Filioque??

[Ignatios]

I did not say “most.” …

For the third time, I didnt say that you said “most” Please pleeeeeeeease reeeeeeead.

I did not mean “most.”

And, when I said “you mean” that meant only to correct you in a nice way, sigh.

I do not know whether most Western Fathers taught it or not.  I know of several that did - uncontradicted for centuries.

That is why I said “you mean” " MOST" because in your first statement you said " the Fathers" that would mean all of the Fathers, this is the last time I would waist my time on this
hope you got it now.

That is correct. They didn’t break communion, even after knowing it existed…

Thank GOD, you acknowledged this one. So, this would bring us back to:
That the Greeks did not create the schism over a theological opinion error and/or interpretation, but it was a big deal to the Greeks when they (the Latin) started to teach it, and they tampered with the Creed, and then they tried to inforce it on the Eastern Churches.

 The Bull was issued by Cardinal Humbert without papal authority as the Pope had died...

.
Cardinal humbert was Vicar of the Pope and as a Vicar of the Pope, represented the Pope that is, and had authority to “act”. However and for the sake of argument, the Western Church accepted it, if they did not there wouldn’t be a schism right now perhaps, would it?

Then the East broke communion.  This issue was already dealt with in this thread.

Sorry, your allegations are not in-line with the recorded history, the historical record testify that the Romans are the ones who made the first step towards this schism , as you yourself had said above that they slapped the Bull on the altar.

I guess they had never heard of the Athanasian Creed then, which also existed centuries before the eastern clergy started complaining. “The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.”

Very true, the East never heard of it before the 12th century, in which it means that it was not a genuine creed, especially when St Athanasius was Eastern. So, logically if it was true of St Athanasius it would have been spread in the East and then reached the West, it doesn’t fit that this creed was genuine or the least to say that it was Authoritative such as the N.Creed. or that it was truly of St. Athanasius, So away with the So-called Athanasian Creed.

They taught that the eternal Trinitarian relationship of the Spirit is through the Son.

I know what your opinion is, But where is the reference to what you are saying, is it your own thoughts or is it the Cappadocian Fathers? If it is the last, present us with your proof.
Besides the Spirit is through the son in time, manifestation that is.
St Gregory the Theologian again:
“… The THREE has one Nature-GOD and the union is the FATHER from whom and to whom the **order of Persons runs its course **…”
He didn’t say through nor from the SON in this regard, the FATHER is the spring to “BOTH”, if you apply one thing to either of the Persons it must be applied to the other. The Only difference that one is unbegotten and the other Proceed. Period, nothing else was mentioned.

If you are asking whether they expressed that reality in exactly the same terms as the Latins, then the answer is obviously no. They weren’t even using the same language (Greek v. Latin).

I would even settle for any term that would relate to the Filioque as defined by the Romans, but there is NONE.
The answer is NO, that is correct, thank you.
They weren’t using the same language that is correct also, and therefore they ( the Romans) shouldn’t tamper with the Creed since it became obvious that their language was problematic in Theology or at least in this issue, Not to mention also that their theology was based on Augustine and Augustine’s and few other western fathers who followed the Filioque was based on erroneous translation of the Scriptures that was at that time ( Vulgate).
Besides yourself are doing fine in expressing the “reality” of your beloved filioque using one of the most problematic languages in theology and biblical texts the English that is.

Could it be that you never provided a link or reference to the post you wanted examined?

And then later on you added:

You mean post #602? This is the first time I have seen it. Why didn’t you provide it previously?

What a silly answer, as we say in the Middle East, your excuse is worse then your erroneous allegations as I have proved earlier.
I provided the proof when you alleged wrong, or maybe you wanted me to provide a proof prior to the false assertions.
And if it is the first time you have seen it, doesn’t that means that YOU the one who should read and not me as you accused me before. May GOD enlighten your mind and heart †††.

Continue…

 

[Ignatios]

…Continue

Your analysis basically comes down to this: the Cappadocian Fathers must have been referring to something other than the eternal relationship between the Spirit and the Son. The context of the quotes makes it apparent they are discussing the eternal trinity, since that is also how they are discussing the relationship between the Father and the Son and the Spirit and the Father in the same exact paragraphs. The other argument you have is that Gregory of Nyssa was wrong

Now you are making another allegations about my analysis, it is not mine, please read and tell us if it is not what it reads then tell us what it says WITH a valid reference.
But it seems like you are not sure of what you are saying, if they “must have been” referring to something else then why don’t you tell us what it was, but you don’t know, you are trying to insert doubt in order to disqualify what it says, since it doesn’t agree with your beloved filioque.
Your filioque is the ground for your theology, that’s why you can never accept Scriptures as they are and according to the Fathers and particularly the Greek Fathers whom the Cappadocians are the lead amongst the whole in this matter.

Gregory the blessed priest of Nyssa, who, apparently, speaks more to your advantage than any of the other Fathers. Preserving all the respect due to this Father, we cannot refrain from noticing, that he was but a mortal man, and man, however great a degree of holiness he may attain, is very apt to err . . . .

The above one it was not concerning the Filioque, since it was not known to the Cappadocian fathers the least to say.
The above was concern other issues, NOT in regard to the filioque, I just gave an example to show that although they are a holy men still yet “very apt to err” since any man cannot be infallible.
The Church’s general council is the one who decide what is, or/and what is not, Since the Holy Spirit is the one who leads the Church that her Head is the CHRIST JESUS.
SO, again and again, your arguments are built on stubble, that’s why they cannot endure when we shed the light on them.

It obviously doesn’t matter what Cappadocian Fathers are cited. If you don’t agree with them, you’ll just say they are wrong.

Wrong, Gregory of Nyssa is the only one who may have said a couple of things that it may be taken out of context and can be used easily to support some other issues, his “Idea” as a whole does not support what the Romans imply, “…The orthodox teachers, when speaking of Gregory, more than once restrict their words by the expression: “if such was his idea…,” BUT as for this matter I would say from what I have read that he was in line with the Tradition all the way ( Orthodox that is)
Christianity is not based on “every” word one Father may have said,
Are they Infallible, I ask you?
But as almost all the Fathers said repeatedly in their Orations and Theology the same thing the Orthodox teachers say in this: “ … and conclude their discussion upon Gregory with the following words: “we must view the **general doctrine of the Church, and take the Holy Scripture as a rule **for ourselves, nor paying attention to what each has written in his private capacity (idia).”
SO, it is that, WHEN they are wrong, we disagree with them, And NOT that if we disagree with them then they are wrong.

The divine. You were the one who stated that if the Spirit proceeds from the Son that the Spirit must also proceed from himself.

If you are not being a strawman, but you honestly did not read what I have said for the third time I believe., go back read and COMPREHEND what I said,
Here is my first quote concerning this:

“ From your comment above, I take it that you agree with me that the H.S. co-exist with the FATHER and the SON Eternally, there is No prior-to.

NOW, could you tell me, If the THREE co-exist eternally, wouldn’t the H.S. proceed from the FATHER and the SON and HIMSELF?
if not? then tell me where was the H.S. when the Procession happened? or was the Holy Spirit part of this operation or not? if not ? then why? or how? and if you are ready to admit that the Holy Spirit was part of this operation, Then that would make The Holy Spirit proceed from Himself as well.
Please keep your answers Biblically grounded and according to the Cappadocian Fathers ( the ones who defined the Understanding of the Trinity)

SO, and again, you must read and comprehend equally what has been said, this is the third or the fourth time that I explain this to you. But it seems like you are fixed with your wishful thoughts.

