What is the difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy?

[Deconi]

The real difference at issue is the primacy of the Pontiff.

The ‘procession of The Holy Spirit’ is semantics…exaggerated to mean something more than it is. The fact is, The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son …since both are One and the same! To insist that it is THROUGH the Son, even in temporal linquistics is to mean…the Son is SEPARATE from the Father…which is NOT the case!

Although the Son is the second Person of the Triune God, he is not to be understood as being a separate entity from the One True God.

It is a simple matter of understanding that the phrase is neccesitated by the language of men…so as to IDENTIFY the three Persons of God, yet be taken under the premise of ONE BEING!!

*“We believe in the Holy Spirit…who proceeds FROM the Father and the Son…and WITH the Father and the Son, He is worshipped and glofified…”
*

If we didn’t understand the Triune God, that phrase would suggest 3 - different beings…clearly identified separately. But we know God is One, and His Triune nature is One. Therefore, we harmonise the phrase to that understanding and see that the phrase is proper and ACCURATE!

Pretty ‘simple.’

 

[crazzeto]

More on the Filioque from newadvent:

newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm

The dogma of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son as one Principle is directly opposed to the error that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, not from the Son. Neither dogma nor error created much difficulty during the course of the first four centuries. Macedonius and his followers, the so-called Pneumatomachi, were condemned by the local Council of Alexandria (362) and by Pope St. Damasus (378) for teaching that the Holy Ghost derives His origin from the Son alone, by creation. If the creed used by the Nestorians, which was composed probably by Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the expressions of Theodoret directed against the ninth anathema by Cyril of Alexandria, deny that the Holy Ghost derives His existence from or through the Son, they probably intend to deny only the creation of the Holy Ghost by or through the Son, inculcating at the same time His Procession from both Father and Son. At any rate, if the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was discussed at all in those earlier times, the controversy was restricted to the East and was of short duration.

The first undoubted denial of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost we find in the seventh century among the heretics of Constantinople when St. Martin I (649-655), in his synodal writing against the Monothelites, employed the expression “Filioque”. Nothing is known about the further development of this controversy; it does not seem to have assumed any serious proportions, as the question was not connected with the characteristic teaching of the Monothelites.

In the Western church the first controversy concerning the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was conducted with the envoys of the Emperor Constantine Copronymus, in the Synod of Gentilly near Paris, held in the time of Pepin (767). The synodal Acts and other information do not seem to exist. At the beginning of nineth century, John, a Greek monk of the monastery of St. Sabas, charged the monks of Mt. Olivet with heresy, they had inserted the Filioque into the Creed. In the second half the same century, Photius, the successor of the unjustly deposed Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople (858), denied the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, and opposed the insertion of the Filioque into the Constantinopolitan creed. The same position was maintained towards the end of the tenth century by the Patriarchs Sisinnius and Sergius, and about the middle of the eleventh century by the Patriarch Michael Caerularius, who renewed and completed the Greek schism.

The rejection of the Filioque, or the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, and the denial of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff constitute even today the principal errors of the Greek church. While outside the Church doubt as to the double Procession of the Holy Ghost grew into open denial, inside the Church the doctrine of the Filioque was declared to be a dogma of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second council of Lyons (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438-1445). Thus the Church proposed in a clear and authoritative form the teaching of Sacred Scripture and tradition on the Procession of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity.

As with the previous poster, I’m rather puzzled by the denial of double procession. Given the nature of the trinity, I find it rather difficult to explain procession only from the Father. More over, I find it difficult to explain away Jesus directly sending the church the Spirit, if in fact he is incapable of doing so as is being suggested.

Edit:
This time from John:

6 But because I have spoken these things to you, sorrow hath filled your heart. 7 But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 And when he is come, he will convince the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgment. 9 Of sin: because they believed not in me. 10 And of justice: because I go to the Father; and you shall see me no longer.

