Regarding an Orthodox objection to the Filioque..

[INPEFESS]

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.

  Are we talking about the same subject?

[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.

  Are we talking about the same subject?

Lol, I have NO idea why I wrote rosary, I meant to write filioque.  I was reading a thread about the rosary and the breviary write before I posted on this, I guess I was still thinking about it on some level when I posted.

[INPEFESS]

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.

  Are we talking about the same subject?

Lol, I have NO idea why I wrote rosary, I meant to write filioque.  I was reading a thread about the rosary and the breviary write before I posted on this, I guess I was still thinking about it on some level when I posted.

That's O.K.

The terms you are using to denote divine Personhood (generation and spiration) have metaphysical foundations. Though I didn't use those terms (since without their underlying foundations they are meaningless), I briefly described those metaphysical foundations of Personhood in my post as being unique and distinct. In other words, it is insufficient to say that the difference between the two Persons is that One proceeds by generation, the other by spiration; and it is insufficient because, by themselves, they are just two terms. But those terms exist to describe particular metaphysical modes of procession from the Father, which modes must be distinct. I was describing those modes without using their terms, but your post glossed over the metaphysical foundations of those terms and simply appealed to the terms without distinguishing how and why they imply different modes of procession. To say one is of the Son and one is of the Spirit is insufficient, since that doesn't answer the question of distinction; it merely assumes the conclusion from the get-go without explaining "how."

Are you willing to give the Scholastics an honest read? I don't want you to simply read for the sake of trying to find problems; I mean, are you willing to read objectively and sincerely while being open to the possibility that the Orthodox explanation is insufficient? If you are willing to do so, I will find a relatively brief summary of the Scholastic approach that demonstrates why, metaphysically speaking, the Spirit is said to proceed through the Son and why this must be so in order to answer all difficulties.

[Azurestone]

The terms you are using to denote divine Personhood (generation and spiration) have metaphysical foundations. Though I didn't use those terms (since without their underlying foundations they are meaningless), I briefly described those metaphysical foundations of Personhood in my post as being unique and distinct. In other words, it is insufficient to say that the difference between the two Persons is that One proceeds by generation, the other by spiration; and it is insufficient because, by themselves, they are just two terms. But those terms exist to describe particular metaphysical modes of procession from the Father, which modes must be distinct. I was describing those modes without using their terms, but your post glossed over the metaphysical foundations of those terms and simply appealed to the terms without distinguishing how and why they imply different modes of procession. To say one is of the Son and one is of the Spirit is insufficient, since that doesn't answer the question of distinction; it merely assumes the conclusion from the get-go without explaining "how."

This assumes there is something substantial to gather out of the two terms (spiration and begotten). They are different because that is how they have been revealed, what the difference is, however, has not been.

[INPEFESS]

This assumes there is something substantial to gather out of the two terms (spiration and begotten). They are different because that is how they have been revealed, what the difference is, however, has not been.

The dogma of the Real Presence was revealed, too, but that isn't to say that the mode of Christ's presence within the Blessed Sacrament can't be further explicated by the Church. For example, the Protestant doctrine of consubstantiation contradicts certain known philosophical realities that set up an obstacle between reason and faith. Hence, the Church has condemned this doctrine and defined the doctrine of transubstantiation, since the latter harmonizes reason with faith. There is still a great mystery at work, but there is no metaphysical contradiction of principles.

Similarly, the Church adopted the filioque phrase to more fully reflect the harmony between reason and faith. The terms 'spiration' and 'generation' (or 'begotten') are different because they denote different metaphysical realities. They were not revealed that way because God wanted to keep things interesting. They have important unique metaphysical consequences that show that philosophy and reason are not opposed to faith.

[Azurestone]

This assumes there is something substantial to gather out of the two terms (spiration and begotten). They are different because that is how they have been revealed, what the difference is, however, has not been.

The dogma of the Real Presence was revealed, too, but that isn't to say that the mode of Christ's presence within the Blessed Sacrament can't be further explicated by the Church. For example, the Protestant doctrine of consubstantiation contradicts certain known philosophical realities that set up an obstacle between reason and faith. Hence, the Church has condemned this doctrine and defined the doctrine of transubstantiation, since the latter harmonizes reason with faith. There is still a great mystery at work, but there is no metaphysical contradiction of principles.

Similarly, the Church adopted the filioque phrase to more fully reflect the harmony between reason and faith. The terms 'spiration' and 'generation' (or 'begotten') are different because they denote different metaphysical realities. They were not revealed that way because God wanted to keep things interesting. They have important unique metaphysical consequences that show that philosophy and reason are not opposed to faith.

The Orthodox don't have a concept like transubstantiation, either. They accept that the blessed Bread and Wine are truly Jesus, but the particulars are left as a Mystery.

Just because they are different terms, doesn't mean you're privy to it's significance. In a similar fashion, "reason", a function of the mind and not the 'nous', does not replace revelation and the Fathers. And interestingly enough, you claim clarity by way of the filioque, however this thread alone shows that it does not clarify anything.

[INPEFESS]

Just because they are different terms, doesn't mean you're privy to it's significance.

Words have meanings. Different words that do not mean the same thing have different meanings. Different words that do not have the same meaning were used ("only-begotten" excludes the Holy Ghost from proceeding in exactly the same manner). Therefore, the manner of procession is different as implied by the very meanings of the words. The Orthodox doctrine fails to account for this difference. Because of this, the Trinity can be philosophically demonstrated to violate fundamental principles of reason. The Latin Church remedied this by demonstrating, philosophically, that there is no contradiction of philosophy, no arbitrariness in the doctrine, and no violation of reason.

In a similar fashion, "reason", a function of the mind and not the 'nous', does not replace revelation and the Fathers.

No, but it needn't contradict them, either. God gave us reason and intellect to perceive the truth. Would you have one suspend reason as a prerequisite for holding to the Truth? If so, then you must acknowledge that it is possible to believe that God both exists and doesn't exist at the same time, which destroys holding to the very Truth we just found. Faith and reason are both absolutely necessary.

And interestingly enough, you claim clarity by way of the filioque, however this thread alone shows that it does not clarify anything.

Dissention does not equal lack of clarity.

[Melkite]

The terms you are using to denote divine Personhood (generation and spiration) have metaphysical foundations. Though I didn't use those terms (since without their underlying foundations they are meaningless), I briefly described those metaphysical foundations of Personhood in my post as being unique and distinct. In other words, it is insufficient to say that the difference between the two Persons is that One proceeds by generation, the other by spiration; and it is insufficient because, by themselves, they are just two terms. But those terms exist to describe particular metaphysical modes of procession from the Father, which modes must be distinct. I was describing those modes without using their terms, but your post glossed over the metaphysical foundations of those terms and simply appealed to the terms without distinguishing how and why they imply different modes of procession. To say one is of the Son and one is of the Spirit is insufficient, since that doesn't answer the question of distinction; it merely assumes the conclusion from the get-go without explaining "how."

Ok, I see what you mean.  If saying one proceeds by generation and the other by spiration is insufficient, how can it be sufficient to say the Spirit proceeds from one, and through the other?  It seems the very same relational confusion between the Son and Spirit that the Latins perceive is created between Father and Son as the Orthodox perceive.

Are you willing to give the Scholastics an honest read? I don't want you to simply read for the sake of trying to find problems; I mean, are you willing to read objectively and sincerely while being open to the possibility that the Orthodox explanation is insufficient? If you are willing to do so, I will find a relatively brief summary of the Scholastic approach that demonstrates why, metaphysically speaking, the Spirit is said to proceed through the Son and why this must be so in order to answer all difficulties.

Sure.  I don't have time to read something too lengthy, but if it's brief as you say, I'll give it a shot.  I don't look for problems with Scholasticism; I understand it is necessary to prevent mysticism from going overboard.  I just don't generally like where scholasticism has gone in the individual instances I have read a scholastic writing.

[Azurestone]

Dissention does not equal lack of clarity.

Dissention?! I'm talking about theological understanding. Meaningful words that add useful content? LOL, wth.

[INPEFESS]

Dissention does not equal lack of clarity.

Dissention?! I'm talking about theological understanding. Meaningful words that add useful content? LOL, wth.

In other words, the fact that people disagree does not mean that it is unclear. 90% of the world disputes the truth of Catholicism, but which of us will be the first to say that the Truth is unclear? The point is that this thread does not show that the filioque doesn't clarify anything because disagreement does not equal a lack of clarity.