Filioque??

[Ignatios]

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?

the part that I dont get is what you have said above, “individual”??? it was the whole church of yours, it was the church that you belong to, or was it diffrent church, as i have explained to you in my previous post, or the RCs are not to be considered as part of their church, or your church is only the Pope??? if your father was a child milesting man, wouldnt you be ashamed??? although it was not you who commited this wrong doing… Do you get it now???

You only protested against him, but not against your fellows RCs when they had brought up diffrent issues?

well, when you had said that you go to a Ukrainian Church I thought you were Ukrianian, and I thought since you are Catholic I assumed that you would follow your Pope since he had issued an appologie and was also disgusted ( did you read my past posts concerning this, or should I keep re-writing things over and hope that you read it before you respond?)
thats why I said you should be ashamed, since as I have demonstrated clearly, when i spoke about the persecution of your forfathers by the RCs. when they were deffending the filiioque and other issues, but since you are Not Ukrianian then i dont see why you should be ashamed of the wrong doing of the RCs who had persecuted the Ukrianians and Constantinople etc,etc etc…

 

[mardukm]

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.

HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory was a man of humility and grace. Truly he was a great man. He did what others who were not in the Catholic Church were wanting him to do for the sake of peace and Christian love. But I should point out that there were many Catholic voices who complained about the apology - for the exact reasons I have given. The Church cannot be blamed for the sins of her members. Personally, I believe HH JP2’s apology was awesome, but I understand that when he stated “Church” he was speaking of its members (not an uncommon understanding), not the theological/mystical entity that is the Catholic Church.

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???

As I stated, he issued the apology because he was a humble, grace-filled, and great man. And he did it to placate non-Catholic voices who did not have the heart to forgive.

I don’t know if you have kids, but I will relate what I do sometimes for my two young children. They often get into arguments, sometimes they get into arguments, and one will refuse to listen to the other, even though the original issue was really silly or was not really the fault of one or the other. Sometimes, I have to tell each one separately - “you know, your brother is really sorry. And he just wants to be your friend. You know he really loves you.” Likewise, I’ll take the other one aside and say the same thing. So far that has worked, and then they get together and apologize to each other and become friends again ( I just have to smile at the thought of it cause it gladdens my heart so much when they make up).

The same thing applies here. Our holy Father HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory looks at the other member of the family who is not willing to forgive, and so he goes to them and tells them - :you know your brother is really sorry, etc. etc. It is not an admission of blame per se, but is a fatherly act to promote peace and love.

NO bishop (including the Pope) initiated or promoted the sacking of Constantinople. It was only AFTER the war began do we find bishops exhorting Latin Crusaders, and many Easterns were also hateful towards the Latins (even PRIOR to the war). There was a lot of hate going around on both sides, and Eastern bishops were also guilty of inciting the populace to kill the Latins. Blame is to be had on both sides.

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???

But many communists were still members of the Russian Orthodox Church, brother. That is beyond doubt. But I still maintain that it does not make it right to blame the Russian Orthodox CHURCH for the sins of its members, just as it is not right to blame the Catholic CHURCH for the sins of its members.

And by the way. The shepherd will leave his flock to find his one sole sheep. It is not numbers that counts in God’s eyes. And we are called to put on the mind of Christ in all matters. Don’t compare numbers, brother. The sacrifice of one is as great in the eyes of God as the sacrifice of many.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Badaliyyah]

I think it is pretty clear why Greek speakers might think the Latins are saying more than they are perhaps (and I have to admit that it is not clear to me that the Latins are not professing a double-origin of the HS) trying to say.

In (pre-)Scholastic Trinitarian theology there is the identification of the relationships of origin for each of the three persons. The Father is Unbegotten, the Son is Begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds/is spirated. Now if the procession/spiration of the Spirit is same one mentioned in the edited-Creed (i.e., “proceeds from the Father and the Son”) then it is fairly clear the Latins are making an ontological claim about the origin of the Spirit from the Son that many Orthodox are uncomfortable with. If the Latins are not making such a claim then the theological language is ambiguous to say the least.

I also think it is fairly safe to say that many influenced by Augustine (and who wasn’t in the West when it came to the Trinity) understood the HS to be the mutual love between the F and the S. Thus there is a kind of inter-mutual origination by both the F and the S of the love that binds them together (i.e. the HS).

To take someone relatively contemporary to our arbitrary crisis point of 1054…just look at Anselm’s Monologion. Similarly most Scholastics, but certainly Alexander de Hales, Bonaventure, etc (whose doctrine of God is deeply influenced by Aug and Anselm).

In all these cases, the Latins are reading (quite rightly, I think) the opening lines of the second and third stanzas of the Creed as statements regarding origin.

To my mind the problem here to be negotiated is not the theology of the West, but the insertion of the filioque by the Pope and the insistence that its denial was heresy.

These issues largely seem to have been surpassed insofar as the filioque is now recognized as a local confession (it is not said in the Eastern Churches) and I can’t imagine anyone in Rome anathematizing the Greeks who insist on the single-origin of the HS in the F.

salaam.

 

[jam070406]

the part that I dont get is what you have said above, “individual”??? it was the whole church of yours, it was the church that you belong to, or was it diffrent church, as i have explained to you in my previous post, or the RCs are not to be considered as part of their church, or your church is only the Pope??? if your father was a child milesting man, wouldnt you be ashamed??? although it was not you who commited this wrong doing… Do you get it now???

You only protested against him, but not against your fellows RCs when they had brought up diffrent issues?

well, when you had said that you go to a Ukrainian Church I thought you were Ukrianian, and I thought since you are Catholic I assumed that you would follow your Pope since he had issued an appologie and was also disgusted ( did you read my past posts concerning this, or should I keep re-writing things over and hope that you read it before you respond?)
thats why I said you should be ashamed, since as I have demonstrated clearly, when i spoke about the persecution of your forfathers by the RCs. when they were deffending the filiioque and other issues, but since you are Not Ukrianian then i dont see why you should be ashamed of the wrong doing of the RCs who had persecuted the Ukrianians and Constantinople etc,etc etc…

I never said I went to a Ukrainian Church. You must have me confused with someone else.

Yeah, I’m disgusted by things Catholics do TODAY. But I’m not gonna apologize for the Church. It’s personal sin that causes the actions they commit, not the Church.

 

[jbm0117]

The past is sinful from both sides of the coin. Should we not forgive as Christians and talk through issues to the ultimate goal of Christian unity.

 

[Ignatios]

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.

anthony, I am glad that you are reading the Bible but one must understand what he is reading too,
Again, CHRIST was Teaching when HE said that the HOLY SPIRIT proceed from the FATHER**.**Period
HE did not say from the FATHER AND the SON

Please give a Book chapter and verse name and number for what Saint PAul had said so I can research it. because as you know that CHRIST was Fully man and fully GOD. the HOLY SPIRIT rests upon the SON but does not proceed from HIM, If the HOLY SPIRIT proceed from HIM then CHRIST would have said it since it was a teaching.
later all

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ignatios,

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.

I’m bringing up the English because I think it is the English that is causing a lot of the problems - exactly because it fails to distinguish what the original languages intended.

You keep referring to the Scriptures (rightly), but it seems like you are not aware of the history of the difference between the Greek word ekporeusai that is translated as “proceed” and the Latin word procedit that is also translated as “proceed.” If you are aware of it, please let me know so I will not have to explain it to you. If not, I will do so, and the explanation might be a real eye-opener for you.

By the way, I am a second generation Arab-American, so I am not at all proficient in Arabic, but only have a very basic understanding. I speak Spanish and, French better than I speak Arabic. And I read Spanish, French and German better than I READ Arabic, which I cannot read at all.

But as regards the use of Arab apostolic Christians, the reason you may hear Arab Christians use filioque is because they (I would say “we,” but I don’t really speak Arabic fluently or often) don’t mentally connect it with the Greek ekporeusai, but with the Greek proienai. Proienai is the proper Greek translation of the Latin procedit. Attached to the Latin procedit or the Greek proienai, “and the Son” or “through the Son” is wholly orthodox Catholic and Orthodox. But “and the Son” can never be attached to the Greek ekporeusai.

