homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Filioque - thoughts on validity? (Page 5)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Filioque - thoughts on validity?
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pontifical:
All of my opinions stem from the PCPCU document, the Councils, and the Catechism. To my mind, these are in unanimity. I don't see how my view differs from them.

Precisely what I would say, that's why I keep citing these documents so extensively.

quote:
Originally posted by Pontifical:
Is there any need to be so hotile, rude and dismissive? We should at least be able to discuss this in Charity.

No, yes, sorry.

quote:
Originally posted by Pontifical:
That is, even in all eternity, the Spirit is not, except breathed through the Son. So: even in eternity, no Son: no Spirit. Forgive me for missing the subordination there?

I could as well say: without flute no sound however much I breathe out air. You are missing the subordination simply because you are not addressing it. The question is whether the Son is simply a "passive modulating relay station" of the breath as it proceeds, as a flute is, or if He is more.

quote:
Originally posted by Pontifical:
And what, pray tell, have YOU ever said, in an appreciative tone naturally, about the Orthodox?

Fair point. On this thread on this topic - not a lot. The opportunity wasn't really there though with plenty of Orthodox and two or three most enthusiastic RC supporters of Orthodox doctrine.

quote:
Originally posted by Pontifical:
You absolutely do have to understand the Greek to capably discuss this topic.

I don't have to at all. Again, it's not my intention and not my job to explain all the historical and linguistical details of why things went awry way back when. Not that there's not a need for that, sure there is. And there's experts for doing that, I applaud them for their work. But apart from andreas1984 and me, this has been a discussion between native English speakers. And all of us come with the modern understanding of our respective traditions concerning the Trinity. I don't see why we can't simply communicate about that. I'm even grateful for some historical background, for it may help us to avoid certain errors. But I firmly resist any suggestion that I have to be a scholar of old Greek in order to discuss the structure of the Trinity, including the filioque. The modern English language surely has the capabilities of carrying as much meaning as necessary (and indeed possible).

Triple Tiara, that was a pure, content-free ad hominem attack. If you run out of reasonable arguments, there's always Hell.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you run out of reasonable arguments, there's always Hell.

Pot. Kettle. Wavelength.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hosting

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
A rather basic problem in all this is that, sadly, IngoB is showing a deficiency in the necessary fundamental skills required to engage in academic or intellectual debate.

Debates here don't have to be polite, but this crosses the line between attacking the argument and attacking the person.

RuthW
Purgatory host

Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pontifical
Shipmate
# 9875

 - Posted      Profile for Pontifical     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well,

Thanks IngoB for your response, which is informative and welcome. To the points you raise:

quote:
quote:

Originally posted by Pontifical:
All of my opinions stem from the PCPCU document, the Councils, and the Catechism. To my mind, these are in unanimity. I don't see how my view differs from them.

Precisely what I would say, that's why I keep citing these documents so extensively.

Well, you are affirming here that you too don't see how my view differs from them??! [Yipee] If so, then good!

quote:
quote:

Originally posted by Pontifical:
That is, even in all eternity, the Spirit is not, except breathed through the Son. So: even in eternity, no Son: no Spirit. Forgive me for missing the subordination there?

I could as well say: without flute no sound however much I breathe out air. You are missing the subordination simply because you are not addressing it. The question is whether the Son is simply a "passive modulating relay station" of the breath as it proceeds, as a flute is, or if He is more.

Well, I kind of agree with you. But I don't think this is subordination; I think that if there were subordination, I would try to address it! The Son is essential for the procession of the Holy Spirit; as I have said, if He is not there to be breathed through, then there is no procession. The Father is too essential for the procession and the being of the Holy Spirit, since if He is not there, then there is nobody to proceed. My point about there not being any subordination is that just becuase the Father and the Son are essential in different ways does not mean that one is subordinate to the other. I think it's a little dangerous to imply that this requires subordination: after all, is the Son subordinate to the Father because He Himself only has His Being because of the Father? I don't see how this is any different from the subordination you think is present in the model of procession that I explain, but I don't believe for example that this is subordination.

quote:
quote:

Originally posted by Pontifical:
And what, pray tell, have YOU ever said, in an appreciative tone naturally, about the Orthodox?

Fair point. On this thread on this topic - not a lot. The opportunity wasn't really there though with plenty of Orthodox and two or three most enthusiastic RC supporters of Orthodox doctrine.

Well, I kind of feel a bit guilty about this one; if this were a debate about the importance of Apostolic succession, then my arguments against the anglicans would be the same; as Ken, that great stalwart of the Petrine Primacy threads once remarked to RC shipmates, we are often guilty of complaining about the way the Orthodox see us (often, anyhow) and then having the same attitude to the Protestants.

