C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
Not back up which statement? That John the Evangelist also wrote the Apocalypse or that each-and-every part of Scripture is inspired by God?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
G
Ghosty
Guest
The Church does not say that just because the Scripture is inspired that it is well written. Inspiration doesn’t mean dictated by the Holy Spirit, it means that the Holy Spirit moved the person to write what God intended, but according to the aptitude of the person picking up the pen.Not back up which statement? That John the Evangelist also wrote the Apocalypse or that each-and-every part of Scripture is inspired by God?
Peace and God bless!
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
I think it borders on blasphemy though to say inspired Scripture was written by an incompetent human author. We should revere the human authors are spiritual teachers, with us being the student. To suggest the Holy Spirit permitted use poor quality grammar is an affront to the Majesty and Transcendence of the Sacred Books.The Church does not say that just because the Scripture is inspired that it is well written. Inspiration doesn’t mean dictated by the Holy Spirit, it means that the Holy Spirit moved the person to write what God intended, but according to the aptitude of the person picking up the pen.
Peace and God bless!
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Oh boy…I think it borders on blasphemy though to say inspired Scripture was written by an incompetent human author. We should revere the human authors are spiritual teachers, with us being the student. To suggest the Holy Spirit permitted use poor quality grammar is an affront to the Majesty and Transcendence of the Sacred Books.
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
I’m worried this new subject could distract from the original point of this post. People can see where I stand, but that’s irrelevant in so far as this post goes. Revelation is Sacred Scripture, and that’s all that matters.Oh boy…
F
Formosus
Guest
I’m sorry to inform you, but St. John the Theologian was no Isocrates when it comes to Greek prose. That doesn’t make it not inspired, it just means I wouldn’t take grammar lessons from him. Inspired scripture doesn’t have to be perfect in all things, it just has to make present God’s revelation to us.
As for thw authorship, the style and quality of greek between the rest of the joanine corpus and revelations is so different that it is unlikely that same man wrote both.
As for thw authorship, the style and quality of greek between the rest of the joanine corpus and revelations is so different that it is unlikely that same man wrote both.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
A relative newcomer to this forum, I found this thread to be fascinating on several levels. I do think it started out innocently enough, with sharing of an observation from Scripture that certainly is interesting in light of the underlying theological debate, and was respectfully shared. If anything, it first prompted me to read the quoted Scripture passage from Revelation, and reading Scripture is always a good thing!
As the discussion progressed, it seems to have evolved into a debate favoring the “Latin” version of the Nicene Creed, with respect to the Filioque, and as opposed to the “Orthodox” version.
My level of theological scholarship precludes me from speaking intelligently on this point, and I will not attempt to do so, but we all recognize this issue has long been cited as a primary source of contention between [Western] Catholics and Orthodox faithful. However, we thankfully now live in an era, following Vatican II and with the fervent support of Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, when we are encouraged to more fully embrace the fully breadth and depth of “both lungs” of the Universal Catholic Church. The point: as the Eastern Catholic Churches are being strongly encouraged to restore their traditions and liturgical forms, it is now the case following such preliminary restoration efforts that both versions of the Nicene Creed (with and without the Filioque) are in use within the Universal Catholic Church. Surely both Pontiffs would not have permitted this if the “Orthodox” version of the Creed was deemed inappropriate or outright heretical.
As a “cradle” Byzantine Catholic with Roman Catholics in the family, I always try to consider myself first a Catholic and attempt to remain “fluent” in the Latin tradition, as well as others. I was most interested in the recent introduction of the new Roman Missal, and I have to confess that the very first thing I read in the new Missal were both versions (Apostles and Nicene) of the Creed, with some thought that the Nicene Creed may have been “restored” in this respect. It was not, but of course that should not be considered indicative of any decision by the Universal Catholic Church to preclude both forms from use, as is now the case.
In this era, Byzantine Catholics have a unique opportunity and responsibility to encourage ecumenical reconciliation, particularly with Orthodox faithful with whom we share a deep and treasured liturgical history. We are indeed very proud of the efforts of our current Pontiff in this regard. His support of the Eastern Catholic Churches, and his outreach to the Orthodox faithful and leadership, has been truly extraordinary. It is in this spirit that I share these thoughts with you, my dear brothers and sisters.
And with your spirit!
As the discussion progressed, it seems to have evolved into a debate favoring the “Latin” version of the Nicene Creed, with respect to the Filioque, and as opposed to the “Orthodox” version.
My level of theological scholarship precludes me from speaking intelligently on this point, and I will not attempt to do so, but we all recognize this issue has long been cited as a primary source of contention between [Western] Catholics and Orthodox faithful. However, we thankfully now live in an era, following Vatican II and with the fervent support of Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, when we are encouraged to more fully embrace the fully breadth and depth of “both lungs” of the Universal Catholic Church. The point: as the Eastern Catholic Churches are being strongly encouraged to restore their traditions and liturgical forms, it is now the case following such preliminary restoration efforts that both versions of the Nicene Creed (with and without the Filioque) are in use within the Universal Catholic Church. Surely both Pontiffs would not have permitted this if the “Orthodox” version of the Creed was deemed inappropriate or outright heretical.
As a “cradle” Byzantine Catholic with Roman Catholics in the family, I always try to consider myself first a Catholic and attempt to remain “fluent” in the Latin tradition, as well as others. I was most interested in the recent introduction of the new Roman Missal, and I have to confess that the very first thing I read in the new Missal were both versions (Apostles and Nicene) of the Creed, with some thought that the Nicene Creed may have been “restored” in this respect. It was not, but of course that should not be considered indicative of any decision by the Universal Catholic Church to preclude both forms from use, as is now the case.
In this era, Byzantine Catholics have a unique opportunity and responsibility to encourage ecumenical reconciliation, particularly with Orthodox faithful with whom we share a deep and treasured liturgical history. We are indeed very proud of the efforts of our current Pontiff in this regard. His support of the Eastern Catholic Churches, and his outreach to the Orthodox faithful and leadership, has been truly extraordinary. It is in this spirit that I share these thoughts with you, my dear brothers and sisters.
And with your spirit!
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
Hello ByzCatholicCantor,A relative newcomer to this forum, I found this thread to be fascinating on several levels. I do think it started out innocently enough, with sharing of an observation from Scripture that certainly is interesting in light of the underlying theological debate, and was respectfully shared. If anything, it first prompted me to read the quoted Scripture passage from Revelation, and reading Scripture is always a good thing!
As the discussion progressed, it seems to have evolved into a debate favoring the “Latin” version of the Nicene Creed, with respect to the Filioque, and as opposed to the “Orthodox” version.
My intent was not to say the non-Filioque version was heretical or should not be used. My only goal is to show by Scripture that the Filioque is not in itself a heresy. Of course, it would be equally wrong for the non-Filioque version to be understood as excluding/condemning the Filioque.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
Dude:
Indeed, I did not think it was your intent, and enjoyed your initial post.
I was referring to some arguments made in ensuing posts in the thread.
Wishing you and your the joys of this holy season!
BCC
Indeed, I did not think it was your intent, and enjoyed your initial post.
I was referring to some arguments made in ensuing posts in the thread.
Wishing you and your the joys of this holy season!
BCC
M
marlo
Guest
I agree with you Catholic Dude, granted that the writer of Revelations might not be an expert in Greek but his wordings that describes the Holy Spirit in relations to the Godhead should use a perfect word in order to make a perfect description of the relations of the Godhead, or it will make the readers fall into heresy.
I’m worried this new subject could distract from the original point of this post. People can see where I stand, but that’s irrelevant in so far as this post goes. Revelation is Sacred Scripture, and that’s all that matters.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
The river of the water of life is internal to the Godhead? So then according to this thinking, when we partake of it, we become gods by nature, adopted into the Godhead itself.I agree with you Catholic Dude, granted that the writer of Revelations might not be an expert in Greek but his wordings that describes the Holy Spirit in relations to the Godhead should use a perfect word in order to make a perfect description of the relations of the Godhead, or it will make the readers fall into heresy.
V
Vico
Guest
Rev. 22 ris about New Jerusalem where the flowing river (with healing leaves and monthly fruit) and throne of God and of the Lamb and his servants, all within creation.
1 And he shewed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In the midst of the street thereof, and on both sides of the river, was the tree of life, bearing twelve fruits, yielding its fruits every month: the leaves of the tree for the healing of the nations. 3 And there shall be no curse any more: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it. And his servants shall serve him. 4 And they shall see his face: and his name shall be on their foreheads. 5 And night shall be no more. And they shall not need the light of the lamp, nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God shall enlighten then. And they shall reign for ever and ever
1 And he shewed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In the midst of the street thereof, and on both sides of the river, was the tree of life, bearing twelve fruits, yielding its fruits every month: the leaves of the tree for the healing of the nations. 3 And there shall be no curse any more: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it. And his servants shall serve him. 4 And they shall see his face: and his name shall be on their foreheads. 5 And night shall be no more. And they shall not need the light of the lamp, nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God shall enlighten then. And they shall reign for ever and ever
M
marlo
Guest
I didn’t say that, I said when the evangelist write, he will use a perfect word to describe the trinity, It’s not my fault your interpretation is wrong.
and besides, according to this thinking. So when you partake to the body and blood of Christ, which is true God, do you also become a god by nature and adopted into the Godhead itself?
and besides, according to this thinking. So when you partake to the body and blood of Christ, which is true God, do you also become a god by nature and adopted into the Godhead itself?
The river of the water of life is internal to the Godhead? So then according to this thinking, when we partake of it, we become gods by nature, adopted into the Godhead itself.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
When you partake of the Eucharist, do you partake of the hypostasis of Christ? Is the deified flesh and blood of Christ internal to the trinity instead of being an external manifestation of it? Your interpretation of this verse is incorrect because you confuse energy with hypostasis and confuse that which is external (energy) with that which is internal (that which is essential).I didn’t say that, I said when the evangelist write, he will use a perfect word to describe the trinity, It’s not my fault your interpretation is wrong.
and besides, according to this thinking. So when you partake to the body and blood of Christ, which is true God, do you also become a god by nature and adopted into the Godhead itself?
Your thinking seems to be that because the river of the water of life is metaphorical for the Spirit, that the verse therefore means that the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. But life is not the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit any more than wisdom is the hypostasis of the Son. Life, like wisdom, is proper to all three persons of the trinity, and is given to us as grace from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. This verse does not reflect that the cause of the Spirit is from the Son, but that the Spirit manifests through the Son, which is consistent with Eastern triadology.
M
marlo
Guest
Your are putting words in my mouth and trying to put a sense of doctrine in which i never said. Are saying that in the Eastern Orthodox triadology, Partaking in the deified flesh and blood is an external manifestation, while partaking in the Holy Spirit is an Internal Union with the Trinity? Please answer this, you started this idea. do not put questions back at me. We are interested to know the eastern position.
You might also be interested to know that even in the Eastern Orthodox circles, that the river of life is really the Holy Spirit, check this out.
Apoc 22:1 The unceasing blessedness of the members of the heavenly Church is depicted in a series of symbols. The first symbol is “a pure river of the water of life.” This symbolically depicts the grace of the life-giving Spirit, which fills the streets of the holy city, that is, the multitude of its inhabitants who, according to the Psalmist are “more in number than the sand” (Ps 138:18). This is the grace and mercy of God which will always be poured out inexhaustibly upon the inhabitants of the heavenly city, filling their hearts with unutterable blessedness (cf. Isaiah 35:9-10).
The Apocalypse: An Orthodox Commentary, Archbishop Averky of Jordanville, trans. by Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose)
Orthodox Study Bible:
22:1 The river of the water of life manifest the Giver of Life, the Holy Spirit (see 21:6, also Ezek 47:1-12; Zech 14:8).
From St Andrew of Caesarea’s Commentary, as translated by Presbytera Eugenia Constantinou:
Rev. 22:1-2a And he showed to me apure river ofthe water oflife, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of her wide street.
The river fiowing out from the Church in the present life hints at a baptism of regeneration being activated through the Spirit,those cleaned and washed, polished off in surpassing snow and crystal. The river of God, having been filled with waters running through the heavenly Jerusalem,** is the life-giving Spirit which proceeds from God the Father and through the Lamb,** through the midst of the most supreme powers which are called throne of divinity,filling the wide streets of the holy city, that is the multitude in her being increased more than the (grains of) sand, according to the Psalmist
by the way, i got this from an Eastern Orthodox forums
So, what do you say, revelations 22:1 the river of the water of life is the Holy Spirit, you cannot deny that it proceeds “ekporeuomenon” from the Throne of God and the Lamb.
You might also be interested to know that even in the Eastern Orthodox circles, that the river of life is really the Holy Spirit, check this out.
