Filioque??

[Ghosty]

Grace and Peace to everyone,

Could I just say that I would like to express my appreciation to CA and the individuals on both sides of this discussion for having a forum where we can hash these weighty topic out with the care and concern they are due. I really honestly appreciate being able to just grapple with this topic without being locked or called a heretic or what have you.

Thank you all and God Bless us.

I wrote a response to your previous post, but for some reason it didn’t appear. I apologize, and I’ll try to write up a new one later today.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ignatios]

Ignatios:

There is nothing Melkite about calling the Latin view heretical…

,

Well now the Melkite cant go to as far as to call the RCC heretical because they are in communion with it. but there is nothing Melkite about accepting the filioque and deffending it either.

…and there’s nothing unMelkite about defending the members of my own Communion…

likewise there is nothing unMelkite about deffending the Genuine Creed, in which we still yet to see from you

Your accusations are both rude and groundless.

It seems like you love to accuse others of being rude when they give an accurate discritpion of the facts that it is presented by your comments and positions.
My responds are grounded on your writting.

I understand the Latin theology, and I'm happy to present it, and that's what I'm doing.

Reading your comments, it seems more like you “beleive” in the Latin theology and you are happy to presented.

Yes we see clearly what you are doing.

There is no difference between the Holy Spirit proceeding, and the Holy Spirit taking or receiving. You’re splitting hairs that aren’t even existent.

Now. your Text above is a perfect example of what " Groundless" is.

unless you are willing to give some ground to that.:coffeeread:

The future tense is often used in Scripture to describe things that have already occurred. For example, in 2 Samuel 7, God says to David, regarding the future Messianic King:

Yes in some sentences in the Holy Scripture such tense exist, BUT, does it exist in the one you are reffering to???

Of course NOT
But, ON WHAT GROUND DO I SAY SO???
Well, let us take a look at the Holy Scriptures,
Shall we?
2 Samuel 7:11-17 ( but for the sake of space I started from verse # 11, please start from verse #8)
( while rading please note the sharp distinction between the future, present and past tense)

11 and have doneever since the time I appointed leaders [a] over my people Israel. I will also give you rest from all your enemies. " ‘The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: 12 When **your days are over **and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. 15 But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me ** ; your throne will be established forever.’ "

17 Nathan reported to David all the words of this entire revelation.

Anynore than this, is a brick falling from Heaven.

study and search your bible and then try again.BTW try to look up the interpretation for this from your own RC Bible.

It's not said "I am His Father, and He is my Son", but rather "will be". The future tense doesn't indicate that the event isn't true now, but that the revelation has not yet occurred.

The above is the results of quoting things out of context. In the above which is the 14th verse HE is speaking about David’s descendant( this would be Solomon) so you see the future tense in here.

Besides, if you take it to mean that the Holy Spirit will receive what is the Father and the Son's ***in the future***

, then you are saying that there was/will be a change in the Holy Spirit’s nature, which is heretical; Christ was certainly not speaking of a future change in the Holy Spirit.

The above is what you have said I only made a comment, to illustrate the absurdity of the interpretation that was given to that verse as to make out of it a proof of the Procession of the H.S.
( Is the strawman still alive and kicking)
Besides where did I say change, there is no change in that verse , all there is, is that the H.S. will be taking what is CHRIST’s( the Teaching that is) and give it to the Disciples, how in the world could that turn into the procession of the H.S. if CHRIST has Proclaimed in a few verses down that the H.S. PROCEEDETH FROM THE FATHER.?**

 

[JohnVIII]

JohnVIII: Your questions are different from those dealing with the theological legitimacy of the filioque. The filioque (properly understood) was certainly taught prior to the time of St. Maximos, by both Latin Fathers (all of them who wrote on the subject, in fact) and Greek Fathers (including such a “Trinitarian Luminary” as St. Gregory of Nyssa). The filioque is theologically legitimate and ancient; the question of whether it was legitimately added to the Latin-use of the Creed is something else entirely, and is a question I think is open for debate even within the Catholic Communion.

Peace and God bless!

The filioque (“properly understood”)? I find a little hard to swallow that all these Fathers (St. Maximos, St. Gregory of Nyssa, etc) taught the filioque! I wonder what you mean by “properly understood”. If you can show me that St. Gregory of Nyssa clearly taught the filioque, I will repent and become a Roman Catholic immediately! Remember, there is a difference between exegesis and eisegesis.

Pope Leo I was greatly respected by all. His words were received by the faithful as the words of St. Peter himself. But I assure you that none of this would’ve been true if he had not taught orthodoxy. In the early years the popes of Rome were firmly orthodox, at a time when most of the other churches were plagued by heresies. But from the time of the apostles to the present day the percentages don’t look as good for Rome as they did in the first century:

67 2005 Rome: St Linus to John Paul II:
352 366 Arian
537 555 Monophysite
625 638 Monothelite
858 867 Double-Processionist
882 2005 Double-Processionist

1938	total years

60.73% 1177 years in heresy
39.27% 761 years in orthodoxy

38 1991 Constantinople: St Stachys the Apostle to Demetrius I:
341 342 Arian
342 360 Semi-Arian
360 360 Arian
428 431 Nestorian
471 496 Monophysite
511 517 Monophysite
535 536 Monophysite
610 664 Monothelite
711 715 Monothelite

1953	total years

5.73% 112 years in heresy
94.27% 1841 years in orthodoxy

43 2004 Alexandria: St Mark the Evangelist to Peter VII:
357 361 Arian
448 451 Monophysite
457 460 Monophysite
475 538 Monophysite
570 605 Monophysite
630 642 Monothelite

1961	total years

6.12% 120 years in heresy
93.88% 1841 years in orthodoxy

37 1979 Antioch: St Peter the Apostle to Elias IV:
190 203 Docetic
260 269 Modalist
322 322 Arian
327 329 Arian
344 360 Arian
361 378 Arian
470 470 Monophysite
475 477 Monophysite
482 498 Monophysite
512 518 Monophysite
542 591 Monophysite
621 629 Monothelite
640 681 Monothelite

1942	total years

9.22% 179 years in heresy
90.78% 1763 years in orthodoxy

-God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

JohnVIII:

If you can show me that St. Gregory of Nyssa clearly taught the filioque, I will repent and become a Roman Catholic immediately!

Don’t become a Roman Catholic!

I’ve already posted the passage where St. Gregory of Nyssa explicitly says that the Holy Spirit is “from the Father, by the Son”; that is the filioque. He says this regarding the Personal procession, not anything else, as can be seen by the context of the passage.

As for what I mean by “properly understood”, I mean exactly what I’ve said many, many times already in this thread: the Holy Spirit proceeds once, from the Father as Source, and the Son as participating in the Spiration. In Latin this is said “from the Father and the Son”, and that is the meaning of the filioque. This same teaching can be expressed as “through the Son”, which has been accepted by Orthodox at various points in history (most notably at the Union of Brest). Again, this has been covered already in this thread.

Ignatios: I’ve defended the filioque as orthodox, which is the only Catholic stance possible, Melkite or not. I’ve not defended its addition to the Latin-use of the Creed, at least not in this thread, though I think an argument can be made that there is nothing wrong with adding an orthodox teaching to the local use of a Creed, especially since it’s been done by other Apostolic and orthodox traditions, such as the Armenians.

That being said, I’m undecided about whether or not it should be included, and honestly I don’t feel that it’s a matter worth debating on this forum; it’s something that will be decided between our Churches, not by us in debate (which is why I don’t especially care to argue about when or why the filioque was added, but only about whether or not it’s orthodox). The real issue that keeps being brought up is whether or not the teaching is orthodox or not, and that’s the critical question in my opinion, so I will deal with that aspect of the issue.

likewise there is nothing unMelkite about deffending the Genuine Creed, in which we still yet to see from you

The original Creed hasn’t yet been attacked here on this thread, or even on this forum, so I’ve not had to defend it. If you can show me where it’s being attacked, let me know.

Reading your comments, it seems more like you “beleive” in the Latin theology and you are happy to presented.

I believe the Latin theology is absolutely equal to the Melkite, and it should be defended just as much as the Melkite. When you see Byzantine theology attacked here, you will usually see me defending it (when I see the attacks, as in the case of Palamas). In this thread I’ve even taken a Latin to task for heretical arguments; read back and you’ll see me correcting Anthony.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

Yep but while I have your attention are you positing that the distinction between the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son is a novelty?

I’m sure you’ve read a lot of the posts in this thread and noticed that many have offered criticism of the Filioque particularly because there is the belief that it creates a kind of sub-nature shared between the Father and the Son which is not present between the Father or the Son with the Holy Spirit.

Does the ability to “spirate” the Holy Spirit come from the Godhead or from a specific Person? If a specific Person, which one?

Thanks.

I responded to this post earlier, but the response was lost. I’m doing a new post now but I realized that most of my previous attempt was based on an assumption of what you meant by your first question.

So, do you mind clarifying for me what you mean by the distinction being a novelty? Are you asking whether or not the “Source” and the “Participation” are novel distinctions? Maybe just restating the question will help my weak mind.

Peace and God bless!

 

[chrisb]

I responded to this post earlier, but the response was lost. I’m doing a new post now but I realized that most of my previous attempt was based on an assumption of what you meant by your first question.

So, do you mind clarifying for me what you mean by the distinction being a novelty? Are you asking whether or not the “Source” and the “Participation” are novel distinctions? Maybe just restating the question will help my weak mind.

Peace and God bless!

Grace and Peace Ghosty,

Sure let me take another crack at it.

I heard someone in the thread say that the distinction that Easterners are suggesting existed between the Spiration ‘from’ the Father ‘through’ the Son was a novelty which only appeared ‘after’ the schism.

I’m interested in your thoughts on this and I’d like to see any evidence that might affirm or deny this distinction.

How’s that?

 

[Ghosty]

Grace and Peace Ghosty,

Sure let me take another crack at it.

I heard someone in the thread say that the distinction that Easterners are suggesting existed between the Spiration ‘from’ the Father ‘through’ the Son was a novelty which only appeared ‘after’ the schism.

I’m interested in your thoughts on this and I’d like to see any evidence that might affirm or deny this distinction.

How’s that?

Ok, I think I get it now.

I don’t think the distinction between “from” and “through” is a novelty; I believe it’s implicit in the doctrine of the Trinity, since the Father is the only possible Source of Deity. The Latin language allows for more leeway in the language used to describe this, however, so saying “from the Father and the Son” doesn’t contradict this distinction. Since Latin theology has typically been more focused on the uniqueness of the Spiration itself, rather than in distinguishing the manner in which the Father and Son Spirate, the distinction wasn’t pushed as being necessary to express explicitly every time “and the Son” is used.

As for evidence of the distinction not being an Eastern invention, one only has to look at the fact that St. Thomas Aquinas explicitly uses the term “through” to describe the Son’s action in the Spiration, and this is after explaining that “from the Father and the Son” is an appropriate description as well.

newadvent.org/summa/1036.htm
(articles 3 and 4)

One can also look at St. Augustine’s own writings, where he distinguishes between the Father and Son in the procession of the Holy Spirit, even while saying that both Spirate in common:

And the Son is born of the Father; and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father principally, the Father giving the procession without any interval of time, yet in common from both [Father and Son].

newadvent.org/fathers/130115.htm
(Chapter 26, paragraph 47)

Later Latin theology emphasized the “in common from both”, but never excluded the “from the Father principally”. Throughout the history of this issue, there has always been a distinction between the Father’s place and the Son’s.

Peace and God bless!

 

[bobzills]

Later Latin theology emphasized the “in common from both”, but never excluded the “from the Father principally”. Throughout the history of this issue, there has always been a distinction between the Father’s place and the Son’s.

Peace and God bless!

Hasn’t the Roman Catholic Church changed its teaching back and forth on this? First they said the creed without the filioque. Then they said you had to have it. Now, since Vatican II, they say that you don;t really need it.

 

[Ghosty]

Hasn’t the Roman Catholic Church changed its teaching back and forth on this? First they said the creed without the filioque. Then they said you had to have it. Now, since Vatican II, they say that you don;t really need it.

The Catholic Church actually hasn’t ever universally forced the filioque on the other Churches. The only case I’m aware of where the Latin Church directly instructed that the filioque be added is the Maronite Church (and I imagine this was due to perceived heterodoxy on their part, but I don’t know enough about Maronite history to speak on it); other Churches have added it on their own, and others haven’t added it at all. I personally don’t believe it should be in the Creed outside of Latin use, but I won’t beat up on those in non-Latin Churches who feel that it is right to use the filioque. To me that’s a matter for the individual Churches/traditions to decide.

The Catholic Church does insist, however, that the filioque be understood as orthodox, and not an heretical alteration of the Faith. This stance has never changed, not even pre-Schism when Rome formally opposed its addition to the Creed, and it’s this stance that I’m upholding here, and I believe it’s the only stance a Catholic can really take.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ignatios]

JohnVIII:

Don’t become a Roman Catholic!

I’ve already posted the passage where St. Gregory of Nyssa explicitly says that the Holy Spirit is “from the Father, by the Son”; that is the filioque. He says this regarding the Personal procession, not anything else, as can be seen by the context of the passage.

As for what I mean by “properly understood”, I mean exactly what I’ve said many, many times already in this thread: the Holy Spirit proceeds once, from the Father as Source, and the Son as participating in the Spiration. In Latin this is said “from the Father and the Son”, and that is the meaning of the filioque. This same teaching can be expressed as “through the Son”, which has been accepted by Orthodox at various points in history (most notably at the Union of Brest). Again, this has been covered already in this thread.

“through the SON” is an Orthodox formula, And that is not to be understood as Eternal procession, as it is clearly listed in the Bible. and to be takien other than that, it would lead to a grave error as we showed repeatedly.

**Ignatios**: I've defended the filioque as orthodox,

There is nothing orthodox about the Filioque, unless you mean that it is an orthodox modern Roman Catholic teaching, then it is acceptable as such.

...though I think an argument can be made that there is nothing wrong with adding an orthodox teaching to the local use of a Creed...

“Addition” to the Creed is both unorthodox and foreign to the orthodox Faith.

especially since it's been done by other Apostolic and orthodox traditions, such as the Armenians.

Would you like to get into this one?

That being said, I’m undecided about whether or not it should be included

Now here is where we split, In Orthodoxy, it doesnt matter what we think, for if it is so, then we mind as well go and write our own bible and make a god as we think in our peityfull mind he is got to be and then call him jesus ( may GOD forgive us from this kind of talk, but we speak in such a maner to clarify things), what you and I think in our mind is Immaterial, what is material is to follow what had been taught from the beginning by ALL and everywhere.

… (which is why I don’t especially care to argue about when or why the filioque was added, but only about whether or not it’s orthodox).

May GOD guide you to Straight Path then. sincerely.†††

The real issue that keeps being brought up is whether or not the teaching is orthodox or not, and that’s the critical question in my opinion, so I will deal with that aspect of the issue.

My prayer will be with you, any way you go †††

The original Creed hasn’t yet been attacked here on this thread, or even on this forum, so I’ve not had to defend it. If you can show me where it’s being attacked, let me know.

The creed has been attacked every time you recite it with the Filioque

I believe the Latin theology is absolutely equal to the Melkite

In what sence it is equal? the same? No and everyone would agree with me on this, for if it is the same, then how come you disagree with the Orthodox Melkite and agree with the Catholic Melkite, since both theology is one and the same which is Orthodox, shall I remind you that the Catholic Melkite goe to the Orthodox seminaries to study in order to become preists?

(when I see the attacks, as in the case of Palamas). In this thread I’ve even taken a Latin to task for heretical arguments; read back and you’ll see me correcting Anthony.

No offense, but this sounds odd, have you read saint Gregory Palamas?
"… Palamas’ writings on the Filioque…[cannot]…be reconciled with [Roman]Catholic dogma on the Procession of the Holy Spirit. His position was clear enough:“We will not receive you Latins in communion with us as long as you say that theSpirit is also from the Son.”
I hope after reading this you would be open enough to read and understand his writting without any prejudice and you keep deffending him.

Peace of CHRIST to all †††

 

[Isa_Almisry]

JohnVIII:

Don’t become a Roman Catholic!

I’ve already posted the passage where St. Gregory of Nyssa explicitly says that the Holy Spirit is “from the Father, by the Son”; that is the filioque. He says this regarding the Personal procession, not anything else, as can be seen by the context of the passage.

As for what I mean by “properly understood”, I mean exactly what I’ve said many, many times already in this thread: the Holy Spirit proceeds once, from the Father as Source, and the Son as participating in the Spiration. In Latin this is said “from the Father and the Son”, and that is the meaning of the filioque. This same teaching can be expressed as “through the Son”, which has been accepted by Orthodox at various points in history (most notably at the Union of Brest).

No Orthodox accepted Brest.

Again, this has been covered already in this thread.

I think I put up the Latin from the CCC which show the filioque and per filium are NOT the same.

Ignatios: I’ve defended the filioque as orthodox, which is the only Catholic stance possible, Melkite or not. I’ve not defended its addition to the Latin-use of the Creed, at least not in this thread, though I think an argument can be made that there is nothing wrong with adding an orthodox teaching to the local use of a Creed, especially since it’s been done by other Apostolic and orthodox traditions, such as the Armenians.

The Armenians doesn’t change anything in meaning. And the fact that that has never been an issue for the Eastern Orthodox.

As an aside (or maybe not so much on the side). Myself and other Orthodox, including some banned, have always found Ghoti’s views informed and fair (one banned hard core and vocal Orthodox poster saying “I don’t know whether to kiss or hit him.” We don’t agree, but he gives a fair argument for the Latin AND Melkite views.

That being said, I’m undecided about whether or not it should be included, and honestly I don’t feel that it’s a matter worth debating on this forum; it’s something that will be decided between our Churches, not by us in debate (which is why I don’t especially care to argue about when or why the filioque was added, but only about whether or not it’s orthodox). The real issue that keeps being brought up is whether or not the teaching is orthodox or not, and that’s the critical question in my opinion, so I will deal with that aspect of the issue.

The original Creed hasn’t yet been attacked here on this thread, or even on this forum, so I’ve not had to defend it. If you can show me where it’s being attacked, let me know.

I believe the Latin theology is absolutely equal to the Melkite, and it should be defended just as much as the Melkite. When you see Byzantine theology attacked here, you will usually see me defending it (when I see the attacks, as in the case of Palamas). In this thread I’ve even taken a Latin to task for heretical arguments; read back and you’ll see me correcting Anthony.

See what I mean.

 

[Ignatios]

The Catholic Church actually hasn’t ever universally forced the filioque on the other Churches. The only case I’m aware of where the Latin Church directly instructed that the filioque be added is the Maronite Church (and I imagine this was due to perceived heterodoxy on their part, but I don’t know enough about Maronite history to speak on it); other Churches have added it on their own, and others haven’t added it at all. I personally don’t believe it should be in the Creed outside of Latin use, but I won’t beat up on those in non-Latin Churches who feel that it is right to use the filioque. To me that’s a matter for the individual Churches/traditions to decide.

The Catholic Church does insist, however, that the filioque be understood as orthodox, and not an heretical alteration of the Faith. This stance has never changed, not even pre-Schism when Rome formally opposed its addition to the Creed, and it’s this stance that I’m upholding here, and I believe it’s the only stance a Catholic can really take.

Peace and God bless!

what was one of the main reasons for the Schism? was it that the pope wanted to enforce the filioque on the Eastern Churches and one of the main reasons that was listed in that famous “bull” in which it was used by rome to excommunicate the eastern Churches or at least the Holy See of Constantinople, for not including the filioque that is.

And as for the Red text, Pope Gregory X at the II Council of Lyon in 1274 Pope Gregory X condemned those who deny the “Filioque”:

and it is still in up untill now, my evidence for that is the following from your own RC bishops:
"Recently, an important, agreed statement has been made by the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation , on October 25, 2003. This document The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?, provides an extensive review of Scripture, history, and theology. Especially critical are the recommendations of this consultation, for example:
…

1. That the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.
2. That the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular 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” is no longer applicable.

 

[bobzills]

The Catholic Church actually hasn’t ever universally forced the filioque on the other Churches. The only case I’m aware of where the Latin Church directly instructed that the filioque be added is the Maronite Church (and I imagine this was due to perceived heterodoxy on their part, but I don’t know enough about Maronite history to speak on it); other Churches have added it on their own, and others haven’t added it at all. I personally don’t believe it should be in the Creed outside of Latin use, but I won’t beat up on those in non-Latin Churches who feel that it is right to use the filioque. To me that’s a matter for the individual Churches/traditions to decide.

The Catholic Church does insist, however, that the filioque be understood as orthodox, and not an heretical alteration of the Faith. This stance has never changed, not even pre-Schism when Rome formally opposed its addition to the Creed, and it’s this stance that I’m upholding here, and I believe it’s the only stance a Catholic can really take.

Peace and God bless!

I thought it was an issue as stated in the excommunications of 1054, which were not rescinded until recently.

 

[Ghosty]

Isa Almisry:

I think I put up the Latin from the CCC which show the filioque and per filium are NOT the same.

Maybe I missed it. Which post number was it? Nothing I’ve read in Latin theology has indicated to me that they’re different, and such luminaries as Thomas Aquinas certainly said they were the same.

No Orthodox accepted Brest.

This is one of those areas where the Catholic side obviously disagrees with the Eastern Orthodox. I believe the people who signed on to Brest, and who demanded as part of reunion that they not be forced to use the filioque, were indeed Orthodox, and didn’t cease being so by entering Communion with Rome. I don’t define Orthodox as “out of Communion with Rome”, and since the Ukrainians at Brest adamantly refused to abandon their traditional teachings, I see no reason to say that they ceased being Orthodox (I’ll refrain from talking about later developments among the Ukrainians, and whether they reflected the Byzantine tradition).

As for the Armenian addition, I view it in the same light as the Latin one: both are additions, and neither change the Faith expressed by the original Creed (for those who don’t know, the Armenian usage of the Creed adds a portion describing the work of the Holy Spirit in descending upon the Jordan river at the Baptism of Jesus). Both the filioque and the Armenian addition express Scriptural and Traditional truths about the Holy Spirit that are not in the original, universal Creed. I guess I’m just not troubled by such additions.

I will say thank you for sticking up for me, even though we often adamantly disagree, and I’m willing to take either a kiss or a slap; I’m sure I deserve the latter most of the time, but a kiss is always nice.

Bobzills and Ignatios:

I thought it was an issue as stated in the excommunications of 1054, which were not rescinded until recently.

The 1054 issue was dealt with recently on another thread about the East-West Schism. I won’t go into it all here, since the thread is still active and available, but the 1054 issue neither caused the Schism, nor was the bull of excommunication appropriate in addressing the filioque. The real issue at the time was that the Patriarch of Constantinople was forbidding the use of unleavened bread.

Later condemnations at the various Councils were not appropriate, not because they were theologically incorrect, but because they were harsh without properly understanding the fundamental issues at hand. One can’t condemn someone for speaking the Truth, just because their language is different from your own, and the condemnations from both sides often crossed this line, IMO.

Ignatios:

In what sence it is equal? the same? No and everyone would agree with me on this

No, not the same. Equal in correctness and Apostolic origin. Both traditions are Faithful, and follow the Truth. One is not better than the other, though they each have their own emphasis and approach.

No offense, but this sounds odd, have you read saint Gregory Palamas?

Yes, I have, and I disagree that his view can’t be reconciled with the Latin view. Palamas was addressing the question of the Father being the only Source, which is something the Latins have no conflict with. I believe he didn’t understand the filioque, and that he held views similar or identical to modern Eastern Orthodox who also don’t seem to understand the filioque. Neither Palamas, nor Eastern Orthodox, are heretical in their condemnation of what they think the filioque means, because what they are condemning (the Father and Son both being the Source) is indeed an error and is indeed heretical; it’s also not taught by the Latin Church, so they are condemning a heresy which no one (or mostly no one, as it seems some Latins here do hold to errors on this) follows.

Peace and God bless!

 

[bobzills]

Later condemnations at the various Councils were not appropriate, not because they were theologically incorrect, but because they were harsh without properly understanding the fundamental issues at hand. !

So the statements at the infallible Ecumenical Councils of the Roman Catholic Church were not appropriate?

 

[Ghosty]

So the statements at the infallible Ecumenical Councils of the Roman Catholic Church were not appropriate?

Yes, they were inappropriate because they didn’t deal with the real issue at hand. It doesn’t mean the condemnations were theologically incorrect in themselves (I believe it is an error to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds in some way eternally from the Son), but it does mean that they were made without a careful consideration of the matter.

(I’m leaving aside any questions about the infallibility of such statements).

Peace and God bless!

 

[Claudius]

I’m not sure -QVE allows that.

You aren’t sure, I am.

The reason is that the verb is being modified by an adverbial prepositional phrase.

But the normal word order is to but that adverbial phrase before the verb not after since a verb terminates the relative clause.

It wouldn’t, according to sense. -QVE is a different story.

-que is what tells us that Filio is not governed by the same preposition as the word before it. This is how relative clauses work in Latin and even in modern day Italian if I am not mistaken. Think about this, the dative has a completely different meaning in Latin depending on which verb is used with it. It can mean indirect object, ownership, benifit or detrament and a host of others.

You have something in Lane, Smyth, Wheelock, etc. to back this up?

I don’t know who Lane, or Smyth is and I am really trying to hold back the anger that you would mention Wheelock. I could write book after book on the defectiveness and utter sinfullness of that text. There is pornography on almost every page and pagan prayers to daemons. What is wrong with you that you would mention that iniquity before me? Or maybe you had a girlfriend who “Pulls the bark” as Cuttullus tells us in a passage in that book. You are way, WAY, out of line mentioning Wheelock to me or anyone here at a CATHOLIC website. Next you will be using something John Holmes said to back yourself up or asking for a quote from Ron Jeremy. You really need to check yourself on this one.

And no, I don’t need to show anything from these books you have listed. You can go get a grammar book and look it up under relative clauses. I suggest you go to Textkit.org and down load one on PDF. At least then it would be far better that asking me to show you something out of garbage sacralidge.

I recall that supposedly the Council of Frankfurt had a faulty translation of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Did it say “a Patre per Filium procedit”?

I need to look up this council of Frankfurt that you refer to before I can comment on it.

I will say this, the Greek of the council that I had to read in College sure did have “from the Father through the Son” in the profession of faith.

How do you say that in Latin, Ex Patre Filioque. Again, it would be nice to move Filio to before the EX to avoid confusion but it really isn’t confussing to anyone who actually knows Latin. It is not hard to learn. It is amazingly easy in my opinion. You should give it a try, just stay away from Wheelock and the like, bunch of Satan worshipers they are.

And again, I really have to mention again, my utter shock and outrage that you would mention Wheelock to me. I mean it. What were you thinking? Do you want to converse with us at all? Or did you just come here to insult us? To think I thought I could have gotten along with you and discussed in a constructive manner.

Wheelock equals SIN. EVERYONE Stay away from Wheelock.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The filioque (“properly understood”)? I find a little hard to swallow that all these Fathers (St. Maximos, St. Gregory of Nyssa, etc) taught the filioque! I wonder what you mean by “properly understood”. If you can show me that St. Gregory of Nyssa clearly taught the filioque, I will repent and become a Roman Catholic immediately! Remember, there is a difference between exegesis and eisegesis.

Pope Leo I was greatly respected by all. His words were received by the faithful as the words of St. Peter himself. But I assure you that none of this would’ve been true if he had not taught orthodoxy. In the early years the popes of Rome were firmly orthodox, at a time when most of the other churches were plagued by heresies. But from the time of the apostles to the present day the percentages don’t look as good for Rome as they did in the first century:

67 2005 Rome: St Linus to John Paul II:
352 366 Arian
537 555 Monophysite
625 638 Monothelite
858 867 Double-Processionist
882 2005 Double-Processionist

1938	total years

60.73% 1177 years in heresy
39.27% 761 years in orthodoxy

38 1991 Constantinople: St Stachys the Apostle to Demetrius I:
341 342 Arian
342 360 Semi-Arian
360 360 Arian
428 431 Nestorian
471 496 Monophysite
511 517 Monophysite
535 536 Monophysite
610 664 Monothelite
711 715 Monothelite

1953	total years

5.73% 112 years in heresy
94.27% 1841 years in orthodoxy

43 2004 Alexandria: St Mark the Evangelist to Peter VII:
357 361 Arian
448 451 Monophysite
457 460 Monophysite
475 538 Monophysite
570 605 Monophysite
630 642 Monothelite

1961	total years

6.12% 120 years in heresy
93.88% 1841 years in orthodoxy

37 1979 Antioch: St Peter the Apostle to Elias IV:
190 203 Docetic
260 269 Modalist
322 322 Arian
327 329 Arian
344 360 Arian
361 378 Arian
470 470 Monophysite
475 477 Monophysite
482 498 Monophysite
512 518 Monophysite
542 591 Monophysite
621 629 Monothelite
640 681 Monothelite

1942	total years

9.22% 179 years in heresy
90.78% 1763 years in orthodoxy

-God bless!

No pope has ever taught heresy “ex cathedra” or officially–that would be impossible anyway. But some popes have held heretical views and have taught them as private individuals. In once famous example, there was a pope once who taught that all men are “asleep” until the final judgment, contrary to the orthodox Catholic doctrine that there is a particular judgment immediately after death and then a general judgment at the end of the world. I can’t remember this pope’s name right now, maybe one of the other posters can help me out?

Pope John XXII denied the Beatific Vision until the Last Judgment, and so taught from the pulpit (count as a cathedra?) in sermons while he was pope. His successor Benedict XII condemned this as a heresy in the encyclical Benedictus Deus.

 

[Allyson]

I don’t know who Lane, or Smyth is and I am really trying to hold back the anger that you would mention Wheelock. I could write book after book on the defectiveness and utter sinfullness of that text. There is pornography on almost every page and pagan prayers to daemons. What is wrong with you that you would mention that iniquity before me? Or maybe you had a girlfriend who “Pulls the bark” as Cuttullus tells us in a passage in that book. You are way, WAY, out of line mentioning Wheelock to me or anyone here at a CATHOLIC website. Next you will be using something John Holmes said to back yourself up or asking for a quote from Ron Jeremy. You really need to check yourself on this one.

How do you say that in Latin, Ex Patre Filioque. Again, it would be nice to move Filio to before the EX to avoid confusion but it really isn’t confussing to anyone who actually knows Latin. It is not hard to learn. It is amazingly easy in my opinion. You should give it a try, just stay away from Wheelock and the like, bunch of Satan worshipers they are.

Wheelock equals SIN. EVERYONE Stay away from Wheelock.

Pu-lease.

You just like putting me in stitches. I mean really, you are off the wall. Are you not aware that an ad hominum argument is a logical fallacy?

I never used Wheelock because I did my Latin studies intensively, and used Moreland and Fleischer. When you study Latin, you study the old Latin texts. I think that you seem to be unaware of the cultural context. I am sure we read “pagan” things to. I am sure that the Classics profs at my Catholic university would find your assertions rather absurd. (And yes, they are Catholic.)

What did you read to learn Latin? What ancient texts were used to train your ear/eye to its complexities. Most of the complex stuff comes from pagan Rome.

God Bless,
R.

 

[Allyson]

The filioque (“properly understood”)? I find a little hard to swallow that all these Fathers (St. Maximos, St. Gregory of Nyssa, etc) taught the filioque! I wonder what you mean by “properly understood”. If you can show me that St. Gregory of Nyssa clearly taught the filioque, I will repent and become a Roman Catholic immediately! Remember, there is a difference between exegesis and eisegesis.

Pope Leo I was greatly respected by all. His words were received by the faithful as the words of St. Peter himself. But I assure you that none of this would’ve been true if he had not taught orthodoxy. In the early years the popes of Rome were firmly orthodox, at a time when most of the other churches were plagued by heresies. But from the time of the apostles to the present day the percentages don’t look as good for Rome as they did in the first century:

67 2005 Rome: St Linus to John Paul II:
352 366 Arian
537 555 Monophysite
625 638 Monothelite
858 867 Double-Processionist
882 2005 Double-Processionist

1938	total years

60.73% 1177 years in heresy
39.27% 761 years in orthodoxy

38 1991 Constantinople: St Stachys the Apostle to Demetrius I:
341 342 Arian
342 360 Semi-Arian
360 360 Arian
428 431 Nestorian
471 496 Monophysite
511 517 Monophysite
535 536 Monophysite
610 664 Monothelite
711 715 Monothelite

1953	total years

5.73% 112 years in heresy
94.27% 1841 years in orthodoxy

43 2004 Alexandria: St Mark the Evangelist to Peter VII:
357 361 Arian
448 451 Monophysite
457 460 Monophysite
475 538 Monophysite
570 605 Monophysite
630 642 Monothelite

1961	total years

6.12% 120 years in heresy
93.88% 1841 years in orthodoxy

37 1979 Antioch: St Peter the Apostle to Elias IV:
190 203 Docetic
260 269 Modalist
322 322 Arian
327 329 Arian
344 360 Arian
361 378 Arian
470 470 Monophysite
475 477 Monophysite
482 498 Monophysite
512 518 Monophysite
542 591 Monophysite
621 629 Monothelite
640 681 Monothelite

1942	total years

9.22% 179 years in heresy
90.78% 1763 years in orthodoxy

-God bless!

Hey JohnVIII,

Interesting list. I was wondering, what your source/sources are? This is the first comprehensive list I have seen from the Orthodox side (Not that I have been on the fora all that long). There is a Catholic one that regularly crops up as a way to show the “unorthodoxy” of Constantinople, so as to prove the necessity of Rome - a bit of a stretch I think, don’t you?

Thanks, and don’t give up on that I idea you started a bit ago that I replied to. I think that you are doing well.

God Bless,
R.