Regarding an Orthodox objection to the Filioque..

[McNider]

Whether or not a sacrament is valid isn't an issue of faith? I'm not Orthodox, so I will take your word for it if you tell me that these are irregularities. It was an accusation made, though.

I don't think we're understanding each other. We rarely speak in terms of "validity" and "invalidity" in the same way Latin Catholic seem to. If that terminology was used I am quite certain that it wasn't meant in the sense that the sacrament was not grace filled. It was simply meant that it may not be the correct or proper time to do it.

If I may be so bold could you tell me where you are hearing this from? I know from personal experience that both the Greeks and the Russians offer Unction to everyone on Great and Holy Wednesday. Take a look at the Holy Week calendars for some of your local Orthodox parishes and see for yourself. Even some of the patriarchal parishes here in the States offer the sacrament on that day so I know it's not just an American oddity. Have you perhaps been reading material from some Old-Calendarist groups?

Actually, terminology used was "you would probably say the sacrament was invalid." He knew I was Catholic and was trying to explain it to me in those terms.

The Greek parish was in Texas. The Russian in California.

[Silouan]

Whether or not a sacrament is valid isn't an issue of faith? I'm not Orthodox, so I will take your word for it if you tell me that these are irregularities. It was an accusation made, though.

I don't think we're understanding each other. We rarely speak in terms of "validity" and "invalidity" in the same way Latin Catholic seem to. If that terminology was used I am quite certain that it wasn't meant in the sense that the sacrament was not grace filled. It was simply meant that it may not be the correct or proper time to do it.

If I may be so bold could you tell me where you are hearing this from? I know from personal experience that both the Greeks and the Russians offer Unction to everyone on Great and Holy Wednesday. Take a look at the Holy Week calendars for some of your local Orthodox parishes and see for yourself. Even some of the patriarchal parishes here in the States offer the sacrament on that day so I know it's not just an American oddity. Have you perhaps been reading material from some Old-Calendarist groups?

Actually, terminology used was "you would probably say the sacrament was invalid." He knew I was Catholic and was trying to explain it to me in those terms.

The Greek parish was in Texas. The Russian in California.

In my years of being Orthodox I've never heard such a thing. Either way, we're not immune from priests with goofy ideas any more than the Catholic Church is. Still has zero bearing on the faith.

[McNider]

Whether or not a sacrament is valid isn't an issue of faith? I'm not Orthodox, so I will take your word for it if you tell me that these are irregularities. It was an accusation made, though.

I don't think we're understanding each other. We rarely speak in terms of "validity" and "invalidity" in the same way Latin Catholic seem to. If that terminology was used I am quite certain that it wasn't meant in the sense that the sacrament was not grace filled. It was simply meant that it may not be the correct or proper time to do it.

If I may be so bold could you tell me where you are hearing this from? I know from personal experience that both the Greeks and the Russians offer Unction to everyone on Great and Holy Wednesday. Take a look at the Holy Week calendars for some of your local Orthodox parishes and see for yourself. Even some of the patriarchal parishes here in the States offer the sacrament on that day so I know it's not just an American oddity. Have you perhaps been reading material from some Old-Calendarist groups?

Actually, terminology used was "you would probably say the sacrament was invalid." He knew I was Catholic and was trying to explain it to me in those terms.

The Greek parish was in Texas. The Russian in California.

In my years of being Orthodox I've never heard such a thing. Either way, we're not immune from priests with goofy ideas any more than the Catholic Church is. Still has zero bearing on the faith.

Like I said, I have no trouble accepting your views on this as standard. I'm not Orthodox and not in the business of telling other people what they believe.

[Silouan]

Whether or not a sacrament is valid isn't an issue of faith? I'm not Orthodox, so I will take your word for it if you tell me that these are irregularities. It was an accusation made, though.

I don't think we're understanding each other. We rarely speak in terms of "validity" and "invalidity" in the same way Latin Catholic seem to. If that terminology was used I am quite certain that it wasn't meant in the sense that the sacrament was not grace filled. It was simply meant that it may not be the correct or proper time to do it.

