www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology filioque and purgatory

At UGCC Bishop +Richard's recent consecration in Chicago, at the public recitation of the Creed which is required of the episcopal candidate he recited it without the Filoque before his co-consecrators Patriarch Lubomyr, Bishop Robert Moskal and Metropolitan Stefan Soroka and the whole church. I can add my 'Axios' to that!

Dear Mateusz,

The issue of the inclusion of the Filioque into the creed was never a matter of "heresy."

This is distinct from the theological interpretations of the Filioque, of course.

It is a question of whether Rome had the right to include a word in the universal Creed unilaterally.

When the Pope celebrates Mass in Greek, he does not use the "Filiqoue." The RC Church of Greece has now completely deleted it from the Nicene Creed.

Be careful, please, when you use words like "heretic" etc.

You don't want to be responsible for creating yet another schism, do you?

Alex

Mateusz:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

You said: "i personally believe in the filioque for it has scriptural basis."

That's fine. But please take a closer look at that scriptural basis, particularly at John 15.26 (which I presume you have in mind): �When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of me.� Please note the different Greek words St. John uses for Christ �sending� the Spirit (pempso, in the future tense) and the Spirit's �proceeding� from the Father (ekporeuetai, in the present tense). The Fathers in the East understood this difference to be critical, a sign that John was distinguishing between the Spirit�s temporal or economic mission and his hypostatic origin. The Spirit is sent into the world through the Son but, ontologically or theologically, the Spirit � like the Son � proceeds eternally from the Father, the sole principle or source of the Godhead.

(That the Father is the source/ principle is His particular hypostasis; if the Son shares that hypostasis with the Father, then it must not be the Father�s �unique� hypostasis and must be a �characteristic� of the Godhead as such, its ousia � which means, lest we subordinate the Spirit to the Father and Son, the Spirit must also proceed from Himself.)

Note that the original Nicene Creed uses a form of the �theological verb� ekporeuetai (to ek tou patros ekporeuomenon), not a form of the �economic verb� pempso. Just as important, you will note that the Greek word used for �begotten� � as in �the only-begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father� � is �gennethenta,� a synonym interchangeable with ekporeuomenon but not with pempso.

I would recommend reading Pelikan on this issue in, if I recall correctly, Volumes I and II of �The Christian Tradition.�

In Christ,
Theophilos

I've been a frequent reader of byzcath forum for over a year now and have never posted a message until now. I thoroughly enjoy reading the comments going to and fro. Yet, today when I read the following I nearly burst a gasket!


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:

As for the Immaculate Conception - it was a doctrine developed by Rome to prevent it from saying the Mother of God had the "stain of original sin" on her soul, following Augustinianism.

As an Eastern Christian I must politely disagree with OrthodoxCatholic, with all due respect to his distinguished number of posts (nearing ten grand I see, eh!).

No serious student of the Christian Faith would even attempt to assert that Rome developed this doctrine, and that it was somehow determined by Augustinianism (whatever that means).

I would encourage some of my brothers to read the
Typicon S. Sabae, "It is evident and notorious that she was pure from eternity, exempt from every defect."

Or: Origen, "Worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings" (Hom. 1 in Diversa).

Or to read Theodotus of Ancyra, (Or. In S Deip., n. 11).

One mut be careful with words (directed against persons or churches), for they can do great harm.

Publican

Publican:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Though Alex certainly does not need me to defend him, I would suggest you read his many other posts on this issue. He would NOT disagree with the idea that the Theotokos was sanctified from the moment of her conception. He would agree with Origen, et al.

He would disagree, however, with the idea that a dogmatic pronouncement was needed to assert that the Mother of God was born without the stain, the guilt, of original sin. Why? Because, as Eastern Christians, we believe that none of us are born with the guilt of Adam's sin -- though we do accept that we inherit the consequences of that sin (death and concupiscence).

In Christ,
Theophilos

Dear Publican,

I would listen to Theophilus, if I were you.

I really would . . .

Alex

Noooo it was never my intention to tell you what you have to believe or anything like that, it was just a comment. I never said that I thought Eastern Catholics were required to add the Filioque either. But I really thought all Catholics were required to believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but I also wrote that from what I knew this does not interfere with Orthodox doctrine.

Dear Snoopers,

Just relax, Big Guy! This is not a traditional Orthodox or RC forum - we take it easy here!

What you say is strictly true from the perspective of the Council of Florence.

But we're a long way off from the 15th century, you know!

Alex