/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>- Filioquists say that Jesus is the cause of the Holy Spirit's being.

ah yes, those darn filioquist heretics…let's see…the catholic church?!

you sneaky little orthodox, at it again!

>>716630

>Filioquists say that Jesus is the cause of the Holy Spirit's being

Begone, schismatic.

>>716642

>>716638

>Abloo blood bloody

Stop screeching

>>716630

- Aspergerists are sectarian eastern europeans, they are mad about filioque

>>716672

AdHominemists are just plain fools who have no idea how to avoid baits

>>716672

Those who reject the filioque and say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone are traditionally called Monopatrists.

>>716630

You literally just copy-pasted what I said in another thread.

Obviously an asterisk is needed for all of them but Docetism and Macedonianism (or Pneumatomachoi) because there still exist sects that adhere to them, with obviously Catholics adhering to Filioquism.

These are only "hard" heresies as well, those that are directly about making a grave error about Jesus Christ. There are countless doctrines that, while not directly about Jesus's divinity or humanity, are considered good enough reasons to excommunicate and anathematize and as such are called "heresies" as well. Most notably Monergism among Protestants and Papism, Purgatory, etc. among Catholics.

This thread will not turn out well, since it expects everyone participating to have an Eastern Orthodox perspective. But you knew this and only wanted to cause debate and dispute. Shame on you.

>>716630

>>716645

>Filioquists say that Jesus is the cause of the Holy Spirit's being.

lol. You have no idea what Filioque is.

Proccedit does not mean "originate" it means "is passed".

Catholics believe Holy Spirit originates from the Father, can be passed through the Son. There are scripture references to this "passing".

So get lost. I you want to debate why the Son cannot pass the Holy Spirit that comes from Father, we can discuss that.( But I think Orthodox theology admits this..am I wrong?)

>>716630

Your thread is bad and you should feel bad.

If you criticize something, you should have a basic grip on it. If you claim Filioque means Jesus is the cause of the Holy Spirit's being youre ither being dishonest (shame to you) or you do not know what you're talking about…then it is just cringe.

>muh created grace

>muh papacy

>muh filioque

>muh latins

Sage.

>>716685

You could actually correct him instead of just scream "REEEE GET LOST, REEEE". Also, how Catholicism interprets it is debated at least. I dont really care about this though, my primary concerns are Papacy and Scholasticism.

But the point is, that my post was referring to you shouting instead of giving any kind of civilized response

>>716645

>Abloo blood bloody

only now I noticed the typo. I abhor phoneposting

>>716688

Anyways, good luck with yet another shit throwing thread at eachother, I'll [-] this and go back to /Orthodox/ General

>>716685

>>716687

>Proccedit does not mean "originate" it means "is passed".

You don't know your own theology? Did you read Laetentur Caeli?

>In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

>And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

>orthodox poster

>he's an American convert that has basic bitch wikipedia knowlege about anything

every.single.time

>>716685

>But I think Orthodox theology admits this..am I wrong?

the position by most Orthodox theologians (at least the mainstream ones) is that the filioque dispute is over authority not theology. There are many Catholics and Orthodox who say the addition or removal of the filioque is a point of acceptable theological disagreement, however the Catholic position is that an ecumenical council (and later on in history, a pontiff) can add to the creed, whereas the Orthodox position is that nobody can add to the creed.

Personally I side with the Catholic position because an ecumenical council gave us the creed, an ecumenical council can add to the creed. However I don't think it should be a huge problem, and there's 13 million eastern Catholics who agree

Latin's butthurt proceeds from their cockiness AND their inability to read patrisics

>X vs Y thread disguised as discussion

white fish hook on a black background dot jpg

>>716630

Stop making these threads attacking Nestorius and his teachings, when you know nothing about them!

Nestorius taught that Christ is two natures, God and man. He never taught that Christ is two persons. He was a dyophysite and his faith was Chalcedonian. He accepted the accuracy of the term Theotokos.

>everything I don't like is heresy

>while at the same time posting an image that was pagan symbolism in it

>>716630

Unless this was a particularly good trolling attempt

Gnosticism is a fairly common one that should be explained. Basically the Zoroastrian idea that "material is evil and spirit is good," can sometimes tie into Docetism.

>>716872

>Zoroastrian idea that "material is evil and spirit is good,"

This is a pet peeve of mine that I'm going to have to go full "ACKCHUALLY" on. Zoroastrianism is indeed dualistic, but its dualism is moral in that there are two eternal entities, Ahura Mazda (good) and Angra Mainyu (evil) who both have positive existence (as opposed to Christianity which sees evil as negative, solely as privation). Manichaeism, which was largely a Persian derivation of gnosticism, indeed shares with its forefather spirit-matter duality.

>>719089

>How am i supposed to know what's a heresy

If you are looking for a definition, then here is one: a heresy is a change in the faith of the Apostles.

The Christian faith is mysterious. For example there is one God and yet, the Father is God and the Son is God, the Father is not the Son but there is only one God. Or the Christ is a human and the Christ is God. Isn't this a contradiction? Yes, this is above what our mind can explain. Naturally, many people tried to explain these apparent contradictions and created heresies. The reaction of the Church was to point out the errors of the heretics. The dogmatic definitions of the Councils do not solve the mystery of our faith, they explain things that can be explained but the mystery is still there.

No exhaustive list of all heresies is possible. Your list is correct even if with somewhat simplified definitions

>>716685

>>719136

This is a complete lie. Catholic dogma still teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son "as if from one principle" and therefore are heretics. Orthodoxy affirms the Son's eternal relationship with the Spirit but the Son does in no way generate the Spirit. This is taught by Lyons and Florence.

>>719154

>Orthodoxy affirms the Son's eternal relationship with the Spirit but the Son does in no way generate the Spirit.

that's heresy

>>719154

This is a complete lie. Catholics teach catma, orthodogs teach dogma.

>>719154

I believe 'dual procession' is a valid theologoumena in Orthodoxy, however it is certainly not dogms

>>719165

The Father alone is the sole Cause in the Trinity, the Fathers of the Church teach it.

>>719256

The Trinity is Triune, there is no divine act within a singular Person of the Trinity, all participate.

>>719259

By that logic, the Spirit begets the Son.

>>719261

The Word existed since the Beginning as did the Holy Spirit, it's on you to prove that the Trinity acts singularly in person-hood.

>>719264

Not going to bother with your Roman Catholic shilling, you've already been exposed. Have a nice day

>>719267

Not an argument.

>>719264

>it's on you to prove that the Trinity acts singularly in person-hood

The Trinity does not act singularly. The acts of the Father are also acts of the Son and acts of the Spirit. But it's on you to respond properly to >>719261

The begetting of the Son and the procession of the Spirit are not "acts" (=energies in Greek).

>>719154

>This is taught by Lyons and Florence.

It seems that in the recent times the catholic church does make some efforts to make a catholic theology which is more in accordance with the Orthodox theology. The bad decisions of the past are neglected, Lyons is not mentioned. There are even catholic bishops who will say that the councils of Lyons and Florence are not Ecumenical but only local councils and as such not infallible.

All this doesn't mean the catholic church is moving towards Orthodoxy. It only means that the catholicism is a reed shaken by the wind. When talking with Orthodox the recent popes say the Orthodox are correct. When talking with heretics the popes say the heretics are correct. When talking with traditional catholics who say the heretics are heretics the popes say yes you too are correct. Everyone is correct, lets make love!

>>719154

>This is a complete lie. Catholic dogma still teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son "as if from one principle" and therefore are heretics.

Then please do explain why Eastern Rite catholics still use the filio version in Greek/Slavic?

>>719324

>It only means that the catholicism is a reed shaken by the wind. When talking with Orthodox the recent popes say the Orthodox are correct. When talking with heretics the popes say the heretics are correct. When talking with traditional catholics who say the heretics are heretics the popes say yes you too are correct. Everyone is correct, lets make love!

Nice, now we may divorce and re-marry 3 times and use contraception with Fr. Vladimir's permission. What a light yoke!

Can we masturbate too?

>The Trinity does not act singularly

Thank you.

>But it's on you to respond properly to

I already did. If he cannot deny the Triune God acts separately, then he must accept that "Father and the Son" is equal to "Father through the Son".

>>719574

If he denies the Triune God acts separately*

>>719574

>Nice, now we may divorce and re-marry 3 times

Nice, how about listening to the words of Christ: "It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Notice the words in boldface. The Orthodox permit divorce when the spouse has committed adultery and even then not without attempts for reconciliation. What is the point in proclaiming higher standards than what Christ said and what the Apostles practiced when the reality is so far from the theory.

>I have already responded to >>719261

No, you have not. The acts of God are property of the nature so they are common to the three divine Persons. The begetting of the Son, however, is not a property of the divine nature, but a personal property of the person of the Father.

As for the procession of the Holy Spirit, the word "procession" is used to denote two different processions of the Holy Spirit. When we say about someone that he has the Holy Spirit in him we don't mean that he has the person (the hypostasis) of the Holy Spirit. The person/hypostasis of the Holy Spirit does not live in us, in fact the Saints teach us that we don't know the whereabouts of the persons of the Trinity and we are not going to know this even in the afterlife. Thats why the Bible often uses expressions like "he has of the Holy Spirit" instead of "he has the Holy Spirit" in this way making clear that we have not the person of the Holy Spirit but rather his manifestation/activity/energy. With respect to this procession of the Holy Spirit we can say that He proceeds from the Son (or from the Father throught the Son, or from the Father and the Son) and rests in us. It is ok to use the filioque with respect to this procession.

The second type of procession concerns not the manifestation of the Holy Spirit but his person; the cause of the person of the Holy Spirit. With respect to this procession the Holy Spirit (the person) proceeds from the Father without separation and rests in the Son. With respect to this procession the "filioque" is absurd because this procession doesn't start from the Son but rather ends in the Son.

>"Father and the Son" is equal to "Father through the Son"

With respect to the second procession (the cause of the person of the Holy Spirit) we don't use either of these two expressions. The first one is absolutely wrong, and the expression "the Holy Spirit is proceeding from the Father through the Son" is a rare abbreviation of "the Holy spirit is proceeding from the Father and communicated through the Son".

>>719643

>except on the ground of sexual immorality

porneia refers to a union that was illicit from the start, not illicit due to fornication

if Christ and His Church is mirrored in the sacrament of Marriage, do you also say that Christ would leave His Church due to "fornication"? Not that His Church would ever be defiled, anyway.

>The Orthodox permit divorce when the spouse has committed adultery and even then not without attempts for reconciliation.

The Orthodox are wrong.

>What is the point in proclaiming higher standards than what Christ said and what the Apostles practiced

that's completely ridiculous, the Church is conforming to the highest standard, not making up one

>With respect to this procession the Holy Spirit (the person) proceeds from the Father without separation and rests in the Son. With respect to this procession the "filioque" is absurd because this procession doesn't start from the Son but rather ends in the Son.

It does not end in the Son, it goes from The Father, through The Son.

If I have to be frank, I find the Orthodox's teaching on marriage more disqualifying than even the filioque controversy.

>>719814

moreover, if "porneia" refers to fornication in lieu of an illicit union, does this mean marriages of incest and other abominations (hello gay marriage!) are ok?

the comparison to Christ and the Church makes even more sense if porneia is speaking of licit and illicit too, Christ is only loyal to His licit Church.

>>719814

>The Orthodox are wrong.

If we are "wrong" because we follow the words of Jesus, then so be it. See how Chrysostom interprets this Biblical place (Matthew 5:32): "In another way also He has lightened the enactment: forasmuch as even for him He leaves one manner of dismissal, when He says, "Except for the cause of fornication;" since the matter had else come round again to the same issue. For if He had commanded to keep her in the house, though defiling herself with many, He would have made the matter end again in adultery." Nowhere you will find a patristic exegesis of this place which interprets differently the words "except on the ground of sexual immorality".

>It does not end in the Son, it goes from The Father, through The Son.

I can give you quotations from our common Saints supporting what I wrote. Can you do the same about what you wrote (with respect to the second type of procession, namely the origin, or the cause of the person of the Holy Spirit)?

To say that the person of the Holy Spirit moves from the Father and passes through the Son is a blasphemy. The Persons of the Holy Trinity do not "move".

On the other hand, when the Holy Spirit manifests himself in us, he has come to us through the Son because the Son is the mediator between God and man and the Son is the one who destroyed the barrier between God and man. And because the Father is the one source of all divinity, we also say that the Holy Spirit has come to us from the Father. This is the explanation of the expression "the Holy Spirit has come to us from the Father through the Son". And because the divinity of the Son is identical with the divinity of the Father, the expression "the Holy Spirit has come to us from the Father and the Son" is also correct. Any divine activity of the Holy Spirit in us is also activity of the Father and of the Son.

>>719863

>If we are "wrong" because we follow the words of Jesus, then so be it

You don't. I had no idea the Orthodox were KJV-Onlyists.

>Nowhere you will find a patristic exegesis of this place which interprets differently the words "except on the ground of sexual immorality".

St. Augustine

>“Neither can it rightly be held that a husband who dismisses his wife because of fornication and marries another does not commit adultery. For there is also adultery on the part of those who, after the repudiation of their former wives because of fornication, marry others. This adultery, nevertheless, is certainly less serious than that of men who dismiss their wives for reasons other than fornication and take other wives. Therefore, when we say: ‘Whoever marries a woman dismissed by her husband for reason other than fornication commits adultery,’ undoubtedly we speak the truth. But we do not thereby acquit of this crime the man who marries a woman who was dismissed because of fornication. We do not doubt in the least that both are adulterers. We do indeed pronounce him an adulterer who dismissed his wife for cause other than fornication and marries another, nor do we thereby defend from the taint of this sin the man who dismissed his wife because of fornication and marries another. We recognize that both are adulterers, though the sin of one is more grave than that of the other. No one is so unreasonable to say that a man who marries a woman whose husband has dismissed her because of fornication is not an adulterer, while maintaining that a man who marries a woman dismissed without the ground of fornication is an adulterer. Both of these men are guilty of adultery” (Adulterous Marriages1:9:9 [A.D. 419]).

St. Jerome

>“Do not tell me about the violence of the ravisher, about the persuasiveness of a mother, about the authority of a father, about the influence of relatives, about the intrigues and insolence of servants, or about household [financial] losses. So long as a husband lives, be he adulterer, be he sodomite, be he addicted to every kind of vice, if she left him on account of his crimes, he is her husband still and she may not take another” (Letters55:3 [A.D. 396]).

As for St. John C, I do not believe he endorses divorce and re-marriage.

>To say that the person of the Holy Spirit moves from the Father and passes through the Son is a blasphemy.

Well, we can both ask the Son on His Day, this is a question that will definitely be settled.

just curious but is it a sin to watch korean dance vids? if my intentions are pure?

>>719886

You wrote

>porneia refers to a union that was illicit from the start, not illicit due to fornication

When I read this I thought you wanted to say that the word porneia in Matthew 5:32 was used in its narrow meaning "fornication" and not "adultery". In order to show that this is not so, I gave a quote from Chrysostom.

>Augustine

Your quote from Augustine also proves that the word porneia in this place means adultery. According to your quote a man who marries another wife after the repudiation of his former adulterous wife has "the taint of this sin" (of adultery) and he does something "certainly less serious than that of a men who dismiss their wives for reasons other than fornication and take other wives".

>Jerome

According to the Roman civil law, a man was permitted to dismiss adulterous wife, a wife, however, was not permitted to leave adulterous man. Although there were some Fathers who said we must not treat differently adultery according to the sexes, as a whole the Church followed for some time this custom inherited from the Romans. Notice that Jerome blames a wife dismissing her adulterous husband but not a husband dismissing his adulterous wife.

Now, it is certainly possible to find very different opinions among the Fathers with respect to the divorce and the remarriage. Some of them (as Augustine) are less permissive, others are more permissive. When deciding about divorce and remarriages the Orthodox are still guided by all these opinions – all of them are applicable in due situation and all of them have divine wisdom. But when you say "remarriages are not permitted, end of story" you replace the wisdom of the Fathers by strict rules, the spirit by the letter.

Also notice that there are cases when divorce is not only permitted but even recommended. When a man has adulterous wife who does not want to change but goes with one man after another, he is advised to dismiss her according to the words "he that keeps an adulteress, is foolish and wicked". (Proverbs 18:22, these words are missing in the present Hebrew text, they however are present in all ancient translations: Septuagint, Vulgate, Peshitta.)

>>719913

>is it a sin to watch korean dance vids

It depends. Watch the result of an act, not the intentions.

>Post last edited at 10/27/18 (Sat) 12:03:11

How did you do this?

>>719951

>He does not say this, and it would also be contrary to the Church and Jesus Christ, where he gently rebuked the samaritan women at the well.

haha nevermind. however, does the Orthodox Church only allow men to divorce and re-marry? if they put weight on the idea that only women are culpable of adultery, I'm unsure how that would even be remotely just or logical (not to imply that divorce is just at all)

eh, 8ch is acting up

>>719920

>Also notice that there are cases when divorce is not only permitted but even recommended. When a man has adulterous wife who does not want to change but goes with one man after another, he is advised to dismiss her according to the words "he that keeps an adulteress, is foolish and wicked". (Proverbs 18:22, these words are missing in the present Hebrew text, they however are present in all ancient translations: Septuagint, Vulgate, Peshitta.)

"He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so."

Additionally, there is also the fact that it is not simply "good advice", but a prophecy of the Covenant being passed off from Jew to Gentile (or, spiritual Jews/Israel) through Christ. I suppose some, from the hardness of their hearts, wish to be able to divorce and re-marry, much like the Jews?

“Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,5and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’? 6*So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”

>Your quote from Augustine also proves that the word porneia in this place means adultery.

It does not, unless you mean to imply that Augustine chose to contradict Jesus Christ for no reason here.

>Although there were some Fathers who said we must not treat differently adultery according to the sexes, as a whole the Church followed for some time this custom inherited from the Romans. Notice that Jerome blames a wife dismissing her adulterous husband but not a husband dismissing his adulterous wife.

Care to present St. Jerome saying that a re-married man is not guilty of adultery?

>In order to show that this is not so, I gave a quote from Chrysostom.

You need to separate "divorce" from "estrangement". John C endorses putting away, and "divorcing" an adulterous women, but does he support re-marriage?

>>716709

Which ecumenical council gave us the filioque?

Ironic Catholics are complaining about Orthodox teaching on divorce when they have divorce by another name as well as Amoris Laetetia

>>720123

no they don't have divorce. and to think that marriage fraud is not rules for an annulment thats just idiotic. orthodox can divorce if your spouse is 7 years in prison. imagine that you get accused of a false crime, go to jail and then your wife can just divorce you? you guys are bonkers

>>720135

this is where the Orthodox/Protestant argument gets really reaching

1. If porneia ONLY refers to fornication, then marriages of incest and other silly/sinful situations are licit, and there is a contradiction between Matthew and Luke, with Christ saying one thing that contradicts Himself on the other

2. if Porneia refers to illicit marriage, then the "contradiction" between Luke and Matthew disappears, and, quite logically, any illicit marriage is automatically null and not recognized by God, no matter what secular/pagan religions say

3. If you try to have it both ways, then you still run into the contradiction between Matthew/Luke. And again, I do not believe there is any patristic exegesis that endorses re-marriage.

Take St. Paul the Simple for example, whom is recognized by both Catholic and Orthodox:

>Paul was a farmer who, at the age of sixty, discovered that his beautiful wife was having an affair and so left her to become a hermit. Approaching St. Anthony, Paul indicated his desire to become a monk. Anthony responded by saying it would be quite impossible for a man of sixty years to adopt such a radical life style. He instead encouraged Paul to be content with the life of being a thankful and pious labourer. Paul was unsatisfied with this answer and responded by pleading his will to learn. Anthony said that if he wished to be a monk he should go to a cenobium. With this St. Anthony shut the door, and Paul remained outside. On the fourth day St. Anthony, fearing lest he should die, took him in. He set him to work weaving a rope out of palm leaves, made him undo what he had done, and do it again.[3]

He "divorced", "put aside" or was quite simply "estranged" from his adulterous wife, but did not re-marry, and was granted the ability to overcome demons that not even St. Anthony could overcome!

> I noticed especially in Protestant America.

Have you also noticed that USA is a lot larger than any one Eurostate? This should aptly explain the abundance of variety.

>- Filioquists say that Jesus is the cause of the Holy Spirit's being.

That's Roman Catholicism; Eastern Orthodoxy says father alone. I have no idea what prautists say other than a bunch of meaningless feelgood vibes from their McChurches with colored plastic windows crudely depicting scenery or wildlife.

>- Mormons say that Jesus is not consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and is not the creator of the world (and the Father has a body and is not the creator of the world also).

Mormonism wouldn't even exist if they didn't consider themselves martyrs for being kicked out by a populace that was angry with them for right reasons.