I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
So the filioque partisans claim. btw, the prohibition was stated at the Constantinople I.
- Status
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Canon I.
The Faith of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Fathers assembled at Nice in Bithynia shall not be set aside, but shall remain firm. And every heresy shall be anathematized, particularly that of the Eunomians or [Anomæans, the Arians or] Eudoxians, and that of the Semi-Arians or Pneumatomachi, and that of the Sabellians, and that of the Marcellians, and that of the Photinians, and that of the Apollinarians.
A
adstrinity
Guest
You know what has occured to me? I had an epiphany last night. This is what is going to happen in the future: Both sides (East & West) will be very correct. The Holy Spirit proceeds From Both The Father and The Son and He proceeds From The Father through The Son, and, it will state so in The Creed which we will all say.
"We believe in the Holy Spirit, The Lord, The Giver of life, Who proceeds from the Father further words of clarification of what is meant and not meant by this, Who proceeds from The Father through The Son further words of clarification of what is meant and not meant by this. He proceeds from The Father and The Son further words of clarification of what is meant and not meant by this. With The Father and The Son, He is worshiped and glorified…
So, yes, this will mean, in the future, nobody will have to give up what they believe, just clarify more what is NOT meant. Ultimately, it’s just more I’m going to have to memorize.
"We believe in the Holy Spirit, The Lord, The Giver of life, Who proceeds from the Father further words of clarification of what is meant and not meant by this, Who proceeds from The Father through The Son further words of clarification of what is meant and not meant by this. He proceeds from The Father and The Son further words of clarification of what is meant and not meant by this. With The Father and The Son, He is worshiped and glorified…
So, yes, this will mean, in the future, nobody will have to give up what they believe, just clarify more what is NOT meant. Ultimately, it’s just more I’m going to have to memorize.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Isn’t that what the various “union” agreements already do? I mean they are told that they don’t have to say filioque, just accept it?You know what has occured to me? I had an epiphany last night. This is what is going to happen in the future: Both sides (East & West) will be very correct. The Holy Spirit proceeds From Both The Father and The Son and He proceeds From The Father through The Son, and, it will state so in The Creed which we will all say.
"We believe in the Holy Spirit, The Lord, The Giver of life, Who proceeds from the Father further words of clarification of what is meant and not meant by this, Who proceeds from The Father through The Son further words of clarification of what is meant and not meant by this. He proceeds from The Father and The Son further words of clarification of what is meant and not meant by this. With The Father and The Son, He is worshiped and glorified…
So, yes, this will mean, in the future, nobody will have to give up what they believe, just clarify more what is NOT meant. Ultimately, it’s just more I’m going to have to memorize.
B
buffgbob
Guest
Agreed.
I
Ignatios
Guest
Anthony,
Ok lets replay things quickly from the beginning, because it seems what you are trying to do here is that, you say one thing and you run off to another and/or reply on something else in a maneuver to brake loose from what you have said and imlying that you responding to my post, or to create a delusion to cofuse the others, there will be no such things in here
first I said in post #198 the following:
earlier by Ignatios:
earlier by anthony:
earlier by Ignatios:
earlier by anthony:
“The prophets investigated the times and the circumstances which the Spirit of Christ within them was pointing to, for he predicted the sufferings destined for Christ and the glories that would follow” (1 Peter 1:11).
Now,an Orthodox apologist may say that these verses do not refer to the Son being the origin of existence of the Spirit but only that the Son has the Spirit. But the fact is that the Son has the Spirit of the Father from eternity,because the Father and Son are one in being,consubstantial.
St.Athanasius:
“Insofar as we understand the special relationship of the Son to the Father, we also understand that the Spirit has this same relationship to the Son. And since the Son says, ‘everything that the Father has is mine (John 16:15),’ we will discover all these things also in the Spirit through the Son. And just as the Son was announced by the Father, Who said, ‘This is my beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased (Matthew 3:17),’ so also is the Spirit of the Son; for, as the Apostle says, ‘He has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’ (Galatians 4:6).” (Athanasius, Letters to Serapion, III, 1, 33, PG 26, 625 B).
St. Gregory Nyssa:
“The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is [further] attested that He is of the Son. St Paul says: ‘Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to Him’ (Romans 8:9). So the Spirit Who is of God (the Father) is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son Who is of God (the Father) is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed.” (Fragment in Orationem Dominicam, quoted by St John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC).
St. Ambrose of Milan:
“Just as the Father is the fount of life, so too, there are many who have stated that the Son is designated as the fount of life. It is said, for example that with You, Almighty God, Your Son is the fount of life, that is, the fount of the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit is life, just as the Lord says: ‘The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life.’ [John 6:63]” (The Holy Spirit 1:15:152 [A.D. 381]).
Pope St. Damasus I:
“The Holy Spirit is not of the Father only, or the Spirit of the Son only, but He is the Spirit of the Father and the Son. For it is written, ‘In anyone loves the world, the Spirit of the Father is not in him (1 John 2:15)’; and again it is written: ‘If anyone, however, does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His (Romans 8:9).’ When the Father and the Son are named in this way, the Holy Spirit is understood, of Whom the Son Himself says in the Gospel, that the Holy Spirit ‘proceed from the Father (John 15:26),’ and that ‘He shall receive of mine and shall announce it to you (John 16:14).’” (Acts of the Council of Rome, 382).
So, where does Saint Paul say that the Holy Spirit is of the SON???
He said the Spirit of JESUS, and not the Holy Spirit, and thats why I gave you a hint earlier by stating that the SON has Two Natures and two wills and JUST as HE is Fully GOD HE is also Fully Man, and the two natures are COMPLETE.
Saint John Damascene says, “The Holy Spirit we say is from the Father, and we name Him Spirit of the Father, but we do not say the Holy Spirit is from the Son, although we name Him the Spirit of the Son.” Therefore the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son.
I will continue tomorow if GOD is willing, must go for now, GOD bless you all †††
Ok lets replay things quickly from the beginning, because it seems what you are trying to do here is that, you say one thing and you run off to another and/or reply on something else in a maneuver to brake loose from what you have said and imlying that you responding to my post, or to create a delusion to cofuse the others, there will be no such things in here
first I said in post #198 the following:
earlier by Ignatios:
you replied the following in post #200:
earlier by anthony:
I replied in post #206 the following:
earlier by Ignatios:
you responded with the following in post 225:
earlier by anthony:
.]
“The prophets investigated the times and the circumstances which the Spirit of Christ within them was pointing to, for he predicted the sufferings destined for Christ and the glories that would follow” (1 Peter 1:11).
Now,an Orthodox apologist may say that these verses do not refer to the Son being the origin of existence of the Spirit but only that the Son has the Spirit. But the fact is that the Son has the Spirit of the Father from eternity,because the Father and Son are one in being,consubstantial.
St.Athanasius:
“Insofar as we understand the special relationship of the Son to the Father, we also understand that the Spirit has this same relationship to the Son. And since the Son says, ‘everything that the Father has is mine (John 16:15),’ we will discover all these things also in the Spirit through the Son. And just as the Son was announced by the Father, Who said, ‘This is my beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased (Matthew 3:17),’ so also is the Spirit of the Son; for, as the Apostle says, ‘He has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’ (Galatians 4:6).” (Athanasius, Letters to Serapion, III, 1, 33, PG 26, 625 B).
St. Gregory Nyssa:
“The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is [further] attested that He is of the Son. St Paul says: ‘Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to Him’ (Romans 8:9). So the Spirit Who is of God (the Father) is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son Who is of God (the Father) is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed.” (Fragment in Orationem Dominicam, quoted by St John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC).
St. Ambrose of Milan:
“Just as the Father is the fount of life, so too, there are many who have stated that the Son is designated as the fount of life. It is said, for example that with You, Almighty God, Your Son is the fount of life, that is, the fount of the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit is life, just as the Lord says: ‘The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life.’ [John 6:63]” (The Holy Spirit 1:15:152 [A.D. 381]).
Pope St. Damasus I:
“The Holy Spirit is not of the Father only, or the Spirit of the Son only, but He is the Spirit of the Father and the Son. For it is written, ‘In anyone loves the world, the Spirit of the Father is not in him (1 John 2:15)’; and again it is written: ‘If anyone, however, does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His (Romans 8:9).’ When the Father and the Son are named in this way, the Holy Spirit is understood, of Whom the Son Himself says in the Gospel, that the Holy Spirit ‘proceed from the Father (John 15:26),’ and that ‘He shall receive of mine and shall announce it to you (John 16:14).’” (Acts of the Council of Rome, 382).
So, where does Saint Paul say that the Holy Spirit is of the SON???
He said the Spirit of JESUS, and not the Holy Spirit, and thats why I gave you a hint earlier by stating that the SON has Two Natures and two wills and JUST as HE is Fully GOD HE is also Fully Man, and the two natures are COMPLETE.
Saint John Damascene says, “The Holy Spirit we say is from the Father, and we name Him Spirit of the Father, but we do not say the Holy Spirit is from the Son, although we name Him the Spirit of the Son.” Therefore the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son.
I will continue tomorow if GOD is willing, must go for now, GOD bless you all †††
A
anthony022071
Guest
“God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts” (Gal 4:6).
Here Paul says what is apparently the opposite of what Jesus said,so go figure. It must be remembered that the Son is one in being,consubstantial with the Father. Everything that the Father is and has and does,the Son participates in,without being the
person of the Father. The cause of the Spirit is not something distinct from the person of the Father that the Son cannot participate in.
He said the Spirit of Christ. And Christ exists as the Son eternally.
When he says that the Spirit is not from (ek) the Son he means in the sense of ekporeusis.
“He is the Spirit of the Son, not as being from Him but as proceeding through Him from the Father.” (OF 196/PG 148 B).
“I say that God is always Father since He has always His Word [the Son] coming from Himself and, through his Word, the Spirit issuing from Him” (Dialogue Against the Manicheans 5 [A.D. 728]).
Leo the Great and Gregory the Great also said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. They are saints in the Orthodox Church.
Pope Leo the Great, To Turribius, Epistle 15.
“And so under the first head is shown what unholy views they hold about the Divine Trinity: they affirm that the person of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is one and the same, as if the same God were named now Father, now Son, and now Holy Ghost: and as if He who begot were not one, He who was begotten, another, and He who proceeded from both, yet another; but an undivided unity must be understood, spoken of under three names, indeed, but not consisting of three persons.”
Pope Gregory the Great, Moral Teachings drawn from Job, 1:22,2:92.
“The Spirit proceeds essentially from the Son…the Redeemer imparted to the hearts of His disciples the Spirit who proceeds from Himself.”
Pope Gregory the Great, Moral Teachings drawn from Job, 25:4.
“Our Lord … shews how the Spirit of Both so proceeds as to be coeternal with Both…He who is produced by procession is not posterior in time to those by whom He is put forth.”
Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II, Session I (A.D. 553).
“We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John (Chrysostom) of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo and their writings on the true faith.”
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Badaliyyah,
“The HS is the PRODUCT of the love between the F and the S”
and
“The HS IS the love between the F and the S.”
Blessings,
Marduk
Do you think that there is a distinction between
“The HS is the PRODUCT of the love between the F and the S”
and
“The HS IS the love between the F and the S.”
Blessings,
Marduk
I
Ignatios
Guest
Yes, yes we know where the RCs draw their believes from, But as for the Holy Orthodox Church of GOD, our beleif was delivered once and for all to the Saints, the Holy Tradition that is, As it is defined and Interpreted by the Fathers of the Church that it is inline with what had been taught everywhere by all from the beginning without any additions or subtractions.
Now who is talking about what Council mentioned what?
Pay heed to what I have said, " THE NICENE CREED " NOT " the COUNCIL OF NICEA" and I said it the way the RCC calls it, when you the RCs say the Nicene Creed do you say what had been Creeded by the Council of Nicea only, or also by the council of Constantinople, Yet you call it the Nicene Creed, actually the " the NICENE CREED " is the wrong way to call it, It is the Nicene-Constantinopliltan Creed, or as the Orthodox calls it in most cases " the Symbol of Faith " but if you come to the Middle East we call it " the Constitution of faith "
here is what it is from your own site the " Newadvant"…
" The Nicene Creed
As approved in amplified form at the Council of Constantinople (381), it is the profession of the Christian Faith common to the Catholic Church, to all the Eastern Churches separated from Rome, and to most of the Protestant denominations."
newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm
Now , what they have added it was an extention and NOT ALTERATION, and also it was completion of what had been started, it was inline with the Holy Tradition as well.
Where the case of the filioque does not fit any of the above.
E
East_and_West
Guest
And the Pope, in his universal jurisdiction, overturned that.
I
Ignatios
Guest
I dont know about you anthony!!!
it is sooooooooo easy for all to obtain information concerning this isuue. the following is from the acts of the third Ecumenical Council:
"…The Creed
The text of the “Creed” decreed at the First and Second Ecumenical Councils was deemed complete and the Council forbade any changes (additions or deletions).
also:
The filioque clause
All Eastern Orthodox and Greek Catholic churches omit the words “and the Son” (the filioque clause), from the description of the Holy Spirit, in keeping with the first seven Ecumenical Councils. Those words were not included by the Council of Nicaea or of Constantinople, but were added later by Roman Catholics, and the Eastern Orthodox churches consider their inclusion to be a heresy. The Anglican Communion is generally sympathetic to the Orthodox position, and both versions are authorised, but inertia leads most churches to continue to include the Filioque except during ecumenical services.
also
The Nicene Creed was first adopted at the first Ecumenical Council in 325 A.D., which was … the First Council of Nicaea. At that time, the text ended after the words “We believe in the Holy Spirit.” The second Ecumenical Council in 381 A.D. added the remainder of the text except for the words “and the son”; this is the version still used by Eastern Orthdox and Greek Catholic churches today. The third Ecumenical Council reaffirmed the 381 version, and stated that no further changes could be made to it, nor could other creeds by adopted. The phrase “and the son” (filioque in Latin) was first used in Spain in about the 5th century,
“At the Third Ecumenical Council and the “Photian” council of 879-880 (both councils Rome signed onto), all changes to the Creed are anathematized”
Now it maybe is called the Nicene Creed but as I said this is not the right name for it, it is only in the west that it is called so,
also when the Fathers of the Council of Ephesus recited the Creed they recited it along with Contantinopolitan one.
here is some sites to check the Internet is filled with them.
goholycross.org/studies/councils.html
thenazareneway.com/nicene_niceno_constantinopolitan_creed.htm
theopedia.com/Nicene_Creed
lycos.com/info/nicene-creed.html
G
Genesis315
Guest
I don’t know if this has ever been posted, but here’s a good article on this issue (it’s a pretty long pdf):
On the Procession of the Holy Spirit by John F. McCarthy
On the Procession of the Holy Spirit by John F. McCarthy
A
anthony022071
Guest
In other words,the writings of the Church Fathers,as I said. But the Church Fathers before the Schism did not what the filioque says,whereas some of them affirmed it.
The rigid Photian and Palamite theology which denies that the Son has no eternal participation in the Spirit’s procession was only taught in Byzantium.
The original Nicene creed does not mention the procession of the Spirit.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother East and West,
In any case, the Pope is bound by the doctrinal decisions of past ecumenical councils. For you to say he overturned anything from them is a rash statement, IMHO.
Blessings,
Marduk
I must disagree. The Pope did not overturn anything. AFAIK, The Pope has NEVER insisted on the addition of filioque into the Creed of the Greeks. I don’t think even the Council of Lyons or Florence do that.
In any case, the Pope is bound by the doctrinal decisions of past ecumenical councils. For you to say he overturned anything from them is a rash statement, IMHO.
Blessings,
Marduk
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Actually the Emperor Henry II, by his sword, overturned that.
And that’ how the pope of Rome ended up outside the Universal Church.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
A
anthony022071
Guest
Edit:
In other words,the writings of the Church Fathers,as I said. But the Church Fathers before Photios (with the exception of Theodoret of Cyrus,who had Nestorain tendencies) did not deny what the filioque says,whereas some of them affirmed it.
The rigid Photian and Palamite theology who denied that the Son has any eternal participation in the Spirit’s procession was only taught in Byzantium.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Byzantium. Where was that?
You can’t deny what doesn’t exist. I’m told by muslims that Christ didn’t deny Muhammad.
And St. John of Damascus for one explicitly denied filioque.
V
VL93
Guest
I. Council of Lyons (1274)
i. Declaration Concerning the Procession of the Holy Spirit
In faithful and devout profession we declare that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two beginnings, but from one beginning, not from two breathings but from one breathing…
ii. Profession of Faith of Michael Palaeologus
…We believe also that the Holy Spirit is complete and perfect and true God, proceeding from the Father and the Son, coequal and cosubstantial, co-omnipotent, and coeternal through all things with the Father and the Son. We believe that this Holy Trinity is not three Gods but one God, omnipotent, eternal, invisible, and unchangeable.
(Note: "This profession of faith was proposed in the year 1267 by Clement IV to Michael Palaeologus and by him offered at the Council of Lyons to Gregory X, and was also proposed again by Urban IV on Aug 1, 1385 to the orthodox Greeks returning to the Church.)
II. Council of Florence (1438-1445)
Decree for the Greeks (From the Bull “Laetentur coeli”, July 6, 1439)
[The procession of the Holy Spirit] In the name of the Holy Trinity, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, with the approbation of this holy general Council of Florence we define that this truth of faith be believed and accepted by all Christians, and that all likewise profess that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son and has His essence and His subsistent being both from the Father and the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and one spiration; we declare that what the holy Doctors and Fathers say, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, tends to this meaning, that by this it is signified that the Son also is the cause, according to the Greeks, and according to the Latins, the principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, as is the Father also. And that all things, which are the Father’s, the Father Himself has given in begetting His only begotten Son; without being Father, the Son Himself possesses this from the Father, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son from whom He was moreover eternally begotten. We define in addition that the explanation of the words “Filioque” for the sake of declaring the truth and also because of imminent necessity has been lawfully and reasonably added to the Creed.
(Denzinger 460, 463, 691)
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother VL93,
As anyone can see, filioque was never forced on the CREED of the Greeks.
Blessings,
Marduk
Thanks for helping me prove my point with the quotes (I hope that was your intention). I don’t have time to do research most of the time.
As anyone can see, filioque was never forced on the CREED of the Greeks.
Blessings,
Marduk
- Status