The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
EasternChristian19, James OConnor, biblicalhope, Ishmael, bluecollardpink
6,161 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (biblicalhope), 462 guests, and 109 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,511
Posts417,528
Members6,161
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 186
Z
Zan Offline
BANNED
Member
BANNED
Member
Z Offline
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by 7968
Zan, I hardly think I sound like a Roman Catholic Traditionalist of the sspx variety. If I was, I, along with the not quite there yet James Likoudis would be yearning for a return of the pontificate of Boniface VIII.

Let me also clarify something you have taken offense at. I did not accuse your leader of following the devil. I quoted one of your truly great and Orthodox popes , Pope Gregory the Great.

Pope Gregory in letters to John the Faster , Patriarch of Constantinople and others used the imagery of demonic inspiration to identify prelates who would dare assume the mantle of "Universal" or Bishop of bishops to either exalt themselves or attempt to subject fellow bishops to themselves.

If the shoes of the fisherman fit...well I'll let others decide that.

Also I want to make it very clear that it is not my intention to unduly offend anyone personally here. I do understand however that differences that are real and centuries old will, of, and by themselves offend when exposed or clarified.

Some of these differences are of such a profound nature that it will become neccessary for one of the parties to admit fault and actually repudiate their error. The split between the Latin West and Orthodox East was first and foremost over papal prerogatives and that needs to be addressed in light of genuine Holy Tradition.

I have been plesantly surprised that a good number of respected Roman Catholic scholars are also raising serious questions about papal prerogatives and re-examining them in the light of history and the patristic witness. These are actually noted scholars and none of them are floating around Steubenville or EWTN

Those of us and I count myself one who want the union of all cannot settle for a kumbaya ecumenism.

Anyway I will now give this a rest as I have alreadfy dedicated to much effort and will probably be considered over the edge by our much more sensible moderators.

I apologize if I appeared mean and harsh, please forgive me. I was tired and in a bad mood last night and that usually reflects in my internet rants (apparently I was so tired and my attitude was so bad that last night I was prepared to defend the filioque! crazy) - I have nothing but complete respect for my Orthodox brothers and sisters despite our differences in opinion. And you are right of course, even reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church you can see the a stark contrast when comparing it to the the Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.org. Being Eastern Catholic I personally think this Easternization is a great thing of course.

God Bless

Last edited by Zan; 09/20/07 10:04 AM.
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
L
lm Offline
Member
Member
L Offline
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Quote
Quoting facts is one thing - theology is an entirely different matter such as his tendentious (at best) defense of the filioque. It's interesting that after he made that defense, Pope JP II saw it fit to celebrate several times and omit it publically.

I see nothing compelling from either a historical or theological perspective in any of Likoudous' works. They simply do not either foster unity nor even foster greater historical understanding. I've heard him speak, and remain unconvinced.

That phrase was intended for a very definite reason in the West, which time has come and past, and it is time to return to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed as promulgated by the Councils. As an Eastern Catholic I am insulted by his contention that the entire Greek basis for disputing it arises from a "defective" understanding of primacy. He has continually dismissed any notion of actually being faithful to the Councils that promulgated the Creed as being a credible response to removing the Filioque. He does neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox churches service by this polemic and contentious witness, which angers many Eastern Catholics.

As a Greek Catholic who accepts the Petrine Ministry and who also accepts the Creed as defined by the First and Second Councils that sort of oversimplistic, rote polemic is highly insulting.

* * *

Quote
You must have missed my post. Likoudis' idea that opposition to the i]Filioque [/i] is strictly based on the refusal to accept primacy is at best ridiculous.


Likoudis� argument, drawn from Aquinas, is not a perfect syllogism ( and was not intended to be), but it is not ridiculous either. Aquinas states:

Quote
For Christ Himself, the Son of God, consecrates and marks her as his own with the Holy Spirit, as it were with his own character and seal...And in like manner the Vicar of Christ by his primacy and foresight as a faithful servant keeps the Church universal subject to Christ.

As I see it, through the successor of Peter- the visible head of Church, the Father grants to the Church, the guidance and assurance (without error) of the work of the Holy Spirit. This reflects the Divine economia of the procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son-- God incarnate.

If the procession, however, is from the Father alone, then the work of the Spirit cannot necessarily be ascertained in any identifiable and visible manner�but like the Father (who is invisbile) from whom the Spirit would proceed alone, the work of the Holy Spirit would be completely invisible and interior. But even this model is somewhat rejected by Orthodoxy to the extent that it recognizes the true and lawful authority of the Bishop.

I think one of the greatest recent contributions on the understanding of the filioque comes from Fr. Paul Quay in chapter 3 of his book, The Mystery Hidden for Ages in God.
http://web.archive.org/web/20051218062732/praiseofglory.com/quayglory.htm

Fr. Quay draws from St. Gregory of Nyssa:

Quote
In one of his minor works, St. Gregory of Nyssa argues briefly that the Spirit is called 'glory' by our Lord in His prayer to the Father at the Last Supper (in Jn. 17:5):

Quote
1. I think that He there [Jn.17.22] calls the Holy Spirit 'glory,' (that Spirit) which He gave to the disciples through His breathing on (them). For there is no other way for those who are divided from one another to be made one if not conjoined by the oneness of the Spirit ... [Rom 8:9]. But the Spirit is the glory, as He says elsewhere to the Father, 'Glorify me with the glory which I had from the beginning beside You before the world was'. For God the Logos, having before the world the glory of the Father, since in the last days He became flesh, it was necessary for the flesh, through compenetration by the Word, to become that which the Word is. (20) But this happens from the taking of that which before the world the Word had. But this was the Holy Spirit, for there was nothing else before the ages except Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (21)

Toward the end of the last of his great sermons on The Song of Songs, Gregory again remarks that the Spirit is called 'glory' by our Lord in Jn.17:5 & 22. (22)

Quote
But the bond of this oneness is 'the glory'. But that the Holy Spirit is called 'glory' no one would deny who reflects upon the Lord's own words, 'for the glory,' He says, 'which You gave to Me, I gave to them' [Jn.17:22]. For, of a truth, the One saying to them 'Receive the Holy Spirit' gave to the disciples such glory. But He received this glory, which He always had before the world was, when He was clothed about by human nature. Once (this nature) had been glorified through the Spirit, the glory of the Spirit was distributed to all those of the same (nature), beginning with the disciples.

In the book by Likoudis (The Divine Primacy) , he refers to a pupil of St. Bonaventure, Matthew of Aquasparta (1273) in his �Tract on the Procession of the Holy Spirit�:

Quote
...[This is] the greatest glory of the Son of God�namely that truth which asserts that He is the Principle of the Holy Spirit. This is greater than the glory which asserts that He is the Origin of all created things...[and] the Holy Spirit Himself that most noble act which is to glorify the Son in this, that, from the Son, He, the Holy Spirit eternally receives His Divine Being. For the greatest honor and glory of the Son consists in this: that He is the Origin of the Holy Spirit.

Does any of this mean that the East must have the filioque in the Creed? Of course not. But neither do I think that we can deny the truth of the procession of Spirit from the Father through the Son or the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
J
Member
Member
J Offline
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Quote
...[This is] the greatest glory of the Son of God�namely that truth which asserts that He is the Principle of the Holy Spirit. This is greater than the glory which asserts that He is the Origin of all created things...[and] the Holy Spirit Himself that most noble act which is to glorify the Son in this, that, from the Son, He, the Holy Spirit eternally receives His Divine Being. For the greatest honor and glory of the Son consists in this: that He is the Origin of the Holy Spirit.


In my mind this is heretical. To say that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son is not to say that the Holy Spirit receives His divine Being from the Son. The Son is not the origin of the Holy Spirit. The Father is the origin of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (the origin) and through the Son (the Father gives the Spirit to the Son) so that the Son can manifest the Spirit to the world. To me, this is not just semantics and if the Son is implicated in the ontological origin of the Spirit in any way then I believe that the teaching is a heresy.

Joe

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,337
Likes: 98
Moderator
Member
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,337
Likes: 98
Okay ladies and gentlemen. That's enough. This thread has descended into the uncharity that can only make the next 1000 years between Orthodox and Catholic Christians as divided as the last 1000.

This thread started with a title that almost guaranteed to draw up the hackles of both sides and has now moved off the immediate topic of the position of the Catholic Church vis-a-vis her Orthodox brethren to the primacy issue, the filoque, and the other polemics that make it so difficult to find common ground.

That this clarification for the Catholics is nothing new should come as no surprise. That it continues to inflame our Orthodox brethren is also nothing new. That the Orthodox Church sees herself to be in the same position as the Catholic Church's stated position should also come as no surprise. That this may seem irreconcilable should also come as no surprise. That Christians on both sides have taken the opportunity to scourge the Lord should shock and scandalize us all.

So as of this post I am warning anyone who responds to the posts since I asked for forbearance this morning, post at your own risk. I will recommend suspensions for any more uncharitable posts. I am also recommending to the administrators that this post be closed.

BOB

Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225
Likes: 1
Member
Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225
Likes: 1
I just checked my posts & found zilch regarding this topic and will only say that the word "defective" is wrong and it should have been something inline with "in-complete".

Though I do think I am defective and incomplete regarding many things, as well as being a sinner... that's my no spin zone two cents worth... cool

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,437
Likes: 1
Administrator
Member
Administrator
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,437
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by theophan
So as of this post I am warning anyone who responds to the posts since I asked for forbearance this morning, post at your own risk. I will recommend suspensions for any more uncharitable posts. I am also recommending to the administrators that this post be closed.

BOB
As I stated this morning before I left for the office I concurred with Theophan regarding his warning. With that this is now closed and the topic may not be reopened in this or any other section of the forum. Also posts and posters are under evaluation for further administrative action.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator


Everyone baptized into Christ should pass progressively through all the stages of Christ's own life, for in baptism he receives the power so to progress, and through the commandments he can discover and learn how to accomplish such progression. - Saint Gregory of Sinai
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Irish Melkite 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2024). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 8.0.0