As a life long Catholic, I do have a question regarding the great schism. At one of the ecumenical councils, the second one, I believe, the Nicaean Creed was pretty much set in stone and it was determined that no changes could be made without approval of the council. When the western church added the filiique clause without approval, did this not violate the council? I’ve never heard or read what I considered an adequate explanation for this.
Catholic/Orthodox question
- Thread starter Bataar
- Start date
- Status
A
Alexius
Guest
Yes, it did violate the council, but that is not what the Council of Toledo decided, I guess…they had their own agendy.
The decision was not accepted by the many generations of popes until closer to the schism. Now it is expected that the East somehow deal with this Western addition and learn to accept it, even incorporate it 
…At the schism the accusation was that the East “removed” the filioque, when it was actually the West that added it…a real quagmire of theological and political issues are at play in this issue as you can see.Prayers and petitions,
Alexius
M
Marina14
Guest
Your are correct…it’s hard to obtain an adequate explanation for this.
Initially earlier Popes condemned the addition, one of whom went so far as to post it in either silver or gold (I don’t recall which precious metal right now) over one of the entry ways of St. Peter’s Basillica in Rome without the Filioque Addition, but eventually one of the Popes approved it as he received, in return for approving it’s addition, was given permission (forgive misspellings) to crown Charlamain King.
Anyway, if you believe in Papal Infallibility, the Early Popes teaching the doctrine were right and then when the later Pope was allowed by God to make the addition used his “Keys” to change the reality of the Most Holy Trinity he was right too. You’ve got to believe what the most current Pope teaches Infallibly because they, in this instance at least, can contradict themselves. But that’s okay, because whoever is current Pope…his teachings on Faith and Morals are the correct ones because he can change reality with the “Keys” to bind and loose in Heaven.
So as it stands now with the Popes from the time of King Charlamain on, the Holy Trinity looks like this: The Most Holy Trinity is Eternal: The Father eternally begets the Son and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the two of Them.
Before then, the reality of the Most Holy Trinity was: The Most Holy Trinity is Eternal: The Father eternally begets the Son and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father.
I’m coming to the conclusion from my recent readings of the Early Church Fathers that the Roman Catholic’s point of view of the role of St. Peter and through him the role of the Popes of the Roman Catholic Church is accurate.
The only problem this causes is that Sacred Scripture states that God is unchangable, yet since various Popes in history has spoken from the throne of Peter (the See of Rome) authoritatively on the Faith…the Creed is the very symbol of our Faith…teaching different things re: the Most Holy Trinity and they have the power via the keys to “bind” & “loose” such things in Heaven, then God has changed - yet God said He couldn’t change. Confusing.
Some may now say that the Popes who condemned the addition of the Filioque actually believed that the Filioque was correct. That God within Himself was always: The Father eternal begets the Son and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son…but if that’s what they believed, then why were they so passionate against the addition?
As a Catholic, just believe whatever the current Pope teaches Infallibly and ignore the past so you will be less confused?
Truly confused…Marina
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Are you returning to the Catholic faith?
M
Marina14
Guest
Tonight.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
I emailed you by the way.
P
paarsurrey
Guest
Hi
I understand that the things were not done to the satisfaction of everybody, till a time came, they protested.
Now the attitude should be of forebearance and forgiveness. Let by gones be by gones, and a new effort for unifying the Protestants and Catholics should be made.
I understand that neither those who protested received Word of God for the protest nor those who were running the church hitherto were recipients of the Word of God.
Mistake should not continue over such a long period, and reconciliation mood set in for United Christedum.
Thanks
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Bataar,
Latin Catholics, and other Eastern and Oriental Catholics, do not view filioque as an addition, but a clarification. I am one of those Oriental Catholics who shares this view, so permit me to explain.
First of all, the prescription against change was in regards to INNOVATION IN THE FAITH, and not specifically a clarification nor even an addition to the Creed.
Second, to believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son, which is what the addition of filioque intends, was in no way an innovation. Popes St. Cyril and St. Athanasius of Alexandria, as well as numerous other Eastern/Oriental Fathers, believed the doctrine that the Spirit proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son.
Third, Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria, who was one of the instrumental voices at the third Ecumenical Council, asserted that the Faith of the Church was not confined to the Creeds alone, in SPECIFIC OPPOSITION TO THOSE WHO WOULD USE THE CREED AS THE ONLY STANDARD OF THE FAITH. Also, there were actually different versions of the Creed circulating that, though different in wording, nevertheless proposed the SAME FAITH as the Church professed. Further, the Apostles Creed, so much more truncated than the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, has ALWAYS been considered a valid expression of the Faith of the Church. All this goes to prove that the Creed is not the be-all and end-all of a proper exposition of the Faith. So for certain groups today to claim that it is to the extent that it becomes a cause of schism, without giving heed to the beliefs or theology of the entire Church not specifically contained in the Creed, is simply wrong.
Blessings,
Marduk
Yes, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and even some Eastern and Oriental Catholics, believe that the addition was a violation of the Council.
Latin Catholics, and other Eastern and Oriental Catholics, do not view filioque as an addition, but a clarification. I am one of those Oriental Catholics who shares this view, so permit me to explain.
First of all, the prescription against change was in regards to INNOVATION IN THE FAITH, and not specifically a clarification nor even an addition to the Creed.
Second, to believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son, which is what the addition of filioque intends, was in no way an innovation. Popes St. Cyril and St. Athanasius of Alexandria, as well as numerous other Eastern/Oriental Fathers, believed the doctrine that the Spirit proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son.
Third, Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria, who was one of the instrumental voices at the third Ecumenical Council, asserted that the Faith of the Church was not confined to the Creeds alone, in SPECIFIC OPPOSITION TO THOSE WHO WOULD USE THE CREED AS THE ONLY STANDARD OF THE FAITH. Also, there were actually different versions of the Creed circulating that, though different in wording, nevertheless proposed the SAME FAITH as the Church professed. Further, the Apostles Creed, so much more truncated than the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, has ALWAYS been considered a valid expression of the Faith of the Church. All this goes to prove that the Creed is not the be-all and end-all of a proper exposition of the Faith. So for certain groups today to claim that it is to the extent that it becomes a cause of schism, without giving heed to the beliefs or theology of the entire Church not specifically contained in the Creed, is simply wrong.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
M
marlo
Guest
I do not see this as a violation of the church council, We have an ancient creed and each local church has a baptismal creed and the whole church has the Ecumenical Creed, Just as what we roman catholics exercise now, some use the apostles creed while the others used the ecumenical creed with the filioque.
The council of toledo decided to add the filioque and made it its own local church creed aside from the ecumenical creed. for they believed and reason that the word filioque does not alter the faith. This modified creed was very successful in fighting the arian heresy that other churches started to adopt it as their own local creed, until mostly the entire western churches.
however, in Rome it was proposed to use this modified creed as the ecumenical one, the Popes did not agree for the sake of unity,but believed that its theologically inclined. And also because it was not clear then the firm stand of the East (filioque was heretical), until few years before the schism because it was presented to the Pope that the filioque was heretical and the popes started to defend its orthodoxy including its addition. Moreover, the modified creed due to its widely acceptance and because of less ecumenical council that happened due to wars , Some Latin bishops actually thought that this is the ecumenical creed and wrongly accused the greeks of removing the filioque.
It is good to note that the filioque was legally accepted in 2 Western Ecumenical council (since the split already happened) and 2 Ecumenical Union Councils.
Ironically, Today, when the greek says, “no local council can change the Ecumenical council” they are now guilty of removing the filioque in the creed since 2 Ecumenical Union councils already approved it, and their local council could not change the ecumenical creed approved by the Recent ecumenical council as per their own definition.
Nevertheless, if we believe that the Holy Spirit Guides the church through ecumenical council then 4 councils is more than enough.
The council of toledo decided to add the filioque and made it its own local church creed aside from the ecumenical creed. for they believed and reason that the word filioque does not alter the faith. This modified creed was very successful in fighting the arian heresy that other churches started to adopt it as their own local creed, until mostly the entire western churches.
however, in Rome it was proposed to use this modified creed as the ecumenical one, the Popes did not agree for the sake of unity,but believed that its theologically inclined. And also because it was not clear then the firm stand of the East (filioque was heretical), until few years before the schism because it was presented to the Pope that the filioque was heretical and the popes started to defend its orthodoxy including its addition. Moreover, the modified creed due to its widely acceptance and because of less ecumenical council that happened due to wars , Some Latin bishops actually thought that this is the ecumenical creed and wrongly accused the greeks of removing the filioque.
It is good to note that the filioque was legally accepted in 2 Western Ecumenical council (since the split already happened) and 2 Ecumenical Union Councils.
Ironically, Today, when the greek says, “no local council can change the Ecumenical council” they are now guilty of removing the filioque in the creed since 2 Ecumenical Union councils already approved it, and their local council could not change the ecumenical creed approved by the Recent ecumenical council as per their own definition.
Nevertheless, if we believe that the Holy Spirit Guides the church through ecumenical council then 4 councils is more than enough.
E
East_and_West
Guest
Additions were made to the Creed by both the East and the West at the council of Constantinople. It was not as set in stone as our Eastern bretheren would like us to think.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Yes, the Latin Cardinals protested the Greek deletion of the filioque from the Creed. Since the Greeks did not respond in a way that was satisfactory to these two Cardinals (one a future Pope) they took the Roman church out of the Orthodox communion of diaphysite churches.
The Latin Patriarchate and the four Greek Patriarchates were separated in 1054AD by an act of protest of the Latins.
It is now time to forgive and forget, and move forward for the sake of Christ.
Michael
M
mardukm
Guest
In order to forgive and forget, the Eastern Orthodox must first repent of their lies against the Catholic Church, wouldn’t you agree.
I’ll assume you have never read the actual excommunication decree, which specifically praises the Greek people for their holiness, but pronounced anathema by name ONLY the Patriarch and two others of his fellow hierarchs.
I’ll assume you did not know that the Patriarch Michael deliberately falsified the anathema profferred by the Latin delegation, a falsification which he had no shame about spreading to his flock, a falsification later discovered and rebuked by the Emperor.
I’ll assume you are working off of this falsified document in your claim that the Latins accused the Greeks of removing filioque from the Creed. In fact, the excommunication only mentions - as far as filioque is concerned - that the participation of the Son in the Procession had been denied.
You’ll get no sympathy except from anti-Catholics, for your statements.
Blessings,
Marduk
H
Hesychios
Guest
I presume that you have references to back these assertions up Marduk.
You more than anyone should know that there is no monopoly on pious fiction. We find it everywhere, and in the Roman Catholic church in great abundance. But since you are making the accusation of lies, bring forth your sources.
Michael
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Hesychios,
Here is the link which provides the original text:
acad.carleton.edu/curricular/MARS/Schism.pdf
I also did a good amount of research after your request for documentation for my statements. It appears that the source of the myth that the Latin delegates charged the Eastern Church with REMOVING filioque is from Catholic author Thomas Bokenkotter’s A Concise History of the Catholic Church (first published in 1979). His sources were Steven Runciman and Francis Dvornik, but he does not directly cite them (book and page) when he makes the claim that the Latin delegates charged the Eastern Church with removing filioque. It appears the claim is an interpretation of the matter, or perhaps even an actual reading of the falsified version of the Bull by Patriarch Michael from Steven Runciman, who did a good amount of research in the East for his books on the Crusades.
In any case, the original Latin text of excommunication makes no such accusation. Further, the text makes it explicit that the excommunication was directed at three specific individuals. So for you, brother Michael, to state that the act of protest was the cause of the separation is simply not true.
Personally, I have not read the excommunication by Patriarch Michael. Did he excommunicate just the legates, or the entire Western See? If the latter, then it would certainly be the fault of the Easterns that the unity was broken. I am inclined to think, however, that he only excommunicated the legates, because that is what Patriarch Athenagoras stated when he lifted the excommunication way back when.
Blessings,
Marduk
I’m sorry I did not give a link earlier. Since the information I have came from an EASTERN ORTHODOX POSTER (given before the New Forum), I assumed all the EO were aware of it.
Here is the link which provides the original text:
acad.carleton.edu/curricular/MARS/Schism.pdf
I also did a good amount of research after your request for documentation for my statements. It appears that the source of the myth that the Latin delegates charged the Eastern Church with REMOVING filioque is from Catholic author Thomas Bokenkotter’s A Concise History of the Catholic Church (first published in 1979). His sources were Steven Runciman and Francis Dvornik, but he does not directly cite them (book and page) when he makes the claim that the Latin delegates charged the Eastern Church with removing filioque. It appears the claim is an interpretation of the matter, or perhaps even an actual reading of the falsified version of the Bull by Patriarch Michael from Steven Runciman, who did a good amount of research in the East for his books on the Crusades.
In any case, the original Latin text of excommunication makes no such accusation. Further, the text makes it explicit that the excommunication was directed at three specific individuals. So for you, brother Michael, to state that the act of protest was the cause of the separation is simply not true.
Personally, I have not read the excommunication by Patriarch Michael. Did he excommunicate just the legates, or the entire Western See? If the latter, then it would certainly be the fault of the Easterns that the unity was broken. I am inclined to think, however, that he only excommunicated the legates, because that is what Patriarch Athenagoras stated when he lifted the excommunication way back when.
Blessings,
Marduk
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Maybe I’m being heretical in what I am about to say and, if so, maybe I’ll be called on it.
As I am a finite being, and will remain so forever, even in Glory, I will never really know how God knows Himself. I have some hope of drinking from that fountain for all eternity, but even so, as God is infinite, I will never drink the fountain dry. I am sure we will all be continually surprised, throughout all eternity, at what we will learn about the Trinity.
And, I don’t see how “proceeds from the Father” precludes “proceeds from the Father through the Son” or even
“proceeds from the Father and the Son”. Now, if the Nicene Creed once said “proceeds from the Father alone…” I might look at it differently.
As I am a finite being, and will remain so forever, even in Glory, I will never really know how God knows Himself. I have some hope of drinking from that fountain for all eternity, but even so, as God is infinite, I will never drink the fountain dry. I am sure we will all be continually surprised, throughout all eternity, at what we will learn about the Trinity.
And, I don’t see how “proceeds from the Father” precludes “proceeds from the Father through the Son” or even
“proceeds from the Father and the Son”. Now, if the Nicene Creed once said “proceeds from the Father alone…” I might look at it differently.
P
paarsurrey
Guest
Hi
If you are to unite, to start with you have to have a charitable, polite and peaceful discussion, only that could resolve the centuries old differences.
Thanks
M
marlo
Guest
Brother Mardukm,
Excellent Research, if this is the original papal bull of excommunication by Cardinal Humbert, then the Greeks had falsely accused the Roman Church.
Excellent Research, if this is the original papal bull of excommunication by Cardinal Humbert, then the Greeks had falsely accused the Roman Church.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Actually it does.
On a previous forum there were threads, all with sources, etc. about the term for proceeds refers only to hypostatic procession, such that even the Latin church (at least now) does not allow the filioque in Greek, as the result renders a theology that even the Latins wouldn’t accept.
We still have a thread on this:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=188428&highlight=filioque
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
But the local Church Creed didn’t contradict the Ecumenical Creed. Unless it was a heretic’s creed.
Contradicitur.
Arianism was dead when Toledo adopted it. Killing dead heresies is not too difficult.
They reasoned wrong. Filioque alters the Faith, something your church even admits when it is translated into Greek.
Contradicitur.
Contradicitur.
“Western Ecumenical” council. Is that like being world famous in Peoria?
If there was really a union, then the councils would be Ecumenical. I am always intrigued when the Latins accuse us of Caesaropapism, but complain when the majority of bishops and the Faithful refuse to accept the decisions of the bishops that the emperor, ever a supporter of union for imagined aid from the West (think Crusades), was able to strong arm.
Contradicitur.
2 Councils excommunicate for accepting what the Second and Third said could not be done. And two councils to join the excommunicate. What do we care what the ecommunicate does? Ecumenical Councils are for those in communion with the Church.Ironically, Today, when the greek says, “no local council can change the Ecumenical council” they are now guilty of removing the filioque in the creed since 2 Ecumenical Union councils already approved it, and their local council could not change the ecumenical creed approved by the Recent ecumenical council as per their own definition.
Contradicitur.
But He has spoken through 7.
And He didn’t speak at the 4 you refer to.
Contradicitur.
- Status