… I gave you the argument for why this does not follow. If you want to reject it, that’s fine. But it certainly isn’t because it is logically impossible for the Spirit to proceed through the Son.

Logical impossibility or not Is Immaterial, what is material here is the Scriptural Text.
IAW it is not Scriptural, therefore what ever you are contemplating on is of human theory origin.
You cannot apply Logic in the Eternal subjects, it doesn’t work, here is what Saint Gregory THEEE THELOGIAN said concerning this :
Saint Gregory the Theologian
“…What then is Procession? Do you tell me what is the Unbegottenness of the Father, and I will explain to you the physiology of the Generation of the Son and the Procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be frenzy-stricken for prying into the mystery of God….”
And to that I say Amen.
I have spoken enough of this for about 3 or 4 times so far.

 

[Ignatios]

So what? I agree with this quote. You say it does not speak of eternal relationship because you don’t want it to be so. Whether it does or not, this one certainly does:
“[The] Father conveys the notion of unoriginate, unbegotten, and Father always; the only-begotten Son is understood along with the Father, coming from him but inseparably joined to him. Through the Son and with the Father, immediately and before any vague and unfounded concept interposes between them, the Holy Spirit is also perceived conjointly” (Against Eunomius 1 [A.D. 382]).
Isn’t this why you state in your earlier post that - well - St. Gregory Nyssa was wrong? First you say he’s wrong, then you try to explain how one of his quotes really doesn’t express the concept of eternal procession.

Sigh, here is what I asked;
"Ignatios in earlier post:

… : St Gregory of Nyssa
" … We confess that, save His being contemplated as with peculiar attributes in regard of Person, the Holy Spirit is indeed “FROM” God, and “OF” the Christ, according to Scripture…" Now show me where **in the Scriptures **it says that the "…HOLY SPIRIT PROCEED FROM THE FATHER AND SON

and you reply with a quote from St. Gregory of Nyssa,
I asked for Scriptural TEXT.
DO you have any Scriptural TEXT to back up your assertions???
As for your quote from St Greg. Of Nyssa, I do not see anything in that quote that would support your filioque, if so please explain it.
Have you noticed the “Through” the SON “ ( not from the SON } and then the “ immediately” ( Temporal, the word Immediately introduce time ) and ” before any vague and unfounded concept interposes between them “ ( this is one of the lines that it needs to be studied further, because when and what could anything vague interpose between the FATHER and the SON, however it also introduce time since the word “Before is present as you may not noticed) at the end the “ perceived “ ( Is to attain awareness as being as such or to become aware of through the senses) all that indicate to a temporal.
So as you see it is not St Greg. Of Nyssa that he is speaking in support of the filioque but rather tdgesq is.

Yes, St. Gregory Nyssa taught that the Spirit comes eternally through the Son, even though you think St. Gregory was wrong as stated in your earlier post.

My question was,
Ignatios in earlier post:

Now can you show me, where they taught the Filioque as defined by the RCC??? lets see if you are going to skip this one or not.

No surprise to me, you tried to skip it by telling me that”yes he taught it” my question was as I displayed for you for the third time “ Can you show me where they taught it” and not to tell me “if they taught it”
I never said that St. Greg. Of Nyssa was wrong in this matter. BUT you have proven that it is you who is wrong in the comprehension of his writings.

 

[Ignatios]

You are conflating the monarchy of the Father with the Son. The Spirit coming eternally through the Son does not necessitate this. St. Basil agrees with me, not you:

Lets take a look then:

Thus the way of the knowledge of God

lies from One Spirit through the One Son to the One Father, and conversely the natural Goodness and the **inherent Holiness and the royal Dignity **extend from the Father through the Only-begotten to the Spirit. Thus there is both acknowledgment of the hypostases and the true dogma of the Monarchy is not lost.” newadvent.org/fathers/3203.htm
Where? … do you?.. in the above?..see?.. that?.. the SPIRIT?... Comes?.. eternally from the SON ???
PLEASE show me …where…??? Or anything about “PROCEED from the FATHER and the SON ( FILIOQUE ) where???
All the above is about the “way” of the knowledge of GOD which is 10000000% correct and both Greek and Latins have no issue with this, in which he says that it is “in the Spirit through the SON to the FATHER, THE KNOWLEDGE of GOD that is, NOT the Eternal Procession.
To whom do you think the way of the knowledge of God could be directed to? other then us the sinful human being , the way of knowledge of GOD is for us the human, otherwise to whom would the desire to know the way to that? I ask you.
And then he speaks of “inherent Holiness and the royal Dignity” starts from the FATHER through the Son to the SPIRIT, Again NOT eternal Procession of the SPIRIT.
Besides he didn’t even say from the FATHER AND the SON to the SPIRIT, but “through the SON, indicating the Monarchy of the FATHER.
IF this proves anything, in regard to our discussion it does one thing, that the Holy Spirit is not left out of any operation of the hypostasis, where in your filioque it shows that the Holy Spirit has no role in that operation, and if HE does then you must admit that HE proceeded from himself as well( Again I do not believe in that nor does your church this is ONLY to show the error in your Filioque) since HE is involved in that operation and this is why the Filioque is erroneous. Since the Holy Spirit does not proceed from HIMSELF nor HE that he is not present or share in any operation as we see from your quote of Saint Basil the Great above.
So, St. Basil does not agree with you according to what you have posted, but he certainly agree with the Orthodox Church .
There isn’t one thing in the above that would even point to the assertion of the filioque or to any eternal “procession” of the Holy Spirit, NONE, not even once. In the above that is.
After all it is your Filioque who conflate not only the Mopnarchy of the Father with the SON but also the confuse the understanding of the Holy Trinity with the Hypostasis.
You know , I am wondering whether I should continue with this conversation or not, Since you are demonstrating a very high level of ignorance ( not offensively but literally, lack of knowledge that is). According to your post I don’t see a sign of comprehension of what you write or read at all.

And you accuse Gregory of Nyssa of the same thing. That he was just wrong. You disagree with St. Basil on the preservation of the monarchial status of the Father, even when he states the Trinitarian relationship of the Spirit and the Son is “through” the Son. You disagree with Cyril of Alexandria’s biblical basis that "Just as the Son says ‘All that the Father has is mine’ [John 16:15], so shall we find that through the Son it is all also in the Spirit.”

I have already answered all the above allegations of yours EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM but your insistence on not acknowledge them does not get you out of the hole, you have been refuted utterly by deed and through your own postings at times. I have said enough concerning this, I shall not keep repeating the same things over and over again for about three times at least so far. May GOD enlighten your mind and heart †††

You demand a more explicit biblical basis than what Cyril provides, but you seem to have no problem with the statement that the Son is “eternally begotten of the Father.” Can you give me the explicit biblical source for that?

I will answer, the Biblical source :
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
You should read your bible some times .

The Fourth Council of Constantinople (the second one) is not ecumenical, not even by the standards of most Orthodox. Why did the Second Council of Constantinople, which began as a local eastern synod, alter the creed as originally set forth in Nicaea I? An inconvenient historical fact that the Orthodox like to ignore.

It was E.C., but you annulled it as such after the schism because it doesn’t agree with your filioque.
Of course because Orthodox understand the E.C. as fact and not name, so if the RCC or any of the pentarchy Churches.is not in it, then, how could it be E.C.
Not even your RCC call that “alteration” are you speaking for your own RCC or the one that it is in Rome and headed by the Pope.
Alteration of the Creed we did not ignore at all and NO, we can’t, Indeed it was a fact, however the history shows that your church is the owner of that Alteration, and that is the “Filioque”

 

[buffgbob]

Ignatios,

After following and reading this entire thread, I find it humorous that you would accuse someone of being repetitive. Remember, this thread tends towards a defense of “filioque.” The pattern is:

Someone makes an argument against the doctrine.
Someone defends the doctrine.

If things are getting repetitive, it’s because the opponents of the doctrine keep bringing up the same “errors.” Personally, I’ve seen you talk about “the Holy Spirit would have to proceed from Himself” argument almost ten times now. I’ve also seen this issue covered thoroughly. Yet, you brought it up again in your last post.

This is why I cannot be Orthodox: They have no definition of what councils are binding. Councils are binding if they are true. However, this idea is just relativism. Who decides truth? (You would be hard pressed to answer that without falling into the same arguments the Protestants use.) Of course, this relativism is based on an entire Church of people instead of individuals (like is common today.) In such, it is much more stable. It however, does not surprise me that those who separate themselves from the Church are necessarily relativistic.

 

[tdgesq]

That is why I said “you mean” " MOST" because in your first statement you said " the Fathers" that would mean all of the Fathers, this is the last time I would waist my time on this
hope you got it now.

Oh, I got it several posts ago. I did not mean all of the Fathers, I didn’t mean all or most of the Fathers, not even most of the Western Fathers. If you want to continue to insist that I meant something I didn’t, then that’s your prerogative. Just understand that you aren’t addressing anything I argued.

Thank GOD, you acknowledged this one. So, this would bring us back to:
That the Greeks did not create the schism over a theological opinion error and/or interpretation, but it was a big deal to the Greeks when they (the Latin) started to teach it, and they tampered with the Creed, and then they tried to inforce it on the Eastern Churches.

Revisionist history at its worst. It was Patriarch Michael I that condemned the west for the use of unleavened bread among other things. The Pope died two months before the “papal” bull was delivered by Humbert, unsigned by Pope Leo. Humbert didn’t even have ecclesiastical authority to publish such a document. And it contained all kinds of things for which the East supposedly was at fault for, including the removal of the filioque from the Nicene Creed. An obvious historical untruth on the part of Humbert as the filioque was added later. I don’t deny that Humbert was wrong. But for you to characterize this as a blow up over the filioque is wishful thinking.

Cardinal humbert was Vicar of the Pope and as a Vicar of the Pope, represented the Pope that is, and had authority to “act”. However and for the sake of argument, the Western Church accepted it, if they did not there wouldn’t be a schism right now perhaps, would it?

Actually, Humbert didn’t have any such authority anymore as a legate of Pope Leo. On the other hand, Micheal deserved to be excommunicated for condemning the West for using unleavened bread. Patriarch Micheal struck first no matter how you slice it. There would still be schism regardless of what took place in 1054 - and it wasn’t over the filioque.

Sorry, your allegations are not in-line with the recorded history, the historical record testify that the Romans are the ones who made the first step towards this schism , as you yourself had said above that they slapped the Bull on the altar.

And I am equally sorry that yours doesn’t. If you want to ignore the actions of Patriarch Micheal, so be it. Humbert without ecclesiastical authority issued the bull of excommunication later. Micheal then excommunicated the legates, including Humbert. The Church upheld the excommunication against the Patriarch, and rightfully so in my opinion. There’s plenty of blame to go around on who took the “first step” towards schism.

Very true, the East never heard of it before the 12th century, in which it means that it was not a genuine creed, especially when St Athanasius was Eastern. So, logically if it was true of St Athanasius it would have been spread in the East and then reached the West, it doesn’t fit that this creed was genuine or the least to say that it was Authoritative such as the N.Creed. or that it was truly of St. Athanasius, So away with the So-called Athanasian Creed.

My point is, I find it unlikely that the East never heard of the filioque before the twelfth century. It was being used in the form of the Athanasian creed, which is attributed to him even if he didn’t write it, which some scholars doubt. It was present in St. Augustine’s writings centuries prior. It is only much later that we find that the filioque became this burning issue upon which the West must now be viewed as heretical.

I know what your opinion is, But where is the reference to what you are saying, is it your own thoughts or is it the Cappadocian Fathers? If it is the last, present us with your proof.

I did. Multiple times. You wouldn’t deal with them.

Besides the Spirit is through the son in time, manifestation that is.
St Gregory the Theologian again:

I didn’t rely upon this quote from Gregory of Nazianzus. He doesn’t say through the Son, but neither does he deny it. I agree with him that the Spirit runs its course from the Father.

I would even settle for any term that would relate to the Filioque as defined by the Romans, but there is NONE.

No you wouldn’t, as this prolonged debate has made apparent. There are posters here of the eastern persuasion that admit the Spirit coming through the Son eternally is patristic in the East. It is a little bit hard to deny, well, unless you claim Fathers like Gregory Nyssa are wrong. Or if you ignore Cyril of Alexandria because he isn’t a Cappadocian. You pick and choose the Fathers and their writings that you like and ignore the rest.

The answer is NO, that is correct, thank you.

The answer is “no” because “filioque” is a Latin term, so it would not be used by the Greeks.

What a silly answer, as we say in the Middle East, your excuse is worse then your erroneous allegations as I have proved earlier.
I provided the proof when you alleged wrong, or maybe you wanted me to provide a proof prior to the false assertions.
And if it is the first time you have seen it, doesn’t that means that YOU the one who should read and not me as you accused me before. May GOD enlighten your mind and heart †††.

Yes, every answer is silly unless it agrees with your conclusion. I wasn’t particularly interested in discussing patristics. The genesis of this debate was a discussion with another poster who claimed that eternal procession through the Son destroyed the Incarnation. You wanted Cappadocian Fathers, and you got them, although not to your liking.

 

[tdgesq]

. . . continued

The above one it was not concerning the Filioque, since it was not known to the Cappadocian fathers the least to say.
The above was concern other issues, NOT in regard to the filioque, I just gave an example to show that although they are a holy men still yet “very apt to err” since any man cannot be infallible.

Then what was it meant to address if not that Gregory of Nyssa was wrong concerning the eternal relationship of the Spirit and the Son? I’m wondering why you brought it up.

Wrong, Gregory of Nyssa is the only one who may have said a couple of things that it may be taken out of context and can be used easily to support some other issues, his “Idea” as a whole does not support what the Romans imply, “…The orthodox teachers, when speaking of Gregory, more than once restrict their words by the expression: “if such was his idea…,” BUT as for this matter I would say from what I have read that he was in line with the Tradition all the way ( Orthodox that is)

Look, was St. Gregory wrong or wasn’t he? If he has just been misinterpreted as you suggest, then give us what he truly meant as opposed to what he clearly says.

