Filioque??

[JohnVIII]

As for the split occurring in 882, that’s just plainly untenable. If the split had occurred that early then there never would have been the dispute of 1054, and the Patriarch of Antioch at the time wouldn’t have written to the Patriarch of Constantinople exhorting him to return to Communion with Rome as it had been decades earlier when the Antiochian Patriarch had visited Constantinople; the Patriarch of Antioch literally asked “has so much changed in that time that Communion must be broken”?

It was much more than just Communion being broken. The East would even re-baptize Christians coming from Rome long before 1054 as they considered them schismatic and outside the Catholic Church. The Patriarch of Constantinople removed Pope Marinus I name from the diptychs in 882. Pope Marinus I removed Pope John VIII name from the list of valid popes because he gave into St. Photius - later Pope John VIII’s name was put back in the list. The false rumors about Pope John VIII being a woman were started in order to discredit the Pope’s actions with St. Photius, which actions restored catholic unity at the so-called 8th Ecumenical. There was dialog between Rome and Constantinople both before and after 1054; but not communion. Dialog continued all the way up to 1204 when Constantinople was taken by the crusaders.

 

[JohnVIII]

To the Greek acts was afterwards added a (pretended) letter of Pope John VIII. to Photius, declaring the Filioque to be an addition which is rejected by the church of Rome, and a blasphemy which must be abolished calmly and by, degrees.
. . .
The Roman Catholic historians regard this letter as a Greek fraud. “Ich kann nicht glauben,” says Hefele (IV. 482), “dass je ein Papst seine Stellung so sehr vergessen habe, wie es Johann VIII. gethan haben müsste, wenn dieser Brief ächt wäre. Es ist in demselben auch keine Spur des Papalbewusstseins, vielmehr ist die Superiorität des Photius fast ausdrücklich anerkannt.” ccel.org/s/schaff/history/4_ch05.htm#_edn7

Of course Rome would regard the letter to be a Greek fraud. Just to be on the safe side they also put forth the rumor that Pope John VIII was a woman, so if a female pope wrote such a letter it would be invalid. Rome couldn’t wait to stop all that Pope John VIII did as the next pope was elected on the very day of his death on 12/16/882.

 

[Ghosty]

It was much more than just Communion being broken. The East would even re-baptize Christians coming from Rome long before 1054 as they considered them schismatic and outside the Catholic Church. The Patriarch of Constantinople removed Pope Marinus I name from the diptychs in 882. Pope Marinus I removed Pope John VIII name from the list of valid popes because he gave into St. Photius - later Pope John VIII’s name was put back in the list. The false rumors about Pope John VIII being a woman were started in order to discredit the Pope’s actions with St. Photius, which actions restored catholic unity at the so-called 8th Ecumenical. There was dialog between Rome and Constantinople both before and after 1054; but not communion. Dialog continued all the way up to 1204 when Constantinople was taken by the crusaders.

Latins and Greeks and Russians were concelebrating at the ritual of the Holy Fire in Jerusalem as late as the 1100s, as the accounts of this Russian Abbot attests:

holyfire.org/eng/svid_p_Daniil.htm

I’m not sure where you’ve heard that Pope Marinus removed Pope John’s name from the lists. It’s not anything I’ve heard in history, not even in the writings of Fr. Dvornik who’s work on the Photian Schism is considered definitive. What are your sources?

As for the “Pope Joan” myth, it is known to be a fabrication of the Middle Ages, not from the time of Pope Marinus, and it refers to the Pope that came directly after Pope Leo IV, not to Pope John VIII (who came several decades later); he has never been conflated with this mythical character, since she was said to have given birth during a Papal procession. You seem to be confusing a number of different accounts.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ignatios]

… I disagree with you that Catholics and the Fathers mean that the Holy Spirit only proceeds temporally through (or from) the Son…

Most of the western Fathers you mean.

The Holy Spirit proceeds eternally through the Son as well.

I do know the Western beleif, however that is where we split, plus this is not the view of the Cappadocian Fathers

No, I would not be doing that. I am saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally through/from the Son.

But then, what is Eternal, No one can comprehend it to suggest or to interject anything other than what had been revealed to us, wether it is “through” or “from” , Therfore, how could you say that the Lord Holy Spirit† proceed from the FATHER and the SON “ETERNALLY”,

If you can speak of etrnal things, then one of the 2 is possible, First, either you have a mind that is equal to or greator than GOD ( may GOD forgive us from those sayings, we speak to clearify only) OR you are divine, I think, rather, I know you are neither, THUS we fall back into one other thing, that is, What had been revealed to us,

Now, If you say such thing had been revealed to us, then you must putforth your evidence for that to support it.

This is not an explanation. I could just as easily accuse you of holding that the Son proceeding from the Father denotes a priority of existence.

Of course you cannot, unless you are ready to place yourself out of the Orthodox Faith, AND to be Biblicaly inncorrect and then contradict the Fathers whom on their shoulders fell the weight of the explanation of the MOST HOLY TRINITY, and in which they were always Biblically grounded In this.

On the other hand tell me how could I be biblicaly inncorrect if I said that Proceeding from the FATHER “and the SON” would NOT denotes priority of existence, and I will show how you defeated your Filioque from your own mouth.

Nobody on this Earth has ever experienced something “proceeding from” something else except temporally.

Precisely correct, AMEN to that, and that is why we say that you cannot say that the Holy Spirit proceed "from the SON Eeternally "since there is nothing that tell us such thing, therefore, proceeding from the FATHER “and the SON” eternally is a human Theory.

We use temporal terms to describe the eternal relationships between the persons of the trinity because we don’t have any choice.

I contend with you the word “describe”.
And as the Cappadocian Fathers (again in which to whom we owe our undersatnding of the Trinity as it was reavealed to us) said How could one give worldly (temporal) things to describe Eternal things or Divinity.

