OK, tell me what you think of this filioque formulation

[Formosus]

Formosus I appreciate your attention and willingness to educate me about this. My view of how the temporal and eternal states relate may be at fault.
Why isn’t the temporal procession considered the eternal procession made visible? If we see that the Spirit proceeds through the Son temporally why doesn’t that confirm for us the pattern that happens eternally?

The temporal procession can be viewed as a visible form of the eternal, but the distinction between temporal and eternal still needs to be made because it was eternally occurring before the visible temporal procession occurred.

 

[Ignatios]

I’m sorry, Ignatios, but this analysis is nonsense.

I would be sorry also if I had used the same way of interpreting things as you do and trying to make Saint Gregory of Nyssa a Filioque teacher, you have better chance of proving that CHRIST is GOD and MAN and the second Person of the Trinity out of the Qoran, Any respectable RC theologian or Scholar that his thoughts counts, never approach this one, as a matter of fact that is why the RCC is moving away from the Filioque issue slowly but surely.

However, the above statement coming out of you makes lots of sense and is of no surprise, knowing the way you take things out of context and then replace them in your own words and your prefixed thoughts in order to make them what they are not.

Now, of to shed some light on your senses.

St. Gregory clearly says that the Son is interposed between the Father and the Holy Spirit.

And rightly so, If the SON is the second Person of the Trinity than HE must be interposed between the FATHER and the Holy Spirit, since there is three Persons, actually your quote above agree with what I have said in my earlier post, that St. Gregory is making a distinction to signify the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity, 1) the Cause2) of the Cause 3) that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction, therefore FATHER, SON and HOLY SPIRIT, this is the Order of the Persons of the Holy Trinity.
Now, tell me where do you find the Filioque in the above, all we find in the Filioque two distinction i.e. FATHER and SON is one distinction and the Holy Spirit is another distinction, that makes them 2 distinction, where there should be three distinction as St. Gregory showed us in the above quote, therefore the Filioque confuses the distinction of the three Persons.

He also says that the Holy Spirit is “from that which is directly from the Cause”, which means from the Son as he defines “directly from the Cause” as being the Son. If he was saying that the Holy Spirit was “directly from the Cause”, and was not placing the Son in between, he would have said so. Instead he says in numerous ways that the Holy Spirit is from the Son.

1)The from here is not to denote Procession(ekporeuesthai) The Greek is clear as the sun concerning this.
2) ONLY for the sake of argument, let us pretend that it is what you are trying to imply, but then, what? Where do you see the Filioque in that??? The above is saying that the H.S. is from the SON, where the Filioque says that the H.S. is from both the FATHER and the SON as one and NOT the SON only as we see from the text of St. Gregory. Yes I would be sorry if I was you indeed, ghosty.

He says that both are from the Father, but that the Son is directly from the Father, and the Holy Spirit not directly;

Again he is speaking of the Persons of the Trinity, he is making a “distinction” to safeguard each Person, if he had said that both are from the FATHER and then stopped he wouldn’t have been accomplished his distinction of the three, can’t you see, both Churches agree that there is Three PERSONS, again, the first is the FATHER and the Second is the SON and the Third is the Holy Spirit, how can you keep ignoring this, AND if you read the whole text where you got this quote from you will find that he is speaking of the PERSONS of the Most Holy TRINITY, again, when you are speaking of the M.H.Trinity there is an order for the persons and the H.S. is the third after the SON , please go back and read it before you start making your own conclusion or would you like me to post it for you?

But when he speaks of the procession he says it explicitly I posted it in prior post, here it is again, , “searching the deep things of God,” “proceeding from the Father,” “receiving λαμβανόμενον from the Son,”

he even goes so far as to say that this formulation is what guards the Son as being only-Begotten, implying that if the Holy Spirit were also “directly from the Father” there would be two Begotten. Peace and God bless!

Uuuh, It is you who is implying things into St. Gregory’s text.
But again, where is the Filioque in any of the above, Filioque is:
Vatican I, 1869-70, Dogmatic Constitution on the Principal Mysteries of the Faith …the Holy Spirit proceeds, not by a multiplication of the essence, but he proceeds by a communication of the same singular essence by one eternal spiration from the Father and the Son as from one principle.

