Filioque??

[jam070406]

The following account, taken from the archives at a Catholic university, indicate that Catholic bishops were involved:
Please see the article at Catholic Fordham University, Dana C. Munro, "The Fourth Crusade ", fordham.edu/halsall/source/4cde.html#sack

" Then it was announced to all the host that all the Venetian and every one else should go and hear the sermons on Sunday morning; [Apr 11, 1204] and they did so. Then the bishops preached to the army, the bishop of Soissons, the bishop of Troyes, the bishop of Havestaist [Halberstadt] master Jean Faicette [De Noyon, chancellor of Baldwin of Flanders], and the abbot of Loos, and they showed to the pilgrims that the war was a righteous one; for the Greeks were traitors and murderers, and also disloyal, since they had murdered their rightful lord, and were worse than Jews. Moreover, the bishops said that, by the authority of God and in the name of the pope, they would absolve all who attacked the Greeks."…
" How shall I begin to tell of the deeds wrought by these nefarious men! Alas, the images, which ought to have been adored, were trodden under foot! Alas, the relics of the holy martyrs were thrown into unclean places! Then was seen what one shudders to hear, namely, the divine body and blood of Christ was spilled upon the ground or thrown about. They snatched the precious reliquaries, thrust into their bosoms the ornaments which these contained, and used the broken remnants for pans and drinking cups,-precursors of Anti-christ, authors and heralds of his nefarious deeds which we momentarily expect. Manifestly, indeed, by that race then, just as formerly, Christ was robbed and insulted and His garments were divided by lot; only one thing was lacking, that His side, pierced by a spear, should pour rivers of divine blood on the ground.

Nor can the violation of the Great Church [Hagia Sophia] be listened to with equanimity. For the sacred altar, formed of all kinds of precious materials and admired by the whole world, was broken into bits and distributed among the soldiers, as was all the other sacred wealth of so, great and infinite splendor.

When the sacred vases and utensils of unsurpassable art and grace and rare material, and the fine silver, wrought with go , which encircled the screen of the tribunal and the ambo, of admirable workmanship and the door and many other ornaments, were to be borne away booty, mules and saddled horses were led to the very sanctuary of t temple. Some of these which were unable to keep their footing the splendid and slippery pavement, were stabbed when they fell, that the sacred pavement was polluted with blood and filth.

1. Nay more, a certain harlot, a sharer in their guilt, a minister the furies, a servant of the demons, a worker of incantations and poisonings, insulting Christ, sat in the patriarch’s seat, singing an obscene song and dancing frequently. Nor, indeed, were these crimes committed and others left undone, on the ground that these were of lesser guilt, the others of greater. But with one consent all the most heinous sins and crimes were committed by all with equal zeal. Could those, who showed so great madness against God Himself have spared the honorable matrons and maidens or the virgins consecrated to God?

Nothing was more difficult and laborious than to soften by prayers, to render benevolent, these wrathful barbarians, vomiting forth bile at every unpleasing word, so that nothing failed to inflame their fury. Whoever attempted it was derided as insane and a man of intemperate language. Often they drew their daggers against any one who opposed them at all or hindered their demands.

No one was without a share in the grief. In the alleys, in the streets, in the temples, complaints, weeping, lamentations, grief, t groaning of men, the shrieks of women, wounds, rape, captivity, t separation of those most closely united. Nobles wandered about ignominiously, those of venerable age in tears, the rich in poverty. Thus it was in the streets, on the corners, in the temple, in the dens, for no place remained unassailed or defended the suppliants. All places everywhere were filled full of all kinds of crime. . Oh, immortal God, how great the afflictions of the men, how great the distress!"
" How shall I begin to tell of the deeds wrought by these nefarious men! Alas, the images, which ought to have been adored, were trodden under foot! Alas, the relics of the holy martyrs were thrown into unclean places! Then was seen what one shudders to hear, namely, the divine body and blood of Christ was spilled upon the ground or thrown about. They snatched the precious reliquaries, thrust into their bosoms the ornaments which these contained, and used the broken remnants for pans and drinking cups,-precursors of Anti-christ, authors and heralds of his nefarious deeds which we momentarily expect. Manifestly, indeed, by that race then, just as formerly, Christ was robbed and insulted and His garments were divided by lot; only one thing was lacking, that His side, pierced by a spear, should pour rivers of divine blood on the ground. "

So next you’ll post the official Papal or council documents ordering the sack right?
Otherwise, these are mere men acting of their own free will, acting in sin. Nothing new. And… doesn’t answer my question.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Bob,

Rather than going around excommunicating Christians who want to say the creed as it was originally written, and then diverting a Crusade to Constantinople to loot and destroy their Churches, why don’t Catholics instead try to live in peace and harmony and charity with the Eastern Orthodox?

The excommunication from Cardinal Humbert (not that it was right) does NOT charge the Greeks for NOT reciting the filioque. Adding the text of the filioque to the Creed is a separate issue from the theological rationale behind filioque. For instance, the Coptic Orthodox primarily reject the addition of the filioque NOT on the theological grounds, but on the grounds that it was not added by an Ecumenical Council (though that rationale itself does not actually address the entire issue of its textual addition, since the textual addition was not originally a universal matter, but a local matter in the West)

And it was the Greeks who started accusing the Latins of heresies in the first place. But I don’t see you exhorting the Easterns to try to live peaceably with the Latins.

Try reading both sides of the story. More than that, try reading the original texts themeslves Do you really care for the truth, or are you here just to incite bad feelings?

 

[mardukm]

So next you’ll post the official Papal or council documents ordering the sack right?

Bobzills can’t do that, and judging from his comments he couldn’t care less. He is just here to incite bad feelings against the Latin Church. He has no real interest in fairness, judging from his past comments here.

 

[jam070406]

Dear brother Bob,

The excommunication from Cardinal Humbert (not that it was right) does NOT charge the Greeks for NOT reciting the filioque. Adding the text of the filioque to the Creed is a separate issue from the theological rationale behind filioque. For instance, the Coptic Orthodox primarily reject the addition of the filioque NOT on the theological grounds, but on the grounds that it was not added by an Ecumenical Council (though that rationale itself does not actually address the entire issue of its textual addition, since the textual addition was not originally a universal matter, but a local matter in the West)

And it was the Greeks who started accusing the Latins of heresies in the first place. But I don’t see you exhorting the Easterns to try to live peaceably with the Latins.

Try reading both sides of the story. More than that, try reading the original texts themeslves Do you really care for the truth, or are you here just to incite bad feelings?

Amen!
Obviously he’s trying to fuel the fire. That’s why he tried to deceive people into thinking Rome sent Crusaders to sack Constantinople. While Ignatios commends him for telling the “truth”.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ignatios,

OOOO I can see it clearly, But obviously you don’t my freind, I can see it in three diffrent languages, and no diffrence between one and the other, EVEN in the inadequate English language, “Proceed” is and according to the dictionary ( since the English language is not my native tongue I must rely on some reliable sources such as the dictionary) "…to arise, originate, … "

I guess that’s part of the problem, brother. The original word “procedit” from which the English word is derived, has NO connotation of ontological origination. The English word “proceeds” has developed to include a connotation of ontological origination, more approximating the Greek ekporeusai. However, that understanding is nevertheless SECONDARY, or even tertiary in the overall sense of the word. English-speaking people normally (99% of the time) don’t use the word “proceed” to refer to ONTOLOGICAL origination. For instance, when describing the birth of a baby from its mother, NO ONE says, “Congratulations! Baby Edward proceeded from his mother Carol today!”

There have been many discussions here already in the past regarding the differences in the Latin and Greek language on the matter. Perhaps you can look for them, or maybe others can direct you to them. They have been very informative.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[anthony022071]

[Isa Almisry]

Even the Vatican won’t allow the translation of filioque into the original Greek.

More precisely,the phrase “and the Son” can’t be used with the word ekporeusis. But it can be used with the word proienai.

Council of Seleucia (410):
“…the Holy Living Spirit, the Holy Living Paraclete, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” (Lamy, “Concilium Seleucia”, Louvain, 1868).

St. Epiphanius:
“No one knows the Spirit, besides the Father, except the Son, from Whom He proceeds (proienai) and of Whom He receives.” (Panarion)

St. Cyril of Alexandria:
“The Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son; clearly, he is of the divine substance, proceeding (proion) substantially (ousiwdwV) in it and from it” (Thesaurus)

Now, since the original Creed is in Greek, and they are quoting the Gospel, also in Greek, these poses a problem. The fact that the addition was stuck in at a local council, and was opposed by the patriarch of Rome for centuries should be enough said. Pope Leo III didn’t find it as valid, why make the fuss and post the original, in Greek and LATIN, on the doors of St. Peter’s?

The decisions of the council of Toledo were ratified by the pope.

 

[mardukm]

Amen!
Obviously he’s trying to fuel the fire. That’s why he tried to deceive people into thinking Rome sent Crusaders to sack Constantinople. While Ignatios commends him for telling the “truth”.

Also, notice the date of the Sermon provided by brother Bob (April, 1204). Constantinople and the Crusaders were ALREADY at war for almost two months. It would be common for bishops to grant absolutions to new soldiers prior to going to war, so people should not look at that action as something out of the ordinary. What occurred afterwards was deplorable, but the Latin CHURCH was in no way the cause of the sacking (though the ones who did the sacking were certainly Latin Catholics).

Blessings

 

[Ignatios]

I never claimed to be a Ukrainian Catholic.

Tell me, WHAT GOOD does bringing up the Sacking of Constantinople do?

Why does the topic of the Filioque need to digress to such a low point? THAT is what I was referring to. To drudge this up, just to slander the Church, is what he should be ashamed of.

What should I feel ashamed of? Do you think I somehow bare guilt for what happened 800 years ago? The sins of individuals 800 yrs. ago somehow make the entire Church of today, including me, including JPII, including Pope Benedict, guilty??

1. It doesnt bring anygood indeed, for both of us, but the matter for the Greek is not as easy as it seems to you, Since the Greeks still suffering UP UNTILL TODAY from that sacking, they are still living the consequences of it, but was it only that, of course not, after that it was persecutions to the Ukrainian Church, then the schism in the Antiochian Church, going down to the Geonecide of the serbs then back to the Russians in their war against the Turks were the Pope was cheering when the Turks wins a battle against the Russians…etc, would you like me to give you the whole history???
2. WHY is it that when we start reciting history, as it is, then this becomes slandering the RCC, shall we give lies instead of truth, and maybe then you will be happy?.
3. Well, if you belong to the same church, then you are member of it, and thus you are one of it, or you are not? but again, when there is pride involve, then there is no question in relating yourselves to it, but something like the above, we have nothing to do with it. I guess the best approach to that, is what your late Pope JPII did and said and not your approach my freind. however we did not say that you are guilty, but it is your church and remmber the subject is your church not you, you seemed that you got upset and you said that he bobzills slandering the church, but now, you are saying that “you” are not guilty of those sins, but I must thank you at least for confessing that what had happened it was a sin that it was done by your church and in the name of your Pope as the historical text shows.

 

[Ignatios]

Dear brother Bob,

The excommunication from Cardinal Humbert (not that it was right) does NOT charge the Greeks for NOT reciting the filioque. Adding the text of the filioque to the Creed is a separate issue from the theological rationale behind filioque. For instance, the Coptic Orthodox primarily reject the addition of the filioque NOT on the theological grounds, but on the grounds that it was not added by an Ecumenical Council (though that rationale itself does not actually address the entire issue of its textual addition, since the textual addition was not originally a universal matter, but a local matter in the West)

And it was the Greeks who started accusing the Latins of heresies in the first place. But I don’t see you exhorting the Easterns to try to live peaceably with the Latins.

Try reading both sides of the story. More than that, try reading the original texts themeslves Do you really care for the truth, or are you here just to incite bad feelings?

I beleive he was not speaking about the Humbert story, It is clear what he had said >>> “…Rather than going around excommunicating Christians who want to say the creed as it was originally written…” and I believe he reffering to this>>>"…the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son”

Can you provide evidence a formal one from the Coptic Orthodox Church that they do not reject the Filioque on the ground of Theology or however you have listed it above in your text? Thank you.
My knowldge on this, for the Copts the issue did not even get that far to be dicussed theologically.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ignatios,

1. It doesnt bring anygood indeed, for both of us, but the matter for the Greek is not as easy as it seems to you, Since the Greeks still suffering UP UNTILL TODAY from that sacking, they are still living the consequences of it, but was it only that, of course not, after that it was persecutions to the Ukrainian Church, then the schism in the Antiochian Church, going down to the Geonecide of the serbs then back to the Russians in their war against the Turks were the Pope was cheering when the Turks wins a battle against the Russians…etc, would you like me to give you the whole history???
2. WHY is it that when we start reciting history, as it is, then this becomes slandering the RCC, shall we give lies instead of truth, and maybe then you will be happy?.
3. Well, if you belong to the same church, then you are member of it, and thus you are one of it, or you are not? but again, when there is pride involve, then there is no question in relating yourselves to it, but something like the above, we have nothing to do with it. I guess the best approach to that, is what your late Pope JPII did and said and not your approach my freind. however we did not say that you are guilty, but it is your church and remmber the subject is your church not you, you seemed that you got upset and you said that he bobzills slandering the church, but now, you are saying that “you” are not guilty of those sins, but I must thank you at least for confessing that what had happened it was a sin that it was done by your church and in the name of your Pope as the historical text shows.

