Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 2   [ 31 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The Dogma of Filioque
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:37 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 78207
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
Not sure what you're asking.

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Dogma of Filioque
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:50 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:36 am
Posts: 7682
Location: India
Religion: Syro Malabar Christian
ForeverFaithful wrote:
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
For those who don't know, the reasons the filioque is critical both proceed (sorry/not sorry) from the doctrine that the only real distinctions between the Divine Persons are in their mutual relationships. If the Spirit cannot be said to proceed from the Son:

1) The Father is different from the Son not with respect to their relationship but with respect to taking part in the spiration of the Spirit;
2) There is no relation between the Son and the Spirit by which they may be distinguished.

It perhaps is too much but is there anything you can tell or suggest for us who don't know the history of the filioque clause?


The words filioque (and from the Son) didn't exist originally in the creed; the Western Churches added the word to counter heresies. The EO say that the West tampered with the creed by doing so.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... ontroversy

_________________
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: The Dogma of Filioque
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 6:20 am 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:22 pm
Posts: 1551
Location: Canada
Religion: la foi Catholique
Church Affiliations: K of C 4th Degree
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
Not sure what you're asking.

I was speak to an EO layman who was going on about heresies in Spain and early Popes condemning the Filioque

I don't know what he was talking about

_________________
In Te speravi, Domine: dixi: Tu es Deus meus, in manibus Tuis tempora mea.
Have mercy on me, O Lord, for I am weak: heal me, O Lord, for my bones are troubled.
All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out.
Tiber swim team '13


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Dogma of Filioque
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:11 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:36 am
Posts: 7682
Location: India
Religion: Syro Malabar Christian
ForeverFaithful wrote:
early Popes condemning the Filioque

:scratch: I seriously think that this is "fake news".

_________________
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: The Dogma of Filioque
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:39 am 
Offline
Prodigal Son of Thunder
Prodigal Son of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2002 10:54 am
Posts: 39729
Location: Ithilien
Religion: Dunedain Catholic
Church Affiliations: AWC, CSB, UIGSE-FSE (FNE)
Jack3 wrote:
The EO say that the West tampered with the creed by doing so.

The East, of course, made many changes to the Creed at the First Council of Constantinople - at which no Latin bishops were present at all. It's not clear when the West accepted the Creed defined at Constantinople I - possibly as early as Pope St. Damasus but certainly by the time of St. Gregory the Great - but in any case, the East certainly did not have the consent of the West when they attempted to redefine the Creed to which the Fathers had agreed at Nicaea.

_________________
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: The Dogma of Filioque
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:58 am 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 78207
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
ForeverFaithful wrote:
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
Not sure what you're asking.

I was speak to an EO layman who was going on about heresies in Spain and early Popes condemning the Filioque

I don't know what he was talking about

Jack3's links above should help. The Wikipedia article is a little incoherent in places, but it gives an idea of the historical background, and it touches specifically on the claim that Pope St. Gregory the Great rejected the filioque. The old Catholic Encyclopedia article provides a slightly different perspective. Heresies in Spain do appear and are the reason that the filioque was adopted in the West--not to affirm the heresies, but to refute them.

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Dogma of Filioque
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:46 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:37 pm
Posts: 5986
Location: Bergen, Norway
Religion: High Church Lutheran
Church Affiliations: Church of Norway
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
For those who don't know, the reasons the filioque is critical both proceed (sorry/not sorry) from the doctrine that the only real distinctions between the Divine Persons are in their mutual relationships. If the Spirit cannot be said to proceed from the Son:

1) The Father is different from the Son not with respect to their relationship but with respect to taking part in the spiration of the Spirit;
2) There is no relation between the Son and the Spirit by which they may be distinguished.
Yes, and I have to say that I become more and more convinced that a denial of the Filioque would be hard to explain given divine simplicity.

_________________
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: The Dogma of Filioque
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:47 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:37 pm
Posts: 5986
Location: Bergen, Norway
Religion: High Church Lutheran
Church Affiliations: Church of Norway
Peregrinator wrote:
Jack3 wrote:
The EO say that the West tampered with the creed by doing so.

The East, of course, made many changes to the Creed at the First Council of Constantinople - at which no Latin bishops were present at all. It's not clear when the West accepted the Creed defined at Constantinople I - possibly as early as Pope St. Damasus but certainly by the time of St. Gregory the Great - but in any case, the East certainly did not have the consent of the West when they attempted to redefine the Creed to which the Fathers had agreed at Nicaea.
But that's different because … reasons…

_________________
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: The Dogma of Filioque
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 6:02 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 4438
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
Closet Catholic wrote:
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
For those who don't know, the reasons the filioque is critical both proceed (sorry/not sorry) from the doctrine that the only real distinctions between the Divine Persons are in their mutual relationships. If the Spirit cannot be said to proceed from the Son:

1) The Father is different from the Son not with respect to their relationship but with respect to taking part in the spiration of the Spirit;
2) There is no relation between the Son and the Spirit by which they may be distinguished.
Yes, and I have to say that I become more and more convinced that a denial of the Filioque would be hard to explain given divine simplicity.

Agreed -- how could the distinction between the Persons in something other than their relations not entail parts in the divine essence? And if the distinction is only between the relations, then how can you distinguish between the Second and Third Persons if they both only proceed from the First? That seems definitive to me. But on the other hand, in fairness to their own claims, they charge (not without some justification in my assessment) that the filioque posits two principles in the Trinity, and that itself would constitute a denial of Simplicity as well. Granted Lyons explicitly condemns such a view while affirming that there is a single principle*, but the condemnation of a proposition alone isn't enough (in my estimation) if some other accepted statement entails the condemned proposition. I'm neither persuaded nor unpersuaded that the filioque does not entail two principles, and that's something, I think, that needs to be addressed . . . at least that I need to see addressed more.

* Here's the quote, for those interested:

    We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike. But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one.

_________________
Making Divine Simplicity Simple: Rediscovering Who and What God Is - an evangelical's (my!) attempt to explain Divine Simplicity in non-technical language
The Galatian Heresy (Gal 3:1-6) - An Argument for Sanctification by Faith Alone


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Dogma of Filioque
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 6:06 pm 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:22 pm
Posts: 1551
Location: Canada
Religion: la foi Catholique
Church Affiliations: K of C 4th Degree
Can we define principle in this context?

_________________
In Te speravi, Domine: dixi: Tu es Deus meus, in manibus Tuis tempora mea.
Have mercy on me, O Lord, for I am weak: heal me, O Lord, for my bones are troubled.
All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out.
Tiber swim team '13


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Dogma of Filioque
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 6:15 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 4438
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
Source or origin. Photius is concerned that if the Spirit proceeds both from the Father and the Son (not merely through the Son), then you have the Spirit having a dual origin [i.e., two principles of origination].

As an aside, Photius doesn't like the language "through the Son," either, but for different reasons. I think those concerns could be largely set aside when discussing these details, and I think most Orthodox would be willing to set them aside as well, as evidenced by the fact that it seems at least widely conceded that "through the Son" rather than "from the Son" would be acceptable phrasing.

edit:

Here's a summary of the argument (or, an argument) that the Father and Son are one principle: https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/cu ... pirit.html

I'm unimpressed with several aspects of the article, and I think, frankly, it gets some things just wrong at the end (or at least some things get blurred together than need to be kept distinct). But that's the problem with trying to discuss technical issues without appealing to technical distinctions. There's also the problem that the Trinity is a matter of revelation and not of reason, and so there might be some questions on the relationship between philosophical propositions as entailed by some other propositions and some biblical statements interpreted in support of those propositions. That last sentence probably doesn't make much sense apart from examples, but it's something that always comes up in my own mind. :-/

_________________
Making Divine Simplicity Simple: Rediscovering Who and What God Is - an evangelical's (my!) attempt to explain Divine Simplicity in non-technical language
The Galatian Heresy (Gal 3:1-6) - An Argument for Sanctification by Faith Alone


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 2   [ 31 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


Jump to: