Filioque??

[Ignatios]

Bobzills and Ignatios:

… but the 1054 issue neither caused the Schism,

Almost all the world disagree with you on this one.

nor was the bull of excommunication appropriate in addressing the filioque.

Apropriate or not this is what happened.
The filioque was one of the main reasons in this bull. our opinions does not change what had haappened.

The real issue at the time was that the Patriarch of Constantinople was forbidding the use of unleavened bread.

If you wanna look at the history and get down to bottom of it there was no real Isuue but isuues, and one of them was that Rome wanted to enforce the Filioque on the Eastern Churches, Not to mention the Frankish popes who got hold of the Papacy and changed things to satisfy the western emperor ( Frankish) whom had some political embitions etc…and the Patriarch of Constantinople had an isuue with the unleavened bread, yes , but not to excommunicate the Pope.

Later condemnations at the various Councils were not appropriate

can you specify what Councils and what condemnations? So we may answer appropriatly.

not because they were theologically incorrect, but because they were harsh without properly understanding the fundamental issues at hand. One can’t condemn someone for speaking the Truth, just because their language is different from your own, and the condemnations from both sides often crossed this line, IMO.

One may state his/her opinion, however, also one must understand that his/her opinion is irrelevant.
Again, Please when you speak provide us a way to respond, by clarifying whom and which, because I really lost you there. thanks

Ignatios:

No, not the same. Equal in correctness and Apostolic origin.

Can you provide us an info. showing the Apostolic origin of the Latin concerning this matter.?

Both traditions are Faithful, and follow the Truth. One is not better than the other, though they each have their own emphasis and approach.

Historically, this is not the mind of the western church.

Yes, I have, and I disagree that his view can't be reconciled with the Latin view. Palamas was addressing the question of the Father being the only Source, which is something the Latins have no conflict with. I believe he didn't understand the filioque, and that he held views similar or identical to modern Eastern Orthodox who also don't seem to understand the filioque.

Have you ever asked yourself or looked into to see wether it is truly that he( SAINT Gregory Palamas) and the Orthodox Church didnt really understand the filioque, or was it that the western church who really didnt understand the Biblical Greek text in which it lead to the filioque.

Neither Palamas, nor Eastern Orthodox, are heretical in their condemnation of what they think the filioque means, because what they are condemning (the Father and Son both being the Source) is indeed an error and is indeed heretical; it’s also not taught by the Latin Church, so they are condemning a heresy which no one (or mostly no one, as it seems some Latins here do hold to errors on this) follows.

SAINT Gregory Palamas and the Orthodox Church both did not think what the filioque means, they responded to the filioque as presented by the western church, Now, was it only the Eastern Churches who condemned this? No but, the least to say some western Popes did that too, again now, if we look at the history of the filioque it has been changing or progressing with time starting from the way Saint Maximos explained it to the Greek all the way up untill now, it has reached many ups and downs, for good or bad , it doesnt matter, Now who would be the one who doesnt understand the filioque ? however if you are reffering with the above to the modern RCC, yes we see that Rome latest approaches had been down tuned quite a bit concrning this issue, and we are applaud to see things started to move the right way.

GOD bless all †††

 

[Ignatios]

The filioque (“properly understood”)? I find a little hard to swallow that all these Fathers (St. Maximos, St. Gregory of Nyssa, etc) taught the filioque! I wonder what you mean by “properly understood”. If you can show me that St. Gregory of Nyssa clearly taught the filioque, I will repent and become a Roman Catholic immediately! Remember, there is a difference between exegesis and eisegesis.