PLEASE respond to my second paragraph above.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jam070406]

The past is sinful from both sides of the coin. Should we not forgive as Christians and talk through issues to the ultimate goal of Christian unity.

Yes!

And like I said, it does no good to drudge up sinful behavior of individuals 800 yrs ago.
And it would do good for some to realize that they should not hold a grudge against the entire Church, Catholic or Orthodox, for the sinful actions of some in the distant past.

 

[mardukm]

the part that I dont get is what you have said above, “individual”??? it was the whole church of yours, it was the church that you belong to, or was it diffrent church, as i have explained to you in my previous post, or the RCs are not to be considered as part of their church, or your church is only the Pope??? if your father was a child milesting man, wouldnt you be ashamed??? although it was not you who commited this wrong doing… Do you get it now???

We understand that, brother. But using the same analogy, if the father does such a heinous thing, WILL YOU lay blame on the ENTIRE FAMILY, the son, the daughter, the grandchildren, and the great-grandchildren, etc, etc. Do you understand what we are trying to say now?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Diak]

It is probably good to cite the first article of the Union of Brest:

1.—Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another—we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.

This is the basis of communion between the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and Rome; it was ratified by Pope Clement VIII, and has never been abrogated by any Pope nor Council.

It is also very interesting that in Article 1 of *Dominus Iesus * Pope Benedict omitted it entirely. Were it a necessary statement of faith there is no doubt he would have included it, especially in a document dealing with the person of Jesus Christ.

Eis polla eti, Despota.
FDRLB

 

[bobzills]

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.

Sorry, but I don’t think that this is true. Here’s why I would say that: During the Fourth Crusade, the Eastern Orthodox Churches were looted and much of this loot was placed in Roman Catholic Churches in the West. What did this loot include? It included priceless artifacts and relgious objects as described in the following report. Very little of the loot has ever been returned. Why not? Speros Vryonis in Byzantium and Europe gives an account of the sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders of the Fourth Crusade:

“The Latin soldiery subjected the greatest city in Europe to an indescribable sack. For three days they murdered, raped, looted and destroyed on a scale which even the ancient Vandals and Goths would have found unbelievable. Constantinople had become a veritable museum of ancient and Byzantine art, an emporium of such incredible wealth that the Latins were astounded at the riches they found. Though the Venetians had an appreciation for the art which they discovered (they were themselves semi-Byzantines) and saved much of it, the French and others destroyed indiscriminately, halting to refresh themselves with wine, violation of nuns, and murder of Orthodox clerics. The Crusaders vented their hatred for the Greeks most spectacularly in the desecration of the greatest Church in Christendom. They smashed the silver iconostasis, the icons and the holy books of Hagia Sophia, and seated upon the patriarchal throne a whore who sang coarse songs as they drank wine from the Church’s holy vessels. The estrangement of East and West, which had proceeded over the centuries, culminated in the horrible massacre that accompanied the conquest of Constantinople. The Greeks were convinced that even the Turks, had they taken the city, would not have been as cruel as the Latin Christians. The defeat of Byzantium, already in a state of decline, accelerated political degeneration so that the Byzantines eventually became an easy prey to the Turks. The Crusading movement thus resulted, ultimately, in the victory of Islam, a result which was of course the exact opposite of its original intention.”

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Bob,

Sorry, but I don’t think that this is true. Here’s why I would say that: During the Fourth Crusade, the Eastern Orthodox Churches were looted and much of this loot was placed in Roman Catholic Churches in the West. What did this loot include? It included priceless artifacts and relgious objects as described in the following report. Very little of the loot has ever been returned. Why not? Speros Vryonis in Byzantium and Europe gives an account of the sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders of the Fourth Crusade:

“The Latin soldiery subjected the greatest city in Europe to an indescribable sack. For three days they murdered, raped, looted and destroyed on a scale which even the ancient Vandals and Goths would have found unbelievable. Constantinople had become a veritable museum of ancient and Byzantine art, an emporium of such incredible wealth that the Latins were astounded at the riches they found. Though the Venetians had an appreciation for the art which they discovered (they were themselves semi-Byzantines) and saved much of it, the French and others destroyed indiscriminately, halting to refresh themselves with wine, violation of nuns, and murder of Orthodox clerics. The Crusaders vented their hatred for the Greeks most spectacularly in the desecration of the greatest Church in Christendom. They smashed the silver iconostasis, the icons and the holy books of Hagia Sophia, and seated upon the patriarchal throne a whore who sang coarse songs as they drank wine from the Church’s holy vessels. The estrangement of East and West, which had proceeded over the centuries, culminated in the horrible massacre that accompanied the conquest of Constantinople. The Greeks were convinced that even the Turks, had they taken the city, would not have been as cruel as the Latin Christians. The defeat of Byzantium, already in a state of decline, accelerated political degeneration so that the Byzantines eventually became an easy prey to the Turks. The Crusading movement thus resulted, ultimately, in the victory of Islam, a result which was of course the exact opposite of its original intention.”

I am ambivalent on this issue for several reasons:

1. Booty of war is not under the purview of the Church, but rather of local governments.
2. As far as secular artifacts are concerned, I would apply #1 to them, and would not blame the CHURCH one iota…
3. As far as religious artifacts are concerned, I am of the opinion that more Christians have been able to venerate them by virtue of them being in the West, than being in Muslim occupied territories.
   I don’t believe holy relics are the “possession” of any particular Church, but is the possession of the ENTIRE Church collectively. In other words, I don’t believe it matters where the relics are - whereever the relics afford the greatest chance to be venerated, that is where they should be. And I believe that is according to God’s providence. In the future, as better relations between governments and Churches in the former Soviet Block become better, I believe it would be the responsibility of the Vatican to try to return some of these religious artifacts as a sign of brotherhood.

But seriously, given the problems of the EP in Turkey, I would not want the religious artifacts to be there, as there is a great likelihood that the Muslim-controlled State might destroy them one day.

Btw, the account you gave doesn’t match your claim. The account only mentions that 1) the Venetians kept.much of the artisitic items; 2) the Crusaders smashed most of the religious items they found.

Where is the evidence that the religious artifacts were placed in Churches in the West. I think there have been one or two concrete examples given in this forum in the past. But aside from that, your claim seems overly general and inciteful.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[bobzills]

Where is the evidence that the religious artifacts were placed in Churches in the West.

You might try the following books:

The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople
by Donald E. Queller , Thomas F. Madden
The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople
by Jonathan Phillips
The great betrayal: Constantinople 1204, by Ernle Dusgate Selby Bradford

 

[Isa_Almisry]

[Isa Almisry]

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)

If the Creed had proeisi, and the Gospel upon which it is based, you would have something. But it is not. The had proeisi at their disposal, but they didn’t use it to say what the meant, because they meant what they said.

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

I know that means the world to you but it means nothing to us (except striking the pope from the diptychs).

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

then the Son begets Himself, as begetting is something the Father has.

and the Spirit therefore has two sources.

 

[mardukm]

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)

If the Creed had proeisi, and the Gospel upon which it is based, you would have something. But it is not. The had proeisi at their disposal, but they didn’t use it to say what the meant, because they meant what they said.

I’m happy to see that you understand the difference between proienai and ekporeusai, for it is the same difference between procedit and ekporeusai.

What do you think of the following:

Since the English words “proceeds” and “procession” are derived from the LATIN procedit, it obviously has the primary sense of procedit or proienai, to which it is proper to attach “and/through the Son” (even by your admission). In other words, the Latin Church has more rights to a Latin understanding of the English translation of the Creed than do the Easterns and Orientals, so they (the Latins) should not be bothered about removing filioque from their Creed.

It seems to me the only proper solution to the problem would be one of two things:

1. Permit retention of filioque in the English translation of the Creed for the Latins, and leave it out for the Easterns/Orientals (Catholic and Orthodox), while instructing the masses on the different meanings of the word “proceeds”.
2. If #1 is too tedious, then change the word “proceeds” in the English translation of the Creed for the Easterns/Orientals (Catholics and Orthodox) to another word that can only EXCLUSIVELY denote ekporeusai, such as “originates,” so there won’t be any confusion between what the Westerns mean and what the Easterns/Orientals mean.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

then the Son begets Himself, as begetting is something the Father has.

and the Spirit therefore has two sources.

That’s an invalid conclusion for the very fact that the Act of Begetting, is always and everywhere distinguished by the Fathers from the Act of Procession. We are talking here about Procession, not the Begetting which is only proper to the relationship between the Father and Son, and does not involve the Holy Spirit.

So be careful, your response could open you up to the charge of heterdoxy for failing to distinguish between the Begetting and the Procession.

Blessings,
Marduk.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I’m happy to see that you understand the difference between proienai and ekporeusai, for it is the same difference between procedit and ekporeusai.

What do you think of the following:

Since the English words “proceeds” and “procession” are derived from the LATIN procedit, it obviously has the primary sense of procedit or proienai, to which it is proper to attach “and/through the Son” (even by your admission). In other words, the Latin Church has more rights to a Latin understanding of the English translation of the Creed than do the Easterns and Orientals, so they (the Latins) should not be bothered about removing filioque from their Creed.

It seems to me the only proper solution to the problem would be one of two things:

1. Permit retention of filioque in the English translation of the Creed for the Latins, and leave it out for the Easterns/Orientals (Catholic and Orthodox), while instructing the masses on the different meanings of the word “proceeds”.
2. If #1 is too tedious, then change the word “proceeds” in the English translation of the Creed for the Easterns/Orientals (Catholics and Orthodox) to another word that can only EXCLUSIVELY denote ekporeusai, such as “originates,” so there won’t be any confusion between what the Westerns mean and what the Easterns/Orientals mean.

Blessings,
Marduk

No. 2. For everyone.

And a thread gone by (a shame, it was quite full of information), it stated the in Romanian, a Latin lanugage (in fact, the closed to Latin), the Orthodox translates the phrase in question: “Care din Tatăl purcede” and the “Biserica Română Unită cu Roma” translates with “Care de la Tatăl şi de la Fiul purcede.” I guess the Vatican figures that the “Unita,” since they are Latin speaking have to have the filioque (the Romanians have always received their Christianity from the East, even from the days of St. John Cassian. When the Romans withdrew from Dacia/Romania, there wasn’t even a Latin Mass yet in Rome (it was still largely in Greek), so they never had it. Until the Hungarians invaded and brought it. Btw, on one of these threads I quoted Sozomen on the resistence of the Scythians to Arianism. He’s talking about the proto-Romanians).

You don’t need to know Romanian to see that they are different. The crux of the difference is in the “din” of the translation from the original Creed and the “de la” in the other. Now Romanian is not known as an abstract language, and it has managed, a Latin langugage, to make the distinction (actually, in this case the Vatican has introduced a distinction to maintain the filioque, and to distinguish it from the Orthodox original). English (and Ecclesiastical Latin) can also manage I am sure. They came up with “consubstantial.”

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Isa,

That’s an invalid conclusion for the very fact that the Act of Begetting, is always and everywhere distinguished by the Fathers from the Act of Procession. We are talking here about Procession, not the Begetting which is only proper to the relationship between the Father and Son, and does not involve the Holy Spirit.

So be careful, your response could open you up to the charge of heterdoxy for failing to distinguish between the Begetting and the Procession.

Blessings,
Marduk.

The OP cited the fact the Son has everything the Father has as proof of procession from the Son. I merely pointed out that if that were true, then the Son must have begetting as well, since the Father also has that.

 

[Diak]

I guess the Vatican figures that the “Unita,” since they are Latin speaking have to have the filioque (the Romanians have always received their Christianity from the East, even from the days of St. John Cassian.

There are Romanian Greek Catholic priests and even bishops who do not use the Filioque. I have not experienced the Liturgy in Romania, but I know His Grace +John Michael does not use the addition either in Romanian or English here in the US.
FDRLB