the Church by Rome wrote, “For the Father alone is ingenerate, no other subsistence having given Him being. And the Son alone is generate, for He was begotten of the Father’s essence without beginning and without time. And only the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father’s essence, not having been generated but simply proceeding. For this is the doctrine of Holy Scripture. But the nature of the generation and the procession is quite beyond
comprehension.”
We all know that the filioque was not in the original version of the Creed as approved by the Ecumenical Councils For example, the version of the Creed given by Pope Agatho in his correspondence with the III Council of Constantinople in 680 does not contain the filioque. Therefore, I do not understand the controversy. Why cannot we both agree to use the Creed as written by the Ecumenical Councils? I also do no understand why we cannot simply limit our definitions of the procession of the Holy Spirit to the only one given in the Holy Scriptures which in John 15:26 teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son and leave it at that.

Archpriest John Morris

Father, I was providing the quote of which another poster was speaking concerning.

If you could reply to this post of mine, I would appreciate it.

frjohnmorris;11283142:

Such theology is not only confusing, it also makes the Spirit inferior to the Father and the Son and not an equal person of the Holy Trinity. Could you also say that everything that belongs to the Father also belongs to the Spirit?

St Cyril does not seem to see that as making the Holy Spirit inferior:

For that the Spirit impresses the Saviour’s Image on the hearts of those who receive Him surely does not admit of question; for Paul plainly exhorteth those who had fallen through weakness into observance of the Law, in the words: My little children, of whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you. For he says that Christ will not be formed in them save by partaking of the Holy Spirit, and living according to the law of the Gospel. Therefore, as in the firstfruits of creation, which is made regenerate into incorruption and glory and into the Image of God, Christ establishes anew His own Spirit in His disciples. For it was necessary that we should also perceive this truth, namely, that He brings down and grants the Spirit unto us. Therefore, also, He said: All things, whatsoever the Father hath, are Mine. And as the Father hath, of Himself and in Himself, His own Spirit, so also the Son hath the Spirit in Himself, because He is Consubstantial with Him, and essentially proceeded from Him, having by Nature in Himself all the attributes of His Father.

• St Cyril of Alexandria, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Book 12

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father, I was providing the quote of which another poster was speaking concerning.

If you could reply to this post of mine, I would appreciate it.

Christ is speaking of the fact that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are “one in essence and undivided.” Your explanation comes close to Sabellianism which is an heresy first condemned by Rome.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Zekariya]

Christ is speaking of the fact that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are “one in essence and undivided.” Your explanation comes close to Sabellianism which is an heresy first condemned by Rome.

Archpriest John W. Morris

What did I explain? I placed a quote of St Cyril and said nothing else.

“- St Cyril of Alexandria, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Book 12”

I am appalled that you would accuse me (and actually St Cyril) of coming close Sabellianism.

 

[frjohnmorris]

What did I explain? I placed a quote of St Cyril and said nothing else.

“- St Cyril of Alexandria, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Book 12”

I am appalled that you would accuse me (and actually St Cyril) of coming close Sabellianism.

Why? No Father of the Church was infallible. Besides, one quote that could be mistranslated or taken out of context does not prove exactly what St. Cyril meant. I do not understand why the clear words of the Holy Scriptures are not enough to deal with this issue. It is apparent that the filioque as you described it was not shared by the Eastern Church. Therefore, it is not a belief of the ancient undivided Church.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Zekariya]

Why? No Father of the Church was infallible. Besides, one quote that could be mistranslated or taken out of context does not prove exactly what St. Cyril meant. I do not understand why the clear words of the Holy Scriptures are not enough to deal with this issue. It is apparent that the filioque as you described it was not shared by the Eastern Church. Therefore, it is not a belief of the ancient undivided Church.

Archpriest John W. Morris

I was not defending the Filioque in that quote. I was defending against your saying, “Such theology is not only confusing, it also makes the Spirit inferior to the Father and the Son and not an equal person of the Holy Trinity.”

St Cyril of Alexandria never taught the Holy Spirit as inferior and yet he was okay with using such language that you protest. It is one thing for a great Church Father to err and another to teach plain heresy. St Cyril did not teach heresy. Do not lightly accuse others of calling the Holy Spirit inferior.

 

[GaryTaylor]

John 3:35 “The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand.”

The Holy Spirit Promised John 16…

…14"He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.

15"All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He[Holy Spirit] takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.

John 16:7 But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The argument is pretty much as I said earlier. Out of respect I believe the Church ought to concede this one. Because of the Ecumenical Council. But its consistent theology throughout, Scripture, patristic so forth.

 

[GaryTaylor]

St Cyril of Alexandria never taught the Holy Spirit as inferior and yet he was okay with using such language that you protest. It is one thing for a great Church Father to err and another to teach plain heresy. St Cyril did not teach heresy. Do not lightly accuse others of calling the Holy Spirit inferior.

This is why I would rather not debate patristic’s, even my mention earlier of St John, I’m very uncomfortable with all that. I concede no-one is above the Church, but still I’m reluctant to show these Saints in any light but what they deserve.

 

[Catherine_Grant]

Note from Moderator:

I received complaints that Member X called Member Y a heretic and the other way around.

