CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group  

Go Back   CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group > Catholicism > God - the Most Holy Trinity
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 1st October 2010, 03:33 AM
myLivingBread myLivingBread is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 416
Default

Ron,

the guy is baptized in Roman Catholic then later became a Baptist. the reason he leaves is "these Pastors were actually fighting for their living."

he then converted to EO with the reason: "It was at an Eastern Orthodox website I found answers that historically the early church had been baptizing by immersion and that only on special situation pouring on the head was done."

here is his suggested link: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Orthodoxy_in_the_Philippines
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 1st October 2010, 06:26 AM
myLivingBread myLivingBread is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 416
Default

And this is the link to their objection:

http://aggreen.net/filioque/filioque.html
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 1st October 2010, 01:24 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,768
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by myLivingBread View Post
he then converted to EO with the reason: "It was at an Eastern Orthodox website I found answers that historically the early church had been baptizing by immersion and that only on special situation pouring on the head was done."

The Church has authority over the Sacraments, even to the extent of changing the form, permitting one form and not another. So Baptism can be permitted to occur with pouring, rather than immersion. However, Bl. Emmerich tells us that the Apostles, under Jesus' immediate supervision and instruction, baptized by pouring.

Also, the book The Teaching of the Church Fathers (Willis) has numerous quotes showing that the early Church Baptized by pouring as well as immersion.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 9th October 2010, 02:41 PM
Pontifex Pontifex is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
The universal Church is the Church led by the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, and his teachings are from Tradition and Scripture to the universal Church. Furthermore, the body of Bishops continuously, with every successive Pope and faithful successive Bishop, has held and taught that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, just as the Creed of the universal Church teaches.

God is unchanging and eternal. The claim that the procession of the Spirit 'through the Son' is not eternal is a rejection of the eternal unchanging nature of God.

The Father does not proceed, therefore He is the first Person. The Son proceeds only from the Father, therefore He is the second Person. The Spirit proceeds primarily from the First Person and secondarily from the Second Person, but in one Act, therefore He is the third Person. If the Spirit proceeded only from the Father, then He would not be Third, but also Second (which is absurd).

There is a distinction, within the double procession of the Spirit, between the role of the Father and the role of the Son in that one Act. This distinction is based on the fact that the Father does not proceed, but the Son does proceed. So the Spirit proceeds primarily from the Father and secondarily from the Son.

The universal Church is of Rome. The Greek Churches are heretical and schismatic, as evidenced by their departure from the worldwide body of Bishops, their rejection of numerous successive Ecumenical Councils, and their rejection of the authority of numerous successive Popes. Peter was appointed directly by Christ to lead the Apostles, and Peter was the Bishop of Rome. The rejection of papal authority is an objective mortal sin.

Several Eastern Churches have remained faithful to Rome, believing and teaching all that the Ecumenical Councils and the Popes and the body of Bishops also teach. They are witnesses against the heretical and schismatic Churches of the East, who reject the authority of Rome.

Ron,

Is it true that the original version of the Nicene-Constantinopalitan Creed, did not include the word Filioque (the original version said that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father,” rather than “from the Father and the Son”) ?

See http://www.catholicculture.org/news/...m?storyid=7857
__________________
While awaiting these things, be diligent, so that you may be found to be immaculate and unassailable before him, in peace. 2 Peter 3:14
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 9th October 2010, 04:00 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,768
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pontifex View Post
Ron,

Is it true that the original version of the Nicene-Constantinopalitan Creed, did not include the word Filioque (the original version said that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father,” rather than “from the Father and the Son”) ?

See http://www.catholicculture.org/news/...m?storyid=7857


The Council of Nicea was concerned with refuting heresies about Christ. Their profession of faith:

"We believe in one God the Father all powerful, maker of all things both seen and unseen. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten begotten from the Father, that is from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, CONSUBSTANTIAL with the Father, through whom all things came to be, both those in heaven and those in earth; for us humans and for our salvation he came down and became incarnate, became human, suffered and rose up on the third day, went up into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and the dead. And in the holy Spirit."

There is no mention of procession of the Spirit.

The next Council, at Constantinople, was concerned with refuting heresies against the Trinity:

"We believe in one God the Father all-powerful, maker of heaven and of earth, and of all things both seen and unseen. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all the ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came to be; for us humans and for our salvation he came down from the heavens and became incarnate from the holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, became human and was crucified on our behalf under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried and rose up on the third day in accordance with the scriptures; and he went up into the heavens and is seated at the Father's right hand; he is coming again with glory to judge the living and the dead; his kingdom will have no end. And in the Spirit, the holy, the lordly and life-giving one, proceeding forth from the Father, co-worshipped and co-glorified with Father and Son, the one who spoke through the prophets; in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. We confess one baptism for the forgiving of sins. We look forward to a resurrection of the dead and life in the age to come. Amen."

The omission of any mention of procession at Nicea does not imply that the Spirit does not proceed. And the omission of any mention of procession also from the Son does not imply that the Spirit proceeds only from the Father.

"It has been seen that the Creed of Constantinople at first declared only the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father; it was directed against the followers of Macedonius who denied the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. In the East, the omission of Filioque did not lead to any misunderstanding. But conditions were different in Spain after the Goths had renounced Arianism and professed the Catholic faith in the Third Synod of Toledo, 589. It cannot be acertained who first added the Filioque to the Creed; but it appears to be certain that the Creed, with the addition of the Filioque, was first sung in the Spanish Church after the conversion of the Goths. In 796 the Patriarch of Aquileia justified and adopted the same addition at the Synod of Friaul, and in 809 the Council of Aachen appears to have approved of it. The decrees of this last council were examined by Pope Leo III, who approved of the doctrine conveyed by the Filioque, but gave the advice to omit the expression in the Creed. The practice of adding the Filioque was retained in spite of the papal advice, and in the middle of the eleventh century it had gained a firm foothold in Rome itself. Scholars do not agree as to the exact time of its introduction into Rome, but most assign it to the reign of Benedict VIII (1014-15)."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm

The doctrine on the procession of the Holy Spirit (from Father and Son as from one principle) developed over time. This is the case with many teachings of Church. The most ancient expression of a doctrine is not necessarily the best expression.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10th October 2010, 01:24 AM
myLivingBread myLivingBread is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 416
Default

Ron,

how is the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son "not a double procession"? And if "as from one principle", how?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10th October 2010, 02:28 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,768
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by myLivingBread View Post
Ron,

how is the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son "not a double procession"? And if "as from one principle", how?

It is said to be a double procession, in that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. But it is also said to be from one principle, in that the Spirit proceeds all at once (not in two steps) with a fundamental unity to the single act of procession. Otherwise, the Spirit would be divided, which is not possible. So the double procession must be one act (one principle).
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10th October 2010, 04:15 AM
Pontifex Pontifex is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
The doctrine on the procession of the Holy Spirit (from Father and Son as from one principle) developed over time. This is the case with many teachings of Church. The most ancient expression of a doctrine is not necessarily the best expression.

Yes, this theological argument between Latins and Greek came ever so close to reunite both churchs back in the 15th century. Here is a relevant passage from the Council of Florence, Session 6, July 1439. When the Church reunites during the First part of the coming Tribulation, I believe the Greeks will formally accept this teaching.


"For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.

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.

We define also that the explanation of those words "and from the Son" was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need."
__________________
While awaiting these things, be diligent, so that you may be found to be immaculate and unassailable before him, in peace. 2 Peter 3:14
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 7th August 2011, 07:18 PM
Jeanne D'Arc
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I just read this on a website that I came across. It is not a very good one, I might add, but from time to time I look around. I was wondering if this statement is theologically correct.


Jesus: Yes my beloved one. I your Divine Savior Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, will now and will always bow down before my Holy Eternal and Merciful Father God in Heaven; Who is the Alpha and Omega, the Creator of all life, of all that is seen and unseen
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 7th August 2011, 07:34 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,768
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeanne D'Arc View Post
I just read this on a website that I came across. It is not a very good one, I might add, but from time to time I look around. I was wondering if this statement is theologically correct.


Jesus: Yes my beloved one. I your Divine Savior Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, will now and will always bow down before my Holy Eternal and Merciful Father God in Heaven; Who is the Alpha and Omega, the Creator of all life, of all that is seen and unseen

No, that is not theologically correct. The three Persons of the Trinity are co-equal as God. Although there is a certain type of limited inequality (if we may call it that) between the Persons, due to procession, it is not of the type that one Person would worship another Person in the Trinity.

That quote is from a false claim of private revelation.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.