Logical impossibility or not Is Immaterial, what is material here is the Scriptural Text.

Then don’t argue logical impossibility. I’m fine with looking at Scripture. We won’t apply any logic (insofar as that is even possible.) Let’s see how well you fared with “eternally begotten of the Father.”

I asked for Scriptural TEXT.
DO you have any Scriptural TEXT to back up your assertions???

John 16:15 given to you once here explicitly in the context of “through the Son” from Cyril:

You disagree with Cyril of Alexandria’s biblical basis that "Just as the Son says ‘All that the Father has is mine’ [John 16:15], so shall we find that through the Son it is all also in the Spirit.” forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4321339&postcount=713

Given to you again here:

How about John 16:15, which Cyril of Alexandria specifically cites when he declares: “Just as the Son says ‘All that the Father has is mine’ [John 16:15], so shall we find that through the Son it is all also in the Spirit” (Letters 3:4:33 [A.D. 433]). You may continue to reject the Fathers and their interpretation of Scripture, but I will not. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4279149&postcount=703

As for your quote from St Greg. Of Nyssa, I do not see anything in that quote that would support your filioque, if so please explain it.
Have you noticed the “Through” the SON “ ( not from the SON } and then the “ immediately” ( Temporal, the word Immediately introduce time )

Then all of these words introduce time as well: “from, through, begotten, proceeds, coming.” There cannot be action without time, yet we still understand them to be meant eternally. St. Gregory states: “Through the Son and with the Father, immediately . . . .” The term “immediately” applies to the relation of the Spirit to the Father as well as the Son. Do you hold that the term “immediately” is also meant temporally with relation to the Father? If you want to hold that the same word – the exact same word – is meant eternally as to the Father yet temporally as to the Son, then show us where Gregory suggests such a thing.

and ” before any vague and unfounded concept interposes between them “ ( this is one of the lines that it needs to be studied further, because when and what could anything vague interpose between the FATHER and the SON, however it also introduce time since the word “Before is present as you may not noticed) at the end the “ perceived “ ( Is to attain awareness as being as such or to become aware of through the senses) all that indicate to a temporal.

The word “before” also references the Father, not just the Son. The word “perceived” references the Father as well. If he is speaking in temporal terms as to the Son, then I suppose he must have been speaking of a temporal relationship between the Spirit and the Father too. You don’t accept that, so show us where St. Gregory suggests that the exact same term is to be applied eternally to the Father but not to the Son.

Here is how the quote continues, so we can see just what St. Gregory intends by his use of the terms “immediately” and “before”:

[A]nd through the Son and yet with Him, before any vague and unsubstantial conception comes in between, the Holy Spirit is found at once in closest union; not subsequent in existence to the Son, as if the Son could be thought of as ever having been without the Spirit; but Himself also owning the same cause of His being, i.e. the God over all, as the Only-begotten Light, and having shone forth in that very Light, being divisible neither by duration nor by an alien nature from the Father or from the Only-begotten. There are no intervals in that pre-temporal world: and difference on the score of being there is none. It is not even possible, comparing the uncreate with the uncreated, to see differences; and the Holy Ghost is uncreate, as we have before shown. newadvent.org/fathers/290101.htm

Gregory explicitly states he is discussing pre-temporal concepts. It is apparent that “immediately” and “before” and “perceived” – used in connection with both the Father and the Son – are meant to convey the notion of eternity, not the opposite! The game is over on your exegesis.

 

[tdgesq]

. . . continued

All the above is about the “way” of the knowledge of GOD which is 10000000% correct and both Greek and Latins have no issue with this, in which he says that it is “in the Spirit through the SON to the FATHER, THE KNOWLEDGE of GOD that is, NOT the Eternal Procession.
To whom do you think the way of the knowledge of God could be directed to? other then us the sinful human being , the way of knowledge of GOD is for us the human, otherwise to whom would the desire to know the way to that? I ask you.
And then he speaks of “inherent Holiness and the royal Dignity” starts from the FATHER through the Son to the SPIRIT, Again NOT eternal Procession of the SPIRIT.
Besides he didn’t even say from the FATHER AND the SON to the SPIRIT, but “through the SON, indicating the Monarchy of the FATHER.

So you admit that the Monarchy of the Father does extend from the Father through the Son to the Spirit, and then once again claim this is not eternal. St. Basil states the Monarchy of the Father extends “through the Only-begotten to the Spirit.” Do you deny he is speaking of the eternal Only-begotten Son here? If you do, then apparently the Father communicates his Monarchy temporally to the Spirit through the Son. Is that what you suggest – that the royal Dignity of the Father was communicated to the Spirit temporally? And if you want to know how the Father extends his royal dignity eternally through the Son, St. Basil tells us:

One, moreover, is the Holy Spirit, and we speak of Him singly, conjoined as He is to the one Father through the one Son, and through Himself completing the adorable and blessed Trinity. Of Him the intimate relationship to the Father and the Son is sufficiently declared by the fact of His not being ranked in the plurality of the creation, but being spoken of singly; for he is not one of many, but One. For as there is one Father and one Son, so is there one Holy Ghost. newadvent.org/fathers/3203.htm

Yes, he is conjoined to the Father through the Son. These are descriptions of the inner workings of the immanent Trinity. St. Basil specifically speaks of the economic activity of the Trinity in the history of salvation in his treatise on the Holy Spirit when that is what he means.

I will answer, the Biblical source :
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Where does it say the Son is “eternally” begotten of the Father? I thought you were going to give me Scriptural passages that explicitly state this. Here it says the Word was made flesh. Isn’t that a temporal reference? Let’s use the same reasoning here that you use when interpreting the Fathers.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Sorry, it doesn’t say “eternally begotten of the Father.” He “gave” his only “begotten” Son. Blatant temporal references. We need to be consistent with your hermeneutic.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Once again, no “eternally” begotten. He has “declared him.” More temporal language? It looks to me like you are inferring something from Scripture that is not literally stated.

You should read your bible some times .

I read it nearly every night, which is how I know that there is no explicit reference to “eternally begotten.” Just like there is no explicit reference to the Trinity. You demand a standard of me that you don’t even follow.

Alteration of the Creed we did not ignore at all and NO, we can’t, Indeed it was a fact, however the history shows that your church is the owner of that Alteration, and that is the “Filioque”

You seem to have no problem with the alteration by the eastern synod of Constantinople I that added to the original symbol of faith from Nicaea I. You engage in glaring double standards like this throughout your posts: additions to the creed that the East has also done; literalistic interpretation of scripture when it suits you; inconsistent application of temporal terms to the Trinity. Whatever it takes to get you to your conclusion I guess.

 

[George14]

My understanding of “Filoque” - proceeding from the Father AND the Son, is explained by the following: a man and woman are in love. They speak of “their love” - as though a distinct entity other than the verb’s action of “I love him.”

People in love cherish THEIR LOVE and protect IT. There is a PERSON, PLACE OR THING in the NOUN form of the word in that context.

So it is my belief that the Holy Spirit is the “spiration”–i.e., SPIRIT – breathed, experienced, or given, or proceeding FROM EACH of the Father and the Son – and that of such greatness and fullness and magnitude in the case of God, that It reaches the same essence and fullness AS the Son and the Father. It is so “overwhelming and full” as to “become” the fullness of God Himself (themselves). There are THREE PERSONS, and we are taught early on that marriage on earth is also triune: husband, wife, and God’s spirit of love between them. So this concept “fits” wonderfully for me!

When we see young people “in love,” we often remark that they are “in love with love.” That was and is my own experience, but rather than impute anything inferior or less than real (I’m not talking about phantasms where there is no reciprocity) in such experiences, I see a parallel that enables me to understand a tiny bit what the words do mean, “proceeding from the Father AND the Son.” THE LOVE IS A PERSON AND IS CHERISHED AND PRESERVED AND PROTECTED AND NOURISHED AND COMPLETES THE TRINITY.

 

[Formosus]

The analogy is nice,but the Filioque says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son as from one source. The analogy doesn’t really work with it . Good imagery though : ).

According to Bishop Ware, he says that Augustine taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son in that the Father gifts this procession of the Spirit to His Son out of His love for His Son and desire to share with Him. This would , as far as I can tell, be a proceeding through the son which is what I beleive is the intention of the Latin theology.

 

[Ignatios]

Ignatios,

After following and reading this entire thread…

“Comprehension” goes along side “reading”, In which the both of you so far yet to prove or make clear by evidence.

… I find it humorous that you would accuse someone of being repetitive. …

Looking at your “comprehension” level, I find it “humorous” if your reply was anything other than your statement above.
Your reply in the above exist together in harmony with your incomprehension.

Remember, this thread tends towards a defense of “filioque.” The pattern is:

Someone makes an argument against the doctrine.
Someone defends the doctrine. If things are getting repetitive, it’s because the opponents of the doctrine keep bringing up the same “errors.”

I beleive that’s what we all are doing. except that opponent keep going back to the same thing without giving forth an arguement on what had been said, let me give you an example … you put forth your arguement, I give forth my arguement in which it shows the error in yours through a reason or evidence, then, normaly the first, responds in a way to counter my arguement with another or diffrent reason or further evidence or within context or whatever reason "that is in relation to the subject at hand " to refute it, where the case in the above is not, AND, it goes further than that by making an allegation.

Personally, I’ve seen you talk about “the Holy Spirit would have to proceed from Himself” argument almost ten times now. I’ve also seen this issue covered thoroughly. Yet, you brought it up again in your last post.

You have seen me talking about the H.S. would have to proceed from himself " IF YOUR FILIOQUE WAS CORRECT", but NOT as I beleive in such a thing.
Again if you read and comprehend “WHY” I brought it up again?
Could it be to counter what my opponenet was trying to convey?

This is why I cannot be Orthodox: They have no definition of what councils are binding.

All of the Seven E.C are binding, the eighth is also binding BUT it is not recognised as Ecumenical by all, again since the RCC decided to pull out of it few centuries down the road, so one Church might say since Rome is no longer part of the Church it shouldnt affect the status of the Council as being or not an"Ecumenical" where the another might say ( and for hope of peace and reunion one day) might say that it is not Ecumenical because one of the Pentarchy Churches is not in it any more, So, as you see it is only how one Church might look at it.

the following is from a RC theologian and a speaker:

" Catholic theologians recognizes a total of 21 Ecumenical councils (there is no officially binding list) the last fourteen of which took place in the West. The Eastern Orthodox recognize only these first seven as being truly ecumenical or universal since they happened before the eastern and western patriarchates were rent by the thousand-year schism which has yet to be healed. For Catholic theologians, a council is deemed ecumenical if it is approved and recognized by the pope to be such. The Orthodox require that a council be approved by the Patriarchs of Rome (the Pope), Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem to be authentically ecumenical. This is known as the theory of the Pentarchy, or government by the five ancient patriarchates. These ancient councils, besides their important doctrinal definitions, also promulgated canons or laws governing the discipline of the churches (e.g., liturgical laws, etc.)."
crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/125/THE_FIRST_SEVEN_ECUMENICAL_COUNCILS.html

Are YOUR “E.C.” ( the RCC Ecumenical councils that is) binding on all the Catholics ?.

Councils are binding if they are true.

Hmmm hope you read the above.

However, this idea is just relativism.

Who decides truth?

In your Church?
Your Pope, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to answer this.it is written in your CCC.

without rationalizing In the Orthodox Church it is the Council.

(You would be hard pressed to answer that without falling into the same arguments the Protestants use.)

Not at all, we adhere to what had been taught “from the beginning, by all, and everywhere” this is the creteria for the truth if you will and it exist in harmony with all elements of the Tradition in which it includes the Holy Bible in which it is ranked as the first place in the Tradition.

Of course, this relativism is based on an entire Church of people instead of individuals (like is common today.) In such, it is much more stable. It however, does not surprise me that those who separate themselves from the Church are necessarily relativistic.

Since I do not respond to a text if I dont comprehend it, thus, I will not respond to your text above since I did not comprehend what you mean or whom you are aiming at with it, the Protestant or the Orthodox.
Could you write in a way that we can give a response that is suitable to the Idea. thank you.

 

[George14]

The analogy is nice,but the Filioque says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son as from one source. The analogy doesn’t really work with it . Good imagery though : ).

According to Bishop Ware, he says that Augustine taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son in that the Father gifts this procession of the Spirit to His Son out of His love for His Son and desire to share with Him. This would , as far as I can tell, be a proceeding through the son which is what I beleive is the intention of the Latin theology.

FILIOQUE does not say to me what you interpret here: I see a kind of equality in the use of those words: “proceeds from the Father and the Son.” It does not say “per” but “que.”

I like my own sense of it and am not convinced by what you cite here…is there a CCC ref. for your assertion?

 

[Formosus]

The Council of Lyons and St. Anselm both say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son as if from one source. So even if Augustine is incorrect. This (below)

“So it is my belief that the Holy Spirit is the “spiration”–i.e., SPIRIT – breathed, experienced, or given, or proceeding FROM EACH of the Father and the Son”

can not be because it implies that the Spirit is proceed from two sources and not from one. I am sorry I do not have time right now to dig through denzinger’s, the Catechism , Anselm or Augustine’s work on the Trinity BUT I will get back to you on that some time tomorrow.

 

[JohnVIII]

Unity must proceed from one (The Father). A belief in the filioque leads a person first to think that unity proceeds from two (The Father and the Son); and when this fails the Trinity is turned upside down and unity then proceeds from the Holy Spirit. As in the Western prayer: “. . . Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, one God, world without end.” It is almost as if the Holy Spirit restores the unity of the Godhead that was lost via the filioque!

 

[Ignatios]

Oh, I got it several posts ago. I did not mean all of the Fathers, I didn’t mean all or most of the Fathers, not even most of the Western Fathers. If you want to continue to insist that I meant something I didn’t, then that’s your prerogative. Just understand that you aren’t addressing anything I argued.

Sigh! the highlighted blue is what I told you in prior post, and now after three or four times you admit it but you deny it what a paradox.
tdgesq earlier in post 696:

I disagree with you that Catholics and the*** Fathers ***mean that the Holy Spirit only proceeds temporally through (or from) the Son. The Holy Spirit proceeds eternally through the Son as well.Post 696 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4265720&postcount=696

Ignatiosin post#737:

For the third time, I didnt say that you said “most” Please pleeeeeeeease reeeeeeead …And, when I said “you mean” that meant only to correct you in a nice way, sigh… That is why I said “you mean” " MOST" because in your first statement you said " the Fathers" that would mean all of the Fathers, this is the last time I would waist my time on this
hope you got it now. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4350072&postcount=737

Sheesh, Now I know how the fathers of the Church felt like when they went to discuss an issue with the Latins, poor things.

1. Revisionist history at its worst. It was Patriarch Michael I that condemned the west for the use of unleavened bread among other things. 2) The Pope died two months before the “papal” bull was delivered by Humbert, unsigned by Pope Leo. Humbert didn’t even have ecclesiastical authority to publish such a document. 3) And it contained all kinds of things for which the East supposedly was at fault for, including the removal of the filioque from the Nicene Creed. An obvious historical untruth on the part of Humbert as the filioque was added later. 4) I don’t deny that Humbert was wrong. 5)But for you to characterize this as a blow up over the filioque is wishful thinking.

we shall see who the" Revisionist" is IN DEED.

1. I said “schism” not “condemnation”, That is what we are discussing now “the schism” that is again NOT the “condemnation”, who keeps saying that the strawman is not alive? , he is very well and is coming now in different shapes and colors too.
   Explanation of the word “strawman” “A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[1] To “set up a straw man,” one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent’s actual view, yet is easier to refute. Then, one attributes that position to the opponent.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
   One can find the above explanation to be present vividly throughout your postings.
   READ and COMPREHEND equally.
2. Again this means that your church accepted and followed and held on to an unauthorized bull(excommunication document “ the schism”), which is a grave sin especially if it is unauthoritized as you testified.
   So there goes your arguments down the Drain, you refuted yourself.
3. thank you for acknowledging this. and that is what I have said in the past post.
4. which it means that your church was wrong since he was the representative of it. If not then it would have been obvious in the recorded history that your church rejected his action and the schism would not have been, at least in that time at that incident.
   BUT, they did not, instead, they adopted and endorsed that invalid bull and they accepted it, therefore it is stain on your church, and not only a major blow.
5. I never characterized as a blow to the Filioque, it is you who unrelentingly trying to “set up a strawman”, However, the blow was to your church on the ground of creating the schism that could have been avoided if your church rejected the documents of Humbert instead of accepting it since it was an unauthorized according to you, In which it bring us back to, that the schism over the Filioque (mainly) was the initiative of your church, besides other minor issues that is, and that the Greeks did not whish for the schism over a theologoumenon, as we see when we read the history where one of the Greeks clergy followed Humbert down the street begging him to take the bull back. >>> *" … They placed a Bull of Excommunication upon the altar and marched out once more. As he passed through the western door, the Cardinal shook the dust from his feet with the words: ‘Let God look and judge.’ A deacon ran out after him in great distress and begged him to take back the Bull. Humbert refused; and it was dropped in the street. " *stpaulsirvine.org/html/TheGreatSchism.htm
6. Now do you agree that your church is the one took the first step in that schism? Or not? According to the recorded history, and not your “revision” of history that is.

continue …

 

[Ignatios]

… Continued

“On July 16, 1054, tired of waiting for an audience,he placed a document of Anathema or excommunication on the altar of Hagia Sophia. The document was only supposed to apply the patriarch and those who supported him. The reason cited for the excommunication was the removal of the Filioque from the Creed (which was never in there in the first places), the practice of married clergy (which had been a part of both churches’ traditions since the earliest times) and divergent liturgical practices (which the East had always followed). In response, Patriarch Michael drew up a list of Latin abuses and issued a Bull of Excommunication against them after a synod of Bishops on July 20. This was in turn supported by the other Patriarchates and the division was complete.”lasvegasorthodox.com/library/history/articles/Schism-The_Great_Schism_of_1054.htm
You can look up also your “catholic encyclopedia” or any link you wish, they all testify to the same thing, that your church excommunicated first that is, if you are not satisfied with this one.
Now, it seems like the “revisionist” word apply to, by deed and not only false accusations.

Actually, Humbert didn't have any such authority anymore as a legate of Pope Leo.  On the other hand, Micheal deserved to be excommunicated for condemning the West for using unleavened bread.  **Patriarch Micheal struck** ( trying to play on words here huh? by using the word "struck" instead of excommunicate:D ) first no matter how you slice it.  There would still be schism regardless of what took place in 1054 - **and it wasn't over the filioque.**  (*emphesis are mine*)

The primary causes of the Schism were disputes over papal authority – the Roman Pope claimed he held authority over the four Eastern patriarchs, while the four eastern patriarchs claimed that the primacy of the Patriarch of Rome was only honorary, and thus he had authority only over Western Christians – **and over the insertion of the filioque clause into the Nicene Creed. **There were other, less significant catalysts for the Schism, including variance over liturgical practices and conflicting claims of jurisdiction. italia.multiply.com/journal/item/28/Christian_Church_-_The_Great_Schism

The primary causes of the Schism were disputes over papal authority—Pope Leo IX claimed he held authority over the four Eastern patriarchs—and over the insertion of the filioque clause into the Nicene Creed by the Western Church. answers.com/topic/schism-great

. There were other matters at issue as well, but the row over ‘the filioque clause’ led to the Great Schism of 1054. bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/trinity_6.shtml
1054 THE FIFTH (GREAT) SCHISM: Differences come to a head as Cardinal Humbertus, Papal legate of Leo IX excommunicates Patriarch Michael Cerularius and all his communicates (something he does without Papal approval, since Pope Leo had died shortly before). The Patriarch, in turn, excommunicates Humbertus and his fellow Papal delegates.
davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/timeline_history_of_catholic_orthodox_relations.htm

It was the fusion of the filioque controversy with the rise of papal power that created the great crisis of 1054. mb-soft.com/believe/txc/gschism.htm
The primary causes of the Great Schism were the dispute over the authority of the Western papacy to make rulings affecting the whole Church, and specifically the Pope’s insertion of the filioque clause into the Nicene Creed. newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/East-West_Schism

But the most serious concern was that the Latin church had added the word “filoque” to the Nicene creed, saying the Holy Spirit proceeded from both Father and Son.chi.gospelcom.net/DAILYF/2001/07/daily-07-06-2001.shtml

****The filioque controversy emerged as a major issue during the so-called Photian schism of the seventh century and later became one of the causes of the Great Schism of 1054, which created a lasting break between the Catholic and Orthodox faiths.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Filioque_clause

However “your revision” of the history does not agree with above.
According to all the historians above it is either you who is the revisionist or it is the many different Historians, Including Orthodox, RCs, and Protestants, oh, I know I know it is the historians but never ever it is you, Or wait let me put it the way you do, " I didnt mean that, I agree with all the above, but it was not over the filioque, Yes I find the above to be true, but what I meant is…, or my point is… !!! " loool

 

[Ignatios]

And I am equally sorry that yours doesn’t. If you want to ignore the actions of Patriarch Micheal, so be it. Humbert without ecclesiastical authority issued the bull of excommunication later. Micheal then excommunicated the legates, including Humbert. The Church upheld the excommunication against the Patriarch, and rightfully so in my opinion. There’s plenty of blame to go around on who took the “first step” towards schism.

Never mind your opinion, you didn’t give facts from history to back up your claims which is evidently false, if there was a factual history evidence, you would have put it forth, but as always, you deny by saying, “ it doesn’t it is not … “ .
Again the Patriarch’s action has reason which I am not to get into it now and give you a chance to divert the discussion that you know you have lost. ( But, just to give you an example such as the Latins forcing the Orthodox of Italy in that time to exercise the Latin rite such as the Unleavened bread etc…), but the subject is not here, it is that the RCC is the one who issued the excommunication first on the ground, primary of the Papal Authority and the Filioque. Period . as I have proved to you from many sources in the above whether Orthodox , RCs or protestant. You are not going to get around this one. “ don’t matter how you slice it”, So , away with your strawman games.
Compare the two of your statement and watch how much confusions you have in your history revisions and/or play games on words:
1)Patriarch Micheal struck first no matter how you slice it.
2) There’s plenty of blame to go around on who took the “first step” towards schism.

My point is, I find it unlikely that the East never heard of the filioque before the twelfth century….

loool, ok, I see “your point” clearly, and it sounds more like you are beating the drums of retreat from this one.
Oh they heard of the Filioque, I didn’t contest to that, ( like always you trying to divert things to a point where it is not the issue at hand in order or hope to claim some victory that it is based on other than what is at hand) as a matter fact I told before that the earliest record for this issue was that of saint Maximos the confessorin concerning the Filioque in the seventh century. AGAIN you fall off under the light of truth.

…It is only much later that we find that the filioque became this burning issue upon which the West must now be viewed as heretical.

Augustine was not all that recognizable by the East, So they didn’t rely on his theology as you may know, and as I showed before that when the Greeks found out about the “Filioque” they requested an explanation, So this was the first step, which is appropriate do you disagree? And then when the Filioque unfolded and the Latins started to make more statement and definition of that word things got worse, the Filioque Issue went through about 3 or 4 different stages, and right now it is going through another as we speak. But thanks be to GOD that the present one is more Orthodox or at least in line with the Most of the Church Fathers.

I did. Multiple times. You wouldn’t deal with them.

yes you did but not once showing where is the Filiqoue.
That is the FILIOQUE=Lt. And the SON, speaking of the “PROCESSION” that is THEEEEE “P-R-O-C-S-S-I-O-N” In Greek this would be the word “ “EKPOREUESTHAI” NOT the word “PROREINAI” FROM THE Father and the SON
Because as you may know that those two Greek words have a different meaning unlike the Latin which both are interpreted as “PROCEED”. So your challenge would be the Greek since you are saying that the Greek fathers had taught it “the Filioque” that is.
Good luck. Take your time.

I didn’t rely upon this quote from Gregory of Nazianzus. He doesn’t say through the Son, but neither does he deny it. I agree with him that the Spirit runs its course from the Father

loool, OOO, what happened you stroked his name from the Cappadocian Fathers, why you did not rely on him? he is a Doctor in the RCC where saint Gregory of Nyssa is not in either of the two churches, did you try to find out what is the reason behind this? Try it you will be surprised, maybe.
Since you agree with him that the H.S. runs its course FROM the FATHER, according to him in the above that the H.S. runs ITS course from the FATHER , and also the SON runs HIS course from the FATHER, he didn’t say anything else, if there was a Filioque as your church claims it in their mind, then how come we don’t see it, If they believed in it or even if it existed in their mind, then they would have taught it , but they didn’t.
And as I told before, If they didn’t deny it, it is not a proof that they believed in it, in order for you to run to such conclusion you must proof first that it existed in their writings, for if it existed ( for good or bad) then we would have read about it and then one may be able to make a conclusion about it whether it is that they denied it or accepted it, but they didn’t even mention it as your church claims it to be. Lets give you an example without rationalization, If you cant find in their writing that you must not worship satan, that it doesn’t mean that you can worship him May GOD forgive us from those words, we do not believe in such things, †††, I believe In the MOST HOLY TRINITY and HIM alone I worship adore and bow down to.

 

[Ignatios]

No you wouldn’t, as this prolonged debate has made apparent. There are posters here of the eastern persuasion that admit the Spirit coming through the Son eternally is patristic in the East. It is a little bit hard to deny, well, unless you claim Fathers like Gregory Nyssa are wrong. Or if you ignore Cyril of Alexandria because he isn’t a Cappadocian. You pick and choose the Fathers and their writings that you like and ignore the rest.

loool what is it now ? you are going to speak for me? How do you know that I wouldn’t settle if you don’t bring forth proof? The only proof you gave so far that, you don’t have any proof.
Anyhow you already gave forth your answer to that in post#712, which it was NO, but you remembered your pride now and that is why you are trying to paddle back. Never mind.
The Spirit coming through the Son eternally, but not as “EKPOREUESTHAI” the key here is the word “through” Filioque is from not through…
As for Gregory of Nyssa I didn’t say that he is wrong in this matter ONLY if you take his writing within context and appropriately translated or interpreted, as I have proved many times before despite attempts to deny them since they refute you utterly. Such as in my answer to ghosty concerning Greg. Of Nyssa.
Now as for Cyril of Alexandria I didn’t ignore him this one either, it is you who keep trying to say that I ignore them and I keep responding and giving my proves time after time, Go, look back in Posts # 707/709 and you going to find out that it is you may have got stricken by amnesia.
Since St. Cyril is not the one who defined the understanding and is not used as reference to the understanding of the Most Holy Trinity and in particularly the Filioque in the N. Creed, I don’t see why I should elaborate on his writing.
However I still don’t understand how can someone leave St Gregory out of the discussion when speaking of the Cappadocian Fathers as you have been trying to avoid, wonder why? Hhhmmm.

The answer is “no” because “filioque” is a Latin term, so it would not be used by the Greeks

This is turning in to a comedy, of course it would not be used by Greeks literally besides who is speaking about whether they used the word “filioque” Literally in the Greek, we are speaking about the definition of that word, sigh, how silly. As always when you get refuted or don’t have an answer you throw in just any respond, just to respond.

Yes, every answer is silly unless it agrees with your conclusion. I wasn’t particularly interested in discussing patristics. The genesis of this debate was a discussion with another poster who claimed that eternal procession through the Son destroyed the Incarnation. You wanted Cappadocian Fathers, and you got them, although not to your liking.

Silly answer has nothing to do with agreeing or not, it is the absurdity of the answer itself what makes it silly.
What kind of answer it is when you question why I didn’t provide the proof before the allegations that is, in order for one to put forth a proof there must be a reason for it, and what you did is that you put the horses before the wagon, that is what silly about your answer.
Actually not to the liking of the subject at hand, I asked for the Procession from the Father and the Son as defined by the RCC and you gave me the “through” and in another part you gave what they meant by the word proceed “ PROEINAI” and not “EKPOREUESTHAI”.

 

[Ignatios]

Then what was it meant to address if not that Gregory of Nyssa was wrong concerning the eternal relationship of the Spirit and the Son? I’m wondering why you brought it up.

I have explained it to you, why you keep asking the same thing?
I brought it up to remind you since you are taking “every” word as it is Scriptures, where it is not, they were not infallible don’t you agree?
And in particularly St Greg. Of Nyssa since he had some origenist (without rationalizing this word) in some of his idesa as many scholars say ( Go find out why he is the only one out of the Cappadocian fathers that is not considered as “doctor “ of your church).

Look, was St. Gregory wrong or wasn’t he? If he has just been misinterpreted as you suggest, then give us what he truly meant as opposed to what he clearly says.

That Subject is not relative to the subject at hand. BUT, if you like me to give you a study about him, then that is fine I will be more than glad to do so, but this subject is a study and cannot be addressed in a post or three. Would you like to get into this one? If yes let me know.

Then don’t argue logical impossibility. I’m fine with looking at Scripture. We won’t apply any logic (insofar as that is even possible.) Let’s see how well you fared with “eternally begotten of the Father.”

IT IS YOU who had been arguing about the “logical impossibility” and then you turn around and say to me not to argue about it, BOY loooool
As for the Scriptures, How about John 1:1-2 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
John1: 10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not… 14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth… 29The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
I don’t think any one who claim to be Christian would not submit to those verses as an undeniable proof that the CHRIST JESUS is the eternally begotten of the FATHER.
Beside there is a plenty of other verses that it makes it just as clear that HE is The Eternal begotten. Take for an example the word Trinity, it doesn’t exist in the bible, but if we look we find it being expressed throughout the Bible from the O.T and the N.T. as well. Is that acceptable? Of course it is, as they say “if it walks, quack, fly, swim, looks like a duck then it is a duck”.
Could you have doubt from those verses that they implies anything other than HE is the Eternal begotten of the FATHER? Of course NOT no one who calls himself Christian would say NO.
Now back to my first question. Show me from the Scriptures that the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and the SON, or a doubtless reference that He Proceed “Ekporeuesthai” from the FATHER and the SON “eternally , or even anything that would relate to the “Procession” of the Spirit “from” the FATHER ” and ” the SON and not “through” the SON. “Ekporeuesthai” that is, and put an end to this “ games” by presenting a valid reason.

John 16:15 given to you once here explicitly in the context of “through the Son” from Cyril:

You disagree with Cyril of Alexandria’s biblical basis that "Just as the Son says ‘All that the Father has is mine’ [John 16:15], so shall we find that through the Son it is all also in the Spirit.” forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=713

Given to you again here:

How about John 16:15, which Cyril of Alexandria specifically cites when he declares: “Just as the Son says ‘All that the Father has is mine’ [John 16:15], so shall we find that through the Son it is all also in the Spirit” (Letters 3:4:33 [A.D. 433]). You may continue to reject the Fathers and their interpretation of Scripture, but I will not. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=703

I have responded to this twice and you ignored it twice, so far.
Maybe it was too much for you to handle?
Ok then, let me try to simplify it for you the best that it can be simplified.

 

[Ignatios]

1. WHERE in the above do you see anything about the “PROCESSION” = “Ekporeuesthai” of the Holy Spirit from the FATHER and the SON. What had been emphasized in the above is, that the THREE has the same possession or content, and definitely not the definition of the Eternal Procession of the Spirit.
2. According to St.Cyril’s text, It is obvious that he is speaking about, what “all” that the FATHER “HAS”, and then HE said “ IS MINE” this is an Attribute, what ever the FATHER “HAS” so does the SON also the Holy Spirit.
3. Now, unless you are ready to admit that the Holy Spirit is an attribute ( May GOD the Holy Spirit forgive us from saying such words, but we say just to clearify things and not that we believe in such but on the contrary we reject) and NOT a “PERSON”
4. Or, unless again, you are ready to confess that the “all” word, is to include the “FATHERHOOD” which it would be both absurdity and heresy. “The son is everything the FATHER is, HE is not FATHER, and the FATHER would fall short of being Son He is not Son.” St. Gregory the Theologian .
   What you are implying in the above quote from St.Cyril is waaaaay out of the line of what the Greek fathers understood GOD is, your Filioque loses the distictness of the three Hypostasis within the single nature and quality of the GODHEAD.
5. “ so shall we find that through the Son IT IS ALSO IN THE SPIRIT.” Saint Cyril said, what does it mean?
   The passage here actually it does not support your implication, because it is clear evidence that St.Cyril is telling that the SPIRIT is Equal to the SON and the FATHER since all that the SON has is of the FATHER and likewise all that the Spirit has from the FATHER is HIS through the SON also, he is not speaking about the procession of the Holy Spirit, now again what is that, that St. Cyril is speaking about that is also in the Spirit? Whatever that is, is the same as in all the THREE of them? To say that it is the Procession of the Spirit that he was referring to, and to put it in a way to support the Filioque term, then the Passage would have been “ so shall we find that from the SON also the Holy Spirit Proceed (Ekporeuesthai) “ …
   The above passage of St. Cyril is fully Orthodox , I agree with it 1000%. And it doesn’t support your claim in the Filioque Issue.

Then all of these words introduce time as well: “from, through, begotten, proceeds, coming.” There cannot be action without time, yet we still understand them to be meant eternally. St. Gregory states: “Through the Son and with the Father, immediately . . . .” The term “immediately” applies to the relation of the Spirit to the Father as well as the Son. Do you hold that the term “immediately” is also meant temporally with relation to the Father? If you want to hold that the same word – the exact same word – is meant eternally as to the Father yet temporally as to the Son, then show us where Gregory suggests such a thing.

The word “before” also references the Father, not just the Son. The word “perceived” references the Father as well. If he is speaking in temporal terms as to the Son, then I suppose he must have been speaking of a temporal relationship between the Spirit and the Father too. You don’t accept that, so show us where St. Gregory suggests that the exact same term is to be applied eternally to the Father but not to the Son.

Here is how the quote continues, so we can see just what St. Gregory intends by his use of the terms “immediately” and “before”:
[A]nd through the Son and yet with Him, before any vague and unsubstantial conception comes in between, the Holy Spirit is found at once in closest union; not subsequent in existence to the Son, as if the Son could be thought of as ever having been without the Spirit; but Himself also owning the same cause of His being, i.e. the God over all, as the Only-begotten Light, and having shone forth in that very Light, being divisible neither by duration nor by an alien nature from the Father or from the Only-begotten. There are no intervals in that pre-temporal world: and difference on the score of being there is none. It is not even possible, comparing the uncreate with the uncreated, to see differences; and the Holy Ghost is uncreate, as we have before shown.
newadvent.org/fathers/290101.htm

Gregory explicitly states he is discussing pre-temporal concepts. It is apparent that “immediately” and “before” and “perceived” – used in connection with both the Father and the Son – are meant to convey the notion of eternity, not the opposite! The game is over on your exegesis.

Boy, loool you are trying so hard to lure me away from where you know you are going have a hard time by engaging me into something that you can defeat, like I said before, what is in your mind shall never happen.
From, through, begotten, proceed, coming, all depends on what context they come in, to give you an example, take the word through we find it some times being accorded to the Father another to the Spirit and another to the SON. And like wise the word from and so on so forth.
Such expression like the listed words above are not free from temporal implications however much we try to wrest them. So, therefore one must take them within context, look what is being said in the whole Paragraph or sentence.
When it comes to certain translation or/and interpretation of some historical theological passages, things even gets more difficult since you are dealing now with languages cultures customs traditions way of thoughts thinking, and it does even get further difficult when your own language is not an expressive language to begin with and is problematic in theology in Particular when you are trying to understand the Greek mind, language, customs, their ways of talking, expressing things, so on so forth
.