Did the addition of the filioque change doctrine?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

theCardinalbird

Guest
I was wondering if the addition of the filioque changed doctrine, which is not allowed?
 
If you don’t know the identity of a playing card, and then turn it over, revealing it to be a King of Spades, does that change the identity of the card?

No.

Elaborating/enunciating doctrine does not change the doctrine, since said doctrine was previously unknown.
 
Yes, but before the filioque, wasn’t it only believed that the Holy Spirit came from the father?
 
Jesus says that He will send us the Advocate, AKA the Holy Spirit.
 
theCardinalbird said:
So why did the Eastern Orthodox make such a fuss over it?
Click to expand...
A lot of it was linguistic, some of it political, and some of it the resistance to the concept of the development of doctrine. There is still a resistance to changing any of the language of the ancient creeds, as should be so. If we can work through this with the Orthodox, everything else might fall into place.
theCardinalbird said:
I just was really wondering how we can prove the filioque wasn’t an illicit addition to the creed
Click to expand...
I don’t know that this can be “proved” to the Orthodox. They will not consider an “addition” to the creed as “licit” from their point of view. What may be possible for reconciliation is for us to come into agreement that we are all saying the same thing, though with different words. The Church got through this with the hypostatic union and monothelitism, so we know it can be done.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think we have to prove the negative. It seems that it would be up to a person to prove it did change doctrine.

I believe it is more of a difference in understanding, and the two views are the same. Here is a article from the main site to get started in looking at this:
https://www.catholic.com/tract/filioque
 
No, the issue there was less a doctrinal one that it was a matter of whether an ecumenical council should have been convened to amend the creed.
 
Nope, it’s just a further elaboration. The EO Churches like to accuse us of proposing a double spiration or two principles, which we do not. From the reunion Council of Florence:
For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.
Click to expand...
The problem is “Rome is wrong” unfortunately became more of a dogma for the EOs than the procession of the Holy Spirit itself. Giorgios Scholarios, an EO Patriarch who was more open than most to Western thought, said the following about our explanations:
for as long as they profess the Filioque in the Creed, even though they deny ten thousand times the Dyarchy (alt. trans; the two principles of Godhead) and Sabellian-like teaching, and other such things, or even should they renounce or state their intent of renouncing their teachings at some point, but still retain the Filioque, they still remain what they are.
Click to expand...
It also doesn’t help that many of them just outright reject many of the Latin Fathers who enunciated this doctrine. For example, their saint, Mark of Ephesus, said “The words of the western fathers and doctors, which attribute to the Son the cause of the Spirit, I never recognize.”

Sadly, there’s no reasoning with that kind of obstinacy.
 
No. The Greek word for “proceeds” used in the Creed is more specific than the Latin. It would not be doctrinally correct to add “and the Son” in Greek, but it is correct in Latin. The Filioque was incorporated into the profession of faith in the West because of heresies that were specifically problematic in the west. The procession of the Spirit from/through the Son is attested to in Patristics, even among popular eastern Church Fathers.
 
Last edited:
theCardinalbird said:
I was wondering if the addition of the filioque changed doctrine, which is not allowed?
Click to expand...
The “Spirit” is the Spirit of the Father and Son.

The issue is over “proceeds” vs “source” of the Spirit

Dual procession is orthodox, dual source is heretical.

JPII explains
 
Last edited:
theCardinalbird said:
40.png
Maximilian75:
Jesus says that He will send us the Advocate, AKA the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
true. So why did the Eastern Orthodox make such a fuss over it?
Click to expand...
Because it’s a difference in the language between Greek & Latin. The filioque in Greek is heresy. When Roman Rite Catholics have Mass in Greece, it’s prayed without the filioque because in Greek, the meaning changes.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top