M
Mickey
Guest
So you are saying that the Latins teach heresy?
- Status
J
jimmy
Guest
Thinking about this idea of the Spirit originating from the Father through the Son, it seems to be a meaningless arguement because it is something that can’t really be argued for or against. What we know is that there is one God and that there are three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The only way we know of the unity of the Spirit with the Son is in an economic sense or in as much as the Son has been revealed by the Spirit. The purpose of the terms begotten in relation to the Son and procession (ekporousin) in relation to the Spirit is simply to emphasize the unity of the Trinity and the Father as the origin or arche of the Trinity. It seems that procession through the Son in an essential manner is something that is impossible to speak about because it is through the life of the Church (through Grace) as Gregory Nazianzen says that the divinity of the Spirit even becomes clear.
J
jimmy
Guest
First, the Coptic Church hasn’t changed any parts of the creed. Whether they say it in the liturgy is a different story. No council required that the creed be said in the liturgy.Dear brother jimmy,
I wonder why it didn’t bother St. Maximos, and the matter was settled for almost 200 years until Patriarch Photius, who didn’t understand Latin, decided to resurrect a dead issue.
Obviously, until Photius’ time, the issue of filioque was properly viewed as a matter within the Western Church that did not affect the Faith of the entire Church. If it was one particular Church deciding the creed for the whole Church, then I can see your point. But that’s not what happened. It was one particular Church making a clarification for that selfsame particular Church. In the Coptic Orthodox Church, the entire Creed is not recited depending on the Liturgical season. Are you going to condemn the Coptic Orthodox Church for making a decision for the entire Church?
As Maximus’ letter indicates it was an issue before Photius’ time. It wasn’t just assumed to be a matter of the west.
I disagree. You are assuming with your arguement that the Spirit is assumed to be divine. The arians on the other hand did not accept the divinity of the Spirit. Consequently the Sons participation in the procession wouldn’t really indicate that the Son is God. But if it is said that the Son does something that is characteristic of the Father then it can be said that He is divine because He does what is of God.
M
mardukm
Guest
We’re talking about the English translation here, correct? So how about asking the Easterns and Orientals to change their translations to properly reflect what ekporeusai means - “originates.” Ekporeusai does NOT mean “proceeds.” That’s a simple and more theologically accurate and honest solution.Ask the Latins to change the creed to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (such as it exists now with the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics). Or ask the Latins to change the creed to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. That would be a great start!!!
Blessings
M
mardukm
Guest
But the Copts remove certain words of the Creed and recite it that way. Lex orandi, lex credendi. The question is, are the removal of those words changing the FAITH of Copts? Do you seriously think any Copt will say that the words being removed means their Faith in those words have changed? That’s the whole point of the prescriptions against changing the Creed. It wasn’t against changing the mere text. It was against changing the FAITH. More importantly, does the fact that such a LOCAL liturgical change occurs mean that the Copts have changed the Creed for the entire Church?
So I ask you again, why did it not result in a split between the East and West in Maximus’ own time? The spiritual fruit of understanding maybe? Perhaps the EO should exercise that same spiritual fruit today?
I’m not assuming anything about the divinity of the Spirit. I’m talking about the fact that the participation occurs IN ETERNITY. One cannot participate in an ETERNAL action (i.e., the Eternal procession), unless one is divine.
But thank you for bringing up the issue of the divinity of the Holy Spirit. In truth, “Arianism” was, in those days, the catchphrase for all sorts of heresies regarding the Godhead. Arius was considered the father of all heresies, even Pneumatological heresies.
Blessings.
H
Harpazo
Guest
Aye!A first step toward unity would be very simple on this issue. There would be no need for all the double talk and theological hoop jumping that you and Ghosty are always putting forth in your long dissertations. Here is the answer:
Ask the Latins to change the creed to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (such as it exists now with the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics). Or ask the Latins to change the creed to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. That would be a great start!!!
To echo what brother Michael (Hesychios) said, the creed should not be a source of confusion.In Christ,
Andrew
J
jimmy
Guest
Yes, it is about protection against changing the faith and that is why I have been arguing throughout this thread that the adding of the filioque, even if it is interpreted in an orthodox way, was a grave move. The Church is united in faith and therefore the creed is one. For one Church to make a change to the creed without the consent of the whole is a serious problem because the creed ceases to have the universal claim that it once did. Should each tradition make the adjustments they feel need to be made to battle heresy? Should byzantines add something about the essence/energy distinction and the Copts add something about the single nature of Christ? Then the creed means nothing because everyone has their own.
The Copts say the whole creed throughout the year, don’t they? Is it a seasonal thing that determines whether parts are not said?
It is kind of tough to tell when the only indication is one letter of Maximus. History doesn’t tell whether Maximus was successful in mediating the differences to my knowledge. It might have continued to be a problem for a long time and even up to Photius.
From my understanding, I think we have participation in eternity through salvation in Christ.
But to say that it occurs in eternity you have to assume the divinity of the Spirit. Many Arians interpreted the Son as the first creation of the Father and the Spirit was the second creation so they were both in time.
M
mardukm
Guest
The Fathers that had spoken of it indeed teach that the Ousia of the Spirit is THROUGH the Son. Just because “through the Son” is not contained in the Creed does not mean it is not the Faith of the Church. Certainly, the teaching on the Two Wills is not contained in the Creed, but do you seriously suppose it is not the Faith of the Church? The teaching on the veneration of images is not contained in the Creed, but do you supose it is not the Faith of the Church?
The problem with quoting St. Gregory Nazianizen is that he indeed spoke of the fact that the Spirit is through the Son, and not just in the sense of manifestation. “If there was a time when the Father was not, then there was a time when the Son was not. If there was a time when Son was not, then there was a time when the Spirit was not” (Fifth Theological Oration on the Holy Spirit) How can you read this from St. Gregory and conclude that he failed to teach that the very existence of the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son? And indeed, there are MANY more Fathers both East and West that teach the same thing. What he meant about “not going beyond” must obviously mean not going beyond the teaching that “the Spirit is from the Father through the Son.” Beyond that, we should not speculate.
Go back to the sources. Don’t depend on modern EO polemics.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Aye!
Which is why if the Latins are to be required to change “and the Son” to “through the Son,” then Greeks should also be required to add “through the Son” to their Creed.
In fact, to make it even more clear. ALL translations (East, West and Orient) of the original Creed should be changed from “proceeds” to “originates” and ALL translations (East, West and Orient) should add “through the Son.”
This way, EVERYONE is properly professing the SAME Creed in ANY language
Blessings
J
jimmy
Guest
I am not reducing the procession to manifestation if you mean a simply a temporal manifestation. I said essentially that we can not know the Spirit as proceeding through the Son in any way beyond an energetic way because that is how the Spirit is revealed to us. The Spirit is not given to us in an essential way, otherwise we would be incarnations of the Spirit.
I am not depending on modern EO polemics. Most of what I say comes from the little I know of the history of the Church and its doctrine.
Gregory doesn’t speak about procession in that quote.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother jimmy,
Blessings,
Marduk
It was not a grave move, because filioque is perfectly orthodox when used with procedit.
I would say that the Church is united in Faith, and the Creed must faithfully express that unity in Faith, not necessarily that the Creed must be exactly the same terminologically. What do you think of my suggestion in the previous post?
The Creed is the very BASIS for our Faith. It is not meant to represent the WHOLE Faith. This was hit home to me by Pope St. Cyril. The fathers of Ephesus chided St. Cyril for using expressions in his defense of the Faith that were not contained in the Creed. My (our) Father St. Cyril correctly rebutted that the Faith is not contained just in the Creed, but in all the Sources of Sacred Tradition. I believe each Tradition can make their own adjustments depending on the needs of their particular Church, but it shouldn’t go below the level of Patriarchate.
Yes, it is seasonal.
Well, St. Maximos was the greatest Eastern mind of his day. Bishops were submitting their professions of Faith to him for his acceptance (and he humbly and prudently responded that he did not have the authority to accept such professions). Giving a doubt on the extent of the unity of the Church based on “one letter of Maximus” is like saying that Photius represented only himself in the filioque controversy and the problem was not really that serious even in Photius’ time.
Yes, as a fellow Oriental, that would be my understanding too. But Easterns have a different mentality and consider Eternity to belong to God alone (they distinguish between Eternity, Aeveiternity, and temporal reality). In any case, I did not say merely participation in Eternity. I said participation in an eternal action of the Father (the Origination/Procession/Manifestation of the Holy Spirit).
Not really. All you must assume is the primordial, “the Father Who is Divinity is in Eternity.” The Son is begotten Eternally, and therefore is also Divinity. The Spirit originates and proceeds and is manifested Eternally, and therefore is also Divinity. What is in Eternity is by definition Divinity.
Blessings,
Marduk
A
AdrianP
Guest
Because all the Early Church including Early Popes believed and because this is what Council of Nicea decided…why the Orthodox believes otherwise?
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother jimmy,
Blessings
We can know from the teachings of the Fathers, not just in our personal experience of His Energies.
That is good. But then it makes me wonder how you can say that the early Church did not teach and believe in the fact that the Spirit originates from the Father THROUGH the Son. if you read the Father, you will see that there are MANY more Mysteries about the Godhead, about the principles of Generation and Origination that cannot be fathomed. But the early Fathers knew and believed that the Spirit originates from the Father through the Son as a most basic belief about the Godhead (though “through the Son” is not expressed in the Creed).
I’m not sure what you think it refers to (an elaboration would be appreciated), but the quote obviously refers to the very existence of each person in the Godhead. It refutes the modern EO polemic that the Son has absolutely no role in the origination of the Holy Spirit.
Blessings
M
Mickey
Guest
I thought that "ἐκπορεύεται" means proceed and that “proienai” means “sent”?
I have a better idea Mark. How bout the Latins change their English translation to “Who proceeds from the Father”.
That’s nice and simple.
J
Justy90
Guest
I’m convinced especially by this that some Catholics here are just looking for a fight. They attack Protestants for they they think are the most significant points such as OSAS and the Eucharist (which is obviously stereotyping of all Protestants and not fact) and now with this post, they attack Orthodox Christians with the one big difference bewteen East and West which is how the Holy Spirit proceeds.
J
josie_L
Guest
What you quoted is not an attack, so let’s not be melodramatic, please?
J
Justy90
Guest
Out of pure curiosity, what would you call it?
J
josie_L
Guest
I would call it comparing and contrasting beliefs.
H
Harpazo
Guest
Okay, if you want to call it that, by all means.
Eucharisted has been known for his inflammatory tone on more than one occasion.In Christ,
Andrew
J
Justy90
Guest
Exactly my point.Okay, if you want to call it that, by all means.
In Christ,
Andrew
- Status