The Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon, 410 A.D. and versions of NC Creed.

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Vanhyo said:
Vanyho, The Sixth Ecumenical Council taught us through Pope St. Agatho, "Because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it ... For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples"
Pope Agatho ties the primacy of Rome with orthodox confession of faith which he Rome had at the time and which he defines as essence-energy distinction. This is the faith of the Orthodox Church today, not that of Rome which teaches absolute divine simplicity.
LOL ... let’s  leave the essence energy bit as that is just hilarious.

I think you forgot to read :

”but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, AND REMAINS  UNDEFILED UNTO THE END, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself...”
 

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Deacon Lance said:
Wandile said:
Rohzek said:
Wandile said:
Rohzek said:
Wandile said:
Rohzek said:
Wandile said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Xavier said:
So now, in this synod in 410 A.D. we similarly find two versions of a Creed already in use. Wiki notes: "The creed is found in two different recensions, both of them recorded in much later manuscripts. First recension is East Syriac and comes from the Church of the East sources. Second is West Syriac and comes from Syrian Orthodox sources. [5] The East Syriac recension contains: "And in the Holy Spirit"[6] while the West Syriac recension contains: "And we confess the living and Holy Spirit, the living Paraclete, who is from the Father and the Son".[7][6] There has been a long controversy among scholars over the relationship between these two texts. The development of a Persian creed is difficult to track since there were several recensions prior to 410.[4][a] First recension is textually closer to original Nicene Creed. On the other hand, some scholars are claiming that second recension represents the original. Further more, they claim that words "who is from the Father and the Son" in the second recension represent the earliest example of the Filioque clause.[8]"

Would it not be a reasonable interpretation of this historical evidence that both formulations were seen as complementary rather than contradictory, even at this early date, in the Church?
Of course, the sleight of hand here is that we are told the West Syriac recension is an early instance of Filioque, but the quote given does not mention or address the procession of the Spirit at all.
In the eternal context of the creed concerning how they persons come to being... is there any other way the Holy Spirit  can be said to be “from” someone other than by way of procession? Tradition doesn’t teach us any other. It’s not sleight of hand, it’s just fact that this was a filioque statement.
Actually it matters a lot and it is surprising that you say this considering your earlier acknowledgments of the different levels of lifting that are inherent in the Latin verb "procedere" and the Greek verb, whose meaning is far more narrow.
It’s “from” in an eternal context...what more could it be. It’s saying eternally he is from the father and the son. The word proceed has not been used here so the intricacies of ultimate verses general are missed here. The word “from” is closer to Latin proceeds as it’s more generals not denoting ultimate origin. So YES this is a filioque statement and only EO who are struck with the awkwardness of this early non-latin testimony would have a problem admitting this.
It is not so much a problem with any one party but a general lack of clarity. You might think that the Catholic position if the filioque has always been clear in not proclaiming a double ultimate cause, but many including myself still are concerned with numerous past statements. Furthermore you seem unaware of divine eternal mediation, which is how many Orthodox understand the the Son's role in what one might call the Orthodox filioque. Gregory II of Cyprus was quite clear about this. Furthermore, it would be best to post the whole creed here. We cannot expect to have a fruitful discussion about a creed written in Syriac without having at least both the original language and a full English translation. Even then, it would be highly reliant on someone being kind enough to go through the Syriac for us.
Would you confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father Principally and the Son mediately?
If by principally you mean to say ultimate cause, as was the case with St. Augustine, and then by mediately, you mean a term that does not imply any role of generation or cause, then yes, I do.
The Holy Spirit is not generated. The Son is. So you believe in the filioque. What you have expressed is  exactly what saint Augustine taught.
The Son is begotten from the Father.  The Holy Spirit takes his origin from the Father.  The Father is the Person from which the other two persons come, the source of the Trinity.
Okay... where did I or the Latin tradition ever deny this?

It would be helpful if we all started using the words of the Creed, which was written in Greek.  Proceed is poor translation of ekporeuomenon, and is largely the cause of the problem since proceed doesn’t imply origination.  When the Greeks say the Creed they are talking about the Father as the source of the Son by being begotten by him and the Spirit by taking his origin from him.  The procession of the Spirit is a different matter and I think the Fathers agree the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son but the Creed was not talking about procession and the Latins mistranslated it to read as such.
Addressed by Xavier.
 

Vanhyo

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
1,156
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Location
Bulgaria
Wandile said:
Vanhyo said:
Vanyho, The Sixth Ecumenical Council taught us through Pope St. Agatho, "Because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it ... For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples"
Pope Agatho ties the primacy of Rome with orthodox confession of faith which he Rome had at the time and which he defines as essence-energy distinction. This is the faith of the Orthodox Church today, not that of Rome which teaches absolute divine simplicity.
LOL ... let’s  leave the essence energy bit as that is just hilarious.

I think you forgot to read :

”but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, AND REMAINS  UNDEFILED UNTO THE END, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself...”

orthodox rome speaking about itself as part of the Church, the promise isfor the Church not for a location. You have to uphold the faith of Pope St Agatho, where he teaches essence energy distinction and (by doing so) reject the absolute divine simplicity of middle age  scholastics, only by believing like the sainly pope you can be in communion with him and the Orthodox Church.​
 

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Vanhyo said:
Wandile said:
Vanhyo said:
Vanyho, The Sixth Ecumenical Council taught us through Pope St. Agatho, "Because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it ... For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples"
Pope Agatho ties the primacy of Rome with orthodox confession of faith which he Rome had at the time and which he defines as essence-energy distinction. This is the faith of the Orthodox Church today, not that of Rome which teaches absolute divine simplicity.
LOL ... let’s  leave the essence energy bit as that is just hilarious.

I think you forgot to read :

”but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, AND REMAINS  UNDEFILED UNTO THE END, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself...”

orthodox rome speaking about itself as part of the Church, the promise isfor the Church not for a location. You have to uphold the faith of Pope St Agatho, where he teaches essence energy distinction and (by doing so) reject the absolute divine simplicity of middle age  scholastics, only by believing like the sainly pope you can be in communion with him and the Orthodox Church.


St Agatho explicitly mentions he is speaking about The Church of Rome. Again you’re in denial​
 

Xavier

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,184
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
32
Website
marianapostolate.com
Pope Agatho ties the primacy of Rome with orthodox confession of faith which Rome had at the time and which he defines as essence-energy distinction
Is that really what the text says, Vanyho? It rather speaks of the Lord's promise to St. Peter in the Gospels and applies it to the Church of Rome. That's clear in the letter. As for essence energy, the word "energy" in the Greek Fathers is usually translated divine operations in the west. See this Catholic Dictionary on Divine Operations: "God's activity outside of Himself. Also called divine activity ad extra in contrast with divine activity within the Trinity. The Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Florence teach that all of God's activity outside the Trinity is done simultaneously and equally by all three persons. Thus everything that God does in the world of creatures, whether naturally or supernaturally, is the operation of all three divine persons." https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33161

Maybe you can start a new thread to discuss energies, Vanyho?

For this thread, you cannot say ad extra activity belongs to one person alone; hence, when your Patriarch St. Tarasius says "the Spirit proceeds from Father through the Son", he cannot be speaking of an energy or operation (because he distinguishes the Person), but is speaking of the Person of the Holy Spirit.

Trust me, he is way more aware than any cat apologist on these matters
Is he more aware on these matters than Pope St. Leo the Great was? You yourself have said St. Peter miraculously confirmed his teaching. St. Leo taught the Spirit is He "Who Proceeds from Both". This text is cited in the CCC and its authenticity is universally admitted. So will Dyer claim Pope St. Leo the Great was guilty of "arian subordinationism"? How fallacious!