Pope Leo I was greatly respected by all. His words were received by the faithful as the words of St. Peter himself. But I assure you that none of this would’ve been true if he had not taught orthodoxy. In the early years the popes of Rome were firmly orthodox, at a time when most of the other churches were plagued by heresies. But from the time of the apostles to the present day the percentages don’t look as good for Rome as they did in the first century:

67 2005 Rome: St Linus to John Paul II:
352 366 Arian
537 555 Monophysite
625 638 Monothelite
858 867 Double-Processionist
882 2005 Double-Processionist

1938	total years

60.73% 1177 years in heresy
39.27% 761 years in orthodoxy

38 1991 Constantinople: St Stachys the Apostle to Demetrius I:
341 342 Arian
342 360 Semi-Arian
360 360 Arian
428 431 Nestorian
471 496 Monophysite
511 517 Monophysite
535 536 Monophysite
610 664 Monothelite
711 715 Monothelite

1953	total years

5.73% 112 years in heresy
94.27% 1841 years in orthodoxy

43 2004 Alexandria: St Mark the Evangelist to Peter VII:
357 361 Arian
448 451 Monophysite
457 460 Monophysite
475 538 Monophysite
570 605 Monophysite
630 642 Monothelite

1961	total years

6.12% 120 years in heresy
93.88% 1841 years in orthodoxy

37 1979 Antioch: St Peter the Apostle to Elias IV:
190 203 Docetic
260 269 Modalist
322 322 Arian
327 329 Arian
344 360 Arian
361 378 Arian
470 470 Monophysite
475 477 Monophysite
482 498 Monophysite
512 518 Monophysite
542 591 Monophysite
621 629 Monothelite
640 681 Monothelite

1942	total years

9.22% 179 years in heresy
90.78% 1763 years in orthodoxy

-God bless!

Very interesting post, never thought about it, a good eye catcher, I will be studying and researching this one from all sides for sure, Thank you indeed

 

[Ghosty]

Ignatios:

Almost all the world disagree with you on this one.

Not those who know history, but that’s the subject of another thread.

                             can you specify what Councils and what condemnations? So we may answer appropriatly.

The condemnation from the Council of Lyons, which you cited.

Can you provide us an info. showing the Apostolic origin of the Latin concerning this matter.?

Already have. The notion is found in Scripture, and it has been taught by every Western Father since Apostolic times. That is sufficient to consider it Apostolic.

Have you ever asked yourself or looked into to see wether it is truly that he( SAINT Gregory Palamas) and the Orthodox Church didnt really understand the filioque, or was it that the western church who really didnt understand the Biblical Greek text in which it lead to the filioque.

It’s clear that they didn’t understand the filioque because they kept insisting it makes the Son the Source, which it doesn’t. The Latins also didn’t understand the Greek, which is something I’ve maintained and repeated consistently. The Latin teaching doesn’t contradict the Greek in any way, though.

The East has consistently responded to something the Latin Church doesn’t teach, defending against a notion that no Western theologian, Council, Pope, or otherwise has put forward. If you disagree, then show us where the Latin Church has ever taught that the Son is the Source of the Holy Spirit, since that is what the East has argued against.

Peace and God bless!

P.S. No need to put SAINT in big letters. We all know Gregory Palamas is a Saint, and I’m one of the most insistent about this fact among my fellow Catholics who don’t have him on their calendars. If you read my posts you’ll see that I often don’t put the St. title in front of the names of Saints (my frequent mentions of Aquinas are a perfect example), just as Gregory Palamas didn’t in his writings either.

 

[Ignatios]

Ignatios: Not those who know history, but that’s the subject of another thread.

If there is another history other than the common one that it is listed in the common history books and by historians, Please reffer me to it or to that book, IAW, provide us with some refference.
Ok, since it is another subject and sinse it is you who started it, I will offer you a chance to discuss it in another thread if you wish.

ghosty:

Originally Posted by Ghosty
The Catholic Church actually hasn’t ever universally forced the filioque on the other Churches The only case I’m aware of where the Latin Church directly instructed that the filioque be added is the Maronite Church

Ignatios in reponse to the above:

Pope Gregory X at the II Council of Lyon in 1274 Pope Gregory X condemned those who deny the “Filioque”:… 7. That the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son” is no longer applicable.

ghosty in earleir post:

… Later condemnations at the various Councils were not appropriate

Ignatios respond to the above:

can you specify what Councils and what condemnations? So we may answer appropriatly

The condemnation from the Council of Lyons, which you cited.

Ok, thanks for clarifying this for me, … Now my answer to you on this, is the following:

1. your opinion does not change what had happened
2. we are discussing if the RCC,as you have stated before that it never enforced it on other churches. and not your opinion on the matter.
3. Appropriate or not ,again, it did enforce the filioque on other churches contrary to what you are saying.

OK, allow me to do a quick replay to clarify what we both are talking about for the others :
Ghosty in earleir post:

Quote:
I believe the Latin theology is absolutely equal to the Melkite

Ignatios earlier:

In what sence it is equal? the same?..

ghosty earlier:

No, not the same. Equal in correctness and Apostolic origin…

Ignatios in an earlier post:

Quote:
Can you provide us an info. showing the Apostolic origin of the Latin concerning this matter.?

and you responded:

Already have. The notion is found in Scripture, and it has been taught by every Western Father since Apostolic times. That is sufficient to consider it Apostolic.

where have you provided an answer?
However this brings us back to my question that I putforth in the beginning of this conversation, and still yet to see the Scriptural evidence of the Filioque from the Holy Scriptures ( check post #359 forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4146556#post4146556
5) Could the Romans show us from the Holy Scriptures that the Holy Spirit Proceed from the FATHER and the SON ? and spare us from the fancy words. )

It's clear that they didn't understand the filioque because they kept insisting it makes the Son the Source, which it doesn't.

Why you wrongly attribute accusations of not understanding to us , We always repeated after our LORD and Saviour JESUS CHRIST that the Holy Spirit Proceed from the FATHER, and you say from the FATHER “and” the SON, which it does makes the SON the source also thus you introduced dbl Procession and addition to the words of the LORD as it is in John 15:26 etc…

The Holy Spirit does not proceed from the SON Eternally nor “also” from the SON Eternally but “through the SON” in Time ( temporal) way.

The East has consistently responded to something the Latin Church doesn’t teach, defending against a notion that no Western theologian, Council, Pope, or otherwise has put forward. If you disagree, then show us where the Latin Church has ever taught that the Son is the Source of the Holy Spirit, since that is what the East has argued against.

It appears that you too misunderstanding the East as well, the Eastern Christians teaching is always that the SON is not the Source that is the SON is not the source by HIMSELF or as you imply etrenally IAW along with the FATHER, for if so then where was the Holy Spirit at the time of HIS procession from the FATHER and SON, and to infuse the SON with the FATHER in the Procession operation, then my question to you would be where was the HOLY SPIRIT at the time of this operation, or isnt the LORD the HOLY SPIRIT equal to them in essence or was HE abscent at the time in this operation since HE didnt proceeded yet, ( may GOD forgive us from those sayings for we do not beleive in them but only in the Teaching of the Holy Orthodox Church of GOD) one was begotten eternally and one was proceeded eternally, why you are implying priority to, by drawing a sharp distinction in the eternal matters between the SON and the HOLY SPIRIT? what is eternal? No one can comprehend, therfore we cannot speak of eternal things, for this is the Mystery of GOD,

P.S. No need to put SAINT in big letters. We all know Gregory Palamas is a Saint, and I'm one of the most insistent about this fact among my fellow Catholics who don't have him on their calendars. If you read my posts you'll see that I often don't put the St. title in front of the names of Saints (my frequent mentions of Aquinas are a perfect example), just as Gregory Palamas didn't in his writings either. ;)

well since “all” RCs dont see that Saint Gregory Palamas is Saint , I just wanted to clarify your position on this since you claimed to be Melkite and the Melkite also see him as great Saint too but rather he is their Saint as well.

GOD Bless all †††

 

[Ghosty]

Ignatios: You are still misunderstanding the Latin teaching: the Son is NOT the Source, and the West has never claimed that he was. You are perfectly demonstrating the problem with such discussions, because you are insisting that the Latins believe something they do not teach.

1. Appropriate or not ,again, it did enforce the filioque on other churches contrary to what you are saying.

They never forced the filioque universally. They did condemn those who said it’s heretical. If it had been forced universally, you would see the non-Latin Churches all using the filioque, but we don’t.

The Holy Spirit does not proceed from the SON Eternally nor “also” from the SON Eternally but “through the SON” in Time ( temporal) way.

Sorry, but this is not consistent with the writings of the Fathers on the subject. They applied the Holy Spirit’s relationship to the Son eternally, not in time. This is true of Latin Fathers, and it is true in the oft-cited quote by St. Gregory of Nyssa.

Peace and God bless!

 

[bobzills]

Ignatios: You are still misunderstanding the Latin teaching: the Son is NOT the Source, and the West has never claimed that he was. You are perfectly demonstrating the problem with such discussions, because you are insisting that the Latins believe something they do not teach.

They never forced the filioque universally. They did condemn those who said it’s heretical. If it had been forced universally, you would see the non-Latin Churches all using the filioque, but we don’t.!

the Second Ecumenical Council of Lyons (1274 A.D.) made the following declaration:
In faithful and devout profession we declare that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles (principiis), but from one principle, not by two spirations (spirationibus) but by a single spiration. The most holy Roman Church, mother and teacher of all the faithful, has heretofore professed, preached, and taught this. This she firmly holds, professes, and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true understanding of the faithful (orthodoxorum) Fathers and Doctors, Latin as well as Greek. But because some through ignorance of the indisputable aforesaid truth have slipped into various errors, we, in our desire to close the way to errors of this kind, with the approval of the sacred Council, condemn and reprobate those who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, as well as those who with rash boldness presume to affirm that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles (principiis) and not as from one (DS 850).

 

[Ignatios]

Ignatios: You are still misunderstanding the Latin teaching: the Son is NOT the Source, and the West has never claimed that he was. You are perfectly demonstrating the problem with such discussions, because you are insisting that the Latins believe something they do not teach.(emphesis mine)

They never forced the filioque universally. They did condemn those who said it’s heretical. If it had been forced universally, you would see the non-Latin Churches all using the filioque, but we don’t.(emphesis mine)

I think I can answer both of the above with this following ( as they say 2 birds in one stone)

Again

Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son” is no longer applicable.

in 1274 there was no Byzantine Catholics to speak of yet to inforce it upon them, and whoever was under rome at that time rome did enforce it upon them, the evidence of that is in your posting such as the Maronites

And yes The RCC beleive that the H.S. proceed also from the FATHER Eternally, the evidence of that is in the statement of Lyon, it is clear "…the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son
Further the Text of Lyon did not condemn those who said it is heretical but those who “denied it” and again the excommunication of 1054 included the filioque issue.

Sorry, but this is not consistent with the writings of the Fathers on the subjectThey applied the Holy Spirit’s relationship to the Son eternally, not in time. This is true of Latin Fathers, and it is true in the oft-cited quote by St. Gregory of Nyssa…

which Fathers, the Doctor of the RCC Saint gregory the Theologian or Saint Basil or even Saint Gregory of Nyssa?Those three are the ones whom defined what is what and they all had the same mind and they were present at the time when the 2nd E.C. those are the Capadochian Fathers, and none of them speak of the SON as the RCC does. in particular St. Gregory the THEOLOGIAN he is the only one out of all that all we need to know about this issue and never came close to what the RCC definition is in this matter.

You lucky ghosty, I wanted to say more concerning this, but I must go.
See you, and keep the Love of CHRIST

GOD bless all †††

 

[Taboric_Light]

First, I want to post this link that I saw on another forum. Not only is it very informative, but it also expressed well the immensely beautiful reality of the intimate union between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which is beyond our comprehension. Some of you may already have seen and read this:energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2006/12/03/st-maximus-the-conffesor-and-the-filioque-doctrine-part-i/

 

[Taboric_Light]

Second, in order that there may be less confusion from any of my posts I just want to state what I actually do believe concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit.

In St. Palamas’s Physical Chapters he says, “The Spirit of the Word from on high is like a mysterious love of the Father possessed by the Word and the well-beloved Son of the Father towards him who begat him; this he does in so far as he comes from the Father conjointly with this love, and this love rests naturally on him.” I believe that the Son (begotten) and the Spirit (proceeding) both eternally existentially come from the Father alone, Who is Source of the Holy Trinity. I adhere completely to what St. Gregory the Theologian said in his theological orations and to what St. Gregory of Nyssa said in his Catechetical Oration. Finally, I do not believe that the Spirit proceeds existentially from the Son, but that from the Son there is an energetic progression or manifestation of the Spirit, and this is not just temporal, but eternal.

