Filioque??

  • Thread starter Thread starter totustuus2345
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ignatios said:
Is the above the best and all the arguement you were able to come up with ??? WOW, Now in the above you just gave the best demonstration what is the whole bunch of nothing is like. thank you much.👍

Now you have added a new question to all the thing that I gave forth before, and that is, show me where it says that the council or the church is infallible apart from the Pope or without needing him for infallible declaration or anything ? As you been implying,

But to respond to your statement, There is nothing that the bishops or the E.C. in your church has, NOTHING that is, apart from the Pope.
Example, the Bishops or the E.C in your church need the Pope for whatever decission or decree they like to put out, and there is nothing that can be done without his approval, are we together on this? I assume so, if not please bring forth your proof and refute me.
On the other hand, the Pope can do whatever he may see fit and give a decree or anything, apart from them or apart from an E.C. and without any need of their consent.
What more would you like.?
And then finally, I asked you if I am mistaking as you said in your previous post PLEASE provide me with a ligit. interpretation of the CCC # 882, 883 and 884. amd then proove me wrong.

GOD Bless .
Click to expand...
say whatever makes you feel better buddy.
 
ralphinal said:
Actually, it was first added by the Orthodox Churches in Persia, not in the west. However, the controversy as we have it was between the West and East.

From my Catholic view, it is a misunderstanding that can easily be fixed.
Click to expand...
it was added by the orthodox churches in persia:confused:
how come i’ve never heard of this?
 
it was added by the orthodox churches in persia:confused:
how come i’ve never heard of this?
Click to expand...
Ivan,

ralphinal is referring to the Synod of Mar Isaac in 410 in the See of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, where the Church of the East was headquartered in the Persian empire.

The Creed was in Aramaic, and the terms “and the Son” are used in the Creed, but the Aramaic word for “proceeds” is not used. This is how it is worded:

“And we confess the living and holy spirit, the living Paraclete who (is) from the Father and the Son”

You can read this info. here: The Church of the East A concise history

God bless,

Rony
 
So what do you think now, 21 pages later? 😉 😛 :eek: 👍
Click to expand...
God Bless,
R.
Click to expand...
Allyson,

If I may comment, I think we need 500 more pages before we can settle it, and then 24 hours later, we should start a whole new thread on the Filioque, and beat that thread to death until the Son comes again! 👍

Sounds like a good plan to me 😃

God bless,

Rony
 
Dear brother Ignatios,
Ignatios said:
Now you have added a new question to all the thing that I gave forth before, and that is, show me where it says that the council or the church is infallible apart from the Pope or without needing him for infallible declaration or anything ? As you been implying,
Click to expand...
Please reread your own post#350.

It was all about infallibility. Are you changing your argument now?

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Ghosty said:
Ignatios:
Just as a demonstration of my point, the Council of Ephesus only regard one previous Council as Ecumenical, namely the Council of Nicaea; it wasn’t until Chalcedon that the First Council of Constantinople became universally regarded as an Ecumenical Council. Prior to that time it was not considered as such in the West, and wasn’t even largely known about.
Click to expand...
As I have pointed out, the acceptance of Constantinople I by the Nestorians (who did not recognize Ephesus) and the Miaphysites (who do not accept Chalcedon), tell that it was known, and accepted, enough. Ditto that Constantinople had assumed 2nd place, which Constantinople I gave her.
So until the Fourth Ecumenical Council you had some who said that there were only two prior Ecumenical Councils, and some who said that there were three. Such things continued throughout history, such as at Florence when the Latins refered to the Eight previous Ecumenical Councils that were shared between East and West, and the Greeks responded that they only knew of Seven.
Click to expand...
Which shold lay to rest the claim that the Orthodox do not hold Ecumenical Councils because they are
“not united to the Pope of Rome.”
 
mardukm said:
Dear brother Ignatios,

You are quite wrong that the infallibility of an Ecum Council depends on the infallibility of the Pope. I am 100% certain you cannot demonstrate your assumption from the official teachings of the Catholic Church. All you have done is extrapolate your conclusions from the texts, but have not actually given any direct proof of your assumptions. Within the next two days, I will be responding to brother ematouk in the “Intercommunion” thread where I will be addressing this very issue. I invite you to take a look and participate (if you want) when I have given my response in that thread.

Until then…

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
I’ve already cited the relevant parts of Lumen Gentium and canon law. Apart from the pope of Rome, the bishops under him have no authority or ability to act, and all there acts require Rome.
 
Ivan_Muniz said:
it was added by the orthodox churches in persia:confused:
how come i’ve never heard of this?
Click to expand...
Because they didn’t.

The reference must be to the Council of Seleucia, which was not Orthodox. And, in the original Syriac it does not have the same implication.

Someone pasted a picture from a scholarly work which gave the original of this Council, on the clause in question. The thread is now gone: can someone repaste it?
 
ronyodish said:
Ivan,

ralphinal is referring to the Synod of Mar Isaac in 410 in the See of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, where the Church of the East was headquartered in the Persian empire.

The Creed was in Aramaic, and the terms “and the Son” are used in the Creed, but the Aramaic word for “proceeds” is not used. This is how it is worded:

“And we confess the living and holy spirit, the living Paraclete who (is) from the Father and the Son”

You can read this info. here: The Church of the East A concise history

God bless,

Rony
Click to expand...
Did you once paste the original? Can you do so again? (btw, what’s the modern Syriac for thank you?🙂 ).
 
ronyodish said:
Allyson,

If I may comment, I think we need 500 more pages before we can settle it, and then 24 hours later, we should start a whole new thread on the Filioque, and beat that thread to death until the Son comes again! 👍

Sounds like a good plan to me 😃

God bless,

Rony
Click to expand...
:rotfl:

Exactly! 😉 😃 You are welcome to comment anytime. 👍

It would be so much more fun if it weren’t beat to death, and some progress could be made. It is a fundamentally interesting theological discussion.

God Bless,
R,
 
Did you once paste the original? Can you do so again? (btw, what’s the modern Syriac for thank you? 🙂 ).
Click to expand...
Isa,

Here is an online link to the original. The relevant section are the first 9 words:

books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=TK0AAAAAMAAJ&dq=Three+Letters+of+Philoxenus&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=CtR0Jjbg9R&sig=JXCvKngwWpNpu6flFpf9udOTb24&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA76,M1

We Chaldeans say “gyanukh basimta” when thanking an individual male. It is an idiom, our equivalent for “thank you” 🙂

God bless,

Rony
 
ronyodish said:
Ivan,

ralphinal is referring to the Synod of Mar Isaac in 410 in the See of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, where the Church of the East was headquartered in the Persian empire.

The Creed was in Aramaic, and the terms “and the Son” are used in the Creed, but the Aramaic word for “proceeds” is not used. This is how it is worded:

“And we confess the living and holy spirit, the living Paraclete who (is) from the Father and the Son”

You can read this info. here: The Church of the East A concise history

God bless,

Rony
Click to expand...
This would then seem to contradict the statement often heard that the filioque originated in the West in Toledo much later.
 
ronyodish said:
Isa,

Here is an online link to the original. The relevant section are the first 9 words:

books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=TK0AAAAAMAAJ&dq=Three+Letters+of+Philoxenus&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=CtR0Jjbg9R&sig=JXCvKngwWpNpu6flFpf9udOTb24&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA76,M1

We Chaldeans say “gyanukh basimta” when thanking an individual male. It is an idiom, our equivalent for “thank you” 🙂

God bless,

Rony
Click to expand...
here is says that Philoxenus, Bushop of Mabbogh 485-519 says that the Holky Spirit proceeds from the nature of the Father and of the Son.
This would also appear to contradict the statement often heard that the filioque originated much later in Spain?
 
bobzills said:
This would then seem to contradict the statement often heard that the filioque originated in the West in Toledo much later.
Click to expand...
However, do not forget that in latin, filioque is linked by the grammar to the term procedit, but that, as has already been stated, there is not word for procede in the other creedal text in question. So it is different from the introduction of the filioque in the West. The word at issue is actually fundamentally not “and the Son,” but the verb that it is connected to. So don’t get to attached to that being the issue. If you notice, the verb is always brought up in the critiques.

So the adding of the words “and the Son” in one creedal formula does not necessarily have the same significance as it does in another creedal formula in another language.

God Bless,
R.
 
mardukm said:
Dear brother Ignatios,

Please reread your own post#350.

It was all about infallibility. Are you changing your argument now?

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
I didnt change anything, Just how did you come up with this conclussion?
Please marduk, I think you must read what I have wrote, and actually I have been saying the same thing all along, but for some reason I am not getting through, and again for the third time, at least, if you think I am wrong please come up with something ligit. from your church teaching that would support your interpretation and enlighten me, According to my research those Paragraphs from the CCC are what they read, and unless there is an interpretation for them that they are not what they read but something else, then please correct me, I am willing to accept your arguement as valid if you are able to come up with something ligitimate.
So far you gave forth nothing, only comments about what I said, I gave forth three examples to support my arguement from your own church’s CCC, and I gave my comments on them, now I ask you respectfully to meet me on the same level, why is it so hard to do?
GOD bless.
 
Allyson said:
However, do not forget that in latin, filioque is linked by the grammar to the term procedit, but that, as has already been stated, there is not word for procede in the other creedal text in question. So it is different from the introduction of the filioque in the West. The word at issue is actually fundamentally not “and the Son,” but the verb that it is connected to. So don’t get to attached to that being the issue. If you notice, the verb is always brought up in the critiques.

So the adding of the words “and the Son” in one creedal formula does not necessarily have the same significance as it does in another creedal formula in another language.

God Bless,
R.
Click to expand...

It’s too technical because if in the East they have said that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, this would appear to indicate the objection is partly semantical and can be resolved theologically.
 
This would then seem to contradict the statement often heard that the filioque originated in the West in Toledo much later.
Click to expand...
here is says that Philoxenus, Bushop of Mabbogh 485-519 says that the Holky Spirit proceeds from the nature of the Father and of the Son.
This would also appear to contradict the statement often heard that the filioque originated much later in Spain?
Click to expand...
bobzills,

I defer to Allyson’s explanation.

By the way, if you have some reading time on your hands, there is an old thread in which we discussed some of this info.:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=220620

Look for the postings between myself and yeshua.

God bless,

Rony
 
Allyson said:
However, do not forget that in latin, filioque is linked by the grammar to the term procedit, but that, as has already been stated, there is not word for procede in the other creedal text in question. So it is different from the introduction of the filioque in the West. The word at issue is actually fundamentally not “and the Son,” but the verb that it is connected to. So don’t get to attached to that being the issue. If you notice, the verb is always brought up in the critiques.

So the adding of the words “and the Son” in one creedal formula does not necessarily have the same significance as it does in another creedal formula in another language.

God Bless,
R.
Click to expand...

Yes, the verb (actually, participle) in the clause is “Living.” Also the phrase “from the Son” and “through the Son” would be expressed with the same expression “men bara.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top