Members are free to discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the liturgy, theology, spirituality, discipline, culture, and history of Eastern, Oriental, and Western Catholicism. While these topics may legitimately be discussed in charity, calling into question the catholicity, orthodoxy, or personal faith of another is outside the purpose of this forum and will not be tolerated.

The Eastern Catholicism Forum’s debate guidelines allow you the freedom to discuss the topic and not each other. Adherence to the debate guidelines is expected.

Debate Guidelines for Eastern Catholicism
No direct or implied you statements unless it is genuine praise.

• You said…
• You need to…
• You don’t get it.
• Why don’t you…
• If only you…
• It is you who…
• You are wrong.
• You misunderstood.
• I’m not the one who…
• Some people here…

No indication of what the other needs to do unless it is genuine praise.

• You need to…
• Why don’t you…
• If you’d only…
• Those of us who have…

Use non-controversial words which have meanings everyone can agree on whenever possible.
Spend your time discussing the substance of the topic and not arguing tangents on words that instigate or inflame the other side.

Use bolds, underlines, font size increases, or other emphases very sparingly.

No hyperbole and no sarcasm in a debate.

• This conversation always…
• Every single time this comes up…
• Aren’t you a saint?

 

[Cavaradossi]

What did I explain? I placed a quote of St Cyril and said nothing else.

“- St Cyril of Alexandria, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Book 12”

I am appalled that you would accuse me (and actually St Cyril) of coming close Sabellianism.

That quote is inaccurately translated. In the original Greek, it speaks of the Spirit progressing (προϊόν), not of the Spirit proceeding (εκπορευόμενον) from the Son. St. Cyril did not fall into the trap of potentially subordinating the Spirit, because he maintained a distinction between the Spirit progressing (προϊόν) from the Son, and the Spirit proceeding (εκπορευόμενον), a clause to which St. Cyril never attaches ‘from the Son.’ It would be to subordinate the Spirit to claim that the Spirit proceeds (εκπορευόμενον) from the Son, because this would ascribe to the Son causality, meaning that both the Father and the Son would share in a common property which does not also belong to the Spirit.

 

[GaryTaylor]

So this has become yet another filoque thread? Oy gevalt …

Only for one reason, as you see I’m still awaiting a response about Fr John Romanides and “First Among Equal” frankly I won’t hold my breath as the last time he didn’t fair well in debate.

The filioque, yup pretty much a done deal also. “elementary” as someone mentioned.

 

[Zekariya]

The quote you posted is inaccurately translated. In the original Greek, it speaks of the Spirit progressing (προϊόν), not of the Spirit proceeding (εκπορευόμενον) from the Son.

I see. Thank you! If you know this from something online, I would like it if you could share it with me. I enjoy being able to see the underling Greek of the Fathers.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I see. Thank you! If you know this from something online, I would like it if you could share it with me. I enjoy being able to see the underling Greek of the Fathers.

Actually, I mixed this commonly mistranslated phrase up with another one. This clause, as given in In PG 74, 716B, is “καὶ ἐξ αὐτοῦ πέφηνεν οὐσιωδῶς.” The verb operating in this clause is πέφηνεν which roughly translates to “has manifested” or “has made known.” The idea is that the Son has the Spirit in himself (by virtue of being consubstantial with the Father), and has manifested the Spirit according to His consubstantiality with the Father (hence the adverb οὐσιωδῶς). This clause (like others from St. Cyril which speak of the Spirit’s pouring forth or progressing from the Son) relates to the eternal manifestation and economic sending of the Holy Spirit from the Son, but not to the Holy Spirit’s hypostatic origin, which we believe to be from the Father alone. This is why we say that the Spirit manifests from the Son, that the Spirit proceeds (using the verb εκπορεύω) through the Son, and that the Spirit progresses (using the verb πρόειμι) from the Son (these phrases all being roughly equivalent), but not that the Spirit proceeds (with the verb εκπορεύω) from the Son.

I don’t really have any good online sources for this, but Edward A. Siecienski’s study on the Filioque (titled simply The Filioque) briefly treats the topic of the different verbs and clauses used by St. Cyril, and how St. Cyril does not apply “from the Son,” to clauses using the verb εκπορεύω.

 

[Zekariya]

Actually, I mixed this commonly mistranslated phrase up with another one. This clause, as given in In PG 74, 716B, is “καὶ ἐξ αὐτοῦ πέφηνεν οὐσιωδῶς.” The verb operating in this clause is πέφηνεν which roughly translates to “has manifested” or “has made known.” The idea is that the Son has the Spirit in himself (by virtue of being consubstantial with the Father), and has manifested the Spirit according to His consubstantiality with the Father (hence the adverb οὐσιωδῶς). This clause (like others from St. Cyril which speak of the Spirit’s pouring forth or progressing from the Son) relates to the eternal manifestation and economic sending of the Holy Spirit from the Son, but not to the Holy Spirit’s hypostatic origin, which we believe to be from the Father alone. This is why we say that the Spirit manifests from the Son, that the Spirit proceeds (using the verb εκπορεύω) through the Son, and that the Spirit progresses (using the verb πρόειμι) from the Son (these phrases all being roughly equivalent), but not that the Spirit proceeds (with the verb εκπορεύω) from the Son.

Thanks for this! Would I be correct in assuming that the other instances in St Cyril’s Homilies on John concerning the Holy Spirit’s procession from the Son are also mistranslated similarly (by E. B. Pusey)?