WAS DE LA Confession
De Saint Marc d'Ephese
Αγιος Μαρκος Ο Ευγενικος
Nourished by the grace of God, in the dogmas of piety, and following in all and all the holy Catholic Church, I believe and confess God the Father, only without origin or cause, but the source and cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit because He is born the Son, and he makes the Spirit without the Son contributes nothing to the procession, because the Spirit Nor does not contribute to the generation, or because their sources are jointly and simultaneously to each other, as the Fathers teach theologians ( Damascene, De Fide 1, 8). For it is also why the Holy Spirit is said to proceed through the Son, that is to say with the Son, and as the Son, though not by as engendering it. But the Son is not generated by the Spirit said, lest the name of the Son being a relative term, we don not believe he is the Son of the Spirit.
It also follows that the Spirit is called Spirit of the Son because of their identical nature and the fact that it is through the Son that the Spirit appeared and it is given to men but the Son is not said and not the Son of the Spirit, according to Gregory of Nyssa .
What if "proceed through the Son" indicated, as claimed by neo-theologians, the cause of the Spirit, and not the fact that shines through the Son, that it appeared by him, and, absolutely speaking, they made out both jointly and in the words of s'entr'accompagnent Damascene (De Fide 1.7), the herald of God, theologians never do that here refuse unanimously, and in express terms, the role Because of the Son.
One declares: "The Father is sole source," that is to say only cause "of the Godhead suressentielle" and that's how it differs from son and the Spirit ( Dionysius . divine names; 2.5).
Another: "Only unbegotten and sole source of the Godhead: the Father" that is to say that only because it is both not only caused ( Athanasius of Alexandria . Counter the Sabellians , 2).
A third: "The whole of the Father is except the Son to be the cause" ( Gregory the Theologian . Speech 34, 10).
Another says: "People of Rome nor the Son are not the cause of the Spirit"
( Maximus the Confessor. Letter to Marin ; PG 91.136).
Tel other than: "The Father is the only causer" the same way: "For the Son, we say the point because neither Father", elsewhere again: "Anything that 'implies the notion of source, cause, creator, should apply only to the Father alone " ( Damascene . De Fide ; 1.12).
No, never Damascus, which is extremely accurate in his theology, attributing the "with" Son, do not banish the "from, derived from" as he did in his theological treatise in chapter eight, in these terms: "We're not saying Spirit from the Son, but we call it Spirit of the Son and confess that it is through the Son it is manifested and is transmitted to us "(PG 94, col.849) and then again in chapter thirteen of the same book:" Spirit of the Son, not as previously published him, but as proceeding from the Father by him for the Father alone is causer "(ditto Col.849). Then, in the Epistle to Jordan, toward the end: "enhypostatique Spirit, fruit of the procession, the result of projection from the Son, and not Son, as the Breath of the Mouth of God, herald, herald of the Word "(PG 95, 60). Finally, in his homily on the burial of the body theandric Lord's where he says:" Holy Spirit of God Father, because it proceeds from him, he is also known as Spirit of the Son, not that it derives from its existence, but because it is manifested through the Son and through him transmitted to the creation "( PG 96, 605).
For it is clear that wherever the preposition "with" indicates a medium-term cause and proximate cause, as the Latins want this be the case here, she absolutely equivalent to the preposition "of" and the two towers used interchangeably, so "I have gotten a man from God" (Gen. 4.1) is the same as "God" and " the man comes through woman "(Q. 11, 12) means" the woman ".
It follows that in cases where the preposition "de" is banned, the idea of cause is of course forbidden to her.
remains that the words "proceed from the Father through the Son" mean in the style of theology succinct the Spirit who proceeds from the Father, is made manifest, is made known, or appears shines through the Son.
"This is indeed," said Basil the Great, the sign owned by it, which admits its hypostatic property: it is to be known with the Son and jointly to him and take his father's hypostatic existence "(Letter 38.4). So that the phrase "the Son" still means: being seen with him. Indeed, we assign by the Spirit no other singular property in relation to Son, being known to Him and no other, from the Father, that to draw from him his hypostatic existence. So if the clean, strictly speaking, has its correlative that he is precisely the characteristic, the Holy Spirit has no relationship to the Son as "being seen with him" to even he has no relationship to the Father, that to make him his hypostatic existence.
This is not the Son that the Holy Spirit takes its hypostatic existence or is it to be. Were it otherwise, indeed, what would prevent that "by the Son proceeds the Holy Spirit, "exactly as we say" everything is through the Son came to be? "But while the latter formula is actually said, the preposition" with "being set for" de " the first, however does not say, and you can not find anywhere as is, without mention of the Father, because they always say "the Father through the Son." And these words do not necessarily causal role in son, that's why the phrase "the Son" as meaning "from the Son" is completely untraceable and explicitly prohibited.
II) Voices Fathers and Doctors of Western attributing the cause to the Son of the Spirit, I do not recognize nor accept them - because they have not only been translated into our language, nor reviewed by the ecumenical councils and I assume that have been falsified and altered; moin ¬ ty, among a thousand, this text * Seventh Ecumenical Council recently presented by them, whose credo includes the addition to Symbol, read at the meeting, that document was flooded with shame and of shame, then these people know. By the fact, these fathers have never been able to say in their writings the opposite of the ecumenical councils dogmas and their common or oppose the doctors of the East, nor even simply differ from them, like so many other passages of these Fathers are authentic.
is why I condemn this kind of inauthentic as perilous testimony on the procession of the Holy Spirit, and giving me to St. John Damascus ¬ Supper, I do not say Spirit from the Son, even when another, whatever it is, seems to say, I'm not saying either the cause or designer Son of the Spirit, to recognize fear in the Trinity causer and a second by just two causer and two principles.
So, indeed, the cause is not even an attribute ¬ purpose of gasoline - in which case it would be common to one and three persons - and therefore, by no means and no way, Latin can not escape the two principles, as they say that the Son is the Spirit principle. However, be principle is a personal attribute, which distinguishes them people.
presented * The Latins, in fact, a manuscript, they said very old, the Proceedings of the sixth Council, comprising the "filioque." The Orthodox had no difficulty to prove that it was a fake.
III) Next So all the seven ecumenical councils and the Fathers who shone with the brilliance of divine wisdom:
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth and all things visible and invisible.
- And in one Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things were made.
Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.
-He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.
And it ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father, whence he will return in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.
And in the Holy Spirit, Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who is adored and glorified with the Father and the Son, who spoke by the prophets.
-In Church, One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I await the resurrection and the life of the next century. Amen.
IV) This doctrine and the sacred symbol of faith exhibited by the first and second councils, ratified and confirmed by all the others, I accept and I keep with all my soul I also acknowledge and embrace, in addition to the seven councils aforesaid, the council, which met later in the reign of the pious Roman Emperor Basil patriarchy and the very St. Photios and that one even called the eighth ecumenical *, with the participation of representatives of John, the pope blessed the former Rome-I have appointed the bishops and Paul Eugene and the priest and Cardinal Pierre, this council was first ratified and proclaimed the Seventh Ecumenical Council and ordered to put the ranks of previous and secondly it has restored on his throne the very St. Photios . Finally he condemned and anathematized, just like the previous councils, those who dare to innovate by adding, removing or altering anything of the Symbol statement above: "He who dares says he, in fact, make another symbol than this, or do at this sacred symbol addition or subtraction, and have the audacity to call the rule of faith, it is condemned and rejected any Christian communion "(Mansi. Volume 17, col. 520 E).
The Pope John , writing to the very St. Photios says the same thing, more developed and more clearly still on the addition to the Symbol. We may add that this Council has enacted the guns found in all canonical collections.
* Council of Constantinople in 879. The testimony of Mark of Ephesus is important here. It shows that this Council, which condemned the "filioque" and Popery, is regarded by the Orthodox Church as the true eighth Ecumenical Council.
V) Pursuant therefore to the decrees of this council and previous, I judge that we should keep unchanged the sacred symbol of the Faith, as it has been exposed, and those receiving the councils received, rejecting those that they have rejected, I will never in communion with those who dared to add the symbol of innovation on the procession of the Holy Spirit, as they persist in this such innovations. It says in effect: "Let he who communicates with an excommunicated himself is excommunicated."
And the divine Chrysostom, explaining the words of the Apostle: "If someone tells you a gospel that differs from the one you received, it is anathema! " states: "The Apostle did not say" if you announce to the contrary "or" if they put everything upside down ", no, but" even when their gospel would differ for a detail , the one you received, even if they do not disturb that the accessory, they are accursed. "The same says again:" We must temper, not breaking the law "(Gal to Commentary Ep. 1.7.).
And Basil the Great, in his "Ascetic": "This is clearly fall from the faith and show pride, than to convict one of the things written or introduce of unwritten, while Our Lord Jesus Christ said: "My sheep hear my voice" , and a bit ago: "They will not follow a stranger, but flee from before him, for they know not the voice foreigners " . And he wrote to the monks: "Those who pretend to confess the true faith and communion with the heterodox, if after being warned, they do not break this communion, not only do not have a relationship with them, but not even plus appoint brethren "(PG 31, 680).
And before these fathers theophoric Ignatius wrote to the divine Polycarp of Smyrna : "Whoever speaks against the orders, even though he would pursue in good faith, fasting, keep virginity, worked miracles and prophecies would, sees it as a wolf, working under the skin of a sheep to death for the sheep ".
And that would speak more?
All the doctors of the Church without exception, all Councils and all the divine scriptures urge to flee the heterodox and to dispose of their communion.
And I despise all for me to go follow those who call for unity under the pretext of a false peace? Those who have falsified the divine and sacred symbol and acknowledge the Son as second causer the Holy Spirit?
Because I leave aside for the moment the other nonsense that one would have sufficed to break with them.
May I, Comforter, you who are kind, never knowing that fate, or become so foreign to me and to the proper reasoning!
May I, attached to your teacher and that of men Blessed are you inspired to make fathers a single addition - the only thing that I go back from here - piety!
0 comments:
Post a Comment