"As From One Principle"

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Crazzeto,

By way of my parting response, it is not anyone’s intention to attack anyone’s traditions.

I think RC as well as Orthodox theologians engaged in this ecumenical debate today would agree that the Nicene Creed is a universal Creed - one point.

This means that it cannot be altered unilaterally by any one Church via its own Trinitarian traditions.

That means the Filioque should be removed, but not that the Filioque cannot be the Latin Church tradition that it most certainly is. If the Eastern church affirmed “Through the Son,” this doesn’t mean it should place this term into the Nicene Creed either. We need to express our faith in words and creeds. Why do you separate the two? How is such a separation in keeping with . . . anything?

But I need not prolong what has become a tiresome issue and I don’t want to be in a position of being perceived to be against this or that, when I know that I’m not.

Please call off the Inquisition.

Good bye, all the best!

Alex

 

[crazzeto]

Alexandar:

I can not accept your attempt to try and defend Arminian modifications as valid, but the filioque as invalid. There is no way one can do this, unless one attempts to label the filioque as heresy which is the historical reasoning for protesting it’s inclusion in the creed.

Either it is orthodox, and an equally valid modification as the arminian’s (more extensive based upon what I’m looking at right now) modifications, or all modifications are equally invalid and no church should ever utilize any.

It is not historically true, that the orthodox Christian churchs have been unamonously intolorant of modifications to the creed (see above), with one exception… The modifications of Rome.

Again, Rome isn’t going out there telling all other orthodox churches they must include the filioque, this would be wrong both in form and linquistically for greeks (as one risks actually introducing heresy due to differences in the wording due to translation). Rome simply wishes that her tradition be respected equally, as the Orthodox (seperated) churches respect the tradions of their fellow seperated churches.

 

[steve_b]

Excuse me, but this is really off-base. The Latins are not the ones making an issue of this, nor are they demanding that we adopt the filioque. It is their tradition under attack, a perfectly valid and Patristic tradition at that.

You’ve nailed it.

As the link I provided stated and I highlighted
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7996538&postcount=147

The Greek *ekporeusiV *

1. signifies only the relationship of origin to the Father alone as the principle without principle of the Trinity.
   The Latin processio,
2. on the contrary, is a more common term, signifying the communication of the consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father, through and with the Son, to the Holy Spirit.
   Given the differences in language, Latins teach and affirm both 1 & 2. . The EO otoh, by NOT recognizing differences in languages, and constantly fighting over this, only affirm #1 and deny the 2nd. The 2nd is true also and can’t be denied. IMO it’s a gross violation of Charity by the EO who keep this fight going against the Catholic Church. Particularly considering there was agreement by the East at Florence. ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FILIOQUE.HTM

The council of Florence
ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm

 

[Ghosty]

Alex: No one has even hinted at you being schismatic, so I don’t understand what you’re getting worked up about. Furthermore no one here, Latin or otherwise, has suggested that non-Latins adopt the filioque. No Latins here have told Easterns to “grow up” either. That was a statement you chose to make, however, with no apparent place in in the discussion at hand.

As for the Latin Creed, it is not put forth as the Universal Creed, just as the Armenian Creed is not. The Nicene Creed must be unchanged, I agree, but the Latin Creed is not the same thing.

The Orthodox do not all accept the orthodoxy of the filioque, even with Patristic support and explanation, as Mickey has attested in this very thread. Until they do it will be up to folks like us to continue defending it. It is the theology, not merely the word, that is in dispute here.

Dcoitin: There is no concensus in the East on what “throug the Son” means, hence the fact tha some say its a matter of words, and others treat it as a fu ndamental divide.

 

[Mickey]

Well, if I ever do join Orthodoxy (I just may get excommunicated here in a bit, although I’ve decided to leave of my own volition - to hone up on my English language skills), I hope we could one day serve a Divine Liturgy together!

Cheers and take care Brother!

Alex

Please reconsider Alex. I enjoy your posts. You are well informed and well intentioned. It is easy to get offended on this forum for the very reasons that you have articulated…but the Eastern view needs to be heard.

However, if the conversation stirs up the passions, sometimes it is better to keep a distance for a while. It is my hope that you will return.

Peace and prayers to you and yours,
Mickey

 

[steve_b]

The operative words here are that the West only admitted the Filioque in 1014. And the issue of how the West placed the Filioque in the Athanasian Creed was never one as the Athanasian Creed did not have the same universal dogmatic status that the Nicene Creed has.

This excerpt also affirms that the original Creed without the Filioque preserved unity with the “Orient.” The Filioque annulled that unity as an unnecessary introduction to a creed designed to express the fullness of the Catholic faith, East and West.

Alex

I think this is answered here
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7997083&postcount=163

 

[Mickey]

As for the Latin Creed, it is not put forth as the Universal Creed, just as the Armenian Creed is not.

The Armenian Creed is a creed that is based upon the Second Creed of Epiphanius and upon certain interpretations given to the original Nicene Creed in a book called “Hermeneia eis ton Symbolon” by Pseudo-Athanasius. Be that as it may, the fact that the Armenians have chosen to use a creed other than the one issued by the Holy Fathers at the Second Council of Constantinople cannot validly be used as an argument for altering the normative creed of A.D. 381. After all, even the Roman Church itself “. . . acknowledges the conciliar, ecumenical, normative, and irrevocable value, as [the] expression of the one common faith of the Church and of all Christians, of the Symbol professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the Second Ecumenical Council”.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1176&CFID=84816220&CFTOKEN=11895743

The Orthodox do not all accept the orthodoxy of the filioque, even with Patristic support and explanation, as Mickey has attested in this very thread.

I must admit it is rather difficult to believe that the Latins have the “orthodox theology” of the Creed when I read statements from your own theologians to the contrary.

Some may agree with Ghosty…others may not.

Just because the amateur apologist, Ghosty, says it is so…does not mean that it is so.

Removing the Filioque is the only solution to a very, very, very old problem.

 

[Ghosty]

Mickey: You’ve never presented such Latin sources despite repeated requests.

 

[Mickey]

Mickey: You’ve never presented such Latin sources despite repeated requests.

Have you ever read the paper by RC theolgian Fr David Coffey?

But you will not accept any sources that collide with your solidified mind set on this issue. Three facts remains: The conflict has been going on for centuries without resolution. The Latins will not remove the filioque from their altered Creed. Your novel theories do not seem to hold much water.

 

[Dave_in_Dallas]

So the Latins mistranslated the Greek into Latin in the Vulgate Bible?
Is that the origin of this?

 

[Mickey]

More than a decade ago, the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation issued a text on the filioque. Note the recommendations (especially nos. 3 and 6) * *

(1) that all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God;
(2) that in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit;
(3) that Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit, which is a received dogma of our Churches, and the manner of the Spirit’s origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution;
(4) that those engaged in dialogue on this issue distinguish, as far as possible, the theological issues of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the ecclesiological issues of primacy and doctrinal authority in the Church, even as we pursue both questions seriously together;
(5) that the theological dialogue between our Churches also give careful consideration to the status of later councils held in both our Churches after those seven generally received as ecumenical.
(6) that the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.

 

[Ghosty]

Have you ever read the paper by RC theolgian Fr David Coffey?

Doesn’t ring a bell. Do you have a link to the paper, or at least the name of it?

Doing a quick search online all I’m coming up with is that he said that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally, personally, and essentially from the Father and (through) the Son, which is exactly what I’ve said on this thread, and what the Fathers taught. Are you aware of something different that he said?

EDIT: Doing a quick search, Fr. Coffey did come up in a conversation on the filioque on Byzcath that I participated in six years ago. I’ve not read his specific work on the filioque, but Fr. Coffey has been censured for his theological views before. He’s denied the Resurrection of Christ, for example. He’s hardly a good example of a Latin theologian, and he’s most definitely not a widely renowned theologian.

Peace and God bless!

 

[gregdaly]

More than a decade ago, the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation issued a text on the filioque. Note the recommendations (especially nos. 3 and 6) * *

(1) that all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God;
(2) that in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit;(3) that Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit, which is a received dogma of our Churches, and the manner of the Spirit’s origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution;
(4) that those engaged in dialogue on this issue distinguish, as far as possible, the theological issues of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the ecclesiological issues of primacy and doctrinal authority in the Church, even as we pursue both questions seriously together;
(5) that the theological dialogue between our Churches also give careful consideration to the status of later councils held in both our Churches after those seven generally received as ecumenical.
(6) that the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.

Mickey, coming from an athiest/rational background (and looking for the right church), I always look for consistency. I have come to believe in Christ because I have come to realize Christianity is a very consistent paradigm (regardless of the sins of its members). I’d like to point out that your position is thoroughly inconsistent. You want the Catholic Church to adhere to #6, but I don’t see a like imperative from you or many Eastern Orthodox to adhere to #2 which I highlighted above. I would just like to suggest that such hypocritical arguing is not likely to attract people to the Church you represent.

In Christ,
Greg

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Alexandar:

I can not accept your attempt to try and defend Arminian modifications as valid, but the filioque as invalid. There is no way one can do this, unless one attempts to label the filioque as heresy which is the historical reasoning for protesting it’s inclusion in the creed.

Either it is orthodox, and an equally valid modification as the arminian’s (more extensive based upon what I’m looking at right now) modifications, or all modifications are equally invalid and no church should ever utilize any.

It is not historically true, that the orthodox Christian churchs have been unamonously intolorant of modifications to the creed (see above), with one exception… The modifications of Rome.

Again, Rome isn’t going out there telling all other orthodox churches they must include the filioque, this would be wrong both in form and linquistically for greeks (as one risks actually introducing heresy due to differences in the wording due to translation). Rome simply wishes that her tradition be respected equally, as the Orthodox (seperated) churches respect the tradions of their fellow seperated churches.

Actually, you don’t need to accept it since I, and Ghosty, were in error when we said the Armenians alterered the Nicene Creed. In fact, it has been pointed out to me that the Armenian creed is NOT the Nicene Creed but that of Epiphanius. So the point still stands.

Rome HAS told the Eastern Churches that the must accept the theology of the Filioque as universally binding. And the point isn’t that Rome includes the Filioque and others do not. You are not getting the point that the Nicene Creed is a creed intended to express the faith of the universal Church and it cannot be tampered with.

On behalf of Ghosty, I apologise for the two of us in this respect.

In addition, the Filioque is confusing and suggests, if not downright affirms, two Origins of the Spirit within the Trinity - to the East.

That is why it is better to maintain the original universal tradition and keep one’s own traditions separate.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I think this is answered here
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7997083&postcount=163

I don’t see how.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Mickey, coming from an athiest/rational background (and looking for the right church), I always look for consistency. I have come to believe in Christ because I have come to realize Christianity is a very consistent paradigm (regardless of the sins of its members). I’d like to point out that your position is thoroughly inconsistent. You want the Catholic Church to adhere to #6, but I don’t see a like imperative from you or many Eastern Orthodox to adhere to #2 which I highlighted above. I would just like to suggest that such hypocritical arguing is not likely to attract people to the Church you represent.

In Christ,
Greg

Dear Greg,

Mickey and myself aside, the principles outlined above are sound and provide an excellent basis from which theologians may work.

The Orthodox regard the Filioque as heretical - the issue is to see why and how we may work around this to a resolution of that. It is possible.

And I don’t see how Mickey is being hypocritical. He is simply representing the theology of his Church. What about RC’s who would accuse the Orthodox of being this or that because they don’t accept the papacy?

Happily, ecumenical commissions are much more irenical than this forum!

Alex

 

[gregdaly]

Alex, I am aware of the issues, and I don’t see filioque as heretical. I also understand that it is heretical if seen from the context of the Greek. I am not contending that, nor do I see anything hypocritical about that. The text at issue does not deny that reality, but proposes that one side does not consider the Tradition of the other side as heretical. I read that to mean that each side should learn to understand the other based on what the other side is trying to say, instead of trying to impose one’s own Traditional premises on the other. Am I interpreting that correctly?

What I see as hypocritical is to insist that one part of a proposition from that text be followed, while explicitly violating another proposition of the same text from the same authority (I use that loosely since I know the commission is not an actual binding authority).

In Christ,
Greg

Dear Greg,

Mickey and myself aside, the principles outlined above are sound and provide an excellent basis from which theologians may work.

The Orthodox regard the Filioque as heretical - the issue is to see why and how we may work around this to a resolution of that. It is possible.

And I don’t see how Mickey is being hypocritical. He is simply representing the theology of his Church. What about RC’s who would accuse the Orthodox of being this or that because they don’t accept the papacy?

Happily, ecumenical commissions are much more irenical than this forum!

Alex

 

[Ghosty]

Actually, you don’t need to accept it since I, and Ghosty, were in error when we said the Armenians alterered the Nicene Creed. In fact, it has been pointed out to me that the Armenian creed is NOT the Nicene Creed but that of Epiphanius. So the point still stands.

Rome HAS told the Eastern Churches that the must accept the theology of the Filioque as universally binding. And the point isn’t that Rome includes the Filioque and others do not. You are not getting the point that the Nicene Creed is a creed intended to express the faith of the universal Church and it cannot be tampered with.

On behalf of Ghosty, I apologise for the two of us in this respect.

In addition, the Filioque is confusing and suggests, if not downright affirms, two Origins of the Spirit within the Trinity - to the East.

That is why it is better to maintain the original universal tradition and keep one’s own traditions separate.

Alex

The Armenians call it the Nicene Creed, and it is indeed a variant of the Nicene Creed. Whether it was penned by St. Epiphanius (an assertion that was not backed up by any evidence, incidentally) is immaterial, just as it is immaterial to you that the current Latin Liturgical Creed, called Nicene, was penned at the Council of Toledo. Would you be satisfied if the Latins simply called it the Toledo Creed?

And please don’t presume to apologize on my behalf because I’m calling it what the Armenians themselves call it in their documents and Liturgical texts. Making an exception for their variant of the Nicene Creed, while not accepting the Latin, just doesn’t make any sense.

Regardless, this whole talk about whether or not the Latins should change the Creed completely misses the point of this entire discussion, which is whether the filioque, as it is taught in the Latin Tradition, is orthodox or not. Mickey says it is not (post #54 and others). There is another thread about the lawfulness of the addition of the filioque (and true to my lack of concern about local variants of the Nicene Creed, I haven’t participated in that thread), this one is about the theology.

Peace and God bless!

 

[steve_b]

I don’t see how.

As the link I provided stated and I highlighted
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=147

The Greek *ekporeusiV *

1. signifies only the relationship of origin to the Father alone as the principle without principle of the Trinity.
   The Latin processio,
2. on the contrary, is a more common term, signifying the communication of the consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father, through and with the Son, to the Holy Spirit.
   Given the differences in language, Latins teach and affirm both 1 & 2. . The EO otoh, by NOT recognizing differences in languages, and constantly fighting over this, only affirm #1 and deny the 2nd. The 2nd is true also and can’t be denied.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alexander,

The operative words here are that the West only admitted the Filioque in 1014.

A careful reading of the excerpt indicates that it was only Rome that admitted the text in 1014. The fact is that just about every church in the West had already adopted filioque into their local Creeds by the authority of their local bishops by the time Rome adopted it in 1014.

And the issue of how the West placed the Filioque in the Athanasian Creed was never one as the Athanasian Creed did not have the same universal dogmatic status that the Nicene Creed has.

I don’t think the text was making an issue of it. It was just mentioning that it was locally used.

This excerpt also affirms that the original Creed without the Filioque preserved unity with the “Orient.” The Filioque annulled that unity as an unnecessary introduction to a creed designed to express the fullness of the Catholic faith, East and West.

I don’t think it was filioque that annulled the unity. It certainly did not do so for almost 400 years since it became an issue during the Monothelite controversy. There were probably other issues involved other than the existence of the variant text itself - lack of understanding due to different language and distinct theologies, pride, and even ecclesiastical-political ambition would seem to be the real causes for the rupture in unity.

Blessings,
Marduk