Apoc 22:1 The unceasing blessedness of the members of the heavenly Church is depicted in a series of symbols. The first symbol is “a pure river of the water of life.” This symbolically depicts the grace of the life-giving Spirit, which fills the streets of the holy city, that is, the multitude of its inhabitants who, according to the Psalmist are “more in number than the sand” (Ps 138:18). This is the grace and mercy of God which will always be poured out inexhaustibly upon the inhabitants of the heavenly city, filling their hearts with unutterable blessedness (cf. Isaiah 35:9-10).
The Apocalypse: An Orthodox Commentary, Archbishop Averky of Jordanville, trans. by Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose)
Orthodox Study Bible:
22:1 The river of the water of life manifest the Giver of Life, the Holy Spirit (see 21:6, also Ezek 47:1-12; Zech 14:8).
From St Andrew of Caesarea’s Commentary, as translated by Presbytera Eugenia Constantinou:
Rev. 22:1-2a And he showed to me apure river ofthe water oflife, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of her wide street.
The river fiowing out from the Church in the present life hints at a baptism of regeneration being activated through the Spirit,those cleaned and washed, polished off in surpassing snow and crystal. The river of God, having been filled with waters running through the heavenly Jerusalem,** is the life-giving Spirit which proceeds from God the Father and through the Lamb,** through the midst of the most supreme powers which are called throne of divinity,filling the wide streets of the holy city, that is the multitude in her being increased more than the (grains of) sand, according to the Psalmist
by the way, i got this from an Eastern Orthodox forums
So, what do you say, revelations 22:1 the river of the water of life is the Holy Spirit, you cannot deny that it proceeds “ekporeuomenon” from the Throne of God and the Lamb.
Your thinking seems to be that because the river of the water of life is metaphorical for the Spirit, that the verse therefore means that the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. But life is not the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit any more than wisdom is the hypostasis of the Son. Life, like wisdom, is proper to all three persons of the trinity, and is given to us as grace from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. This verse does not reflect that the cause of the Spirit is from the Son, but that the Spirit manifests through the Son, which is consistent with Eastern triadology.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
No, we do not ever relate to the Trinity on an essential level, or else we would literally become Gods by nature. A consequence of your remark that the river of the water of life refers to a relation in the Godhead would be that we, by participating in it, could become gods by nature.Your are putting words in my mouth and trying to put a sense of doctrine in which i never said. Are saying that in the Eastern Orthodox triadology, Partaking in the deified flesh and blood is an external manifestation, while partaking in the Holy Spirit is an Internal Union with the Trinity? Please answer this, you started this idea. do not put questions back at me. We are interested to know the eastern position.
None of these come as any surprise to me, as I am already familiar with how this verse is interpreted in Orthodoxy. There is nothing in this verse that is inconsistent with Orthodox Triadology.You might also be interested to know that even in the Eastern Orthodox circles, that the river of life is really the Holy Spirit, check this out.
I say the same, that the verse refers to the Spirit’s manifestation through the Son, not the Spirit’s having existence, which is from the Father alone. You cannot cite this verse in support of the Filioque as defined at Florence because it does not show that the Holy Spirit has existence from the Son, but only that the Spirit is being manifested in into creation through the Son.Apoc 22:1 The unceasing blessedness of the members of the heavenly Church is depicted in a series of symbols. The first symbol is “a pure river of the water of life.” This symbolically depicts the grace of the life-giving Spirit, which fills the streets of the holy city, that is, the multitude of its inhabitants who, according to the Psalmist are “more in number than the sand” (Ps 138:18). This is the grace and mercy of God which will always be poured out inexhaustibly upon the inhabitants of the heavenly city, filling their hearts with unutterable blessedness (cf. Isaiah 35:9-10).
The Apocalypse: An Orthodox Commentary, Archbishop Averky of Jordanville, trans. by Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose)
Orthodox Study Bible:
22:1 The river of the water of life manifest the Giver of Life, the Holy Spirit (see 21:6, also Ezek 47:1-12; Zech 14:8).
From St Andrew of Caesarea’s Commentary, as translated by Presbytera Eugenia Constantinou:
Rev. 22:1-2a And he showed to me apure river ofthe water oflife, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of her wide street.
The river fiowing out from the Church in the present life hints at a baptism of regeneration being activated through the Spirit,those cleaned and washed, polished off in surpassing snow and crystal. The river of God, having been filled with waters running through the heavenly Jerusalem,** is the life-giving Spirit which proceeds from God the Father and through the Lamb,** through the midst of the most supreme powers which are called throne of divinity,filling the wide streets of the holy city, that is the multitude in her being increased more than the (grains of) sand, according to the Psalmist
by the way, i got this from an Eastern Orthodox forums
So, what do you say, revelations 22:1 the river of the water of life is the Holy Spirit, you cannot deny that it proceeds “ekporeuomenon” from the Throne of God and the Lamb.
V
Vico
Guest
marlo: “So when you partake to the body and blood of Christ, which is true God, do you also become a god by nature and adopted into the Godhead itself?”
Cavaradossi: “When you partake of the Eucharist, do you partake of the hypostasis of Christ?”
Theosis iѕ thе state оf being divinized which is through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Indwelling: “Presence of the Holy Spirit in a person who is in the state of grace. He is present not only by means of the created gifts of grace, which he dispenses, but by his uncreated divine nature. This personal indwelling does not produce a substantial but only an accidental union with the souls of the just. As the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is an operation of God outside himself and as all activity of God outside the Trinity is common to the three persons, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit implies the indwelling of the three divine persons.”
Energy: “…may also refer to the spiritual power conferred by divine grace.”
– Modern Catholic Dictionary (Fr. John Hardon)Uncreated Grace is conferred (an act in time) on creatures in three forms:
Cavaradossi: “When you partake of the Eucharist, do you partake of the hypostasis of Christ?”
Theosis iѕ thе state оf being divinized which is through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Indwelling: “Presence of the Holy Spirit in a person who is in the state of grace. He is present not only by means of the created gifts of grace, which he dispenses, but by his uncreated divine nature. This personal indwelling does not produce a substantial but only an accidental union with the souls of the just. As the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is an operation of God outside himself and as all activity of God outside the Trinity is common to the three persons, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit implies the indwelling of the three divine persons.”
Energy: “…may also refer to the spiritual power conferred by divine grace.”
– Modern Catholic Dictionary (Fr. John Hardon)Uncreated Grace is conferred (an act in time) on creatures in three forms:
- hypostatic union - of the humanity of the incarnation
- divine indwelling - of the souls on earth
- beatific vision - of the souls in heaven
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Right, the indwelling is outside of God. It is an energetic (or to use the language of this article, accidental) union, not a hypostatic union or anything of that sort. That is why the verse from Revelation cannot be used to show that the existence if the Holy Spirit (which is not communicable to us) has its origin from the Father and Son.marlo: “So when you partake to the body and blood of Christ, which is true God, do you also become a god by nature and adopted into the Godhead itself?”
Cavaradossi: “When you partake of the Eucharist, do you partake of the hypostasis of Christ?”
Theosis iѕ thе state оf being divinized which is through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Indwelling: “Presence of the Holy Spirit in a person who is in the state of grace. He is present not only by means of the created gifts of grace, which he dispenses, but by his uncreated divine nature. This personal indwelling does not produce a substantial but only an accidental union with the souls of the just. As the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is an operation of God outside himself and as all activity of God outside the Trinity is common to the three persons, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit implies the indwelling of the three divine persons.”
Energy: “…may also refer to the spiritual power conferred by divine grace.”
– Modern Catholic Dictionary (Fr. John Hardon)Uncreated Grace is conferred (an act in time) on creatures in three forms:
- hypostatic union - of the humanity of the incarnation
- divine indwelling - of the souls on earth
- beatific vision - of the souls in heaven
B
Bballer32
Guest
Cavaradossi, we’ve had some pretty good conversations since i’ve been on CAF. So, i wanted to ask you a question.Right, the indwelling is outside of God. It is an energetic (or to use the language of this article, accidental) union, not a hypostatic union or anything of that sort. That is why the verse from Revelation cannot be used to show that the existence if the Holy Spirit (which is not communicable to us) has its origin from the Father and Son.
Why can’t the Holy Spirit come from the Father and the Son?
V
Vico
Guest
I have read recently where some are trying to use the Biblical quotes to show an internal procession, yet the long standing teaching is both the east and west is that the Bible refers not to internal procession but to external (economy). In the west, the basis of the filioque has been from the Council of Nicea use of homoousios.Right, the indwelling is outside of God. It is an energetic (or to use the language of this article, accidental) union, not a hypostatic union or anything of that sort. That is why the verse from Revelation cannot be used to show that the existence if the Holy Spirit (which is not communicable to us) has its origin from the Father and Son.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.