If I may be so bold could you tell me where you are hearing this from? I know from personal experience that both the Greeks and the Russians offer Unction to everyone on Great and Holy Wednesday. Take a look at the Holy Week calendars for some of your local Orthodox parishes and see for yourself. Even some of the patriarchal parishes here in the States offer the sacrament on that day so I know it's not just an American oddity. Have you perhaps been reading material from some Old-Calendarist groups?

Actually, terminology used was "you would probably say the sacrament was invalid." He knew I was Catholic and was trying to explain it to me in those terms.

The Greek parish was in Texas. The Russian in California.

In my years of being Orthodox I've never heard such a thing. Either way, we're not immune from priests with goofy ideas any more than the Catholic Church is. Still has zero bearing on the faith.

Like I said, I have no trouble accepting your views on this as standard. I'm not Orthodox and not in the business of telling other people what they believe.

We've certainly wandered quite a ways from the OP. It's been a pleasant discussion either way.

[Melkite]

I never understood how or why is it that the Orthodox set up a problem here. We all agree that the Son proceeds from the Father, and in saying this they don't see any inferiority of the Son to the Father, but when the Latins say that the Spirit likewise proceeds from the Father but through the Son, suddenly the Orthodox perceive an inferiority of the Spirit to the Son. But if the Son is not inferior on account of His procession from the Father, then how is the Spirit inferior on account of His procession from the Father through the Son? One might try to argue that a procession from the Father but through the Son implies inferiority to the Son on behalf of the Spirit, but it implies this no more than the procession of the Son from the Father implies an inferiority of the Former to the Latter. That the Spirit proceeds from the Father, but only by way of the Son, is simply a reflection of the metaphysical depedence of what is loved on the object of what is loved. (Please see below.)

The way I understand it, the Son isn't inferior to the Father in essence, but he is in logical succession.  Just as you are saying with logical succession, not order of time.  Even though Father and Son are equal, the Son proceeds from the Father, not the other way around.  So this makes the Son logically inferior, in that the Father gives the being (act of, not person) of son to the Son, but the Son does not give the being of father to the Father.  Likewise, the Father breathes the Spirit, but the Spirit does not likewise breathe the Father.  In this, the patriarchy of the Father is preserved.  The persons of the Son and the Spirit are not confused in their respective processions, because one proceeds by generation, the other by spiration.  I was just reading about this the other day in a book by an Orthodox author and he put it like this: the problem with the filioque is that the Latins do not properly distinguish between God's essences and energies.  So if something is true of both the Father and the Son, this has to do with their divine essence, and must also be true of the Spirit.  If something is not true of all three persons, then it relates to the energies, as carried out by individual persons, so can only be true of the person performing it, in order for the three persons to be truly distinct, not confused.  If both the Father and Son can cause to proceed, then the Spirit must also have this quality, in which case there should be a fourth, fifth, sixth, etc. ad infinitum.  If procession is not of the divine essence, then it can only be true of the Father without the other persons being blended into the Father.  At any rate, procession from both the Father and the Son, and especially as from one principle, is problematic because it subordinates the Spirit to the Son and the Father by implying that the Spirit contains less of the divine essence in some way, and confuses the Father and the Son in that the divine activity of procession cannot be attributed to one person specifically.

The Orthodox presentation of the teaching results in a lack of any essential distinction between God the Son and God the Holy Ghost; both proceed from God the Father independently of the other such that both are relatively and relationally identical to the Father.

The difference in type or procession is the distinction between Son and Spirit.

Therefore, the "filioque" phrase was used to designate the procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son in a way that makes the spiration of the Spirit a consequence (as it were) of the procession of the Son from the Father.

And in so doing, confuses the Father and the Son.

The Orthodox doctrine disconnects knowledge from love as though God’s love can be disattached and entirely separate from His knowledge. This is the same as saying that love can be disattached and entirely separate from its object, as though love can exist in some abstract sense without an object. In this sense: 'I love, but I don't love any thing.' This is an insurmountable metaphysical difficulty. 