We can show you the Latin texts. All our Latin Fathers taught hypostatic procession and the Filioque. If we can agree on that, we can discuss the Greek Fathers. We Latins will never reject the testimony of the Greek Fathers. But likewise we would ask only that our brothers and sisters in the Greek Church also duly accept the testimony of the Latin Fathers. If we can agree at least that all the Latin Fathers or all the Greek Fathers cannot be mistaken on some point, we can move forward.
 

Rohzek

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2015
Messages
1,364
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Wandile said:
Rohzek said:
Wandile said:
PorphyriosK said:
Wandile said:
The Holy Spirit is not generated. The Son is. So you believe in the filioque. What you have expressed is  exactly what saint Augustine taught.
But not what St. Thomas taught though, right?  I thought St. Thomas and the Catholic Church as a whole taught that the Father and the Son are both the ultimate cause of the Spirit.
No not even close hey. St Thomas like St Augustine and Lyons II and the council of Florence and Lateran the IV strictly uphold the father as ultimate cause. What they teach is this :

[FATHER——-> SON (mediate) ]/(one principle)——-> Holy Spirit

Or simply FATHER——>SON——> Holy Spirit
First, let me just say that in my post above, when I used the word "generation" I meant "cause", not "begotteness." But yes, I do believe in a type of filioque. My problem arises however with your statement quote above - the idea of the Father and Son as one principle. See, for me, principle implies cause. And as far as my reading of St. Augustine goes, he only uses the term "principaliter" with regards to the Father.
”"If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver,[b{ then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle[/b]" (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]).


He then again says:

"[The one] from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term ‘principally’ because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son" (ibid., 15:17:29).


I could be missing something of his, but it never occurs in conjunction with the Son. So when I read the canons of Florence and Lateran IV, I really think that the Catholic bishops were remarkably confused to say the least
As shows above I would agree with the gilded part. The Latins theologians are not confused it’s you Rhozek that is confused. The problem, as with many EO, is that you refuse to understand how othe traditions use terms like “cause”, “origin, “principle” and “proceed” in their own understanding of those terms” but seek to force a Byzantine understanding of those words on the other tradition and then seem surprised when their words don’t make sense. You and the Byzantine tradition keep committing the same old mistake since Chalcedon which cause unnecessary schisms purely based on different usuages of the same the terms.


So to put the problem in brief, many Orthodox would follow along the Catholic argument just nicely with, "In a broader definition of procession - as is possible in X, Y, and Z languages - we believe the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father and the Son, yet let it be known that the Father alone is the cause of the Holy Spirit." However, when you insert that last segment of "Because the Father and the Son are one principle," it basically just erases all the progress made in the previous lines of the argument.
As shown above it shouldn’t if you can identify HOW the Latins use them. Principle has a wide definition and can be used in two different senses in the same topic of discussion. When speaking of the father as total Unoriginate cause we can say he is the principle alone of the trinity. Yet in another sense ,equally valid, we can say the Father and the Son are one principle in that together (compoundly) they are responsible for the Holy Spirit as the Holy Spirit does not and cannot proceed without the Son.

It’s like the patristic example of St Gregory of Nyssa who gave the example of the three flames:

Ultimately he says the third flame comes from the first flame (Principalter). However the third flame was only lit because the second flame was lit which lit the third flame. Thus the first two flames can be said to be a single principle.


I'm staying away from Christology in this thread.

At any rate, you've forgotten to include an important piece of context in your first quote of St. Augustine:

Principium quomodo in Trinitate relative dicatur. Dicitur ergo relative Pater, idemque relative dicitur principium, et si quid forte aliud: sed Pater ad Filium dicitur, principium vero ad omnia quae ab ipso sunt. Item dicitur relative Filius, relative dicitur et Verbum et Imago; et in omnibus his vocabulis ad Patrem refertur: nihil autem horum Pater dicitur. Et principium dicitur Filius: cum enim diceretur ei, Tu quis es? respondit, Principium, qui et loquor vobis (Joan. VIII, 25). Sed numquid Patris principium? Creatorem se quippe ostendere voluit, cum se dixit esse principium; sicut et Pater principium est creaturae, eo quod ab ipso sunt omnia. Nam et creator relative dicitur ad creaturam, sicut dominus ad servum. Et ideo cum dicimus, et Patrem principium, et Filium principium, non duo principia creaturae dicimus; quia et Pater et Filius simul ad creaturam unum principium est, sicut unus creator, sicut unus Deus.

The Father is called so, therefore, relatively, and He is also relatively said to be the Principle, and whatever else there may be of the kind; but He is called the Father in relation to the Son, the Principle in relation to all things, which are from Him. So the Son is relatively so called; He is called also relatively the Word and the Image. And in all these appellations He is referred to the Father, but the Father is called by none of them. And the Son is also called the Principle; for when it was said to Him, Who are You? He replied, Even the Principle, who also speak to you. But is He, pray, the Principle of the Father? For He intended to show Himself to be the Creator when He said that He was the Principle, as the Father also is the Principle of the creature in that all things are from Him. For creator, too, is spoken relatively to creature, as master to servant. And so when we say, both that the Father is the Principle, and that the Son is the Principle, we do not speak of two principles of the creature; since both the Father and the Son together is one principle in respect to the creature, as one Creator, as one God.

Translation borrowed and modified from New Advent: http://newadvent.org/fathers/130105.htm
The rest of the passage ends with the brief line you had quoted more or less. So yeah, I stand corrected on this point, Wandile. Many thanks. It seems here that St. Augustine is speaking of principle as something other than cause because he is treating the term more relatively, which puts Florence, etc. in a more understandable light.

As for your second quote, I would argue that Augustine is shifting towards an absolute description of the Trinity here. He is using "principaliter" here to refer to the Father's role as cause. This is why he says immediately afterwards:

sed hoc quoque illi pater dedit (non iam exsistenti et nondum habenti), sed quidquid unigenito uerbo dedit gignendo dedit.

But this [i.e. the Holy Spirit] too the Father gives to him [i.e. the Son] (not of having existence or of having), but whatever he gives by means of the only-begotten Son he gives by means of begetting.
He says elsewhere too:

Filius autem de Patre natus est: et Spiritus sanctus de Patre principaliter, et ipso sine ullo temporis intervallo dante, communiter de utroque procedit.

But the Son is begotten from the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds principally from the Father. And without any rendering interval of time itself, the Holy Spirit proceeds from both communitively.

De Trinitate Book 15, Chapter 26, Section 47
What say you?
 

WPM

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
7,775
Reaction score
6
Points
0
Age
38
May the Blessed Light shine Forth
 

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Rohzek said:
As for your second quote, I would argue that Augustine is shifting towards an absolute description of the Trinity here. He is using "principaliter" here to refer to the Father's role as cause. This is why he says immediately afterwards:

sed hoc quoque illi pater dedit (non iam exsistenti et nondum habenti), sed quidquid unigenito uerbo dedit gignendo dedit.

But this [i.e. the Holy Spirit] too the Father gives to him [i.e. the Son] (not of having existence or of having), but whatever he gives by means of the only-begotten Son he gives by means of begetting.
He says elsewhere too:

Filius autem de Patre natus est: et Spiritus sanctus de Patre principaliter, et ipso sine ullo temporis intervallo dante, communiter de utroque procedit.

But the Son is begotten from the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds principally from the Father. And without any rendering interval of time itself, the Holy Spirit proceeds from both communitively.

De Trinitate Book 15, Chapter 26, Section 47
What say you?
I wholeheartedly agree.

The whole point of posting the second quote was to show how the same word “principle” can be used in two different senses without contradiction.
 

Sharbel

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 31, 2017
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
3
Points
36
Xavier said:
Also, St. Augustine says the Father and Son are One Principle of the Holy Spirit in De Trinitate. Principle and Cause don't mean the same thing.
In a sort of Pneumatic Arianism.  He goes to say, beautifully and poetically as only St. Augustine can, that the Holy Spirit is the personification of the love between the Father and the Son.  Unfortunately, since love is an act of the will, it also makes the Spirit a creature of their wills.  Like the Arians, one could say, after this aphorism, that once the Spirit was not.

Church Fathers were not infallible, only the unanimity of the Church is.  And, on this, the Filioque, the Roman Church has been alone for nigh over a millennium.
 

Sharbel

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 31, 2017
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
3
Points
36
Wandile said:
Sharbel said:
This is Catholicism after Vatican I.  The modernists deny that PP JPII declared infallibly the impossibility of ordaining women in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, in spite of the highly technical language.
It most certainly was not modernists but the CDF itself (which was the bane of modernists) which proclaimed that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not ex cathedra but was just as true on account of it being a reiteration of Holy Tradition.
So, the bureaucracy of the CDF is the true interpreter of papal documents?  Is it passing judgement on the pope, contradicting Pastor Eternus?  Or does the CDF interpret VI differently?  Which CDF, PP JPII's, BXVI's or FI's?  Because, when it comes to the Vatican, one has to ask.
 

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Sharbel said:
Wandile said:
Sharbel said:
This is Catholicism after Vatican I.  The modernists deny that PP JPII declared infallibly the impossibility of ordaining women in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, in spite of the highly technical language.
It most certainly was not modernists but the CDF itself (which was the bane of modernists) which proclaimed that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not ex cathedra but was just as true on account of it being a reiteration of Holy Tradition.
So, the bureaucracy of the CDF is the true interpreter of papal documents?  Is it passing judgement on the pope, contradicting Pastor Eternus?  Or does the CDF interpret VI differently?  Which CDF, PP JPII's, BXVI's or FI's?
Any pronouncement of the CDF is approved by the pope. So St John Paul II agreed it was not ex cathedra. It was St John Paul II’s CDF headed by Cardinal Ratzinger.
 

Sharbel

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 31, 2017
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
3
Points
36
Wandile said:
Any pronouncement of the CDF is approved by the pope. So St John Paul II agreed it was not ex cathedra. It was St John Paul II’s CDF headed by Cardinal Ratzinger.
I love PP BXVI, but why would PP JPII need to hide behind his assistant, a cardinal?  While I also think that PP JPII respected the cardinal a lot, it's nothing but conjecture to think that each and every statement by the CDF bears papal authority.
 

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Sharbel said:
Wandile said:
Any pronouncement of the CDF is approved by the pope. So St John Paul II agreed it was not ex cathedra. It was St John Paul II’s CDF headed by Cardinal Ratzinger.
I love PP BXVI, but why would PP JPII need to hide behind his assistant, a cardinal?  While I also think that PP JPII respected the cardinal a lot, it's nothing but conjecture to think that each and every statement by the CDF bears papal authority.
It’s not conjecture but actual fact. The CDF and all Roman dicastries serve as help for the pope and only obtain their legitimacy to act from the pope. They cannot do anything without papal approval.
 

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Sharbel said:
Xavier said:
Also, St. Augustine says the Father and Son are One Principle of the Holy Spirit in De Trinitate. Principle and Cause don't mean the same thing.
In a sort of Pneumatic Arianism.  He goes to say, beautifully and poetically as only St. Augustine can, that the Holy Spirit is the personification of the love between the Father and the Son.  Unfortunately, since love is an act of the will, it also makes the Spirit a creature of their wills. Like the Arians, one could say, after this aphorism, that once the Spirit was not.
I totally disagree and urge you to realize Gregory Palamas had no problems using the analogy of Love to apply to the Holy Spirit.

For the sake of argument entertaining your logic leading up to the last line:
For the Holy Spirit to be a creature, there would have to be a time the Son did not exist and further a time where God did not love. God is love so it’s imposisble and secondly St Augustine believed in the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father making him coeternal. So even with this the Holy Spirit can never be relegated to a creature for if God is eternal and his Love is eternal, the Holy Spirit would be eternal too. The only eternal is God. So the Holy Spirit is God not a creature. Thus the model still keeps the Holy Spirit as divine and not a creature. Your logic fails.

Church Fathers were not infallible, only the unanimity of the Church is.  And, on this, the Filioque, the Roman Church has been alone for nigh over a millennium.
Yeah the only tradition to speak extensively on this issue is the latin tradition and it was unanimous that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Of the Byzantines who did, they affirmed it when they spoke on it like St Epiphinaius in many places. St Basil, St terasius etc. Same with the Alexandrians who did  in St Cyril and especially St Athanasius himself in many places. The only church father who can be said to come close to anything denying the Filioque is St John of Damascus. As you said fathers can err so we must take the unanimous consensus . Thus unanimously the church taught the Filioque.
 

Xavier

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,184
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
32
Website
marianapostolate.com
In PL 42: 770, Against Maximus, St. Augustine exegetes a text in Jn 20, "The Son comes from the Father; the Holy Spirit comes from the Father. The former is born; the latter proceeds. Hence, the former is the Son of the Father from Whom He is born, but the latter is the Spirit of both because He proceeds from both. When the Son spoke of the Spirit, He said, "He proceeds from the Father" [Jn 15:26], because the Father is the author of His procession. The Father begot a Son and, by begetting Him, gave it to Him that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him as well. If He did not proceed from Him, He would not say to His disciples, "Receive the Holy Spirit" [Jn 20:22], and give the Spirit by breathing on them. He signified that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from Him and showed outwardly by blowing what He was giving inwardly by breathing."

There's no doubt all the great Latin Fathers - St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Leo, St. Isidore, St. Fulgentius, St. Gregory the Great etc etc - taught the Filioque. The Son is born of the Father. And in His eternal birth from His eternal Father, the Father gives His Son His Spirit. So that the Spirit proceeds eternally from Both.

We see almost the identical doctrine in St. Cyril, "in that the Son is God, and from God according to nature (for He has had His birth from God the Father), the Spirit is both proper to Him and in Him and from Him, just as, to be sure, the same thing is understood to hold true in the case of God the Father Himself." That is PG 71:377, Commentary on the Prophet Joel.

The Spirit is proper to and from the Son i.e. it is a personal property of the Spirit to proceed from the Son just as He proceeds from the Father. The only difference being the Father is the source of this procession, as St. Augustine says, because He eternally gives His Spirit to His Son. Thus, the Spirit is proper to and in and from the Son just as He is from the Father.

This is the same teaching of Bp. St. Leontius at Nicaea. St. Fulgentius expresses the unanimous consent of at least the Latin and arguably all the Fathers when he says, "Believe most firmly, and never doubt, that the same Holy Spirit, the One Spirit of the Father and the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son. That He proceeds also from the Son is supported by the teaching both of Prophets and Apostles." [PL 65:696 Rule of Faith, 11:52]

This is not a single Father, dear Sharbel. This appears to be a clear ancient Tradition in both East and West. Can you show us a single patristic authority that says "The Spirit proceeds from the Father only", or "the Spirit does not proceed from the Son" or the like?
 

Vanhyo

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
1,156
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Location
Bulgaria
Maybe you can start a new thread to discuss energies, Vanyho?
who is vany-ho ? it is pronounced like  V-A-N-I-O. the "H" is only there to prevent the need of placing a 3digit number after the name because all the 2digit ones are already taken. Btw how are you not Xavier167 ?

No, i am not interested in discussions, debates, and getting too involved for the next reasons:
- It is not productive.
- It is very expensive and self-taxing.
- It is time consuming .
- It is annoying.
- all the above combined cause disruption to me during prayer, so it is overall unhealthy waste of time.

I only give short answers to people who get too pushy.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,240
Reaction score
108
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Wandile said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Xavier said:
So now, in this synod in 410 A.D. we similarly find two versions of a Creed already in use. Wiki notes: "The creed is found in two different recensions, both of them recorded in much later manuscripts. First recension is East Syriac and comes from the Church of the East sources. Second is West Syriac and comes from Syrian Orthodox sources. [5] The East Syriac recension contains: "And in the Holy Spirit"[6] while the West Syriac recension contains: "And we confess the living and Holy Spirit, the living Paraclete, who is from the Father and the Son".[7][6] There has been a long controversy among scholars over the relationship between these two texts. The development of a Persian creed is difficult to track since there were several recensions prior to 410.[4][a] First recension is textually closer to original Nicene Creed. On the other hand, some scholars are claiming that second recension represents the original. Further more, they claim that words "who is from the Father and the Son" in the second recension represent the earliest example of the Filioque clause.[8]"

Would it not be a reasonable interpretation of this historical evidence that both formulations were seen as complementary rather than contradictory, even at this early date, in the Church?
Of course, the sleight of hand here is that we are told the West Syriac recension is an early instance of Filioque, but the quote given does not mention or address the procession of the Spirit at all.
In the eternal context of the creed concerning how they persons come to being... is there any other way the Holy Spirit  can be said to be “from” someone other than by way of procession? Tradition doesn’t teach us any other. It’s not sleight of hand, it’s just fact that this was a filioque statement.
You are assuming "eternal context" and "how they (sic) persons come to being" and reading it into that creed.  The words given above as the translation of the Syriac simply do not make that clear.  It could be talking about "eternal", about "temporal", about "eternal" in one person's case and "temporal" in another's, about both applying to one but not the other, etc.  You're reading a creed from fifth century Persia in light of a creed from hundreds of years later on the other side of the world and assuming it's the same thing.  It's not.   
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,240
Reaction score
108
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Wandile said:
Rohzek said:
Wandile said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Xavier said:
So now, in this synod in 410 A.D. we similarly find two versions of a Creed already in use. Wiki notes: "The creed is found in two different recensions, both of them recorded in much later manuscripts. First recension is East Syriac and comes from the Church of the East sources. Second is West Syriac and comes from Syrian Orthodox sources. [5] The East Syriac recension contains: "And in the Holy Spirit"[6] while the West Syriac recension contains: "And we confess the living and Holy Spirit, the living Paraclete, who is from the Father and the Son".[7][6] There has been a long controversy among scholars over the relationship between these two texts. The development of a Persian creed is difficult to track since there were several recensions prior to 410.[4][a] First recension is textually closer to original Nicene Creed. On the other hand, some scholars are claiming that second recension represents the original. Further more, they claim that words "who is from the Father and the Son" in the second recension represent the earliest example of the Filioque clause.[8]"

Would it not be a reasonable interpretation of this historical evidence that both formulations were seen as complementary rather than contradictory, even at this early date, in the Church?
Of course, the sleight of hand here is that we are told the West Syriac recension is an early instance of Filioque, but the quote given does not mention or address the procession of the Spirit at all.
In the eternal context of the creed concerning how they persons come to being... is there any other way the Holy Spirit  can be said to be “from” someone other than by way of procession? Tradition doesn’t teach us any other. It’s not sleight of hand, it’s just fact that this was a filioque statement.
Actually it matters a lot and it is surprising that you say this considering your earlier acknowledgments of the different levels of lifting that are inherent in the Latin verb "procedere" and the Greek verb, whose meaning is far more narrow.
It’s “from” in an eternal context...what more could it be. It’s saying eternally he is from the father and the son. The word proceed has not been used here so the intricacies of ultimate verses general are missed here.
How convenient.  The one word which would make the others clear is not present, but it's still crystal clear.

The word “from” is closer to Latin proceeds as it’s more generals not denoting ultimate origin. So YES this is a filioque statement and only EO who are struck with the awkwardness of this early non-latin testimony would have a problem admitting this.
The word "from" is probably "men".  I am "men New York".  I don't eternally proceed from New York.  It's just a preposition.   
 

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Mor Ephrem said:
Wandile said:
Rohzek said:
Wandile said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Xavier said:
So now, in this synod in 410 A.D. we similarly find two versions of a Creed already in use. Wiki notes: "The creed is found in two different recensions, both of them recorded in much later manuscripts. First recension is East Syriac and comes from the Church of the East sources. Second is West Syriac and comes from Syrian Orthodox sources. [5] The East Syriac recension contains: "And in the Holy Spirit"[6] while the West Syriac recension contains: "And we confess the living and Holy Spirit, the living Paraclete, who is from the Father and the Son".[7][6] There has been a long controversy among scholars over the relationship between these two texts. The development of a Persian creed is difficult to track since there were several recensions prior to 410.[4][a] First recension is textually closer to original Nicene Creed. On the other hand, some scholars are claiming that second recension represents the original. Further more, they claim that words "who is from the Father and the Son" in the second recension represent the earliest example of the Filioque clause.[8]"

Would it not be a reasonable interpretation of this historical evidence that both formulations were seen as complementary rather than contradictory, even at this early date, in the Church?
Of course, the sleight of hand here is that we are told the West Syriac recension is an early instance of Filioque, but the quote given does not mention or address the procession of the Spirit at all.
In the eternal context of the creed concerning how they persons come to being... is there any other way the Holy Spirit  can be said to be “from” someone other than by way of procession? Tradition doesn’t teach us any other. It’s not sleight of hand, it’s just fact that this was a filioque statement.
Actually it matters a lot and it is surprising that you say this considering your earlier acknowledgments of the different levels of lifting that are inherent in the Latin verb "procedere" and the Greek verb, whose meaning is far more narrow.
It’s “from” in an eternal context...what more could it be. It’s saying eternally he is from the father and the son. The word proceed has not been used here so the intricacies of ultimate verses general are missed here.
How convenient.  The one word which would make the others clear is not present, but it's still crystal clear.

The word “from” is closer to Latin proceeds as it’s more generals not denoting ultimate origin. So YES this is a filioque statement and only EO who are struck with the awkwardness of this early non-latin testimony would have a problem admitting this.
The word "from" is probably "men".  I am "men New York".  I don't eternally proceed from New York.  It's just a preposition. 
Ummm yeah that’s my point. It’s closer to Latin procedit... which is best translated as from... in purely English words with no borrowing from Latin.
 

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Mor Ephrem said:
Wandile said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Xavier said:
So now, in this synod in 410 A.D. we similarly find two versions of a Creed already in use. Wiki notes: "The creed is found in two different recensions, both of them recorded in much later manuscripts. First recension is East Syriac and comes from the Church of the East sources. Second is West Syriac and comes from Syrian Orthodox sources. [5] The East Syriac recension contains: "And in the Holy Spirit"[6] while the West Syriac recension contains: "And we confess the living and Holy Spirit, the living Paraclete, who is from the Father and the Son".[7][6] There has been a long controversy among scholars over the relationship between these two texts. The development of a Persian creed is difficult to track since there were several recensions prior to 410.[4][a] First recension is textually closer to original Nicene Creed. On the other hand, some scholars are claiming that second recension represents the original. Further more, they claim that words "who is from the Father and the Son" in the second recension represent the earliest example of the Filioque clause.[8]"

Would it not be a reasonable interpretation of this historical evidence that both formulations were seen as complementary rather than contradictory, even at this early date, in the Church?
Of course, the sleight of hand here is that we are told the West Syriac recension is an early instance of Filioque, but the quote given does not mention or address the procession of the Spirit at all.
In the eternal context of the creed concerning how they persons come to being... is there any other way the Holy Spirit  can be said to be “from” someone other than by way of procession? Tradition doesn’t teach us any other. It’s not sleight of hand, it’s just fact that this was a filioque statement.
You are assuming "eternal context" and "how they (sic) persons come to being" and reading it into that creed.  The words given above as the translation of the Syriac simply do not make that clear.  It could be talking about "eternal", about "temporal", about "eternal" in one person's case and "temporal" in another's, about both applying to one but not the other, etc.  You're reading a creed from fifth century Persia in light of a creed from hundreds of years later on the other side of the world and assuming it's the same thing.  It's not. 
It’s not assumed at all. The creed which was very close ,if not the nicene creed which it is 99% the same as, was written up to deal with christiological and other errors concerning the persons in the  Godhead. The only temporal parts of any creed are the salvation narratives. A comment of the Holy Spirit is eternal always with regards to his consubstantiality. The line “from the Father and Son” was in relation to the divine life of the trinity and consubstantiality.

