The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
deanjr, Hunter, Dwain LaFlamme, JeanLCP, Explorer
5509 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
6 registered members (Hunter, crule, Sicura Skonosciuta, 3 invisible), 39 guests, and 390 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
OL EuroEast II (2007) Group
Portable Icon Screen
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,546
Posts410,698
Members5,509
Most Online2,716
Jun 7th, 2012
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 24 1 2 3 23 24
Joint Declaration - JPII and Bartholomew I about the Filioque? #219004
01/08/07 01:08 AM
01/08/07 01:08 AM
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 800
Rio de Janeiro/ RJ - Brazil
Philippe Gebara Offline OP
Member
Philippe Gebara  Offline OP
Member
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 800
Rio de Janeiro/ RJ - Brazil
Is that declaration disponible on internet?

Re: Joint Declaration - JPII and Bartholomew I about the Filioque? [Re: Philippe Gebara] #219038
01/08/07 11:59 AM
01/08/07 11:59 AM
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390
USA
Wondering Offline
Member
Wondering  Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390
USA
Is this what you're looking for?

http://www.usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml

An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation
Saint Paulís College, Washington, DC
October 25, 2003


Re: Joint Declaration - JPII and Bartholomew I about the Filioque [Re: Wondering] #226704
03/13/07 02:05 PM
03/13/07 02:05 PM
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 800
Rio de Janeiro/ RJ - Brazil
Philippe Gebara Offline OP
Member
Philippe Gebara  Offline OP
Member
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 800
Rio de Janeiro/ RJ - Brazil
Thank you, Wondering! But I was looking for this: http://www.geocities.com/athens/atrium/8410/filioque.html

Re: Joint Declaration - JPII and Bartholomew I about the Filioque [Re: Philippe Gebara] #226777
03/14/07 11:06 AM
03/14/07 11:06 AM
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,833
SF Bay Area, CA
Apotheoun Offline
Member
Apotheoun  Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,833
SF Bay Area, CA
Originally Posted by Philippe Gebara
Thank you, Wondering! But I was looking for this: http://www.geocities.com/athens/atrium/8410/filioque.html

The document you linked to is not a "joint declaration" of the two Churches or the two Church leaders mentioned in the introduction; instead, it is an attempt by the Western Church to "clarify" its position on the filioque.

God bless,
Todd

Re: Joint Declaration - JPII and Bartholomew I about the Filioque [Re: Apotheoun] #227493
03/20/07 12:17 AM
03/20/07 12:17 AM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3
usa
H
Hristodoulos Offline
Junior Member
Hristodoulos  Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3
usa
To Apotheoun;

you are exactly correct that it is not a join declaration but as you said a somewhat murky clarification by the Western Church.
In the beginning of the article the Western Church even roudaboutly admits that the ' filioque' was something added into western theology by a Spanish king and later Charlemagne.
Toward the end of the article they assert that the creed of 325 AD is the correct one.
In the end the way I see it is ; the Western Churche's argument comes down to something like" well we have been doing this for so long and now it is part of our theology, then we will just keep it."

God bless you all.

Re: Joint Declaration - JPII and Bartholomew I about the Filioque [Re: Hristodoulos] #227499
03/20/07 12:39 AM
03/20/07 12:39 AM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Georgia U.S.
J
JSMelkiteOrthodoxy Offline
Member
JSMelkiteOrthodoxy  Offline
Member
J
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Georgia U.S.
Originally Posted by Hristodoulos
To Apotheoun;

you are exactly correct that it is not a join declaration but as you said a somewhat murky clarification by the Western Church.
In the beginning of the article the Western Church even roudaboutly admits that the ' filioque' was something added into western theology by a Spanish king and later Charlemagne.
Toward the end of the article they assert that the creed of 325 AD is the correct one.
In the end the way I see it is ; the Western Churche's argument comes down to something like" well we have been doing this for so long and now it is part of our theology, then we will just keep it."

God bless you all.


And I think that this is just the problem. It is the same problem with Vatican I, with indulgences, and with other western innovations. They've been a part of the tradition so long, and the authority of the western Church is so dependent on them, that they can't renounce any of them without introducing chaos among the faithful. They have backed themselves into a corner. This is the biggest obstacle to our ecumenical relations in my opinion. The steps that Rome would need to take to reunite with the Orthodox would be the very steps that would would western Catholic Christians the leeway to dissent even more and introduce more chaos. Imagine what would happen if the Pope came out and said that Vatican I was a mistake and that the Pope is not infallible. All of the dissenting Catholics would throw a party. This is a real problem. I realize that Pope Benedict XVI is in a very stressful and difficult position. I pray for him regularly and I admire him much. I just don't know how the Roman Church will work through this, but if gets the western faithful in line and instills discipline into the Church, that will make things better.

Joe

Re: Joint Declaration - JPII and Bartholomew I about the Filioque [Re: JSMelkiteOrthodoxy] #227507
03/20/07 07:33 AM
03/20/07 07:33 AM
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
New York
ElijahmariaX Offline
Member
ElijahmariaX  Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
New York
Originally Posted by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy


And I think that this is just the problem. It is the same problem with Vatican I, with indulgences, and with other western innovations. They've been a part of the tradition so long, and the authority of the western Church is so dependent on them, that they can't renounce any of them without introducing chaos among the faithful. They have backed themselves into a corner. This is the biggest obstacle to our ecumenical relations in my opinion. The steps that Rome would need to take to reunite with the Orthodox would be the very steps that would would western Catholic Christians the leeway to dissent even more and introduce more chaos. Imagine what would happen if the Pope came out and said that Vatican I was a mistake and that the Pope is not infallible. All of the dissenting Catholics would throw a party. This is a real problem. I realize that Pope Benedict XVI is in a very stressful and difficult position. I pray for him regularly and I admire him much. I just don't know how the Roman Church will work through this, but if gets the western faithful in line and instills discipline into the Church, that will make things better.

Joe


It is not really advisable to simplify things to the point where all reality falls away and all that remains are the usual and habitual fairy tales and mystique. At that point, nothing can be said to be real, not even our religion....Mary

Quote
In the West, the Filioque was confessed from the fifth century through the Quicumque (or Athanasianum,' DS 75) Symbol, and then by the Councils of Toledo in Visigothic Spain between 589 and 693 (DS 470, 485, 490, 527, 568), to affirm Trinitarian consubstantiality. If these Councils did not perhaps insert it in the Symbol of Nicaea-Constantinople, it is certainly to be found there from the end of the eighth century, as evidenced in the proceedings of the Council of Aquileia-Friuli in 796 (Mansi XIII, 836, D, ff.) and that of Aix-la-Chapelle of 809 (Mansi XIV, 17). In the ninth century, however, faced with Charlemagne, Pope Leo III, in his anxiety to preserve unity with the Orient in the confession of faith, resisted this development of the Symbol which had spread spontaneously in the West, while safeguarding the truth contained in the Filioque. Rome only admitted it in 1014 into the liturgical Latin version of the Creed.

Re: Joint Declaration - JPII and Bartholomew I about the Filioque [Re: ElijahmariaX] #227508
03/20/07 07:36 AM
03/20/07 07:36 AM
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,282
Texas
Athanasius The L Offline
AthanasiusTheLesser
Athanasius The L  Offline
AthanasiusTheLesser
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,282
Texas
Fairy tales? Who is telling fairy tales? I read nothing of the sort in this thread.

Ryan

Re: Joint Declaration - JPII and Bartholomew I about the Filioque [Re: Athanasius The L] #227514
03/20/07 08:39 AM
03/20/07 08:39 AM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Georgia U.S.
J
JSMelkiteOrthodoxy Offline
Member
JSMelkiteOrthodoxy  Offline
Member
J
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Georgia U.S.
I just reread the document myself and I still think that the Latin theology is confusing and, perhaps, even contradictory. I noticed that at the end of the document, all of the biblical exegesis that was supposed to support the notion that the Spirit is the gift of love from the Father to the Son had to do with the Spirit resting in the Incarnate Word Jesus. This of course has to do with the Spirit proceeding through the Word in the economy of salvation and not the "immanent Trinity" as some theologians would use the term.

When I get the time, I am going to have to go back and read through the fathers cited in this document to see if the Pontifical Council's interpretation is really accurate.

Joe

Re: Joint Declaration - JPII and Bartholomew I about the Filioque [Re: JSMelkiteOrthodoxy] #227534
03/20/07 12:56 PM
03/20/07 12:56 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,108
Canada
Orthodox Catholic Offline
Member
Orthodox Catholic  Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,108
Canada
Dear Joe,

I agree with you - but why is it that I get beaten up worse than you for saying the same things? smile

Alex

Re: Joint Declaration - JPII and Bartholomew I about the Filioque [Re: Orthodox Catholic] #227588
03/20/07 10:37 PM
03/20/07 10:37 PM
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 848
Australia
Otsheylnik Offline
Member
Otsheylnik  Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 848
Australia
I think maybe the reason Eastern Catholics get beaten up on for this is because a lot of Romans percieve these weaknesses themselves and they feel like they're in a very fragile glass house at times;

On the filioque, oiur parish priest uses this quote to refute the Orthodox: "But when the COmforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father" (first part of John 15:26, KJV)

But of course you read on from that and get "...even the Spirit of Truth, which PROCEEDETH from the Father";

if that doesn't affirm the Orthodox distinction between procession and mission I don't know what does;

Ned

Re: Joint Declaration - JPII and Bartholomew I about the Filioque [Re: Otsheylnik] #227629
03/21/07 08:45 AM
03/21/07 08:45 AM
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
New York
ElijahmariaX Offline
Member
ElijahmariaX  Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
New York
Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
I think maybe the reason Eastern Catholics get beaten up on for this is because a lot of Romans percieve these weaknesses themselves and they feel like they're in a very fragile glass house at times;

On the filioque, oiur parish priest uses this quote to refute the Orthodox: "But when the COmforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father" (first part of John 15:26, KJV)

But of course you read on from that and get "...even the Spirit of Truth, which PROCEEDETH from the Father";

if that doesn't affirm the Orthodox distinction between procession and mission I don't know what does;

Ned


This can't be the solution because the western Church makes the same distinction, only in two separate statements and not one.

They affirm the reality that the Father is the pirme cause of the Holy Spirit...and they did that multiple times in council.

and

They affirm that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son...and they've done that multiple times in council too.

So most of the time that I see this argument occur, I see Orthodox lining up their theology, and the west lines up hers, then the east denies half of the west's theology by saying that it simply can't be, because it all doesn't come out in one word from the Latin west and their Creed emphasizes...without denying the other part...one part over the other....and the fight is on.

Now you really don't want to insist on ONLY ONE version of the Creed. Not really. I have a whole history book on Creeds here and a whole bunch of liturgical books with different expressions of the Creed, so the idea that nothing can be added to the Nicene Creed is not applicable since the Nicene Creed says nothing about the Holy Spirit coming from anyone at all actually.

Whole thing seems silly to me.

Mary

Re: Joint Declaration - JPII and Bartholomew I about the Filioque [Re: ElijahmariaX] #227644
03/21/07 11:26 AM
03/21/07 11:26 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,108
Canada
Orthodox Catholic Offline
Member
Orthodox Catholic  Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,108
Canada
Dear Mary,

I agree that the whole thing is silly.

That is why the entire West should just return to the original Creed and stop making trouble! smile

Alex

Re: Joint Declaration - JPII and Bartholomew I about the Filioque [Re: Otsheylnik] #227649
03/21/07 11:44 AM
03/21/07 11:44 AM
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,833
SF Bay Area, CA
Apotheoun Offline
Member
Apotheoun  Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,833
SF Bay Area, CA
Originally Posted by Otsheylnik
I think maybe the reason Eastern Catholics get beaten up on for this is because a lot of Romans percieve these weaknesses themselves and they feel like they're in a very fragile glass house at times;

On the filioque, oiur parish priest uses this quote to refute the Orthodox: "But when the COmforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father" (first part of John 15:26, KJV)

But of course you read on from that and get "...even the Spirit of Truth, which PROCEEDETH from the Father";

if that doesn't affirm the Orthodox distinction between procession and mission I don't know what does;

Ned

Ned,

You are correct.

The Eastern Churches differentiate between "sending" and "proceeding," because "sending" (based on the Greek word used in the text) does not concern the Spiritís existential origin; instead, it concerns the giving of the Spirit as already existent. In other words, the term "sending" concerns the giving of something that already has subsistent being, and which is then "sent to," "carried to," or "thrust into" another, while the word "proceeds" (in the Greek) involves the "going forth from" or the "departure from" something that is its cause. Moreover, it is important to note that not only does scripture attest to the Son "sending" the Spirit, but the Spirit also "sends" the Son (cf. Luke 4:18), and so it is clear that "sending" does not concern the existential origin of the divine persons, or one would have to say that the Son receives His existential origin (i.e., His generation) from the Spirit, since He is "sent" by the Spirit, and that notion is clearly false.

Thus, in Byzantine Triadology, taking into account the distinction between "sending" (pempo and aposteilai) and "proceeding" (ekporeusis), it follows that the Spirit is said to "proceed" only from the Father, since the Father is the sole existential cause of the Spirit as person, while ó in addition to the Spirit's procession of origin ó He is "sent" by the Son into the world, but this "sending" of the Spirit concerns only His manifestation or shining forth as energy, and not His coming into existence as person.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - It is the Cappadocian Fathers who limit the use of the term ekporeusis to describing the Spirit's origination as person from the Father alone, and they do this based on the text of John 15:26.

Re: Joint Declaration - JPII and Bartholomew I about the Filioque [Re: Apotheoun] #227651
03/21/07 11:52 AM
03/21/07 11:52 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,108
Canada
Orthodox Catholic Offline
Member
Orthodox Catholic  Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,108
Canada
Dear Apotheoun,

Could you explain further what is meant by "sending forth the Spirit as energy?"

Alex

Page 1 of 24 1 2 3 23 24

The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2018. All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.1.1
(Release build 20180111)
Page Time: 0.021s Queries: 15 (0.007s) Memory: 2.0535 MB (Peak: 2.2841 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2018-06-18 15:26:21 UTC