Catholicism or Orthodoxy?

[Gabriel_of_12]

Trebor135;8990640]I see what you’re saying. But Honorius employed the expression “we confess”–language which would seem to indicate that he was offering official teaching. Plus, it seems anachronistic to say that the pope was or wasn’t speaking ex cathedra then, unless such a concept was recognized by the church of his day. (Then again, I recently heard that the infallibility of ecumenical councils was first posited in the ninth century…)

A Pope if making an “infallible” statement or teaching on faith and morals is addressing the Whole Church in a official capacity, not by a personal correspondent letter to one individual.

Was this a principle widely and consistently recognized in the first millennium?

Faith and Trust added with eyewitness accounts and personal testimonies to the passion, death and resurrection which the Church proclaimed are “infallible” professions of faith, without ever using the term infallible.

I understand the criteria; I just don’t see a basis for the doctrine in the Early Church

.

The Doctrine of infallibility protects the Catholic faith from falling into error. Pope teaching on faith and morals along with Church doctrines can never change and will never conflict with sacred scripture and sacred Tradition. This is what infallibility protects the teachings of Jesus Christ revelations and Jesus Christ teachings from falling into error when the Holy Spirit protects them infallibly. Infallibility is a negative doctrine, contrary to secular understanding as one falsely thinks it to make the Pope a perfect human, or possessing super human powers.

As far as the Early Church all the teachings of the apostles written and practiced from sacred Tradition handed down are infallible teachings for example; baptism, Eucharist, confession and repenting of sins, the letters of the apostles were not canonized yet, but the Church’s kept to their teachings as infallible and revealed by God.

Your argument for papal infallibility based on Acts 15 is indeed intriguing.

An interesting aside: though the apostle James states, “Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,” (v. 19) I’ve read here that it would be more accurately translated something like, “Therefore I offer my opinion that…”

Scholars today debate whether or not this James was not one of the two apostles named James, but I am not gonna go there.

This James “bishop of Jerusalem” community is the one with the problem of Jewish converts forcing baptized Gentiles to be circumcised. James judgement comes at the conclusion of Peter’s revelation addressing his judgement upon his community. James judgement went by letter to all the surrounding Jewish convert communities, which included dietary laws to both Jew and Gentile convert. Because Jewish converts found it difficult to eat with Gentile converts.

One must note however that James judgement was not universal. Because Paul installs different dietary laws to his Gentile converts.

But this makes the process of determining which papal statements are infallible all the more confusing and convoluted. Why have a gift of infallibility if no one can determine when it has been exercised?

 

[anthony022071]

A thread on this very verse popped up in the Eastern Catholicism section a while back. I think we have to keep in mind that the term ekporeusis can refer to multiple things. When the Eastern Fathers like Gregory the Theologian were asserting the divinity of the Holy Spirit against the Pneumatomachians, who denied this, they needed an analogue for the term begetting to describe how the Holy Spirit derives His existence from the Father. For this, they chose the term proceeds as a generic term, which is said to be different from begetting (four there isa only one only-begotten Son, not two). It is unrelated to how the word is used in the bible because it only picked up its specific theological meaning later. Another example of this would be the word ousia, which in the New Testament is used several times to describe goods (things). Obviously, this is not how we are to understand the Nicene formulation of one essence (ousia).

Also, the person who wrote that seems to be unaware of the objection raised by the East on this point. The objection is that claiming the Son to be cause creates all sorts of problems within the Trinity, because the Eastern Fathers almost unanimously show that the Father is the only cause within the trinity. If causality is not a hypostatic property of the Father, then we have to ascribe it as a property of the essence, which leads to absurdities, like the Holy Spirit participating as a cause in its own procession.

But the Son is eternally with the Father,and is consubstantial with him,which means that the Son shares in the Spirit as his own and breathes the Spirit forth as his own. The theologians of the Orthodox Church,following Photios,tend to regard the Son and the Spirit as being separate as persons in eternity. They make a separation,not just a distinction,between the persons and their essence,so that they cannot see how the Son has the Spirit as his own in eternity.

This article is worth reading through in its entirety.

catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/TheChurch/Articles/Filioque.aspx
< The Fathers Know Best

A major stumbling block in regard to Filioque for many Easterners today is that modern Eastern Orthodox theology is dominated by the 9th Century views of Photius of Constantinople, who (in direct response to his misinterpretation of what his contemporary Latin brethren meant by “Filioque”), developed a (very ‘Antiochian’) system of Pneumatology in which Son and Spirit have no eternal Personal connection (aside from their consubstantial essence). Eastern Orthodox apologist Cyril Quattrone reflects this view when he writes (emphasis his)
…while some ‘Orthodox’ scholars have toyed with the idea of admitting some sort of medial role for the Son in the procession of the Holy Spirit, this IS NOT THE TEACHING OF THE ANCIENT, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. I believe it was St. Ireneaus who spoke of the Holy Spirit as the right and left arms of God the Father. While the analogy cannot be pushed too far, it does illustrate the lack of any role of the Son in the pre-eternal procession of the Holy Spirit.
…and also…
We hold that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. Unlike Roman theology, which teaches that the procession of the Spirit would be impossible if the Son did not exist, we teach that the Spirit’s procession is from the Father alone. Even if the Son did not exist, humanly speaking, the Holy Spirit would still exist.
As I have already touched on above, this position is most troubling and problematic, given that it threatens the very Personal identity of the Holy Spirit as the “Spirit of Sonship”, and, in so doing, it distorts both the revealed nature of the Trinity and the very meaning of the Gospel, by which the eternal Son, through the eternal Spirit of Sonship, adopts us into the very same Sonship which He Himself enjoys eternally with the Father, thereby making us “partakers of the Divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4) – a mysterious participation in the Trinitarian nature of God. I will address this in greater detail below.
What cannot be denied, however, is that the Photian view (held to so strongly by many Eastern Orthodox) is very much at odds with the testimony of other Eastern fathers, most especially the Alexandrians. >

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

From the article

"Rather, the Western Church teaches, and has always taught, that the Father, and the Father alone, is the Source, Principal, and Cause (“Aition”) of the Holy Spirit "

…]

"Both Greek East and Latin West confess, and always have confessed, that the Father alone is the Cause (Aition) or Principle (Principium) of both the Son and the Spirit. "

…]

"For, when the West speaks of the Spirit “proceeding” from the Father and the Son, it is referring to something all-together different than “procession” as from a single source (aitia). It is not advocating two sources or principals for the Spirit, or some kind of “double spiration”

But the CCC says

246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)”. The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: “The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”

Emphasis mine.

Is the opinion of the author in harmony with this CCC quote?

Credo ergo sum, I believe you can’t make mistake. Your very young and my personal opinion is you should seek a vocation.

I don’t envy your home situation and perhaps you will be the Light, however humble respect even in disagreement is a path you must follow. That is the path of the CC. Always search for the good for the Lord is always with you.

You need to be in one of the Apostolic Churchs and that is without doubt the CC or EO. The best situation for you is the Catholic Eastern Rite.

As I have said the debates make for good conversation, but all are called to be ONE in communion with Rome. And that my dear friend is the bottom line. Which there is absolutely no way around.

The Jesus Christ stated the Gates of Hell shall never prevail, that included heresy, schism and in fact “everything”. And had the gates of hell prevailed than Chirstianity itself would be a lie. And as we all well know, that is simply untrue.

There is NO debate which is new here, nor is there a question which hasn’t been discussed in depth. Use the Search engine and you will see.

Peace, Gary

Thank you for your kind words

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Trebor135;8990640]But this makes the process of determining which papal statements are infallible all the more confusing and convoluted. Why have a gift of infallibility if no one can determine when it has been exercised?

It has been exercised since the beginning. All the sacraments are infallible teachings and practices, the divine see of Peter, bishops, priests and deacons are offices of infallibility these are divinely instituted by God, which cannot change, that is why Pope John Paul II could not allow woman to be ordained priests, because the Popes have not the authority to change what God infallibly ordained.

A church doctrine proclaimed by the Church united with the Popes are infallibly decreed which cannot change. This infallibility addresses the substance of the doctrine and not necessarily the disciplines which the Church can bind and loose for example.

The Filioque clause. The discipline to profess it in liturgy or in credo is not binding on all the Eastern or Orthodox Church’s. What is binding is that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but the discipline of professing the filioque is not forced upon other rites.

I believe it is here where much debate on this issue gets missed between doctrine and disciplines. Disciplines are subject to change, where as revealed, defined doctrines are not subject to change. This is not to disqualify that a doctrine can be more clearly defined later to new languages and new human understandings, so long as the substance of the doctrine is not hindered. In such cases this does not remove the infallible teaching.

If God wills in another 500 years or 1000 years, our languages and cultures will be subject to change, our understandings will grow in new heights. So will the doctrines of the Catholic Church grow and change to these new peoples languages and cultures, but the substance of the doctrine will not and does not change.

This is what I believe is transpired over time with filioque, purgatory, Immaculate Conception, Transubstantiation. If you investigate each proclamation to each of these, the Church is teaching a new human understanding, a new language, science thought, and they address direct attacks on the revelations of Jesus Christ, with new man made winds of doctrines that came against these revelations. Thus the Church as history proves always left the battlefield victoriously, consider the fall of communism with the revelation and doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

One should take into consideration that the Ottoman Turks and Communism did not allow their Eastern Church’s to be united with the Roman Pope when the Church came under attack. The Roman Catholic Church defeated these without support of the East because their dictators would have their Eastern Church’s council nor support the Western Church’s under battle with the new heretical teachings of man that denied God.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

ByzCathCantor;8990665]The goal in this regard of the Nicean Councils was to come up with a universal (catholic) profession of faith that would be uniform in all the Apostolic Churches.

The Nicene counciled to defeat a heresy. The findings from the council developed into the Nicene Creed. I am glad you placed a plural after Nicean CouncilS. This Nicene Credo as history proves did not eliminate the heresy.

What ultimately eliminated the heresy was the “Filioque” in the West, when the Arians began infecting Spain with it. The Nicene Creed appeared to not defeat the heresy when it arrived in the West.

The Filioque professes the divinity of Jesus Christ clearly so as to separate the Nicene professors from the Arian heresy. The filioque is what drove a stake between the Arians and those holding to the Nicene Creed. This discipline of the fiioque professed in the Nicene Credo revealed to the laity which priests were shepherds and which priests were wolves dressed in sheeps clothing.

Surely one could see the multifold advantage of having a universal profession of faith, for all the ages, embodying all the critical truths and beliefs of the Apostolic Churches

.

Yes until that sly fox the devil introduces a wind of doctrine by men to reject that profession of faith. What the Church did was expose this devil fox with the light of the Son. The Arians new the Spirit proceeds from the Father by the Nicene Credo. They used this to denounce the divinity of Jesus Christ while still holding to the Nicene Credo. Filioque did not change the apostolic revelations and Traditions belived in Jesus Christ. Filioque says Yes Jesus is truly divine and truly human, because the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Arians tried to divide Jesus from the God head, when the filioque unites the God head eternally as one God.

The first known reference to the “Creed of the Apostles” was attributed to St. Ambrose in 390, clearly after both Nicean Councils . If this Creed as now professed did exist and predate the Councils, it should have been put forth by the West as the desired form of Creed, and that should have been discussed and deliberated in these Councils in reaching their conclusions.

No I respectfully disagree, the West was not being infected with heresy during these times, the West was already settled with Tertullians teaching of Jesus true natures, while the East became infected with denying the natures of Jesus Christ. Remember the Nicene Credo came about to defeat heresy and hold all those believers to the true humanity of Jesus and Jesus true divinity be fully in both cases.

The apostles creed was never discontinued in the West even after the Nicene Credo. We still possess both and practice them in our liturgies as far as one can see back.

The CCC does a fair job of portraying this, especially if one is to trace the quotes sources referenced in the footnotes (in the case of the St. Ambrose attribution, it is footnote 7 on paragraph 191). It is explained that the [Latin Church’s] "presentation of the faith will follow the Apostles’ Creed, which constitutes, as it were, ‘the oldest Roman catechism’ " [CCC 196]. That is a far cry for claiming it is preferred as it is a more ancient profession of faith. It also notes that the Nicene Creed “draws its great authority from the fact that it stems from the first two ecumenical Councils (in 325 and 381)” and it “remains common to all the great Churches of both East and West to this day” [CCC 195].

So who is objecting to those who profess the Nicene Credo? Just don’t add or change any substance in the Nicene Credo. The filioque is a discpline in profession of Nicene Credo to refute heresy. The doctrine of the filioque becomes a matter of exegesis that reveals the divinity of Jesus Christ as the second person in the God head. This cannot be denied.

If Eastern and Orthodox theology does not reach or see no need to teach Jesus true divinity without the filioque, this doctrine is not imposed upon your theology. But to oppose it’s doctrine status, exegesis reveals that is does not pose a threat or danger to the divinity of Jesus Christ but supports the Apostolic teachings of the Trinity.

And how is the Catholic Church “correcting the false view of the filioque”? That statement strongly suggests that the Church teaches the Creed without the filioque is somehow incorrect. That seems inconsistent both in relation to the statements in the CCC and to accepted practice in the Catholic Communion, as the Eastern Churches recite the Nicene Creed without the filioque with the full knowledge, consent and encouragement of Rome

.

We have to remember the original arguments that opposed the filioque today do not hold up to exegesis. The original argument was “who dare add to the Nicene Credo” without permission of the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Eastern Emperor approval. True Orthodox and Roman Catholic Ecumenical efforts and undertakings are being taken in addressing the filioque. Once the exegesis is revealed of the doctrine, now that the Greek Orthodox does not have communism restricting them to communicate with the West, we can move on to healing.

Those Orthodox still under control by the Turks and Mulsims dictatorships appear to be still holding to an ancient argument and protest against Papal authority in the filioque, when the true exegesis has not been applied.

Tell me do you profess the Nicene Credo that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “ONLY”? Who are the ones stating this?

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

The Nicene counciled to defeat a heresy. The findings from the council developed into the Nicene Creed. I am glad you placed a plural after Nicean CouncilS.

Indeed, there was another one in 787.

The Arians new the Spirit proceeds from the Father by the Nicene Credo. They used this to denounce the divinity of Jesus Christ while still holding to the Nicene Credo.

“And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;”

With or without filioque, arians could not hold on to the creed, because to do so is to stop being an arian.

No I respectfully disagree, the West was not being infected with heresy during these times, the West was already settled with Tertullians teaching of Jesus true natures, while the East became infected with denying the natures of Jesus Christ…

Then I respectfully disagree with you. St. Ambrose had to fight a huge battle in Milan against the arians. In fact, Rome itself was under control of arians until the Eastern Christians, by order of the Eastern Emperor, liberated them in the 530’s (!). After that, every pope except Pope St. Martin the Confessor was a Byzantine puppet, look the Byzantine Papacy up for yourself.

 

[anthony022071]

Is the opinion of the author in harmony with this CCC quote?

Yes. It is true that Western theology affirms that the Father alone is the cause and source of the Spirit,but the statement that the Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son as from one principle means that the Son is consubstantial with the Father and possesses what he possesses from eternity. It does not mean that the Son is another Father or another ultimate cause. There is a difference between the concept of the Father alone being first cause and source and the concept of procession from Father and Son as from one cause and source. As the Council of Florence said: “since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Why then said one of the attendents at the Council of Florence:

“The Symbol of the Faith must be preserved inviolate, as at its origin. Since all the holy doctors of the Church, all the Councils and all the Scriptures put us on our guard against heterodoxy, how dare I, in spite of these authorities, follow those who urge us to unity in a deceitful semblance of union—those who have corrupted the holy and divine Symbol of Faith and brought in the Son as second cause of the Holy Spirit”

If the CC maintains, and has always maintained, that the Son is not the second cause, why then this objection at Florence?

So the person whom I quoted had it wrong to say that the latins brought the Son in as second cause?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Credo ergo sum;8992266]From the article

But the CCC says

Emphasis mine.

Is the opinion of the author in harmony with this CCC quote?

I don’t see a contradiction. For one the Father is the source, we are talking about procession, not the Source which comes from the Father.

Life for example begins with the Father, while the Spirit hovored over the waters when God spoke his Word, God created life and breathed into man life.

Please read John 1:1-14 very slowly here and tell me if you see the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, or if you see the Spirit only proceeding from the Father “Only”.

For in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race…And the Word became flesh.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

*“All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

“Omnia per ipsum facta sunt: et sine ipso factum est nihil, quod factum est. (Clementine Vulgate)”
*
Factum, past perfect from facere, to make.

I don’t think the Holy Spirit was made by/through the Word. To say that this is the case is arianism. The HS is not made.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Credo ergo sum;8992606]

“And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;”

With or without filioque, arians could not hold on to the creed, because to do so is to stop being an arian.

You appear to be jumping to false conclusions. I am relating to those Christians holding to the Nicence Credo at the time when Arians were infecting Spain. I never said that the Arains themselves professed the Nicene Creed.

Slow it down a tick.

Then I respectfully disagree with you. St. Ambrose had to fight a huge battle in Milan against the arians.

Really? You got a Saint fighting like cowboys and indians against Arians? Recall, St. Ambrose held the same position as the Popes by not allowing Emperors powers to dictate to the offices of the Church between bishops and laity. Tell me when did the Emperor give an army to St. General? Ambrose to battle the armies of Arians in Milan?

In fact, Rome itself was under control of arians

When the Eastern Emperor ruled with Arian patriarchates, this does not mean that the Popes were infected by the same Arain heresy.

Are you more interested in historical politics or the Catholic Faith? It is good practice when one can gain the wisdom to see the difference between what belongs to God, and those things which belong to the Ceasars of history.

Know this the chair of Peter is the only apostolic see that was never infected with heresy, these things pertain to faith in Jesus Christ. Did secular powers come against the Popes? you get no argument from me here. You do know the first 30+ Roman Popes were all martryed for the Catholic Faith?

The resistance between the Eastern Orthodox Fathers, St. Ambrose and every Pope was to keep the Emperor out of Church affairs, that is why many left their bishophorics into the deserts to become Monastics. How you got the Popes, St. Ambrose siding with the Emperors in political wars and political ventures is questionable. The Emperors did not need the church to kill or conquer people. How you can assess this is remarkable.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

*“All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

“Omnia per ipsum facta sunt: et sine ipso factum est nihil, quod factum est. (Clementine Vulgate)”
*
Factum, past perfect from facere, to make.

I don’t think the Holy Spirit was made by/through the Word. To say that this is the case is arianism. The HS is not made.

The Spirit is never mentioned! How did you come away with the Spirit being created lol…
thanks for that laugh

For in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race…And the Word became flesh.

I was hoping you can allow the HolySpirit to teach you and reveal the procession without ever being mentioned.

The Spirit is not mentioned, because it is the Spirit who is teaching here.

 

[Cavaradossi]

But the Son is eternally with the Father,and is consubstantial with him,which means that the Son shares in the Spirit as his own and breathes the Spirit forth as his own. The theologians of the Orthodox Church,following Photios,tend to regard the Son and the Spirit as being separate as persons in eternity. They make a separation,not just a distinction,between the persons and their essence,so that they cannot see how the Son has the Spirit as his own in eternity.

Then why does the Spirit not share in the begetting of the Son? Is the Spirit less consubstantial with the Father than the Son? Also they are separate persons in eternity. If we do not admit that there are three hypostases, then we have fallen into Sabellianism.

This article is worth reading through in its entirety.

catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/TheChurch/Articles/Filioque.aspx
< The Fathers Know Best

A major stumbling block in regard to Filioque for many Easterners today is that modern Eastern Orthodox theology is dominated by the 9th Century views of Photius of Constantinople, who (in direct response to his misinterpretation of what his contemporary Latin brethren meant by “Filioque”), developed a (very ‘Antiochian’) system of Pneumatology in which Son and Spirit have no eternal Personal connection (aside from their consubstantial essence). Eastern Orthodox apologist Cyril Quattrone reflects this view when he writes (emphasis his)

This is incorrect, modern Orthodox scholars, following after Gregory Palamas and Gregory of Cyprus, do allow for a definitive relationship of the Son to the Holy Spirit in the teaching that the Holy Spirit is manifested through the Son. They deny, however, that the Son participates in the procession of the person (hypostasis) of the Holy Spirit, which is limited to the Father alone.

…while some ‘Orthodox’ scholars have toyed with the idea of admitting some sort of medial role for the Son in the procession of the Holy Spirit, this IS NOT THE TEACHING OF THE ANCIENT, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. I believe it was St. Ireneaus who spoke of the Holy Spirit as the right and left arms of God the Father. While the analogy cannot be pushed too far, it does illustrate the lack of any role of the Son in the pre-eternal procession of the Holy Spirit.

What he says is correct, the Son does not participate in the Spirit’s having existence from the Father.

…and also…
We hold that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. Unlike Roman theology, which teaches that the procession of the Spirit would be impossible if the Son did not exist, we teach that the Spirit’s procession is from the Father alone. Even if the Son did not exist, humanly speaking, the Holy Spirit would still exist.
As I have already touched on above, this position is most troubling and problematic, given that it threatens the very Personal identity of the Holy Spirit as the “Spirit of Sonship”, and, in so doing, it distorts both the revealed nature of the Trinity and the very meaning of the Gospel, by which the eternal Son, through the eternal Spirit of Sonship, adopts us into the very same Sonship which He Himself enjoys eternally with the Father, thereby making us “partakers of the Divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4) – a mysterious participation in the Trinitarian nature of God. I will address this in greater detail below.
What cannot be denied, however, is that the Photian view (held to so strongly by many Eastern Orthodox) is very much at odds with the testimony of other Eastern fathers, most especially the Alexandrians. >

It really is not. We are talking about two different relations here. The Spirit is caused by the Father alone, because to ascribe causality to the Son would be an absurdity, leading to the Spirit being subordinate in essence to the Father and the Son, the Father and Son being modes of one hypostasis, equal in essence to the Spirit, or the Spirit causing its own procession. This is what is meant by the numerous Fathers like St. Maximus the Confessor, St. Gregory the Theologian, and St. John of Damascus, when they confess that the Father is the only cause within the Trinity.

Likewise, when we see the Son participating in the projection of the Spirit, what they are referring to is the energetic manifestation of the Spirit through the Son, not the causing of the Spirit’s existence, which is ascribed to the Father alone by the aforementioned fathers. The Spirit still retains His special property of sactifying creation, because he is manifest through the Son.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

You appear to be jumping to false conclusions. I am relating to those Christians holding to the Nicence Credo at the time when Arians were infecting Spain. I never said that the Arains themselves professed the Nicene Creed.

Slow it down a tick.

I’m very sorry, I think I misunderstood you when you said:

The Arians new the Spirit proceeds from the Father by the Nicene Credo. They used this to denounce the divinity of Jesus Christ while still holding to the Nicene Credo.

Also, the greatest part of the arians, especially the pneumatomachoi, believed the HS to be made as well, and thought he didn’t eternally proceed from the Father.

Really? You got a Saint fighting like cowboys and indians against Arians? Recall, St. Ambrose held the same position as the Popes by not allowing Emperors powers to dictate to the offices of the Church between bishops and laity. Tell me when did the Emperor give an army to St. General? Ambrose to battle the armies of Arians in Milan?

No, not literally, but it almost came to bloodshed and he was in a huge argument with the Western Empress and the arians of Milan. St. Nicholas *did *literally beat Arius.

When the Eastern Emperor ruled with Arian patriarchates, this does not mean that the Popes were infected by the same Arain heresy.

No, Italy was conquered by the arian Goths when the Western Empire fell. The Eastern Empire delivered the orthodox Catholic people of Italy from their Gothic overlords.

Know this the chair of Peter is the only apostolic see that was never infected with heresy, these things pertain to faith in Jesus Christ. Did secular powers come against the Popes? you get no argument from me here. You do know the first 30+ Roman Popes were all martryed for the Catholic Faith?

I have great respect for a great many popes, especially, but not exclusively, the ones from the early centuries and the last few, I think Benedict XVI is a great theologian and pope. I got nothing against the Bishop of Rome.

ThHow you got the Popes, St. Ambrose siding with the Emperors in political wars and political ventures is questionable. The Emperors did not need the church to kill or conquer people. How you can assess this is remarkable.

I did never say this and never intended to say this. This is not my view. Fighting can be understood literally and figuratively, I used the second. St. Ambrose heavily argued with the arians in Milan (a city in the west, which was not tainted with arianism as I think you said earlier)

But let’s not make this into a discussion over our use of words, but let us focus on why you think I should become Catholic

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

The Spirit is never mentioned! How did you come away with the Spirit being created lol…
thanks for that laugh

For in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race…And the Word became flesh.

I was hoping you can allow the HolySpirit to teach you and reveal the procession without ever being mentioned.

The Spirit is not mentioned, because it is the Spirit who is teaching here.

The Vulgate, which:
Council of Trent:

…] this sacred and holy Synod,—considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,—ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.

doesn’t allow your interpretation. It uses facere, to make. Not procedere, to proceed. Therefore, saying that the Holy Spirit is from the Son exclusively because of this verse is saying the HS is FACTUM (from facere), or MADE. The HS is not factum.

“Omnia per ipsum facta sunt: et sine ipso factum est nihil, quod factum est. (Joannes 1:3, Clementine Vulgate)”

OR does this verse have no connection whatsoever, then recommending it to read in connection to the procession confused me . I’m sorry if I misunderstand you.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Credo ergo sum;8992838]But let’s not make this into a discussion over our use of words, but let us focus on why you think I should become Catholic :thumbsup

:

Good question? The church owes a great gratitude to the Greek Orthodox which contributed to the Catholic faith its philosphy, theology and disciplines.

I believe what got these Eastern Church’s in trouble and infected by so much division and heretical teachings, came from the fact that these same great philosophical thinkers from the East became infected with heresy in trying to define God in ways other than what Jesus had already revealed the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

That said; It is good that the Eastern Church’s took on the name Orthodox so as not to try and reinvent God or define God outside the revelations of Jesus Christ. The Orthodox position does not allow them the freedom anymore to enter into philosophical undertakings to define the mysteries of God, which as some relate to being in a stagnant position. Which is not a bad position to be in.

What I found in my Roman Catholic Faith, is that we do not tire ourselves trying to reach philosophical heights of the mind to understand the mysteries of God. We have these for sure, but with out Love they result to nothing.

Our Saints and Martrys did not bow their knee to man’s philosophical head knowledge or to mans wind of doctrine. Our Saints and Martrys went to their deaths with joy in the love of God in faith because God loved them first.

What I found in the Roman Catholic Church is unconditional Love from God so that I can Love God and my enemies.

The Roman Catholic Church will still be here when Jesus returns for her, that is a promise from God. The Rock of which Jesus built his Church does not change nor is she moved by every wind of doctrine that has come against her in every age. She remains undefeated against her enemies when she loved them even at the expense of her Martyrs blood, yet also by teaching man in every age Jesus Christ Crucified saves.

She has come to define doctrine to new nations, peoples, every tongue and tribe in terms that the Orthodox may object too, but these new nations, peoples, languages and cultures have come to understand the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, maybe in new defined terms so that these new peoples can come to understand the unchangeable faith in Jesus Christ.

The Orthodox from their stagnant position, did not go through this evangelization method and cultivating the Western world from its barbaric ways, many times at the expense of our Saints and Martyrs blood.

What I mean to say is, that the Orthodox did not face the challenges of the Roman Catholic Church in the West, when she had to defend the Apostolic faith in these new peoples. Describing Spiritual realities in Spiritual terms so that these found nations and peoples could understand the Catholic Faith.

For this the Orthodox under Imperial rule protested from afar. Now that the Immaculate Conception defeated Communism, a window has opened for opportunity to apply true exegesis to these new defined terms for another people, nation, tongue and different understandings relating to the Apostolic faith unchanged.

The martyrdom which the Orthodox experienced under Imperial rule, is not any different or is to belittle their martyrs by anymeans here. Their martyrdom was to survive under Imperial rule.

The Eastern Rites and the Orthodox Church’s are all independent Church’s from one another, they have no one “visible” head that unites them all as one, thus history reveals on going division among them changing hands through out the ages.

In the Western Church’s all Catholic Church’s are united as one to the one “visible head” who possesses the Keys to the Kingdom of God in the Pope in the body of Christ.

There is no doubt that Christ is our head, but Jesus alone gave the keys to Peter and Peter alone walked on water, Peter alone recieved revelations from God, who to allow in the Church, Peter alone was given the mission by Jesus to feed and tend the flock of Jesus Christ.

My recommendation go where Love takes you. Do not be moved by knowledge of the mind, or take a stance supporting arguments and protests, these cannot help you; but be moved by the heart for Love of God. If you have Love and Love is God, who can come against you?

 

[anthony022071]

Why then said one of the attendents at the Council of Florence:

“The Symbol of the Faith must be preserved inviolate, as at its origin. Since all the holy doctors of the Church, all the Councils and all the Scriptures put us on our guard against heterodoxy, how dare I, in spite of these authorities, follow those who urge us to unity in a deceitful semblance of union—those who have corrupted the holy and divine Symbol of Faith and brought in the Son as second cause of the Holy Spirit”

If the CC maintains, and has always maintained,that the Son is not the second cause, why then this objection at Florence?

I don’t know that the Catholic theologians at the council denied that the Son is a second cause. It depends on what is meant by the word “cause”. The Father is the first person of the Trinity,so he is the first cause of the Spirit. If the Son is brought in,he participates in the first cause and is one with it. As Jesus said,“I and the Father are one.”

But it would not make sense to say that the Son is himself a first cause of the Spirit as the Father is. Also,the word “procedit” does not imply a single cause as the word “ekporeusis” does.

The author of the article,Mark Bonocore,seems not have have been aware that Thomas Aquinas said that the Son is the principle and source of the Spirit. But Aquinas distinguished the way that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son,saying that the Father is without a principle,and the Son is with a principle.

So the person whom I quoted had it wrong to say that the latins brought the Son in as second cause?

It would not be right to say that they made the Son into a second cause in the sense that the Father is the first and ultimate cause.

The Catholics brought the Son in because he is consubstantial with the Father from eternity,and has all that the Father has from eternity,and participates in all that the Father does.

dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm#b23
Thomas Aquinas,Against the Errors of the Greeks:

CHAPTER 24

That the Son is also principle of the Holy Spirit.

It is also proven from the aforesaid authorities that the Son is the principle of the Holy Spirit. For Gregory Nazianzen says in his discourse on the Council of Constantinople: “We believe the holy Trinity” namely, the Father without a principle, the Son, however, a principle from a principle, the Father, but the Holy Spirit with the Son as principle, to be one God throughout all and over all.” But the Father is principle of the Son in this that the Son is from him eternally. Hence, the Holy Spirit is from the Son eternally.

CHAPTER 25

That the Son is also source of the Holy Spirit.

It is established from the same authorities that the Son is source of the Holy Spirit. For Athanasius in his discourse on the Council of Nicaea says: “Just as the Spirit is in the Son as a stream in its source, and just as the Son is in the Father as splendor in the sun of glory by nature, so by the grace of the Holy Spirit the elect are in the Father and the Son.” And in his letter to Serapion he says: As a fountain and as light the Son is indeed with the Father; of this fountain and light the Holy Spirit is the true stream and the splendor of eternal glory.” And in the same letter he says: “For the Holy Spirit does not work in God, the Christ and Word, namely, in his natural source.” And further on: “The begotten Son and source of the Holy Spirit, between whom he holds the middle place.” And Athanasius in his sermon on the Incarnation of the Word says: “David sings in the psalm (35:10), saying: For with you is the font of life; because jointly with the Father the Son indeed is the source of the Holy Spirit.”

From this it is also proven that the Son is the principle of the Holy Spirit as one existing of him eternally.

 

[anthony022071]

CHAPTER 26

The general conclusion: that the Spirit proceeds from the Son.

After so many testimonies, however, certain adversaries Footnote (meaning the Greek theologians opposing the Latins from the time of Photius) of the truth refuse to confess the true faith, saying that although the Holy Spirit has been shown to exist, to be spirated, to emanate, and to flow out of the Son, nonetheless that he proceeds from the Son is not to be admitted. For this is not contained in any of the cited authorities; nor in any authority of Holy Scripture, which states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, without however joining the Son in this to the Father, when in John 15:26 it is said: When the Paraclete comes, whom I shall send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father. Accordingly, it must be shown how on the basis of the foregoing it necessarily follows that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

Now, of all the words relating to origin, the term procession is found to be more generic and less specific of a mode of origin. For according to accepted usage we designate as proceeding whatever is from another in any way whatsoever, whether this be naturally from another as Peter is said to proceed from his father, or emissively as breath proceeds from someone breathing, or flowingly as a stream proceeds from a source, or artificially as a house proceeds from a builder, or locally as the bridegroom proceeds from the bridal chamber.

Not everything, however, in any way from another can be described as being spirated, or begotten, or flowing, or emitted. Hence, the term procession is also particularly suitable to express the origin of the divine persons, for, as observed previously, the divine is better designated by generic rather than specific terms. So, from any of the points which have been discussed, namely, that the Holy Spirit exists of the Son, flows from him, or is spirated or emanates, it is necessarily concluded that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”

 

[Hesychios]

It would not be right to say that they made the Son into a second cause in the sense that the Father is the first and ultimate cause.

The Catholics brought the Son in because he is consubstantial with the Father from eternity,and has all that the Father has from eternity,and participates in all that the Father does.
…
CHAPTER 24

That the Son is also principle of the Holy Spirit.
…
CHAPTER 25

That the Son is also source of the Holy Spirit.
…
From this it is also proven that the Son is the principle of the Holy Spirit as one existing of him eternally.

This is subordination of the Holy Spirit. It is not Trinitarian.

 

[anthony022071]

This is subordination of the Holy Spirit. It is not Trinitarian.

No,Aquinas did not claim that the Holy Spirit is inferior to the Son. If you think that it is subordinationist to say that the Son is principle and source of the Spirit,that would mean the idea of the monarchy of the Father is subordinationist aslo.