 

[John_Larocque]

Dug this up from a Google cache from Mark Bonocore:

The first recorded conflict between Romans and Byzantines over the doctrine of Filioque occurred in about A.D. 650 when Pope St. Martin I issued a decree against Monothelitism to the Byzantine court. This Papal decree included an expression of faith conveying a poorly-worded Greek translation of Filioque, in which the term “ekporeusis” was used. The Byzantines correctly objected to this Greek expression, and St. Maximos the Confessor interceded for the Romans and explained what they really meant -that is, what the doctrine of Filioque really referred to. This evidently satisfied the Byzantines of this time, since no further objections were voiced by them, nor did Filioque become an issue at the Council of Constantinople III (A.D. 680), which condemned Monothelitism, and even posthumously anathematized a Roman Pope!

St Maximos famous statement that what the Latins mean is that the Holy Spirit proceeds “through the Son” it seems, is borne out of the reaction to Pope St. Martin’s letter. And whenever the issue comes up and the question is asked, “can this expression (filioque) be understood, from an economic perspective, in an orthodox way”, Maximos’ formula comes up.

They really should take it out of the creed recited at Mass, but that is a question that goes a bit beyond the theology of filioque and goes into the area of “does any catholic bishop have the right to add” to the Nicean creed?

 

[teadough]

Just for discussion only how would one in my circumstance actually be able to become an Orthodox Christian? The closes Orthodox Church is well over an hr away, and many parts of my state have none.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

You speak of our pride and then insist we submit to a Monarchy which has no precedent? That is pride

The Kingdom of God has only one Monarchy who is King of Kings and Lord of Lords in Jesus Christ. Jesus (The King) has spoken whom he will build his Church upon Peter making him his Vicar on earth to bind and loose on earth as our King does in heaven.

Pride rejects this authority that our King has established. Your pride places too much authoritative false pretense when the Pope is just a laborer in God’s vineyard who has been given the authority to excercise the Kings authority in his stead until he returns finding Peter (the Popes) doing so.

When you argue against the progress of the Gospel that the Popes and the Magisterium have successfully obeyed the Master. Remember; please, what you falsely pretend to make false claims too about defined and clarified Apostolic doctrine was to defeat heresies and heretics.

You claiming to be of Eastern or Orthodoxy should be made very well aware of your roots from such beginnings from which the Popes and councils defeated Arianism, Nestorinism, etc… Objection to authority in the body of Jesus Christ has existed from the East before your Saint Constantine moved his capital to Constantinople. In fact before objecting to Jesus authority, maybe settling the authority between Eastern and Orthodox Church’s should be a priority. But please dont bring your Eastern Ancient authoritative schisms to the West as your early fathers did by introducing (defeated) heresies into the Catholic Church.

Again as I have stated many times in these discussions, that your arguments are not with the doctrines of the Catholic faith (once you explore them, from there entirety; without prejudices).

What you think is new from the Western Church is not new but a defended, defined Apostolic teaching which gained a victory over enemies of the Apostolic Catholic Faith, during times while you remained in Orthodoxy.

Your objections is not with the Catholic laity or Catholic faith, it is the Eastern problem from antiquity “pride” and rejection of authority, which began with political powers from your province which later crepted into the Western Church. “Yes”, you guessed it with “Charlemene”. Making the third person of the blessed Trinity an excuse to rebel against Peter’s Chair and authority is not practicing Orthodoxy, but shows your true colors by objecting to authority which remains a popular schism among the Eastern and Orthodox Church’s. Need I remind you, that in the West under the Pope of Peter’s Chair of whom Jesus built his church, we don’t have this authoritative problem as the Eastern Church’s do.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=Deconi;6192695]The real difference at issue is the primacy of the Pontiff.

The ‘procession of The Holy Spirit’ is semantics…exaggerated to mean something more than it is. The fact is, The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son …since both are One and the same! To insist that it is THROUGH the Son, even in temporal linquistics is to mean…the Son is SEPARATE from the Father…which is NOT the case!

Although the Son is the second Person of the Triune God, he is not to be understood as being a separate entity from the One True God.

It is a simple matter of understanding that the phrase is neccesitated by the language of men…so as to IDENTIFY the three Persons of God, yet be taken under the premise of ONE BEING!!

*“We believe in the Holy Spirit…who proceeds FROM the Father and the Son…and WITH the Father and the Son, He is worshipped and glofified…”
*

If we didn’t understand the Triune God, that phrase would suggest 3 - different beings…clearly identified separately. But we know God is One, and His Triune nature is One. Therefore, we harmonise the phrase to that understanding and see that the phrase is proper and ACCURATE!

Pretty ‘simple.’

Ditto; One of the great divides on these fine linguistic issues has to do with interpretation of ones language and understanding. Both East and West point to the same blessed Trinity from different points of view. Maybe both East and West should employ a neutral interpretator to explain who the Holy Spirit from both points of view, so as to clarify where each ones position of faith and defense of the Apostolic Faith. They will find out someday neither is wrong. The difference? One view protects and defends the Apostolic faith, the other see’s it from a practicing stand point.

IMHO, it is very simple, just recall the complete Joyful mystery of the Holy Rosary, in the mystery of the “Annunciation”. Heaven clarifies and reveals into the mystery of the Trinity and how God knows no limits. Arguing over a “word” from a translation tries to limit God power and define it, which can never be achieved. The Church can only express this mystery which will never exhaust it.

Infallibility a separate issue, is not something new either. We are blessed to have such an ancient Apostolic Belief become doctrine. Because with this guarantee’s the biblical promise that Jesus Will never leave his church and will always be with her, and that the Holy Spirit will protect her from ever falling into error. It never makes the Pope impeccable as some falsely believe or misunderstand.

 

[prodromos]

The ‘procession of The Holy Spirit’ is semantics…exaggerated to mean something more than it is. The fact is, The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son …since both are One and the same! To insist that it is THROUGH the Son, even in temporal linquistics is to mean…the Son is SEPARATE from the Father…which is NOT the case!

And from here you inescapably enter the heresy of self procession of the Holy Spirit, since the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one and the same. From your claims it must also follow that the Son begets Himself and so your errors multiply

It is a simple matter of understanding that the phrase is neccesitated by the language of men…so as to IDENTIFY the three Persons of God, yet be taken under the premise of ONE BEING!!

*“We believe in the Holy Spirit…who proceeds FROM the Father and the Son…and WITH the Father and the Son, He is worshipped and glofified…”
*

If we didn’t understand the Triune God, that phrase would suggest 3 - different beings…clearly identified separately. But we know God is One, and His Triune nature is One. Therefore, we harmonise the phrase to that understanding and see that the phrase is proper and ACCURATE!

The creed begins with the statement “We believe in ONE God”, and Arianism is denied explicitly by the expression “light of light, true God of true God”, so none of your claims stand.

Sorry.
John

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

**The dispute here is not that the Holy Spirit was SENT in the temporal sense by both Father & Son - at a point in time - to man.

Nor is the dispute that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father THROUGH the Son temporally.

The dispute is based upon the ETERNAL PROCESSION of the Holy Spirit from the Father - defining the very nature of GOD as revealed to us in the three Persons of the Trinity.

The early Church (and EOC today) taught & teaches 3 unique (unshared) characteristics of the personae of the Trinity - based on the revelations to man by GOD about the Hypostasis** of the Father:

**1. The Father was “unbegotten”

1. The Son was “begotten - of the Father”
2. The Holy Spirit “proceeds/ spirates - from the Father”
   **
   **Roman innovation of this understanding based upon the Filioque altered the consensus teaching of the pre-schism Church on the very nature of the Trinity - subordinating the Holy Spirit within the Trinity- and was outside of the accepted lawful consensus of the unified Ecumenical Church.

This extract deals with both matters - and has something to say about the “Pride” of Rome:**

The Filioque distorts the meaning of personhood within the Holy Trinity

**Pagan Greek ontology taught that God is first and foremost, His substance or nature. Heretics such as the Arians and Nestorians, working from this pagan Greek thought, taught that the substance or nature preceded God’s existence as Trinity, i.e. as Three Persons. This is the same interpretation that has come to prevail in Western Christian thought as can be seen by the typical arrangement of books on dogmatic and systematic theologies. (First is the existence of God, then the nature of God, then the attributes or qualities of God; all before the existence of the Trinity is broached.)

This interpretation is important inasmuch as it assumes a priori that the ontological “principle” of God lies not in a Person, but in the substance, the “being” of God. In the West, this has led to the belief that the unity of God consists of the one divine substance.

This is a distortion of Patristic theology. Among the Fathers the unity of God, the “cause” of the being and life of God consists not in the one substance of God, but in the Person of the Father (His hypostasis). The one God is not the one substance, but the Father who begets the Son and “spirates” the Holy Spirit. Thus, God is not bound by some ontological “necessity” to exist. God exists because the Father exists, He who out of love freely and eternally begets the Son and freely and eternally “spirates” the Holy Spirit.

Substance or nature does not exist in a vacuum, without a mode of existence (i.e. a hypostasis or person, an individuation). The one divine substance/nature is the being of God only because it has three modes of existence — Three Persons — which it owes not to the substance, but to the source (αρχή) of the Three: the Father. Apart from the Holy Trinity there is no God, no divine substance because the ontological “principle” of God is the Father. By regarding some Divine substance as the source of the Holy Trinity, the existence of the Three Divine Persons is made a kind of logical necessity, thus undermining the autonomy of the Holy Trinity. In the Filioque, this emphasis on likeness of Divine substance between the Father and the Son results in the subordination of the Holy Spirit.
**
The addition of the Filioque was arbitrary

Even Roman Catholic historians and theologians now admit that the addition of the Filioque was done arbitrarily, without consulting the East. The Filioque expressed a novel belief which was not a part of that which had been believed “everywhere, always, and by all”. As Alexei Khomiakov wrote in “The Church Is One”:

                    ***Therefore the pride of reason and of illegal domination, which appropriated to itself, in opposition to the decree of the whole Church (pronounced at the Council of Ephesus), the right to add its private explanations and human hypotheses to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Symbol is in itself an infraction of the sanctity and inviolability of the Church. Just as the very pride of the separate Churches, which dared to change the Symbol of the whole Church without the consent of their brethren, was inspired by a spirit not of love, and was a crime against God and the Church, so also their blind wisdom, which did not comprehend the mysteries of God, was a distortion of the faith; for faith is not preserved where love has grown weak.***

If the True Faith were not preserved in the West where love had grown weak (as evidenced by the arrogance of Rome in arrogating to itself all authority within the Church) then one should expect that innovations that developed in this realm where the True Faith were no longer preserved will be inconsistent with the truth. Sadly, this is the case with the Filioque.

Source: OODE - full article linked in previous post page 3 of thread.

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

And from here you inescapably enter the heresy of self procession of the Holy Spirit, since the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one and the same. From your claims it must also follow that the Son begets Himself and so your errors multiply
The creed begins with the statement "We believe in ONE God", and Arianism is denied explicitly by the expression “light of light, true God of true God”, so none of your claims stand.

Sorry.
John

AMEN!!!

:bowdown2:

 

[TheosisM]

The real difference at issue is the primacy of the Pontiff.

The ‘procession of The Holy Spirit’ is semantics…exaggerated to mean something more than it is. The fact is, The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son …since both are One and the same! To insist that it is THROUGH the Son, even in temporal linquistics is to mean…the Son is SEPARATE from the Father…which is NOT the case!

Although the Son is the second Person of the Triune God, he is not to be understood as being a separate entity from the One True God.

It is a simple matter of understanding that the phrase is neccesitated by the language of men…so as to IDENTIFY the three Persons of God, yet be taken under the premise of ONE BEING!!

*“We believe in the Holy Spirit…who proceeds FROM the Father and the Son…and WITH the Father and the Son, He is worshipped and glofified…”
*

If we didn’t understand the Triune God, that phrase would suggest 3 - different beings…clearly identified separately. But we know God is One, and His Triune nature is One. Therefore, we harmonise the phrase to that understanding and see that the phrase is proper and ACCURATE!

Pretty ‘simple.’

This seems to be going into modalism. The Father and the Son are “one and the same” what? They are distinct Persons, and the Father is not the Son or the Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father or the Son.

The phrase clearly identifies three Persons.

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

This seems to be going into modalism. The Father and the Son are “one and the same” what? They are distinct Persons, and the Father is not the Son or the Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father or the Son.

The phrase clearly identifies three Persons.

AMEN!!!

:bowdown2:

 

[John_Larocque]

The ‘procession of The Holy Spirit’ is semantics…exaggerated to mean something more than it is. The fact is, The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son …since both are One and the same! To insist that it is THROUGH the Son, even in temporal linquistics is to mean…the Son is SEPARATE from the Father…which is NOT the case!

This is exactly the reason why filioque is theologically dangerous. Interesting the debunking of probably the only known orthodox interpretation of filioque, that proposed by St. Maximus the Confessor. Hilarious, unbelievable and sad.

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

This is exactly the reason why filioque is theologically dangerous. Interesting the debunking of probably the only known orthodox interpretation of filioque, that proposed by St. Maximus the Confessor. Hilarious, unbelievable and sad.

**Hi…

Legitimate question - what did Maximus say - and what exactly is hilarious, unbelievable and sad?**

 

[John_Larocque]

What is sad and hilarious is the expression of heresy quoted in my previous post.

orthodoxwiki.org/Filioque

The Filioque, like the phrase “Deum de Deo,” was not included by neither the Council of Nicea, nor Constantinople. The term itself has been interpreted in both an orthodox fashion and wrongly in a heterodox fashion. It is read as saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through (dia) the Son; this was the position of St Maximus the Confessor. In this reading, the Son is not an eternal cause (aition) of the Spirit. The heterodox reading, which is not held by the Latin Church, sees the Son, along with the Father, as an eternal cause of the Spirit. Most in the Eastern Orthodox Churches consider this latter reading to be heresy.

The filioque clause was the main subject discussed at the 62nd meeting of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, which met at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology (Brookline, Massachusetts) from June 3 through June 5, 2002, for their spring session. As a result of these modern discussions, it has been suggested that the Orthodox could accept an “economic” filioque that states that the Holy Spirit, who originates in the Father alone, was sent to the Church “through the Son” (as the Paraclete), but this is not official Orthodox doctrine. It is what the Fathers call a theologoumenon, a theological opinion. (Similarly, the late Edward Kilmartin, S.J., proposed as a theologoumenon a “mission” of the Holy Spirit to the Church.)

Some misinterpret the filioque as distorting Triadology by making the Spirit a subordinate member of the Trinity. Traditional Triadology consists in the notion that for any given trait, it must be either common to all Persons of the Trinity or unique to one of them. Thus, Fatherhood is unique to the Father, while begottenness is unique to the Son, and procession unique to the Spirit. Godhood, however, is common to all, as is eternality, uncreatedness, and so forth. Positing that something can be shared by two Persons (i.e., being the source of the Spirit’s procession) but not the other is to elevate those two Persons at the expense of the other. Thus, the balance of unity and diversity is destroyed. This interpretation does not, however, take into consideration the two kinds of procession believed by both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians as expressed by St. Maximus the Confessor.

A bit more here.

energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2006/12/03/st-maximus-the-conffesor-and-the-filioque-doctrine-part-i/
bekkos.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/st-maximus-on-the-filioque/

An abstract:

A. Edward Siecienski, “The use of Maximus the Confessor’s writing on the filioque at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438–1439)” (January 1, 2006). ETD Collection for Fordham University. Paper AAI3201137.

fordham.bepress.com/dissertations/AAI3201137/

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

**Interesting, given what we EO understand thusfar of Catholic teaching that eternal procession of the Holy Spirit comes equally from Father and Son.

If there are two distinct kinds of procession of the Holy Spirit, what are they?

Why does this not subordinate the Holy Spirit even further within the Trinity, and how does this negate the obvious heresy or error in self procession, self begottenness and mutual unbegottenness???

Can you explain?**

 

[John_Larocque]

**Interesting, given what we EO understand thusfar of Catholic teaching that eternal procession of the Holy Spirit comes equally from Father and Son.

If there are two distinct kinds of procession of the Holy Spirit, what are they?
**

The second kind of procession is temporal or economic

sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/filioque

The East’s negative view of the filioque, as it is formulated in the West, does not mean that the East rejects the idea that the Spirit is manifested through the Son. In fact, at the Blachernae Council (A.D. 1285) the Byzantine Church taught that the Holy Spirit is manifested as (or in the) divine energy through the Son, but that this manifestation of the Spirit does not involve the existential hypostatic origin of the Spirit, since that comes only from the Father. [13] This distinction (that is, between hypostatic origin and manifestation) is made by St. John Damascene, and other Eastern Fathers, but was clarified by St. Gregory of Cyprus at the Council of Blachernae. [14].

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

**Ah… I see.

Well then, Temporal point in time “procession” is actually Temporal point in time “sending” which if you look at the original Greek of what The Apostle John said, are two different words altogether.

I think we EO have this right - in that there are NOT two distinct and different forms of “eternal procession”.

So why persist with the misinterpretation of “eternal procession” at all?

Greek Catholics agree with us - and don’t.
**

 

[crazzeto]

**Ah… I see.

Well then, Temporal point in time “procession” is actually Temporal point in time “sending” which if you look at the original Greek of what The Apostle John said, are two different words altogether.

I think we EO have this right - in that there are NOT two distinct and different forms of “eternal procession”.

So why persist with the misinterpretation of “eternal procession” at all?

Greek Catholics agree with us - and don’t.
**

How do the Greek Orthodox then, explain Jesus sending the Spirit? If the Greek understanding is that the spirit is sent merely “through” Christ, i.e. Christ is more of a passive conduit, rather than being Active how could Christ Claim:

49 And *I send the promise of my Father upon *you: but stay you in the city till you be endued with power from on high.

Christ is making this sound very pro-active on his part. Why would God choose to create this kind of confusion if the Spirit only comes through the son… Would Christ not have worded this

“And through me, the promise of the Father will be sent upon you”… or some such?

And stated again in John 15:

26 But when the Paraclete cometh, *whom I will send you *from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.

JN 16:

7 But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

And then he does it (For the first time)

22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.

Paul in his Epistles goes so far as to call the Holy Spirit “the spirit of Christ” several times, including in Philipians.

19 For I know that this shall fall out to me unto salvation, through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,

 

[Deconi]

And from here you inescapably enter the heresy of self procession of the Holy Spirit, since the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one and the same. From your claims it must also follow that the Son begets Himself and so your errors multiply

Nice handful of straws, John, and your strawman takes shape…

To extend your assertion is to lessen The Holy Spirit, or to suggest The Son is ALSO a God besides The Father! Danger looms.

The Father is God; The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is also God, fully manifest. But we know there are not three Gods, but, ONE!

The creed begins with the statement "We believe in ONE God", and Arianism is denied explicitly by the expression “light of light, true God of true God”, so none of your claims stand.

Sorry.
John

Semantics… and used deceitfully!

I was quoting a portion of the Creed.
I believe in One God, The Father;
I believe in God, The Son;
I believe in God, The Holy Spirit;…
All three, BUT in One Being!

The Son said “…but one Who is greater than He sent Him…” But we understand that He Himself, is not another God, nor a prince of Heaven awaiting ascension to the throne! No! We know that He is God! You can argue that point at the risk of several ‘heresies’ available.

As the Hebrews noted, His human form ‘reduced,’ (for want of a better word,) His nature, but not His divinity! Hence the numerous treatments about …“fully human, yet fully God.”

Thank you for trying to force me onto the ‘Arians.’

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/filioque

I find it troubling that EOC try to force and accuse Latin translation into their own backyard heresy of “Arianism” and others when the Latin procession of the Spirit is supported by Scripture, Saced Tradition and defends against any past or future Heretics. The EOC interpretation does not defend the biblical teachings of the procession of the Holy Spirit, and leaves their interpretation wide open to heresy’s and heretical teachings which is a proven fact from history.

IMHO where the conflict arises is the EOC interpretation of the Son’s fully human/fully divininty confuses the EOC interpretation which only relates it’s interpretation to the Father. Reason forces one to do this, but Faith takes it to the next level which is comprised in the Latin interpretation when no heresy or heretical teaching can infect it ever again.

By the way, thanks for the recommended site:thumbsup: