A
Aramis
Guest
Amen!
- Status
B
bobzills
Guest
Is there anything contradictory about saying:
On the one hand, there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church,
but
On the other hand, a heretic can be a Saint in the Catholic Church?
H
Hesychios
Guest
A paradox, no? :ehh:
C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
Not as bad as Predestinaton and Free Will.
A
Allyson
Guest
Did you know that your posts depress me? Especially one’s like this. I almost don’t feel like responding to your "hatin’ " on the East. You seem to be so single minded as not to admit of anything that does not appear to you to fit. {I know this is strongly worded, but I speak frankly to express the brick wall I bang my head against}
How so? What human work is without error?
You really ought to read Dvornik, then you would recognize some of the errors of the 1917 Encyclopedia, which by the way I own and find to be reliable on many things, just not the East. The writers of the articles therein did not have access to the knowledge to recognize the bias in their sources on Photios, hence the egregious errors, ect. Dvornik does an amazing textual study that debunks many medieval myths about this holy Saint.
God Bless,
R.
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
No. The Holy Ghost proceeds from both the Father and the Son.
The filioque has always been believed Christians. The Orthodox heretics reject it because they have been deceived by their leaders into believing that it was a later invention of the Catholic Church.
The following quotes are from Fathers of the East. Thes quotes prove that the filioque has been believed since the earliest years:
**Epiphanius Bishop of Salamis: **“The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son” (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).
Cyril of Alexandria: “Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it” (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).
The next quote is the most authoritative as it comes from the Athanasian Creed.
Athanasian Creed: “[W]e venerate one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in oneness. . . . The Father was not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding” (Athanasian Creed [A.D. 400]).
The Orthodox justify their rejection of the dogma by pointing out that it was added to the Constantinople Creed, yet they have no problem accepting what Constantinople added to the Nicean Creed.
The Creed of Constantinople added the doctrines of the Holy Ghost, which were not originally contained in the Nicene Creed. No one rejects these doctrines which shows that there is nothing wrong with adding to a Creed.
What is a Creed? A Creed is a symbol of faith, usually written to refute a particular error of the day. The reason the Creed of Constantinople I says that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father is because a heretic named Macedonius, and his followers who were known as “Pneumatomoche”, taught that the Holy Ghost derives his origin from the Son alone, and not also from the Father. The heretic Macedonius was made Bishop of Constantinople by the Arians in 342, and began to spread his error. Therefore, to refute the error, the Council of Constantinople added certain phrases about the Holy Ghost to the Nicean Creed. In refutation of his error, they explicitly taught that the Holy Ghost did proceed from the Father, which he denied along with other things. There was no need to state that the Holy Ghost also proceeds from the Son, since this was not in question at the time. As the earlier quotes show, it had always been believed that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Son. Here are three more quotes from around the time of the Council of Constantinople:
Epiphanius of Salamis, AD 374: “The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son“ (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).
Augustine, AD 413: “Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him” (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Cyril of Alexandria, AD424: “Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it” (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).
It wasn’t until the seventh century that some began to deny the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. In order to refute the error, the filioque clause was added to the Constantinople Creed, just as the Constantinople Creed added certain phrases to the Nicene Creed. The filioque was eventually elevated to the level of a dogma of the faith at the Fourth Lateran Council (AD1215), and repeated again at the Council of Lyons (AD1274), which states the following:
**Council of Lyons: **1. We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son (filioque), not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike. But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one".
The Council of Florence taught the same:
Council of Florence, Bull Cantata Domino, AD 1441: “The sacrosanct Roman Church, founded by the voice of our Lord and Savior, firmly believes, professes, and preaches one true God omnipotent unchangeable, and eternal, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; one in essence, three in persons; Father unborn, Son born of the Father, Holy Ghost proceeding from Father and Son. … the Holy Ghost alone proceeds at the same time from the Father and Son… For the fact that the Son is of the Father and without beginning, and that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. … Whoever, therefore, have adverse and contrary opinions the Church disapproves and anathematizes and declares to be foreign to the Christian body which is the Church.” (Denz. 703, 704, page 225-226).
The filioque has been a teaching of Christianity from the beginning (as the above quotes show), and is now a dogma of the faith, the denial of which will result in eternal damnation.
A
Aramis
Guest
Or having Free will, and choosing never to Sin, as the Theotokos… I guess she must have been bor without the compulsion to sin that the rest of us Mortals must face.
Lots of conundra in the Church.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Pronounce sentence against the supreme pontiffs of old Rome.
Hmmm.
Souds that he can be tried (though not rashly).
But Vatican I and II say the pope can’t be tried by anyone, as it speaks of authority being himself alone, or in conjunction with the other “bishops,” and explicitly states it is not a question of the college of bishops acting without its head.
Sovereign immunity would seem to be in order. But that conflicts with your so called council.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Can you clarify your position vis a vis the above statement?
Are you declaring flatly that there is dual Procession of the Holy Ghost? Are you stating that Dempsey is misrepresenting Latin theology on this point?
uchuchPeace and Love to you too, Pax.
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
I don’t know if that has been defined. What we do know is that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son through a single spiration.
I have a question for you. Consider the sun, as well as the light and heat that proceeds from the sun. The light is not the heat, neither is the heat the light, yet the heat and light are one thing with the sun, in such a way that it is not possible to separate the light or heat from the sun.
Now, does the sun’s heat proceed from the sun, from the light given off by the sun, or from both? If it is from both, would it be a single or a dual procession?
Z
Zabdi_Premjit
Guest
The heat comes from infrared waves, while the light comes from the visible light spectrum. Neither does the light proceed from the heat, nor does the heat proceed from the light. They are simple derived from different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. If that is your analogy of the Holy Trinity, you basically supported the Orthodox view and indirectly denied the Latin.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
The sun’s heat primarily comes in the infrared range, so it is not part of the visible light spectrum. So it proceeds from the sun but not the sunlight. Do you really want to pursue this analogy?
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
We almost have the mystery of the Trinity solved.The heat comes from infrared waves, while the light comes from the visible light spectrum. Neither does the light proceed from the heat, nor does the heat proceed from the light. They are simple derived from different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. If that is your analogy of the Holy Trinity, you basically supported the Orthodox view and indirectly denied the Latin.
One more question: If the heat proceeds from the infrared waves, and if the infrared waves proceed from the sun (rather than from the light), what happens if the light, which comes from the visible light spectrum, is actually consubstantial with the sun? Would this mean that the heat also proceeds from the light? If so, would it be a dual procession?
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
But what if the sunlight is consubstantial with the sun?
I’m actually having fun with it.
Z
Zabdi_Premjit
Guest
Yes, if the light already existed and then the Spirit proceeds. But since God exists in eternity, He does not experience time. The begeting of the Son and the procession of the Spirit cannot be said to actually occur in sequence, but rather are simultaneous occurances. The Latin view only makes sense if the Son was in existence before the Spirit, thus they indirectly assert that God is bounded by time. We know this is not true, as God created time, is omnipotent, and is bound by no higher power. Therefore, the Latin view has blasphemous implications, as it presupposes that Time preceded the begeting and spiration, and therefore places limitations on God. While not intentional, the Latin view diminishes God by denying his eternal nature.We almost have the mystery of the Trinity solved.
One more question: If the heat proceeds from the infrared waves, and if the infrared waves proceed from the sun (rather than from the light), what happens if the light, which comes from the visible light spectrum, is actually consubstantial with the sun? Would this mean that the heat also proceeds from the light? If so, would it be a dual procession?
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
OK, let’s take it from there. Let us imagine something for a moment. It may difficult for us, since we are limited to time, but let’s consider it anyway.
Let’s imagine a globe with light and heat proceeding from it. This globe has always existed. It had no beginning and will have no end. Proceeding from this eternal globe are two things: light and heat. These too have had no beginning and will have no end. The globe is eternal, as is the light and heat proceeding from it.
The interesting thing about the light is that it is the exact same essense as the globe itself.
Now, if the heat proceeds eternally from the globe, would it not also proceed eternally from the light, since the light is essentially and substantially the same as the globe?
But using your same reasoning you would have to deny that the Son is begotten from the Father. According to your same reasoning, that doctrine would imply the necessity of “time”.The Latin view only makes sense if the Son was in existence before the Spirit, thus they indirectly assert that God is bounded by time. We know this is not true, as God created time, is omnipotent, and bound by no higher power. Therefore, the Latin view has blasphemous implications, as it presupposes that Time preceded the begeting and spiration, and therefore places limitations on God. While not intentional, the Latin view diminishes God by denying his eternal nature.
Just as your belief in the Son being begotton from the Father does not imply the necessity of time, neither does the Catholic teaching of the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and Son imply a necessity of time.
Z
Zabdi_Premjit
Guest
No, the heat does not proceed from the light because it is a parallel procession, not a series of two processions. Think “V”, not “|”. Plus, using your logic, it would be just as easy to say that the heat is co-substantial with the globe, so the light must have proceeded from the globe, as well as the heat. Therefore the implications of your logic, regarding model, are that the light proceeds from the heat and vice versa. If used as an analogy for the Trinity, this translates into saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, while the Son also proceeds from the Spirit.
No, because the term begotten is used as a representation of an ineffable mystery. In actuality, the mystery is not past, present, or future. The use of tense is due simply to the fact of limitations in language. Neither the Father nor the Son came first, per se. The term “begotten” is simply employed to reference an ineffable mystery by which the Father is the source of the Son. Nonetheless, we are forced to talk as if God were in time. Let us do so.
To conceptualise eternity, think period (.), as opposed to line (|). The spiration of the Spirit and begotteness of the Son occur in parallel acts in the Eastern view, and are therefore easily conceptualised in a single instant, or point (.). The Western view, however, has two “processes”: 1) The begetting of the Son, which itself can be conceptualised by an instant, or point (.), and 2) The proceeding of the Spirit, which itself can be conceptualised by an instant, or point (.). The problem comes in that the second “process” depends upon the completion of the first “process”. Thus, a dilemma arises, as the acts cannot be conceptualised as a single dot, but two distinct dots occurring in a specific order. You then have two conjoined dots, creating a dimension where there previously was none. (More than one dot constitutes a line. Points have no dimensions, while lines are one-dimensional.) Having a dimension implies the ability to move along that dimension, so then we have a sense of progression, and therefore time. Hence, after conceptualising the Latin view, we are left again with a sense that God exists not in eternity, but in time. The Eastern view does not create this logical difficulty.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
No, it would be a single hypostasis. Want to put that in the Creed too?We almost have the mystery of the Trinity solved.
One more question: If the heat proceeds from the infrared waves, and if the infrared waves proceed from the sun (rather than from the light), what happens if the light, which comes from the visible light spectrum, is actually consubstantial with the sun? Would this mean that the heat also proceeds from the light? If so, would it be a dual procession?
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
And why would the light not proceed eternally from the heat, since the heat is essentially and substantially the same as the globe.
You’re right. This is fun.
Has to get to the Son first before the Spirit, an added step. Unless you want to abandon this one source claim and admit two sources of the filioque.
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
Let’s take another example. Let’s imagine the an infinite and eternal being exists. Just as you and I exist; and just as you and I have an intellect, so too does this infinite being exist and have an intellect. And just as you and I can use our intellect to think, and then have this thought proceed from us as a spoken word, so too this infinite and eternal being has a thought - a thought that is infinite and perfect in and of itself - not as our intellect which learns and proceeds in thought from point to point - but one that simply knows all things and is perfectly complete of itself.
And what if this infinite and perfect thought-become-word proceeded forth from the being, in such a way that the being can contemplate this perfect thought, and the thought the being. And what if the contemplation between the being and the thought spirates forth an infinite love.
If this were to happen - if the contemplation of the being and the word spirated infinite love, would the love that proceeded from both the being and the word, be dual or singular prcession?
- Status