It is not appropriate to blame a CHURCH AT ALL for the sins of its members. Would you agree or disagree? Since many soldiers during the communist era who performed attrocities were actually Orthodox Chrisitans (in name, if not in action), should we blame the Russian Orthodox CHURCH for their atrocities? OF COURSE NOT! I do recall Patriarch Alexei apologizing for past atrocities, but I do not believe he was apologizing for his CHURCH, but rather for MEMBERS of his Church.

I do agree that on the basis of charity and humility, we should apologize for the sins of our fellow religionists of the past, but in no way can I agree that any fault should be attached to the CHURCH of whom those persons were a part.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ignatios]

Bobzills can’t do that, and judging from his comments he couldn’t care less. He is just here to incite bad feelings against the Latin Church. He has no real interest in fairness, judging from his past comments here.

what is fairness in your eyes? would it make you feel better if he spoke in favor of the filioque? maybe then that would be fair?

O by the way Marduk, your words tells that the core of your mind is Latin Not Coptic. Even the Maronite are more easterners then this. Just a thought, hope did not offend you with it.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ignatios,

I beleive he was not speaking about the Humbert story, It is clear what he had said >>> “…Rather than going around excommunicating Christians who want to say the creed as it was originally written…” and I believe he reffering to this>>>"…the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son”

I agree technically with your statement - that brother Bob’s statement COULD be applied to some FUTURE event, but you have to admit we WERE talking about the issues surrounding the 1054 excommunication.

I think The Council of Lyons was referring only to the THEOLOGY behind filioque, WITHOUT insisting on its addition to the Creed. I’ll have to do more research on whether or not Lyons insisted on the textual addition.(much of what I write in this Forum is based 90% on my memory - which is not infallible ).

Can you provide evidence a formal one from the Coptic Orthodox Church that they do not reject the Filioque on the ground of Theology or however you have listed it above in your text? Thank you.
My knowldge on this, for the Copts the issue did not even get that far to be dicussed theologically.

Your response already seems to answer your own question. Copts don’t have a formal teaching on the matter. I DO know however, that in the Middle Ages, it was the Coptic Orthodox who approached the Catholic Church for the possibility of reunion THREE TIMES, if I recall correctly. It might have been four times, but I think ONE of those times was initiated by the Catholic Church, the other times were initiated by the CO. During those discussions, it was deemed that there were no THEOLOGICAL barriers to reunion. The attempts eventually failed primarily because of what was perceived to be excessive jurisdictional claims of the Pope. I don’t have any online sources. I read about these from the Coptic Encyclopedia

I do remember reading in the Coptic Encyclopedia on the matter of Filioque, as well. About 99% of the article consisted of the theological debate between the Latins and the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Coptic Orthodox Church is finally and only mentioned at the end of the Article, where the issue of the textual addition is discussed. I don’t think there is an online resource for the Coptic Encyclopedia, but if you visit your local Coptic Orthodox Church, it will have one (and probably the larger public libraries).

You have to recall also that Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria is often cited by Latin apologists as one of the earliest Eastern sources in support of filioque. The THEOLOGICAL background for filioque is not really a problem among the Coptic Orthodox, as the terms “and the Son” or “through the Son” is found in the writings of the common Fathers of East, West and Orient. You should also understand that St. Cyril taught us that our Faith is not contained in the Creed alone. The Coptic Orthodox takes this position of our Alexandrian Father to heart. This understanding of the faith is often expressed by ORIENTAL Orthodox in general. During the Common Christological statement between HH Pope Shenoute and HH Pope Paul, Pope Shenoute asserted that the difference between the Copts and the Catholics is one of language and doctrine, not one of Faith.

Blessings,
Marduk

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ignatios]

Dear brother Ignatios,

I guess that’s part of the problem, brother. The original word “procedit” from which the English word is derived, has NO connotation of ontological origination. The English word “proceeds” has developed to include a connotation of ontological origination, more approximating the Greek ekporeusai. However, that understanding is nevertheless SECONDARY, or even tertiary in the overall sense of the word. English-speaking people normally (99% of the time) don’t use the word “proceed” to refer to ONTOLOGICAL origination. For instance, when describing the birth of a baby from its mother, NO ONE says, “Congratulations! Baby Edward proceeded from his mother Carol today!”

