Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. Page 2 of 6   [ 107 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Differences between East and West
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:58 am 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 76022
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
    The second production in God, as far as it is a real communication of life to another person, has no analogue in human nature. It has, however, an analogue in the tendency to communicate one's own life to another person, and this is “the emission of the breath from the heart,” which, notably in the act of kissing, gives a most real expression to the tendency of love towards intimate and real communion of life. More than this is not required to show that the corresponding act in God is a real communication of life, and that its Product is a real Person. What in the creature is a powerless tendency or striving, is in God an efficacious operation; wherefore, as the Spirit or Breath of God not only awakens and fosters, but gives life when emitted and imparted to creatures, so also the internal emission of this Spirit is necessarily a real communication of life. This becomes still more evident if we consider that the emission of the Divine Spirit of life is not destined to bring about a union of love between two loving hearts existing separately, but flows from one heart, common to two Persons, to manifest and enact their absolute unity of life, and consequently must tend to communicate life to a Third Person, distinct from the First and Second. The emission of the human breath is inferior to generation as an analogue for a Divine communication of life, because it does not produce a new person; but, on the other hand, it has the double advantage of being more apparent and visible, and of standing in closer connection with the higher life of the human soul, notably with love.

    By reason of this analogy of origin there can be no human personal name designating the Third Person in the Trinity as the name “Son” designates the Second. On the other hand, however, the name “Spirit,” or “Ghost,” in the sense of immaterial being, cannot be His proper name, because in this sense it is common to the Three Persons. The proper name of the Third Person is taken from the impersonal emission of breath (πνεῦμα, *spiritus*) in man, and receives its personal signification in God by being conceived as “*Spiritus de Spiritu*,” the life-breath of the purest Spirit. Where the spirating subject is a pure spirit, its whole substance and life are necessarily contained in the substantial breath (spirit) which it emits; and thus this breath is not only something spiritual, but is a Spiritual Hypostasis or Person. The relation of the Spirit of God to the spiritual Nature of its Principle and its Essence is expressed by the name “Holy Ghost,” because the purest spirituality of God culminates in the Substantial Holiness of the Divine Life.

    The connection of the name “Ghost” or “Spirit” with the human breath is generally taught by the Fathers. Its relation to the spirituality of the spirating (breathing) person is especially pointed out by the Greek doctors, although they do not describe the origin as spiration as often as the Latin writers; it corresponds with their organic conception of the Holy Ghost as the “Perfume” and “Oil” of the Godhead. The Latin Fathers, on the other hand, although they more frequently use the term *spiratio*, do not lay much stress on the original meaning of spirit, but give great prominence to the idea of the *osculum* (kiss) as a bond of union. They used to say, following St. Augustine, that the Third Person is properly called “Spirit,” because the other Two, whose communion He is, are commonly so called. By both Greeks and Latins, however, it is always noted that the name Spirit, applied to the Third Person, ought, like the name Son, to be taken relatively, that is as the Spirit of Somebody. The Greeks lay more stress on the genitive of origin (viz. *origo per emanationem substantialem ex principio*), whereas the Latin doctors rather point out the genitive of possession, considering, as it were, the Holy Ghost as the common soul of the two Persons united in love.

Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, vol. 1, pp. 331-333.

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Differences between East and West
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:11 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:25 pm
Posts: 9974
Location: As I understand it.....in God's will. This is the best place to be.
Religion: Byzantine Catholic
Church Affiliations: Past Grand Knight KoC 15107
ThomisticCajunAggie wrote:
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
"Generation" is the generic term. "Begetting" is how the Son is generated. "Spiration" is how the Spirit is generated. We have earthly analogies for begetting, however remote they are from the Divine reality of it, but if there is one for spiration, no one knows what it is.

ETA: The process by which the Spirit is generated has to be distinct from the one by which the Son is generated because the Son is the Only Begotten.


Father, maybe I'm wrong, but I think "procession" is the generic term (St. Thomas seems to deny that "generation" is generic in Ia, q. 27 - especially a. 4). The Son proceeds by way of "generation" or by "being begotten" (the two terms are synonyms), while as St. Thomas points out, we have no particular words in our language to signify the second procession, so we use the term "Procession" or in some cases "Spiration" (based off of the name "Spirit" - to signify "breathing forth").