The Orthodox say that, the RCC try always to give an answer to everything ( out of a good intention, maybe). and I think that is where the Western Church goes wrong.
The RCC sooner rather than later must acknowledge that there is things that kept hidden from us and we do not have an answer to, who knows maybe GOD wants to teach us to rely on our faith.

There is nothing in this Universe that one could use to describe GOD, BUT, I would have agreed with you if you had said we use things from our surroundings to “help us understand” what had been revealed to us, rather than “describe” The Most Holy Trinity.

We accept based upon our faith and tradition that there is eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father.

Well said.

Just as the Father did not exist prior to the Spirit because the Spirit proceeds from him,

So far so good.

neither did the Son exist prior to the Spirit because he proceeds through him.

I will consider your saying above that you mean by proceeding from the SON “eternally” that is, but if you mean by procession through, as Temporal or manifestation, then you can disregard the followings.

You may want to research The, to whom the begetting and the Procession property belong to?

ANY biblical reffrences on that? or from the Cappadoccian Fathers since they are the ones whom are considered to be the reffrence to this issue.

From your comment above, I take it that you agree with me that the H.S. co-exist with the FATHER and the SON Eternally, there is No prior-to.

NOW, could you tell me, If the THREE co-exist eternally, wouldnt the H.S. proceed from the FATHER and the SON and HIMSELF?
if not? then tell me where was the H.S. when the Procession happened? or was the Holy Spirit part of this operation or not? if not ? then why? or how? and if you are ready to admit that the Holy Spirit was part of this operation, Then that would make The Holy Spirit proceed from Himself as well.
Please keep your answers Biblicaly grounded and according to the Cappadocian Fathers ( the ones who defined the Undersatnding of the Trinity)

continued…

 

[Ignatios]

continued…

I accept that the trinity is eternal. And I can apply the procession of the Spirit through the Son eternally just like you can apply the procession of the Spirit from the Father eternally.

What is your reffrence to what you are applying? you know when it comes to Theology we are bounded to what we apply, NOT by logics but rather by Holy Scritpures or at least biblically grounded is a must.

My reffrences for what I as an Orthodox beleiver, is what had been revealed to us from Our LORD and savior JESUS CHRIST John 15:26 Period. anything other than this however sense it makes and however logic it is, Is irrelevant, for if we do rely on our thoughts than, we are worshiping the god that we created in our mind and not the GOD of Abraham Isaac and David The true GOD that is.

who is your reffrence to your application above?

There is no logical impossibility in doing so …

Eternal and Logical are like water and oil, dont mix together.

…as long as we understand that we are describing a relationship between the persons of the trinity.

what is the ground of your discription of the Most Holy Trinity.?

I base my understanding on the Fathers from both East and West,

when you say the Fathers, that is a very general word, not all the Fathers were right on this Isuue nor all the Fathers elaborated on it, the only three that one can use as a complete reffrence to this issue are the cappadocian Fathers.
Can you supply us with evidence from them that would support the filioque as defined by the RCC?

… In other words, I find that it has been revealed to the Church that the Spirit proceeds both eternally through the Son (eternal relationship) and temporally through the Son (the Incarnation). You have not provided anything that demonstrates it is logically impossible for the Spirit to proceed eternally through the Son.

Where and how do you find that it has been revealed to the Church that the H.S. proceeds eternally through the SON? besides if it was a revelation to the Church than how come it is not known in other ancient Patriarchates, Only in the RCC that has this beleif, this is one out of four, perhaps the Apostles taught diffrent things in diffrent local churches, for as St. Paul said that the “… faith was delivered once to all…” from there on it was a matter of gradual understanding of it, rather than gradual revelation of the faith, in which it contradict what St. Paul had stated.

Since you insist on the word “LOGIC”, how about, It is ILLOGICAL to use Logic once you cross the border line of THEOLOGY, Math, Science and all the Temporal things makes no sense in Theology, SO, why not give us a “reffrence” and not “logics” , the only thing that there, is what had been revealed to us in the Tradition and the most important part and the first of that Tradition is the Holy Scriptures, that is what the Fathers of the Church always taught.

So you say. I will look for the quotes already provided in this thread when I have an opportunity.

And when you find them, please, read our answers also to them for yourself , since you are there.

Do you have a source for this?  I am interested in pursuing this line of discussion.

Read the Second Eighth E.C. not the first one ( the one that the RCC went back to after they annuled it and then they annuled the second and went back to the fisrt eighth E.C.) sorry dont have the link to it handy right now, my apology on that but I had to do recovery on my system, if you cant find it give me a couple of days I will give it to you, sorry again.

Not really. It is something that the Western Fathers spoke plainly about. It would be strange to see the Patriarch of the West completely condemn it in such stark terms. If you have something from Dvornik on it, I would be happy to take a look.

Well, at least you agree that they condmned it Partially, but isnt this a great sign that it is more likely that it happened rather than didnt?
God bless you all †††

 

[tdgesq]

Most of the western Fathers you mean.

I didn’t say the “most” of either side of the aisle, but yes the Fathers of the West are quite explicit.

I do know the Western beleif, however that is where we split, plus this is not the view of the Cappadocian Fathers

Ignatios, I do not enjoy doing this. I set out to explore why it is one poster insisted that the filioque compels a break in the Incarnation. I have never heard that objection before, so I responded to it. Apparently all concerned have now given up on that particular line of argument. Now this has turned into a patristic analysis (kind of) for the filioque; something I have debated numerous times on these forums and really don’t wish to again. So be it.

This is where we split? This is where we split centuries after Augustine and earlier western Fathers clearly and unmistakably assented to the procession of the Spirit from the Son. How is it that it took the East centuries to finally catch up with this manifest heresy taught by the West? It was never an issue until other political considerations between Constantinople and Rome manifested themselves. Why? Perhaps because those of the East, and yes, particularly the Cappadocian Fathers also taught it.

Do you not read the posts that are directed specifically at you? I told you that I believed those quotes had already been produced on this thread. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that they were specifically addressed to you.

ALL of the Latin Fathers, including St. Leo the Great and St. Ambrose, two very significant Fathers for the Eastern Orthodox, and definitely St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Cyril of Alexandria (who wrote: “The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son; clearly, he is of the divine substance, proceeding substantially in it and from it”, care of this link) for the East. If we throw out the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, we throw out the testimony of ALL these Saints on the matter, and that’s something I’m not willing to do.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4201357&postcount=587

Ghosty gave you the links a week ago. St. Gregory of Nyssa is a Cappadocian Father, and he says:

“[The] Father conveys the notion of unoriginate, unbegotten, and Father always; the only-begotten Son is understood along with the Father, coming from him but inseparably joined to him. Through the Son and with the Father, immediately and before any vague and unfounded concept interposes between them, the Holy Spirit is also perceived conjointly” (Against Eunomius 1 [A.D. 382]).

Did you even bother to look at the link Ghosty gave you? It includes other Cappadocian Fathers, including St. Gregory of Nazianzus.

But then, what is Eternal, No one can comprehend it to suggest or to interject anything other than what had been revealed to us, wether it is “through” or “from” , Therfore, how could you say that the Lord Holy Spirit† proceed from the FATHER and the SON “ETERNALLY”,

My point was that it is not logically impossible as you suggested. Take it up with the Cappadocian Fathers since you disagree with them. Also, take Gregory Palamas and Photius to task since they explore the eternal relationships between the persons of the trinity. We will never have a perfect understanding of it, which doesn’t mean that we can’t know or discover anything about it.

If you can speak of etrnal things, then one of the 2 is possible, First, either you have a mind that is equal to or greator than GOD ( may GOD forgive us from those sayings, we speak to clearify only) OR you are divine, I think, rather, I know you are neither, THUS we fall back into one other thing, that is, What had been revealed to us,

Actually many different alternatives are possible, not just the fallacy of false alternatives that you present. Reject the Cappadocian Fathers as well if you like. Also, reject Palamas and Photius for daring to make theological exploration into the imminent trinity. If you won’t, then admit that your proposition above is a fallacy.

Now, If you say such thing had been revealed to us, then you must putforth your evidence for that to support it.

I did. And they were presented to you personally in this thread previously. I resent having to show everybody else here that this in fact occurred.

Of course you cannot, unless you are ready to place yourself out of the Orthodox Faith, AND to be Biblicaly inncorrect and then contradict the Fathers whom on their shoulders fell the weight of the explanation of the MOST HOLY TRINITY, and in which they were always Biblically grounded In this.

Then please show me where the Fathers taught against the filioque. Show me where Augustine, Basil, and both Gregories were being contradicted by their fellows. It looks like you are the one who is thin on patristic evidence.

On the other hand tell me how could I be biblicaly inncorrect if I said that Proceeding from the FATHER “and the SON” would NOT denotes priority of existence, and I will show how you defeated your Filioque from your own mouth.

How about John 16:15, which Cyril of Alexandria specifically cites when he declares: “Just as the Son says ‘All that the Father has is mine’ [John 16:15], so shall we find that through the Son it is all also in the Spirit” (Letters 3:4:33 [A.D. 433]). You may continue to reject the Fathers and their interpretation of Scripture, but I will not.

 

[tdgesq]

. . . continued

Precisely correct, AMEN to that, and that is why we say that you cannot say that the Holy Spirit proceed "from the SON Eeternally "since there is nothing that tell us such thing, therefore, proceeding from the FATHER “and the SON” eternally is a human Theory.

No, you mean that there is nothing that will convince you - to the point that you won’t even read and respond to the evidence that was presented to you a week ago.

ANY biblical reffrences on that? or from the Cappadoccian Fathers since they are the ones whom are considered to be the reffrence to this issue.

From your comment above, I take it that you agree with me that the H.S. co-exist with the FATHER and the SON Eternally, there is No prior-to.

Every Catholic believes this.

NOW, could you tell me, If the THREE co-exist eternally, wouldnt the H.S. proceed from the FATHER and the SON and HIMSELF?

If the three co-exist eternally (to which you agree) wouldn’t the Spirit proceed from himself even if he only proceeded from the Father? Obviously not, because we are describing eternal relationships between persons, not temporal events. Neither would it be true to say that Spirit proceeds from himself because he proceeds from the Son.

Please keep your answers Biblicaly grounded and according to the Cappadocian Fathers ( the ones who defined the Undersatnding of the Trinity)

Would you like even more testimony from the Cappadocian Fathers that supports the filioque?

What is your reffrence to what you are applying? you know when it comes to Theology we are bounded to what we apply, NOT by logics but rather by Holy Scritpures or at least biblically grounded is a must.

Then stop using arguments like the Holy Spirit must proceed from himself if he proceeds from the Son and just stick with tradition. I and others before me to whom you didn’t respond have given you evidence. Maybe it’s time to start presenting some of your own.

when you say the Fathers, that is a very general word, not all the Fathers were right on this Isuue nor all the Fathers elaborated on it, the only three that one can use as a complete reffrence to this issue are the cappadocian Fathers.
Can you supply us with evidence from them that would support the filioque as defined by the RCC?

Since you insist on the word “LOGIC”, how about, It is ILLOGICAL to use Logic once you cross the border line of THEOLOGY, Math, Science and all the Temporal things makes no sense in Theology, SO, why not give us a “reffrence” and not “logics”

You have used logic yourself (not well) in reference to theology in your post several times. You just refuted yourself.

Read the Second Eighth E.C. not the first one ( the one that the RCC went back to after they annuled it and then they annuled the second and went back to the fisrt eighth E.C.) sorry dont have the link to it handy right now, my apology on that but I had to do recovery on my system, if you cant find it give me a couple of days I will give it to you, sorry again.

Why should I? Is it an ecumenical council binding on the consciences of all Christians?

Well, at least you agree that they condmned it Partially, but isnt this a great sign that it is more likely that it happened rather than didnt?

No, I didn’t agree that they condemned it - even partially. Go back and read the post. Also, go back and read the link to the Cappadocian Fathers that you ignored a week ago.

 

[JohnVIII]

A schism in The Holy Trinity! (read to the end)

Latins and Greeks and Russians were concelebrating at the ritual of the Holy Fire in Jerusalem as late as the 1100s, as the accounts of this Russian Abbot attests:

holyfire.org/eng/svid_p_Daniil.htm

Participation in the Holy Fire is not proof of full canonical inter-communion. There are some Islam there as well. One of these Islam folk checks the Patriarch for matches before he enters the Holy Place.

I’m not sure where you’ve heard that Pope Marinus removed Pope John’s name from the lists. It’s not anything I’ve heard in history, not even in the writings of Fr. Dvornik who’s work on the Photian Schism is considered definitive. What are your sources?

I’ll have to find the source on this and get back to you. I will concede a prior point you corrected me on however: The silver plates on which the Creed, written in Latin, without the filioque, were not by Pope John VIII but, as you said, by Pope Leo III. There were several popes that said the filioque could not be added to the Creed.

As for the “Pope Joan” myth, it is known to be a fabrication of the Middle Ages, not from the time of Pope Marinus, and it refers to the Pope that came directly after Pope Leo IV, not to Pope John VIII (who came several decades later); he has never been conflated with this mythical character, since she was said to have given birth during a Papal procession. You seem to be confusing a number of different accounts.

Peace and God bless!

Peace and God bless to you too! Check out The Catholic Encyclopedia at this link newadvent.org/cathen/08407a.htm here’s a quote from the 4th paragraph after the subtitle “Origin of the Legend”:

Baronius (Annales ad a., 879, n. 5) conjectures that the much censured effeminate weaknesses of Pope John VIII (872-82) in dealing with the Greeks may have given rise to the story. Mai has shown (Nova Collectio Patr., I, Proleg., xlvii) that Photius of Constantinople (De Spir. Sanct. Myst., lxxxix) refers emphatically three times to this pope as “the Manly”, as though he would remove from him the stigma of effeminacy.

The Catholic Encyclopedia also says at newadvent.org/cathen/12043b.htm that St. Photius of Constantinople was the “chief author of the great schism between East and West”, yet I would like someone to explain to me how the “chief author of the great schism between East and West” could live in 858-867 and cause a schism in 1054!

I don’t think we went too far off topic in talking about the unity of the Church vs. schism in the Church for this reason: Jesus prayed to the Father saying:

St John 17:21-23

That they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity."

As I see it, the Church as seen on Earth is a pattern of the unity of The Holy Trinity. Just as two Popes in Rome would indeed be a schism, the double-procession of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son sets up two sources for the unity of The Holy Trinity - in effect the filioque creates a schism in The Holy Trinity!

 

[Ignatios]

I didn’t say the “most” of either side of the aisle, but yes the Fathers of the West are quite explicit.

I never said that, you said “the most” but if you pay heed to what is said you will find that I said “YOU MEAN THE MOST OF THE WESTERN FATHERS” because obviously it is not all the Fathers of the Church taught the filioque as defined by the RCC especially the Eastern Fathers. however some of the western taught it and that is where your Theology comes from such as Augustine.

This is where we split? This is where we split centuries after Augustine and earlier western Fathers clearly and unmistakably assented to the procession of the Spirit from the Son…

Your description in the above is right, except for the word “assented” let us take Augustine since he is the one who laid down the Idea of Filioque and you follow his theology, If he assented to this Idea then who’s idea was it or where did it start, can you trace it all the way back to its origin?

How is it that it took the East centuries to finally catch up with this manifest heresy taught by the West?

The earliest record we have is that of St. Maximos when the Eastern Bishops heard of it, they requested an explanation.

BUT they didn’t break communion with the Western Patriarch, unlike what the western bishop did, that they slap a Bull on the Altar in which it resulted of the schism and one of the Reasons for the excommunication was the Filioque, that the East did not accept it.

It was never an issue until other political considerations between Constantinople and Rome manifested themselves. Why?

As I showed in the above, that when the East heard about it, they requested an explanation, which, they acted appropriately.

Perhaps because those of the East, and yes, particularly the Cappadocian Fathers also taught it.

The Cappadocian Fathers taught the Filioque? Is that what you are saying? I hope I am not understanding you wrong. But knowing you, I believe such things can come out of you. However the respected RC apologist wouldn’t go there.
I challenge you to show me where the cappadocian fathers taught the Filioque as defined by the RCC.

Do you not read the posts that are directed specifically at you? I told you that I believed those quotes had already been produced on this thread. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that they were specifically addressed to you.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4201357&postcount=587

I did read them “AND COMPREHENDED” them, unlike you, apparently, which we still yet to see a sign of that from you. Just keep reading you will see what I am talking about, I never say anything about anybody without a clear reason.

Quote:
ALL of the Latin Fathers, including St. Leo the Great and St. Ambrose, two very significant Fathers for the Eastern Orthodox, and definitely St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Cyril of Alexandria (who wrote: “The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son; clearly, he is of the divine substance, proceeding substantially in it and from it”, care of this link) for the East. If we throw out the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, we throw out the testimony of ALL these Saints on the matter, and that’s something I’m not willing to do.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=587

Ghosty gave you the links a week ago. St. Gregory of Nyssa is a Cappadocian Father, and he says:

“[The] Father conveys the notion of unoriginate, unbegotten, and Father always; the only-begotten Son is understood along with the Father, coming from him but inseparably joined to him. Through the Son and with the Father, immediately and before any vague and unfounded concept interposes between them, the Holy Spirit is also perceived conjointly” (Against Eunomius 1 [A.D. 382]).

Did you even bother to look at the link Ghosty gave you? It includes other Cappadocian Fathers, including St. Gregory of Nazianzus.

And then later on you said also the following:

No, you mean that there is nothing that will convince you - to the point that you won’t even read and respond to the evidence that was presented to you a week ago.

…And then again at the end of your rambling desultory post you said:

No, I didn’t agree that they condemned it - even partially. Go back and read the post. Also, go back and read the link to the Cappadocian Fathers that you ignored a week ago.

First let me start by saying that,
Your responds to your increasing wishful thoughts are getting bolder.

It seems like you skip over all the things that you cannot answer, or/and you ignore what is been written and you reply only to what you wish that the others have had responded.

I told you in my previous post, that when you go back and read what the others had said, Also check out our reply to those quotes since you are there, but, no surprise from you, as always you skip and you hope that I wont take the time to bring it up to you, well, what is in your mind shall never happen.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4265720&postcount=696 …So you say. I will look for the quotes already provided in this thread when I have an opportunity.

And I responded the following:
Ignatios Post:

And when you find them, please, read our answers also to them for yourself , since you are there. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4278396&postcount=702

Could it be that you did not see what I asked you to look for? you got to be better than that. lets check together the posts that I supposedly did not reply for, shall we?

continue…

 

[Ignatios]

…Continued
Ignatios earlier post #602:

Now as for St Gregory of Nyssa, this Great saint again, he was not trying to define the Filioque, as a matter of fact he was in line with the other Cappadocian Fathers, the same mind, if he was not then we would have saw something that would indicate so, and we can only see what St Gregory of Nyssa was saying if we only read his letters entirely, not take something out in order to prove the fiflioque and then let go of the rest, Example of some his writings:

“…We, for instance, confess that the Holy Spirit is of the same rank as the Father and the Son, so that there is no difference between them in anything, to be thought or named, that devotion can ascribe to a Divine nature…”… If the FATHER and the SON can spirate then so does the HOLY SPIRIT, BUT whom should HE spirate? and if the HOLY SPIRIT is spirated then so does the FATHER and the SON ( may GOD forgive us from those sayings, we do not believe in such things. †††)
again St Gregory of Nyssa
" … We confess that, save His being contemplated as with peculiar attributes in regard of Person, the Holy Spirit is indeed from God, and of the Christ, according to Scripture…"
Note the words "of the CHRIST and not from CHRIST.

again

“… By saying that He is absolutely immortal, without turning, or variableness, always beautiful, always independent of ascription from others, working as He wills all things in all, Holy, leading, direct, just, of true utterance, “searching the deep things of God,” “proceeding from the Father,” “receiving12421242 λαμβανόμενον from the Son,” and all such-like things, what, after all, do you lend to Him by these and such-like terms?”
Again Note the word “Receiving” and Not “Proceeding” and just before this one also NOTE the word Proceeding from the FATHER.
Ghosty I can put many sentences from his writing but for the sake of space I posted the above only, I invite you to read ALL of his writing, and only when you do so it will become clear to you, however is he without error, of course not, listen to what Fathers of the Church had to say about him when the Romans used his writing in order to assert their claims:

“…Only one Father remains,” they continued, “Gregory the blessed priest of Nyssa, who, apparently, speaks more to your advantage than any of the other Fathers. Preserving all the respect due to this Father, we cannot refrain from noticing, that he was but a mortal man, and man, however great a degree of holiness he may attain, is very apt to err, especially on such subjects, which have not been examined before or determined upon in a general Council by the Fathers.” The orthodox teachers, when speaking of Gregory, more than once restrict their words by the expression: “if such was his idea,” and conclude their discussion upon Gregory with the following words: “we must view the general doctrine of the Church, and take the Holy Scripture as a rule for ourselves, nor paying attention to what each has written in his private capacity (idia).”
And I say AMEN AMEN AMEN.
As for St Cyril of Alexandria: One things we got to remember that the definition of the Trinity was not that of St Cyril but of the Cappadocian Fathers, HOWEVR, and again if we read St. Cyril writings we see that he didn’t have in mind the Filioque, just to give one for example:

“…St Cyril of Alexandria says that “the Holy Spirit flows from the Father into the Son (en to Uiou),” (Thesaurus, XXXIV, PG 75, 577A).”
IAW Proceed from the FATHER through the SON, Orthodox Formula, as long as we do not make out of the “through the SON” from “eternal” that is.

As for the Other Cappadocian Fathers I will not bring them up for now, simply because it is all Orthodox and you wouldn’t have anything to converse about.

Only If “YOU” ever bother to read, at all, other than what your mind is making you see.
But that is no surprise to me, we are used to dealing with strawman.

We shall present you with some of the Cappadocian Fathers saying in regard to this issue. just keep reading.

 

[Ignatios]

My point was that it is not logically impossible as you suggested.

Logically Impossible??? are we talking about Temporal things or Divine? if it is Divine, then let me know, because I have many Logical question that I and many Fathers did not find an answer to, what you know, after 2000years of Christianity finally we got someone who got an answer to our Logical question concerning Eternal things, way to go.

…Take it up with the Cappadocian Fathers since you disagree with them. Also, take Gregory Palamas and Photius to task since they explore the eternal relationships between the persons of the trinity. We will never have a perfect understanding of it, which doesn’t mean that we can’t know or discover anything about it.

Show me where and how I disagree with the Fathers you mentioned above, you silly goose, all of their writing are Biblical or/and Biblically grounded, I hope you have read my above quote from St Gregory of Nyssa where he said:
St Gregory of Nyssa
" … We confess that, save His being contemplated as with peculiar attributes in regard of Person, the Holy Spirit is indeed “FROM” God, and “OF” the Christ, according to Scripture…"
Now show me where in the Scriptures it says that the "…HOLY SPIRIT PROCEED FROM THE FATHER AND SON ".

Actually many different alternatives are possible, not just the fallacy of false alternatives that you present. Reject the Cappadocian Fathers as well if you like. Also, reject Palamas and Photius for daring to make theological exploration into the imminent trinity. If you won’t, then admit that your proposition above is a fallacy.

1. If only you can read what is been written within context, I have mentioned before to you and at the end of the sentence above, that we can explore the eternal things according to what had been revealed to us from the Scriptures, as Saint Gregory of Nyssa said and I have displayed this to you twice so far in this post.
   Besides you assert many things without giving one single proof to back up what you say, how and where did I reject the Cappa. Fathers, Saint Palamas and Saint Photios? those went straight forward against all the Latin Innovations, it is obvious that you lack lots of the knowledge, go search and study.

I did. And they were presented to you personally in this thread previously. I resent having to show everybody else here that this in fact occurred

Include me with the " everybody else" please and make sure you understand what is the question, just in case —>"…THUS we fall back into one other thing, that is, What had been revealed to us, Now, If you say such thing had been revealed to us, then you must put forth your evidence for that to support it." the subject is that the Holy Spirit Proceed from the FATHER “AND THE SON”.

Then please show me where the Fathers taught against the filioque. Show me where Augustine, Basil, and both Gregories were being contradicted by their fellows. It looks like you are the one who is thin on patristic evidence.

The fact that they didnt teach it and you cant find it in their teachings is the best proof that such Idea was not. if it was then we would have seen it in their writings.
Besides, if they didnt teach against the fiflioque does not suggest that they are for the filioque, if they were for the filioque , than they would have taught it.
Now can you show me, where they taught the Filioque as defined by the RCC??? lets see if you are going to skip this one or not.

 

[Ignatios]

How about John 16:15, which Cyril of Alexandria specifically cites when he declares: “Just as the Son says ‘All that the Father has is mine’ [John 16:15], so shall we find that through the Son it is all also in the Spirit” (Letters 3:4:33 [A.D. 433]). You may continue to reject the Fathers and their interpretation of Scripture, but I will not.

Ok, I will respond to supposedly your answer to my earlier post, although it was totally irrelevant to what I was saying.
First, it seems like you took the verse without the Interpretation of saint Cyril to that one, don’t worry we are used to such things with you people, you do that in order to disparately give your idea some support, but as I promised you earlier what is in your mind shall never happen.
Second, read the last 10 words"… through the Son it is all also in the Spirit". So IAW whatever the SON’s likewise’s the Holy Spirit. Simple and clear.
So ,the word “all” here is the stress point, the word “all” here does not include the LORD Holy Spirit to be among the “all” that is mentioned above, Because the Holy Spirit is not an attribution, do you agree on this or Not? hope you reply to this one also.
as for rejecting the Fathers interpretations, still yet to put forth an evidence and give your false assertions some value so it can be considered through showing me where and how did I rejected them.
Ignatios earlier:

ANY biblical reffrences on that? or from the Cappadoccian Fathers since they are the ones whom are considered to be the reference to this issue

And your respond to my above question was:
tdgesq earlier:

sticking a tongue

Your above respond is a very example on what would happen when someone put forth a claim without supporting it with some valuable reference, as they say a picture worth a thousand word, you opened your mouth and the only thing that dropped out of it is your tongue. thank you for the perfect analogy.

If the three co-exist eternally (to which you agree) wouldn’t the Spirit proceed from himself even if he only proceeded from the Father? Obviously not

obviously not, is correct, but why? because HE proceed from the FATHER, the ANARCHOS=the SOURCE of all and everything, IAW The Spirit does not proceed from HIMSELF nor from the SON Because both are not the SOURCE, BOTH are from the FATHER and both owe their very being to the FATHER since both are the FATHER’s Spirit and Word and both has the attribute of the FATHER, IAW, if one possesses an attribute the other likewise and unless the FATHER possesses an attribute neither the SON nor the Spirit possesses it, and because of the FATHER’s existence, the SON and the Spirit exist, (the last couple lines I used from Zizioulas if you care), St. Gregory the Theologian also said something in this line too: “… The THREE has one Nature-GOD and the union is the FATHER from whom and to whom the order of Persons runs its course …” So, as you see, you cannot take one out of the equation, in any operation, such as the RCC did in regard to the Filioque in which made the Holy Spirit the results of the relationship between the FATHER and the SON, In which it made the H.S. something less than the other 2 Persons, since it made HIM absent or not being engaged in this work or activity, Now if you say that HE is, then you must show me where and how, but assuming that HE was, than, HE must of have Proceeded from himself too, So according to your theory, thus is the results, the Filioque is an inescapable error, it doesn’t matter which way you turn it.

because we are describing eternal relationships between persons, not temporal events. Neither would it be true to say that Spirit proceeds from himself because he proceeds from the Son.

Again, you do not describe something that you don’t see nor you can comprehend, if you do, than the only thing that you are describing is the figment of your mind, you can only contemplate on what had been revealed to us from the Holy Scriptures, As the Holy Fathers did, and if you read their work, they constantly refer to the Holy Scriptures, BUT, if you say that you are describing what you have read, than where is your Biblical basis for what you are describing.

Would you like even more testimony from the Cappadocian Fathers that supports the filioque?/quote}I challenge you to, as defined by the RCC, cant wait.
but again I see your mouth open with your tongue dropping out but, no words of value .

 

[Ignatios]

Then stop using arguments like the Holy Spirit must proceed from himself if he proceeds from the Son and just stick with tradition. I and others before me to whom you didn’t respond have given you evidence. Maybe it’s time to start presenting some of your own.

Huh? The strawman still alive, you should go back and pay attention to what I was saying, I DO NOT believe that the H.S. Proceed from himself, and I know that your church doesn’t either, BUT, what I was trying to convey to you that the Filioque leads to such error. I hope that you read and comprehended what I said in a few posts before.
As for I didn’t respond to what have given me, I believe I had put this one to rest and refuted you utterly by showing that I did and in an elaborated post.
As for presenting some of my own, you will not see that, if I did I will be grateful to those who would correct me and remind me that I should not do so, because it is not what we believe but what is been handed down to us in the Tradition. Unlike you tdgesq, you separated the Tradition from the Holy Scriptures, and the results in a one way is the Filioque. In your belief you cannot stick to the tradition and remain faithful to the Holy Scriptures, Using the Filioque as an example I challenge you to refute me on this last sentence.

sticking the tongue

Again, if you had said as much valuable words as the times that you opened your mouth and dropped your tongue you would have been better off than you are right now.

You have used logic yourself (not well) in reference to theology in your post several times. You just refuted yourself.

I have used logic to “ CONVEY TO YOU” that it doesn’t work in Theology. Sigh.
If only you would read and comprehend at the same time, but from reading your posts, I think it is a big task for you to do so, I Must admit also here that it was my mistake to throw something like that at you, which is much above the level of someone who has nothing to present except his tongue sticking out and jaw dropping.

Why should I? Is it an ecumenical council binding on the consciences of all Christians?

Because you asked for it !!! does this rings the bell for you?
Here is what you asked me for:

Do you have a source for this? I am interested in pursuing this line of discussion

and then you say “ why should I?”. Looool
If it is an ecumenical Council and it is binding, than why change and alter the Creed that it produced???

 

[Mickey]

If it is an ecumenical Council and it is binding, than why change and alter the Creed that it produced???

Amen.

 

[tdgesq]

I never said that, you said “the most” but if you pay heed to what is said you will find that I said “YOU MEAN THE MOST OF THE WESTERN FATHERS” because obviously it is not all the Fathers of the Church taught the filioque as defined by the RCC especially the Eastern Fathers. however some of the western taught it and that is where your Theology comes from such as Augustine.

I did not say “most.” I did not mean “most.” I do not know whether most Western Fathers taught it or not. I know of several that did - uncontradicted for centuries.

BUT they didn’t break communion with the Western Patriarch, unlike what the western bishop did, that they slap a Bull on the Altar in which it resulted of the schism and one of the Reasons for the excommunication was the Filioque, that the East did not accept it.

That is correct. They didn’t break communion, even after knowing it existed. The Bull was issued by Cardinal Humbert without papal authority as the Pope had died. Then the East broke communion. This issue was already dealt with in this thread.

As I showed in the above, that when the East heard about it, they requested an explanation, which, they acted appropriately.

I guess they had never heard of the Athanasian Creed then, which also existed centuries before the eastern clergy started complaining. “The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.”

The Cappadocian Fathers taught the Filioque? Is that what you are saying? I hope I am not understanding you wrong. But knowing you, I believe such things can come out of you. However the respected RC apologist wouldn’t go there.
I challenge you to show me where the cappadocian fathers taught the Filioque as defined by the RCC.

They taught that the eternal Trinitarian relationship of the Spirit is through the Son. If you are asking whether they expressed that reality in exactly the same terms as the Latins, then the answer is obviously no. They weren’t even using the same language (Greek v. Latin).

Could it be that you did not see what I asked you to look for? you got to be better than that. lets check together the posts that I supposedly did not reply for, shall we?

Could it be that you never provided a link or reference to the post you wanted examined?

We shall present you with some of the Cappadocian Fathers saying in regard to this issue. just keep reading.

You mean post #602? This is the first time I have seen it. Why didn’t you provide it previously?

Your analysis basically comes down to this: the Cappadocian Fathers must have been referring to something other than the eternal relationship between the Spirit and the Son. The context of the quotes makes it apparent they are discussing the eternal trinity, since that is also how they are discussing the relationship between the Father and the Son and the Spirit and the Father in the same exact paragraphs. The other argument you have is that Gregory of Nyssa was wrong:

Gregory the blessed priest of Nyssa, who, apparently, speaks more to your advantage than any of the other Fathers. Preserving all the respect due to this Father, we cannot refrain from noticing, that he was but a mortal man, and man, however great a degree of holiness he may attain, is very apt to err . . . .

It obviously doesn’t matter what Cappadocian Fathers are cited. If you don’t agree with them, you’ll just say they are wrong.

Logically Impossible??? are we talking about Temporal things or Divine?

The divine. You were the one who stated that if the Spirit proceeds from the Son that the Spirit must also proceed from himself. I gave you the argument for why this does not follow. If you want to reject it, that’s fine. But it certainly isn’t because it is logically impossible for the Spirit to proceed through the Son.

Show me where and how I disagree with the Fathers you mentioned above, you silly goose, all of their writing are Biblical or/and Biblically grounded, I hope you have read my above quote from St Gregory of Nyssa where he said:
St Gregory of Nyssa
" … We confess that, save His being contemplated as with peculiar attributes in regard of Person, the Holy Spirit is indeed “FROM” God, and “OF” the Christ, according to Scripture…"
Now show me where in the Scriptures it says that the "…HOLY SPIRIT PROCEED FROM THE FATHER AND SON ".

So what? I agree with this quote. You say it does not speak of eternal relationship because you don’t want it to be so. Whether it does or not, this one certainly does:

“[The] Father conveys the notion of unoriginate, unbegotten, and Father always; the only-begotten Son is understood along with the Father, coming from him but inseparably joined to him. Through the Son and with the Father, immediately and before any vague and unfounded concept interposes between them, the Holy Spirit is also perceived conjointly” (Against Eunomius 1 [A.D. 382]).

Isn’t this why you state in your earlier post that - well - St. Gregory Nyssa was wrong? First you say he’s wrong, then you try to explain how one of his quotes really doesn’t express the concept of eternal procession.

 

[tdgesq]

Now can you show me, where they taught the Filioque as defined by the RCC??? lets see if you are going to skip this one or not.

Yes, St. Gregory Nyssa taught that the Spirit comes eternally through the Son, even though you think St. Gregory was wrong as stated in your earlier post.

HE proceed from the FATHER, the ANARCHOS=the SOURCE of all and everything, IAW The Spirit does not proceed from HIMSELF nor from the SON Because both are not the SOURCE, BOTH are from the FATHER and both owe their very being to the FATHER

You are conflating the monarchy of the Father with the Son. The Spirit coming eternally through the Son does not necessitate this. St. Basil agrees with me, not you:

“Thus the way of the knowledge of God lies from One Spirit through the One Son to the One Father, and conversely the natural Goodness and the inherent Holiness and the royal Dignity extend from the Father through the Only-begotten to the Spirit. Thus there is both acknowledgment of the hypostases and the true dogma of the Monarchy is not lost.” newadvent.org/fathers/3203.htm

Unlike you tdgesq, you separated the Tradition from the Holy Scriptures, and the results in a one way is the Filioque. In your belief you cannot stick to the tradition and remain faithful to the Holy Scriptures, Using the Filioque as an example I challenge you to refute me on this last sentence.

And you accuse Gregory of Nyssa of the same thing. That he was just wrong. You disagree with St. Basil on the preservation of the monarchial status of the Father, even when he states the Trinitarian relationship of the Spirit and the Son is “through” the Son. You disagree with Cyril of Alexandria’s biblical basis that "Just as the Son says ‘All that the Father has is mine’ [John 16:15], so shall we find that through the Son it is all also in the Spirit.”

You demand a more explicit biblical basis than what Cyril provides, but you seem to have no problem with the statement that the Son is “eternally begotten of the Father.” Can you give me the explicit biblical source for that?

If it is an ecumenical Council and it is binding, than why change and alter the Creed that it produced???

The Fourth Council of Constantinople (the second one) is not ecumenical, not even by the standards of most Orthodox. Why did the Second Council of Constantinople, which began as a local eastern synod, alter the creed as originally set forth in Nicaea I? An inconvenient historical fact that the Orthodox like to ignore.

 

[Alethiaphile]

Yes, St. Gregory Nyssa taught that the Spirit comes eternally through the Son, even though you think St. Gregory was wrong as stated in your earlier post.
You are conflating the monarchy of the Father with the Son. The Spirit coming eternally through the Son does not necessitate this. St. Basil agrees with me, not you:
“Thus the way of the knowledge of God lies from One Spirit through the One Son to the One Father, and conversely the natural Goodness and the inherent Holiness and the royal Dignity extend from the Father through the Only-begotten to the Spirit. Thus there is both acknowledgment of the hypostases and the true dogma of the Monarchy is not lost.” newadvent.org/fathers/3203.htm
And you accuse Gregory of Nyssa of the same thing. That he was just wrong. You disagree with St. Basil on the preservation of the monarchial status of the Father, even when he states the Trinitarian relationship of the Spirit and the Son is “through” the Son. You disagree with Cyril of Alexandria’s biblical basis that "Just as the Son says ‘All that the Father has is mine’ [John 16:15], so shall we find that through the Son it is all also in the Spirit.”
You demand a more explicit biblical basis than what Cyril provides, but you seem to have no problem with the statement that the Son is “eternally begotten of the Father.” Can you give me the explicit biblical source for that?
The Fourth Council of Constantinople (the second one) is not ecumenical, not even by the standards of most Orthodox. Why did the Second Council of Constantinople, which began as a local eastern synod, alter the creed as originally set forth in Nicaea I? An inconvenient historical fact that the Orthodox like to ignore.

“Through” does not equal “and”. It especially does not equal “Equally” and “As from One Principle”. “Through” is Patristic, “and” is not. Joe

 

[buffgbob]

I think it would take a simple english class to realize “and” does not contradict “through.” But I guess here the real issue is Latin vs Greek anyway. Something which has been pounded out on this thread. I’m just glad after reading over all these posts I’m even more confirmed in my Catholic faith. The counter-arguments are starting to be repetitive, and quite frankly not convincing. Straw man to say the least.

 

[bobzills]

I think it would take a simple english class to realize “and” does not contradict “through.” .

they are not the same thing. Their meanings differ.

 

[marlo]

because the church is higher than the canons, even to an Ecumenical council, as “where the bishop is, there is the fullness of the catholic church” Therefore, a church can create a similar orthodox creed to its own church, even not use the Ecumenical Creed. The church is empowered to use any orthodox creed and not only the Nicene constantinople creed, because each bishop has the power of binding and losing.

We Catholics, accept the Ecumenical Creed and use a similar and equally orthodox creed with the word filioque, to guard the faith against arianism. and that theology is something that the Byzantines does not understand and we dont blame you for it.

Amen.