New bible resource at New Advent

the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com ^ | Tuesday, December 08, 2009

[GonzoII]

There is a recent development at the ever excellent New Advent website. The Bible is presented in parallel columns: Greek on the left, English in the middle and the Latin Vulgate on the right. Navigation is provided by a list of all the books at the top and a list of chapters of the current book underneath. The English version is the Douai Rheims with the comments by Bishop Challoner. I am filled with admiration for Kevin Knight and others who help with the site. Their dedication has provided yet another superb resource for those who wish to deepen their faith.

Rather than presume that everybody knows, I should add that New Advent also has the texts in English of many of the major works of the Fathers of the Church, the full texts of the 1909 Catholic Encyclopaedia, and the Summa Theologica in English, as well as many other articles of interest. The homepage is nowadays a blog roundup which offers a useful starting-point for good posts on other Catholic blogs.

H/T Patricius at Singulare Ingenium

[GonzoII]

http://www.newadvent.org/bible/gen001.htm

[massmike]

save

[raygunfan]

awesome, thank God, his O.H.C&A.C. was there to preserve and write the bible out for all of us to have today.

[kosta50]

Gonzo, New Advent is well presented, but full or errors. This is what is says about the Holy Ghost and the Greeks:

Since the days of Photius, the schismatic Greeks maintain that the Holy Ghost, true God like the Father and the Son, proceeds from the former alone.

The Greeks (and Latins) have since the 2nd Ecumenical Council in the latter half of the 4th century recited the same Creed that states the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, and not since Photius (who lived 500 years later).

That was the official Creed of the undivided Church until the 11th century. That's when the Latin Church officially adopted the heretical 6th century filioque addition, and this same filioque error continues to be recited in the Latin Church to this very day.

[vladimir998]

You posted (saying that this is an error):

“Since the days of Photius, the schismatic Greeks maintain that the Holy Ghost, true God like the Father and the Son, proceeds from the former alone.”

So the Greeks have not believed that?

And the filioque is NOT heretical. John 20:19-23 makes that pretty clear.

[markomalley]

New Advent is well presented, but full or errors.

Kosta,

Your argument is not with New Advent, but with the editors of that article from the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia (in the case of this article, a gentleman by the name of Jacques Forget).

I think you will find that exact quote from any source that has a copy of the public-domain 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia.

[kosta50]

So the Greeks have not believed that?

Yes, "since the days of Photius, the schismatic Greeks maintain..." is wrong. The Greeks (and Latins) have maintained that the Holy Ghost...proceeds from the Father 500 years before +Photius. They have recited the Creed correctly at every Ecumenical Council of the Undivided Church, except the first one where the words regarding HS's progression ere not entered (yet).

And the filioque is NOT heretical. John 20:19-23 makes that pretty clear

It most certainly is. The eternal procession of the HS, as regards his existence, is form the Father. The Church established that everything originated from the Father, including the Trinity (i.e. the Son and the Spirit), that the Father is the only one without a cause, and he is the source and cause of everything.

John 20:19-23 does not address the Spirit's origin (maybe transit but not origin). The Spirit's orign is addressed very clearly in John 15:26. The monarchy of the Father in the Holy Trinity means that everything, including the Son and the Spirit owe their existence to the Father. Claiming otherwise is heresy.

[kosta50]

Kosta, Your argument is not with New Advent, but with the editors of that article from the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia

Tak you for that info. Why is there a Cathoic Encyclopedia from 1910 being uised as reference unless that is still what the Catholic Church teaches?

[sitetest]

Dear kosta50,

The old encyclopedia was a private effort on the part of folks not connected with the official Church. It isn't an official Catholic document of any sort.

Many have noted that it's imperfect, that there are errors, etc.

Nonetheless, in the main, it's a pretty reliable, pretty trustworthy source. It's almost always right in how it presents Catholic teaching, having very few errors. It gives a Catholic view of history on many matters (although that view is conditioned to its era). As long as one understands that the view is Catholic, that's a very good thing.

And it's pretty comprehensive. It covers a lot of territory, a lot of topics.

And no one has (at least to my knowledge) come out with a better version since.

So, one must recognize its flaws, but one can still appreciate its utility.

sitetest

[kosta50]

So, one must recognize its flaws, but one can still appreciate its utility

Yes indeed. Thanks for your explanation.

[vladimir998]

I think I see your difficulty. We speak of the Holy Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son. You, however, use the word "origin" which is an entirely different idea. More on that at the bottom of this post. As the old Catholic Encyclopedia points out: "The only Scriptural difficulty deserving our attention is based on the words of Christ as recorded in John 15:26, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, without mention being made of the Son. But in the first place, it can not be shown that this omission amounts to a denial; in the second place, the omission is only apparent, as in the earlier part of the verse the Son promises to "send" the Spirit. The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is not mentioned in the Creed of Constantinople, because this Creed was directed against the Macedonian error against which it sufficed to declare the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father. The ambiguous expressions found in some of the early writers of authority are explained by the principles which apply to the language of the early Fathers generally." And, of course, there were also Greeks who believed in the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son: "•Third, passages are not wanting in the writings of the Greek Fathers in which the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is clearly maintained: Gregory Thaumaturgus, "Expos. fidei sec.", vers. saec. IV, in Rufinus, Hist. Eccl., VII, xxv; Epiphanius, Haer., c. lxii, 4; Gregory of Nyssa, Hom. iii in orat. domin.); Cyril of Alexandria, "Thes.", as. xxxiv; the second canon of synod of forty bishops held in 410 at Seleucia in Mesopotamia; the Arabic versions of the Canons of St. Hippolytus; the Nestorian explanation of the Symbol." Many of the Orthodox I have encountered consider St. Ambrose to be a great Orthodox saint yet - as noted in "An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation Saint Paul’s College, Washington, DC October 25, 2003": "Ambrose of Milan, writing in the 380s, openly asserts that the Spirit “proceeds from (procedit a) the Father and the Son,” without ever being separated from either (On the Holy Spirit 1.11.20)." So, now, according to the you, Ambrose was no Orthodox saint at all, but a heretic? And this is a strange thing then to take place under a Gree bishop in still "Orthodox" England: "Nearly a century later, a council of English bishops was held at Hatfield in 680 under the presidency of Archbishop Theodore of Canterbury, a Byzantine asked to serve in England by Pope Vitalian. According to the Venerable Bede (Hist. Eccl. Gent. Angl. 4.15 [17]), this Council explicitly affirmed its faith as conforming to the five Ecumenical Councils, and also declared that the Holy Spirit proceeds “in an ineffable way (inenarrabiliter)” from the Father and the Son." http://www.usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml Now, back to "origins" vs. "proceeds". Look at this: The word comes from the Greek text of John 15.26, which speaks of the one "who proceeds (ekporeuetai) from the Father". The Greek word has the sense of movement out of, and early theologians used it to show that the Spirit's origin was within the person of the Father. Greek theologians restricted this Greek word to this particular technical use - the coming forth of the Spirit from the Father - so that it has a unique reference to the relationship of the Father and the Spirit. The Greek theologians also thought that the way in which the Spirit comes from the Father is similar to, but significantly different from, the way the Son comes from the Father. The equivalent Latin word is "procedure", but unlike the Greek word it doesn't include the notion of a starting point within something; it's a more general word for movement. This different meaning may have contributed in a small way to the dispute. Latin theologians taught that the Spirit comes from both the Father and the Son, but comes from each of them in significantly different ways. These differences do not diminish the Father's role as the only cause of everything that exists. End paste So, we see that the problem is that the Greeks do not understand the word Latin word "procedure". The Greeks assumed that because that word was used to translate the Greek ekporeuetai that it had the same nuance implying the Holy Spirit originated in Father AND THE SON. That was not what the Latin word meant. And according to at least one Orthodox Metropolitan: "Saint Maximus the Confessor seems to think so. For him the Filioque was not heretical because its intention was to denote not the εκπορεύεσθαι (ekporeuesthai) but the προείναι (proeinai) of the Spirit." http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/john_zizioulas_single_source.htm So, St. Maximus was actually a heretic according to you? Since your churches apparently recognize men you consider to be heretics as saints and great theologians, don't you think you should look into this more before you post?

[kosta50]

I think I see your difficulty. We speak of the Holy Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son. You, however, use the word "origin" which is an entirely different idea

The difficulty is not mine, Vlad. The difficulty is with Latins who cannot bring themselves to admit they made a boo-boo and built an entirely false doctrine around it.

The Greek original uses the word that impicitly suggests the context to be origin. Thus, as regards his existence, the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Father, and the Father alone. Rather than 'proceeds' some used "effuse" or "spirate," or "well up"

The Latin word procedere implies transit, not origin, and is a poor translation of Greek.

Now, as far as the Spirit being given from the Father to the Son and back to the Father, the Orthodox do not deny that, never have and never will. Nor do they deny that, in the economy of our salvation, Christ sent the Holy Spirit, which proceeds form the Father as per +John.

Nor do the Orthodox deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son. Not even +Gregory Palamas. The Creed does not address the economy of our salvation but whence the Holy Spirit comes and why he is Lord, the Giver of Life, and why he is worthy of worship.

Thus, any individual Orthodox theologian is not prevented from teaching that the Spirit also proceeds from the Son, but he is not permitted to teach that the Spirit, as regards his existence, is from the Father and the Son "as from one source," or else we have a suboridnationalist Trinity, and a corrupt Monarchy of the Father.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“The difficulty is not mine, Vlad. The difficulty is with Latins who cannot bring themselves to admit they made a boo-boo and built an entirely false doctrine around it.”

Uh, no. The difficulty is yours. Again, there are Orthodox who believe and believed centuries ago that the Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. Thus, it is impossible to say only Latins believe this, or that the Latins produced a doctrine from a Latin language translation error. Some GREEKS, working with ONLY THE GREEK, also believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son.

“The Latin word procedere implies transit, not origin, and is a poor translation of Greek.”

And yet, there are Greeks, and were Greeks, working only with the Greek who believe the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. This completely disproves your theory.

Thus, your ‘heretical’ saints - working only with Greek - believed that the Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son.

[markomalley]

Why is there a Cathoic Encyclopedia from 1910 being uised as reference unless that is still what the Catholic Church teaches?

As with anything, it must be used with caution and is a good reference, provided you keep the date in mind.

Also, the "replacement," the New Catholic Encyclopedia is not online (and a hard copy is over $1,800). I, personally, have never perused it. But if it is of the same quality as the New American Bible...produced in the same era...I think I'd probably just stay with the old one and live with its warts, just as I stay with the RSV-CE, and live with its warts, such as they are.

[kosta50]

Orthodox clerics who teach that the Spirit proceeds ‘and form the Son” are not teaching the official dogma of the Orthodox Church, which says the Spirit proceeds from the Father. No Orthodox bishop is higher than the Church.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Orthodox clerics who teach that the Spirit proceeds ‘and form the Son” are not teaching the official dogma of the Orthodox Church, which says the Spirit proceeds from the Father. No Orthodox bishop is higher than the Church.”

But that still means that not only are there Greek Orthodox saints who are - according to your logic - heretics, but also Greek Orthodox prelates and priests TODAY who are heretics. So why do you complain about Latins believing in it when some of your own saints did? Why do you complain about latins believing in it when some of your own bishops and priests do? And why aren’t these saints condemned for their beliefs? Why aren’t these bishops and priests of yours condemned as heretics if what you say is heretical really is heretical?

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Gonzo, New Advent is well presented, but full or errors. This is what is says about the Holy Ghost and the Greeks:
Since the days of Photius, the schismatic Greeks maintain that the Holy Ghost, true God like the Father and the Son, proceeds from the former alone.”

Actually, upon looking at the original passage, I don’t think this is an error. The author and editors were not saying that the Greeks taught something different before the time of Photius. I think it is pretty clear that the author and editors were saying that the debate on ‘orgin’ and ‘proceeds’ (which came about because the Latins used a word in translation which was misunderstood by the Greeks but taught a fuller understanding of theology for the Latins) developed at the time of Photius as an emphasis on their understanding of “proceeds” from the Father alone.

This then is not an error. There are some in the old Encyclopedia, but this isn’t one of them.

[kosta50]

But that still means that not only are there Greek Orthodox saints who are - according to your logic - heretics, but also Greek Orthodox prelates and priests TODAY who are heretics

Obviously they are. Just as there are Notre Dame-type Catholic heretics out there. Just because the Church do not call them an discipline them does not mean they are not heretics—i.e. teaching contrary to the Church doctrine.

There are numerous Catholic politicians who have been receiving Holy Communion and publicly supporting abortion. There are Catholic priests (few in comparison to the whole body of Catholic priesthood) who tainted their calling and broke their vows, just as there are their counterparts on the Orthodox side.

Does that mean the Church did the right thing to give Holy Communion to avowed abortionists all these years, or to cover up for priestly misconduct, or that nothing is really wrong in any of this simply because no one was anathematized for this?

Your argument is silly. The two Churches sat down a few years back and discussed the Filioque issue at great length and great depth. The joint commission did not come to your conclusions. It did not condemn anyone either. But it did suggest that it would be desirable for the Catholic side to stop reciting the Filioque.

Your own Greek Catholic Churches, as insignificant as they are (2% of the Catholic Communion) have removed the Filioque from the Creed. The understanding of the Church was clear from the beginning that the Spirit owes his eternal existence to the Father and to him alone, and that's what the Creed has intended to convey. Obviously, something was lost in the Latin translation (maybe it was the first, but it certainly wouldn't be the last!).

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Obviously they are.”

So, let’s get you on record with this. You believe the following saints and bishops to actually have been heretics:

St. Maximus the Confessor was a heretic?

St. Gregory Thaumaturgus was a heretic?

St. Epiphanius was a heretic?

St. Gregory of Nyssa was a heretic?

St. Cyril of Alexandria was a heretic?

St. Ambrose of Milan was a heretic?

Archbishop Theodore of Canterbury, a Byzantine, was a heretic?