Do Eastern Catholics accept the filioque?

[Alethiaphile]

However, as Bpbasilphx has already pointed out, there is no Filioque in the Creed in any of the Eastern Churches with the Byzantine Tradition.

I understand that. But, as has been pointed out here many times, Eastern Catholics are supposedly bound by the post-schism papal declarations and declarations of the post-schism western “ecumenical” councils, such as Lyons and Florence. Those definitions state that the Filioque, understood as stating that the Holy Spirit proceeeds “eternally” and “equally” from the Father and the Son, "as from one principle, must be believed. It is concerning that that I was wondering if it caused you any problem. Joe

 

[twf]

Alethiaphile:
You are misrepresenting Catholic doctrine. It has been pointed on on these boards many times that the Catholic Church teaches that the Spirit proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son, which is also what the Eastern Fathers maintained. Please don’t read your own interpretation of Catholic doctrine and Latin theology into the councils. I will leave the proper interpretation of the councils to the magisterium. Unless you have studied the original Latin within the context of medieval Latin theology, do not assume you understand the councils better than the modern magisterium (popes and bishops alive today). A good guy to ask on this point would be Ghosty. The Catholic Church strongly believes that Latin, Byzantine, and Oriental theologies are more or less complimentary once we get past semantics and misinterpretations/misunderstandings.

 

[Alethiaphile]

Alethiaphile:
You are misrepresenting Catholic doctrine. It has been pointed on on these boards many times that the Catholic Church teaches that the Spirit proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son, which is also what the Eastern Fathers maintained. Please don’t read your own interpretation of Catholic doctrine and Latin theology into the councils. I will leave the proper interpretation of the councils to the magisterium. Unless you have studied the original Latin within the context of medieval Latin theology, do not assume you understand the councils better than the modern magisterium (popes and bishops alive today). A good guy to ask on this point would be Ghosty. The Catholic Church strongly believes that Latin, Byzantine, and Oriental theologies are more or less complimentary once we get past semantics and misinterpretations/misunderstandings.

I am misrepresenting nothing. I am stating what is clearly stated in the definitions of Lyons and Florence. I know full well that the Catholic Church NOW teaches both “Father AND the Son” and “Father THROUGH the Son” and claims these are equivalent expressions, but claiming doesn’t make it so. I am reading nothing into the councils other than what is there. As to Ghosty, I have dialogued with him several times on the issue, and still have recent posts unanswered by him. The fact is that the Orthodox Church strongly believes that “and the Son” and “through the Son” are not equivalent expressions, and that “and the Son” is not the teaching of the Fathers. Since the original poster came from an Orthodox background, I thought that might be something he had thought about.

 

[aussie_melkite]

I am misrepresenting nothing. I am stating what is clearly stated in the definitions of Lyons and Florence. I know full well that the Catholic Church NOW teaches both “Father AND the Son” and “Father THROUGH the Son” and claims these are equivalent expressions, but claiming doesn’t make it so. I am reading nothing into the councils other than what is there. As to Ghosty, I have dialogued with him several times on the issue, and still have recent posts unanswered by him. The fact is that the Orthodox Church strongly believes that “and the Son” and “through the Son” are not equivalent expressions, and that “and the Son” is not the teaching of the Fathers. Since the original poster came from an Orthodox background, I thought that might be something he had thought about.

yes you are misrepresenting Catholic teaching…and this is a Catholic fourm. the church has **ALWAYS **taught the spirit proceeds fron the father through the son. the problem is that Greeks and Latin have not always understood eachother and the lack of communion and language barriers has added to this Problem…but the Church has ALWAYS maintained the truth.

 

[aussie_melkite]

I am misrepresenting nothing. I am stating what is clearly stated in the definitions of Lyons and Florence. I know full well that the Catholic Church NOW teaches both “Father AND the Son” and “Father THROUGH the Son” and claims these are equivalent expressions, but claiming doesn’t make it so. I am reading nothing into the councils other than what is there. As to Ghosty, I have dialogued with him several times on the issue, and still have recent posts unanswered by him. The fact is that the Orthodox Church strongly believes that “and the Son” and “through the Son” are not equivalent expressions, and that “and the Son” is not the teaching of the Fathers. Since the original poster came from an Orthodox background, I thought that might be something he had thought about.

this is a Catholic fourm, dont tell Catholics what their church believes and doesnt believe…especialy when your not a Catholic yourself.

 

[Nicholas82]

this is a Catholic fourm, dont tell Catholics what their church believes and doesnt believe…especialy when your not a Catholic yourself.

No need to get defensive… the it’s just that it almost starts to feel as if we’re being talked down to when you insist that we do not have a valid theological issue here- that our rejection of filioque must simply be due to misunderstanding, as if we’re just being obstinate and couldn’t possibly have a point.

 

[Nicholas82]

yes you are misrepresenting Catholic teaching…and this is a Catholic fourm. the church has **ALWAYS **taught the spirit proceeds fron the father through the son. the problem is that Greeks and Latin have not always understood eachother and the lack of communion and language barriers has added to this Problem…but the Church has ALWAYS maintained the truth.

If that’s exactly what is meant then just change it to “through the Son”. Say what you mean and mean what you say. If words can be added to the creed as the Catholic Church has done then it must believe it has the authority to clarify those words when they become such a point of contention I would think.

 

[aussie_melkite]

No need to get defensive… the it’s just that it almost starts to feel as if we’re being talked down to when you insist that we do not have a valid theological issue here- that our rejection of filioque must simply be due to misunderstanding, as if we’re just being obstinate and couldn’t possibly have a point.

there is every reson to be defensive…if were are goign to discuss difference between east and west dats fine, but the Catholic church has stated that the Church believes regurding the procession of the Holy spirit…and thats what the church believes, and this other Orthdodox belive has bascily stated the Catholic Church has changed it mind over the cernturies and lying about it now…it is a misrepresent of Catholic Teaching.
we dont (or shouldnt) go around statign what what the Orthodox belive and dont belive (though it would rather hard to as the Orthdox communion herself isnt really sure about a range of topics) and i would expect that an Orthodox person would respect what the Catholic Church officaily teaches about its own History and Theology.

 

[Nicholas82]

there is every reson to be defensive…if were are goign to discuss difference between east and west dats fine, but the Catholic church has stated that the Church believes regurding the procession of the Holy spirit…and thats what the church believes, and this other Orthdodox belive has bascily stated the Catholic Church has changed it mind over the cernturies and lying about it now…it is a misrepresent of Catholic Teaching.
we dont (or shouldnt) go around statign what what the Orthodox belive and dont belive (though it would rather hard to as the Orthdox communion herself isnt really sure about a range of topics) and i would expect that an Orthodox person would respect what the Catholic Church officaily teaches about its own History and Theology.

What is it you think we aren’t sure about? We’re doing just fine… well what an entity teaches about its own history may or may not always hold up to objective scrunity, which can be true for any organization, faith, whatever. So don’t be offended if one person or even many might attempt to “call your bluff” as it were, or just disagree with the conclusions you have come to. It’s not a personal attack.

 

[Alethiaphile]

this is a Catholic fourm, dont tell Catholics what their church believes and doesnt believe…especialy when your not a Catholic yourself.

Hate to bother you with the facts, but I am a Catholic, thank you very much.

 

[Alethiaphile]

we dont (or shouldnt) go around statign what what the Orthodox belive and dont belive

Actually, a lot of Catholics do exactly that, saying “well if the Orthodox only understood the Catholic theology behind the Filioque, they’d believe it”.

 

[aussie_melkite]

Im friends with many orthodox christians…I often go to Divine Liturgy with them.

after the Liturgy we all get togeter and have dinner (liturgy is on a saturday night) and the topic of conversation is always about Orthodox news and theology.
half of the people in this group subscribe to the “toll house theory” others in this group reject it outright as herasy. some in this group support the Bishop of Constantinople as have jurdistion here in australia and in all places that arnt Traditionaly Orthodox and other in this same group denounce him as an “eastern Pope”

far be if for me to me to say what your church ACTUALLY teaches on these issues…but from the private opinions of my Orthodox friends there are many issues that nobody seems to have the answer to…and these people arnt undedducated, one is a preiest’s son and the another one in the group is studing for the preisthood.

 

[aussie_melkite]

Actually, a lot of Catholics do exactly that, saying “well if the Orthodox only understood the Catholic theology behind the Filioque, they’d believe it”.

hey the orthodox priest here does belive it…he just doesnt like the wording of it. and thinks that it would be in the Catholic churches best intrest to drop it or to officaly change the English to “THROUGH THE SON.”

so i guess not all Orthodox have the same opinions

 

[Nicholas82]

hey the orthodox priest here does belive it…he just doesnt like the wording of it. and thinks that it would be in the Catholic churches best intrest to drop it or to officaly change the English to “THROUGH THE SON.”

so i guess not all Orthodox have the same opinions

Kind of like Catholics… because you know you won’t find an infinite number of Catholics out there with diverging opinions, or even ones who hold to heresies, or ones who question the hierarchy.