There are some things that I want to say concerning the text by St. Gregory of Nyssa that Ghosty refers to and context for interpreting what others are saying, but at the moment I have to go. Peace be with you all.

In Christ through Mary

 

[Ghosty]

the Second Ecumenical Council of Lyons (1274 A.D.) made the following declaration:

    In faithful and devout profession we declare that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles (principiis), but from one principle, not by two spirations (spirationibus) but by a single spiration. The most holy Roman Church, mother and teacher of all the faithful, has heretofore professed, preached, and taught this. This she firmly holds, professes, and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true understanding of the faithful (orthodoxorum) Fathers and Doctors, Latin as well as Greek. But because some through ignorance of the indisputable aforesaid truth have slipped into various errors, we, in our desire to close the way to errors of this kind, with the approval of the sacred Council, condemn and reprobate those who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, as well as those who with rash boldness presume to affirm that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles (principiis) and not as from one (DS 850).

Yes, and I agree with this condemnation, since it follows the Fathers of the Church. It does not force the use of the filioque, however. It does assert that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds (procedere, not ekporousis) from the Father and the Son, something that can’t be denied on Patristic grounds.

Ignatios:

which Fathers, the Doctor of the RCC Saint gregory the Theologian or Saint Basil or even Saint Gregory of Nyssa?Those three are the ones whom defined what is what and they all had the same mind and they were present at the time when the 2nd E.C. those are the Capadochian Fathers, and none of them speak of the SON as the RCC does. in particular St. Gregory the THEOLOGIAN he is the only one out of all that all we need to know about this issue and never came close to what the RCC definition is in this matter.

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

Interestingly, no one has ever presented any evidence that the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Son temporally; it is always simply assumed by those who are against the filioque. I would like to see some explicit citations that indicate that this procession is temporal only, preferably by pre-Schism Fathers.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Taboric_Light]

Concerning the popes from 882 - 2005 being duel-processionists, I think the quote from Lyon II given earlier contradicts this. Yes, the West has said that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. But the West has affirmed multiple times that this procession is from one principle, not two. Lyon II goes so far as to condemn those who say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles. The West has always affirmed one principle and one procession. In addition the West has always held that the Father alone is the source of the Trinity, which was affirmed in the clarification on the filioque issued by the Vatican. The West has been explicit about there only being one procession, not two. To say that the popes, especially those who explicitly condemned the teaching of duel procession, are duel-processionists is to misunderstand what the West really teaches.

How one can say that there isn’t a duel procession and also say that the Spirit eternally proceeds substantially and subsistently from the Father and the Son is beyond me. I simply do not know. What I do know is that its being correct is not dependent on my understanding it. The West has a different metaphysical and theological approach than the East. This is clear from the differences between eastern and western Fathers. When interpreting what others are saying we must strive to interpret their words according to their theological tradition, not our own. If we do not do this we will never understand one another.

In Christ through Mary

 

[Taboric_Light]

Ghosty,

Thank you for your explanation a couple of weeks ago about hypostatic procession. I definitely still have some questions and what you said will take more readings to sink in, but it was helpful.

Concerning St. Gregory of Nyssa and his being an example of an eastern Father who taught the filioque, I’m not so sure that the letter to Ablabius is the best representation of his trinitarian thought. The letter is one of his earlier works, written around 375. In his Catechetical Oration, which is one of his later works, written around 383, he says, “In the moment we give expression to a word, our breath becomes an intelligible utterance which indicates what we have in mind. In the case of the divine nature, too, we think it reverent to hold that God has a Spirit, just as we admitted that he has a Word. For it is not right that God’s Word should be more defective than our own, which would be the case if, since our word is associated with breath (spirit), we were to believe he lacked a Spirt.” Here in this later work we find Gregory teaching that the Son and the Spirit proceed, each in their own manner, from the Father together.

There are two things that happened in Gregory’s life between the writing of his letter to Ablabius and his catechetical oration. First, the death of St. Basil, after which he began to really come into his own, and, second, the Theologian delivering his five theological orations. In his fifth oration, the Theologian was very clear in the Son and Spirit both proceeding from the Father, but in a different manner: the Son is begotten/generated and the Spirit proceeds (ekpouriosis *). Gregory seems to express the Theologian’s thought by way of the Breath/Word analogy.

