Posted on 02/16/2014 9:39:17 PM PST by restornu
Filioque is a theological formula of great dogmatic and historical importance. On the one hand, it expresses the Procession of the Holy Ghost from both Father and Son as one Principle; on the other, it was the occasion of the Greek schism. Both aspects of the expression need further explanation.
The dogma of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son as one Principle is directly opposed to the error that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, not from the Son. Neither dogma nor error created much difficulty during the course of the first four centuries. Macedonius and his followers, the so-called Pneumatomachi, were condemned by the local Council of Alexandria (362) and by Pope St. Damasus (378) for teaching that the Holy Ghost derives His origin from the Son alone, by creation. If the creed used by the Nestorians, which was composed probably by Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the expressions of Theodoret directed against the ninth anathema by Cyril of Alexandria, deny that the Holy Ghost derives His existence from or through the Son, they probably intend to deny only the creation of the Holy Ghost by or through the Son, inculcating at the same time His Procession from both Father and Son. At any rate, if the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was discussed at all in those earlier times, the controversy was restricted to the East and was of short duration.
The first undoubted denial of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost we find in the seventh century among the heretics of Constantinople when St. Martin I (649-655), in his synodal writing against the Monothelites, employed the expression "Filioque". Nothing is known about the further development of this controversy; it does not seem to have assumed any serious proportions, as the question was not connected with the characteristic teaching of the Monothelites.
In the Western church the first controversy concerning the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was conducted with the envoys of the Emperor Constantine Copronymus, in the Synod of Gentilly near Paris, held in the time of Pepin (767). The synodal Acts and other information do not seem to exist. At the beginning of nineth century, John, a Greek monk of the monastery of St. Sabas, charged the monks of Mt. Olivet with heresy, they had inserted the Filioque into the Creed. In the second half the same century, Photius, the successor of the unjustly deposed Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople (858), denied the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, and opposed the insertion of the Filioque into the Constantinopolitan creed. The same position was maintained towards the end of the tenth century by the Patriarchs Sisinnius and Sergius, and about the middle of the eleventh century by the Patriarch Michael Caerularius, who renewed and completed the Greek schism.
The rejection of the Filioque, or the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, and the denial of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff constitute even today the principal errors of the Greek church. While outside the Church doubt as to the double Procession of the Holy Ghost grew into open denial, inside the Church the doctrine of the Filioque was declared to be a dogma of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second council of Lyons (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438-1445). Thus the Church proposed in a clear and authoritative form the teaching of Sacred Scripture and tradition on the Procession of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity.
As to the Sacred Scripture, the inspired writers call the Holy Ghost the Spirit of the Son (Galatians 4:6), the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9), the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:19), just as they call Him the Spirit of the Father (Matthew 10:20) and the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:11). Hence they attribute to the Holy Ghost the same relation to the Son as to the Father.
Again, according to Sacred Scripture, the Son sends the Holy Ghost (Luke 24:49; John 15:26; 16:7; 20:22; Acts 2:33; Titus 3:6), just as the Father sends the Son (Romans 3:3; etc.), and as the Father sends the Holy Ghost (John 14:26).
Now the "mission" or "sending" of one Divine Person by another does not mean merely that the Person said to be sent assumes a particular character, at the suggestion of Himself in the character of Sender, as the Sabellians maintained; nor does it imply any inferiority in the Person sent, as the Arians taught; but it denotes, according to the teaching of the weightier theologians and Fathers, the Procession of the Person sent from the Person Who sends. Sacred Scripture never presents the Father as being sent by the Son, nor the Son as being sent by the Holy Ghost. The very idea of the term "mission" implies that the person sent goes forth for a certain purpose by the power of the sender, a power exerted on the person sent by way of a physical impulse, or of a command, or of prayer, or finally of production; now, Procession, the analogy of production, is the only manner admissible in God. It follows that the inspired writers present the Holy Ghost as proceeding from the Son, since they present Him as sent by the Son.
Finally, St. John (16:13-15) gives the words of Christ: "What things soever he [the Spirit] shall hear, he shall speak; ...he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine." Here a double consideration is in place. First, the Son has all things that the Father hath, so that He must resemble the Father in being the Principle from which the Holy Ghost proceeds. Secondly, the Holy Ghost shall receive "of mine" according to the words of the Son; but Procession is the only conceivable way of receiving which does not imply dependence or inferiority. In other words, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.
The teaching of Sacred Scripture on the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was faithfully preserved in Christian tradition. Even the Greek Orthodox grant that the Latin Fathers maintain the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. The great work on the Trinity by Petavius (Lib. VII, cc. iii sqq.) develops the proof of this contention at length. Here we mention only some of the later documents in which the patristic doctrine has been clearly expressed:
Some of the foregoing conciliar documents may be seen in Hefele, "Conciliengeschichte" (2d ed.), III, nn. 109, 117, 252, 411; cf. P.G. XXVIII, 1557 sqq. Bessarion, speaking in the Council of Florence, inferred the tradition of the Greek Church from the teaching of the Latin; since the Greek and Latin Fathers before the ninth century were the members of the same Church, it is antecedently improbable that the Eastern Fathers should have denied a dogma firmly maintained by the Western. Moreover, there are certain considerations which form a direct proof for the belief of the Greek Fathers in the double Procession of the Holy Ghost.
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).
The Catholic doctrine was accepted by the Greek deputies who were present at the Second Council of Florence, in 1439, when the Creed was sung both in Greek and Latin, with the addition of the word Filioque. On each occasion it was hoped that the Patriarch of Constantinople and his subjects had abandoned the state of heresy and schism in which they had been living since the time of Photius, who about 870 found in the Filioque an excuse for throwing off all dependence on Rome. But however sincere the individual Greek bishops may have been, they failed to carry their people with them, and the breach between East and West continues to this day.
It is a matter for surprise that so abstract a subject as the doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost should have appealed to the imagination of the multitude. But their national feelings had been aroused by the desire of liberation from the rule of the ancient rival of Constantinople; the occasion of lawfully obtaining their desire appeared to present itself in the addition of Filioque to the Creed of Constantinople. Had not Rome overstepped her rights by disobeying the injunction of the Third Council, of Ephesus (431), and of the Fourth, of Chalcedon (451)?
It is true that these councils had forbidden to introduce another faith or another Creed, and had imposed the penalty of deposition on bishops and clerics, and of excommunication on monks and laymen for transgressing this law; but the councils had not forbidden to explain the same faith or to propose the same Creed in a clearer way. Besides, the conciliar decrees affected individual transgressors, as is plain from the sanction added; they did not bind the Church as a body. Finally, the Councils of Lyons and Florence did not require the Greeks to insert the Filioque into the Creed, but only to accept the Catholic doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost.
I don’t recall any of them (OT Prophets)involved in...
****
LOLFOTF you are so funny you don’t call, LOL
how could you recall, you did live back than..
...nor is there any history outside of the Scriptures, of any of their trials and tribulations with life, their weaknesses, or with the public...
...nor is there any history outside of the Scriptures, of any of their trials and tribulations with life, their weaknesses, or with the public...
_____________________________________
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Youre never heard of Josephus ???
or Hammurabi...
Or any of the Persian historians ???
or the Greeks or Romans who lived and wrote about the Hebrews and early Jews and Israel and Christians up to 100AD ???
Is there that much of a block on reality in Mormonism ???
Sorry; but using MORMON 'scripture' to prove Mormon scripture is circular logic.
scriptures say otherwise it was spirit of the Lord that came upon Joseph Smith
Sorry; but using MORMON ‘scripture’ to prove Mormon scripture is circular logic.
***
Says who... bad people could say the same thing about the Bible, but it does not make it true...
bad people could say the same thing about the Bible
____________________________________
Well yes the Mormons do say nasty things about the Bible..
but we don’t need the fictitious book of Mormon to prove the Bible is true..
and the Bible proves that the book of Mormon is not true...
Oh, but let’s assume for a moment that there was a “history”...do you presume to tell me that they would have engaged in such behavior while being prophets of God? Do you presume to allege that they engaged in adulterous affairs, fraud and uttering false prophecies while prophets of God?
JS stopped doing the things he did after he claimed to be a prophet, didn’t he?
Oh wait, he didn’t. In fact, he grew even more drunk with power and further abused the innocent and ignorant folks who were seduced by mormonism.
And yet, instead of accepting the truth about JS, you decide it’s time to slander men of God in JS’s defense...sad.
Good people have quoted FACTS about Mormonism; but you don't think they're true.
Go figger.
Go figger.
Go figger.
I see your memo is still post-it noted to your monitor...
|
Office of First President & Living Prophet®: February 2nd, 2014
URGENT! It's been noted there has been a DRASTIC falloff in the number of MORMONs who actually can (or will) engage in opposing ANTIs on FreeRepulic (spit!) I am forced to re-issue and old memo you all received about 3 years ago.
|
The
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
SECTION 71:1
... the time has verily come that it is necessary and expedient in me that you should open your mouths in proclaiming my gospel,
the things of the kingdom, expounding the mysteries thereof out of the scriptures,
according to that portion of Spirit and power which shall be given unto you, even as I will.
It’s where all starts restornu...the source, the very essence of all that is wrong with mormonism...the mere fact of the plagiarizing of King James English into a book that was supposedly written hundreds of years earlier...the false translation of the Book of Abraham...the false prophecy about a temple being built, the adultery, the fraud, the scams, using pagan talismans, etc.
Face the facts...the temple rites in LDS temples are not of God...this has been shown to you, that they were created by men.
This alone should tell you that the premise SLC puts before you that your exaltation is in jeopardy if you do not get a temple recommend and take out your “endowments”. But the “endowments” are man made tradition as you say...something you can’t tolerate and excoriate Christianity over...yet, here are the mormons doing the very thing you claim to stand against. Cognitive dissonance.
Who was responsible for those “rites” and then levying the requirement? JS...a wanna be, boy king prophet who played with “strange fire”...I do hold him directly responsible for the many who are held in the grip of mormonism.
It’s not sour grapes, it’s just a simple fact...he is responsible and so I will not grant one iota of respect to the man, what he has done, or what he represents.
Much of what you like to think is true to malign JS with is hearsay, different points of view of how to process information etc.
Nothing was plagiarized there are some passages the wording was not from KJV at all, but was more accurate than the KJV translation, and there was no way JS would have that knowledge, so how do you explain that about an unlearned farm boy?
HEARSAY, trying to make a buck on the estate sale 58 yrs later.
This tale about JS so called talismans came 58 years after the death of Emma.
Anderson noted that Bidamon waited fifty-eight years after Emma’s death to make his certification, and notes that at the time of her death he was only fifteen years old.
Durham based his comments on Wood's description for the item which was: "This piece [the Talisman] was in Joseph Smith's pocket when he was martyred at Carthage Jail."[6] However, a list of the items in Joseph's possession at the time of his death was provided to Emma following the martyrdom. On this list there was no mention made of any Talisman-like item. If there had been such an article, it ought to have been listed.
In 1984, Anderson located and published the itemized list of the contents of Joseph Smith's pockets at his death.
The list was originally published in 1885 in Iowa by James W. Woods, Smith's lawyer, who collected the prophet's personal effects after the Martyrdom.
The contents from the published 1885 printing are as follows: Received, Nauvoo, Illinois, July 2, 1844, of James W. Woods, one hundred and thirty- five dollars and fifty cents in gold and silver and receipt for shroud, one gold finger ring, one gold pen and pencil case, one penknife, one pair of tweezers, one silk and one leather purse, one small pocket wallet containing a note of John P. Green for $50, and a receipt of Heber C. Kimball for a note of hand on Ellen M. Saunders for one thousand dollars, as the property of Joseph Smith. - Emma Smith.[7]
No Talisman or item like it is listed. It could not be mistaken for a coin or even a "Masonic Jewel" as Durham first thought. Anderson described the Talisman as being “an inch-and-a-half in diameter and covered with symbols and a prayer on one side and square of sixteen Hebrew characters on the other.”[8] Significant is the fact that no associate of Joseph Smith has ever mentioned anything like this medallion. There are no interviews that ever record Emma mentioning any such item as attested to by Charles Bidamon, though he claimed she often spoke of it.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Occultism_and_magic/Jupiter_talisman
Should you continue this story as if it is true after this knowledge has come to light, than you are engaging in falsehood.
The Book of Mormon and the Pearls of Great Price have more significant today as other events unfold in the earth.
So you folks can chose to malign a treasured book but as for me I will always be thankful for its existence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.