There have been many discussions here already in the past regarding the differences in the Latin and Greek language on the matter. Perhaps you can look for them, or maybe others can direct you to them. They have been very informative.

Blessings,
Marduk

You missed the whole point, my brother, Again, CHRIST JESUS SAID, that the HOLY SPIRIT proceed from the ({“FATHER”}]) PERIOD.
HE did not say from the FATHER and the SON, what I am speaking about here is the word and the SON.
IT DOES NOT EXIST.
and when the Holy Fathers put that in the Creed they took it out of the Bible, SO, it is a biblical verse, YOU CANNOT TOUCH IT.
In another words and again, IF CHRIST said that the HOLY SPIRIT proceed from the FATHER…who are we to say, that HE proceed from the FATHER AND the SON
By doing so you are disagreeing with the LORD or you at least you are adding to HIS WORDS.

Besides I dont know why you are dwelling on the English, the English were no where in the picture back then and the problem existed.

And if you are Coptic then I assume that you know Arabic, now how come those Arab Catholics ( the ones who uses the filioque that is) say that, the HOLY SPIRIT proceed ( originate) ( the word in ARabic would Monbathek) from the FATHER AAAAAND the SON.
yes yes and there will be much more discussions too about this for GOD only knows when.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

You missed the whole point, my brother, Again, CHRIST JESUS SAID, that the HOLY SPIRIT proceed from the ({“FATHER”}]) PERIOD.
HE did not say from the FATHER and the SON, what I am speaking about here is the word and the SON.
IT DOES NOT EXIST.
and when the Holy Fathers put that in the Creed they took it out of the Bible, SO, it is a biblical verse, YOU CANNOT TOUCH IT.
In another words and again, IF CHRIST said that the HOLY SPIRIT proceed from the FATHER…who are we to say, that HE proceed from the FATHER AND the SON
By doing so you are disagreeing with the LORD or you at least you are adding to HIS WORDS.

Besides I dont know why you are dwelling on the English, the English were no where in the picture back then and the problem existed.

And if you are Coptic then I assume that you know Arabic, now how come those Arab Catholics ( the ones who uses the filioque that is) say that, the HOLY SPIRIT proceed ( originate) ( the word in ARabic would Monbathek) from the FATHER AAAAAND the SON.
yes yes and there will be much more discussions too about this for GOD only knows when.

John 16:7 But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, **I will send him to you
**
Who is the I referring to ignatios? Just curious.

 

[Ignatios]

Dear brother Ignatios,

It is not appropriate to blame a CHURCH AT ALL for the sins of its members. Would you agree or disagree? Since many soldiers during the communist era who performed attrocities were actually Orthodox Chrisitans (in name, if not in action), should we blame the Russian Orthodox CHURCH for their atrocities? OF COURSE NOT! I do recall Patriarch Alexei apologizing for past atrocities, but I do not believe he was apologizing for his CHURCH, but rather for MEMBERS of his Church.

I do agree that on the basis of charity and humility, we should apologize for the sins of our fellow religionists of the past, but in no way can I agree that any fault should be attached to the CHURCH of whom those persons were a part.

Blessings,
Marduk

It would not be appropriate if it is not true, However, My freind, I am not bringing anything of myself. I spoke according to the information that I got from your Pope. when A Pope issue an appologie for all the wrong doing that was done on behalf of the Church that he heads, … then why you attribute to me such things, your words, then, should be directed to your own Pope since he had said it.

the CRUSADERS were a christian army and they were lead by high ranking church men and were directed by them too. otherwise why would the late Pope ( may GOD have Mercy on his sole) issue an appologie???.

the communist in the former USSR were ATHEIST and the Orthodox Church was persecuted by them, the Orthodox Church had about 20 million martyrs under communism this more then what the whole western christians all combined together gave since the dawn of christianity, … you comparing those 2 together???

 

[mardukm]

what is fairness in your eyes? would it make you feel better if he spoke in favor of the filioque? maybe then that would be fair?

O by the way Marduk, your words tells that the core of your mind is Latin Not Coptic. Even the Maronite are more easterners then this. Just a thought, hope did not offend you with it.

No, I am not offended brother. Brother Bob was not writing in favor or not in favor of filioque. He consistently writes about what the Latins should do to make things better, but never says anything about what the Easterns can do to make it better, to the point that he has insisted in the past that the Latins should lose their particular identity for the sake of reunion (he has suggested, for instance, that for the sake of reunion, Latins should no longer be allowed to use unleavened bread, that Latins can no longer have images of the Blessed Virgin on her own, but only with the baby Jesus in her arms, that, etc. etc. etc., etc. His position is that whatever will make it easer to promote reunion, then we should do it, even at the cost of losing one’s religious identity - and of course, he places this entire burden on the Latin Church. Please do a search of the kinds of things brother Bob has stated in the past, and you will perhaps understand why I don’t think he is very fair in many of his statements.

I am not writing in favor of filioque. I am writing in favor of understanding each other. Reunion will NOT come about by insisting on uniformity, it will only come about in the Spirit of understanding. That is what the Coptic Tradition teaches, and I am a Copt. What is wrong with that?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jam070406]

1. It doesnt bring anygood indeed, for both of us, but the matter for the Greek is not as easy as it seems to you, Since the Greeks still suffering UP UNTILL TODAY from that sacking, they are still living the consequences of it, but was it only that, of course not, after that it was persecutions to the Ukrainian Church, then the schism in the Antiochian Church, going down to the Geonecide of the serbs then back to the Russians in their war against the Turks were the Pope was cheering when the Turks wins a battle against the Russians…etc, would you like me to give you the whole history???
2. WHY is it that when we start reciting history, as it is, then this becomes slandering the RCC, shall we give lies instead of truth, and maybe then you will be happy?.
3. Well, if you belong to the same church, then you are member of it, and thus you are one of it, or you are not? but again, when there is pride involve, then there is no question in relating yourselves to it, but something like the above, we have nothing to do with it. I guess the best approach to that, is what your late Pope JPII did and said and not your approach my freind. however we did not say that you are guilty, but it is your church and remmber the subject is your church not you, you seemed that you got upset and you said that he bobzills slandering the church, but now, you are saying that “you” are not guilty of those sins, but I must thank you at least for confessing that what had happened it was a sin that it was done by your church and in the name of your Pope as the historical text shows.

Of course it was sinful!!! THE SINS OF INDIVIDUAL MEN! What part do you not get?? THAT is exactly why I protested it being brought up. It has nothing to do with the original post or the theological differences or the Filioque. It was absolutely brought up to discredit the Catholic Church AS A WHOLE and you know this.
My comment about me not being guilty was in response to YOU saying I should be ashamed. Again, ashamed of what? Ashamed of defended my Church from slander?

 

[Ignatios]

John 16:7 But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, **I will send him to you
**
Who is the I referring to ignatios? Just curious.

loool… you fail again my good Chaldean freind,
still where do you see that the HOLY SPIRIT proceed from the FATHER and the SON ???
Or how do you see the word send means proceed (originate) from the SON.
Not to mention, that, this is even a wrong speculations.
have a nice day or night.

 

[jam070406]

It would not be appropriate if it is not true, However, My freind, I am not bringing anything of myself. I spoke according to the information that I got from your Pope. when A Pope issue an appologie for all the wrong doing that was done on behalf of the Church that he heads, … then why you attribute to me such things, your words, then, should be directed to your own Pope since he had said it.

the CRUSADERS were a christian army and they were lead by high ranking church men and were directed by them too. otherwise why would the late Pope ( may GOD have Mercy on his sole) issue an appologie???.

the communist in the former USSR were ATHEIST and the Orthodox Church was persecuted by them, the Orthodox Church had about 20 million martyrs under communism this more then what the whole western christians all combined together gave since the dawn of christianity, … you comparing those 2 together???

I think Mardukm made a great point. It is wrong for you to accuse the entire Catholic Church of atrocities because of the actions of dissenting crusaders.

The Patriarch of Constantinople speaking about the Russian Orthodox Church:

“All collaborated more or less with the [Communist] regime by necessity. Therefore it is not just for one Christian church to accuse another Christian church for having collaborated with the communists, as if it were the only one to so, in order to discredit it in the eyes of the faithful” (30 Dias, ed. port., March 1992, p. 36).

 

[anthony022071]

loool… you fail again my good Chaldean freind,
still where do you see that the HOLY SPIRIT proceed from the FATHER and the SON ???
Or how do you see the word send means proceed (originate) from the SON.
Not to mention, that, this is even a wrong speculations.
have a nice day or night.

Jesus said that “…he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine.”

And Paul said that the Spirit was of the Son.

So the Spirit has his existence and substance from the Son as well as the Father.