Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 5      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,436
Reply with quote  #31 
Ok. But it's an open question whether the willingness of the Church of the East to accept Chalcedon today reflects its earlier theology fully. There's many, probably most, Catholics, let alone Eastern Orthodox, who would be somewhat hesitant to say that their Christology was better represented by Nestorius or Babai the Great than by St. Cyril. The Roman Church made Cyril a Doctor of the Church, a rare honour, on top of revering his a Father. There are only thirty-six recognised Doctors of the Church in the Catholic Church. His title is Doctor Incarnationis, which rather suggests great esteem for his Christology. His Christology is the very centre of the Council of Ephesus, in which Pope Celestine played an important background (i.e., he wasn't there himself) role in lending support to Cyril, and which the Nestorians reject and the Oriental Orthodox accept; and, again, St. Cyril is more or less the supreme representative of Oriental Orthodox Christology, especially in the Coptic Church, down the centuries. The Oriental Orthodox accept the substance of Chalcedon. It is some of the wording they still hesitate over. They think it a little ambiguous and could support Nestorianism in a few places (i.e., that the two sides of Christ are not entirely unified). To be honest, they might not be entirely wrong about that, although some of the linguistic aspects are an interminable nightmare to sort out. Chalcedon reiterated the condemnation of Nestorius.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 814
Reply with quote  #32 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Ok. But it's an open question whether the willingness of the Church of the East to accept Chalcedon today reflects its earlier theology fully. There's many, probably most, Catholics, let alone Eastern Orthodox, who would be somewhat hesitant to say that their Christology was better represented by Nestorius or Babai the Great than by St. Cyril. The Roman Church made Cyril a Doctor of the Church, a rare honour, on top of revering his a Father. There are only thirty-six recognised Doctors of the Church in the Catholic Church. His title is Doctor Incarnationis, which rather suggests great esteem for his Christology. His Christology is the very centre of the Council of Ephesus, in which Pope Celestine played an important background (i.e., he wasn't there himself) role in lending support to Cyril, and which the Nestorians reject and the Oriental Orthodox accept; and, again, St. Cyril is more or less the supreme representative of Oriental Orthodox Christology, especially in the Coptic Church, down the centuries. The Oriental Orthodox accept the substance of Chalcedon. It is some of the wording they still hesitate over. They think it a little ambiguous and could support Nestorianism in a few places (i.e., that the two sides of Christ are not entirely unified). To be honest, they might not be entirely wrong about that, although some of the linguistic aspects are an interminable nightmare to sort out. Chalcedon reiterated the condemnation of Nestorius.

The Church of the East has never changed its Christology. It still affirms the Christology of Nestorius and Babai the Great. Nestorius actually accepted Leo's Tome. Babai the Great affirmed, that Jesus Christ is one person with two qnome (individuated natures). Babai the Great rejected Theopaschism (the divine nature of Jesus Christ suffering on the cross). The Church of the East still reveres Nestorius as a saint.
In Greek, the following Christological terms are used: Ousia (essence), physis (nature), hypostasis (being) and prosopon (face). In Syriac, the following Christological terms are used: Kyana (generic nature), qnoma (individuated nature) and parsopa (person).
Kyana is identical to ousia. Qnoma is similar to physis, but a qnoma is more individuated than a physis. A qnoma isn't a separate being, unlike a hypostasis.
The Catholic Church doesn't demand that the Church of the East accepts Cyrilline Christology. The Catholic Church emphasizes Leo's Tome in its ecumenical dialogue with the Church of the East.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,436
Reply with quote  #33 
I have nothing to object to in that. Although I think Christology reaches its apogee in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches (e.g., Maximus the Confessor), I certainly don't think that of the Church of the East is heretical. St. Babai the Great is an important Father and should be recognised as such, and even Nestorius deserves rehabilitation.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 814
Reply with quote  #34 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
I have nothing to object to in that. Although I think Christology reaches its apogee in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches (e.g., Maximus the Confessor), I certainly don't think that of the Church of the East is heretical. St. Babai the Great is an important Father and should be recognised as such, and even Nestorius deserves rehabilitation.

I admit, that The Chalcedonian Orthodox Church preferring ecumenical dialogue with the Miaphysite Orthodox Church to ecumenical dialogue with the Church of the East is understandable, because the Christian church of the Sassanid Persian Empire cut ties with the Christian church of the Roman Empire for political reasons before the Nestorian schism, while the Coptic Church remained in communion with the Byzantine church until the Council of Chalcedon. The Byzantine emperors often tried to restore communion with the Coptic Church, because monst Egyptians remained Miaphysites in spite of Byzantine persecutions, while Nestorianism was quickly extinguished in the Byzantine Empire, because many Byzantine Nestorians fled to the Sassanid Persian Empire. The Church of the East was the officially recognized Christian church of the Sassanid Persian Empire.

azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 814
Reply with quote  #35 
Despite disliking Miaphysitism, I supporting defending the Miaphysite Copts against Islamist persecution. Many practicing Christian Westerners sadly don't care about the Christians of the Middle East. Many Westerners are reluctant to condemn Islamist persecutions of Christians and other non-Muslim religious groups, because they fear being accused of Islamophobia. I'm strongly opposed to Islamophobia, because many Muslims are decent and tolerant, but religious intolerance is sadly widespread among Muslims. 
MatthewJTaylor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 156
Reply with quote  #36 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi
Despite disliking Miaphysitism, I supporting defending the Miaphysite Copts against Islamist persecution. Many practicing Christian Westerners sadly don't care about the Christians of the Middle East. Many Westerners are reluctant to condemn Islamist persecutions of Christians and other non-Muslim religious groups, because they fear being accused of Islamophobia. I'm strongly opposed to Islamophobia, because many Muslims are decent and tolerant, but religious intolerance is sadly widespread among Muslims. 

Devout Christians, at least in Britain, tend not to be too worried about being called Islamophobic.
We've been called homophobic enough times to numb us to "phobia" attacks now.
It's getting to the stage where I'm quite comfortable with being called Islamophobic, though I wouldn't self describe as such, despite bearing no ill will against the majority of British muslims.
Whilst I disagree with many middle eastern, in particular Palestinian Christians, on political issues, I do speak up about their persecution here and doing so is not particularly unusual.
Perhaps Germany is more worried about Islamophobia than Britain is right now.

__________________
ceterum censeo caetum europaeum delendum esse
The Scottish Tory - https://sites.google.com/view/scottishtory
Scots for a French Royal Restoration - https://sites.google.com/view/sfrr
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 814
Reply with quote  #37 
I want filioque (and the Son) to be replaced with per filium (through the Son), because filioque can easily be misunderstood as both the Father and the Son being causes of the Holy Spirit.
Per filium will clarify, that the Father is the sole cause of the Holy Spirit, while the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son in time.

MatthewJTaylor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 156
Reply with quote  #38 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi
I want filioque (and the Son) to be replaced with per filium (through the Son), because filioque can easily be misunderstood as both the Father and the Son being causes of the Holy Spirit.
Per filium will clarify, that the Father is the sole cause of the Holy Spirit, while the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son in time.


Except in the West we tend to believe that the source of the Spirit is both Father and Son as a single source, for which filioque is more appropriate.

__________________
ceterum censeo caetum europaeum delendum esse
The Scottish Tory - https://sites.google.com/view/scottishtory
Scots for a French Royal Restoration - https://sites.google.com/view/sfrr
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 814
Reply with quote  #39 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewJTaylor

Except in the West we tend to believe that the source of the Spirit is both Father and Son as a single source, for which filioque is more appropriate.

According to the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, the Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit, while the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son in time.
According to the Nicene Creed, the Son is begotten of the Father. If the Father isn't the sole source of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Son. Claiming, that the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Son is a grave heresy. 
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,436
Reply with quote  #40 
I tend to agree with the Eastern position on the filioque, but surely a fundamental Christianity can't exclude the position of the Catholic Church and major reformers. Again, we seen back in Azadi's preferences rather than a meaningful basic Christianity.
MatthewJTaylor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 156
Reply with quote  #41 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

According to the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, the Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit, while the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son in time.
According to the Nicene Creed, the Son is begotten of the Father. If the Father isn't the sole source of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Son. Claiming, that the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Son is a grave heresy. 

If the Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit would simply be another Son, for the title of "Son" is determined by the generation of the Logos from the Father
This would undermine Christ's "only-begotten" status.
Ergo, the source of the Spirit must not simply be the Father.
We know that the Spirit comes from the Father in some way, we agree that the Spirit proceeds from the Son in some way and have now shown that the Spirit does not solely come from the father.
Ergo, the Spirit comes from both the Father and the Son in some way.
As such, filioque is appropriate.

I realise that you guys will disagree with the above, but I'm curious as to where.

I used to be anti-filioque but that was largely due to not thinking much about it and having a very weak understanding of trinitarianism. For much of my youth I was quite modalist, a heresy I now condemn.

__________________
ceterum censeo caetum europaeum delendum esse
The Scottish Tory - https://sites.google.com/view/scottishtory
Scots for a French Royal Restoration - https://sites.google.com/view/sfrr
MatthewJTaylor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 156
Reply with quote  #42 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
I tend to agree with the Eastern position on the filioque, but surely a fundamental Christianity can't exclude the position of the Catholic Church and major reformers. Again, we seen back in Azadi's preferences rather than a meaningful basic Christianity.

Yeah, filioque isn't exactly a fundamental issue to me.
If I were giving the gospel to someone on their deathbed, it wouldn't come up.

__________________
ceterum censeo caetum europaeum delendum esse
The Scottish Tory - https://sites.google.com/view/scottishtory
Scots for a French Royal Restoration - https://sites.google.com/view/sfrr
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,436
Reply with quote  #43 
Philip Sherrard's Greek East and Latin West is a good introduction to the Orthodox position on the Filioque, which is rooted in the theology of the Greek Fathers.

But, yes, it doesn't make sense to make this an important issue for building a list of fundamental Christian principles.


azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 814
Reply with quote  #44 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
I tend to agree with the Eastern position on the filioque, but surely a fundamental Christianity can't exclude the position of the Catholic Church and major reformers. Again, we seen back in Azadi's preferences rather than a meaningful basic Christianity.

The Catholic Church doesn't claim, that the Son is a source of the Holy Spirit. The Latin word procedo means to go forward, not to originate from. The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, affirms, that the Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit: 
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/greek-and-latin-traditions-regarding-the-procession-of-the-holy-spirit-2349



MatthewJTaylor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 156
Reply with quote  #45 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

The Catholic Church doesn't claim, that the Son is a source of the Holy Spirit. The Latin word procedo means to go forward, not to originate from. The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, affirms, that the Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit: 
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/greek-and-latin-traditions-regarding-the-procession-of-the-holy-spirit-2349




I got the impression that such a position is not uniform amongst Catholic theologians.
Either way, the question remains, why do you count such a complex and secondary doctrine as fundamental?

__________________
ceterum censeo caetum europaeum delendum esse
The Scottish Tory - https://sites.google.com/view/scottishtory
Scots for a French Royal Restoration - https://sites.google.com/view/sfrr
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.