|
Forums26
Topics35,511
Posts417,517
Members6,161
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 16
. Junior Member
|
|
. Junior Member
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 16 |
Katholicos Mercy noted, "I see division over the defining of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from both the Father and the Son as petty at best. The real issue between East and West as its always been is the question of authority and obedience."
I am going to respond to Mercy's comments about the issue of "filioque" being petty. Rather then attempt to address the issue myself, I will use the more eloquent comments of Bishop Kallistos Ware from his book _The Orthodox Church_. I post them and find myself in full agreement with Ware's comments. To use some of Mercy's earlier comments, he may find the following comments of Ware divisive as he found the comments of Father Miltiades which I posted earlier. If he does not want to be disturbed, he should not read Bishop Kallistos' comments because they are very strong.
Kallistos writes, "Orthodoxy objected (and still objects) to this addition in the Creed, for two reasons. First, the Ecumenical Councils specifically forbade any changes to be introduced into the Creed; and if an addition has to be made, certainly nothing short of another Ecumenical Council is competent to make it. The Creed is the common possession of the whole Church, and a part of the Church has no right to tamper with it. The west, in arbitrarily altering the Creed with out consulting the east, is guilty...of moral fratricide, of a sin against the unity of the whole Church. In the second place, Orthodox believe filioque to be theologically untrue. They hold that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and consider it a heresy to say that He proceeds from the SON as well. IT MAY SEEM TO MANY THAT THE POINT AT ISSUE iS SO ABSTRUSE AS TO BE UNIMPORTANT [emphasis mine for Mercy's sake]. But the Orthodox would say that since the doctrine of the Trinity stands at the heart of the Christian faith, a small change in emphasis in Trinitarian theology has consequences in many other fields. Not only does the filioque destroy the balance between the three persons of the Holy Trinity: it leads also to a false understanding of the work of the Spirit in the world, and so encourages a false doctrine of the Church.(pp 59-60)" Ware notes in a footnote that this is the official position of the Church.
It is better to be blunt and not sugarcoat the issue. BTW, that is why I posted Miltiades's comments. If Mercy has problems with the issue, I apologize. Several things about this Bishops (anti-west from what I can gather) statment doesn't make sense to me. Its contrary to the Holy Scriptures when Jesus says in: Joh 15:26 And when the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who proceeds from the Father, that One will witness concerning Me. and again in: Joh 16:7 But I tell you the truth, it is advantageous for you that I should go; for if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you. But if I go, I will send Him to you. (Literal translation of Jeromes Latin Vulgate). Its obvious that the good Bishop is correct that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father but if we are to believe the very words of our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ, He has a major part in inparting the Holy Spirit to us. Since the Bishops statements cannot be reconciled with Christs own words then the remainder of his statement would turn inward on himself. He says he is not accepting "false" doctrine therefore if it isn't false then his view of the power of Christ must be incorrect. The three persons of the Trinity are equal. Their wills are the same. Jesus was concieved of the Holy Spirit to come into the world. He has not ascended into heaven to order the Holy Spirit or the Father to send Him. Thier wills are intertwined in heaven and what one wills so do the others. This also means that the Holy Spirit himself is free to go where He wishes. There is no conflict with the Trinity for the Holy Spirit to proceed from Father, Son or Himself fore their wills are perfectly united. The first rule of hermenutics is to take the inspired word literally. Jesus says twice as quoted above that HE is sending the Spirit. So logic would entail that the Spirit is also comming from His intercession. This is exactly what the words "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" means. I do not wish to get hung up on this ancient debate however in my humble opinion what the words mean is not the true underlying issue. As the Bishop mentions his argument being unity; A unity that he cannot accept because he feels the east wasn't consulted. Here in lays the true issue. The pride of the east was insulted and it fails to reconcile the very words of our God because of it. I would then ask is the west the enemy or is common pride? To me the answer to that question is evident and the cure to all disunity is humility. Thank you for your sensitive reply and I hope I do not sound harsh in my rebutal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 16
. Junior Member
|
|
. Junior Member
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 16 |
My problem with having the Filioque in the Creed is that it destroys the Creed's universality.
Deacon Richard Dear Deacon Richard, If you wouldn't mind, please elaborate on how you percieve the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son as destroying the Creed's universality? I am not sure I understand what you mean. Thanks in advance, Christs blessings.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 396
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 396 |
Deacon Richard, you noted, "BTW, it was at the Council of Florence that the Filioque officially became a part of the Creed. Theoretically, the Eastern Church ratified it at that time, and that is why the West considers it legitimate." Your comment is, in my opinion, somewhat of an overstatement. The passage below comes from the Wikkipedia article on the Council of Florence /Farrara.
"On 8 June 1439 an agreement was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, Mark of Ephesus, who held that Rome continued in both heresy and schism. Apparently, the Great Schism was over. However, after Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople died only two days later, the Greeks insisted that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved only by the agreement of an Eastern synod. Upon their return, the Eastern bishops found their agreement with the West broadly rejected by the populace and by civil authorities (with the notable exception of the Emperors of the East who remained committed to union until the fall of the Byzantine Empire two decades later). The union signed at Florence, even down to the present, has never been accepted by the Eastern churches."
Because of Mark of Ephesus' opposition to filioque, he was canonized by the EOC.
Last edited by johnzonaras; 09/23/07 04:08 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 107
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 107 |
Joh 15:26 And when the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who proceeds from the Father, that One will witness concerning Me.
and again in:
Joh 16:7 But I tell you the truth, it is advantageous for you that I should go; for if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you. But if I go, I will send Him to you.
(Literal translation of Jeromes Latin Vulgate). This is concerning the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit not the eternal procession. You can't make a direct relationship between the two.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 13
BANNED Junior Member
|
|
BANNED Junior Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 13 |
Gordo, You take Matt: 16 as a proof Of Papal Infallibility? I would imagine you would count St. Augustine as a good and faithful Roman Catholic? (One of only a few "Doctors' of the Church in your tradition) In his own writings Augustine plainly and without the censure of Rome, commented on these supposed proofs of Peter's sovreign lordship, infallibility and ability to mysteriously pass all of that on to Roman Bishops, with a completely different take.
His comments in their essence stated that the Church is not based on the person of any Apostle but upon Christ Himself and that Christ was affirming the saving confession (You are the Messiah the son of the Living God) of Peter as the "Rock" on which His Church was to be founded and not on Peter, Paul or anyone else. [The Works, of St. Augustine New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993, Sermons, Vol.6 Sermon 229P.1,pg 327]You can read the entire discouse in it's entirety there. I have also submitted portions of it verbatim here in other posts
Now if your understanding with that of James Likoudis is the genuine Catholic view that would put St. Augustine at direct odds with your magisterium. Where is the condemnation of Rome then, or any time soon thereafter? This should have been swift, and the writings condmened as heretical.
They of course are as non-existent, as was this invented dogma, that wouldn't rear it's heretical head for quite some time.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 107
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 107 |
I would imagine you would count St. Augustine as a good and faithful Roman Catholic? In his own writings Augustine plainly and without the censure of Rome, commented on these supposed proofs of Peter's sovereign lordship, infallibility and ability to mysteriously pass all of that on to Roman Bishops, with a completely different take. Not true. His position is the position of the church. You misread him. St Augustine is attributed the expression "Rome has spoken the case is closed." Does that sound like he rejects Peter! It is a mystery exactly how the Holy Spirit actually does it. That is true. The trinity is a mystery too. Do you reject the trinity because it is a mystery? How the Bible is inspired is a mystery too. Do you reject the bible? His comments in their essence stated that the Church is not based on the person of any Apostle but upon Christ Himself. This is also Catholic doctrine that Christ founded the church and that he himself is the cornerstone. All authority was given to Jesus and Jesus passed on this authority. Your problem is much like the problem of faith and/or works. You are trying to make a dichotomy where there is none. First you try the protestant approach that the rock is Jesus which can't be supported. You then try to say the Rock is Peter's faith which some fathers say and other fathers say the Rock is Peter himself. There is no dichotomy here but focus on two aspects. You are trying to separate the faith of Peter from Peter. Peter's faith wasn't called Cephas. Peter himself was. And the name changing is very significant in the Bible as you should well know. His mission is now as the Rock. He was Simon (means wavering) and became Cephas( means Rock).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 571
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 571 |
Gordo, You take Matt: 16 as a proof Of Papal Infallibility? I would imagine you would count St. Augustine as a good and faithful Roman Catholic? (One of only a few "Doctors' of the Church in your tradition) In his own writings Augustine plainly and without the censure of Rome, commented on these supposed proofs of Peter's sovreign lordship, infallibility and ability to mysteriously pass all of that on to Roman Bishops, with a completely different take.