Of course, this is not a rock solid case. I think in an earlier post you mentioned that Gregory of Nyssa says the same thing in Contra Eunomium that he said in his letter to Ablabius. If I remember correctly Contra Eunomium pre-dates the catechetical oration, but post-dates Basil’s death and Gregory the Theologian’s five theological orations.

In Christ through Mary*

 

[chrisb]

Second, in order that there may be less confusion from any of my posts I just want to state what I actually do believe concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit.

In St. Palamas’s Physical Chapters he says, “The Spirit of the Word from on high is like a mysterious love of the Father possessed by the Word and the well-beloved Son of the Father towards him who begat him; this he does in so far as he comes from the Father conjointly with this love, and this love rests naturally on him.” I believe that the Son (begotten) and the Spirit (proceeding) both eternally existentially come from the Father alone, Who is Source of the Holy Trinity. I adhere completely to what St. Gregory the Theologian said in his theological orations and to what St. Gregory of Nyssa said in his Catechetical Oration. Finally, I do not believe that the Spirit proceeds existentially from the Son, but that from the Son there is an energetic progression or manifestation of the Spirit, and this is not just temporal, but eternal.

There are some things that I want to say concerning the text by St. Gregory of Nyssa that Ghosty refers to and context for interpreting what others are saying, but at the moment I have to go. Peace be with you all.

In Christ through Mary

This is so very fruitful for me. Thank you most graciously for posting it here Taboric Light. You have earned your name in my book…

I feel this will illuminate the differences between these opposing views.

Thanks again and God Bless.

 

[JohnVIII]

This same teaching can be expressed as “through the Son”, which has been accepted by Orthodox at various points in history (most notably at the Union of Brest).

Personally, I also have a problem with the phrase: “through the Son”. Although I admit that some Orthodox have used this phrase. The reason I have a problem with it is because it still seems to at least imply at the Holy Spirit obtains it essence in the person of the Son, which, if true, the Holy Spirit must share in the humanity of Jesus.

 

[Aramis]

Personally, I also have a problem with the phrase: “through the Son”. Although I admit that some Orthodox have used this phrase. The reason I have a problem with it is because it still seems to at least imply at the Holy Spirit obtains it essence in the person of the Son, which, if true, the Holy Spirit must share in the humanity of Jesus.

Given that, in the Gospels, Christ promises to send his spirit, showing ownership, either Christ is speaking as the Father, or Christ is part of the origin of the Spirit in some way, or Christ was laying, or we don’t understand what was written, or what was written and approved was wrong. All the options are heretical EXCEPT that Christ, as the second part of the Trinity has some role and ownership over the Spirit, even if He isn’t the first principle from which the spirit springs.

 

[Taboric_Light]

This is so very fruitful for me. Thank you most graciously for posting it here Taboric Light. You have earned your name in my book…

I feel this will illuminate the differences between these opposing views.

Thanks again and God Bless.

I am glad; and you are most welcome.

In Christ through Mary

 

[JohnVIII]

Has any one yet taken in consideration the “SIGILLION”?

The Sigillion was an official Orthodox document signed by three patriarchs in the year 1583. It took on several doctrinal issues including the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit.

Here is a quote; “whoever does not confess with heart and mouth that he is a child of the Eastern Church baptized in Orthodox style, and that the Holy Spirit proceeds out of only the Father, essentially and hypothetically, as Christ says in the Gospel, shall be outside of our Church and shall be anathematized”

Here is a link that I made for the entire text.

-In Christ, God bless!

 

[Apotheoun]

Has any one yet taken in consideration the “SIGILLION”?

The Sigillion was an official Orthodox document signed by three patriarchs in the year 1583. It took on several doctrinal issues including the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit.

Here is a quote; “whoever does not confess with heart and mouth that he is a child of the Eastern Church baptized in Orthodox style, and that the Holy Spirit proceeds out of only the Father, essentially and hypothetically, as Christ says in the Gospel, shall be outside of our Church and shall be anathematized”

Here is a link that I made for the entire text.

-In Christ, God bless!

The text should read: “. . . whoever does not confess with heart and mouth that he is a child of the Eastern Church baptized in Orthodox style, and that the Holy Spirit proceeds out of only the Father, essentially and hypostatically, as Christ says in the Gospel, shall be outside of our Church and shall be anathematized.”

This conciliar horos is found in the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, which is chanted on the Sunday of Orthodoxy at the beginning of Great Lent in the Eastern Churches.

 

[Claudius]

Pu-lease.

I am not even an native English speaker and I know that is not how you are supposed to spell it.

You just like putting me in stitches.

Than see a doctor.

I mean really, you are off the wall.

Appearently your communion cares little for theses kinds of sins and unguarded immorallity.

Are you not aware that an ad hominum argument is a logical fallacy?

Are you not aware that PORNOGRAPHY is a SIN?

I never used Wheelock because I did my Latin studies intensively, and used Moreland and Fleischer.

Well, then if you actually knew what we were talking about you would know that Wheelock is the most graphically sexually pornographic “text” book on the market today.

When you study Latin, you study the old Latin texts.

When I LIVE my LIFE in Latin I come across many different kinds of Latin, from notes my wife leaves to me to ancient text. It is all Latin. Cicero is no better Latinist than Aquinas.

I think that you seem to be unaware of the cultural context.

I don’t care what culture you live in, poems about oral sex, lesbianism, sex toys, and raping dead bodies are ALWAYS morally abhorant. As Christians we are called to a higher standard, a MUCH higher standard than that.

I am sure we read “pagan” things to.

Payers to “jupiter” were bad anough but my main complaint is the GRAPHIC SEXUAL SIN on almost EVERY PAGE.

I am sure that the Classics profs at my Catholic university would find your assertions rather absurd. (And yes, they are Catholic.)

So absurd that they would ban the very book I speak of? So absurd that they took to publishing an alternative by Collins? So absurd that some of them still use the very ancient Scaldon text?

What did you read to learn Latin?

Latin.

What ancient texts were used to train your ear/eye to its complexities. Most of the complex stuff comes from pagan Rome.

This is a very big logical fallacy. Pagan writers were no better Latin writers than Christian writers. Latin is Latin. Some Latin is not to our taste, other bits are but it is all Latin.

Let us keep in mind, as of today, Latin has had a longer life in written form as a Christian language than a pagan one. There is vastly more avaliable to read in Christian Latin than in the pagan classics. Christian Latin is also enriched by a much larger vocabulary and a higher conscience of mind. Sure I read the pagan authors, and I have come to dislike them. I don’t put Cicero up on a pedastal because he does not belong there. He was a psyco, not a prophet.

Ad Fontes was one of the worst acts of vandalism enacted upon the Latin Language that has ever occured.

God Bless,
R.

Now for your part. If Wheelock psudoLatin is what you like and the kind of sexual immorallity it teaches is what you live for than I might as well stop praying for communion between the Catholic and the orthodox. The orthodox are not holy enough to part of the Catholic Church is this is what they are about. If you are not willing to stand up to preach the Gospel and live the Gospel as an example to others, than we can not be in communion. Lord Jesus said to be Holy, to be Perfect. I would rather someone not learn Latin at all than to learn from Wheelock for fear that they loose their soul.

 

[Ghosty]

Personally, I also have a problem with the phrase: “through the Son”. Although I admit that some Orthodox have used this phrase. The reason I have a problem with it is because it still seems to at least imply at the Holy Spirit obtains it essence in the person of the Son, which, if true, the Holy Spirit must share in the humanity of Jesus.

This would only be the case if the essence of Christ changed in the Incarnation. Instead we have the Divine Essence, and the human nature, not united and mingled on the level of nature, but in the Person of Christ. If they were mingled and merged we would have to confess something similar to the Monothelites or the Monophysites, and we do not.

So we can say that the Holy Spirit “receives of the Son” or “takes of the Son” (as Christ Himself says) without implying that the Holy Spirit takes of the human nature of the Person of the Son, since the two natures remain distinct and undistorted.

Peace and God bless!