Filioque??

[buffgbob]

You thought wrong Sir:
Everything I said is from the Melkites, It is not of myself,
you will find the following in this link, in the fourth paragraph.
acorn.net/stjomelk/structure.htm

"These differences in structure have theological and psychological sides as well. In the Byzantine Churches the patriarch or metropolitan is not seen as over the Church as the Pope of Rome is often seen in the West. He is the chief bishop of the Church, not its head. Eastern Christians recall that the Holy Spirit is the One sent by Christ to be the guide and guardian of the Church and so do not surround the person of a patriarch with the kind of aura often seen in the case of the pope in the West: a kind of adulation which has led many to label him “antichrist”.

And you will find the following in the 12th Para. in the same link.

" St. Gregory’s Seminary - located in Newton, Ma., maintains two programs. Students for the priesthood reside there and attend classes at Holy Cross Theological School operated by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, a full-time, four year program. Candidates for the diaconate meet there for three weeks each June for intensive training for three years and complete their training at home by guided study during the intervening time. Application for either program should be made to the rector."

You misunderstood what I was saying (as I will point out later in this thread.) I never denied that Melkite clergy go to Greek Orthodox seminary. I concede the point. I even concede they have similar strains of thought and theology. It is moot.

sorry my freind, but not every other Catholic believe everything the Orthodox Church Teaches, does this thread with its 316 posts tell you something?, and if so, then why the RCs do not beleive the same thing as the Orthodox believes concerning the Filioque the Purgatory the Original Sin the Indulgences …etc:shrug:

This is where you misunderstood what I said. I said all Catholics believe what Orthodox believe dogmatically not practically. The same is true between Catholics. As Catholics we share dogmatic but not practical union of beliefs. An example would be that I believe Mary died before her Assumption. Not all Catholics would agree with me, but this is a practical belief of mine since it has not been defined dogmatically by the Church. Now I look at what the Orthodox Church believes to be dogmatic. In general, I see them saying that only the first seven councils are dogmatic. Well, I believe everything those councils proclaim as dogmas of faith, so I believe in all Orthodox dogma. Practically, Orthodox have rejected Rome, rejected her teachings etc, well I don’t assent to those beliefs.

Zoghby, the former archbishop of Baalbek and a long-time leader among the Melkite bishops, offered this brief statement in 1995 and it was subscribed to by 24 of the 26 bishops present at the 1995 Holy Synod:
I believe everything, which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation
melkite.org/sa3.htm

And those 2 bishops who voted against are the ones who are going around and posting Ideas that it is foreign to the Melkite Church ( My relatives in the Middle east whom are Melkites Catholics call those bishops the agents of Rome) sorry again my freind, but in the eastern Churches( Orthodox and E. Catholics ) the Final word belongs to the Synods.

Any Catholic not agreeing with the primacy of Peter and Church infallibility won’t be Catholic for very long. As a Christian, I look with charity on the beliefs of others where charity is allowed. I look for harmony in the beliefs of others. Now I posted links from the same website where the Melkite clearly agree with the primacy of Peter and the infallibility of his office. Just because two Melkite bishops are in bed with Orthodox does not undermine the fact that all Catholics hold these things to be true (or are not Catholic at all.)

By Orthodox’s own admission, their synods cannot be binding and authoritative on the universal Church. They are not infallible. Practically you may “have” to believe those things, but Orthodox dogma tells a very different story.

Finally, I said it was the Orthodox who were lacking. This is clear because the universal Church has continued having infallible councils. All members of the Church must agree to the authority of these councils and their dogma. This is where Orthodox lack, in the rejection of dogma.

Review: all Catholics believe in all dogma Orthodox believe. Orthodox schimatically deny dogma of the Church (in much the way the Oriental Churches did in the past.) Please spare me the diatribe of how they aren’t “real” councils; you can only make that claim assuming Rome isn’t a real Church; and then the argument is circular. The Church didn’t need approval of the schismatic Oriental Churches to continue having infallible councils; Rome doesn’t need approval of schismatic Orthodox Churches to continue having infallible councils.

 

[bobzills]

Review: all Catholics believe in all dogma Orthodox believe.

I don;t see this point since Orthodox beleive that the HS proceeds from the Father. The RCC believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.

 

[buffgbob]

I don;t see this point since Orthodox beleive that the HS proceeds from the Father. The RCC believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.

We also believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father last time I checked. The Orthodox err in their belief that this dogma assumes that the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father. This is a practical belief of the Orthodox and is not supported by the councils. However, the dogma of faith from that council is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. I agree.

Just by saying we believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, we can say both:
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

Catholics understand this to be one procession (not a dual procession as some Orthodox says this implies.)

 

[Ghosty]

The Latin fragmented Documents of Saint Maximos are Not genuine as I prooved in my past post, so this one is out.

You didn’t prove anything, you quoted T.R. Valentine who also didn’t prove anything. St. Maximos complained about a forged letter, but we have no indication of which letter it was. As for the number of Councils mentioned in the letter, I’ve seen no texts that have him mentioning a number, so I can’t speak on what he actually said. If he did say there had been six, however, it wouldn’t be a major problem with authenticity, since the numbers of Ecumenical Councils were often in dispute (and still are to this day). It’s not as if the number was locked and set at St. Maximos’ time any more than it is now (as can be seen by T.R. Valentine claiming eight or nine councils, despite most Eastern Orthodox claiming only seven).

I can’t make much sense of your statements later in your posts, but I’ll address the ones I can make sense of.

OOO Veeeery smart move, I must admit, you almost got me with this one,
First I didnt say Eighth E.C (879) , By all means show me where I said that.

You said it in the portion I quoted directly. Or rather you quoted T.R. Valentine saying it without any citation (I simply googled the quote and found it only present in your post, and in T.R. Valentine’s article).

I am so sorry my Dear, actually Rome accepted this Council as Eumenical up untill the eleventh century

You’re just quoting T.R. Valentine, who also says that this was considered Ecumenical by Constantinople as well. It wasn’t, and isn’t. If you have evidence to the contrary, show us; quoting T.R. Valentine won’t fly.

Your statement is in grave error when measured up against History.

Actually, the history is that Rome has not changed the universal Creed. We in the Melkite Church certainly don’t recite the filioque, and have never been required to. If the universal creed had been changed, we’d be expected to follow it, but we haven’t been.

I gave facts from history, None of my words were of mine, …

No, you give uncited quotes from T.R. Valentine. That’s not history, it’s plagiarism of poor scholarship.

You mean you have been reciting from the Latin fragmented document of Saint Maximos without knowing what they read???

I have no reason to believe that St. Maximos read anything other than the Latin writings we have today, such as St. Hilary, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Leo, St. Gregory the Great, and many others, all of whom taught the filioque. It is you who claimed that the documents he saw may have been falsified. If you can prove that, show us, otherwise we must assume that he read the same documents we have today.

If you are reffering to the Melkite, then you are in error saying the Catholic faith, since the Melkite synods declare that they beleive everything the Orthodox Church teaches BUT they are in communion with Rome, so your faith would be Orthodox then, that IF you are Melkite, remeber that the Melkite Church sends those who wants to become preist to an Orthodox seminary so they can learn their own Church rules and theology …you didnt know that???

The Melkite Church embraces the dogmas of the Eastern Orthodox, not the senseless polemics against Latin understandings. There is nothing codified in Orthodox teaching that we reject, but there is plenty of opinion that we roundly reject. For example, we don’t believe the Latin tradition is heretical, and this includes the filioque; I’ve personally asked our Bishop Cyril Bustros (good friend and key cooperator with Sayedna Zoghby) about this very issue.

Peace and God bless!

 

[buffgbob]

Ghosty,

After reading this thread and others, I only have one question to ask you,

Will you marry me?

 

[Allyson]

trvalentine makes many stupid errors in that article. The only way he can argue against the filioque doctrine is to deliberately misunderstand it. He thinks,for example,that Augustine taught in a fourth person of God.

Really? I searched for “fourth person” in the article, and I don’t see there where Augustine was mentioned, nor does he say that “Augustine taught in a fourth person of God.”

Many Sts. have spoken about the love of the Father and the Son and its relationship to the Holy Spirit (although not always in relation to the production of the HS’s person) and legitimately so, but what TR Valentine is referring to is the equating of the “perfect love” with the Person of the Holy Spirit.

So what he objects to is:
Perfect love between the Father and the Son.
=
The Person of the Holy Spirit.

By the way, in Augustine’s “Retractiones” (a must read for Augustinian scholarship) where he deals with “De Trinitate,” he raises his objections to his own previous teaching on the procession of the Holy Spirit. He rejects the filioque doctrine he had penned. Sadly, I do not own a copy, nor do I have access to the library copy I once did. But if you do, you know where to find it now. I have yet to find a copy online.

God Bless,
R.

 

[Aramis]

Same with the Chaldean Church.

And the Ruthenian Church.

 

[anthony022071]

Really? I searched for “fourth person” in the article, and I don’t see there where Augustine was mentioned, nor does he say that “Augustine taught in a fourth person of God.”

My mistake. I confused that article with another one by him that I had recently read.

Here is what he says in the article Ignatios posted.

< Objection 3 — The Filioque solves a non-existent problem, whilst creating serious problems

The non-existent problem, the problem which philosophical speculation invented, is escaped by making the Holy Spirit the result of the Father and the Son. It is often explained (following Augustine) as the love between the Father and the Son which is so perfect that it necessarily exists (another philosophical concept) as a Divine Person we call the Holy Spirit. But if the perfect love between the first two Persons of the Godhead produces the third Person, why does not perfect love between the first and and third Persons produce a fourth Person and perfect love between the second and third Persons produce a fifth Person? Why stop with the third Person — or even with a fifth Person? Why should we not continue and posit a perfect love between a fourth Person and the first three that produces three more divine persons and posit a perfect love between a fifth Person and four others that produces four more divine persons? Why not continue ad infinitum and teach an Infinite Number of divine persons? After all, once the process has begun, there is no logical reason to cease. >

T.R. Valentine is the one who is creating a non-existent problem here. He got this objection from Photios. Three persons of God have been revealed,and that is what the Catholic Church teaches,so there’s an end to the matter.

Many Sts. have spoken about the love of the Father and the Son and its relationship to the Holy Spirit (although not always in relation to the production of the HS’s person) and legitimately so, but what TR Valentine is referring to is the equating of the “perfect love” with the Person of the Holy Spirit.

So what he objects to is:
Perfect love between the Father and the Son.
=
The Person of the Holy Spirit.

There’s no reason to object to that equation.
Spirit as love and Spirit as person are not mutually exclusive. Augustine took it as a given that the Spirit is a person,but he sought to explain the nature of the relation of the Spirit to the Father and the Son.

The apostle John said “God is love”. John equates an attribute of God with God as being. Will the Orthodox object to that as well?

By the way, in Augustine’s “Retractiones” (a must read for Augustinian scholarship) where he deals with “De Trinitate,” he raises his objections to his own previous teaching on the procession of the Holy Spirit. He rejects the filioque doctrine he had penned. Sadly, I do not own a copy, nor do I have access to the library copy I once did. But if you do, you know where to find it now. I have yet to find a copy online.

God Bless,
R.

Augustine did not reject the filioque doctrine.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

A topic has come up several times on changing the Creed, the supporters of the Filioque bringing up the prohibition of Ephesus, saying that Constantinople I was not ecumenical until Chalcedon.

How do you explain how the Assyrian Church of the East uses the Creed of Constantinople I, but did not accept Ephesus?

How do you explain how the Miaphysites use the Orthodox Creed, and accept Constantinople I, but did not accept Chaldedon?

 

[Ignatios]

Buffgbob

You misunderstood what I was saying (as I will point out later in this thread.) I never denied that Melkite clergy go to Greek Orthodox seminary. I concede the point. I even concede they have similar strains of thought and theology. It is moot.

Dear Sir,
Here is what you have said( I dont know why I find myself doing this all the time with the RCs)
buffgbob earlier:

I think you are confused.

The above was in reply to the following:
Ignatios earlier:

If you are reffering to the Melkite, then you are in error saying the Catholic faith, since the Melkite synods declare that they beleive everything the Orthodox Church teaches BUT they are in communion with Rome, so your faith would be Orthodox then, that IF you are Melkite, remeber that the Melkite Church sends those who wants to become priest to an Orthodox seminary so they can learn their own Church rules and theology …you didn’t know that???

Now could you explain to me which of the above I was confused with.
because In your next reply you said the following
buffgbob earlier:

You misunderstood what I was saying (as I will point out later in this thread.) I never denied that Melkite clergy go to Greek Orthodox seminary. I concede the point. I even concede they have similar strains of thought and theology. It is moot

Now, my only comment to the above is, that It is not that they have “similiar” Theology, BUT, they have the “same” Theology, " what more do you want? If they go to the Greek Orthodox seminary to study to become priests IN THE MELKITE CATHOLIC CHURCH".

This is where you misunderstood what I said. I said all Catholics believe what Orthodox believe dogmatically not practically.

Honastly the only thing that I dont understand here is the "dogmaticaly not praclticaly…??? what do you mean by Practically, Is it that you dont practice what you beleive as Divine? or is it that you beleive in a Dogma but NOT practicing it? On the church level that is , Please sermon on that, thx.

The same is true between Catholics. .

Okay, then what you are saying here is that all Catholics beleive in the same Dogma but do not practice it, If I am right here, then some Catholics beleives in something but do not practice it … then what is the benefit of beleiving in it. In the first place, this actually makes you theory worse, or is it ok to confess with your lips but your action does not comply with your lips confession? This is hypocrisy, this is what CHRIST warned us about, besides, it is obvious if you are one body then you must have the same mind thus you will have the same practice. In which we do not see in your church. In particular your word here “…As Catholics we share dogmatic but not practical union of beliefs.”
Dear Sir, if you dont have the unity of beleif then all you have is a theory and NOT a church, especially the Church that we read about in the N.T.

An example would be that I believe Mary died before her Assumption.

Well this is another issue, but for now if she was born without the Original Sin then how could she die. but lets leave this for another discussion, I just wanted to bring this one up for an example too.

Not all Catholics would agree with me, but this is a practical belief of mine since it has not been defined dogmatically by the Church. Now I look at what the Orthodox Church believes to be dogmatic. In general, I see them saying that only the first seven councils are dogmatic. Well, I believe everything those councils proclaim as dogmas of faith, so I believe in all Orthodox dogma.

Do you? shall we shed some light on this? … if you go into those Canons, my freind, you will find that your statement is not too accurate. And now after 1000 years of schism it became much harder to recognize the RCC in the Canons of the seven E.C.

Practically, Orthodox have rejected Rome, rejected her teachings etc, well I don’t assent to those beliefs.

Allow me to narrow your words here since they are very general words and they may lead to some error, We do not Reject Rome as being a church with an Apostolic roots Nor do we reject her Orthodox Teaching that was taught from the beginning by all and everywhere, and to be precise what we reject is her “ADDITIONS” to the Holy Tradition that made their way into her Orthodox Teachings and locked her down from seeing the true faith as pure as it was in the time of the MOST PIOUS ORTHODOX HOLY ROMAN CHURCH OF POPE SAINT CLEMENT, That is just to mention one for you.

Any Catholic not agreeing with the primacy of Peter and Church infallibility won’t be Catholic for very long.

No one disagree that Saint Peter had a Primacy AMONG the Apostles, As for the infallibility of the Church well this is another long discussion it cannot be answered in a few lines, but just to throw something for this, what is the infallibility of the Church how is it bounded and by whom is it …and so forth.

As a Christian, I look with charity on the beliefs of others where charity is allowed. I look for harmony in the beliefs of others.

GOD Bless you for that and keep you †††

Now I posted links from the same website where the Melkite clearly agree with the primacy of Peter and the infallibility of his office.

Yes, Primacy AMONG the Apostles.

I believe that I just answered this in Post # 319>>>…
"… I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation"
that is what their synod said all the other is nothing but an empty words.

Just because two Melkite bishops are in bed with Orthodox does not undermine the fact that all Catholics hold these things to be true (or are not Catholic at all.)

Dear Sir,
PLEASE, pay heed to what you are reading.
Let me post it again for you and hope you read it correctly this time>>> “…Zoghby, the former archbishop of Baalbek and a long-time leader among the Melkite bishops, offered this brief statement in 1995 and *it was subscribed to by 24 of the 26 bishops *present at the 1995 Holy Synod:
I believe everything, which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation
http://www.melkite.org/sa3.htm”
I have copied and pasted it for you from my previous Post # 319.
So what you have attributed to those 2 bishops is actually and according to your own words ( “…Just because two Melkite bishops are in bed with Orthodox …”) are in bed with the Romans" but not the vast majority of their synod.
The above is just a demonstration of how you people are ready to attack others without caring or comprehending the truth.

By Orthodox’s own admission, their synods cannot be binding and authoritative on the universal Church.

Sorry, But I lost you on this one, who’s Synods? I am going to assume that you are talking about the Orthodox Synod Here and Not the Melkite Catholic.
Of course not, Since the Schismatic RCC decided to cut herself off from the Communion of the Other 4 Apostolic Churches ( Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople), In another word, would you follow what our Synods decree, NO . Likewise we Do not follow what your Pope decree and therefore our Councils cant be called Ecumenical nor yours can be Ecumenical either since we both do not accept each others decrees .
And if you are speaking about the Melkite Catholic Church the same apply to them according to their Church since they hold to the same as the Orthodox , the Melkite’s teaching is binding on the their own Church, since that Synod is Local, this is clear, No canonist needed to figure this one out.

 

[Ignatios]

…Continued

They are not infallible.

Your Pope said that the Orthodox Church is true Church, and if she is so then she must be infallible ( according to your church’s understanding that is) other wise you have just made your Pope an infallible according to your statement.
And Again if you are talking about the Melkite Church, Then , there is one thing you need to learn about the Melkites, that, Not every time the Bishop of Rome say jump they say how high. However their statement is always soft and friendly towards Rome for the sake of peace, but when shove comes to push, we have seen them what they have done such as their Patriarch left V I before it even ended. This just to present you with one example and trust me there is plenty.
However your opinion been noted.

Practically you may “have” to believe those things, but Orthodox dogma tells a very different story.

Sorry again, don’t know what you mean by this, If it is that have to believe the Dogmas of the Orthodox Church, then , yes of course, other wise I am not Orthodox, as for the rest I would appreciate further explanation in order for me to reply.

Finally, I said it was the Orthodox who were lacking. This is clear because the universal Church has continued having infallible councils.

Infallible councils in the RCC ? yes , yes of course I know you believe in that, but let me ask you this before I answer you to this one, how many mistake does your councils has to have before it is called fallible? I would appreciate if you answer me on this.

All members of the Church must agree to the authority of these councils and their dogma. This is where Orthodox lack, in the rejection of dogma.

If the filioque and all the inventions in your church are dogma, then we mind as well include all the other inventions of the thousands of cults and denominations dogmas too and since we are having at it why not include Muslims and the jews too. This way we would exceed you and we would be more universal then you. Or wait, I think your pope already done that,…oohhh , just forget about it.
What you call “lack” in the Orthodox Church because of our rejection to the man made dogmas of your church ( Filioque, Purgatory, indulgences, Infallibility, Original Sin , Pope is the Head of the Church and all the post schism dogmas etc…), we call additions, Inventions, because they are mental fabrication, So YES we are “lack” of that thanks be to GOD for HE is Indeed the HEAD of HIS Church and NOT a mere man.

Review: all Catholics believe in all dogma Orthodox believe.

Wrong again Sir, the Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceed from the FATHER “only”. You don’t, that’s just to mention one for you.

Orthodox schimatically deny dogma of the Church (in much the way the Oriental Churches did in the past.)

I don’t know where you got this from? It is obvious your understanding of those words (schismatic) is very poor,
Allow me to explain for you here, with meekness, ( for I am not but a foreigner who’s native tongue is not the English ) , taking your argument here, Sir, there is something wrong with it, If we did deny the Dogma of the “ CHURCH” then we wouldn’t be schismatic but Heathens, and according to your pope we are schismatic, Now, The Dogma of the “CHURCH” is a must since it is salvation and Salvation is from our Divine GOD, and the Dogmas are Dogmas NOT because so and so bishop “think” so, of himself, but because it was believed and practice by the “CHURCH” from the beginning by all and everywhere, Thus it is part of the Holy Tradition IN ANOTHER WORDS Dogmas are APOSTOLIC,

Where is the Evidence of that in your Invented Dogmas according to the Life of the “CHURCH” that is.?
As for the Oriental Churches, again bad example, the differences was over wording the Deity of CHRIST what the Oriental said back then was that ( example) 2+2=4 and they left, The chalcedonian Churches were saying NO, 2x2=4, where the case with your church is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more then this now, the same way your church did but the issue is far more serious than that with the non-chalcedonian, however your church said NO to the “proceed from the FATHER alone” and they slapped the bull on the Altar and “they walked out”, by doing so they separated themselves from the Truly One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of GOD That it was bounded by the Holy Fathers of the Church and that point was marked as the departure of the RCC from the Church of the Fathers and hence they became schismatic and heretics ( not in an offensive way, but Literally) for believing in something that it is contrary to what GOD had said in the Bible in the Gospel of John .

Please spare me the diatribe of how they aren’t “real” councils; you can only make that claim assuming Rome isn’t a real Church; and then the argument is circular. The Church didn’t need approval of the schismatic Oriental Churches to continue having infallible councils; Rome doesn’t need approval of schismatic Orthodox Churches to continue having infallible councils.

Ok I didn’t say any of the above, you proposed the problem and you put forth the response and then you argued back to what you proposed.
However my answer is different, The infallibility of a council is in its Teaching whether its Teaching is in line with the Holy Tradition, Not in one mere man ( Pope), And maybe to less extend, is in its ecumenicity, for the Apostles taught the same thing all over the world in all the Churches, So if all find that the subject at hand is the same in all the Apostolic Churches and there is no differences over it and it was from the beginning then it is Infallibile, Because it is in line with the Holy Tradition and Not because the Pope said so ex-cathedra.

 

[Fuerza]

…Continued

Your Pope said that the Orthodox Church is true Church, and if she is so then she must be infallible ( according to your church’s understanding that is) other wise you have just made your Pope an infallible according to your statement.

The Orthodox Churches are true Churches in that they maintain Apostolic Succession and therefore true sacraments. That certainly doesn’t make them infallible according to our understanding, as valid sacraments are not all that is required.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

A topic has come up several times on changing the Creed, the supporters of the Filioque bringing up the prohibition of Ephesus, saying that Constantinople I was not ecumenical until Chalcedon.

How do you explain how the Assyrian Church of the East uses the Creed of Constantinople I, but did not accept Ephesus?