His comments in their essence stated that the Church is not based on the person of any Apostle but upon Christ Himself and that Christ was affirming the saving confession (You are the Messiah the son of the Living God) of Peter as the "Rock" on which His Church was to be founded and not on Peter, Paul or anyone else. [The Works, of St. Augustine New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993, Sermons, Vol.6 Sermon 229P.1,pg 327]You can read the entire discouse in it's entirety there. I have also submitted portions of it verbatim here in other posts
Now if your understanding with that of James Likoudis is the genuine Catholic view that would put St. Augustine at direct odds with your magisterium. Where is the condemnation of Rome then, or any time soon thereafter? This should have been swift, and the writings condmened as heretical.
They of course are as non-existent, as was this invented dogma, that wouldn't rear it's heretical head for quite some time. It's not just Gordo, and St. Augustine did not say what you have him say about Peter. What he did say was (my translation): Blessed Peter, first of the Apostles, vehement lover of Christ, who was made worthy to hear: "And I tell thee, that thou are Peter." For Peter had said: "Thou are the Christ [the Annointed, the Messiah], the Son of the living God." So, Christ replied: "And I tell thee, that thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church." Upon this rock I will build the faith that thou hast confessed. On this, that thou hast said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," I will build my Church. For thou art Rock. From the Rock, Peter; not from Peter, the Rock. Thus, from the Rock, Peter, as from the Christ, the Christian. [...] As you know, the Lord Jesus elected his disciples before his passion, calling them Apostles. Among them, nearly everywhere only Peter was made worthy to act in the person (persona) of the whole Church. For the sake of that role (persona), wherein he alone was acting for the whole Church, he was made worthy to hear: "I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven." For he received those keys, not as an individual, but as the unity of the Church. [Has enim claves non homo unus, sed unitas accepit Ecclesiae.](emphasis added) Coincidentally, I found the following statement from a Bishop of the Syro-Malabar (Orthodox) Church, regarding the same topic, and I would say he agrees with St. Augustine: The Fathers of the Syrian Church tried to give a theological interpretation to the person of Peter. They were fully convinced of the unique office of Peter in the primitive Christian community. Ephrem, Afrahat and Marutha who were supposed to be the best exponents of the early Syrian tradition unequivocally acknowledge the office of Peter. They understood that Peter participated in the person as well as the office of Christ in a special way. The Syrian Fathers following the rabbinic tradition call Jesus �Kepha� for they see �rock� in the Old Testament as a messianic Symbol. When Christ gave his own name �Kepha� to Simon he was giving him participation in the person and office of Christ. Christ who is the Kepha and shepherd made Simon the chief shepherd in his place and gave him the very name Kepha and said that on Kepha he would build the Church. Afrahat shared the common Syriac tradition. For him Kepha is infact another name of Jesus, and Simon was given the right to share the name. The person who receives somebody else�s name also obtains the rights of the person who bestows the name. Afrahat makes the stone taken from Jordan a type of Peter. He says Jesus son of Nun set up the stones for a witness in Israel; Jesus our Saviour called Simon Kepha Sarirto and set him as the faithful witness among nations.
Again he says in his commentary on Deutronomy that Moses brought forth water from �rock� (Kepha) for the people and Jesus sent Simon Kepha to carry his teachings among nations. Our Lord accepted him and made him the foundation of the Church and called him Kepha. When he speaks about transfiguration of Christ he calls him Simon Peter, the foundation of the Church. (emphasis added) [ syrianchurch.org] This are not proof texts -- they are the prayerful meditations of Christians, Fathers of the Church, Catholic and Orthodox, on a mystery as it appears in the Word of God itself. Best, Michael
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 199
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 199 |
MelkiteMan is right: the verses in question have to do with the Holy Spirit's temporal procession. The Holy Spirit's eternal procession is from the Father alone, though he comes to us believers through the Son. In the same way, Christ was eternally begotten of the Father (alone) but when He appeared among us in these last days, He was conceived of the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary. ---------
Western Orthodoxy Blog [westernorthodox.blogspot.com]
Last edited by Western Orthodox; 09/23/07 07:58 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
MelkiteMan is right: the verses in question have to do with the Holy Spirit's temporal procession. The Holy Spirit's eternal procession is from the Father alone, though he comes to us believers through the Son. In the same way, Christ was eternally begotten of the Father (alone) but when He appeared among us in these last days, He was conceived of the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary. ---------
Western Orthodoxy Blog [westernorthodox.blogspot.com]This brings up an interesting question: What is the reason why the Orthodox East should take the position that the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit reveals nothing about inner Trinitarian life? What is the basis for this exclusion? This has bothered me for some time and I have no answer for it based on my reading so far. God bless, Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 13
BANNED Junior Member
|
|
BANNED Junior Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 13 |
content deleted
Last edited by Father Anthony; 09/23/07 09:40 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,437 Likes: 1
Administrator Member
|
|
Administrator Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,437 Likes: 1 |
7968,
You have crossed the lines of charity required for posters on this forum. As other have been warned previously either you address other posters with respect and charity or your posting privileges will be called into question. The content of your post has been deleted and you may readdress it within the charitable guidelines of this forum.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 13
BANNED Junior Member
|
|
BANNED Junior Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 13 |
Fr. Anthony,
I have crossed the line? I can at least console myself with the thought that this transgression is much preferable to distorting and mis-represnting genuine Catholic Tradition.
Wish I could say I am sorry for doing so...but sorry I just can't. Well I guess I could, I just won't.
I'll let you folks be. It's been fun. Sing a chorus of Kumbaya together and wish me well as I ride off into the sunset.
By the way isn't it enough of an ego trip for you that you are addressed as Father? Must you be a Monitor Pope to boot?
Let's see, I'll give this post a life span of less than twenty minutes.
P.S. The sentiments expressed here are those solely of the author, they do not represent the views of his Lord nor His Holy Church except when accurately reflecting the views of the Fathers and Holy Tradition. Any smart-ass remarks or personal aspersions directed by the author to any posters or moderators are the authors alone.
P.S. P.S. You do not need to suspend my posting privileges I surrender them of my own volition.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
Your post saddens me in many ways. I will keep you in my prayers today.
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,765 Likes: 29
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,765 Likes: 29 |
Fr. Anthony,
I have crossed the line? I can at least console myself with the thought that this transgression is much preferable to distorting and mis-represnting genuine Catholic Tradition.
Wish I could say I am sorry for doing so...but sorry I just can't. Well I guess I could, I just won't.
I'll let you folks be. It's been fun. Sing a chorus of Kumbaya together and wish me well as I ride off into the sunset.
By the way isn't it enough of an ego trip for you that you are addressed as Father? Must you be a Monitor Pope to boot?
Let's see, I'll give this post a life span of less than twenty minutes.
P.S. The sentiments expressed here are those solely of the author, they do not represent the views of his Lord nor His Holy Church except when accurately reflecting the views of the Fathers and Holy Tradition. Any smart-ass remarks or personal aspersions directed by the author to any posters or moderators are the authors alone.
P.S. P.S. You do not need to suspend my posting privileges I surrender them of my own volition.
In 1 Corinthians 13 the Holy Apostle Paul speaks of faith, hope, and love (charity). He considered love (charity) to be the most important of the three. It is truly a shame that you cannot present your position with the same charity that flows from Orthodoxy, a charity that is quite amply demonstrated by other Orthodox posters. Charity does not demand agreement on theological issues. It does demand that one be agreeable.
I am quite glad that you noted that the sentiments are yours, and not those of the Lord, His Church, the Fathers and Holy Tradition. I am sure they would be embarassed should anyone confuse your uncharitable witness with their charitable one.
The Byzantine Forum community wishes you the Lord's choicest blessings as you head to other forums. May He grant you many years in salvation, peace and health.
John (Admin)
|
|
|
|
|