I agree with your ETA. St. Thomas explains this beautifully based in the differences between the processions of word and love in man, though methinks LotE may not accept such a distinction...



I would certainly like to read this.

David Bentley Hart writes in his paper THE MYTH OF SCHISM

Quote:
By all rights, however, Pope John Paul II’s Ut Unum Sint should have inaugurated a new era in the ecumenical relations between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. There is, of course, nothing remarkable in the author of Orientale Lumen—that hymn of love to Eastern Christianity—expressing so fervent a desire for reconciliation with the East; but nothing, I think, could have prepared anyone for the extraordinary overture John Paul made in stating that he wished for a conversation with other Christians (especially, it seems obvious, with those of the East) regarding papal primacy, one in which the issue of the pope’s ecclesial jurisdiction would be open. Indeed, it was so surprising a gesture that neither the Orthodox nor the Catholic Church seems yet to know how to react to it. And yet, of course, it touches upon the one real issue that the two churches must address directly. If we are sufficiently reflective and free of absurd prejudices, most of us would grant that the truly central question that we must approach together is how we are to understand church authority, apostolic authority, and episcopal authority in relation to the Petrine office and to the papal privilege regarding enunciation of dogma. If we were allowed to discuss this, free from any anxiety regarding other concerns, many other issues surely would resolve themselves, as obviously subordinate to this one great concern. But here, as it happens, is the very question I wish to raise in what follows: Will we ever indeed be allowed really to have that conversation? I ask this, because, the most intransigent and extreme members of our respective communions—and those, I fear, who in the East are usually at present the most impassioned and obstreperous among us—seem often incapable or unwilling to acknowledge any recognizable distinction between substantial and accidental differences, between real and imagined difficulties, between obvious and merely suppositious theological issues, and between matters of negligible import and those that lie at the heart of our division.


Many of us in the Byzantine Catholic Church are DEEPLY FRUSTRATED at the intransigence of both sides. After 1,000 years, and with people of good will on both sides, it is more than time to open up, sit down honestly and without agenda, and separate the wheat from the chaff in this lamentable situation. And especially not to listen to the Traddies on both sides, who will most assuredly dig their feet in against anything they view as "heresy," including the proper way to dot one's "i's" and cross one's "t's" in any paper of unity forthcoming.

I am quite tired and sick of it all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Differences between East and West
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:54 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 76022
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
The volume in which I found the excerpt quoted above has another section, quite extensive, exploring the Western and Eastern expressions concerning the production of the Holy Spirit, the context in which they arose, the advantages and dangers of the various formulations, etc. It's far too long to post here, so here's a link:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZBk ... sp=sharing

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Differences between East and West
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 10:55 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:25 pm
Posts: 9974
Location: As I understand it.....in God's will. This is the best place to be.
Religion: Byzantine Catholic
Church Affiliations: Past Grand Knight KoC 15107
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
The volume in which I found the excerpt quoted above has another section, quite extensive, exploring the Western and Eastern expressions concerning the production of the Holy Spirit, the context in which they arose, the advantages and dangers of the various formulations, etc. It's far too long to post here, so here's a link:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZBk ... sp=sharing


Thank you!

(More homework :nooo: sigh!!!)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Differences between East and West
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 10:57 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:25 pm
Posts: 9974
Location: As I understand it.....in God's will. This is the best place to be.
Religion: Byzantine Catholic
Church Affiliations: Past Grand Knight KoC 15107
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
The volume in which I found the excerpt quoted above has another section, quite extensive, exploring the Western and Eastern expressions concerning the production of the Holy Spirit, the context in which they arose, the advantages and dangers of the various formulations, etc. It's far too long to post here, so here's a link:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZBk ... sp=sharing



Quote:
Just as the Arians misused the Homoousios of Nicæa against the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, so did the Greek schismatics misuse the words


Right in the first paragraph!!!!

SheeeesH!!!!

Not a good start, nor a good way to bring together the Church.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Differences between East and West
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 10:59 am 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 76022
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
I thought about mentioning that in my post. Please look past the infelicities of expression (there's a section towards the end about Photius that you're not going to like at all) and read the substance of the theological discussion.

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Differences between East and West
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 11:21 am 
Offline
Prodigal Son of Thunder
Prodigal Son of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2002 10:54 am
Posts: 39235
Location: Ithilien
Religion: Dunedain Catholic
Church Affiliations: AWC, CSB, UIGSE-FSE (FNE)
Photius was bad.

_________________
Formerly Bagheera

"Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the King." (1 Peter 2:17)
Federation of North-American Explorers - North Star Group - How You Can Help


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Differences between East and West
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 1:20 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:25 pm
Posts: 9974
Location: As I understand it.....in God's will. This is the best place to be.
Religion: Byzantine Catholic
Church Affiliations: Past Grand Knight KoC 15107
Peregrinator wrote:
Photius was bad.


That depends entirely upon your point of view. In Orthodoxy, he is St. Photius.

Nonetheless, we do see in Constantinople during his time a lot of the usual political shenanigans that seem to come with power.

One wonders "You will know them by their love for each other???"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Differences between East and West
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 4:18 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:37 pm
Posts: 5849
Location: Bergen, Norway
Religion: High Church Lutheran
Church Affiliations: Church of Norway
Light of the East wrote:
Peregrinator wrote:
Photius was bad.


That depends entirely upon your point of view. In Orthodoxy, he is St. Photius.
Define what you mean by Orthodoxy. Because I would be very surprised to see a Church in communion with Rome treat as a saint someone who taught that the Filioque was heresy.

_________________
Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο

“Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt.” — Paul Tillich

http://katolikken.wordpress.com/
English texts: http://katolikken.wordpress.com/tag/english-texts-2/

http://www.facebook.com/kjetilkringlebotten

http://twitter.com/katolikken

http://thecatholic.wordpress.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Differences between East and West
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 4:39 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:25 pm
Posts: 9974
Location: As I understand it.....in God's will. This is the best place to be.
Religion: Byzantine Catholic
Church Affiliations: Past Grand Knight KoC 15107
Closet Catholic wrote:
Light of the East wrote:
Peregrinator wrote:
Photius was bad.


That depends entirely upon your point of view. In Orthodoxy, he is St. Photius.
Define what you mean by Orthodoxy. Because I would be very surprised to see a Church in communion with Rome treat as a saint someone who taught that the Filioque was heresy.


By Orthodoxy I mean those sui juris churches which are called "Holy Orthodox"

On the filioque:

Quote:
Its inclusion in the Creed is a violation of the canons of the Third Ecumenical Council in 431, which forbade and anathematized any additions to the Creed, a prohibition which was reiterated at the Eighth Ecumenical Council in 879-880. This word was not included by the Council of Nicea nor of Constantinople. The term itself has been interpreted in both an Orthodox fashion and a heterodox fashion. It may be read as saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through (dia) the Son. This was the position of St Maximus the Confessor. On this reading, the Son is not an eternal cause (aition) of the Spirit. The heterodox reading sees the Son, along with the Father, as an eternal cause of the Spirit. Most in the Orthodox Church consider this latter reading to be a heresy.

The description of the filioque as a heresy was iterated most clearly and definitively by the great Father and Pillar of the Church, St. Photius the Great, in his On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. He describes it as a heresy of Triadology, striking at the very heart of what the Church believes about God.


The Eastern Catholic churches sui juris which are in communion with Rome are Orthodox. They didn't spring up unannounced from some unknown place. They were Orthodox churches in the Rus Mountain area of Eastern Europe (current Russia and Ukraine) who were separated from Rome and decided for various reasons that it would be to their advantage to reunite with Rome. At the Union of Livotsk-Brest, the Orthodox were told they could continue in those practices and dogmas which defined them as Orthodox. That means that we are Orthodox in theology, dogma, and doctrine, as our Patriarch His Holiness Sviatoslav Svechuk said several months ago.

Which means that if we are Orthodox, then with the Orthodox we do not recite the Filioque during the Creed and consider it a heretical teaching.

There are two problems with being an Eastern Catholic:

1. Roman Catholics who have an annoying habit of insisting that we believe in Roman spiritual and doctrinal particulars.

2. Eastern Catholics who think they are Roman and have forgotten they are Orthodox (in communion with Rome)..

It makes for an interesting and sometimes crazy life when one is trying to be Orthodox in praxis and doctrine.

I had a rather nice paper from online giving a very clear description of the theological problems that the Filioque causes, but I'm having a problem finding it right now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Differences between East and West
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 4:47 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:25 pm
Posts: 9974
Location: As I understand it.....in God's will. This is the best place to be.
Religion: Byzantine Catholic
Church Affiliations: Past Grand Knight KoC 15107
Some links:

The Filioque Clause

Filioque

Quote:
Objections on doctrinal grounds

It is contrary to Scripture, particularly in John 15:26: "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me." Thus, Christ never describes the Holy Spirit as proceeding from himself, but only mentions the Spirit's procession in terms of the Father.
The justifications for including the filioque in the Creed—bolstering the divinity of the Son and emphasizing the unity of the Trinity—are redundant, given the original wording of the Creed. That is, the Son already is described as "light of light, very God of very God," and so forth. The Spirit also "with the Father and Son together is worshiped and glorified." Additionally, the Creed itself begins with a statement of belief in "one God."

The filioque distorts Orthodox 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.

Given the previous objection, the repercussions to the acceptance of the filioque into church life are potentially massive. Because how we relate to God is significantly affected by what we believe about him, false beliefs lead to damaging spirituality. One objection often raised about Filioquist theology is that it undermines the role of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Thus, with his role being denigrated, his traditional ministries are effaced or replaced. The Church's unity becomes dependent on an office, spirituality becomes adherence to the letter of the law rather than its spirit, sacraments come to be understood in terms of validity, and a spirit of legalism prevails.
Objections on canonical and historical grounds

Though not really a question of heresy, a common objection is to the means of inserting the filioque into the Creed. That is, unlike the original adoption of the Creed at Nicea and its subsequent revision at Constantinople, the decision to include the filioque in the Creed was not done by an Ecumenical Council. Rather, it was initially inserted by the Third Synod of Toledo, Spain (589).
Rome resisted the inclusion of the filioque for centuries. Leo III, the Pope of Rome at the time the filioque began its history in Western theology, strongly advised against its inclusion, even though he agreed with the soundness and validity of the doctrine contained in filioque. Later, however, Rome contradicted its previous more Orthodox stance by the promulgation of the filioque, thus anathematizing its own spiritual forebears.
Here's more on the ecclesiastical issue:

For Roman Catholics the Nicene Creed is under the Pope, not over the Pope. When the Pope inserted the Filioque into the Nicene Creed a major realignment of ecclesial authority took place. The Pope without the assent of the other historic patriarchates: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and without convening an ecumenical council of bishops, unilaterally altered the Nicene Creed. This was done even though the Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus 431, Canon VII) forbade the creation of a new creed. In essence, the Bishop of Rome was claiming a magisterium (teaching authority) equal to or superior to the Ecumenical Councils. In exerting authority over the first three Ecumenical Councils the Pope was claiming authority over all Seven Ecumenical Councils. Simply put, the Bishop of Rome, once first among equals, now claimed supremacy over all Christians, a startling departure from Tradition. The emergence of a papal model of authority would in time clash with Orthodoxy’s conciliar model of authority. Here we see how the Filioque lies at the root of the West-East Schism.


I think the real question is this: if the Filioque was not in the original Creed, why is the Roman Church so absolutely stubborn to maintain its use? If the Creed is exhibited in the Vatican sans filioque (as I have understood), then what is the problem? If the Early Fathers did not recognize it as the Church, then it has no business in the Creed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Differences between East and West
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 5:48 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 76022
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
Then your concern is not over the filioque but over ecclesiology.

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Differences between East and West
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 7:06 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:37 pm
Posts: 5849
Location: Bergen, Norway
Religion: High Church Lutheran
Church Affiliations: Church of Norway
Light of the East wrote:
Quote:
Its inclusion in the Creed is a violation of the canons of the Third Ecumenical Council in 431, which forbade and anathematized any additions to the Creed, a prohibition which was reiterated at the Eighth Ecumenical Council in 879-880.
No Latin Fathers or bishops were present at Constantinople in 381. That didn’t stop the Council Fathers changing the Creed. The text from Nicea I reads “And in the Holy Ghost.” The text from 381 reads, “And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.” Why isn’t this addition a violation of the canon?

Light of the East wrote:
Which means that if we are Orthodox, then with the Orthodox we do not recite the Filioque during the Creed and consider it a heretical teaching.
Really? Heretical? I’m hoping for your sake that you mean something different by ‘heresy’ than I do. Are you saying that the Roman Pontiff is a heretic? I’m not talking about saying the Filioque or putting it into the Greek text of the Creed, I’m talking about what the doctrine entails. Photius thought that the doctrine itself was heretical, and now you seem to have said as much yourself. How can you be in communion with Rome if you think Rome is heretical?

_________________
Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο

“Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt.” — Paul Tillich

http://katolikken.wordpress.com/
English texts: http://katolikken.wordpress.com/tag/english-texts-2/

http://www.facebook.com/kjetilkringlebotten

http://twitter.com/katolikken

http://thecatholic.wordpress.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Differences between East and West
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 7:24 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:25 pm
Posts: 9974
Location: As I understand it.....in God's will. This is the best place to be.
Religion: Byzantine Catholic
Church Affiliations: Past Grand Knight KoC 15107
Closet Catholic wrote:
No Latin Fathers or bishops were present at Constantinople in 381. That didn’t stop the Council Fathers changing the Creed. The text from Nicea I reads “And in the Holy Ghost.” The text from 381 reads, “And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.” Why isn’t this addition a violation of the canon?


I will ask some of my Orthodox friends, but I have a feeling they will say that the addition of the filioque was A.) done outside the boundaries of an ecumenical council, and B.) regardless of that, the filioque causes trinitarian problems.

Light of the East wrote:
Which means that if we are Orthodox, then with the Orthodox we do not recite the Filioque during the Creed and consider it a heretical teaching.
Really? Heretical? I’m hoping for your sake that you mean something different by ‘heresy’ than I do. Are you saying that the Roman Pontiff is a heretic? I’m not talking about saying the Filioque or putting it into the Greek text of the Creed, I’m talking about what the doctrine entails. Photius thought that the doctrine itself was heretical, and now you seem to have said as much yourself. How can you be in communion with Rome if you think Rome is heretical?[/quote]

Well, now, that IS a good question, isn't it? How can I not believe in Indulgences, Merit, or the Immaculate Conception, which St. Thomas Aquinas also did not believe in?

Are these things heresy or merely heterodox? I don't know myself, and I haven't exactly heard any language in the Eastern Catholic Church that rises to the level of declaring them heresy as the Orthodox do.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Differences between East and West
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 7:51 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 76022
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
St. Thomas's position on the IC is ambiguous, but since he lived before its formal definition, he would have been in error to deny it, but not a heretic.

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Differences between East and West
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 7:52 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 76022
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
BTW, the link I provided gives a list of serious theological problems entailed by the denial of the filioque.

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Differences between East and West
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 8:02 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 76022
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
    (a) It destroys the immediate and direct union of the Holy Ghost with the Son, for this union can only consist in the relation of origin; at the same time it deprives the Holy Ghost of His attribute of “own Spirit of the Son.”

    (b) It destroys the perfect unity of Father and Son, in virtue of which the Son possesses everything in common with the Father, except Paternity.

    (c) It tears asunder the indivisible unity of the Father, by dividing the character of Paternity from the character of Spirator, or προβολεύς, and so giving Him a double Personality,

    (d) It annihilates the fixed order and succession, in virtue of which the Three Persons form one continuous golden chain.

    (e) It destroys the organic coherence of the two productions in the Trinity so much insisted upon by the Greek Fathers themselves.

    (f) Above all, it destroys the perfect concatenation of the Divine Persons, in virtue of which each of Them stands in the closest relation to the other two and forms a connecting link between them (cf. St. Basil, *Ep.*, 38, n. 4). Thus the Greek Fathers point out the intermediate position of the Son between the Father and the Holy Ghost: the Son goes forth from the Father, and sends forth from Himself the Holy Ghost, so that, through the Son, the Father is in relation with the Holy Ghost and vice versa. The Latin Fathers, on the other hand, describe the Holy Ghost as the exhalation of the mutual love of Father and Son, which binds Them together like a band, “vinculum,” “osculum amplexus.”

    (g) Lastly, the heresy of the schism curtails and mutilates the Trinity in its very Essence. For the Father is Father only inasmuch as He gives the Son whatever He Himself possesses and can give by generation, including His entire fecundity, with the exception of the special character of Paternity. The Son is perfect Son only if He is equal and like to the Father in the Spiration of the Holy Ghost, and if, in particular, the Spirit of the Father is communicated to Him by the very act of generation and not by a new act of the Father. The Holy Ghost, too, is only conceivable as perfect Spirit and as a distinct Person if the Son is His principle. For it is an axiom accepted by the Fathers, that all personal differences in God, being founded upon the relations of origin, exist only between the principle and its product. No distinction is conceivable in God which does not include the most intimate union of those that are distinct. And as, according to the Greek Fathers, the Father produces the Holy Ghost only through the Son and not side by side with the Son, the Holy Ghost would remain in the Son and be identical with Him if He did not proceed from the Son.

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Differences between East and West
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 8:33 pm 
Offline
Highness
Highness
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:36 am
Posts: 7373
Location: India
Religion: Syro Malabar Christian
Light of the East wrote:
Which means that if we are Orthodox, then with the Orthodox we do not recite the Filioque during the Creed and consider it a heretical teaching.

There are two problems with being an Eastern Catholic:

1. Roman Catholics who have an annoying habit of insisting that we believe in Roman spiritual and doctrinal particulars.

2. Eastern Catholics who think they are Roman and have forgotten they are Orthodox (in communion with Rome).

Quote:
Which means that if we are tribal, then with our fellow tribals we worship our ancestors and consider other Christians heretics.

There are two problems with being a tribal convert:

1. Christian who have an annoying habit of insisting that we believe in Christian spiritual and doctrinal particulars.

2. Trbals who think they are Christian and have forgotten they are tribals in Communion with Rome.


Can you explain the difference, please?

_________________
Prayers,
Jack3
South Indian Eastern Catholic teenager.

"May our tongues proclaim Your truth. May Your Cross be a protection for us as we let our tongues be turned into new harps and sing hymns with fiery lips"

-From the introduction to Our Father, "On the feasts of the Lord and other important feasts", Syro Malabar rite


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Differences between East and West
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 8:55 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 13531
Location: Inverted Cross domain
Don't have much time nowadays.


Light of the East wrote:
beng wrote:
1. The First See doesn't need consent to insert "filioque." The Church is not a democracy.


It is not a dictatorship either. Everything we see in the history of the Church has been done in collegiality. One man does not constitute the Church. The Church is a congregation,
not an individual


1a. There's no need to muddle the water by bringing up "dictatorsip," "one man doesn't constitute the Church," and that "the church is a congregation." All of them is irrelevant because they don't contradict the fact of the apostolic truth that the First See doesn't need consent.

1b. Let me be honest here. Your problem with Pastor Aeternus (which you have to held by faith as much as the Trinity, Christ divinity, the virgin birth, the Resurrection etc), is that as easterner (specifically eastern Catholic) you feel like second class believer compares to western believers. Its the same problem many feminist Catholics have with male only priesthood. These feminist believe that being a woman they are second class because they could never become a priest no matter how holy or intelligent they are. Maybe this analogy worth meditating over.

1c. You need to remind yourselves that an easterner CAN AND HAVE become pope. So the analogy above is not apple to apple.

1d. Ponder yourselves to this possible scenario: Francis dies and a Byzantine Catholic Bishop is elected pope. What would you feel?

Quote:
2a. The anathema to change the creed binds individual, not the Church.