 

[aussie_melkite]

Kind of like Catholics… because you know you won’t find an infinite number of Catholics out there with diverging opinions, or even ones who hold to heresies, or ones who question the hierarchy.**

of course there are catholics out there with diverging opinions, and even heresies…but the Catholic church has ANSWERED the questions regurding life after death and so on…and a catholic to be in good standing has to hold fast to these beliefs…

in Orthodoxy no offical staments have been made about “toll houses vs hades” or the level of Jurdistion the Patricharch has outside of his territoty so thus my good Orthodox friends are left “fighting” with one another trying to impose their own understanding of orthdooxy upon eachother…thankfuly I get to remain nutrual in their theological arguments…and they also know when to agree to disagree, and thank god or else i fear it may come to blows.
…I must say though I do admire their passion for the faith.

 

[Nicholas82]

of course there are catholics out there with diverging opinions, and even heresies…but the Catholic church has ANSWERED the questions regurding life after death and so on…and a catholic to be in good standing has to hold fast to these beliefs…

in Orthodoxy no offical staments have been made about “toll houses vs hades” or the level of Jurdistion the Patricharch has outside of his territoty so thus my good Orthodox friends are left “fighting” with one another trying to impose their own understanding of orthdooxy upon eachother…thankfuly I get to remain nutrual in their theological arguments…and they also know when to agree to disagree, and thank god or else i fear it may come to blows.
…I must say though I do admire their passion for the faith.

Right, like you’re supposed to believe, or at least accept purgatory, the immaculate conception, etc etc, even if it has nothing to do with or even contradicts traditional melkite theology.

I think the concept of toll houses is indefensible, although I know some accept this theological opinion, which is all it is. I’ve read time and tie again on this board that all the Catholic Church teaches about purgatory is that some sort of purgation occurs after death, despite what was taught about actual fire and it’s being an actual ‘place’. If I am to believe what I’ve been told that seems to leave the arena open for quite a bit of speculation as well.

Jurisdictional quibbles are hardly theological issues, and people do unfortunately someties get caught up in those sorts of things, not that it does them a world of good spiritually. So what is your point, really?

 

[aussie_melkite]

Right, like you’re supposed to believe, or at least accept purgatory, the immaculate conception, etc etc, even if it has nothing to do with or even contradicts traditional melkite theology.

I think the concept of toll houses is indefensible, although I know some accept this theological opinion, which is all it is. I’ve read time and tie again on this board that all the Catholic Church teaches about purgatory is that some sort of purgation occurs after death, despite what was taught about actual fire and it’s being an actual ‘place’. If I am to believe what I’ve been told that seems to leave the arena open for quite a bit of speculation as well.

Jurisdictional quibbles are hardly theological issues, and people do unfortunately someties get caught up in those sorts of things, not that it does them a world of good spiritually. So what is your point, really?/QUOTE

Jurisdictional quibbles as u call them, were sorted out in the “Ecumenical councils” and Orthodox dont abide by these Jurisdictional decsions 2day in non-orthodox countries like australia (at least that what my Orthodox mates tell me) so if u ask me its more importnt that u realize.

 

[Nicholas82]

Nicholas82;4395655:

Right, like you’re supposed to believe, or at least accept purgatory, the immaculate conception, etc etc, even if it has nothing to do with or even contradicts traditional melkite theology.

I think the concept of toll houses is indefensible, although I know some accept this theological opinion, which is all it is. I’ve read time and tie again on this board that all the Catholic Church teaches about purgatory is that some sort of purgation occurs after death, despite what was taught about actual fire and it’s being an actual ‘place’. If I am to believe what I’ve been told that seems to leave the arena open for quite a bit of speculation as well.

Jurisdictional quibbles are hardly theological issues, and people do unfortunately someties get caught up in those sorts of things, not that it does them a world of good spiritually. So what is your point, really?

Things take time to sort out… how old is Australia? How old is the United States? Immigrants came to these countries and brought their churches with them, yes there should be only one Bishop per city and so on, and hopefully this will be the case as these sort of issues are worked out. I would say that the Bishop of Rome’s claim to universal jurisdiction is more of an issue than which jurisdictions serve immigrant and native populations in the diaspora, which will hopefully in time be worked out.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

For the love of Pete, boys, start a new thread or consider resurrecting one of the 17,546 in the archives on the filioque already!

This thread was started as Father Brendon wished to share his journey into communion with the Catholic Church, and it wasn’t long before we got into polemics over the filoque (!) and sarcasm.

Can we have enough respect for Father Brendon that we find another thread to restart the daily polemic on?

 

[Catherine_Grant]

**Moderator Note: **

This discussion on Eastern Catholic acceptance of the filioque was sufficiently off-topic to create a new thread from it. Please see here for the original discussion.

May God Bless You Abundantly,
Catherine Grant
Eastern Catholicism Moderator