However, I think you mis-read me as an enthusiastic supporter of Orthodox doctrine, whatever one of those is. Of orthodox doctrine, yes; my whole point on this thread has been that I think you are incorrect to say that presenting the view that I present is handing over to be burned several centuries of Catholic Tradition; I think, and I think that the Church thinks, that it is more a question of clarifying what that Catholic Tradition IS. I have nowhere said that the Dual Procession is not true: to do so would be to sell off Catholic Tradition, for the worse. What I have done is to try and expound what we MEAN by the Dual Procession.

quote:
I don't have to at all. Again, it's not my intention and not my job to explain all the historical and linguistical details of why things went awry way back when. Not that there's not a need for that, sure there is. And there's experts for doing that, I applaud them for their work. But apart from andreas1984 and me, this has been a discussion between native English speakers. And all of us come with the modern understanding of our respective traditions concerning the Trinity. I don't see why we can't simply communicate about that. I'm even grateful for some historical background, for it may help us to avoid certain errors. But I firmly resist any suggestion that I have to be a scholar of old Greek in order to discuss the structure of the Trinity, including the filioque. The modern English language surely has the capabilities of carrying as much meaning as necessary (and indeed possible).
Well, yes and no. OK, so I'm pleased to half agree with you. It is of course possible to discuss the Trinity in modern English perfectly well (or as well as one can hope to, anyhow), but I think that in order to engage with the Greeks on this one (and I don't mean andreas: I mean the Orthodox in general) one has to understand it from their point of view, in order to be able to see what it is that they are saying and what it is they think that we are saying. But then I guess you are saying that, too; so I agree, in short. There are two differently - but, as you say, complementary - sets of ideas on procession : the Latin processio and the Greek ekporeusis; to be able to let these ideas complement each other, one has to be able to see how and where they differ. I think this is bound up with the language, which is a great help in being able to understand the underlying theology.

Thank you for your response, which was very constructive.

Blessings,

Pontifical.

--------------------
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Nihil carius Christo
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

Posts: 58 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Hosting

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
A rather basic problem in all this is that, sadly, IngoB is showing a deficiency in the necessary fundamental skills required to engage in academic or intellectual debate.

Debates here don't have to be polite, but this crosses the line between attacking the argument and attacking the person.

RuthW
Purgatory host

Aye, that's true. I'm sorry. It's just that I found the debate being confused and muddied and stifled, not by an argument but by a person.

There was I thinking I was being polite in my attempt to help a person engage in the debate. Sorry Ruth

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scot

Deck hand
# 2095

 - Posted      Profile for Scot   Email Scot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
ADMIN MODE

Triple Tiara,

Responding to a hostly warning with this sort of smart-assed bullshit is liable to be interpreted by the admins as a violation of Ship's Commandment 6.

Scot
Member Admin

--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson

Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Father Triple Tiara, dear Trisagion, Ian, could you have a look at this page from the Summa, and tell me if you understand Thomas Aquinas saying the same thing we agreed on in this thread?

I was reading that page and I am not sure what he means. I don't want to misinterpret him, so could you, sharing in his tradition, have a look and tell me what you think?

Now, I know you explained that the term "proceed" can have two meanings. Does the same apply to the term "principle" Thomas uses?

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
IngoB, I would like to point you to an agreed statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic theological consultation where it is said that:

quote:
The Latin word procedere, on the other hand, with its related noun processio, suggests simply “movement forwards,” without the added implication of the starting-point of that movement; thus it is used to translate a number of other Greek theological terms, including proienai, and is explicitly taken by Thomas Aquinas to be a general term denoting “origin of any kind” (Summa Theologiae I, q. 36, a.2), including – in a Trinitarian context - the Son’s generation as well as the breathing-forth of the Spirit and his mission in time. As a result, both the primordial origin of the Spirit in the eternal Father and his “coming forth” from the risen Lord tend to be designated, in Latin, by the same word, procedere, while Greek theology normally uses two dif­­fer­ent terms. Although the difference between the Greek and the Latin tradi­tions of under­standing the eternal origin of the Spirit is more than simply a verbal one, much of the ori­gi­nal concern in the Greek Church over the insertion of the word Filioque into the Latin trans­lation of the Creed of 381 may well have been due – as Maximus the Confessor explained (Letter to Marinus: PG 91.133-136) - to a misunder­standing on both sides of the different ranges of meaning implied in the Greek and Latin terms for “procession”.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pontifical:
Well, you are affirming here that you too don't see how my view differs from them??! [Yipee] If so, then good!

I was saying that I also think that I am in complete agreement with all those official RC documents. Clearly, if we both say that, then there must be some level of agreement between us as well. I think what you keep stressing and expounding of those documents is basically what the Vatican would like the Orthodox to assent to. It's the minimal common denominator which the Vatican thinks will be enough for achieving unity. What is missing for me in a RC (rather than Orthodox) adopting that position is 1) that this is not the be all and end all of Western Trinitarian doctrine, not even as stated in those very documents, and 2) the recognition that the Orthodox community largely refuses even this minimal common denominator (just google for the PCPCU document, most hits are Orthodox ones explaining why this is insufficient) and isn't enthusiastically engaging in a similar re-evaluation of Western Trinitarian teachings. It is in my eyes misleading to gloss over what the Orthodox will need to accept. And the constant unilateral declaration that the RCC will do whatever necessary to achieve unity must not become a motivation for the Orthodox to just wait until the West turns entirely Orthodox (rather than orthodox).

The PCPCU document is from 1995. Over a decade ago now... I don't see a "Joint Declaration on the Filioque" on the horizon. Why not? Because you need two hands seeking each other for a handshake...

quote:
Originally posted by Pontifical:
The Son is essential for the procession of the Holy Spirit; as I have said, if He is not there to be breathed through, then there is no procession. The Father is too essential for the procession and the being of the Holy Spirit, since if He is not there, then there is nobody to proceed. My point about there not being any subordination is that just becuase the Father and the Son are essential in different ways does not mean that one is subordinate to the other. I think it's a little dangerous to imply that this requires subordination: after all, is the Son subordinate to the Father because He Himself only has His Being because of the Father?

Let me re-write what you say about the Spirit to see if you solve the issue: "The flute is essential for the procession of the sound; as I have said, if it is not there to be breathed through, then there is no procession. The musician is too essential for the procession and the being of the sound, since if he is not there, then there is nothing to proceed. My point about there not being any subordination is that just because the musician and the flute are essential in different ways does not mean that one is subordinate to the other." As you can see this doesn't work. Sure, it does not require subordination. But surely it does not either deny subordination. For the flute is most definitely subordinate to the musician. My point is not that the Orthodox doctrine requires subordination, my point is that it is a weakness of that Orthodox analogy that it does not deny subordination. Whereas the Augustinian "unitive love" does explicitly deny subordination. Its weakness is rather monarchy, which it does nor deny, but also does not affirm. In both cases one must explain something extra to make sure that one does not fall in error. That's also why these doctrines are nicely complimentary, they cancel each others weaknesses.

quote:
Originally posted by Pontifical:
I have nowhere said that the Dual Procession is not true: to do so would be to sell off Catholic Tradition, for the worse. What I have done is to try and expound what we MEAN by the Dual Procession.

Yes, but I do not think that what the RCC means by Dual Procession is just the Orthodox "breathing through". Not that this this understanding is wrong, it is completely valid and thoroughly profound, but it is also only one of several complimentary ways of understanding the issue that the RCC holds true. For true unity it is then not only required that the Orthodox understand that we accept their favorite explanation as true. It is also required that they at least tolerate those other explanations. That's what I'm trying to point out.

andreas1984, I'm not sure what your point is?

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ian Climacus

Liturgical Slattern
# 944

 - Posted      Profile for Ian Climacus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Father Triple Tiara, dear Trisagion, Ian, could you have a look at this page from the Summa, and tell me if you understand Thomas Aquinas saying the same thing we agreed on in this thread?

Thanks for the vote of confidence Andreas, but I am a simple person. I too have no idea what he's saying.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
(just google for the PCPCU document, most hits are Orthodox ones explaining why this is insufficient)



What terms are you googling on? That's not at all what I found.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
What terms are you googling on? That's not at all what I found.

Good question, actually. Back when I quoted the PCPCU I was trying to locate an uncommented online copy of the document without knowing the exact title. I remember that this one was the top search link I got in Google, but I can't seem to come up with search terms now that brings in plenty of other Orthodox comments (at least from "not in communion with Rome" Orthodox). I guess that makes my claim above at best accidental... [Disappointed]

Anyway, I'm more than happy to be proven wrong in my pessimism here. [Smile] So please go ahead and link to all those favorable comments by "not in communion with Rome" Orthodox!

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So please go ahead and link to all those favorable comments by "not in communion with Rome" Orthodox!

That's the only kind of Orthodox there are.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Marinaki

Varangian Guard
# 343

 - Posted      Profile for Marinaki   Author's homepage   Email Marinaki   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The document can be found here

as part of a collection of pages on the Filioque

--------------------
IC I XC "If thou bear thy cross
---+--- cheerfully, it will bear
NI I KA thee."

Posts: 696 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
MT--

Maybe Ingo is thinking of the "uniate" churches?

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yeah, Eastern Rite Catholics or whatever else you would like to call them... On Marinaki's site we find another "nice, but not good enough" comment by His Grace John Zizioulas, Metropolitan of Pergamon. That's the sort of stuff I remember from Google hunting.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Father Triple Tiara, dear Trisagion, Ian, could you have a look at this page from the Summa, and tell me if you understand Thomas Aquinas saying the same thing we agreed on in this thread?

Thanks for the vote of confidence Andreas, but I am a simple person. I too have no idea what he's saying.
Not you! The other Ian, aka Pontifical! [Yipee] I asked the RC Shipmates, because it was about a RC Saint. (I do appreciate though the fact that you read the document. I think it's interesting that you find it confusing also!)

[ 16. February 2006, 09:37: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Uniate chuches aren't Orthodox, they're Catholic. Orthodox means "in communion with one of the Orthodox patriarchs." It doesn't mean "looking like those churches that are in communion with one of the Orthodox patriarchs."

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Uniate chuches aren't Orthodox, they're Catholic. Orthodox means "in communion with one of the Orthodox patriarchs." It doesn't mean "looking like those churches that are in communion with one of the Orthodox patriarchs."

How do you decide which patriarchs are Orthodox then?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There is no need to decide. By deciding you make yourself a judge, rather than a member of the Orthodox Church. Like father Gregory could have said, unity exists through the communion of the bishops (you being in communion with your bishop and the bishop with the other bishops). In fact, you don't have to know who the Patriarch is (unless you are interested in administrative matters); it doesn't matter.

If a non-Orthodox would want to know who the Orthodox Patriarchs are, he could just ask an Orthodox guy to point him to them. Alternatively, he could read Church history and see for himself that the historical ecclesiastical body in the East is the Orthodox Church.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
There is no need to decide.
...
If a non-Orthodox would want to know who the Orthodox Patriarchs are, he could just ask an Orthodox guy to point him to them.

Andreas, sometimes you crack me up [Killing me]

On the off-chance that you're serious, do you have a means of defining an Orthodox guy other than one who is in communion with an Orthodox bishop, who can be determined by asking a guy who is Orthodox, who can be determined... etc?

quote:
Alternatively, he could read Church history and see for himself that the historical ecclesiastical body in the East is the Orthodox Church.
That sounds rather like me judging ecclesiastical bodies. What if I concluded that the church that was Orthodox was the West?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear GreyFace

a) I wasn't talking about theology. I said that historically, the Church in the East is the Orthodox Church. Just like, historically speaking, the Roman Church is the Church in the West (at least until the Reformation). If I was to speak about theology, I would suggest alongside with church history to read theology and the documents of the ancient fathers and judge for yourself which church is historically sharing the same faith with the ancients.

b) It's like asking how I know who the real Messiah is. Well, yes, there have been other people claiming they were the Messiah. I would suggest reading history. You could see that the one man who is still seen as the Messiah is Christ.

I don't understand the premises upon which your view on Orthodoxy is based.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pontifical
Shipmate
# 9875

 - Posted      Profile for Pontifical     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well,

These messages continue to make interesting reading. A few precise points:

quote:
Father Triple Tiara, dear Trisagion, Ian, could you have a look at this page from the Summa, and tell me if you understand Thomas Aquinas saying the same thing we agreed on in this thread?

Andreas: I am a little busy at the moment, and (believe me) I need a LOT of time to read St. Thomas Aquinas; it's not exactly the sort of thing one would read in the bath! When I have read it, I will tell you what I think.

IngoB:

quote:
The PCPCU document is from 1995. Over a decade ago now... I don't see a "Joint Declaration on the Filioque" on the horizon. Why not? Because you need two hands seeking each other for a handshake...

Well, interesting proposal, but I'm not sure I know the inner workings of the Phanar/Vatican well enough to know what the International Commission is discussing at the present. I should remind you, however, that it did begin again on the 15th December last. So let us see what comes out of it, perhaps; I think the only attitude to ecumenism is optimism. Granted, ther has to be realism as well, but pessimism will never do.

An well, 10 years is not really an age, is it? When you consider that the schism has been going on for nigh on 1000, it sort of puts things into perspective!


quote:
It's the minimal common denominator which the Vatican thinks will be enough for achieving unity.
No: Rome has constantly asserted that minimal common denominators are not enough for real, actual, visible, concrete unity. So I don't agree here. I see nothing of the sort of "sucking up to the Orthodox" that you seem to allude to in the document...

I guess what I am saying in a round about way is that you seem to have got yourself a little worked up about Rome and/or RCs lining up to "throw away" RC Tradition just for the purposes of reunion, without any thought about the long lasting effects, nor asking the Orthodox to also reach out to meet us on various issues. There has always (even, I would venture to say, in the United Church) existed a huge difference between East and West; and there would exist such a difference in any Reunified Church. But on those issues which must be resolved, the only sustainable path forward for unity is for both sides to reach a common understanding, which necessarily presupposes movement on both sides. I don't think that either Rome/Constantinople would think anything else. I'm not sure many Catholics/Orthodox do either, come to think of it...


quote:
Let me re-write what you say about the Spirit to see if you solve the issue: "The flute is essential for the procession of the sound; as I have said, if it is not there to be breathed through, then there is no procession. The musician is too essential for the procession and the being of the sound, since if he is not there, then there is nothing to proceed. My point about there not being any subordination is that just because the musician and the flute are essential in different ways does not mean that one is subordinate to the other." As you can see this doesn't work. Sure, it does not require subordination. But surely it does not either deny subordination.
But I don't see how it doesn't work? Sorry, but I don't! In any case, would the fact that it didn't deny subordination really imply that there was subordination? Absolutely not; that would be illogical to my mind, or at best a non sequitur.

quote:
Yes, but I do not think that what the RCC means by Dual Procession is just the Orthodox "breathing through". Not that this this understanding is wrong, it is completely valid and thoroughly profound, but it is also only one of several complimentary ways of understanding the issue that the RCC holds true.
Then what else does it mean? I guess you will advance the unitive love business, but I'm not sure what point you want to make with it?

Blessings,

Pontifical.

--------------------
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Nihil carius Christo
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

Posts: 58 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I don't understand the premises upon which your view on Orthodoxy is based.

Sorry, I was shortcutting, taking your understanding of Orthodoxy as identical with the One Church.

Of course you can identify the Orthodox Church in the sense of the communion of the East, but Orthodox also means "right-worship" and is more than a convenient label, so I guess what I'm trying to say is that that study you suggest later is how one determines an Orthodox bishop in the latter sense.

So when Mousethief says that communion with an Orthodox bishop is the identifying mark of Orthodoxy, you would need to either reduce the name Orthodox to a denominational label, or be able to identify the Orthodox with what is (most) small-o orthodox and that surely requires judging the beliefs of the bishop.

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear GreyFace

I am not familiar with the word "denomination". In Greek, we use the word "confessions" when we talk about different faiths. I think that the term Orthodox (capital o) applies to the confession of which I am a member, and as such, it can be defined historically.

This does not mean that I see Orthodoxy as one denomination. I see the Church of Christ as a confession of faith, and this does not mean that the Church is a denomination.

Now, if you want to discuss about Orthodoxy's orthodoxy, we could do so, from a historical (and theological) point of view. However, I don't know if it will be useful. I want to point out that the Roman Catholic Church, having done this kind of study, says officially that the Orthodox Church is orthodox in all things. (They think however that we are schismatics, but my point is that Orthodoxy is concidered in union with the ancient faith from the Romans. Do you think that your study would have led to a different conclusion?)

[ 16. February 2006, 16:05: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I am not familiar with the word "denomination".

It just means "name". So calling the Orthodox church a "denomination" just means that when we say "Orthodox church" we mean those churches that call themselves Orthodox... no big deal, nothing to get hung up on.

quote:

In Greek, we use the word "confessions" when we talk about different faiths.

The word "confession" is used in English like that, but its much rarer than "denomination".

Some people - especially what used to be called non-conformist churches in England - talk about "connexions". Independent churches, where each congregation is autonomous, are contrasted to "connexional" churches. Which would include the Orthodox, the Romans and the mainstream Reformation Protestants (Lutherans, Moravians, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists etc.) Most Pentecostal and many Baptist churches are independent.

NB saying "different faiths" in English implies different religions entirely, like Hindus or Muslims or whatever. Most English speakers would say that Christianity was a "faith" and the Orthodox and the Romans and the various Protestants are included within it.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612

 - Posted      Profile for FreeJack   Email FreeJack   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sometimes there is ambiguity over the level at which denomination should be applied.

In the case of the Orthodox, some people would say that "Orthodox" was a denomination, others that "Russian Orthodox" and "Greek Orthodox" were denominations which were in communion with each other.

Likewise are "the Church of England" and "ECUSA" different denominations, or is "Anglican" the denomination.

The charismatic house churches in England like "Pioneer" and "New Frontiers International" used the term 'streams' to describe themselves at one stage.

It depends on the context where the most appropriate grouping is.

Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Marinaki

Varangian Guard
# 343

 - Posted      Profile for Marinaki   Author's homepage   Email Marinaki   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
An aside: I have heard to the Orthodox Church referred to as a denomination, but I've never heard the various jurisdictions of Orthodoxy (Russian, Greek etc) referred to as denominations. I wonder where you've seen that?

--------------------
IC I XC "If thou bear thy cross
---+--- cheerfully, it will bear
NI I KA thee."

Posts: 696 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pontifical:
I see nothing of the sort of "sucking up to the Orthodox" that you seem to allude to in the document... I guess what I am saying in a round about way is that you seem to have got yourself a little worked up about Rome and/or RCs lining up to "throw away" RC Tradition just for the purposes of reunion, without any thought about the long lasting effects, nor asking the Orthodox to also reach out to meet us on various issues.

I'm not worked up about Rome doing so. Rome is doing fine. I was getting worked up by my perception that RCs on this thread were doing so. Maybe that perception was wrong, but some of the arguments here sure were worrisome in my eyes.

quote:
Originally posted by Pontifical:
But I don't see how it doesn't work? Sorry, but I don't! In any case, would the fact that it didn't deny subordination really imply that there was subordination? Absolutely not; that would be illogical to my mind, or at best a non sequitur.

To repeat: the point is not that subordination is required, implied, whatever... The point is that it is not denied, excluded, whatever. But subordination must be denied, excluded, whatever. So if you use the Orthodox picture, you must add a statement which makes clear that you exclude subordination. For the words your are saying on their own do not provide that safeguard. This is what my re-writing with "Spirit -> sound", "Son -> flute" and "Father -> musician" of your statement showed. The very same words could apply in a context in which subordination is explicit, so you must in addition say that such an interpretation is not allowed.

quote:
Originally posted by Pontifical:
Then what else does it mean? I guess you will advance the unitive love business, but I'm not sure what point you want to make with it?

Concerning Trinitarian structure, the point is that the Orthodox picture tends to suggest to the mind a linear lineup Father->Son->Spirirt. But the Western picture provides the necessary correction that Father, Son and Spirit are actually in a triangular formation (see my current avatar). These points of view are not incompatible, one only has to "bend" the Orthodox line at the Son, to create the angle there. (Yes, I know the Trinity is not "geometric", it's just easier to picture this gemoetrically rather than using just "relation language".) Concerning spirituality, I find that the picture of the Father breathing through the Son is not so inspiring for my faith, whereas the picture of "unitive love" provides a most satisfying meditation on God. But that's just me, I'm not saying that this must apply to everybody.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ian Climacus

Liturgical Slattern
# 944

 - Posted      Profile for Ian Climacus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Concerning Trinitarian structure, the point is that the Orthodox picture tends to suggest to the mind a linear lineup Father->Son->Spirirt.

I'm may be completely confused, and I confess I'm probably beyond my ken, but I see it more as:

code:
   Father 
/ \
/ \
Son Spirit

Am I wrong? The Father->Son->Spirit line up gets me seeing it as some form of modalism. But then I'm reading about that at the moment so perhaps my sense of it is heightened.

Though I have seen a triangle of sorts used: the one that has "Father is God", "Son is God", "Spirit is God" and "Father is not Son", "Son is not Father", "Spirit is not Father" -- usually in Latin. [Biased]

[ 16. February 2006, 23:42: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]

Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
IngoB:
Concerning spirituality, I find that the picture of the Father breathing through the Son is not so inspiring for my faith, whereas the picture of "unitive love" provides a most satisfying meditation on God. But that's just me, I'm not saying that this must apply to everybody.

Good. Because what you find spiritually helpful cannot be used to establish doctrine. Therein lies the problem. You cannot use a meditative image and then expect doctrine to be established by it.

[ 16. February 2006, 23:43: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
andreas1984:
Father Triple Tiara, dear Trisagion, Ian, could you have a look at this page from the Summa, and tell me if you understand Thomas Aquinas saying the same thing we agreed on in this thread?

andreas, I have no idea! I am not a fan of Aquinas - largely because I have not had a Thomist training. For me to comment would be way beyond my competence. Sorry!

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ian Climacus

Problem with your diagram is that it leaves the Son and the Spirit unrelated. This is surely not what you intend. This is sort of why the Western Church has found a simple "ex patre" clause deficient.

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Concerning Trinitarian structure, the point is that the Orthodox picture tends to suggest to the mind a linear lineup Father->Son->Spirirt.

I'm may be completely confused, and I confess I'm probably beyond my ken, but I see it more as:

code:
   Father 
/ \
/ \
Son Spirit

Am I wrong? The Father->Son->Spirit line up gets me seeing it as some form of modalism. But then I'm reading about that at the moment so perhaps my sense of it is heightened.

I don't know that the Father->Son->Spirit line up is modalistic -- I wouldn't see it that way. But neither is it particularly Orthodox. If you had to diagram the Holy Trinity, the little sketch you did would be, I think, right on target.

ETA: Ian's diagram shows the Son and the Spirit as being related, in that they are both from the Father. How is that not related?

[ 16. February 2006, 23:56: Message edited by: josephine ]

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ian Climacus

Liturgical Slattern
# 944

 - Posted      Profile for Ian Climacus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Problem with your diagram is that it leaves the Son and the Spirit unrelated. This is surely not what you intend. This is sort of why the Western Church has found a simple "ex patre" clause deficient.

Twasn't intentional: I just didn't want lines everywhere. I suppose I focus more on their originate source: in terms of temporal, yes the Spirit comes from the Father and Son. (I think -- don't excommunicate me Orthodoxen if I'm wrong [Smile] ).

Perhaps I mis-ready Father->Son->Spirit Josephine: to me it showed some form of linear progression or showed that the Father begat the Son who begat (sent?) the Spirit. How are the intelligent here reading it? My apologies Ingo.

[edit: misspelled names]

[ 17. February 2006, 00:02: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]

Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oi oi oi [Eek!] .... I find that a very worrying statement Josephine. The Son and the Spirit only relate to each other via the Father? So they are like brothers?

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Niënna

Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652

 - Posted      Profile for Niënna   Email Niënna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
code:
Father
| \
| \
| >Spirit
| /
V /
Son

Is model helpful?

[this is just what I am gathering from the conversation -- I have no clue what it looks like...but I am just trying to get a clearer picture visually of what y'all are saying]

[ 17. February 2006, 00:07: Message edited by: Joyfulsoul ]

--------------------
[Nino points a gun at Chiki]
Nino: Now... tell me. Who started the war?
Chiki: [long pause] We did.
~No Man's Land

Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
oooh - the longbowman model! I like it!

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Leetle Masha

Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209

 - Posted      Profile for Leetle Masha   Email Leetle Masha   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Leetle Masha likes it too, TT! After all, who could possibly draw an equilateral longbow!

Welcome, JoyfulSoul! [Smile]

Leetle M.

--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner

Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Niënna

Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652

 - Posted      Profile for Niënna   Email Niënna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thank you. I've been enjoying the whole conversation but I feel completely out of depth here... [Hot and Hormonal] I just wanted to thank everyone who has posted here. It is so interesting (runs away and hides, now).

--------------------
[Nino points a gun at Chiki]
Nino: Now... tell me. Who started the war?
Chiki: [long pause] We did.
~No Man's Land

Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, Joyfulsoul, it's surprising how short the thread is considering the debate has thus far lasted more than a millennium! Complete with tugging of beards [Snigger] And let me confess here and now - I am a Latin priest with a beard. Make of that what you will [Biased]

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ian Climacus

Liturgical Slattern
# 944

 - Posted      Profile for Ian Climacus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It hasn't stopped me Joyfulsoul!

Love the longbowman name! [Biased]

And a beard, TT? We'll get you yet! [Razz]

Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ian, Father generates Son. Father breathes Spirit through Son. That naively yields:
code:
option 1a

Father==>Son-->Spirit

Note the double line Father to Son. Now, the harmony of the Eastern and Western position follows immediately from your (crypto-RC [Biased] ) picture if one adds the "breathing through":
code:
option 2

Father
//\
// \
// \
`´ `´
Son-->Spirit

Note the double line again. The "filioque" is then simply refering to the fact that if you now just look at the spirit it looks like so
code:
-->Spirit<--

The issue is only what establishes option 2 over option 1a if we are not going to say more than "breathing through"? That means your righthand line gets rather re-routed as such
code:
option 1b

Father
//
//
//

Son-->Spirit

Which is "topologically" equivalent to option 1a, it's just "bent" at the Son. It seems somewhat difficult to see the filoque in this though. You have to argue that the "and" now refers to the fact that the breathing through connects to both, like so
code:
Father--Son-->Spirit

I'm much more comfortable with saying that generation
code:
Father-->Son

plus Orthodox "breathing through"
code:
Father--Son-->Spirit

plus Augustinian "unitive love"
code:
 Father-\
--->Spirit
Son-/

considered together are the best. For taken together we have something like option 2 but in a dynamic rather than static sense, which I think is as close as we can get to the truth.

Triple Tiara, it's established doctrine enough to be consciously mentioned even in the PCPCU document. What do you reckon anyway is meant by the inevitable mention of complementarity? If there was only the Orthodox doctrine, then there would be no need for it to be complementary to anything, it would be simply all there is.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
<double post due to lots of cross posts while I was drawing diagrams>

Hi Joyfulsoul, unfortunately your "longbow" diagram is precisely the classical Western-Augustinian picture (generation plus unitive love, see my diagrams above), which the Orthodox do not particularly like. I agree though, it's very inspiring (no pun intended). [Smile] And you even made Triple Tiara agree to it, sneaky, sneaky. [Big Grin]

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Leetle Masha

Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209

 - Posted      Profile for Leetle Masha   Email Leetle Masha   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nifty Diagrams, IngoB! Thanks!

For anyone interested in St. Thomas Aquinas, may I recommend the excellent work by the late Étienne Gilson, _The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas_, published by the University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana.

Best wishes,

Leetle M.
Please stay, JoyfulSoul! [ETA: I don't much care whether Orthodoxen like the longbow (maybe we're after a crossbow [Ultra confused] ), but I delight in any attempt to express the inexpressible! I'm too "chicken" even to try! Bravo, JoyfulSoul!]

[ 17. February 2006, 00:46: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]

--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner

Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Oi oi oi [Eek!] .... I find that a very worrying statement Josephine. The Son and the Spirit only relate to each other via the Father? So they are like brothers?

No, because that would mean that the Spirit is also begotten, that he would be another Son. But that is clearly not the case.

But the Persons of the Trinity, as I understand it, are distinguished by their relationship with the Father, not with each other. That doesn't mean that the Son and the Spirit have no relationship with each other, or that they don't relate to each other except through the Father.

I'm probably not expressing it very well. Maybe I'll go off and read a bit and try again later.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
IngoB:
Triple Tiara, it's established doctrine enough to be consciously mentioned even in the PCPCU document. What do you reckon anyway is meant by the inevitable mention of complementarity? If there was only the Orthodox doctrine, then there would be no need for it to be complementary to anything, it would be simply all there is.

I am enjoying becoming a footnote to your posts! The contempt with which you address me just oozes off the page. [Snigger]

An image is an image. It helps to elucidate a reality. It is not the reality itself. When you overstate the image to the exclusion of other images, you detract from rather than elucidate the reality. As the catechism warns: you must not allow it to become rigid. This is what I have been saying throughout. The unitive love image may be helpful qua image. On the other hand, it may be less than helpful in some discussions. It has been extensively commented upon ever since Augustine used it - and not only in the way Augustine used it either, which was much more limited than the theology some have built upon it. But since the Holy Spirit is much more than the love that exists between the Father and the Son (gosh, can you not hear just how shocking it is to limit describing who the Holy Spirit is by referring to him simply as the "love that exists between the Father and the Son"???????) you cannot build your entire pneumatic theology upon this one image. The image may be employed to elucidate the reality, it is not the reality itself. How many other ways can I say that?

Now, I wonder which of our Orthodox participants in this discussion remember me ditching the Latin doctrine, or the necessity of the filioque or any such thing in these pages? Can you remember where it was that I said you were right and we were wrong? I cannot, which is why I need you to help me out. Because some posters (well, 1 actually) keeps alleging that I am so far up your Eastern fundaments that I have forgotten my own fundamentals. I am beginning to wonder whether that Latin I used at Mass tonight was actually Greek, I am so confused. [Ultra confused]

[ 17. February 2006, 02:04: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256

 - Posted      Profile for Duo Seraphim   Email Duo Seraphim   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:
IngoB:
Triple Tiara, it's established doctrine enough to be consciously mentioned even in the PCPCU document. What do you reckon anyway is meant by the inevitable mention of complementarity? If there was only the Orthodox doctrine, then there would be no need for it to be complementary to anything, it would be simply all there is.

I am enjoying becoming a footnote to your posts! The contempt with which you address me just oozes off the page. [Snigger]

Take the fighting to Hell.
Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host

--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)

Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Triple Tiara, is "breathing through" more than an image? If not, then I'm basically in agreement with your explanation concerning "mere images" of the Trinity. I would still appreciate if you could tell us what in your opinion some distinctly Western fundamentals of Trinitarian doctrine are, which the East will have to come to terms with prior to a final agreement. Are there any? Or is it all just linguistic confusion covering up exactly the same ideas?

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alfred E. Neuman

What? Me worry?
# 6855

 - Posted      Profile for Alfred E. Neuman     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Consciousness (God) can be defined only according to the forms it takes, in which case we are defining the forms, not consciousness. The same qualification applies to the word "force" which consciousness constrains within forms. There is a pure, indefinable state of devine being (or devine consciousness) which manifests as an interaction between force and form. These metaphors work best for me when attempting to grasp the nature of the trinity but are no more valid in themselves than any traditional symbolic structure if the structure takes on more importance than the principles they represent.

--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--

Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools