Filioque??

[Aramis]

In re translation:

The Filoque was not use in the greek, only the latin, therefore, when it was translated back into greek, it was translated poorly.

 

[angelheart]

Hello!

Since this thread included the crusades as one of the subjects I would like to ask a question. Was Pope Urban wrong for calling onto knights to fight in the crusades in return for remission of sins and promise of heaven etc.? Specifically, since many catholics agree the crusades were unfortunate, how was Pope Urban seen by the Catholic Church? Was he ever “judged” for his wrongs?

God bless!
Stefania

 

[a_priori]

All the more reason to use HIS VERY WORDS WHICH THE FATHERS DID.

So trusing Christ on His Word is good. Very good.

If you think that the words of Christ in this regard survive His original Aramaic followed by a swing through a Greek translation is meant to be an exact explanation of something that can never be explained, that is, the nature of the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit and then hang on to those words and wielding them to shatter the Church on Earth, is legitimate, we have nothing to talk about.

HUMAN WORDS CANNOT DESCRIBE THE TRINITY. This is just turf wars, plain and simple.

 

[adstrinity]

I am very very very sorry to bring this up, but, I was always taught or at least always THOUGHT, maybe I was not taught it, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son because He is the Love that is eternally begotten from Them. …But, He is a person.

Do I have that right?..From the Catholic perspective?

How do the Orthodox define/explain the Trinity? (I didn’t read the entire thread, has it been explained?) Is this not the issue? Without explaining the Filioque, explained what is believed before what is defined?

 

[Ghosty]

Hello!

Since this thread included the crusades as one of the subjects I would like to ask a question. Was Pope Urban wrong for calling onto knights to fight in the crusades in return for remission of sins and promise of heaven etc.? Specifically, since many catholics agree the crusades were unfortunate, how was Pope Urban seen by the Catholic Church? Was he ever “judged” for his wrongs?

God bless!
Stefania

I don’t think his General Absolution is viewed as necessarily wrong. Soldiers going into battle have often been given such assurances in both the East and West; the major difference in this case was that it was actually a “religious war”.

The Crusades were unfortunate in their outcome and abuses, but not in principle, IMO (at least the first one). The East asked for help against the encroaching Muslims, and Holy sites were being stolen and converted into mosques all over. I’d say it was a worthy cause, though the abuses that came from the Crusades were despicable.

Just my thoughts.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ignatios]

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

Brother Marduk, why you always go off to something else, what I was talking about Is not whether many RCs accepted or not !!!

I was only responding to what you have said earlier, that it is not appropriate for me to blame the RCC for the wrong doing, and I gave you a proof that it is NOT my words ( about blaming the RCC for the wrong doing) but your late Pope, and then you went off giving your opinion why he said what he said and many RCs voiced against it…either or … what I am saying here that it not my words but it is your Pope words, so if you disagree with this, then you arguement stands againt your own Church and NOT me.

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

You are stating and shining the results of and ignoring the cause of, Once you work on the cause as your Late Pope JPII did then you will have a chance of wipping out the hatred.

The Greeks and many Orthodox are inflicted by what had happened NOT only in Constantinople but afterwards too, almost every century the Latins ( the least to say ) repeated the event of Contantinople to More or less extend, such as I mentioned before the Gebeocide of the Serbs ( massacering one million Serb Orthodox, the German said that the Croats exagerated their numbers it was only 750 000 souls that they Killed since they took account of them) and those Roman Catholic churchman fled after the war, however the serbs forgot and they forgaved but their properties and money never returned to them from the Vatican.
UH and the List goes on, my freind, lets NOT go too deep into this.

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

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

The same things does not apply here, It would have been better if you had said that one father was trying to convence the other father that his child did not mean to kill and rape and steal…etc and he truly loves his child the one whom he had raped and killed, but never speaking anything about rebuilding his house nor speaking about returning what he had stolen.
Now this applies.
I am NOT making mention of this to stur up a hatred, hatred is an awfull sin, but we do not wish to give lies instead of truth, for then and only then, when we make the truth clear, and we work on fixing it, then we can ALL repent and ask forgivness, for then and only then we will be worthy of being called the sons of the high and christians. May GOD have mercy on us sinners †††

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

I dont know if you consider this to be a sin that it was commited by the Orthodox Church , BUT if you do, then I beg you to accept my appology on beahalf whom ever you wish to blame, and I ask you and all the RCs to forgive us we are sinners in the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church is filled with sinners, as a matter of fact we all are sinners, And thats why we became Orthodox, that our GOD may have mercy on us forgive, sanctify us and cleanse us with the washing of water by the word.

But many communists were still members of the Russian Orthodox Church, brother. That is beyond doubt. But I still maintain that it does not make it right to blame the Russian Orthodox CHURCH for the sins of its members, just as it is not right to blame the Catholic CHURCH for the sins of its members.9

You cannot be a member of any church if you are communist.
and those who were “collaborating” after feat and terror( Note few collaborated, but not absolved the communist from their sins, nor they head an army in the name of christianuity to destroy another christian nation) however some were forced on the Orthodox Church to be ordained so they prented to be clergy to spy on the Church …etc

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

you misunderstood what i was trying to tell you, what I said in the above was not of pride or to show a number so we fortify us for anything, accept to demonstrate to you that the ROC gave so many martyrs for the name of CHRIST, so this Church the only name that she would be worthy off is " the CHURCH OF MARTYRS" and not Church that some of her clergy cllaborated with communism under fear and terror.

 

[Ignatios]

Dear brother Ignatios,

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

Marduk, the problem existed waaaaaaaaay before the English came into the picture.

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

Of course I keep reffering to the scriptures, why do you sound that if you dont want the scriptures to be a part of this?

Besides, Greek or Latin or whatever you like…the word that I am stressing hereon is NOT the “Procced” but the " and the SON"

You are trying to jusrify through reason, something that it does not exist in what have been revealed to us through the scriptures, and in particular John 15:26, the sentences in the N.Creed was extracted from the Holy Bible. And I am telling you, that It does not exist what you are trying to reason, your beautifull approaches and explanations and reasoning are all IMMATERIAL WHAT IS MATERIAL HERE IS THE BIBLICAL TEXT.

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

the best language Marduk is the silence, as we say in the Middle East " if words are of Silver the silence is of Gold" I try to practice this, but I fail everytime, I think what we need to bring the Churches back together is a hermets and Not theologians, for the theolgians would have an endless debates but hermits dont speak they only pray.

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

Hearing it in Arabic the word “MONBATHEK” means who comes forth from ( originate)
The Arabic Language is one of the most expressive languages, if it was what you are trying to imply, then that would lead to a greator error, becuase then it would be who Proceed through the “FATHER”!!! and the SON, now you know that the HOLY SPIRIT does not proceed through the FATHER but through the SON, and then going back to what what I was speaking of, this would NOT be reciting from the Bible the words of GOD, remember that the Bible was not compiled back then yet, and the purpose was to sum up the faith from the BIBLE in a way that everyone could know the words of GOD so he doesnt go astray

 

[Isa_Almisry]

If you think that the words of Christ in this regard survive His original Aramaic followed by a swing through a Greek translation

and a swing through Latin clarified it?

is meant to be an exact explanation of something that can never be explained, that is, the nature of the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit and then hang on to those words and wielding them to shatter the Church on Earth,

we didn’t do the shattering.

is legitimate, we have nothing to talk about.

.

HUMAN WORDS CANNOT DESCRIBE THE TRINITY.

Are you denying the Incarnation? I think God made man knew the best word to use in the human language He spoke.

This is just turf wars, plain and simple.

This is not letting the boundary mark set up by our Fathers being moved. Plain and simple.

 

[a_priori]

and a swing through Latin clarified it?

No, quite the opposite. That’s my point. Translations often do great violence to the specific meanings and nuances of words.

Are you denying the Incarnation? I think God made man knew the best word to use in the human language He spoke.

Of course I’m not denying the incarnation. But it is the case that we are given the human language message of the Gospel in order for us to understand and be reunited with God. This is true.

But don’t you see, words that claim to describe the relationship within God Himself in terms of the Trinity cannot do the job. The Creed with or without the Filioque cannot even approach the reality of God’s nature. He is too far above the power of words. So why split a Church based on things we can’t possibly describe on Earth anyway?

Even saying “proceeds from” doesn’t work ultimately. Words like “from” presuppose time and space. God is outside time and space. So you see, we cannot ultimately describe Him anyway in those terms.

Again, to rupture the Church over “through a glass darkly” concepts is needless fratricide. But people are all about clans, turf and “us vs. them” type of thinking. Sad really.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

No, quite the opposite. That’s my point. Translations often do great violence to the specific meanings and nuances of words.
Of course I’m not denying the incarnation. But it is the case that we are given the human language message of the Gospel in order for us to understand and be reunited with God. This is true.

But don’t you see, words that claim to describe the relationship within God Himself in terms of the Trinity cannot do the job. The Creed with or without the Filioque cannot even approach the reality of God’s nature. He is too far above the power of words. So why split a Church based on things we can’t possibly describe on Earth anyway?

Even saying “proceeds from” doesn’t work ultimately. Words like “from” presuppose time and space. God is outside time and space. So you see, we cannot ultimately describe Him anyway in those terms.

Again, to rupture the Church over “through a glass darkly” concepts is needless fratricide. But people are all about clans, turf and “us vs. them” type of thinking. Sad really.

I dunno: for something that “can’t describe the relationship within God Himself in terms of the Trinity” I’ve met many who insist the Son is also the source of the Spirit while denying that is what they are saying.

As my patron St. John of Damascus said, we cannot go beyond what Revelation has revealed and the Fathers explained.

The Second Person of the Trintiy said “proceeds,” the Third Person moved St. John, who hear it from the very lips of the Second Person, to write “ekporeusis,” the Fathers explained the relationship with these words. Going beyond that is to go into speculation.

What is the difference between the Begetting and the Processing? No one knows nor can know, just that they are different. filioque muddles that difference.

 

[chrisb]

I dunno: for something that “can’t describe the relationship within God Himself in terms of the Trinity” I’ve met many who insist the Son is also the source of the Spirit while denying that is what they are saying.

As my patron St. John of Damascus said, we cannot go beyond what Revelation has revealed and the Fathers explained.

The Second Person of the Trintiy said “proceeds,” the Third Person moved St. John, who hear it from the very lips of the Second Person, to write “ekporeusis,” the Fathers explained the relationship with these words. Going beyond that is to go into speculation.

What is the difference between the Begetting and the Processing? No one knows nor can know, just that they are different. filioque muddles that difference.

Amen! Lord have Mercy on us! Let us return to the Faith of the Fathers! Amen!

 

[a_priori]

I dunno: for something that “can’t describe the relationship within God Himself in terms of the Trinity” I’ve met many who insist the Son is also the source of the Spirit while denying that is what they are saying.

As my patron St. John of Damascus said, we cannot go beyond what Revelation has revealed and the Fathers explained.

The Second Person of the Trintiy said “proceeds,” the Third Person moved St. John, who hear it from the very lips of the Second Person, to write “ekporeusis,” the Fathers explained the relationship with these words. Going beyond that is to go into speculation.

What is the difference between the Begetting and the Processing? No one knows nor can know, just that they are different. filioque muddles that difference.

We’re now just talking past each other. You’ve missed my point. Sorry to have troubled you.

 

[VL93]

I am very very very sorry to bring this up, but, I was always taught or at least always THOUGHT, maybe I was not taught it, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son because He is the Love that is eternally begotten from Them. …But, He is a person.

Do I have that right?..From the Catholic perspective?

Hmm. I have, in fact, heard Catholic priests teach this, that is, that the Holy Spirit is the “product” of the love between the Father and the Son … but is this really official Catholic teaching?

If so, isn’t this precisely one of the theological reasons why the Orthodox Church has rejected the filioque - because, in trying to combat the Arian heresy, it veers towards Macedonianism and diminishes the full Divinity and personhood of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Badaliyyah]

Hmm. I have, in fact, heard Catholic priests teach this, that is, that the Holy Spirit is the “product” of the love between the Father and the Son … but is this really official Catholic teaching?

If they said the HS was the “product” of the love between the F and the S they probably misspoke. But certainly the Augustinian tradition understands the HS to be the Love between F and S (i.e., F-S-HS = Lover-Beloved-Love). This is precisely why the double procession does not bother Latins because it accords so well with Augustinian Trinitarian thought. One can find this in any number of Augustinians: Anselm, Alexander de Hales, Bonaventure, etc.

salaam.

 

[anthony022071]

Of course I keep reffering to the scriptures, why do you sound that if you dont want the scriptures to be a part of this?

See post 225.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4009393#post4009393

Besides, Greek or Latin or whatever you like…the word that I am stressing hereon is NOT the “Procced” but the " and the SON"

You are trying to jusrify through reason, something that it does not exist in what have been revealed to us through the scriptures, and in particular John 15:26, the sentences in the N.Creed was extracted from the Holy Bible.

We don’t draw our beliefs from scripture alone,but also the writings of the Church Fathers.

It was not the Council of Nicaea that mentioned the procession,but the Council of Constantinople 1. They added to the Nicene creed! Oh,the horror!

 

[Gofer]

Some people will grasp at pebbles to build wall forts. Pathetic.

 

[Diak]

They added to the Nicene creed! Oh,the horror!

And a subsequent Council forbade any more changes to that same Creed.
FDRLB

 

[VL93]

If they said the HS was the “product” of the love between the F and the S they probably misspoke. But certainly the Augustinian tradition understands the HS to be the Love between F and S (i.e., F-S-HS = Lover-Beloved-Love). This is precisely why the double procession does not bother Latins because it accords so well with Augustinian Trinitarian thought. One can find this in any number of Augustinians: Anselm, Alexander de Hales, Bonaventure, etc.

salaam.

Thank you, Badaliyyah! I’m not sure if I see the Holy Trinity quite this way, but it does provide an interesting avenue of thought to investigate…

 

[Turtullian]

And a subsequent Council forbade any more changes to that same Creed.
FDRLB

Not quite, the wording of the Chalcedon states that no opposing creed could be created without an ecumenical council called. At any rate this was done in Florence and Lyons II.

 

[anthony022071]

And a subsequent Council forbade any more changes to that same Creed.
FDRLB

The Council of Ephesus forbade changes to the original Nicene creed. That was the ecumenical creed,not the creed of Constantinople 1.

“The holy Council decrees that no one should be permitted to offer a different Creed of Faith, or in any case, to write or compose another, than the one defined by the holy fathers who convened in the city of Nicaea …As for those who dare either to compose a different Creed or Faith, or to present one, or to offer one to those who wish to return to recognition of the truth, whether they be Greeks or Jews, or they be members of any heresy whatsoever, they, if bishops or clergymen, shall be deprived as bishops of their episcopate, and as clergymen of their clericate; but if they are laymen, they shall be anathematized.”

catholic-legate.com/articles/filioque.html
< Now, with all this before us, it obviously follows that there are only two possible ways to interpret and obey Canon VII of the Council of Ephesus. Either one can interpret it in a purely anachronistic sense –the sense in which many modern Eastern Orthodox interpret it, who unreasonably (and legalistically) apply it to the period after the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451), when the Constantinopolitan Creed was finally embraced by the universal Church in an Ecumenical context. Or, one can interpret Canon VII in an organic sense –as a reference to the substance of the Nicene Creed, meaning that no one is permitted to put forward a Creed that opposes or is contrary to the Nicene Creed –that is, the organic faith of the Nicene fathers. This, of course, was the interpretation presented by the Archbishop of Rhodes and adopted by the other fathers at the unifying Council of Ferrara-Florence (in 1439), including the Byzantine John Bessarion, but not the inflexible Mark of Ephesus, who simply could not incorporate it into his narrow, schismatic view. Indeed, the fathers at Ferrara-Florence were not even in a position to appreciate the authentic, 5th Century perspective of St. Cyril and the Council he led. If the Romans at Ferrara-Florence were fully aware of the A.D. 431 distinction between what was then seen as the Ecumenical Creed of Nicaea (325) vs. the merely regional Creed of Constantinople I (381), their argument against Mark of Ephesus would have been far more powerful.

Clearly, St. Cyril of Alexandria could only have had one of two objectives in mind when he declared that no one may add to the Creed “of Nicaea.” Either he directly intended to undermine any special, canonical importance for the Constantinopolitan Creed –something that would clearly bolster his defense of Alexandria primacy by setting limits to the authority of Constantinople I. (Although a saint, Cyril was not above such political maneuvering.) Or, he merely (innocently) intended to refer to the Creed of Nicaea in an organic and substantive sense –a sense that would be inclusive of the Constantinopolitan Creed and all other creeds in essential agreement with Nicaea’s. If the latter, then both modern Eastern Orthodoxy and modern Catholicism are in communion with St. Cyril and the fathers of Ephesus. If the former, then the Council of Ephesus in 431 and the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (which adopted the Constantinopolitan Creed in an Ecumenical context) cannot be reconciled, and one or the other must not be counted as ecumenical and binding. Thus, the only realistic option for an Eastern Orthodox or a Catholic is to interpret Canon VII of Ephesus in an organic sense –a sense which permits Chalcedon’s ecumenical adoption of the Constantinopolitan Creed, but which also permits the inclusion of the Filioque as a licit canonical addition. >