I don't think this is an accurate understanding of the Orthodox point of view.

[Azurestone]

+1

[INPEFESS]

I never understood how or why is it that the Orthodox set up a problem here. We all agree that the Son proceeds from the Father, and in saying this they don't see any inferiority of the Son to the Father, but when the Latins say that the Spirit likewise proceeds from the Father but through the Son, suddenly the Orthodox perceive an inferiority of the Spirit to the Son. But if the Son is not inferior on account of His procession from the Father, then how is the Spirit inferior on account of His procession from the Father through the Son? One might try to argue that a procession from the Father but through the Son implies inferiority to the Son on behalf of the Spirit, but it implies this no more than the procession of the Son from the Father implies an inferiority of the Former to the Latter. That the Spirit proceeds from the Father, but only by way of the Son, is simply a reflection of the metaphysical depedence of what is loved on the object of what is loved. (Please see below.)

The way I understand it, the Son isn't inferior to the Father in essence, but he is in logical succession.  Just as you are saying with logical succession, not order of time.  Even though Father and Son are equal, the Son proceeds from the Father, not the other way around.  So this makes the Son logically inferior, in that the Father gives the being (act of, not person) of son to the Son, but the Son does not give the being of father to the Father.  Likewise, the Father breathes the Spirit, but the Spirit does not likewise breathe the Father.  In this, the patriarchy of the Father is preserved.  The persons of the Son and the Spirit are not confused in their respective processions, because one proceeds by generation, the other by spiration.  I was just reading about this the other day in a book by an Orthodox author and he put it like this: the problem with the filioque is that the Latins do not properly distinguish between God's essences and energies.  So if something is true of both the Father and the Son, this has to do with their divine essence, and must also be true of the Spirit.  If something is not true of all three persons, then it relates to the energies, as carried out by individual persons, so can only be true of the person performing it, in order for the three persons to be truly distinct, not confused.  If both the Father and Son can cause to proceed, then the Spirit must also have this quality, in which case there should be a fourth, fifth, sixth, etc. ad infinitum.  If procession is not of the divine essence, then it can only be true of the Father without the other persons being blended into the Father.  At any rate, procession from both the Father and the Son, and especially as from one principle, is problematic because it subordinates the Spirit to the Son and the Father by implying that the Spirit contains less of the divine essence in some way, and confuses the Father and the Son in that the divine activity of procession cannot be attributed to one person specifically.

The Orthodox presentation of the teaching results in a lack of any essential distinction between God the Son and God the Holy Ghost; both proceed from God the Father independently of the other such that both are relatively and relationally identical to the Father.

The difference in type or procession is the distinction between Son and Spirit.

Therefore, the "filioque" phrase was used to designate the procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son in a way that makes the spiration of the Spirit a consequence (as it were) of the procession of the Son from the Father.

And in so doing, confuses the Father and the Son.

The Orthodox doctrine disconnects knowledge from love as though God’s love can be disattached and entirely separate from His knowledge. This is the same as saying that love can be disattached and entirely separate from its object, as though love can exist in some abstract sense without an object. In this sense: 'I love, but I don't love any thing.' This is an insurmountable metaphysical difficulty. 

I don't think this is an accurate understanding of the Orthodox point of view.

I'm not sure you understood my point at all.

[Melkite]

I'm not sure you understood my point at all.

What part did I miss?

[INPEFESS]

I'm not sure you understood my point at all.

What part did I miss?

Well, not to be too blunt, but the whole thing. I know exactly what you are saying, but the fact that you said it in response to my post indicates that you did not understand my point at all.

[Melkite]

Well, not to be too blunt, but the whole thing. I know exactly what you are saying, but the fact that you said it in response to my post indicates that you did not understand my point at all.

Then what was it?  From reading your post, I thought your point was that you didn't understand why the Orthodox reject the rosary because, as you saw it, they had absolutely no reason to.