I must go now
GOD bless you all †††
stephraim I will get back to you on your last, GOD willing.

 

[Ghosty]

Now, tell me where do you find the Filioque in the above, all we find in the Filioque two distinction i.e. FATHER and SON is one distinction and the Holy Spirit is another distinction, that makes them 2 distinction, where there should be three distinction as St. Gregory showed us in the above quote, therefore the Filioque confuses the distinction of the three Persons.

He says that the third distinction is that there is a Person from the Person who is from the Father. It is plain as day, and requires no gymnastics, but you keep leaving this portion out when you cite the passage:

we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause*, and another by that which is directly from the first Cause***

The Holy Spirit is “by the Son”, plain and simple.

1)The from here is not to denote Procession(ekporeuesthai) The Greek is clear as the sun concerning this.

Ekporeuesthai doesn’t mean Procession, however. Proinai means Procession. There is no English (or Latin) translation of ekporeuesthai.

1. ONLY for the sake of argument, let us pretend that it is what you are trying to imply, but then, what? Where do you see the Filioque in that??? The above is saying that the H.S. is from the SON, where the Filioque says that the H.S. is from both the FATHER and the SON as one and NOT the SON only as we see from the text of St. Gregory. Yes I would be sorry if I was you indeed, ghosty.

You need to read the rest of the passage in question:

and the interposition of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father.

So He is still “from the Father”, but He is also “from the Son” since He is “by the Son”.

Again he is speaking of the Persons of the Trinity, he is making a “distinction” to safeguard each Person, if he had said that both are from the FATHER and then stopped he wouldn’t have been accomplished his distinction of the three, can’t you see, both Churches agree that there is Three PERSONS, again, the first is the FATHER and the Second is the SON and the Third is the Holy Spirit, how can you keep ignoring this, AND if you read the whole text where you got this quote from you will find that he is speaking of the PERSONS of the Most Holy TRINITY, again, when you are speaking of the M.H.Trinity there is an order for the persons and the H.S. is the third after the SON , please go back and read it before you start making your own conclusion or would you like me to post it for you?

But he’s not just speaking of Order, but of relation of origin. He says as much at the beginning of the passage in question. If it were merely about Order you would have a point, but his language does not support such a view.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ignatios]

He says that the third distinction

Third Distinction, The Third Distinction … Please explain what the Third Distinction means…The word Distinction does NOT mean Proceed from, here is a clear sign that he is trying to signify the” Distinction” between the Three PERSONS, rather than, the Procession in which what you are trying to make it sounds like.

Note the word “THIRD”, Now, in the Filioque there is No Third Distinction, there is only two distinction, Again Please show me where is the Filioque in the above?

… is that there is a Person from the Person who is from the Father.

First, Please if you going to quote from a text, I think you should use the text as is instead of giving it a spin of your own words.

The Text from Saint Gregory does not say as you have mentioned above:

“…is that there is a Person from the Person who is from the Father”

he did not say about the LORD the Holy Spirit† that he is “FROM” The LORD the SON†, But he says:

”… that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction.”

And in another passage he says:

“one is directly from the first Cause, and another by that which is directly from the first Cause…”

Note the word “ …another by that …” Now as you may not know in the Greek language the words “by” “through” and “via” …are the same with along few (5 or six more) words that they mean the same thing. And to some extend in the English as well I believe.

So the above it really should be interpreted as through instead of by, since we find the “through the SON” in St. Gregory writing used extensively.

Again here he is stressing the manner of existence of each of THEM, in order to denote to the existence of THREE PERSONS,

Please Note also, the manner of existence is not “HOW”, but giving their status (if you will) of existence.

It is plain as day, and requires no gymnastics,

Hhhmmmm….looking at your statement above and then reading your understanding of St. Gregory’s writing…well… I think that I need lots of lights and a professional trainor to coach me on gymnastics.

but you keep leaving this portion out when you cite the passage

I don’t, but you want to leave everything else out or give them no significance and then stress this passage and stretch it out in order to make a Filioque out of it.
Now and Again, where do you see the Filioque in that particular Passage?

The Holy Spirit is “by the Son”, plain and simple.

Hallelujah, as long as the word “by” is “through” which is an Eastern Formula and not the Filioque.

Ekporeuesthai doesn’t mean Procession however. Proinai means Procession. There is no English (or Latin) translation of ekporeuesthai.,

Sorry for disregarding your comprehension. Next time I will be more careful.

I did not use it to translate the Proceed word but to denote that the Holy Spirit exclusively derive/Proceed from the Father alone and not to be taking as proienai, for as you may not know that Greeks made a clear distinction between the two words, where it lacks in the English.

… .

OOO thank you very much for your photo, Now I can imagine your face behind your text, namely, a face with an open mouth and nothing of value coming out of it.
Relax I am kiddin you.

So He is still “from the Father”, but He is also “from the Son” since He is “by the Son”.

Please rush to me a pro. gymnastics coach, I’m all tangled up now, …lol…
From the father but yet From the SON but yet because HE is by/through the SON.

But he’s not just speaking of Order, but of relation of origin. He says as much at the beginning of the passage in question. If it were merely about Order you would have a point, but his language does not support such a view. Peace and God bless!

He ( St. Gregory) touches on multiple things in his writings, But the main subject is the PERSONS and in order to speak of the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity† it is certain that you must speak about Their orders, manner of existence, Nature, etc, as we saw in his writings, actually it is throughout his writing let me give you one of them just one of them that is to assert that he was not speaking of the Procession and mostly that he was not teaching the Filioque that you still yet to show us from his writing:
… every deed and thought, whether in this world, or beyond this world, whether in time or in eternity,the Holy Spirit is to be apprehended as joined to the Father and Son, and is wanting in no wish or energy, or anything else that is implied in a devout conception of Supreme Goodness; and, therefore, that, except for the distinction of order and Person, no variation in any point is to be apprehended; but we assert that while His place is counted third in mere sequence after the Father and Son, third in the order of the transmission, in all other respects we acknowledge His inseparable union with them…

Finally, we have not seen one single proof that St. Gregory had taught the Filioque of the RCC simply because it doesn’t exist.
GOD bless you all†††

 

[Leo_The_Great]

Nope.

O my Gosh! I just realized the Answer:

           The Roman Catholic Church has produced infallible declarations at ecumenical Councils! To which every Catholic, including the eastern ones are subject! What an amazing idea. :)

The Orthodox…ehh…They are right in what they do affirm but wrong in what they do not affirm. They are not explaining the clear meaning; They are explaining it away!

Plenty of Orthodox saints affirmed the filioque, like the entire latin patristic tradition up unitl 1054…so…Why dost thou protest? You could live with it then, why can’t you deal with it now?

 

[Formosus]

Nope.

O my Gosh! I just realized the Answer:

           The Roman Catholic Church has produced infallible declarations at ecumenical Councils! To which every Catholic, including the eastern ones are subject! What an amazing idea. :)

The Orthodox…ehh…They are right in what they do affirm but wrong in what they do not affirm. They are not explaining the clear meaning; They are explaining it away!

Plenty of Orthodox saints affirmed the filioque, like the entire latin patristic tradition up unitl 1054…so…Why dost thou protest? You could live with it then, why can’t you deal with it now?

That’s not an answer. That sort of appeal to authority isn’t going to solve anything and just comes off as western hubris. And which Ecumenical councils do you mean? There is no infallible list of Ecumenical Councils in west. I also think that it would be hard to prove every western father approved of the filioque up to 1054, when very clearly two Pope Leos had reservations concerning it (Leo III engraving the filioqueless creed in Silver plates in Rome after being challenged on it by the Franks, and Leo VIII’s support of the anti-filioque council of Constantinople that reinstated St. Photios as Patriarch).

 

[Ignatios]

Nope.

O my Gosh! I just realized the Answer:

           The Roman Catholic Church has produced infallible declarations at ecumenical Councils! To which every Catholic, including the eastern ones are subject! What an amazing idea. :)

1)It would be helpful if you bring up those declarations of the RCC and in what Ecumenical Council, and post them so we can shed some light on them.

1. who do you mean by the Eastern, is it the Eastern Catholics that are subject to them or the Eastern Orthodox?

