Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[Cavaradossi]

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)?

Most likely so. Often St. Cyril uses verbs like εκχέω (to pour out), πρόειμι (to progress or to advance), εκπορεύω (to cause to go out) and φαίνω (to manifest), which most translators rather indiscriminately translate as to proceed. The problem with this is that it winds up conflating a bunch of verbs together into one verb, which obscures the distinction between εκπορεύω, which has causal implications (as far as the hypostatic origination of the Spirit is concerned), and the other verbs, which do not have the same causal implication as εκπορεύω does.

 

[Zekariya]

Most likely so. Often St. Cyril uses verbs like εκχέω (to pour out), πρόειμι (to progress or to advance), εκπορεύω (to cause to go out) and φαίνω (to manifest), which most translators rather indiscriminately translate as to proceed. The problem with this is that it winds up conflating a bunch of verbs together into one verb, which obscures the distinction between between εκπορεύω, which has causal implications (as far as the hypostatic origination of the Spirit is concerned), and the other verbs, which do not have the same causal implication as εκπορεύω does.

Thanks for clarifying all of this for me.

 

[frjohnmorris]

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.

You are right, I should have looked up the quote myself to put it in its proper context. I apologize to you for not doing that before I responded to the quote from St. Cyril.
After I looked up the quote, I found that the quote is taken out of context. That is the problem with proof texts either from the Holy Scriptures or from the Holy Fathers.
The context of the quote is a discussion St. John 20:21-22 when Christ sent the Holy Spirit on the Apostles by breathing on them thereby giving them the authority to pronounce the forgiveness of sins. St. Cyril is writing about what we call the economic Trinity, that is the work of the Trinity for our salvation. He is simply expressing the concept that the Holy Spirit is sent by or through the Son. He is not writing about the ontological Trinity or claiming that the origin of the Holy Spirit is the Father and the Son. Therefore it cannot be applied to the Creed, because the Creed is a discussion of the ontological Trinity.
In another place in the same book 12 of his commentary on the Gospel of St. John he wrote, “After dignifying the holy Apostles with the glorious distinction of the apostleship, and appointing them ministers and priests of the Divine Altar, as I have just said, He at once sanctifies them by vouchsafing His Spirit unto them, through the outward sign of His Breath, that we might be firmly convinced that the Holy Spirit is not alien to the Son, but Consubstantial with Him, and through Him proceeding from the Father; He shows that the gift of the Spirit necessarily attends those who are ordained by Him to be Apostles of God.”
Therefore, this quote from St. Cyril cannot be used to justify the doctrine of the filioque if it is taken to mean the double procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[GaryTaylor]

Its from the “Treasury of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity” which is all valid the only question is the actual date which the debate is argued from 425 to earlier at 412. He borrowed heavily from Athanasius “Discourse’s against the Arians” supposedly.

 

[GaryTaylor]

In fact from briefly going through it I would say he used the methodology of the Arians and Appollinarists against them. Pretty sure this helped contribute to his title of Dr of the Church?

 

[Misplaced_Book]

I say until you resolve the “First Among Equals” fairy tale marched out here, then this is me “ignoring” you.

As I said it does not exist in the Church. When you concede this then we can move on. Its called “progress”. If that doesn’t start somewhere then we will just be speaking past each other. Usually that’s a re-occurring theme here with this specific dialogue.

Wow.

Fairy Tale? Is that really the road we’re going down?

I said before that “First Among Equals” describes a relationship, not some ironclad doctrine or “infallible teaching.” It isn’t spelled out in some document or proof text (that I have seen) but describes how the various Apostolic Sees viewed Rome. The other Sees showed deference to Rome, and a deep respect. But fraternal deference does not equal acknowledging Rome’s right to depose or install bishops at will, override the decisions of local synods or otherwise “Lord it over them” Even though Christ explicitly said that “it would not be so with them” (them being the Apostles). You misconstrue the love and deference that the different Sees expressed as some kind of sign that they were “subject” to the Roman Pontiff. Reading Ultramontane view points into history is futile and inaccurate. I will let others speak on the deeper theological questions (Cavaradossi is more knowledgable than me) but if you dismiss his arguments as well, than nothing I could say will make any difference.

You can “ignore” me all you like, and you can even have the last word. What I wrote was not for you, but for others who might be following this dialogue. Rome has no monopoly on the word “Catholic”, the Church Fathers, or anything else for that matter. This will be my last post in this thread.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Zekariya;11283254:

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

A more correct translation of the above would be “…Christ is the Truth and he is sent by him…” The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series Two. Volume XIV p. 204.
This is exactly what is taught in John 15:26. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son. Therefore, translated correctly, St. Cyril of Alexandria cannot be used to support the doctrine of the double procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.
Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Peter_J]

Is that really the road we’re going down?

Well, I always hope the conversation will take a high road; but I’ve found over the years that the internet really lends itself to “lowest common denominator” (at the risk of sounding cliche). :sigh:

 

[frjohnmorris]

After further research, I am not sure that Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism really differ on the issue of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. I am not sure that the real disagreement is differences between the Greek and Latin language. The Greek word translated proceeds (ekporeusis) means the sole origin of the Spirit from the Father, while the Latin word, (processio) has a different meaning that refers not to the origin of the Spirit, but to the fact that the Holy Spirit and the Son are of one essence and that it can be interpreted as through the Son. Therefore it appears that the difference is not so much doctrinal as it is linguistic.
St. Maximus the Confessor wrote
For the procession they (the Romans) brought the witness of the Latin Fathers, as well, of course, as that of St. Cyril of Alexandria in his sacred study on the Gospel of St. John. On this basis they showed that they themselves do not make the Son cause (aitia) of the Spirit. They know, indeed, that the Father is the sole cause of the Son and of the Spirit, of one by generation and of the other by ekporeusis — but they explained that the latter comes (proienai) through the Son, and they showed in this way the unity and the immutability of the essence” (Letter to Marin of Cyprus, PG 91, 136 A-B).

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Aramis]

The filioque I “concede” to the East “always have” for one simple reason, there is no stronger bond than that of brothers, when you shake hands and hug each other, you don’t get to change the agreement without consulting with the East. Its was very disrespectful. That said the theology is valid. These are all long conversations though.

That it refers to origin has NEVER been what Rome has taught. It’s a mistranslation error by priests of Constantinople.

The latin does not reference origination, only transmission.

 

[frjohnmorris]

That it refers to origin has NEVER been what Rome has taught. It’s a mistranslation error by priests of Constantinople.

The latin does not reference origination, only transmission.

That is quite possible. If it what you say is true, just because St. Photius may not have understood what the Latins meant does not compromise the theological points that he made on the procession of the Holy Spirit. It also still does not justify adding the filioque to the Creed by the West.
Calvinists do teach the doctrine of double procession with the Holy Spirit originating in the Father and the Son.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[AdvocatusVerbum]

Photius was just looking for an axe to grind after his illegal intrusion on the See of Ignatius was denied. A brilliant scholar but unfortunately his ambition and pride seems to have overrode his scruples.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Photius was just looking for an axe to grind after his illegal intrusion on the See of Ignatius was denied. A brilliant scholar but unfortunately his ambition and pride seems to have overrode his scruples.

I do not think that is fair at all. Remember we Orthodox consider Photius a Saint of our Church. I will give you that due to linguistic problems Photius may not have understood Western doctrine, but the theological points that he made are true and the Roman missionaries acted unilaterally and at that time without papal approval to add the filioque to the Creed. Pope Nicholas I exceeded his authority by interfering in the internal affairs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. When Nicholas’ legates demanded during the ant-Photius Council of 869 that the Eastern Church recognize the authority of the Pope to determine the doctrine of the Church even the opponents of St. Photius refused, stating that only an Ecumenical Council approved by all 5 Patriarchs has the authority to determine the doctrine of the Church. Never before had a Bishop of Rome claimed the power to determine who is Patriarch of Constantinople or claimed, at least in the East, the authority to determine the doctrine of the Church. When Ignatius died, Pope John VIII did no hesitate to recognize the restoration of St. Photius to the Patriarchal throne and to ratify the Council of Constantinople of 879 that rejected the decisions of the Council of Constantinople of 869 that deposed St. Photius by the Council of 869. The Council of Constantinople of 879 also ruled that no one has the authority to alter or change the wording of the Creed.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Peter_J]

I do not think that is fair at all.

I have to agree with you Father. Sadly, for many Catholics all the talk about being ecumenical toward the Orthodox, suddenly goes out the window any time that Photius comes up.

 

[Wandile]

I have to agree with you Father. Sadly, for many Catholics all the talk about being ecumenical toward the Orthodox, suddenly goes out the window any time that Photius comes up.

Well I for one am no fan of Photius. I think as Catholics we can’t play down the person of Photius and all the drama that came with him…

That’s just my opinion

 

[Peter_J]

Well I for one am no fan of Photius. I think as Catholics we can’t play down the person of Photius and all the drama that came with him…

That’s just my opinion

That’s fine, I don’t think we need to downplay him. What I was saying, essentially, it that we shouldn’t vilify him.

 

[Wandile]

That’s fine, I don’t think we need to downplay him. What I was saying, essentially, it that we shouldn’t vilify him.

Very hard not to considering the catholic point of view of the events the surrounding circumstances.

But I hear what you are saying.

 

[Zekariya]

Very hard not to considering the catholic point of view of the events the surrounding circumstances.

But I hear what you are saying.

There have been great errors committed by the saints before. St Cyril of Alexandria’s uncle, Theophilus of Alexandria held a local council that deposed and exiled St John Chrysostom. St Cyril did not like St John and refused to acknowledge him as a saint until towards the end of his [St Cyril’s] life.

Photius of Constantinople made an error but that does not preclude his being a holy man of God. St Isaac of Syria only accepted the first two Ecumenical Councils and was never in Communion with Rome or Constantinople or Coptic Alexandria. He belonged to what was called at that time, the Nestorian Church. Yet, he is a saint revered by all Apostolic Churches.

 

[Peter_J]

Very hard not to considering the catholic point of view of the events the surrounding circumstances.

But I hear what you are saying.

I know what you mean. I’ve seen a few different Catholic articles that are really just “hatchet jobs” against Photius.

 

[RyanBlack]

That’s fine, I don’t think we need to downplay him. What I was saying, essentially, it that we shouldn’t vilify him.

Especially since he is a Catholic Saint.