Heresy of Dual-Cause
#11
@NonNobis

And we speak also of the Spirit of the Son, not as through proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father. For the Father alone is cause.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33041.htm

or

"With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause (αἰτίαν) of the Spirit – they know in fact that the Father is the only cause (αἰτίαν) of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting (γέννησιν) and the other by procession (ἐκπόρευσιν) – but that they have manifested the progression (προϊέναι) through Him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence (οὐσίας)."

From the leter of St.Maximus the confessor to Marinus

This is what the saints say.What meaning to "Cause" can we apply to these?
Reply
#12
I think you're reading too much into the phrase "first origin"--it does not imply dual origin in the heretical sense. That being said, you can't exclude the Son because the Persons of the Trinity are distinguished by their relationship to one another--by excluding the Son you make the Holy Spirit the same as the Son. That being said, you only do this when you accuse our formulation of being heretical because all your other quotes include the Son. Similarly the Greeks have not intended to exclude the Son in their formula.

Read this work by St. Thomas Aquinas on this--he shows the unanimity between East and West. (see Part 1, sections 1 to 15; and Part 2, sections 1 to 31)

http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm

Also see this text from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity which explains the Catholic position on this too (it's being re-printed on an Orthodox site):

http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/statement.htm

Honestly, I think the main beef the Orthodox have with this was how it was added (by the Pope). At the reunion Councils this issue was worked out pretty easily once the differences in language were flushed out.



Reply
#13
(09-22-2010, 06:09 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote: I think you're reading too much into the phrase "first origin"--it does not imply dual origin in the heretical sense. That being said, you can't exclude the Son because the Persons of the Trinity are distinguished by their relationship to one another--by excluding the Son you make the Holy Spirit the same as the Son. That being said, you only do this when you accuse our formulation of being heretical because all your other quotes include the Son. Similarly the Greeks have not intended to exclude the Son in their formula.

Read this work by St. Thomas Aquinas on this--he shows the unanimity between East and West. (see Part 1, sections 1 to 15; and Part 2, sections 1 to 31)

http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm

Also see this text from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity which explains the Catholic position on this too (it's being re-printed on an Orthodox site):

http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/statement.htm

Honestly, I think the main beef the Orthodox have with this was how it was added (by the Pope). At the reunion Councils this issue was worked out pretty easily once the differences in language were flushed out.

Well,Indeed.I'll have to read this,but in concern of the PCfPCU concerning the Filioque,I found a almost dishonesty.I found catholic icons showing both Jesus and the father blowing towards eachother forming a dove ,which is the holy spirit.I do not remove christ from the spirit,but the problem lies in the fact that Rome actually made quite clear that the holy spirit indeed has his eternal cause from both Father and son EQUALLY.which I consider a "Damnable" term to use if it is of the Father through the son.Indeed,as you said that it would make the spirit another son,I agree.It passes through the son in a way only known by him.but to say that the Son also spirated with the Father the spirit we come to the case of two papa's.Two Fathers.I believe we can confess the son without making him a cause as much as we can without making him a father.Now the Eumenical councils for reunity were quite off.expecially since St.Mark of Ephesus was quite good at defending the orthodox faith. I understand that perhaps Rome no longer believes this,but I find many including a Mr.Will Huyman attempting to defend the dual-cause of the holy spirit.

Correction:Just in case someone misunderstands me: Through the son is permissable,I am not saying that the son is not through,but it is the father who is the "Arche",he is the Sole cause,but to proceed through and not from,as from the Father.we would have a agreement.but history shows this was not the belief of the romans.thus to admit that the Father is the sole cause through th son,you would have to admit the romans taught heresy.
Reply
#14
Really, there's only so much you can express in an Icon --- more than in some other media, to be sure, but how do you want to write causation in an icon? How do you want to write procession differently?

The CCC paragraph 248 you quote itself asserts in overly-convoluted prose that the Father is "the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds".  You're hanging-on to the intervening phrase "with the Son", but the sense of its inclusion here is that of elaborating on "consubstantialem Patris".  That is, the Son is not invoked as adding to or assisting in any causation.

I don't know how many ways I can assure you that no, we don't mean causation by such-and-such a word, no matter how many times you may want to suggest that it could be so construed.
Reply
#15
(09-25-2010, 03:17 AM)NonNobis Wrote: Really, there's only so much you can express in an Icon --- more than in some other media, to be sure, but how do you want to write causation in an icon? How do you want to write procession differently?

The CCC paragraph 248 you quote itself asserts in overly-convoluted prose that the Father is "the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds".  You're hanging-on to the intervening phrase "with the Son", but the sense of its inclusion here is that of elaborating on "consubstantialem Patris".  That is, the Son is not invoked as adding to or assisting in any causation.

I don't know how many ways I can assure you that no, we don't mean causation by such-and-such a word, no matter how many times you may want to suggest that it could be so construed.

So,are you telling me Traditionalist nor mainstream Roman Catholics believe differently then the Orthodox on the procession of the spirit?
Reply
#16
(09-25-2010, 04:07 AM)St.Ambrose Wrote:
(09-25-2010, 03:17 AM)NonNobis Wrote: Really, there's only so much you can express in an Icon --- more than in some other media, to be sure, but how do you want to write causation in an icon? How do you want to write procession differently?

The CCC paragraph 248 you quote itself asserts in overly-convoluted prose that the Father is "the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds".  You're hanging-on to the intervening phrase "with the Son", but the sense of its inclusion here is that of elaborating on "consubstantialem Patris".  That is, the Son is not invoked as adding to or assisting in any causation.

I don't know how many ways I can assure you that no, we don't mean causation by such-and-such a word, no matter how many times you may want to suggest that it could be so construed.

So,are you telling me Traditionalist nor mainstream Roman Catholics believe differently then the Orthodox on the procession of the spirit?

Would you accept the formulation that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son?

And why is there still an Orthodox dispute over this? The East agreed to all this at two ecumenical councils (Florence and Lyons II).
Reply
#17
(09-25-2010, 04:07 AM)St.Ambrose Wrote: So,are you telling me Traditionalist nor mainstream Roman Catholics believe differently then the Orthodox on the procession of the spirit?

I haven't a clue what generic baptised believe; I'm sure we can find many heretics and apostates among them, in the Latin Churches or Eastern, in or out of full Communion with Rome; however, I trust the teaching authority of the Holy See.

(09-25-2010, 09:23 AM)McNider Wrote: Would you accept the formulation that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son?

And why is there still an Orthodox dispute over this? The East agreed to all this at two ecumenical councils (Florence and Lyons II).

I think he *has* said he does accept "through" as ablative of "place", and not ablative of means --- though not in those words.  I also don't think there "still is" an Orthodox dispute over this; chat on fisheaters with one Orthodox Christian and you've chatted on fisheaters with one Orthodox Christian, as it were.

Don't worry, St. Ambrose, we still love you, and I'll remember you at Mass tomorrow.
Reply
#18
(09-25-2010, 02:06 PM)NonNobis Wrote:
(09-25-2010, 04:07 AM)St.Ambrose Wrote: So,are you telling me Traditionalist nor mainstream Roman Catholics believe differently then the Orthodox on the procession of the spirit?

I haven't a clue what generic baptised believe; I'm sure we can find many heretics and apostates among them, in the Latin Churches or Eastern, in or out of full Communion with Rome; however, I trust the teaching authority of the Holy See.

(09-25-2010, 09:23 AM)McNider Wrote: Would you accept the formulation that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son?

And why is there still an Orthodox dispute over this? The East agreed to all this at two ecumenical councils (Florence and Lyons II).

I think he *has* said he does accept "through" as ablative of "place", and not ablative of means --- though not in those words.  I also don't think there "still is" an Orthodox dispute over this; chat on fisheaters with one Orthodox Christian and you've chatted on fisheaters with one Orthodox Christian, as it were.

Don't worry, St. Ambrose, we still love you, and I'll remember you at Mass tomorrow.

Well,The SSPX spoke of this,being dogma of the church,that even if the eastern catholic churches deny saying the "Filioque" they still have to believe the dogma behind it .Well,if the East believed this,why would it have to affirm that the EC have to believe this?

Benedict XIV Etsi Pastoralis, May 26, 1742: "The Greeks are bound to believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, but they are not bound to proclaim it in the Creed."

It never was semantics (Well,I give you that it was in the 7th century due to language,that the romans didn't believe this) but it is a very dire heresy. Monothelism and Monophysitism were both condemned,although many try to pass it off as if it is merely "Different Traditions".Beware ecumenism.This I warn right now.Beware the "Smoothing" over doctrinal differences.

Rome is only looking to create false union today,not only with the EO but with all the heretics,even the false religions.It's dangerous.

To McNider
Amazing,you honestly need to read the council acts.Lyons they rejected after having been Forced to accept it and Florence was anulled because St.Mark of Ephesus denied to sign the papers.It's quite amazing,Remember there was a time when nearly the whole church signed a semi-arian creed,To "Accept" the filioque is a NO Go.Not merely because it's theologically unsound,not because you can not justify it with some pretty words,but because it contradicts tradition,if we do not have Tradition then we only have novelty

Thank you NonNobis,I will pray for you also today at vespers and tomorow at the Liturgy.
Reply
#19
(09-25-2010, 06:48 PM)St.Ambrose Wrote: It never was semantics (Well,I give you that it was in the 7th century due to language,that the romans didn't believe this) but it is a very dire heresy. Monothelism and Monophysitism were both condemned,although many try to pass it off as if it is merely "Different Traditions".Beware ecumenism.This I warn right now.Beware the "Smoothing" over doctrinal differences.

You are not a prophet or great theologian. Also, if you want to be merely average, please properly space your posts. It is the largest key on the keyboard...put a space after most punctuation (all, if in doubt).

Quote:To "Accept" the filioque is a NO Go.Not merely because it's theologically unsound,not because you can not justify it with some pretty words,but because it contradicts tradition,if we do not have Tradition then we only have novelty
It was used since the council of Toledo you know. That isn't "novelty".

Also, In John 10:30, this is written:

Quote: ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν.

"I and the Father are one". If the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and Jesus spoke the Truth, then it is correct to say the Spirit proceeds from the Son (and the Father). Jesus does say that

John 15:26 Wrote:But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.

Rejecting the wording used by the Latins (it is only in the liturgical form; the Creed as formulated is not the same as the one used in the liturgies of the East or West) is silly.

It is merely justification for pride.
Reply
#20
(09-25-2010, 07:55 PM)Herr_Mannelig Wrote:
(09-25-2010, 06:48 PM)St.Ambrose Wrote: It never was semantics (Well,I give you that it was in the 7th century due to language,that the romans didn't believe this) but it is a very dire heresy. Monothelism and Monophysitism were both condemned,although many try to pass it off as if it is merely "Different Traditions".Beware ecumenism.This I warn right now.Beware the "Smoothing" over doctrinal differences.

You are not a prophet or great theologian. Also, if you want to be merely average, please properly space your posts. It is the largest key on the keyboard...put a space after most punctuation (all, if in doubt).

Quote:To "Accept" the filioque is a NO Go.Not merely because it's theologically unsound,not because you can not justify it with some pretty words,but because it contradicts tradition,if we do not have Tradition then we only have novelty
It was used since the council of Toledo you know. That isn't "novelty".

Also, In John 10:30, this is written:

Quote: ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν.

"I and the Father are one". If the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and Jesus spoke the Truth, then it is correct to say the Spirit proceeds from the Son (and the Father). Jesus does say that

John 15:26 Wrote:But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.

Rejecting the wording used by the Latins (it is only in the liturgical form; the Creed as formulated is not the same as the one used in the liturgies of the East or West) is silly.

It is merely justification for pride.

St.John was a illiterate man, as his homily says written by st. John Chrysostom. You are whining over how I write. That is childish, but I am a bigger man so I will take your advice (Snicker)

To say the Father and I are one in this fashion is to be a modalist. Do you spout Modalism? The Father didnt die on the cross, the spirit didn't beget the son and the Father is the sole cause of the spirit and son, the son is not a act in the cause of the spirit. If you read my original post and maybe clicked ONE of the links. You could have seen that. I only showed from the writings. Never commentary. So how do you refute these? I have no problem with the filioque as a liturgical, it is the Novel doctrine of dual-procession/dual-cause. The son did not send the spirit as a cause but only temporally after the Father who is the sole cause. Anything else is heresy. In fact Pope Martin I said it was the unanimous words of the latin fathers that the son is not the cause, but the Father alone who is. Again just look at my original post. Don't spout your words, speak the church fathers and use the logic of them not yourself. jeesh
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)