The Orthodox…ehh…They are right in what they do affirm but wrong in what they do not affirm. They are not explaining the clear meaning; They are explaining it away!

Could you please sermon on that further and provide us a way to answer. what is that we affirm and what is that we do not affirm, how is it we are right and how is it we are wrong, and then maybe you can suggest to us how should we explain the clear meaning.

Plenty of Orthodox saints affirmed the filioque,

When you say Orthodox Saints do you mean Saints from the East, if so, are you able to provide names and what they said.

like the entire latin patristic tradition up unitl 1054…so…Why dost thou protest? You could live with it then, why can’t you deal with it now?

I can give you quite few names, But I see that Formosus provided a couple, and only with that he put your claim ( …like the entire latin patristic tradition up unitl 1054…) out of commission already, So I will leave this one at that.

GOD bless you all†††

 

[Ghosty]

So the above it really should be interpreted as through instead of by, since we find the “through the SON” in St. Gregory writing used extensively.

Yes, and as has been pointed out many times, “through the Son” is the filioque. The Holy Spirit is not only from the Father, apart from the Son, but eternally with and through the Son.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ignatios]

Yes, and as has been pointed out many times, “through the Son” is the filioque. The Holy Spirit is not only from the Father, apart from the Son, but eternally with and through the Son.

Peace and God bless!

Again and again you are wrong ghosty.

as I have pointed out earlier on this very thread from and according to your own church the RCC that is, what the Filioque is by the same mentioned church forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5939247&postcount=179
“With” the SON and “through” the SON, are not the same as when you say “and from the SON”.
Through the SON is an Eastern formula, and it is NOT the Filioque as defined by the RCC.

you have better chance of melting oil into the water, rather than trying to blend those two together.

"…Catechism of the Catholic Church (the new, official catechism), 248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin [sic] of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father,” it affirms that he [sic] comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). "

And again:

“The 11th Council of Toledo, 675 We also believe that the Holy Spirit, the Third Person in the Trinity is God, and that he [sic] is one and equal with God the Father and God the Son, of one substance as well as of one nature. However, he [sic] is not begotten nor created, but he [sic]* proceeds from both* and is the Spirit of both. We believe that the Holy Spirit is neither unbegotten nor begotten: lest, if we say unbegotten we should be asserting two Fathers; and if we said begotten we should appear to be preaching two Sons. He is called the Spirit, not only of the Father nor only of the Son but equally of the Father and of the Son. He proceeds not from the Father into the Son nor from the Son to sanctify creatures; but he [sic] is shown to have proceeded from both equally, because he [sic] is known as the love or the sanctity of both.”

I think you should do some study about your RCC before you deffend it.

Ghosty the above IS the Filioque according to your own church and it is from your church councils and the official teaching of your church, your opinion is Immaterial and does not go beyond you, and if it does, than, we have another Martin Luther, BUT NOT, the RCC.

GOD bless you all †††

 

[Ghosty]

Ignatios: Read St. Thomas Aquinas’ explaination of the filioque before you go about saying what the belief of the Catholic Church is. It is obvious from your posts, and the constant disagreement from every Catholic who replies to you, that you don’t understand the Catholic teaching of the filioque. Until you do some more study on the matter, and soften your heart to understanding, discussing the matter with you is fruitless. Your posts lack both clarity and charity, and I will not respond to you further until you’ve at least made a clear attempt to learn what the Catholic Church teaches on the issue.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ignatios]

Ignatios: Read St. Thomas Aquinas’ explaination of the filioque before you go about saying what the belief of the Catholic Church is…

I have read Aquinas’s writings, But, the RCC is the one who says what is what Not Aquinas, as you may know that Aquinas was taught by Greek Monks, and NOT all his teaching are inline with the RCC teaching, such as the Immaculate Conception.

Whatever it was that I said about the RCC teaching is not my opinion or of me, but, your own church’s belief as it is listed in the document of the RCC.

I didn’t make anything up.

It is obvious from your posts, and the constant disagreement from every Catholic who replies to you, that you don’t understand the Catholic teaching of the filioque…

Ok then, I will agree with the RCs from now on, this way I will show that I understand the Filioque of your church.!!!

Again I didn’t come up with anything of my own, everything is of the official RCC’s Teachings, councils…etc, Besides give your attacks some weight, they are baseless, why not give proves or examples where or how I misunderstood the RC teachings of the Filioque.

Until you do some more study on the matter,

I have, you did not, the discussion on this thread is clear evidence.

and soften your heart to understanding,

I did more than you think and I went to the RCIA AND almost became RC, because all the thinks that I have heard made lots of sense.
BUT my thanks go to GOD first that he sent my way this convert to Orthodoxy from a Protestant background, that she said few words to me and I started to "study and search"the Orthodox Church and then and only then I became Orthodox and learned that sense, math, wisdom …etc ends where Faith starts, if you want GOD hold on to what had been taught from the beginning, equally, by everybody, equally, everywhere. through the Church.

discussing the matter with you is fruitless.

Now I am truly sorry, for you haven’t seen any of the fruits, may GOD enlighten your mind and open up your heart†, But I am sure that some if not many readers have benefited from this discussion for the glory of JESUS the CHRIST†††

Your posts lack both clarity and charity,

Again why not show your good fruits and charity, and clarify for me what and where I lacked the clarity?

and I will not respond to you further until you’ve at least made a clear attempt to learn what the Catholic Church teaches on the issue.Peace and God bless!

Baseless claim again.

GOD bless you all and forgive me if I offended anyone, I just wish that there was a better way to say the negative things, But, I would rather be guilty of harshness than putting forth a hogwash theology.

†††

 

[Formosus]

Anastasius Bibliothecarius had this to say concerning the Filioque

“…we do not at all say, as they[the Greeks] pretend we do, that the Son is the cause and the principle of the Holy Spirit. On the contrary…we say that the Holy Spirit, while He proceeds from the Father, also proceeds from the Son, understanding this procession as a mission…” (Byzantium and Roman Primacy by Fr. Dvornik pg 12).

I think though, that this definition does not appear to be the same one as the definition proposed at Lyons, though perhaps the definition of Florence could be interpreted in such a way. I think, in some way, that the concept of Mission has been abandoned in the Latin teaching and in this regard I find that Gregory Palamas’ definition as an Eternal Manifestation of the Spirit more accurately captures this 9th century Latin view of the Filioque. Just my two cents.

 

[Ignatios]

Anastasius Bibliothecarius had this to say concerning the Filioque

“…we do not at all say, as they[the Greeks] pretend we do, that the Son is the cause and the principle of the Holy Spirit. On the contrary…we say that the Holy Spirit, while He proceeds from the Father, also proceeds from the Son, understanding this procession as a mission…” (Byzantium and Roman Primacy by Fr. Dvornik pg 12).

I think though, that this definition does not appear to be the same one as the definition proposed at Lyons, though perhaps the definition of Florence could be interpreted in such a way. I think, in some way, that the concept of Mission has been abandoned in the Latin teaching and in this regard I find that Gregory Palamas’ definition as an Eternal Manifestation of the Spirit more accurately captures this 9th century Latin view of the Filioque. Just my two cents.

Dear Formosus,
Greetings and Peace to you, The Filioque was interpreted, understood and spoke of in so many ways by so many saints, theologians, scholars, councils …etc, (And as we speak it is going under another new Interpretation or transformation ( If I may put it in this term) in a way that it will be accepted by the Orthodox Church), however, my contention is not which one of them is the most appropriate one, But, which one does the RCC defines as a dogma, Because in both Churches East and West the Church is the one who has the authority to recognize the correct one ( each Church according to her governing system and point of view) regardless of the individual view, may he be a great Saint or theologian or whatever…

Allow me to post the following piece of history from the Orthodox teachers concerning Saint Gregory of Nyssa about the Purgatory issue in a council between the West and the East to illustrate what I am talking about in the words of the Orthodox Teachers in the Council of Florence:

…Only one Father remains," they continued, “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, especially on such subjects, which have not been examined before or determined upon in a general Council by the Fathers.” The orthodox teachers, when speaking of Gregory, more than once restrict their words by the expression: “if such was his idea,” 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).”

GOD bless you all †††