Authority to Insert the Filioque

[sirach2v4]

I read through Jaroslav Pelikan’s five-volume series on the development of Christian doctrine.

It flushes out, with apparently great validity, the issues that were flying around at the time.

What’s not stated so clearly in the preceding posts is that the East rejected the West’s authority to change the creed, and I think it still does. I’ve heard that the filioque controversy itself has lost potency.

I appreciate that the East does not like novelty in its faith and wants to stick to the early faith. As a Roman Catholic, I do too. But, the later councils and doctrinal statements arose, as needed, to defend the faith against heretics. Heresy didn’t end in 325, I’d like to point out.

 

[Nine_Two]

I appreciate that the East does not like novelty in its faith and wants to stick to the early faith. As a Roman Catholic, I do too. But, the later councils and doctrinal statements arose, as needed, to defend the faith against heretics. Heresy didn’t end in 325, I’d like to point out.

That is a common defense of the filioque - that it was meant to clarify and oppose the Arian Heresy, but the problem is that the entire creed was already explicitly written against Arianism. While the filioque implies Christ is God, the same thing is said directly in the second paragraph of the creed, rendering the controversial lines theologically useless at best.

If the issue has less potency today it is because the official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that it isn’t necessary for other Churches to use it and because there are a number in the East who accept its Orthodox interpretation while rejecting the West’s right to impose it on the East.

 

[Wandile]

That is a common defense of the filioque - that it was meant to clarify and oppose the Arian Heresy, but the problem is that the entire creed was already explicitly written against Arianism. While the filioque implies Christ is God, the same thing is said directly in the second paragraph of the creed, rendering the controversial lines theologically useless at best.

This shows an unawareness of the nature of Arianism the Romans were facing. The form they dealt with was not the same type of Arianism as that which the creed was addressing. This version of Arianism was actually using the Nicene creed to prove how Christ is not the same as the father. The filioque clarifies that they are both fully deity in equality

See the Arian heresy was not that Jesus was not divine but that he was less divine than the Father. In other words, it introduced degrees into the Godhead. The filioque was introduced to show that Jesus is as divine as The Father and thus fight the heresy of Arianism

If the issue has less potency today it is because the official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that it isn’t necessary for other Churches to use it and because there are a number in the East who accept its Orthodox interpretation while rejecting the West’s right to impose it on the East.

You mean its orthodox or Orthodox interpretation? I’d the former then I agree with your paragraph

 

[Nine_Two]

This shows an unawareness of the nature of Arianism the Romans were facing. The form they dealt with was not the same type of Arianism as that which the creed was addressing. This version of Arianism was actually using the Nicene creed to prove how Christ is not the same as the father. The filioque clarifies that they are both fully deity in equality

See the Arian heresy was not that Jesus was not divine but that he was less divine than the Father. In other words, it introduced degrees into the Godhead. The filioque was introduced to show that Jesus is as divine as The Father and thus fight the heresy of Arianism

It may have been meant to show they are both equally and fully deity, but it doesn’t show that as well as the Nicene-Constantioplian Creed. The fact that they twisted it to show what they wanted doesn’t mean a whole lot. People have been doing that for some time. A good example among traditional Catholics is Vatican II.
In spite of this, the only way I can see the addition showing equality of the Godhead is if you interpret it as a dual-procession, something which the Catholic Church insists it does not believe (at least to us).
This of course is on top of the fact that although that is where the Nicene Creed originated, it was opposed even by Rome for a long time. When it was finally adapted the heresy in question had been defeated (at least until the modern day) in the West and the East.

You mean its orthodox or Orthodox interpretation? I’d the former then I agree with your paragraph

Orthodox. Capital ‘O’, that is that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father through the Son.

 

[dcointin]

Orthodox. Capital ‘O’, that is that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father through the Son.

I know many Orthodox who consider “through the Son” a theological opinion that is not an official teaching.

 

[Nine_Two]

I know many Orthodox who consider “through the Son” a theological opinion that is not an official teaching.

Scripture very clearly says the Holy Spirit comes from the Father but is sent by the Son.

[BIBLEDRB]John 15:26[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[dcointin]

Scripture very clearly says the Holy Spirit comes from the Father but is sent by the Son.

[BIBLEDRB]John 15:26[/BIBLEDRB]

Isn’t there a distinction between eternal procession and temporal sending however? The creed is referring to the Holy Spirit’s eternal origin from the Father, so it would strange to interpret it as simultaneously referring to his temporal sending into the world.

 

[Nine_Two]

Isn’t there a distinction between eternal procession and temporal sending however? The creed is referring to the Holy Spirit’s eternal origin from the Father, so it would strange to interpret it as simultaneously referring to his temporal sending into the world.

I tend to agree that that is an issue with it. I was meaning the belief in general that the Spirit is sent through the Son is directly from scripture. I find the filioque and its interpretation troublesome at the best of times.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I know many Orthodox who consider “through the Son” a theological opinion that is not an official teaching.

Then they are wrong, according to the teachings of the Fathers, and the Council of Blachernae. In Orthodoxy at least, proceeding through the Son is understood as a complimentary formula to proceeding from the Father alone, just as the Christological formulae in two natures, from two natures, and one incarnate nature of the Word of God are all regarded as complimentary.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

If you think about it for five seconds, this actually supports your contention that the canon ought not be read literally, but rather as placing the common faith expressed through the Creed as paramount, but to the detriment of your support of the Romans. After all, what does it say that the Armenians could have such a different Creed and still remain in communion with the rest of the Church for another 100+ years or so (and when they left communion with the Romans, it wasn’t over this), while the Latin addition somehow violated the Byzantine East’s understanding to the degree that it caused a major schism?

It didn’t, though. Sure, the addition was controversial, but the East-West Schism didn’t pop into existence at the moment some Latin dioceses began using the filioque in the 700s. Latins and the Byzantine patriarchates were in communion with each other for centuries after that fact.

Not even Rome’s addition of the filioque in 1014 sparked an immediate schism. And the East-West Schism wasn’t solidified until well after 1054 anyway (which, as you know, is an arbitrary date for the “beginning” of this schism).

If anything, the filioque was a problem in 1054 because the Latin legates to Constantinople tried to force Constantinople to add the word. You know that’s a different matter from whether or not Rome chose to use it.

If the issue has less potency today it is because the official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that it isn’t necessary for other Churches to use it and because there are a number in the East who accept its Orthodox interpretation while rejecting the West’s right to impose it on the East.

Well said, Nine_Two. Well said.

 

[dzheremi]

It didn’t, though. Sure, the addition was controversial, but the East-West Schism didn’t pop into existence at the moment some Latin dioceses began using the filioque in the 700s. Latins and the Byzantine patriarchates were in communion with each other for centuries after that fact.

True enough, and this was poorly phrased on my part. My apologies. It does bear remembering, however, that at least to some historical Byzantine writers (e.g., Mark of Ephesus), the addition of the Filioque was seen as a major problem, enough to where they would not consider union unless it was removed. So while not a cause of immediate schism, it certainly contributed to its hardening and continuation once it was finalized. By contrast, I am unaware of any historical Byzantine writer who takes the Armenians to task for the Creed they use, which was the original context of my post.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

i tend to agree that that is an issue with it. I was meaning the belief in general that the spirit is sent through the son is directly from scripture. I find the filioque and its interpretation troublesome at the best of times.

καὶ ἔδειξέ μοι καθαρὸν ποταμὸν ὕδατος ζωῆς, λαμπρὸν ὡς κρύσταλλον, ἐκπορευόμενον ἐκ τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ τοῦ ἀρνίου. (ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ 22:1)

 

[Wandile]

It may have been meant to show they are both equally and fully deity, but it doesn’t show that as well as the Nicene-Constantioplian Creed. The fact that they twisted it to show what they wanted doesn’t mean a whole lot. People have been doing that for some time. A good example among traditional Catholics is Vatican II.
In spite of this, the only way I can see the addition showing equality of the Godhead is if you interpret it as a dual-procession, something which the Catholic Church insists it does not believe (at least to us).
This of course is on top of the fact that although that is where the Nicene Creed originated, it was opposed even by Rome for a long time. When it was finally adapted the heresy in question had been defeated (at least until the modern day) in the West and the East.

The heresy resurfaced… Under the new form I mentioned.

Like I said the Nicene-Constantioplian Creed was the one which they used to show that Christ is lesser than the father. The filioque proved with out a shadow of a doubt that Christ and the father are equal. This defeated Arianism in the west.

Orthodox. Capital ‘O’, that is that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father through the Son.

You know what’s funny, many times you will find we believe the same thing but that the way we use words is different and that is what causes confusions. But the filioque is firmly root in scripture and the writings of the fathers such as Hillary of Pottiers, origen, Augustine, Ambrose of Milan, Leo the great, Maximus the confessor and various eastern figures.

The thing that Bishop Kalistos Ware noticed after year of study is that the filioque is merely an issue of semantics but is essentially believed by the Orthodox too.

 

[Nine_Two]

The heresy resurfaced… Under the new form I mentioned.

Like I said the Nicene-Constantioplian Creed was the one which they used to show that Christ is lesser than the father. The filioque proved with out a shadow of a doubt that Christ and the father are equal. This defeated Arianism in the west.

The heresy had resurfaced when the addition was made, not when it was formally adopted (though I am willing to be proven wrong on this - perhaps I’m just unaware of an 8th century Arianism).

But my point still stands. Anything can be twisted to have a new interpretation, and the interpretation of the filioque in light of a counter is unorthodox.

You know what’s funny, many times you will find we believe the same thing but that the way we use words is different and that is what causes confusions. But the filioque is firmly root in scripture and the writings of the fathers such as Hillary of Pottiers, origen, Augustine, Ambrose of Milan, Leo the great, Maximus the confessor and various eastern figures.

I do not deny that. I am not wholly convinced that we do share an understanding of the procession, however if you are then an Orthodox understanding should be good enough for a Catholic.

The thing that Bishop Kalistos Ware noticed after year of study is that the filioque is merely an issue of semantics but is essentially believed by the Orthodox too.

Metropolitan Kalistos and a number of others. But then we have other learned men who have reached the opposite conclusion. It needs to be remembered that none of them - on either side of the argument - speak for the Church.