 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,240
Reaction score
108
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Wandile said:
Vanhyo said:
Wandile said:
Non it literally references Nicaea I not Constantinople.
It says :

”When these things had been read, 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.”

Ephesus's prohibition of making a new creed in addition to the Nicene prompted questions about the status of the material added by Constantinople I. How this material was to be regarded was settled at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451), which stated:

”Therefore this sacred and great and universal synod . . . decrees that the creed of the 318 fathers is, above all else, to remain inviolate. And because of those who oppose the Holy Spirit, it ratifies the teaching about the being of the Holy Spirit handed down by the 150 saintly fathers who met some time later in the imperial city--the teaching they made known to all, not introducing anything left out by their predecessors, but clarifying their ideas about the Holy Spirit.” (Definition of the Faith)
Are you trying to shoot yourself in the foot ?
LOL really? Let it go Vanhyo...Unless your English isn’t at a first language level the only explanation for this comment is that you are in the height of denial.
Why are you picking on his English but we're supposed to trust you on Syriac?  Get a life. 

Everyonewas changing the creed already. The Latins, Armenians and even the Assyrians. ONLY the Byzantines understood this canon the way you’re proposing. An understanding which the councils own words show to be mistaken.
I would agree with you that what is of primary importance is not the words of the creed as a sort of legal formula but rather the faith they express.  That said, Filioque is the perfect example of why it would've been better to treat the creed as a legal formula.  That first "Deum de Deo" in the Latin text of the creed may not have been in the original Greek, but it is not heterodox.  Filioque is an entirely different matter. 

As for the Armenians "changing the creed", I'd dispute that.  The creed they use is an older creed.  I don't think they pretend to pass it off as the creed of Nicaea and Constantinople except perhaps as a shorthand way of referring to it, similar to how we refer to the creed as "Nicene" even though it's also "Constantinopolitan".

The 8th ecumenical council and the orthodox popes understood this canon to also apply for constantinople and this is why they believed the filioque addition to be unlawful one.
Whose 8th council? The popes weren’t even reciting the creed in the liturgy until just before the great schism. Pope Leo III never justified his prohibition on the basis of Ephesus. He nowhere even mentions it. Not once. Considering how he dealt with the addition it would have been a lot easier to just point out Ephesus taught against what he did but instead he asked them to not include it for the sake of unity.
Interesting.  Ephesus was not mentioned anywhere at all by Pope Leo III, so it cannot be read into his prohibition.  But "procession" can be read into a Syriac creed even though it's not mentioned anywhere at all in the text. 

According to your standards, doesn't displaying the Creed in both latin and greek without the filioque for all the faithful to see, on top of the grave of St Peter counts as ex-cathedra ? If that doesn't count what does ?
You believe in ex cathedra now? LOL you’re getting desperate. No... ex cathedra are dogmatic confessions. That was disciplinary action on amending the creed to explain more clearly its faith.
How is that not ultimately a dogmatic declaration?

Remember this same Leo approved of the filioque. He was not denying it. He was seeking to just maintain the creed as it is. That’s a disciplinary. It would be dogmatic if he was doing so on account of a denial of the faith of the creed which obviously he didn’t think wasn’t happening. He did that for he cause of unity.
As if ecclesiastical unity is something insignificant. 
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,240
Reaction score
108
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Rohzek said:
Furthermore, it would be best to post the whole creed here. We cannot expect to have a fruitful discussion about a creed written in Syriac without having at least both the original language and a full English translation. Even then, it would be highly reliant on someone being kind enough to go through the Syriac for us.
+1
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,240
Reaction score
108
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Xavier said:
Thanks, Mor. Would you happen to know more about the particular Syriac texts mentioned in the article? And have any idea of how the word "Who is from" should be translated? As Rohzek mentioned, that would be useful in going forward. If in fact it is a Syrian translation or rendering or version of the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed, it seems the relevant part would have been a translation of some sort of the part referring to the procession of the Holy Spirit. I confess I don't know much about it. Perhaps MalpanaGiwargis, who knows Aramaic and related languages IIRC, can help us out.
I don't have a copy of the text in question, but if someone provides it here, we can have a look at it.  Based on my familiarity with other texts, however, I strongly suspect that "Who is from" can only be translated "Who is from".  We're not talking about complicated words here..."from" is "from", for example.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,240
Reaction score
108
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Sharbel said:
Vanhyo said:
So we need a fallible wandile to tell us which dogmatic teachings of the infallible pope are infact infallible?

This is how absurd your religion is.
This is Catholicism after Vatican I.  The modernists deny that PP JPII declared infallibly the impossibility of ordaining women in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, in spite of the highly technical language.  The traditionalists deny that PP Honorious I was teaching magisterially when he was answering an inquiry by a patriarch.  Whatever furthers their version of Catholicism, except the Lord's.
Indeed.  Here is another example:

Wandile said:
The Latins theologians are not confused it’s you Rhozek that is confused. The problem, as with many EO, is that you refuse to understand how othe traditions use terms like “cause”, “origin, “principle” and “proceed” in their own understanding of those terms” but seek to force a Byzantine understanding of those words on the other tradition and then seem surprised when their words don’t make sense. You and the Byzantine tradition keep committing the same old mistake since Chalcedon which cause unnecessary schisms purely based on different usuages of the same the terms.


When Chalcedon is convenient to the advancement of the Roman position, it's great.  When it's not, it's the source of errors which caused unnecessary schisms. 
 

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Mor Ephrem said:
Wandile said:
Vanhyo said:
Wandile said:
Non it literally references Nicaea I not Constantinople.
It says :

”When these things had been read, 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.”

Ephesus's prohibition of making a new creed in addition to the Nicene prompted questions about the status of the material added by Constantinople I. How this material was to be regarded was settled at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451), which stated:

”Therefore this sacred and great and universal synod . . . decrees that the creed of the 318 fathers is, above all else, to remain inviolate. And because of those who oppose the Holy Spirit, it ratifies the teaching about the being of the Holy Spirit handed down by the 150 saintly fathers who met some time later in the imperial city--the teaching they made known to all, not introducing anything left out by their predecessors, but clarifying their ideas about the Holy Spirit.” (Definition of the Faith)
Are you trying to shoot yourself in the foot ?
LOL really? Let it go Vanhyo...Unless your English isn’t at a first language level the only explanation for this comment is that you are in the height of denial.
Why are you picking on his English but we're supposed to trust you on Syriac?  Get a life.
oh get a life won’t you. I actually wasn’t picking on his English but using it as the only reasonable out he has that would cut him some slack for the response he gave to the text.

The councils soundly refute you in their own words. Lastly,  this was a point proven at Florence that even your WHOLE delegation conceded that they had erred on this matter.

Everyonewas changing the creed already. The Latins, Armenians and even the Assyrians. ONLY the Byzantines understood this canon the way you’re proposing. An understanding which the councils own words show to be mistaken.
I would agree with you that what is of primary importance is not the words of the creed as a sort of legal formula but rather the faith they express.  That said, Filioque is the perfect example of why it would've been better to treat the creed as a legal formula.  That first "Deum de Deo" in the Latin text of the creed may not have been in the original Greek, but it is not heterodox.  Filioque is an entirely different matter. 

As for the Armenians "changing the creed", I'd dispute that.  The creed they use is an older creed.  I don't think they pretend to pass it off as the creed of Nicaea and Constantinople except perhaps as a shorthand way of referring to it, similar to how we refer to the creed as "Nicene" even though it's also "Constantinopolitan".
This is something I can entertain although I think it’s fair to assume they adapted the nicene creed to a manner more suitable for them. It follows the exact order of nicene creed but words thing different. Which to me hints at an adaptation not a separate creed. At least from my POV

The 8th ecumenical council and the orthodox popes understood this canon to also apply for constantinople and this is why they believed the filioque addition to be unlawful one.
Whose 8th council? The popes weren’t even reciting the creed in the liturgy until just before the great schism. Pope Leo III never justified his prohibition on the basis of Ephesus. He nowhere even mentions it. Not once. Considering how he dealt with the addition it would have been a lot easier to just point out Ephesus taught against what he did but instead he asked them to not include it for the sake of unity.
Interesting.  Ephesus was not mentioned anywhere at all by Pope Leo III, so it cannot be read into his prohibition.  But "procession" can be read into a Syriac creed even though it's not mentioned anywhere at all in the text.
He doesn’t even allude to it unlike the creed in question. You’re reaching.

According to your standards, doesn't displaying the Creed in both latin and greek without the filioque for all the faithful to see, on top of the grave of St Peter counts as ex-cathedra ? If that doesn't count what does ?
You believe in ex cathedra now? LOL you’re getting desperate. No... ex cathedra are dogmatic confessions. That was disciplinary action on amending the creed to explain more clearly its faith.
How is that not ultimately a dogmatic declaration?
Dogmatics are those which relate to the faith. The orthodoxy of the faith of the Spanish fathers and he filioque nor its insertion were matters of faith. As pointed out Pope Leo III agreed with their faith. There as not attack on the faith. His main concern was purely unity and forbade its addition. That’s disciplinary. Like how no additions to the liturgy which may be orthodox is disciplinary though the liturgy is dogmatic in nature.

Remember this same Leo approved of the filioque. He was not denying it. He was seeking to just maintain the creed as it is. That’s a disciplinary. It would be dogmatic if he was doing so on account of a denial of the faith of the creed which obviously he didn’t think wasn’t happening. He did that for he cause of unity.
As if ecclesiastical unity is something insignificant.
Nobody said it isn’t . But it’s not heresy. It’s a different matter all together. You’re just picking figh now for mere amusement.
 

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Mor Ephrem said:
Sharbel said:
Vanhyo said:
So we need a fallible wandile to tell us which dogmatic teachings of the infallible pope are infact infallible?

This is how absurd your religion is.
This is Catholicism after Vatican I.  The modernists deny that PP JPII declared infallibly the impossibility of ordaining women in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, in spite of the highly technical language.  The traditionalists deny that PP Honorious I was teaching magisterially when he was answering an inquiry by a patriarch.  Whatever furthers their version of Catholicism, except the Lord's.
Indeed.  Here is another example:

Wandile said:
The Latins theologians are not confused it’s you Rhozek that is confused. The problem, as with many EO, is that you refuse to understand how othe traditions use terms like “cause”, “origin, “principle” and “proceed” in their own understanding of those terms” but seek to force a Byzantine understanding of those words on the other tradition and then seem surprised when their words don’t make sense. You and the Byzantine tradition keep committing the same old mistake since Chalcedon which cause unnecessary schisms purely based on different usuages of the same the terms.


When Chalcedon is convenient to the advancement of the Roman position, it's great.  When it's not, it's the source of errors which caused unnecessary schisms.


No we aren’t Byzantines. We don’t see councils in the “magical” way a lot of them tend to do. Chalcedon was ultimately right but the way a lot of the bishops dealt with theological expression can be criticized heavily. It resulted in a very unnecessary schism because nobody was listenting to each other. The council was made of mainly Byzantine bishops.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,240
Reaction score
108
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Wandile said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Wandile said:
Rohzek said:
Wandile said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Xavier said:
So now, in this synod in 410 A.D. we similarly find two versions of a Creed already in use. Wiki notes: "The creed is found in two different recensions, both of them recorded in much later manuscripts. First recension is East Syriac and comes from the Church of the East sources. Second is West Syriac and comes from Syrian Orthodox sources. [5] The East Syriac recension contains: "And in the Holy Spirit"[6] while the West Syriac recension contains: "And we confess the living and Holy Spirit, the living Paraclete, who is from the Father and the Son".[7][6] There has been a long controversy among scholars over the relationship between these two texts. The development of a Persian creed is difficult to track since there were several recensions prior to 410.[4][a] First recension is textually closer to original Nicene Creed. On the other hand, some scholars are claiming that second recension represents the original. Further more, they claim that words "who is from the Father and the Son" in the second recension represent the earliest example of the Filioque clause.[8]"

Would it not be a reasonable interpretation of this historical evidence that both formulations were seen as complementary rather than contradictory, even at this early date, in the Church?
Of course, the sleight of hand here is that we are told the West Syriac recension is an early instance of Filioque, but the quote given does not mention or address the procession of the Spirit at all.
In the eternal context of the creed concerning how they persons come to being... is there any other way the Holy Spirit  can be said to be “from” someone other than by way of procession? Tradition doesn’t teach us any other. It’s not sleight of hand, it’s just fact that this was a filioque statement.
Actually it matters a lot and it is surprising that you say this considering your earlier acknowledgments of the different levels of lifting that are inherent in the Latin verb "procedere" and the Greek verb, whose meaning is far more narrow.
It’s “from” in an eternal context...what more could it be. It’s saying eternally he is from the father and the son. The word proceed has not been used here so the intricacies of ultimate verses general are missed here.
How convenient.  The one word which would make the others clear is not present, but it's still crystal clear.

The word “from” is closer to Latin proceeds as it’s more generals not denoting ultimate origin. So YES this is a filioque statement and only EO who are struck with the awkwardness of this early non-latin testimony would have a problem admitting this.
The word "from" is probably "men".  I am "men New York".  I don't eternally proceed from New York.  It's just a preposition. 
Ummm yeah that’s my point. It’s closer to Latin procedit... which is best translated as from... in purely English words with no borrowing from Latin.
So "procedit" is Latin for "from"?  I thought "ex" was "from".   
 

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Mor Ephrem said:
Wandile said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Wandile said:
Rohzek said:
Wandile said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Xavier said:
So now, in this synod in 410 A.D. we similarly find two versions of a Creed already in use. Wiki notes: "The creed is found in two different recensions, both of them recorded in much later manuscripts. First recension is East Syriac and comes from the Church of the East sources. Second is West Syriac and comes from Syrian Orthodox sources. [5] The East Syriac recension contains: "And in the Holy Spirit"[6] while the West Syriac recension contains: "And we confess the living and Holy Spirit, the living Paraclete, who is from the Father and the Son".[7][6] There has been a long controversy among scholars over the relationship between these two texts. The development of a Persian creed is difficult to track since there were several recensions prior to 410.[4][a] First recension is textually closer to original Nicene Creed. On the other hand, some scholars are claiming that second recension represents the original. Further more, they claim that words "who is from the Father and the Son" in the second recension represent the earliest example of the Filioque clause.[8]"

Would it not be a reasonable interpretation of this historical evidence that both formulations were seen as complementary rather than contradictory, even at this early date, in the Church?
Of course, the sleight of hand here is that we are told the West Syriac recension is an early instance of Filioque, but the quote given does not mention or address the procession of the Spirit at all.
In the eternal context of the creed concerning how they persons come to being... is there any other way the Holy Spirit  can be said to be “from” someone other than by way of procession? Tradition doesn’t teach us any other. It’s not sleight of hand, it’s just fact that this was a filioque statement.
Actually it matters a lot and it is surprising that you say this considering your earlier acknowledgments of the different levels of lifting that are inherent in the Latin verb "procedere" and the Greek verb, whose meaning is far more narrow.
It’s “from” in an eternal context...what more could it be. It’s saying eternally he is from the father and the son. The word proceed has not been used here so the intricacies of ultimate verses general are missed here.
How convenient.  The one word which would make the others clear is not present, but it's still crystal clear.

The word “from” is closer to Latin proceeds as it’s more generals not denoting ultimate origin. So YES this is a filioque statement and only EO who are struck with the awkwardness of this early non-latin testimony would have a problem admitting this.
The word "from" is probably "men".  I am "men New York".  I don't eternally proceed from New York.  It's just a preposition. 
Ummm yeah that’s my point. It’s closer to Latin procedit... which is best translated as from... in purely English words with no borrowing from Latin.
So "procedit" is Latin for "from"?  I thought "ex" was "from". 
I said what procedit could be translated into of words purely English without latin influence.

I could say I proceed from my house. The sentence would be exactly the same if I drop the word proceeds as from encompasses the concept of procession in this context.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,240
Reaction score
108
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Wandile said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Wandile said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Xavier said:
So now, in this synod in 410 A.D. we similarly find two versions of a Creed already in use. Wiki notes: "The creed is found in two different recensions, both of them recorded in much later manuscripts. First recension is East Syriac and comes from the Church of the East sources. Second is West Syriac and comes from Syrian Orthodox sources. [5] The East Syriac recension contains: "And in the Holy Spirit"[6] while the West Syriac recension contains: "And we confess the living and Holy Spirit, the living Paraclete, who is from the Father and the Son".[7][6] There has been a long controversy among scholars over the relationship between these two texts. The development of a Persian creed is difficult to track since there were several recensions prior to 410.[4][a] First recension is textually closer to original Nicene Creed. On the other hand, some scholars are claiming that second recension represents the original. Further more, they claim that words "who is from the Father and the Son" in the second recension represent the earliest example of the Filioque clause.[8]"

Would it not be a reasonable interpretation of this historical evidence that both formulations were seen as complementary rather than contradictory, even at this early date, in the Church?
Of course, the sleight of hand here is that we are told the West Syriac recension is an early instance of Filioque, but the quote given does not mention or address the procession of the Spirit at all.
In the eternal context of the creed concerning how they persons come to being... is there any other way the Holy Spirit  can be said to be “from” someone other than by way of procession? Tradition doesn’t teach us any other. It’s not sleight of hand, it’s just fact that this was a filioque statement.
You are assuming "eternal context" and "how they (sic) persons come to being" and reading it into that creed.  The words given above as the translation of the Syriac simply do not make that clear.  It could be talking about "eternal", about "temporal", about "eternal" in one person's case and "temporal" in another's, about both applying to one but not the other, etc.  You're reading a creed from fifth century Persia in light of a creed from hundreds of years later on the other side of the world and assuming it's the same thing.  It's not. 
It’s not assumed at all. The creed which was very close ,if not the nicene creed which it is 99% the same as, was written up to deal with christiological and other errors concerning the persons in the  Godhead. The only temporal parts of any creed are the salvation narratives. A comment of the Holy Spirit is eternal always with regards to his consubstantiality. The line “from the Father and Son” was in relation to the divine life of the trinity and consubstantiality.
Produce the Syriac text of the creed in question and let's have a look at it. 

Also, very funny re: "the only temporal parts of any creed are the salvation narratives".  What foolishness.  The one who was "crucified under Pontius Pilate" is also the "Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world".  Salvation history happened in time, but it cannot be limited only to time.  That doesn't mean that everything in any creed is both eternal and temporal.  What it means is that words matter, and when you don't use the right words, you say the wrong things. 

Words matter. 
 

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Mor Ephrem said:
Wandile said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Wandile said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Xavier said:
So now, in this synod in 410 A.D. we similarly find two versions of a Creed already in use. Wiki notes: "The creed is found in two different recensions, both of them recorded in much later manuscripts. First recension is East Syriac and comes from the Church of the East sources. Second is West Syriac and comes from Syrian Orthodox sources. [5] The East Syriac recension contains: "And in the Holy Spirit"[6] while the West Syriac recension contains: "And we confess the living and Holy Spirit, the living Paraclete, who is from the Father and the Son".[7][6] There has been a long controversy among scholars over the relationship between these two texts. The development of a Persian creed is difficult to track since there were several recensions prior to 410.[4][a] First recension is textually closer to original Nicene Creed. On the other hand, some scholars are claiming that second recension represents the original. Further more, they claim that words "who is from the Father and the Son" in the second recension represent the earliest example of the Filioque clause.[8]"

Would it not be a reasonable interpretation of this historical evidence that both formulations were seen as complementary rather than contradictory, even at this early date, in the Church?
Of course, the sleight of hand here is that we are told the West Syriac recension is an early instance of Filioque, but the quote given does not mention or address the procession of the Spirit at all.
In the eternal context of the creed concerning how they persons come to being... is there any other way the Holy Spirit  can be said to be “from” someone other than by way of procession? Tradition doesn’t teach us any other. It’s not sleight of hand, it’s just fact that this was a filioque statement.
You are assuming "eternal context" and "how they (sic) persons come to being" and reading it into that creed.  The words given above as the translation of the Syriac simply do not make that clear.  It could be talking about "eternal", about "temporal", about "eternal" in one person's case and "temporal" in another's, about both applying to one but not the other, etc.  You're reading a creed from fifth century Persia in light of a creed from hundreds of years later on the other side of the world and assuming it's the same thing.  It's not. 
It’s not assumed at all. The creed which was very close ,if not the nicene creed which it is 99% the same as, was written up to deal with christiological and other errors concerning the persons in the  Godhead. The only temporal parts of any creed are the salvation narratives. A comment of the Holy Spirit is eternal always with regards to his consubstantiality. The line “from the Father and Son” was in relation to the divine life of the trinity and consubstantiality.
Produce the Syriac text of the creed in question and let's have a look at it.
I did once here and YOU identified it very quickly and left the matter. I’ll try find it again

Also, very funny re: "the only temporal parts of any creed are the salvation narratives".  What foolishness.  The one who was "crucified under Pontius Pilate" is also the "Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world".  Salvation history happened in time, but it cannot be limited only to time.  That doesn't mean that everything in any creed is both eternal and temporal.  What it means is that words matter, and when you don't use the right words, you say the wrong things. 

Words matter.
Oh whatever. You’re just reaching now and it’s getting pathetic,. I never said those parts are temporal in nature only  and you know this. You’re knitpicking.. Like I said you’re just picking a fight.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,240
Reaction score
108
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Wandile said:
This is something I can entertain although I think it’s fair to assume they adapted the nicene creed to a manner more suitable for them. It follows the exact order of nicene creed but words thing different. Which to me hints at an adaptation not a separate creed. At least from my POV
Your POV is wrong.  The Armenian creed is an older baptismal creed from Jerusalem which was one of the sources on which the Nicene Creed was based.  If the words and order are similar, it's not the Nicene on which the Armenian is based, but vice versa. 

The 8th ecumenical council and the orthodox popes understood this canon to also apply for constantinople and this is why they believed the filioque addition to be unlawful one.
Whose 8th council? The popes weren’t even reciting the creed in the liturgy until just before the great schism. Pope Leo III never justified his prohibition on the basis of Ephesus. He nowhere even mentions it. Not once. Considering how he dealt with the addition it would have been a lot easier to just point out Ephesus taught against what he did but instead he asked them to not include it for the sake of unity.
Interesting.  Ephesus was not mentioned anywhere at all by Pope Leo III, so it cannot be read into his prohibition.  But "procession" can be read into a Syriac creed even though it's not mentioned anywhere at all in the text.
He doesn’t even allude to it unlike the creed in question. You’re reaching.
Your allegation that 5th century Persians are alluding to the theology of 6th to 9th century Spaniards and Carolingians is the real reach. 

According to your standards, doesn't displaying the Creed in both latin and greek without the filioque for all the faithful to see, on top of the grave of St Peter counts as ex-cathedra ? If that doesn't count what does ?
You believe in ex cathedra now? LOL you’re getting desperate. No... ex cathedra are dogmatic confessions. That was disciplinary action on amending the creed to explain more clearly its faith.
How is that not ultimately a dogmatic declaration?
Dogmatics are those which relate to the faith. The orthodoxy of the faith of the Spanish fathers and he filioque nor its insertion were matters of faith. As pointed out Pope Leo III agreed with their faith. There as not attack on the faith. His main concern was purely unity and forbade its addition. That’s disciplinary. Like how no additions to the liturgy which may be orthodox is disciplinary though the liturgy is dogmatic in nature.
This is all very muddled in your head, I'm not sure how to begin to fix it. 

A creed is a declaration of faith.  Contrary to the liturgical usages of the Chalcedonians, it's not a personal declaration of faith, it's a communal declaration: the conciliar creeds say "We believe".  If Pope Leo III preserved the older form of the creed in order to preserve ecclesiastical unity, that's not simply a disciplinary matter.  By definition it cannot be.  He's affirming what "We believe", and placing that and the unity of faith and communion engendered by that common belief above local quirks. 

You’re just picking figh now for mere amusement.
Don't project.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,240
Reaction score
108
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Wandile said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Also, very funny re: "the only temporal parts of any creed are the salvation narratives".  What foolishness.  The one who was "crucified under Pontius Pilate" is also the "Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world".  Salvation history happened in time, but it cannot be limited only to time.  That doesn't mean that everything in any creed is both eternal and temporal.  What it means is that words matter, and when you don't use the right words, you say the wrong things. 

Words matter.
Oh whatever. You’re just reaching now and it’s getting pathetic,. I never said those parts are temporal in nature only  and you know this.
Wandile said:
The only temporal parts of any creed are the salvation narratives.
 

Cavaradossi

Archon
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
2,036
Reaction score
2
Points
36
There is some irony here in the appeals to St. Maximus insofar as the Greek party attempted to introduce St. Maximus' explanation of the filioque as a grounds for union at Florence—something the Latins rejected. The filioque after Florence is quite clearly a different belief than the filioque as confessed by the Western fathers and explained by St. Maximus in his letter to Marinus, because as St. Maximus explains, the Latins of his time did not intend to make the Son a cause of the Holy Spirit.
 

Rohzek

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2015
Messages
1,364
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Cavaradossi said:
There is some irony here in the appeals to St. Maximus insofar as the Greek party attempted to introduce St. Maximus' explanation of the filioque as a grounds for union at Florence—something the Latins rejected. The filioque after Florence is quite clearly a different belief than the filioque as confessed by the Western fathers and explained by St. Maximus in his letter to Marinus, because as St. Maximus explains, the Latins of his time did not intend to make the Son a cause of the Holy Spirit.
This is a good point, and I've perhaps spoken too soon with regards to St. Augustine's framework serving as a clarification to Florence.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,240
Reaction score
108
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Wandile said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Wandile said:
Ummm yeah that’s my point. It’s closer to Latin procedit... which is best translated as from... in purely English words with no borrowing from Latin.
So "procedit" is Latin for "from"?  I thought "ex" was "from". 
I said what procedit could be translated into of words purely English without latin influence.

I could say I proceed from my house. The sentence would be exactly the same if I drop the word proceeds as from encompasses the concept of procession in this context.
If you drop "proceed", you no longer have a sentence.  You have "I from my house".  There is no verb, not even implicitly.
 

Sharbel

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 31, 2017
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
3
Points
36
Wandile said:
It’s not conjecture but actual fact. The CDF and all Roman dicastries serve as help for the pope and only obtain their legitimacy to act from the pope. They cannot do anything without papal approval.
Legitimacy to exist, but their bureaucratic pronouncements are not the same thing as the pope's.  According to VI, nobody speaks for the pope except himself.

Wandile said:
Yeah the only tradition to speak extensively on this issue is the latin tradition and it was unanimous that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
You say Latin, but it was a Frankish phenomenon.  Whether the Franks in Francia, the Goth, Ostrogoth and Visigoth Goth Franks, etc.  Latin Christianity died with the coronation of Charlemagne and it was reshaped in his image and likeness.  To this day, through the Reformation and the contemporary German bishops, the Franks have been chipping Christianity away from Rome.  But, through is minimalistic legalism, Rome painted itself in a corner when it dogmatized their barbarous theology.
 

Rohzek

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2015
Messages
1,364
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Sharbel said:
Wandile said:
It’s not conjecture but actual fact. The CDF and all Roman dicastries serve as help for the pope and only obtain their legitimacy to act from the pope. They cannot do anything without papal approval.
Legitimacy to exist, but their bureaucratic pronouncements are not the same thing as the pope's.  According to VI, nobody speaks for the pope except himself.

Wandile said:
Yeah the only tradition to speak extensively on this issue is the latin tradition and it was unanimous that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
You say Latin, but it was a Frankish phenomenon.  Whether the Franks in Francia, the Goth, Ostrogoth and Visigoth Goth Franks, etc.  Latin Christianity died with the coronation of Charlemagne and it was reshaped in his image and likeness.  To this day, through the Reformation and the contemporary German bishops, the Franks have been chipping Christianity away from Rome.  But, through is minimalistic legalism, Rome painted itself in a corner when it dogmatized their barbarous theology.
Carolingian theology remains remarkably understudied and therefore is not well-understood. We can be upset that Charlemagne was abrasive and intrusive, but it would be a stretch to say their theology is irredeemable. Furthermore, the filioque was used by the Franks, the Gauls before the Franks, and the Visigoths. There is indication that the Anglo-Saxons used it as well. Whether they used it in the Nicene Creed before Charlemagne or Toledo is a different matter, but it cannot be disputed that they spoke of a filioque in other creeds and in their theological writings.
 

MalpanaGiwargis

High Elder
Joined
Aug 7, 2014
Messages
658
Reaction score
12
Points
18
Location
Atlanta, GA
I think Theodore of Mopsuestia's Commentary on the Nicene Creed would be a good indication of the mind of the East Syriac tradition in that period, given his status as the "blessed interpreter" of the Church of the East. On the procession of the Spirit (English page 107, Syriac 229), he quotes the Creed as ܗܘ݁ ܠܡ ܕܡܢ ܐܒܐ ܢ݁ܦܩ. (Here ܠܡ is just a postpositive particle indicating a quote.) Literally, "he who from the Father goes out." His commentary on this phrase gives absolutely no whiff of the Filioque. The Son is only mentioned in terms of the temporal mission of the Spirit-as-Paraclete, as Theodore's references to John 15 make clear. His quotation appears slightly harmonized to the language of the Creed (ܗܘ݁ ܕܡܢ ܐܒܐ ܢ݁ܦܩ instead of Peshitta ܗܘ݁ ܕܡܢ ܠܘܬ ܐܒܝ ܢ݁ܦܩ).
 

WPM

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
7,775
Reaction score
6
Points
0
Age
38
The Councils weren't Ecumenical until addressed by the Pope of Rome.
 

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Sharbel said:
Wandile said:
It’s not conjecture but actual fact. The CDF and all Roman dicastries serve as help for the pope and only obtain their legitimacy to act from the pope. They cannot do anything without papal approval.
Legitimacy to exist, but their bureaucratic pronouncements are not the same thing as the pope's.  According to VI, nobody speaks for the pope except himself.
Sharbel... NO.

They are not independent bodies but literally are extensions of the power of the bishop of Rome. They only act with his approval because they act in his name.
 
Top