Debating the filioque

[dzheremi]

Of all the OO churches, the Armenian is the one that is the most markedly different when it comes to things like this: The rest of us use leavened bread, while they use unleavened; the rest of us use the standard Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed, they use their own version that does not exactly match either form as we know them from each respective council, etc. It is quite odd, but also fascinating in that it really points to the extreme antiquity of their Church (as does their chant, what little iconography I’ve seen from their tradition, etc).

In digging around a bit for Armenian explanations for their different Creed, an Armenian acquaintance pointed out that the passages that are markedly different from the Creed as it appears in both the EO and the other OO churches actually have very close parallels in the Creeds of St. Ephiphanius (373/74). The first is basically the same as the standard Creed that we all know (which is remarkable given its age), but the second is very interesting. In it we find the affirmation that Christ “assumed perfect man, soul and body and mind and spirit, all that belongs to man” (cf. the Armenian “he took body, soul and mind and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance”), as well as the exposition that that the Holy Spirit “spake through the law”, “came down upon the Jordan”, and “dwells in the saints”, all of which match the Armenian phrasing.

This, combined with the fact that the anathemas that were present at the end of the 325 Creed are apparently still recited in that same place by the Armenians to this very day (and they are included in the Creed of Epiphanus, of course, as they had yet to be removed by the Church as a whole; that would come in 381) are strong indications that the Creed of St. Epiphanius is likely the source of the Creed as it is recited by the Armenians, and hence explain why it looks…well, like essentially what it is: a variant of the Nicene Creed written in the time between the adoption of the Nicene in 325 and its subsequent revision in 381. In that historical light, it is not weird at all.

As to why the Armenians accept the Council of Constantinople without updating their Creed to match its portion on the procession of the Holy Spirit, I couldn’t say. Just like how I won’t hazard a guess why what was an acceptable variant retained by the Armenians from sometime before Constantinople up to 451 (or maybe more accurately 506, as it wasn’t until then that the Armenians formally denounced the Tome of Leo at the Council of Dvin) is now unacceptable to the Byzantines.

There are parallel situations in the Catholic world, by the way, just in case anyone is curious. The Chaldeans use a variant of the Creed that is different than the standard, and I don’t just mean that they omit the filioque of the Latins with whom they are in communion. Check out the wording regarding the incarnation of Christ in comparison to the standard “was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary”; it is very interesting in light of their ecclesiastical origin and the controversies surrounding their mother church and its ideas about Christ and St. Mary.

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, Maker of all that is visible and invisible;

and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God and first born of all creatures, who was begotten from his Father before all the ages and was not made: true God from true God, of the same substance as his Father, by whose hands the world was ordered and everything was created, who, for us men and for our salvation, descended from heaven, betook a body by the power of the Holy Spirit, was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary and became man, who suffered and was crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate, who died, was buried and rose on the third day, in accordance with the Scriptures, who ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father, and who will come again to judge the dead and the living;

and in one Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father: the Giver of life; and in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. We confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.

(Taken from the reformed missal in English, as presented at kaldu.org)

 

[LionHeart777]

Sorry to derail but I just wanted to get these last thoughts (chapters?) in

The Eastern Fathers teach that our spiritual progress will continue after death, but do not believe in purgatory because we do not believe in temporal punishment. According to our theology Jesus Christ paid the full price for our sins on the Cross. Quotes from a few Fathers, mostly Western, does not represent the consensus of the Fathers.
St. Mark of Ephesus wrote, “The souls of the departed can indeed benefit to their ‘advancement,’ and even the damned to a relative ‘relief’ of their lot, thanks to the prayers of the Church and through the infinite mercy of God; but the notion of a punishment prior to the Last Judgment and of a purification through a material fire is altogether foreign to the tradition of the Church.”
I Corinthians 3: [12] Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw – [13] each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. [14] If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. [15] If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire."
The Eastern Fathers consider this a reference to Day of the Last Judgment as is indicated by the phrase, “for the Day will disclose it.” The fire is the cleansing love of God. On the day of the Last Judgment, we will stand before the perfect God. Our imperfections will be revealed and burned away by the love of God. Hebrews 12:39, " for our God is a consuming fire." St. John Chrysostom in his homilies on I Corinthinans also considers this section a reference to the Last Judgment.
We believe that the idea of purgatory and temporal punishment takes away from what Christ did for us on the Cross.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Father Morris,

Just to make a couple of points as I don’t want to keep on back & forth about purgatory, St. John Chrysostom, to my understanding, wrote in one of his homilies that in 1 Cor. 3:15, those who “shall be saved, yet so as by fire”, meant those spoken of here were preserved in hell for eternity. He wrote:

“This is no small subject of enquiry which we propose, but rather about things which are of the first necessity and which all men enquire about; namely, whether hell fire have any end. For that it has no end Christ indeed declared when he said, Their fire shall not be quenched, and their worm shall not die. [Mark 8:44, 46, 48.]”

“He himself shall not perish in the same way as his works, passing into nought, but he shall abide in the fire.”

Source: newadvent.org/fathers/220109.htm

Regarding the nature of the fire, perhaps some explanation would help. In Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary, we read on 1 Cor. 3:15 (in part):

“These words of the apostle, the Latin Fathers in the Council of Florence[1] brought against the Greeks to prove purgatory, to which the Greeks (who did not deny a purgatory, or a third place, where souls guilty of lesser sins were to suffer for a time) made answer, that these words of St. Paul were expounded by St. Chrysostom and some of their Greek Fathers (which is true) of the wicked in hell, who are said to be saved by fire, inasmuch as they always subsist and continue in those flames, and are not destroyed by them: but this interpretation, as the Latin bishops replied, is not agreeable to the style of the holy Scriptures, in which, to be saved, both in the Greek and Latin, is expressed the salvation and happiness of souls in heaven. It may not be amiss to take notice that the Greeks, before they met with the Latins at Ferrara, of Florence, did not deny the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. They admitted a third place, where souls guilty of lesser sins, suffered for a time, till cleansed from such sins: they allowed that the souls there detained from the vision of God, might be assisted by the prayers of the faithful: they called this purgatory a place of darkness, of sorrow, of punishments, and pains, but they did not allow there a true and material fire, which the Council did not judge necessary to decide and define against them, as appears in the definition of the Council.”

(Source: haydock1859.tripod.com/id164.html)

Similarly, Dr. Ludwig Ott writes in his “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”:

“The Latin Fathers, the Schoolmen, and many theologians of modern times, in view of 1 Cor. 3, 15, assume a physical fire. However, the biblical foundation for this is inadequate. Out of consideration for the separated Greeks, who reject the notion of a purifying fire, the official declarations of the Councils speak only of purifying punishments (poena purgatoriae), not of purifying fire.”

(Tan Books and Publisher’s Inc. , Rockford, Il. : 1960. Pg. 485)

So the notion of a literal purifying fire need not be an obstacle to reunion; not all Catholics even hold to that nor are they required to.

Continued…

 

[LionHeart777]

Continued…

Father Morris, you said, “The fire is the cleansing love of God.” This is completely consistent with Catholic Theology. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote in an Encyclical called Spe Salvi:

“In this text, it is in any case evident that our salvation can take different forms, that some of what is built may be burned down, that in order to be saved we personally have to pass through ‘fire’ so as to become fully open to receiving God and able to take our place at the table of the eternal marriage-feast.
47. Some recent theologians are of the opinion that the fire which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Saviour. The encounter with him is the decisive act of judgement. Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us, allowing us to become truly ourselves. All that we build during our lives can prove to be mere straw, pure bluster, and it collapses. Yet in the pain of this encounter, when the impurity and sickness of our lives become evident to us, there lies salvation. His gaze, the touch of his heart heals us through an undeniably painful transformation ‘as through fire’. But it is a blessed pain, in which the holy power of his love sears through us like a flame, enabling us to become totally ourselves and thus totally of God. In this way the inter-relation between justice and grace also becomes clear: the way we live our lives is not immaterial, but our defilement does not stain us for ever if we have at least continued to reach out towards Christ, towards truth and towards love. Indeed, it has already been burned away through Christ’s Passion. At the moment of judgement we experience and we absorb the overwhelming power of his love over all the evil in the world and in ourselves. The pain of love becomes our salvation and our joy. It is clear that we cannot calculate the “duration” of this transforming burning in terms of the chronological measurements of this world. The transforming ‘moment’ of this encounter eludes earthly time-reckoning—it is the heart’s time, it is the time of ‘passage’ to communion with God in the Body of Christ[39]. The judgement of God is hope, both because it is justice and because it is grace. If it were merely grace, making all earthly things cease to matter, God would still owe us an answer to the question about justice—the crucial question that we ask of history and of God. If it were merely justice, in the end it could bring only fear to us all. The incarnation of God in Christ has so closely linked the two together—judgement and grace—that justice is firmly established: we all work out our salvation ‘with fear and trembling’ (Phil 2:12). Nevertheless grace allows us all to hope, and to go trustfully to meet the Judge whom we know as our ‘advocate’, or parakletos (cf. 1 Jn 2:1).

Source: vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html

So the idea of a literal purifying fire need not be an obstacle to reunion, because to my understanding, it is an acceptable Theologoumenon within Catholicism, not a Dogma or an official view of the Catholic Church. To my understanding, as one Catholic author has written:

“Some imagine that the Catholic Church has an elaborate doctrine of purgatory worked out, but there are only three essential components of the doctrine: (1) that a purification after death exists, (2) that it involves some kind of pain, and (3) that the purification can be assisted by the prayers and offerings by the living to God. Other ideas, such that purgatory is a particular ‘place’ in the afterlife or that it takes time to accomplish, are speculations rather than doctrines.”

Source: catholic.com/tracts/the-roots-of-purgatory

Also, helpful to this conversation is another explanation of the Catholic position:

“It is entirely correct to say that Christ accomplished all of our salvation for us on the cross. But that does not settle the question of how this redemption is applied to us. Scripture reveals that it is applied to us over the course of time through, among other things, the process of sanctification through which the Christian is made holy. Sanctification involves suffering (Rom. 5:3–5), and purgatory is the final stage of sanctification that some of us need to undergo before we enter heaven. Purgatory is the final phase of Christ’s applying to us the purifying redemption that he accomplished for us by his death on the cross.”

Source: catholic.com/tracts/purgatory

Continued…

 

[LionHeart777]

Continued…

Finally, regarding Temporal punishments, the following will be helpful perhaps:

“The Bible indicates some punishments are eternal, lasting forever, but others are temporal. Eternal punishment is mentioned in Daniel 12:2: ‘And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt.’
We normally focus on the eternal penalties of sin, because they are the most important, but Scripture indicates temporal penalties are real and go back to the first sin humans committed: ‘To the woman he said, ‘I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children (Gen. 3:16)…

When someone repents, God removes his guilt (Is. 1:18) and any eternal punishment (Rom. 5:9), but temporal penalties may remain. One passage demonstrating this is 2 Samuel 12, in which Nathan the prophet confronts David over his adultery:
‘Then David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’ Nathan answered David: ‘The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin; you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die’’ (2 Sam. 12:13-14). God forgave David but David still had to suffer the loss of his son as well as other temporal punishments (2 Sam. 12:7-12). (For other examples, see: Numbers 14:13-23; 20:12; 27:12-14.)
Protestants realize that, while Jesus paid the price for our sins before God, he did not relieve our obligation to repair what we have done. They fully acknowledge that if you steal someone’s car, you have to give it back; it isn’t enough just to repent. God’s forgiveness (and man’s!) does not include letting you keep the stolen car.
Protestants also admit the principle of temporal penalties for sin, in practice, when discussing death. Scripture says death entered the world through original sin (Gen. 3:22-24, Rom. 5:12). When we first come to God we are forgiven, and when we sin later we are able to be forgiven, yet that does not free us from the penalty of physical death. Even the forgiven die; a penalty remains after our sins are forgiven. This is a temporal penalty since physical death is temporary and we will be resurrected (Dan. 12:2).”

Source: catholic.com/tracts/primer-on-indulgences

In any event Father Morris, I hope all of this helps in our personal dialogue here.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Continued…

Finally, regarding Temporal punishments, the following will be helpful perhaps:

“The Bible indicates some punishments are eternal, lasting forever, but others are temporal. Eternal punishment is mentioned in Daniel 12:2: ‘And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt.’
We normally focus on the eternal penalties of sin, because they are the most important, but Scripture indicates temporal penalties are real and go back to the first sin humans committed: ‘To the woman he said, ‘I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children (Gen. 3:16)…

When someone repents, God removes his guilt (Is. 1:18) and any eternal punishment (Rom. 5:9), but temporal penalties may remain. One passage demonstrating this is 2 Samuel 12, in which Nathan the prophet confronts David over his adultery:
‘Then David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’ Nathan answered David: ‘The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin; you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die’’ (2 Sam. 12:13-14). God forgave David but David still had to suffer the loss of his son as well as other temporal punishments (2 Sam. 12:7-12). (For other examples, see: Numbers 14:13-23; 20:12; 27:12-14.)
Protestants realize that, while Jesus paid the price for our sins before God, he did not relieve our obligation to repair what we have done. They fully acknowledge that if you steal someone’s car, you have to give it back; it isn’t enough just to repent. God’s forgiveness (and man’s!) does not include letting you keep the stolen car.
Protestants also admit the principle of temporal penalties for sin, in practice, when discussing death. Scripture says death entered the world through original sin (Gen. 3:22-24, Rom. 5:12). When we first come to God we are forgiven, and when we sin later we are able to be forgiven, yet that does not free us from the penalty of physical death. Even the forgiven die; a penalty remains after our sins are forgiven. This is a temporal penalty since physical death is temporary and we will be resurrected (Dan. 12:2).”

Source: catholic.com/tracts/primer-on-indulgences

In any event Father Morris, I hope all of this helps in our personal dialogue here./QUTE

The fundamental problem with all your quotes is that they all come from the Old Testament before Christ died for our sins. Another problem is that you are treating salvation exclusively in legalistic terms. Forgiveness of sins is only the beginning of salvation. After God forgives our sins and we are justified, we still must grow to deifcation. The Eastern Fathers teach that this growth continues after death in Heaven. If you can redefine purgatory as our continued spiritual growth after death that can be accepted by Orthodox, but we cannot accept the concept of temporal punishment because we believe that Christ paid the full and complete price for our sins. Thus there is no place for temporal punishment in Orthodox theology. To me, Catholic theology tries too hard to understand the mysteries of God, including exactly what happens to us when we die.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Zekariya]

The fundamental problem with all your quotes is that they all come from the Old Testament before Christ died for our sins. Another problem is that you are treating salvation exclusively in legalistic terms. Forgiveness of sins is only the beginning of salvation. After God forgives our sins and we are justified, we still must grow to deifcation. The Eastern Fathers teach that this growth continues after death in Heaven. If you can redefine purgatory as our continued spiritual growth after death that can be accepted by Orthodox, but we cannot accept the concept of temporal punishment because we believe that Christ paid the full and complete price for our sins. Thus there is no place for temporal punishment in Orthodox theology. To me, Catholic theology tries too hard to understand the mysteries of God, including exactly what happens to us when we die.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Father, do you agree with this understanding of penance:

The canons of the holy Councils and the Holy Fathers affirm that penances in antiquity were considered a means of spiritual healing; that the ancient pastors, placing them upon sinners, were not concerned merely to punish justly, one more and another less, in accordance with the crimes of each, for the proper satisfaction of God’s justice for sins, but that they had in mind the good influence of these punishments upon the sinner. Therefore, if they saw a need for it they would lessen them, shorten the time of the interdiction, or even remove them completely. A canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council says: “It behooves those who have received from God the power to loose and bind, to consider the quality of the sin and the readiness of the sinner for conversion, and to apply medicine suitable for the disease, lest if he is injudicious in each of these respects he should fail in regard to the healing of the sick man. For the disease of sin is not simple, but various and multiform, and it germinates many mischievous offshoots, from which much evil is diffused, and it proceeds further until it is checked by the power of the physician” (Canon 102 of the Quinisext Council (considered as part of the Sixth Ecumenical Council); Eerdmans Seven Ecumenical Councils, p. 408).

• Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, Ch 8

 

[jimmy]

I think that in the end our Lord will show less mercy to those whether from East or West who used some doctrine, dogma, or tradition as a bar to unity. Than he will to those who for the sake of unity erred along the way. I say this because for 1000 years we have both said that only when we have common understanding can we have unity. I think this is backwards. We have failed to have a common understanding because we are not united. That we will continue to fail until we are unified. As St Paul has taught us in 1 Corinthians;

May the Lord Jesus bless us all.

You have just condemned the fathers of all the ecumenical councils, and al the saints who opposed any particular doctrine.

 

[frjohnmorris]

The Holy Spirit is not just the Spirit of the Father “It is the Spirit of the Father that speaketh in you” (Matt. 10:20) but He is the Spirit of the Son as well " God sent the Spirit of the Son into your hearts." (Gal. 4:6). And " Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His" (Romans 8:9). And " for I know that this will result in deliverance for me* through your prayers and support from the Spirit of Jesus Christ." (Phil. 1:19).

Jesus said “All that the Father has is mine” (John 16:15) and “The Father and I are one” (John 10:30). Now if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Jesus has all that the Father has ( except the generative power of the Father), and the Father and the Son are one power, then it would seem that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father and this is the Catholic faith. Jesus said " He (the Holy Spirit) will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. (John 16: 14-15).

Many of the Greek Fathers speak of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father through the Son. The Catholic Church does not disagree with this at all. For everything that the Son has is from the Father. However, according to Catholic faith, it would be incorrect to say that the Father is the sole principle of the Holy Spirit ( I am not implying that the Greek Fathers say this). We believe rather that the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit. The procession of the Holy Spirit is from both the Father and the Son, or if you like, from the Father through the Son.

The quote from St Gregory of Nyssa I gave in my last post I got from Appendix II in the Summa Theologica of St Thomas Aquinas.

There is only one place in the Holy Scriptures that speaks directly to this issue, John 15:26 which states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son. This is why the 2nd Ecumenical Council, Constantinople I in 381, which added the final clause to the Creed stated that that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, not the Father and the Son. The last 5 Ecumenical Councils ratified the Creed as written by the first two Ecumenical Councils. Thus, one has not only the witness of the infallible Scriptures, but also the witness of the voice of the then undivided Church infallibly expressed through the Ecumenical Councils against the filioque.
The texts that you quote above refer to the unity of the three persons of the Holy Trinity which is three persons “one in essence and undivided,” as we state during the Orthodox Divine Liturgy. They do not speak to the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit. By applying them to this question you are doing eisegesis, which is reading your personal theology into the Bible. You are also making the mistake of trying to use human reason to comprehend the mystery of the Holy Trinity. The Orthodox objection to the doctrine of the double procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is best expressed by the Mystagogia written by St. Phoius the Great. He wrote that the doctrine of the double procession of the Holy Spirit confuses the characters and attributes of the Father and the Son, thereby leading to a form of the Sabellian heresy. He also argued that by concentrating on the Father and the Son, Western theologians risk neglecting the work of the Holy Spirit. Therefore St. Photius argued that the phrase “through the Son” or “and the Son” referred to temporal mission of the Holy Spirit as sent by the Son not the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father meant to be expressed in the Creed. Originally Rome also objected to the addition of the filioque to the creed. To emphasize his opposition to the filioque, Pope Leo III had two silver shields engraved with the text of the Creed in Greek and Latin without the filioque hung in St. Peter’s in 810. Pope John VIII accepted the decision of the Council of Constantinople of 879, which forbade any changes in the Creed as adopted and ratified by the Ecumenical Councils. However by 1014, Rome reneged on its agreement with the East not to change the Creed and began to use the filioque in the Creed.
There are also political overtones to the filioque controversy because when Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne the Emperor in 800, he lacked the authority to award the imperial title because before the title Emperor had been sole prerogative of the Emperor in Constantinople. To support his claim to the imperial title, Charlemagne set up his court in Aachen as a rival to Constantinople. His aids sought to establish their independence of Constantinople by asserting their independence of the Eastern Fathers by emphasizing Augustine and the filioque clause. Initially, as noted above, the Popes rejected the addition of the filioque to the Creed. However, by 1014, Benedict VIII yielded to the pressure of the rulers of the Holy Roman Empire and used the Creed with the filioque for the first time in Rome at the coronation of Emperor Henry II.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

It is a dogma of the Catholic faith that the Holy Spirit proceeds equally from the Father and the Son. This is an article of our faith which we proclaim every Sunday at Mass when we recite the Creed “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son” and it cannot be doubted. This article of the faith has the certainty and infallibility of the Magisterium of the Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit and which the Church proposes for our belief as being divinely revealed. The Creed summarizes the chief truths of the Catholic faith and one of these truths is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. This truth has been dogmatically defined in councils of the Church with the approval and approbation of the Roman Pontiff who has supreme authority over the entire Church.

I RESPOND: Here you have gone directly to the heart of the dispute between the Orthodox Church and the papacy. We believe that the highest authority in the Church is not the Bishop of Rome, but the 7 Ecumenical Councils. We still decide matters by councils. However, out of deference to the 7 Ecumenical Councils, call them Pan-Orthodo Councils. It is clear that the Ecumencial Councils themselves assumed authority over the Bishop of Rome. Canon VI does not give Rome universal jurisdiction, but limits Rome’s authority to those territories already under Rome and affirms the independence of the two other Primates, Alexandria, and Antioch then called Metropolitans. As the Church grew Constantinople and Jerusalem joined the ranks of regional Primates, then called Patriarchs in Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem, and Popes in Rome and Alexandria. Note that both titles come from the Greek or Latin word for Father. The 5 Patriarchs were ranked according to seniority in this order: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. However these ranks were purely honorific and did no imply that a Patriarch with higher rank had any authority over a Patriarch with a lower rank. Instead, each Patriarch governed his own Patriarchate together with a council or synod of the leading Bishops of his Patriarchate subject only to the higher authority of an Ecumenical Council. Thus, during the time of the Ecumenical Councils, Rome had a primacy of honor as first among equals, rather than the universal jurisdiction and infallibility now claimed by the Popes. Significantly the rank enjoyed by Rome had nothing to do with St. Peter, but rather with the fact that he was the Bishop of the capital of the Empire. The first Bishop of Antioch was St. Peter, but Antioch ranked 4th below Rome, Constantinople, and Alexandria. Canon 28 of the 4th Council, Chalcedon in 451, granted the Patriarch of Constantinople equal rank with the Roman Pope because Constantinople is the new Rome. However, the Ecumenical Councils retained their position as the highest authority in the Church. The history of the acts of the Councils show without a doubt that the Ecumenical Councils had authority over Rome. During the 5th Council, Constantinople II in 553, Pope Vigilius, who happened to be in Constantinople at the time, refused to attend or agree to the decrees of the Council. Finally, the Council threatened to excommunicate him if he did not accept the decisions of the Council, and he recanted and accepted the dogmatic decrees of the Council specifying that Chalcedon must be interpreted in conformity with the teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria. The next Council, Constantinople III in 680 did not hesitate to condemn Pope Honorius I for heresy. Therefore, there is no doubt that the 7 Ecumenical Council did not recognize universal Papal jurisdiction or consider themselves subject to Papal authority.
The Creed as written by the first 2 Ecumenical Councils and ratified by the remaining 5 Ecumenical Councils did not contain the filioque, but simply stated that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Therefore the Orthodox have remained faithful to the Faith of the ancient undivided church by rejecting the authority of the Pope to change the Creed as written by the Ecumenical Councils by adding the filioque clause.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

Let us look at the only Biblical statement on the procession of the Holy Spirit. St. John 15:26. “But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me;” As I thought about our discussion it suddenly occurred to me that the statement referring to the sending of the Holy Spirit by the Son is in the future tense. At the time that He said it, the Holy Spirit had not been sent by the Son. Therefore, since we know that the Holy Spirit has always existed, it is illogical and un Biblical to argue that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son. Instead in time, the Son sent the Holy Spirit. That is why some of the Eastern Fathers and liturgical texts speak of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son. After His Resurrection, the Son sent the Holy Spirit on the Apostles, giving them the authority to pronounce the forgiveness of sins. Then after Pentecost, the Son sent the Holy Spirit on the Apostles. Now we receive the Holy Spirit through their successors,our Bishops, through the Sacrament of Confirmation. Even when a Priest administers Confirmation, the common practice among Orthodox, and one that is also allowed in the Roman Catholic Church, he uses Holy Chrism consecrated by a Bishop.

 

[gus]

It is a dogma of the Catholic faith that the Holy Spirit proceeds equally from the Father and the Son. This is an article of our faith which we proclaim every Sunday at Mass when we recite the Creed “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son” and it cannot be doubted. This article of the faith has the certainty and infallibility of the Magisterium of the Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit and which the Church proposes for our belief as being divinely revealed. The Creed summarizes the chief truths of the Catholic faith and one of these truths is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. This truth has been dogmatically defined in councils of the Church with the approval and approbation of the Roman Pontiff who has supreme authority over the entire Church.

I RESPOND: Here you have gone directly to the heart of the dispute between the Orthodox Church and the papacy. We believe that the highest authority in the Church is not the Bishop of Rome, but the 7 Ecumenical Councils. We still decide matters by councils. However, out of deference to the 7 Ecumenical Councils, call them Pan-Orthodo Councils. It is clear that the Ecumencial Councils themselves assumed authority over the Bishop of Rome. Canon VI does not give Rome universal jurisdiction, but limits Rome’s authority to those territories already under Rome and affirms the independence of the two other Primates, Alexandria, and Antioch then called Metropolitans. As the Church grew Constantinople and Jerusalem joined the ranks of regional Primates, then called Patriarchs in Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem, and Popes in Rome and Alexandria. Note that both titles come from the Greek or Latin word for Father. The 5 Patriarchs were ranked according to seniority in this order: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. However these ranks were purely honorific and did no imply that a Patriarch with higher rank had any authority over a Patriarch with a lower rank. Instead, each Patriarch governed his own Patriarchate together with a council or synod of the leading Bishops of his Patriarchate subject only to the higher authority of an Ecumenical Council. Thus, during the time of the Ecumenical Councils, Rome had a primacy of honor as first among equals, rather than the universal jurisdiction and infallibility now claimed by the Popes. Significantly the rank enjoyed by Rome had nothing to do with St. Peter, but rather with the fact that he was the Bishop of the capital of the Empire. The first Bishop of Antioch was St. Peter, but Antioch ranked 4th below Rome, Constantinople, and Alexandria. Canon 28 of the 4th Council, Chalcedon in 451, granted the Patriarch of Constantinople equal rank with the Roman Pope because Constantinople is the new Rome. However, the Ecumenical Councils retained their position as the highest authority in the Church. The history of the acts of the Councils show without a doubt that the Ecumenical Councils had authority over Rome. During the 5th Council, Constantinople II in 553, Pope Vigilius, who happened to be in Constantinople at the time, refused to attend or agree to the decrees of the Council. Finally, the Council threatened to excommunicate him if he did not accept the decisions of the Council, and he recanted and accepted the dogmatic decrees of the Council specifying that Chalcedon must be interpreted in conformity with the teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria. The next Council, Constantinople III in 680 did not hesitate to condemn Pope Honorius I for heresy. Therefore, there is no doubt that the 7 Ecumenical Council did not recognize universal Papal jurisdiction or consider themselves subject to Papal authority.
The Creed as written by the first 2 Ecumenical Councils and ratified by the remaining 5 Ecumenical Councils did not contain the filioque, but simply stated that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Therefore the Orthodox have remained faithful to the Faith of the ancient undivided church by rejecting the authority of the Pope to change the Creed as written by the Ecumenical Councils by adding the filioque clause.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Nicene I made no mention of procession.
The Latin word for procedes has multible meaning.
Apparently the original Greek word would be translated as originated with. In Latin it could also mean " distributed by". This is clearly evident in the Gospel of John were Jesus promises to send the Paraclete. Also in John when Jesus breathes on the Apostles.The spirit is certainly proceeding from Jesus by the Latin definition.
I’m not a Greek Scholar but apparently to add "and the son "in Greek would be heretical. Given the limited definition of the Greek word.Too my knowledge Greek Speaking Catholics never make this addition. So that’s not a problem.

On the Latin Side to deny the distribution of the Holy Spirit by Jesus is also heretical.Is that actually the Orthodox posisition? If that’s the case than we have a far greater problem. I certainly hope it’s nothing more than a language barrier.
.

 

[AndyP2010]

You have just condemned the fathers of all the ecumenical councils, and al the saints who opposed any particular doctrine.

jimmy

Let me be a little clearer. I believe that in our present day situation there are those in both the East and in the West who use dogma as a way to block unity. They are not really interested in dogma, doctrine or scripture beyond their desire to block unity.

 

[frjohnmorris]

QUOTE The Latin word for procedes has multible meaning.
Apparently the original Greek word would be translated as originated with. In Latin it could also mean " distributed by". This is clearly evident in the Gospel of John were Jesus promises to send the Paraclete. Also in John when Jesus breathes on the Apostles.The spirit is certainly proceeding from Jesus by the Latin definition.
I’m not a Greek Scholar but apparently to add "and the son "in Greek would be heretical. Given the limited definition of the Greek word.Too my knowledge Greek Speaking Catholics never make this addition. So that’s not a problem. END QUOTE

I RESPOND: You have made a very good point. I am quite certain that many of our misunderstandings of each other are caused by linguistic differences between Greek and Latin.
However, since the Creed as written and ratified by the Ecumenical Councils was the Greek version, we have to consider the Greek text the authoritative one as understood by the actual meanings of the Greek words used. Since the original Greek text used a word that also means “originated with” any translation of the Creed into Latin or any other language must convey the meaning of the original Greek text. Since the words, “and the Son” were not in the Creed as approved by the Ecumenical Councils it should not be added to the Latin translation of the Creed.
Of course Orthodox Christians believe the Holy Spirit is sent or, if you will distributed, by the Son. No Orthodox theologian has ever questioned that Biblical teaching. That is why Greek Fathers and Orthodox liturgical texts speak of the Holy Spirit proceeding “through the Son.” Thus Orthodox have no problem if the filioque is defined as meaning that the Holy Spirit is sent or distributed by the Son. However, we still have a problem with changing the wording of the Creed as written and approved by the Ecumenical Councils. The Latin definition of proceeding as distributed by belongs in theological works, not in the text of the Creed which must convey the original meaning of the Greek text. Just as Orthodox theological works speak of the sending of the Holy Spirit by the Son but would not think of changing the wording of the Creed to express this theological point.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[ronyodish]

Dear Fr. Morris,

Do you believe that the Greek language must be the standard, normative, and authoritative language for all Christians?

I ask this, because as an Assyrian-Chaldean Christian, we do not consider the Greek language to be the standard, normative, and authoritative language in our Church and tradition. Instead, we consider Aramaic to be our standard, normative, and authoritative language.

God bless,

Rony

 

[Richca]

Let us look at the only Biblical statement on the procession of the Holy Spirit. St. John 15:26. “But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me;” As I thought about our discussion it suddenly occurred to me that the statement referring to the sending of the Holy Spirit by the Son is in the future tense. At the time that He said it, the Holy Spirit had not been sent by the Son. Therefore, since we know that the Holy Spirit has always existed, it is illogical and un Biblical to argue that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son. Instead in time, the Son sent the Holy Spirit. That is why some of the Eastern Fathers and liturgical texts speak of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son. After His Resurrection, the Son sent the Holy Spirit on the Apostles, giving them the authority to pronounce the forgiveness of sins. Then after Pentecost, the Son sent the Holy Spirit on the Apostles. Now we receive the Holy Spirit through their successors,our Bishops, through the Sacrament of Confirmation. Even when a Priest administers Confirmation, the common practice among Orthodox, and one that is also allowed in the Roman Catholic Church, he uses Holy Chrism consecrated by a Bishop.

Hello FrJohnMorris,

The Catholic Church does not deem it illogical or unbiblical that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Jesus said “The Father and I are one” (John 10:30); and "He (the Holy Spirit) will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. " (John 16: 14-15)
And the Creed states that our Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, is “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father.”

According to the foregoing, the Catholic Church believes that the Father and Son are identical and one in everything except their relation of origin: the Father begets the Son and the Son is begotten from all eternity. The Son’s origin from the Father is the only thing that distinguishes Him from the Father. The Father communicates to His Son His entire being and nature from all eternity, thus the Son is true God from true God.
Such being the case, the Father communicates to the Son the power to spirate the Holy Spirit for Jesus said “Everything that the Father has is mine” and we profess in the Creed about the Son, “true God from true God, Light from Light, consubstantial with the Father.”
That the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of both the Father and the Son is attested to in Sacred Scripture. “It is the Spirit of the Father that speaketh in you” (Matt. 10:20), “God sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts” (Gal. 4:6); “through your prayers and support from the Spirit of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:19).
The Holy Spirit is sent by both the Father and the Son: “But I tell you the truth, it is better for you that I go. For if I do not go, the Advocate will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.” (John 16:7); “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate* to be with you always, the Spirit of truth” (John 14: 16-17).
So, with good reason does the Catholic Church believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. And this belief is also attested to in a number of the church fathers and it is an older tradition in the Church than the one that began with Photius in the 9th century who declared that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “alone.” None of the earlier ecumenical councils declared that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “alone.” Indeed, this would have been contrary to the teaching of many of the latin fathers and some popes.

Another doctrine of the Catholic Church that concerns this discussion on the Holy Spirit is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the will or from the mutual love of the Father and of the Son. Dr Ludwig Ott lists this doctrine as theologically certain in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Whether your Church has a doctrine such as this I do not know. Scripture and Tradition ascribe the works of love to the Holy Spirit " the love of God is poured forth into our hearts by the Holy Spirit who is given to us" ( Romans 5:5).
That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the will or mutual love of the Father and the Son can only be if the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.

 

[Richca]

Let us look at the only Biblical statement on the procession of the Holy Spirit. St. John 15:26. “But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me;” As I thought about our discussion it suddenly occurred to me that the statement referring to the sending of the Holy Spirit by the Son is in the future tense. At the time that He said it, the Holy Spirit had not been sent by the Son. Therefore, since we know that the Holy Spirit has always existed, it is illogical and un Biblical to argue that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son. Instead in time, the Son sent the Holy Spirit. That is why some of the Eastern Fathers and liturgical texts speak of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son. After His Resurrection, the Son sent the Holy Spirit on the Apostles, giving them the authority to pronounce the forgiveness of sins. Then after Pentecost, the Son sent the Holy Spirit on the Apostles. Now we receive the Holy Spirit through their successors,our Bishops, through the Sacrament of Confirmation. Even when a Priest administers Confirmation, the common practice among Orthodox, and one that is also allowed in the Roman Catholic Church, he uses Holy Chrism consecrated by a Bishop.

Hello FrJohnMorris,

The Catholic Church does not deem it illogical or unbiblical that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Jesus said “The Father and I are one” (John 10:30); and "He (the Holy Spirit) will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. " (John 16: 14-15)
And the Creed states that our Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, is “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father.”

According to the foregoing, the Catholic Church believes that the Father and Son are identical and one in everything except their relation of origin: the Father begets the Son and the Son is begotten from all eternity. The Son’s origin from the Father is the only thing that distinguishes Him from the Father. The Father communicates to His Son His entire being and nature from all eternity, thus the Son is true God from true God.
Such being the case, the Father communicates to the Son the power to spirate the Holy Spirit along with Him.
That the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of both the Father and the Son is attested to in Sacred Scripture. “It is the Spirit of the Father that speaketh in you” (Matt. 10:20), “God sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts” (Gal. 4:6); “through your prayers and support from the Spirit of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:19).
The Holy Spirit is sent by both the Father and the Son: “But I tell you the truth, it is better for you that I go. For if I do not go, the Advocate will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.” (John 16:7); “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate* to be with you always, the Spirit of truth” (John 14: 16-17).
So, with good reason does the Catholic Church believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. And this belief is also attested to in a number of the church fathers and it is an older tradition in the Church than the one that began with Photius in the 9th century who declared that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “alone.” None of the earlier ecumenical councils declared that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “alone.” Indeed, this would have been contrary to the teaching of many of the latin fathers and some popes.

Another doctrine of the Catholic Church that concerns this discussion on the Holy Spirit is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the will or from the mutual love of the Father and of the Son. Dr Ludwig Ott lists this doctrine as theologically certain in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Whether your Church has a doctrine such as this I do not know. Scripture and Tradition ascribe the works of love to the Holy Spirit " the love of God is poured forth into our hearts by the Holy Spirit who is given to us" ( Romans 5:5).
That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the will or mutual love of the Father and the Son can only be if the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.

 

[chimo]

What then did Christ accomplish on the Cross? Did He not take our punishment for us on the Cross? St. Paul wrote, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” II Cor 5:21.
We believe that Christ paid the full price for our sins on the Cross and took our punishment upon Himself.

Archpreist John W. Morris

Father I believe St. Paul was correct and Jesus did everything for us but the fact remains that people may still not get it. Jesus knew what He had done but the fact is that our attitudes still might need to be satisfied before God. We are forgiven but that does not mean your attitude can be one of gratitude and thankfulness for you need to really believe it. Here the doctrine of Purgatory is also for those with still have this attitude problem that still needs to be dwelt with. Forgiveness does not automatically make you right with God because some still have doubts or others are not sincere or they don’t show thankfulness or gratitude. For these God still needs them to help change their behaviors or attitudes.

 

[dzheremi]

What? That sounds ridiculous, and I highly doubt that’s what the Latins teach about purgatory (I do not remember hearing any such thing when I was RC; maybe it’s changed in the last few years). Purgatory is meant to fix some kind of “attitude problem”?

If there is any sense by which we might have things in common on this matter, it is in the general belief that there may be no impurity in heaven. But this is not made the basis of any kind of dogma or doctrine that diminishes the totality of Christ’s salvation via the cross by having a second type of punishment after being forgiven already, heaven forbid. Rather, purgatory arose with an overemphasis in the Latin West on concepts of debt and satisfaction which were not as emphasized in the East (though they are still there, and in some instances you can find an emphasis on them in particular prayers; the important difference being, again, that this does not establish anything like “Purgatory” as anything more than theologoumena…the trouble being that the Latin Church didn’t keep it at that level).

 

[chimo]

This is a complex subject.
I do not want to insult you or offend Roman Catholics, but we would not base doctrine on the visions of any one Saint, but base doctrine on Holy Tradition which is expressed by the Holy Scriptures, the consensus of the Fathers and contemporary theologians, the worship of the Church, the decisions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils and Pan-Orthodox Councils such as those that declared the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas the official teachings of the Orthodox Church.
Orthodoxy teaches that one does not have to name all their sins in Confession, but that they have to confess that they are a sinner in need of God’s grace. Therefore if their confession that they are a sinner is sincere it does not matter if they have forgotten something as long as they are repentant for all their sins known and unknown.
We do not distinguish as sharply as Roman Catholics between mortal and venial sins. Obviously, however, there are sins like murder and adultery that are worse than other sins. We would reject the teaching that God ever leaves us even after a mortal sin. I think that this is because we start from a different place. We do not believe in the Augustinian doctrine of original sin. We believe that we inherit the consequences of ancestral sin, but are only guilty of our own sins. Thus we do not believe in inherited guilt. We also believe that no sin can completely destroy the Image of God in which we are all created.
We also believe that God’s justice was satisfied on the Cross. There is a hymn sung by Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics during the pre-Lenten season, “Thou hast nailed my sins to the Cross…” There is nothing that we can do that can add to what Christ has done for us on the Cross. Indeed, if we rely on our own spiritual works to earn forgiveness of sins, we are not relying on Christ. Thus we think of spiritual growth, rather than purification. It is like when we have been ill and have been healed, but are still weak and need to recuperate. The sin has been forgiven, but we are still weak and need further spiritual growth.
Where we can come together is that we believe that spiritual growth continues after death. Even those in Heaven continue their spiritual growth towards deification.

Archpriest John W. Morris

The visions of Jesus to St. Maria Faustina did not bring into light any new doctrine. The words of Jesus only confirms what is taught in the Roman Catholic Church about Purgatory. Certainly if the Lord Jesus talks about Purgatory to a certain saint it is because He agrees to what the Catholic Church had developed into her own teachings throughout the years. The Lord Jesus had He chosen an Eastern person to give out His message about His Mercy would have given to this person everything about Mercy He had given to St. Maria but He would have probably omitted any discussions on Purgatory since the Eastern person has no knowledge of it. God respects the right of what His Church knows and understands but if Jesus wanted to express thoughts on Purgatory He has to choose a Catholic since it is the Catholic Church that would understand more what it is.

The teaching that Jesus leaves such a person after committing a mortal sin does not signify that Jesus does not have any more concern for that soul. On the contrary He is more inclined to that soul to help it. The fact that God leaves such a soul is more the understanding the Holy Spirit cannot remain in a person who for instances kills and commits more adultery. How can God be in a person who commits such acts. He cannot be part of it so He leaves the soul that had Him. Again this does not mean God does not care. He still does. His Heart is always open to heal such persons. In fact He is more willingly to help to heal them than for those who do not commit such acts. But the matter of fact is this. This soul to reclaim back its baptismal inheritance cannot be baptised again so that another route must be taken. The Confessional is that route.

I believe also that St. Augustine was not entirely correct on this subject on Original Sin. Perhaps the Eastern understanding was not available to him or that the Eastern understanding was not yet formulated at that time to what we know today. I agree with you that the Original Sin as proposed by the West lays too much guilt on this and carries too much weight that needs an Eastern (name removed by moderator)ut to keep it align with what the Eastern Fathers had spoken about it.

 

[chimo]

What? That sounds ridiculous, and I highly doubt that’s what the Latins teach about purgatory (I do not remember hearing any such thing when I was RC; maybe it’s changed in the last few years). Purgatory is meant to fix some kind of “attitude problem”?

If there is any sense by which we might have things in common on this matter, it is in the general belief that there may be no impurity in heaven. But this is not made the basis of any kind of dogma or doctrine that diminishes the totality of Christ’s salvation via the cross by having a second type of punishment after being forgiven already, heaven forbid. Rather, purgatory arose with an overemphasis in the Latin West on concepts of debt and satisfaction which were not as emphasized in the East (though they are still there, and in some instances you can find an emphasis on them in particular prayers; the important difference being, again, that this does not establish anything like “Purgatory” as anything more than theologoumena…the trouble being that the Latin Church didn’t keep it at that level).

Ingratitude cannot enter heaven. This was spoken by one of the Catholic saints. Purgatory teaches you to give you the time for you to be grateful if you did not express it in this life. If one is still not grateful at death then how do you expect them to be grateful in heaven. God will still give us this time to learn to express it.