Barberton.byz, Predanije, foreigner, jessmanarch5, Ajda, Don Joiner, Zia, prayerful, Gwenyfur, mp4jc, DaoudD, dorifazi, jeffmbyzsfo, JMZ, zoeeoz
3325 Registered Users |
|
|
25 registered (Adam DeVille, Athanasius The L, Barberton.byz, Deacon El, dochawk, ebed melech, Edward Yong, Etnick, Fr David Straut, Garajotsi, JohnS., Jon, JSMelkiteOrthodoxy, MDunn, MrsMW, Orthodox Catholic, Paul B, Predanije, Pseudo-Athanasius, Terry Bohannon, tjm199, 4 invisible),
46
Guests and
13
Spiders online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
The Byzantine Forum also hosts these private forums:
The Deacon's Door (for deacons and deacon
candidates and their wives), the Orthodox Christian
Studies Forum (for currently enrolled students only of the distance education programs
offered by the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America) and
the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church Clergy Forum
(for clergy, religious, and clergy wives of that Church). Contact an administrator for
access.
|
|
3325 Members
21 Forums
23183 Topics
299595 Posts
Max Online: 1087 @ 07/16/07 01:09 PM
|
|
|
#288481 - 05/10/08 12:51 PM
Re: Father Hopko on the filioque
[Re: Peter J]
|
Member
Registered: 06/09/02
Posts: 4732
Loc: somewhere betwixt the Alpha an...
|
Although I don't always agree with Apotheon (Todd), I do find this to be offensive: My concern is that, with the approach to the essence-energy distinction coupled with the assertion of the almost complete unknowability of God that you have personally outlined and ascribed to the whole of the Eastern Fathers, there appears to be the risk of driving a wedge between God and His self-revelation in history. How do you avoid the slippery slope of either modalism or, worse yet, Islam?
especially the second sentence. Peter, You find offense where none is given. I'm simply trying to understand what is being asserted here. As much as I may respect Todd and his learning, I do not simply accept at face value that he accurately reflects or speaks for "the Eastern fathers" in their totality, though I believe that is his earnest intention. The fact that I am trying to understand what he is saying and asking him how he avoids certain theological errors which appear - perhaps only on the surface, perhaps not - to be the logical conclusion of his assertions, is not an accusation against Todd or the patrimony of the East. It merely reflects my own processing of this very complex teaching. In ICXC, Gordo
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288493 - 05/10/08 01:38 PM
Re: Father Hopko on the filioque
[Re: ebed melech]
|
Member
Registered: 04/24/07
Posts: 95
Loc: Indiana
|
My concern is that, with the approach to the essence-energy distinction coupled with the assertion of the almost complete unknowability of God that you have personally outlined and ascribed to the whole of the Eastern Fathers, there appears to be the risk of driving a wedge between God and His self-revelation in history. How do you avoid the slippery slope of either modalism or, worse yet, Islam? What is the nature of this appearance? I hold that this phenomena is a function of prior Augustinian presuppositions regarding the knowledge of the divine and the nature of revelation, whose validity is far from unquestionable. You rightly intuit that it drives a wedge between this rationalist conception of God (see here ) and consequent interpretation of its revelation in history, but that is not a flaw in the Patristic model.
Edited by NeoChalcedonian (05/10/08 01:40 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288500 - 05/10/08 02:15 PM
Re: Father Hopko on the filioque
[Re: NeoChalcedonian]
|
Member
Registered: 06/09/02
Posts: 4732
Loc: somewhere betwixt the Alpha an...
|
My concern is that, with the approach to the essence-energy distinction coupled with the assertion of the almost complete unknowability of God that you have personally outlined and ascribed to the whole of the Eastern Fathers, there appears to be the risk of driving a wedge between God and His self-revelation in history. How do you avoid the slippery slope of either modalism or, worse yet, Islam? What is the nature of this appearance? I hold that this phenomena is a function of prior Augustinian presuppositions regarding the knowledge of the divine and the nature of revelation, whose validity is far from unquestionable. You rightly intuit that it drives a wedge between this rationalist conception of God (see here ) and consequent interpretation of its revelation in history, but that is not a flaw in the Patristic model. Neo, I guess I am not entirely convinced that it is the Patristic model, or even more fundamentally, that a single model can be ascribed to the Fathers. In ICXC, Gordo
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#292726 - 06/23/08 12:35 AM
Re: Father Hopko on the filioque
[Re: MrsMW]
|
Roman Catholic
Member
Registered: 06/21/08
Posts: 138
Loc: Kansas USA
|
If this was the dogma of the Church than why would the Pope tell the Eastern Churches to drop the filioque. I am a bit hazy as to why the Latins added it. People always say this and that is dogma but sometimes it is not. Where is Fr Maximos when I need him. I am sure Fr Serge can explain this. As far as I know its not dogma but was added because of the Arian heresy in Spain that said Christ was made and was not always there the church has confirmed that it is not in the original creed and either way is acceptable In Christ, David
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#292729 - 06/23/08 12:39 AM
Re: Father Hopko on the filioque
[Re: Ghosty]
|
Roman Catholic
Member
Registered: 06/21/08
Posts: 138
Loc: Kansas USA
|
Roman Catholic teaching is indeed that there is an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son, as from a single source.
Actually, the Latin teaching is that only the Father is the source. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son as from a single principle, not as from a single source; it's a significant difference. A lake proceeds from a spring and a river as from one principle, the flowing of the water from the spring through the river, but only from one source, the spring. Peace and God bless! Ghosty is right this is probably what Peter J. meant to Say May all be one David
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#292875 - 06/23/08 07:08 PM
Re: Father Hopko on the filioque
[Re: Altar Server]
|
Member
Registered: 02/21/05
Posts: 281
Loc: New England
|
Ghosty is right this is probably what Peter J. meant to Say
May all be one
David
Which of my posts are you referring to?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#292883 - 06/23/08 08:24 PM
Re: Father Hopko on the filioque
[Re: Altar Server]
|
Member
Registered: 02/03/02
Posts: 1983
Loc: West Coast
|
David that is in essence  is correct! It was inserted as a clarification and to combat semi arianism. Now as to the question should it have been added that is another matter. My take would be, being an Oecumenical Creed, it should not have been added and perhaps that now the danger has passed no longer needs to be included in the Creed of the West. Stephanos I
Edited by Stephanos I (06/23/08 08:25 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#293604 - 06/29/08 01:32 AM
Re: Father Hopko on the filioque
[Re: Altar Server]
|
Member
Registered: 11/22/07
Posts: 300
Loc: Las Vegas
|
Actually, the Latin teaching is that only the Father is the source. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son as from a single principle, not as from a single source; it's a significant difference.
Ghosty is right this is probably what Peter J. meant to Say May all be one David There is only one whose works could lead to the grammatical and linguistic differences between Latin and Greek being a cause of division between English speaking Christians . . .  hawk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index