Catholicism or Orthodoxy?

[Credo_ergo_sum]

No,no,no…We are not discussing the mission of sending the Holy Spirit. We are discussing the “filioque”

I agree.

and the procession of the HolySpirit which is eternal, the Trinity is One God. If you apply a temporal procession of the Holy Spirit in the God head, then God is not God, which is heresy.

The procession of the Holy Spirit is eternal and, as the Second Ecumenical Council testified, from the Father (ex Patre procedit). But the Son of God sends the Comforter to us, this is not the same as saying that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Son as well, or am I misunderstanding something?

One question, does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son the same way as it does from the Father or in a different manner?

Are the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox heretics according to you for not accepting the filioque?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Credo ergo sum;8989048]No, I divide nothing. The Holy Spirit is God.

Amen, I will concurr with you here as do the whole Church both in heaven and on earth.

Why does the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox then stray by not accepting the filioque in the creed? Are they heretics?

No they are not heretics for those who do not accept the “filioque”. So long as they don’t don’t hinder the Nicene Creed from which the Catholic Church gave them.

Today Most Orthodox theologians do not object to the “filioque”. Those who do object to the “filioque” are not necessarily rejecting the “fiioque” but are rejecting to the authority of the Pope who “installed” it to defeat heresy that denied Jesus divinity, because these “Orthodox” were under Emperor rule, and the Emperor did not allow his Orthodox subjects to communicate or visit with the Popes in the West during these trying times. The Eastern emperor feared a united Eastern and Western Church will threaten his empire.

The Pope defeated the heresy with the “filioque” just as the Eastern Church united with Peter’s chair defeated all Eastern heretics with the doctrine of “Trinity”.

One question, does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son the same way as it does from the Father or is it different?

You tread where even angels fear to tread; The Church reveals from her Apostolic Traditions and Sacred Scripture that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The rest is a mystery, that the Church does not and cannot define in human understanding.

The Eastern Church who attempted to define God in this way became heretics and excommunicated.

You cannot place a division in the blessed Trinity, nor can one place the eternal Trinity in time as acting temporal. The blessed Trinity is One God, revealed in three persons the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

No they are not heretics for those who do not accept the “filioque”. So long as they don’t don’t hinder the Nicene Creed from which the Catholic Church gave them.

The Eastern Church who attempted to define God in this way became heretics and excommunicated.

Are you contradicting yourself now?

You tread where even angels fear to tread; …] The rest is a mystery, that the Church does not and cannot define in human understanding.

See, you do share my reservations about scholasticism.

Peter’s chair defeated all Eastern heretics with the doctrine of “Trinity”

Huh?

because these “Orthodox” were under Emperor rule, and the Emperor did not allow his Orthodox subjects to communicate or visit with the Popes in the West during these trying times. The Eastern emperor feared a united Eastern and Western Church will threaten his empire

Got a source for these claims?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Credo ergo sum;8989117]Are you contradicting yourself now?

No but Iam sure, from your view it may appear, when comparing apples to oranges

See, you do share my reservations about scholasticism.

Did you read this? St. Hilary will help you, so that you don’t pit Early Church Fathers “opinions” with the rest of the Catholic Church and try to divide the God head… " Consequently, He recieves from the Son who has been sent by Him and who proceeds from the Father. And I raise the question whether it is the same to recieve from the Son as to proceed from the Father? But, if we must hold that there is a difference between receiving from the Son and proceeding from the Father, then, certainly, we shall have to admit that it is one and the same to receive from the Son as it is to receive the Father"…

 

[Cavaradossi]

Amen, I will concurr with you here as do the whole Church both in heaven and on earth.

No they are not heretics for those who do not accept the “filioque”. So long as they don’t don’t hinder the Nicene Creed from which the Catholic Church gave them.

Today** Most Orthodox theologians do not object to the “filioque”.** Those who do object to the “filioque” are not necessarily rejecting the “fiioque” but are rejecting to the authority of the Pope who “installed” it to defeat heresy that denied Jesus divinity, because these “Orthodox” were under Emperor rule, and** the Emperor did not allow his Orthodox subjects to communicate or visit with the Popes in the West during these trying times. The Eastern emperor feared a united Eastern and Western Church will threaten his empire.**

The Pope defeated the heresy with the “filioque” just as the Eastern Church united with Peter’s chair defeated all Eastern heretics with the doctrine of “Trinity”.

You tread where even angels fear to tread; The Church reveals from her Apostolic Traditions and Sacred Scripture that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The rest is a mystery, that the Church does not and cannot define in human understanding.

The Eastern Church who attempted to define God in this way became heretics and excommunicated.

You cannot place a division in the blessed Trinity, nor can one place the eternal Trinity in time as acting temporal. The blessed Trinity is One God, revealed in three persons the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.

Care to back up any of those outrageous claims with some scholarly works which corroborate your view? By the way, the emperors were in fact the biggest proponents of union because of the great political benefits it carried. The laity and clergy were largely opposed. We can see this from both of the failed unions of Lyons and Florence.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

=Credo ergo sum;8989117]

Huh?

You posted my quote out of context, please don’t do that again; The Eastern Church united with the Peter’s chair defeated all heresies coming from the East. The Church was not in schism with the Popes during these councils.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Care to back up any of those outrageous claims with some scholarly works which corroborate your view? By the way, the emperors were in fact the biggest proponents of union because of the great political benefits it carried. The laity and clergy were largely opposed. We can see this from both if the failed unions of Lyons and Florence.

What are looking for a history when the Patriarchs Constantinople were heretics united with their heretical Emperors?

Or when the Patriarchs of Constantinople supported by his Eastern Emperor, competed and vied for the power from the Popes?

 

[Cavaradossi]

What are looking for a history when the Patriarchs Constantinople were heretics united with their heretical Emperors?

Or when the Patriarchs of Constantinople supported by his Eastern Emperor, competed and vied for the power from the Popes?

No, I’m looking for any scholarly work which corroborates your claims that:

• A majority of Orthodox theologians agree with the filioque (my experience tells me otherwise)
• The emperors opposed ecclesiastical union between East and West, fearing that it would lessen their power
• The pope used the filioque to defeat Arianism in the West

 

[Trebor135]

The procession of the Holy Spirit is eternal and, as the Second Ecumenical Council testified, from the Father (ex Patre procedit). But the Son of God sends the Comforter to us, this is not the same as saying that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Son as well, or am I misunderstanding something?

One question, does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son the same way as it does from the Father or in a different manner?

I’m dealing with the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox question as well. I’d like to bring this post on Revelation 22:1 to the table for consideration.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

I’m dealing with the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox question as well. I’d like to bring this post on Revelation 22:1 to the table for consideration.

Glad I’m not the only on having that problem
Anyway, please contribute more, I think there’s much I can learn from your research so far.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I’m dealing with the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox question as well. I’d like to bring this post on Revelation 22:1 to the table for consideration.

A thread on this very verse popped up in the Eastern Catholicism section a while back. I think we have to keep in mind that the term ekporeusis can refer to multiple things. When the Eastern Fathers like Gregory the Theologian were asserting the divinity of the Holy Spirit against the Pneumatomachians, who denied this, they needed an analogue for the term begetting to describe how the Holy Spirit derives His existence from the Father. For this, they chose the term proceeds as a generic term, which is said to be different from begetting (four there isa only one only-begotten Son, not two). It is unrelated to how the word is used in the bible because it only picked up its specific theological meaning later. Another example of this would be the word ousia, which in the New Testament is used several times to describe goods (things). Obviously, this is not how we are to understand the Nicene formulation of one essence (ousia).

Also, the person who wrote that seems to be unaware of the objection raised by the East on this point. The objection is that claiming the Son to be cause creates all sorts of problems within the Trinity, because the Eastern Fathers almost unanimously show that the Father is the only cause within the trinity. If causality is not a hypostatic property of the Father, then we have to ascribe it as a property of the essence, which leads to absurdities, like the Holy Spirit participating as a cause in its own procession.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

No, I’m looking for any scholarly work which corroborates your claims that:

• A majority of Orthodox theologians agree with the filioque (my experience tells me otherwise)
• The emperors opposed ecclesiastical union between East and West, fearing that it would lessen their power
• The pope used the filioque to defeat Arianism in the West

Let us keep it simple to the diversity of your search for you and the OP without risking a derailment here;

Please take a look here at Catholic Answers and download Jim/James Likoudis radio talks and book recommendatons “Ending the Greek Byzantine Schism” etc…

Jim is a raised Orthodox anti-Roman Catholic Convert, who goes into historical detail and historical facts of which you seek here.

What better source to get this scholary work than an Anti-Roman Catholic convert who knows both sides of the coin very well.

I am sure his scholary work and recommended sources can help you see “the rest of the story”.

Jim also relates to those Orthodox who truly maintain an ecumenical spirit that deal with these dividing issues with other Roman Catholic scholars.

Jims also addresses that the “filioque” is an unwarranted objection from the Orthodox, coming from a True Orthodox position with a True Orthodox spirit, who speak from the Sacred Traditions and the Early Church Fathers.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I’m dealing with the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox question as well. I’d like to bring this post on Revelation 22:1 to the table for consideration.

While your contemplating scripture; consider St.Pauls revelation of how his prayer works in the reverse from our humanity;

When he prays to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit;

Romans 1:8 First, I give thanks* to my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is heralded throughout the world. 9 God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in proclaiming the gospel of his Son,

What raises the question here is that Orthodox who oppose the “filioque” appear to make an unorthodox notion that the Holy Spirit “ONLY proceeds from the Father”.

Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Pauls prayer conflicts with that unorthodox position, that the Holy Spirit “Only” proceeds from the Father. Drop the “only” and we do not divide the God head of the blessed Trinity.

What is revealed is the Holy Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son, and back to the Father through the Son via our humanity. This procession of the Holy Spirit is not limited in time nor from eternity.

Just a thought.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

No, I’m looking for any scholarly work which corroborates your claims that:

• A majority of Orthodox theologians agree with the filioque (my experience tells me otherwise)
• The emperors opposed ecclesiastical union between East and West, fearing that it would lessen their power
• The pope used the filioque to defeat Arianism in the West

I’d agree - none are necessary.

A majority of Orthodox theologians agree with the filioque (my experience tells me otherwise)

It is the Catholic Church that has bent over backwards to prove (to itself, apparently) that the filioque as intended in not in conflict with the theology as expressed in the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

In the end, if we are to ever to move beyond this exhausted subject, we should all concede that we previously agreed there would be no changes to the form of the Creed without the consensus of all. And yes, some Catholic apologists would argue that the Council of 381 erred by adding language to the Creed adopted by the Council of 325, but at least it was agreed at Council. That the usage of this version has survived the ages is proof enough.

All I know, I’m Eastern Catholic, just as Catholic as any other Catholic, and we recite the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, as do our Orthodox brothers and sisters. Apparently, the Latin Church laity didn’t get the memo. I would also add that His Holiness does a great justice to it recited in Greek, as he has publicly done (much to the horror of some of his flock).

The emperors opposed ecclesiastical union between East and West, fearing that it would lessen their power

When will we all finally acknowledge that (i) politics and religion should never mix and (ii) it was the mixing of politics and religion throughout Church history that has largely gotten us into this mess? And the pattern continues to the present day. Bishops should be able to tell politicians (especially Catholic politicians) to kindly leave religion to the religious. They are welcome to participate if they chose as members of the professed faith, but not to force an outcome via legislation or edict.

The pope used the filioque to defeat Arianism in the West

No need to even address this one. Popes originally rejected the Filioque.

My brothers and sisters, if we cannot set aside the past (other than to learn from it and vow not to repeat it), I weep for the future!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

ByzCathCantor;8989799]I’d agree - none are necessary.

A majority of Orthodox theologians agree with the filioque (my experience tells me otherwise)

It is the Catholic Church that has bent over backwards to prove (to itself, apparently) that the filioque as intended in not in conflict with the theology as expressed in the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

I have to disagree, the Catholic Church corrects the false view of the “filioque”. As far as the Original “CREED”, we will recite the Apostles Creed in the liturgy of Ash Wed. This professed Apostolic Creed predates any changes made by the Nicene Creed which came later.

But hey. who is the one raising and objecting? These objections do not detter the One Holy Catholic Faith professed in creedo.

I feel Catholics are NOT trying to justify, we are merely correcting wrong misrepresentations of what is revealed.

 

[Trebor135]

Glad I’m not the only on having that problem
Anyway, please contribute more, I think there’s much I can learn from your research so far.

Unfortunately, I don’t have much else to contribute. I plan on reading such authors as James Likoudis and Michael Whelton this summer, and God willing I’ll resolve the dilemma for myself in the next century or three…

 

[Trebor135]

A thread on this very verse popped up in the Eastern Catholicism section a while back. I think we have to keep in mind that the term ekporeusis can refer to multiple things. When the Eastern Fathers like Gregory the Theologian were asserting the divinity of the Holy Spirit against the Pneumatomachians, who denied this, they needed an analogue for the term begetting to describe how the Holy Spirit derives His existence from the Father. For this, they chose the term proceeds as a generic term, which is said to be different from begetting (four there isa only one only-begotten Son, not two). It is unrelated to how the word is used in the bible because it only picked up its specific theological meaning later. Another example of this would be the word ousia, which in the New Testament is used several times to describe goods (things). Obviously, this is not how we are to understand the Nicene formulation of one essence (ousia).

Also, the person who wrote that seems to be unaware of the objection raised by the East on this point. The objection is that claiming the Son to be cause creates all sorts of problems within the Trinity, because the Eastern Fathers almost unanimously show that the Father is the only cause within the trinity. If causality is not a hypostatic property of the Father, then we have to ascribe it as a property of the essence, which leads to absurdities, like the Holy Spirit participating as a cause in its own procession.

Thanks for your post. This issue is above my pay grade, so I’ll leave those sufficiently qualified to discuss it.

 

[Trebor135]

I have to disagree with you. Pope Leo living at the time, addressing a council, is not the same as a 40 year old DEAD Popes personal letter addressed to a personal correspondent. Pope Leo addresses the whole church in council, while a popes personal letter to a personal correspondent does not reach the capacity of council recognition as addressing the whole Church.

Finally 40 years after the dead popes personal letter reaches a Church council, it is never Pope Honorius personally himself who addresses the council with a letter. His personal letter reaches the council long after he is dead, and it is heretics who bring the dead popes personal correspondent letter to the floor.

So I would have to disagree with you that the popes personal letter never speaks from the capacity of ex-cathedra or from an official teaching addressing the whole Church as an official stance from the chair of Peter.

I see what you’re saying. But Honorius employed the expression “we confess”–language which would seem to indicate that he was offering official teaching. Plus, it seems anachronistic to say that the pope was or wasn’t speaking ex cathedra then, unless such a concept was recognized by the church of his day. (Then again, I recently heard that the infallibility of ecumenical councils was first posited in the ninth century…)

Infallibility is recognized and accepted by each council which every Pope ratified, including the canonization of the bible books, without any council ever having to define or use the term “infallibility.” A council’s decree protected from error in the Holy Spirit is infallible, which has the ratification of the popes.

Was this a principle widely and consistently recognized in the first millennium?

Infallibility from the Pope is done based on faith and morals which is protected 3 fold, by Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Holy Spirit.

I understand the criteria; I just don’t see a basis for the doctrine in the Early Church.

The first infallible statement made from Peter during apostolic times was at the council of Jerusalem. After heaven revealed to Peter alone to allow the gentiles into the Church. Peter revealed this infallible teaching from heaven to the first Church council. This :“infallible” teaching revealed from Peter was never contested by the council, nor did the council question Peter’s teaching from heaven as being infallible, because Infallibility of Peter’s teaching was already accepted as infallible.

What was discussed was whether or not the baptized Gentiles should be circumcised. Peter declared “NO”, the Gentiles are not to be hindered with circumcision, when all fell silent, followed by witnesses such as Paul who was allowing Gentiles into the Church without circumcision.

Your argument for papal infallibility based on Acts 15 is indeed intriguing.

An interesting aside: though the apostle James states, “Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,” (v. 19) I’ve read here that it would be more accurately translated something like, “Therefore I offer my opinion that…”

There is much to discuss about what information leads up to a councils official decree and when a Pope ratifies a councils findings. What is contained in the decree is not necessarily infallible or binding on the Church, only what comes after the official decree is made.

So just reading a Church councils decree, or reading letters from Popes addressing a council does not necessarily make the popes letter addressing a council “infallible”. More details are required in order to accurate make an assertion of any popes letter or writings addressing a council.

But this makes the process of determining which papal statements are infallible all the more confusing and convoluted. Why have a gift of infallibility if no one can determine when it has been exercised?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I have to disagree, the Catholic Church corrects the false view of the “filioque”. As far as the Original “CREED”, we will recite the Apostles Creed in the liturgy of Ash Wed. This professed Apostolic Creed predates any changes made by the Nicene Creed which came later.

The goal in this regard of the Nicean Councils was to come up with a universal (catholic) profession of faith that would be uniform in all the Apostolic Churches. Surely one could see the multifold advantage of having a universal profession of faith, for all the ages, embodying all the critical truths and beliefs of the Apostolic Churches.

The first known reference to the “Creed of the Apostles” was attributed to St. Ambrose in 390, clearly after both Nicean Councils . If this Creed as now professed did exist and predate the Councils, it should have been put forth by the West as the desired form of Creed, and that should have been discussed and deliberated in these Councils in reaching their conclusions.

The CCC does a fair job of portraying this, especially if one is to trace the quotes sources referenced in the footnotes (in the case of the St. Ambrose attribution, it is footnote 7 on paragraph 191). It is explained that the [Latin Church’s] "presentation of the faith will follow the Apostles’ Creed, which constitutes, as it were, ‘the oldest Roman catechism’ " [CCC 196]. That is a far cry for claiming it is preferred as it is a more ancient profession of faith. It also notes that the Nicene Creed “draws its great authority from the fact that it stems from the first two ecumenical Councils (in 325 and 381)” and it “remains common to all the great Churches of both East and West to this day” [CCC 195].

And how is the Catholic Church “correcting the false view of the filioque”? That statement strongly suggests that the Church teaches the Creed without the filioque is somehow incorrect. That seems inconsistent both in relation to the statements in the CCC and to accepted practice in the Catholic Communion, as the Eastern Churches recite the Nicene Creed without the filioque with the full knowledge, consent and encouragement of Rome.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Credo ergo sum, I believe you can’t make mistake. Your very young and my personal opinion is you should seek a vocation.

I don’t envy your home situation and perhaps you will be the Light, however humble respect even in disagreement is a path you must follow. That is the path of the CC. Always search for the good for the Lord is always with you.

You need to be in one of the Apostolic Churchs and that is without doubt the CC or EO. The best situation for you is the Catholic Eastern Rite.

As I have said the debates make for good conversation, but all are called to be ONE in communion with Rome. And that my dear friend is the bottom line. Which there is absolutely no way around.

The Jesus Christ stated the Gates of Hell shall never prevail, that included heresy, schism and in fact “everything”. And had the gates of hell prevailed than Chirstianity itself would be a lie. And as we all well know, that is simply untrue.

There is NO debate which is new here, nor is there a question which hasn’t been discussed in depth. Use the Search engine and you will see.

Peace, Gary