How do you explain how the Miaphysites use the Orthodox Creed, and accept Constantinople I, but did not accept Chaldedon?

No one doubts that the Creed of Constantinople was known in many areas. But that does not mean that the Council of Constantinople was yet considered ECUMENICAL at the time of the Council of Ephesus. At best, it must have been considered a local Council in the Eastern Empire at the time of the Council of Ephesus.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Fuerza]

Not to take this thread in another direction, but while looking over the Syriac Catholic Divine Liturgy as posted on the website for Our Lady of Deliverance Syriac Catholic Diocese, I noticed that they include the Filioque in their Creed. Is this common throughout the Syriac Catholic Church, or is this just an isolated occurrence?

syriac-catholic.org/Anaphora.htm

 

[Allyson]

Many Sts. have spoken about the love of the Father and the Son and its relationship to the Holy Spirit (although not always in relation to the production of the HS’s person) and legitimately so, but what TR Valentine is referring to is the equating of the “perfect love” with the Person of the Holy Spirit.

I don’t object to it actually, I was just trying to see if I could boil down the TRvalentine thesis in the section (which you have quoted), a task which leaves much to be desired. Keep in mind that by “=” I means “equals” not “is.” These are not the same in logic.

Augustine did not reject the filioque doctrine.

I can’t remember exactly what he said in his “Retractiones,” perhaps ‘rejects’ as I used it was too strong a word, but he does in fact call his own thought into question on precisely the topic of the procession of the Holy Spirit. So it is probably safe to say that he did in fact find reasons to be cautious, if not out right reject his own previous thought. Keeping in mind of course that retractiones does not mean ‘retractions’ so much as ‘considerations,’ such a work by an author on his own body of work can be quite useful in coming to a more comprehensive understanding of an individuals thought. Especially when an author seems to have contradicted earlier works. It is in such a work that they point out their own evolution. In Augustine’s case, his later move away from the Neo-Platonism which initially influenced his thought about the Trinity would be an example of such a change.

Have you a copy, perhaps you could post the citation (it is in the reflections on the appropriate section of “De Trinitate” and is very short)? I do not, or I would. I assume that you have read it since you believe that he did not reject it.

Thank you.

God Bless,
R.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Isa,

No one doubts that the Creed of Constantinople was known in many areas. But that does not mean that the Council of Constantinople was yet considered ECUMENICAL at the time of the Council of Ephesus. At best, it must have been considered a local Council in the Eastern Empire at the time of the Council of Ephesus.

Blessings,
Marduk

Yes, known it seems in Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Etchmiadzin, Ctesiphon,

Since the Nestorians/Church of the East and Miaphysites split before/at Chalcedon, it would seem that any Ecumenical acceptance by them would be terminus ante quem, which would mean that Constantinople I’s Ecumenical status predates Ephesus.

 

[mardukm]

Yes, known it seems in Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Etchmiadzin, Ctesiphon,

Since the Nestorians/Church of the East and Miaphysites split before/at Chalcedon, it would seem that any Ecumenical acceptance by them would be terminus ante quem, which would mean that Constantinople I’s Ecumenical status predates Ephesus.

No, it just means, as already stated, that the results of the Council at Constantinople was known and accepted in the Eastern Empire, Just because it had authoritative status only in the East does not mean it was Ecumenical. For the same reason, the Council of Trullo is not considered Ecumenical - though it had much authority in the East, it never gained that kind of authority in Western Christendom.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[buffgbob]

Now could you explain to me which of the above I was confused with.

In one of your posts you said, “The Melkite believe everything the Orthodox do, BUT are in communion with Rome.” This is where I was saying you were confused. Let me clear up what I meant by “practically” and “dogmatically,” and I think it will clear up the confusion you are having with the rest of my post. I will then expound on why you are confused.

By “dogmatically” believing, I mean things you believe which are consistent with dogmatically defined by infallible councils. “I believe the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father.” That sentence is a dogmatic belief, because it was bound to the entire church by infallible council. Both Catholics and Orthodox believe that sentence.

By “practically” believing, I mean things you have found practical to believe but aren’t defined by infallible council. “I believe Mary died before her assumption.” “I believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only.” Those last two sentences are “practical” beliefs, because Orthodox teach those things and it is practical that their followers believe them too.

Now, as I said earlier, their is harmony with the Melkite saying both:

“We believe everything the Orthodox believe”
and
“The Eastern Catholic is a member of the Catholic Church, under the authority of the Vatican and the Pope…”
“The primacy of Peter, the infallible primacy, is a great grace, a charism granted by God to His Church…”

You were clearly implying by your use of the word “BUT” that somehow the Melkite believe the pope is the antichrist or at least that his teachings are somehow wrong. That, however, clearly condtradicts what they have said in the past. (All of the above quotes are found on the same website.) What I was saying is there is harmony in the above posts, as Catholics say Orthodox have correct dogmatic beliefs.

I then went on to say that even if Melkite did believe the pope was wrong, they “wouldn’t be Catholic for very long.” This is because it is impossible to remain Catholic and reject dogma of faith. To do this would be no union at all.

The rest of your article was just a rehash of the Orthodox position on things, and I’m not going to go through saying “nuh-uh” to all of them.

I hope what I said is clearer now that I have explained what I meant by “practically” and “dogmatically.” If you reread my previous posts in that light, I think they will make sense. I admite the terminology may not have been technically correct, so I apologize for the confusion. I’m not trying to convince you here; I’m just trying to explain the Eastern Catholic churchs’ relationship to the Holy See.

 

[Ignatios]

You didn’t prove anything, you quoted T.R. Valentine who also didn’t prove anything.

You flunked again with your answers Ghosty, If you trace back this post you will see what I was talking about, it wasnt St. Maximos, it was about the Franks and the Filioque addition, and I quoted from diffrent source, however History is History and if iValentine’s qoutation and mine are the same, thats nothing but a proof that it is true, or the least to say that it is consistent, which is a sign that it not flawed
What your focus should be on is, whether what it was stated is true or not?, what I have quoted from T.R. Valentine is something that it does exist in those document, you like it or not, Now you can refute it by prooving that T.R. Valentine is fabricating this statement, by encountering it with some other reffrences, and Not by “It doesnt fly, or he didnt proof anything, look at your answer!!! what have YOU put forth, " nothing”. except your own conclusion which is Immaterial unless you use a reffrence.
However the least thing to be said about those Latin fragments of the so-called St. Maximos letters that they dont match the historical facts. and therfore they cannot be taken as a reffrence.

Now, what Valentine had written in that particular part is actually the work of someone else, but you kept trying to discredit Valentine with nothing other than your quoting above.which is literally nothing at all except “he didnt proof anything” you didnt put forth virtually anything except this guy named " James E. Kiefer" which after I researched it found out what a “scholar” he is >>> >>>…" James E. Kiefer is a quiet soul whose day job is in a government research laboratory, but who enriches all of us by using his spare time to write down the stories of the people who, through the centuries, have made the Christian church be what it is today…" But you attack T.R. Valentine without stating why, Is it because he was convert from Roman Catholicism to Orthodoxy???

Besides, it is that you didnt read it correctly and the RC pride kicked in, so you rushed into reflecting what your sences are through your unjustified words against T.R. Valentine, or you read it but you are trying to by pass it hoping that I would not notice your action here and lure me away from it , My Dear, here let me repost it for you again and read it correctly this time ( sheesh, I have to keep saying this to all the RCs that I talk to ) >>>…" Saint Maximos the Confessor and Pope Martin I

There is a fragment of a letter purportedly written by Saint Maximos the Confessor to the priest Marinus is frequently cited by proponents of the Filioque … Its authenticity is not certain. According to Haugh, there are three reasons for doubting its authenticity: Saint Maximos elsewhere writes of a letter to Marinus falsely attributed to him, there is no extant synodical letter by Pope Martin I stating the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son as is claimed in this doubtful letter, and the letter in question mentions six councils when only five had been held. (Haugh, p. 32, fn 31) …"

As you see, you were wrong about T.R. Valentine.
In his statement he was conforming what " Haugh" had said, It wasnt his, But you kept attacking him for those words that they were not his and you left “Haugh” whom is behing those words out or you didnt see it willingly or unwillingly I dont know, I am not going to speculate your motive on this, I will leave it to the readers to make up their own mind about it.
Also, where they the only 2 who detected this?, No, there is more, I gave you one for an example. was this the only thing In the Latin fragments of those the so-called St. Maximos Document, again, No, and again, I gave you one just to comment on, NOW my question to you if you are willing to go into a debate on this issue then I will speak more in details about all the founding concerning this matter.

Maximos complained about a forged letter, but we have no indication of which letter it was.

For the sake of the arguement, lets take your statement as is, if you have no indication which letter it is then how could you assume that it is not the one that it been forged or tampered with? Since you know that there is a flawed one out there AND especially when we know Letters forgery was a common things among the Romans around that time,
For Just as it is possible that it may not be the one in subject here, there is also equally a chance that it is, and untill you know, there shouldnt be any assumption.

As for the number of Councils mentioned in the letter, I’ve seen no texts that have him mentioning a number,

You must do your home work right my Dear, there is a clear sign above that you are not. if you read it again without letting your RC pride get in the way you will find some good clues in there that would bring to it.

so I can’t speak on what he actually said.

I respect you for this statement:clapping:

If he did say there had been six, however, it wouldn’t be a major problem with authenticity, since the numbers of Ecumenical Councils were often in dispute (and still are to this day). It’s not as if the number was locked and set at St. Maximos’ time any more than it is now (as can be seen by T.R. Valentine claiming eight or nine councils, despite most Eastern Orthodox claiming only seven).

Of course they were “locked and set”, actually they were more than that, AND ACCURATELY IN DETAIL.

Continue

 

[Ignatios]

…Continued

And just to show you how off you are, also to show you how much your pride gets between you and the truth, thus this pride obligate your sences to act against whatever stands in the way.
Dear Ghosty,
As much as I would rather see you SERACHING the info on your own, but sometimes it seems like I have to hold you by your hand and show you, here read the following from your own beloved the"Newadvent", “read” below thoroughly.

" … and following closely the straight path of the holy and approved Fathers, has piously given its full assent to the five holy and Ecumenical Synods (that is to say, to that of the 318 holy Fathers who assembled in Nice against the raging Arius; and the next in Constantinople of the 150 God-inspired men against Macedonius the adversary of the Spirit, and the impious Apollinaris; and also the first in Ephesus of 200 venerable men convened against Nestorius the Judaizer; and that in Chalcedon of 630 God-inspired Fathers against Eutyches and Dioscorus hated of God; and in addition to these, to the last, that is the Fifth holy Synod assembled in this place, against Theodore of Mopsuestia, Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius, and the writings of Theodoret against the Twelve Chapters of the celebrated Cyril, and the Epistle which was said to be written by Ibas to Maris the Persian), renewing in all things the ancient decrees of religion, and chasing away the impious doctrines of irreligion. And this our holy and Ecumenical Synod inspired of God has set its seal to the Creed which was put forth by the 318 Fathers, and again religiously confirmed by the 150, which also the other holy synods cordially received and ratified for the taking away of every soul-destroying heresy.
newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm

I can’t make much sense of your statements later in your posts, but I’ll address the ones I can make sense of.

You could have asked for further clarification, but you didnt, I answered all the polemic that it doesnt make any sence at all.
BUT it doesnt matter.

You said it in the portion I quoted directly. Or rather you quoted T.R. Valentine saying it without any citation (I simply googled the quote and found it only present in your post, and in T.R. Valentine’s article).

I didnt say it anywhere,
“… Or rather you quoted T.R. Valentine saying it …” is right.

Anything, BUT do not admit it even if you get caught, because that would hurt your pride as a RC.

and again your pride keep making you stumble and fall constantly.

You’re just quoting T.R. Valentine, who also says that this was considered Ecumenical by Constantinople as well. It wasn’t, and isn’t. If you have evidence to the contrary, show us; quoting T.R. Valentine won’t fly.

And Valentine was citing from history, or do you think that Valentine was present at that time and he lived up to today to tell about? we use the written fatcs which is history and which it was written by historians or kept in record or …etc.

Do you have any reffrences to share? other than, " wasnt, isnt, didnt, it dont fly…"?

And all you want me to do is present you with reffrences to every word I say, something one has to give reffrence, but for GOD’s Sake not every word !!! you must do some work on your own too and try to refute me and or show that I am wrong according to something other than your favorite words above.
But ok, please read it correctly Thoroughly
myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/milton1_16.html
although it is an Orthodox site but it speaks and gives many historical reffrences, but here let me give you few more some of them are Catholics and they also speaks against the Orthodox, yet they admit to what had happened in those councils unlike the “Newadvent”… books.google.com/books?id=staKxp3zWVEC&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq=The+Council+of+879-880&source=web&ots=2UNf99p9EG&sig=9EBN86-iqXxVLwW504gnTpuE-fc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA187,M1
circleofprayer.com/schism.html
books.google.com/books?id=IeH4OKYflbkC&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=The+Council+of+879-880&source=web&ots=VF6Vt1AzJq&sig=0XD_NEly-glkprU58ASOUgsI-dg&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result
bookrags.com/wiki/Fourth_Council_of_Constantinople
well I hope this is enough for you, and if you are not convenced yet you look up “Francis Dvornik” 9 ( Roman Catholic ).

Actually, the history is that Rome has not changed the universal Creed. We in the Melkite Church certainly don’t recite the filioque, and have never been required to. If the universal creed had been changed, we’d be expected to follow it, but we haven’t been.

Rome did not change the Universal Creed?, Was that how you feel about it or hwo you want it to be or you are in a state of denial? If your Church confess the “Addition” you are going to deny it? It seems to you like " it is what I want it to be regardless what it is".
continue…