2b. If you read said anathema (Canon 7 of Ephesus) it's said, "the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa." As you can see it anathemized those who change the Creed of Nicea. But the Creed of Nicea was changed, wasn't it. So the anathema is not an absolute prohibition.

I will have to look into this charge regarding the Orthodox changing the Creed.


2. It's the Church that changed the creed, not Orthodox (there wasn't any Orthodox) nor the east either. It was the Church. When Pope Damasus recognized the Constantinople I addition to the creed, as the head of the Church (both East and West).

Quote:
3. You need to buy Joseph Gill's Council of Florence. Read the Filioque part (there are two discussions about it. Whether the addition is lawful and whether the addition is dogmatically sound). The East got slaughtered. Their argument destroyed convincingly. One thing they can not deny is that the numerous western fathers, which they hold as holy orthodox saints, explicitly taught filioque.

I looked up the book at Amazon. Here is a most interesting review I read about it, with my comments to follow:

There haven't been any new discoveries of sources since its publication but research has help clarify the use of some sources. Take for example the use of a proof text from Saint Basil's 'Against Eunomius'. There were two alternate versions of a passage. Mark of Ephesus denied the validity of the version used by the Roman Catholics to uphold the Filioque. Mark of Ephesus admitted there were different versions but he thought the Roman version was not compatible with Saint Basil's thought. Gill makes a big deal of this (pages 196-206). Textual research has shown the corrupt passage used by the Roman Catholics was actually an extract from a work by Eunomius that was originally a marginal note that had become imbedded in some versions of 'Against Eunomius'.


Gill's prejudices permeate every page. This makes the book problematic. Unfortunately, this is the only full length study of the Council of Florence so there is no choice but to read it if you want to find out what happened. [color=#008000]

To say that Joseph Gill distains Greek Orthodoxy (and Mark of Ephesus in particular) is an understatement. At one point the Roman Catholic participants accuse the Greeks of corrupting Texts. Mark of Ephesus counters by saying Pope Zosimus in the 5th century tried to pass off bogus canons of the Council of Nicaea to North African bishops. The Roman participants claim they have never heard the story (page 201) and, unfortunately, Mark of Ephesus did not have his source with him. Gill can not bring himself to say that Mark was right.

For Gill, the Greeks are confused, stubborn, inconsistent, obstructionist and vain. It makes me wonder if this was the case why the Popes wanted a union.

A good example of Gill's bias is his account of the death of Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople. A will was found in his room that supposedly expressed his desire for union. Not only was the date on the will incorrect but it expressed itself in a very non-Orthodox way. It has long been claimed to be a forgery. Gill gives the full text of the 'will' and admits many consider it a forgery (pages 267-68) but then goes on to try to show the 'will's' authenticity.

Another example is that Gill fails to mention the Athanasian Creed and the dispute over this text. It was brought up as proof that Athanasius supported the Filioque. The Greeks had never heard of it! Modern scholarship has supported the later origin of the Creed (which was composed in Latin) thus vindicating the Greeks.

Until another scholar chooses to write about the Council of Florence there is no choice but to use this book.

In other words, this is just another book which is written from a highly BIASED VIEWPOINT. I find this most disheartening, and in line with the kind of stuff that Roman Catholics have had to endure from the likes of men like Lorraine Boettner and Jack Chick and their lying and skewed history. It is troubling because when a person really wishes to find the truth on a subject, he is swamped with so-called "historical narratives" which are not historic at all, but rather polemical screed with a biased view. And this happens in all cases, not just here or there.


3. What a load of nonsense.

3a. He just doesn't like it that the Orthodox was beaten to a pulp in that council. It is a fact that at the time they were severely outclassed. They don't have the deep philosophical knowledge to deal with the issue.

3b. That reviewer main contention is the writing of St. Basil. There are many other writings and many other angle discussed (to which the Orthodox assuredly defeated in all points).

3c. Let's just, for the sake of argument, we concede that what the reviewer said is correct (that the western Basil"s text was corrupted). There are other fathers! Most important of all the Latin fathers, which the Orthodox recognize as saint and the Holy Ghost spoke through them, leave no ambiguity that the Spirit proceeds from the Father AND THE SON. That son of perdition, Mark of Ephesus, dared to suggest that the Latin fathers writing was corrupted. The stupidity had caused rage from the Orthodox themselves, notably Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople who said, I paraphrase, "if we omit every reference to the Spirit procession from the Son also in the Latin fathers writing, then their writing would not make any sense. Clearly it's not a later addition. The Latin didn't tampered their fathers text."

3d. If that reviewer said that Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople is not pro-union, he's full of something other than truth. It is true that there was a forged will from the Patriarch (he died before the council was finished) that said many pro-union words. But it's also true that the Patriarch is one of the pro-union faction within the Orthodox camp. And it's BS to say that Joseph Gill, even after admitting that the will is a forgery, tried to say that it's authentic. Nonsense. What Gill wrote is that the will is inline with the pro-union stance taken by the Patriarch. The patriarch WAS PRO UNION, there's nothing more to be said about that.

3e. The discussion about the Athanasian Creed was short. Since the Greeks didn't think that it's ancient, the Latin argument from its not prolonged. They move to other stuff. When you win 100-0, you may concede 2 or three point just to make the game interesting.

3f. I don't buy that reviewers claim about the text corruption with the Latin version of St. Basil until I see it myself. Reading his review, one can't afford to trust him on that.


Quote:
4. The Orthodox are going to hell with the Mohamaeddans and Protestants and SSPX (bite me). There's no reason to be in bed with any of them.

THAT, sir, is not for you to judge. When you show me that Christ Jesus has turned the Last Judgment over to you personally, then I will accede to your contentious statement.Furthermore, you apparently do not understand what an "Eastern Catholic is." We are historically Orthodox who entered into communion with Rome at the Union of Livosk-Brest in the 15th century. We were not told we had to become Roman in our practice, Liturgy, and disciplines. This was agreed upon by the Roman Church (and the same promises broken in the USA in particular in the 20th century. I am Orthodox. I make no apology for it. It is the ancient faith of the Apostles.


4a. It is a defined dogma that heretics, schismatics, unbaptized are going to hell. That makes Orthodox, Protestant, Islam are going to hell per the infallible teaching of the Holy Ghost Himself. The SSPX are going to hell because of Satan's non-serviam.

4b. You are being brainwashed by those schismatics and heretics at Catolic Answer forum and ByzCath forum. They are plenty of those. Mainly, convert from Protestants who still despise Catholicism in their heart. Remind yourselves that since the second century, by an eastern bishops nonetheless, the Church is called Catholic (not Orthodox). "Orthodox" is the named mis-used by the schismatics (the way "rainbow" is misused by LBGT).

Quote:
5. There are things that only applicable to certain rite of the Catholic Church. Married priest is one. But if anyone deny Pastor Aeternus or the filioque, to hell they go.

I am certainly glad that YOU are not the one who will be the final Judge at the Judgment Day (and neither will the Traddie Orthodox either, who condemn all Roman Catholics to hell in the same manner!!!!)


5a. I' merely expounding a defined dogma infallibly protected by God the Holy Spirit. That is that schismatics are going to hell.

5b. I could careless to what some schismatics say about my salvation. They are sons of the father of lies. Why should their word have any meaning? Should you care if a mulsim imam say that you're going to hell? Heck, no. You'd only laugh out loud at the irony (cause he's the one going to hell).


Last edited by beng on Sun Sep 17, 2017 12:44 am, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Differences between East and West
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 8:59 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 13531
Location: Inverted Cross domain
Alexandros wrote:
Just to note: I was trying to highlight that "through the Son" only was not sufficient enough. It is my understanding that they would consider Spiration to be originating from the Father alone but the "through the Son" as completing the process (if I were to speak of it as in time event and of course it's not, but we all know this). What I am arguing is that the origination of Spiration would rest with the Father as the primitive principal, but He would also originate with the Son. Unless there is a wide interpretation of "through the Son" with Easterns that I am not aware of.


It's not enough in Florence.

The reason being that with the word "through" the schismatics Orthodox could come up with other understanding that is still heretical (ie. that the Holy Spirit proceed from the father ONLY. Something that had not been said by any fathers).


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. Page 2 of 6   [ 107 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Jump to: