Do Eastern Catholics accept the filioque?

[bobzills]

If you understand why Easterns and Orientals do not want to deprive ourselves of our Traditions, then you should automatically understand why the Latins would not want to do so. The key to unity is understanding, not forcing our particular Traditions on another. Your double standard will not find any support from me.

Blessings,
Marduk

Does this then reveal a stubborness on the part of the Roman Church, according to which they say that “from the Son” and “through the Son” mean exactly the same thing, but whereas “through the Son” is acceptable to many in the East, Rome refuses to change to “per filium”. Perhaps Rome really does not want reunion?

 

[Clarky]

I am aware of what Irenaeus said. But from what I recall it does not speak of Linus as the successor of Peter. It simply speaks of Peter and Paul appointing Linus. Ancient sources also speak of Peter as bishop of Antioch and Antioch continues to claim succession from Peter.

Rome is the first because Peter was in residence there. The second was Antioch because Peter was bishop there first. Then Peter sent Mark to Alexandria to form the Church there.

After some time Jerusalem was added; remember it had been destroyed by Hadrian because Peter first exercised his ministry there.

Finally Constantinople applied for the rank of patriarch because Peter’s brother, Andrew, brought the Faith there. So you see, the patriarchates all are related to PETER.

The five sees were ranked in descending order of precedence: Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Constantinople.

The order of course later changed. As I already pointed out.

 

[Clarky]

Does this then reveal a stubborness on the part of the Roman Church, according to which they say that “from the Son” and “through the Son” mean exactly the same thing, but whereas “through the Son” is acceptable to many in the East, Rome refuses to change to “per filium”. Perhaps Rome really does not want reunion?

According to Sacred Scripture, the Son sends the Holy Ghost (Luke 24:49; John 15:26; 16:7; 20:22; Acts 2:33; Titus 3:6), just as the Father sends the Son (Romans 3:3), and as the Father sends the Holy Ghost (John 14:26).

 

[bobzills]

According to Sacred Scripture, the Son sends the Holy Ghost (Luke 24:49; John 15:26; 16:7; 20:22; Acts 2:33; Titus 3:6), just as the Father sends the Son (Romans 3:3), and as the Father sends the Holy Ghost (John 14:26).

The question I am raising is different; the question concerns the fact that it is said that “through the Son” and “from the Son” mean exactly the same thing. If this is true, and if “through the Son” is acceptable to many in the East, and if the Roman Church truly wants reunion, it seems like the Roman Church would make the appropriate change. But Rome does not want to do so, thus bringing into question as to how serious Rome is about reunion with the Eastern Churches.

 

[Clarky]

The question I am raising is different; the question concerns the fact that it is said that “through the Son” and “from the Son” mean exactly the same thing. If this is true, and if “through the Son” is acceptable to many in the East, and if the Roman Church truly wants reunion, it seems like the Roman Church would make the appropriate change. But Rome does not want to do so, thus bringing into question as to how serious Rome is about reunion with the Eastern Churches.

The filioque is not the issue anymore. It was only used as an EXCUSE in the first place. The issue was and still is today political.

Doctrinally, I believe that the teaching of the Bible is best summarized by Augustine:

“The Son, is born of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father principally and (by [the Father’s] gift and with no lapse of time) commonly from both”.

Further, I claim that the word (filioque) was lawfully inserted into the creed by the Council of Florence, (a truly ecumenical council) that reunited the East and the West (if only for a short time).

That the eastern monks rejected the decisions of the council is not relevant, it only demonstrates their disrespect for authority.

Also, there are certain considerations which form a direct proof for the belief of the Greek Fathers in the double Procession of the Holy Ghost.

First, the Greek Fathers enumerate the Divine Persons in the same order as the Latin Fathers; they admit that the Son and the Holy Ghost are logically and ontologically connected in the same way as the Son and Father.

Secondly, the Greek Fathers establish the same relation between the Son and the Holy Ghost as between the Father and the Son; as the Father is the fountain of the Son, so is the Son the fountain of the Holy Ghost.

But since the time of the Second Vatican Council a fruitful ecumenical dialogue has been developing.

It seems to have led to the conclusion that the formula (Filioque) does not constitute an essential obstacle to the dialogue itself and to its development, which all hope for and pray for to the Holy Spirit.

The matter was settled at the Council of Florence. Get over it.

 

[bobzills]

The filioque is not the issue anymore. It was only used as an EXCUSE in the first place. The issue was and still is today political.

Doctrinally, I believe that the teaching of the Bible is best summarized by Augustine:

“The Son, is born of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father principally and (by [the Father’s] gift and with no lapse of time) commonly from both”.

Further, I claim that the word (filioque) was lawfully inserted into the creed by the Council of Florence, (a truly ecumenical council) that reunited the East and the West (if only for a short time).

That the eastern monks rejected the decisions of the council is not relevant, it only demonstrates their disrespect for authority.

Also, there are certain considerations which form a direct proof for the belief of the Greek Fathers in the double Procession of the Holy Ghost.

First, the Greek Fathers enumerate the Divine Persons in the same order as the Latin Fathers; they admit that the Son and the Holy Ghost are logically and ontologically connected in the same way as the Son and Father.

Secondly, the Greek Fathers establish the same relation between the Son and the Holy Ghost as between the Father and the Son; as the Father is the fountain of the Son, so is the Son the fountain of the Holy Ghost.

But since the time of the Second Vatican Council a fruitful ecumenical dialogue has been developing.

It seems to have led to the conclusion that the formula (Filioque) does not constitute an essential obstacle to the dialogue itself and to its development, which all hope for and pray for to the Holy Spirit.

The matter was settled at the Council of Florence. Get over it.

Unfortunately for your argument, the East did not ratify the Council of Florence, and further, the filioque is an issue for the East, but supposedly not for the Roman Church? If the filioque is not an issue for the Roman Church, why then does the Roman Church refuse to drop it from the creed, except perhaps it is not so serious for reunion?

 

[Clarky]

Unfortunately for your argument, the East did not ratify the Council of Florence

The Councils of Lyons and Florence did not require the Greeks to insert the Filioque into the Creed, but only to accept the Catholic doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost.

At the Council of Florence, a vigorous discussion erupted between the eastern and western bishops over words spoken by Basil claiming that the Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son.

After much debate, the eastern delegates accepted the filioque addition to the creed (at least in the west), and made other concessions. The following quote summarizes:

“The council of Ferrara, which was transferred to Florence in 1439, witnessed protracted discussion between Greeks and Latins, in which as a final result (the primacy of the Pope) was accepted in vague terms, which seemed to preserve the rights of the Eastern patriarchs, the Greeks retained their peculiarities of worship and priestly marriage, while the disputed (filioque clause) of the creed was acknowledged by the Greeks, though with the understanding that they would not add it to the ancient symbol”.

At the Council of Florence (1439) when the Latins stated the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son they did not mean to exclude that the Father is the source and the principle of all divinity, that is, of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Nor did they wish to deny that the Son learned from the Father that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son; nor do they hold that there are two principles or (two spirations).

They asserted that one only is the principle and one only the spiration of the Holy Spirit.

The problems on the order of terminology were resolved and the intentions clarified, to the extent that each party, the Greeks and the Latins, during the sixth session (July 6, 1439) were able to sign this common definition:

“In the name of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with the approval of this sacred and universal Council of Florence, we establish that this truth of faith must be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus all must profess that the Holy Spirit is eternally of (the Father and the Son), that he has his existence and his subsistent being from the Father and the Son together, and that he proceeds eternally from the one and from the other as from a single principle and from a single spiration.”

There is an additional clarification to which St. Thomas had devoted an article of the Summa (Ultrum Spiritus Sanctus Procedat a Patre Per Filium).

“We declare,” said the Council, “what the holy Doctors and Fathers stated that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son tends to make understandable and means that the Son too, like the Father,is the cause, as the Greeks say, and the principle, as the Latins say, of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit. And since all that the Father has he has given to the Son in his generation, with the exception of being Father, this very procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son the Son himself has eternally from the Father, from whom he has been eternally generated.”

At the conclusion of the council, the reunion of the Eastern and Western Church was (joyfully proclaimed).

 

[bobzills]

At the conclusion of the council, the reunion of the Eastern and Western Church was (joyfully proclaimed).

Unfortunately for your argument, the reunion did not stand and the East does not accept the filioque in the creed. If I understand what has been written here, the Roman Church says that it means the same thing as the Eastern Church when it uses the filioque in the creed and the East does not, but at the same time, the Roman Church refuses to go back to the original wording of the creed for this disputed part of the creed.

 

[mardukm]

Does this then reveal a stubborness on the part of the Roman Church, according to which they say that “from the Son” and “through the Son” mean exactly the same thing, but whereas “through the Son” is acceptable to many in the East, Rome refuses to change to “per filium”. Perhaps Rome really does not want reunion?

Oh! So now because a Church wants to keep its traditions, you say they are merely being “stubborn.” So the Easterns and Orientals are stubborn in your eyes. Glad to see how little appreciation you have for our Traditions.

Yeah, I’m sure you will say, “I didn’t say that the Easterns and Orientals were stubborn by wanting to maintain their Tradition, I said the Latins are stubborn for wanting to maintain their Tradition,” an argument which only further exposes the hypocrisy of your arguments. ALL the posts you have ever given here and in other threads have been based on hypocritical argumentation (as far as I’ve seen). Do you seriously have anything better than hypocritical arguments to add to this discussion?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Clarky]

Unfortunately for your argument, the reunion did not stand and the East does not accept the filioque in the creed. If I understand what has been written here, the Roman Church says that it means the same thing as the Eastern Church when it uses the filioque in the creed and the East does not, but at the same time, the Roman Church refuses to go back to the original wording of the creed for this disputed part of the creed.

I suggest you read my previous posts

 

[JohnVIII]

Pope Leo refused to agree to this canon; and employing a kind of “line item veto,” ordered it struck from the Council documents.

There’s no such thing as a “line-item veto”. Any patriarch of, which the pope is one, may declared his intentions not to follow certain canon. The authority of this so-called “line-item veto” is limited only to the jurisdiction of which he is a bishop over. The same is true for the so-called “nullifying” of the decisions of the synod by the pope. This nullifying only applies to those are subject to the pope, and it simply means that the Latin Church will not recognize the decisions of that synod. Likewise again, in the case of when one patriarch excommunicates another, it simply means that the two jurisdictions of said patriarchates are not in communion with each other.

 

[bobzills]

Oh! So now because a Church wants to keep its traditions, you say they are merely being “stubborn.” So the Easterns and Orientals are stubborn in your eyes. Glad to see how little appreciation you have for our Traditions.

Yeah, I’m sure you will say, “I didn’t say that the Easterns and Orientals were stubborn by wanting to maintain their Tradition, I said the Latins are stubborn for wanting to maintain their Tradition,” an argument which only further exposes the hypocrisy of your arguments. ALL the posts you have ever given here and in other threads have been based on hypocritical argumentation (as far as I’ve seen). Do you seriously have anything better than hypocritical arguments to add to this discussion?

Blessings,
Marduk

Do you or do you not say that per filium and filoque mean exactly the same thing?

 

[Clarky]

There’s no such thing as a “line-item veto”. Any patriarch of, which the pope is one, may declared his intentions not to follow certain canon. The authority of this so-called “line-item veto” is limited only to the jurisdiction of which he is a bishop over. The same is true for the so-called “nullifying” of the decisions of the synod by the pope. This nullifying only applies to those are subject to the pope, and it simply means that the Latin Church will not recognize the decisions of that synod. Likewise again, in the case of when one patriarch excommunicates another, it simply means that the two jurisdictions of said patriarchates are not in communion with each other.

You dont read very well

 

[Clarky]

There’s no such thing as a “line-item veto”. Any patriarch of, which the pope is one, may declared his intentions not to follow certain canon. The authority of this so-called “line-item veto” is limited only to the jurisdiction of which he is a bishop over. The same is true for the so-called “nullifying” of the decisions of the synod by the pope. This nullifying only applies to those are subject to the pope, and it simply means that the Latin Church will not recognize the decisions of that synod. Likewise again, in the case of when one patriarch excommunicates another, it simply means that the two jurisdictions of said patriarchates are not in communion with each other.

Your poor research may fool the average unsuspecting reader. But, for those who bother to look up and read the entire historical accounts, something entirely different awaits.

I have tried to give the you the benefit of the doubt. But, I am at a loss to explain how you intentionally misrepresent these ancient councils and letters.

Your riding roughshod over these ancient councils demonstrates a calloused disregard for context. I think it is fairly obvious, to the unbiased reader, that you have forced your own ideas into these councils.

You are determined to find evidence contrary to the historical documents. I encourage the reader, who is confused by all of claims to obtain a copy of these historical accounts and read them for yourself.

You can look up the councils and letters and read them in their larger context. This is the only way to really get a feel for their perspective.

 

[mardukm]

Do you or do you not say that per filium and filoque mean exactly the same thing?

I have repeatedly stated:

1. Procedit and ekporeusai do not mean exactly the same thing.
2. Filioque is legitimately used with procedit, while per filium can be used legitimately with ekporeusai. If there was a word in Latin exactly meaning ekporeusai, then per filium will necessarily be used with that word. But the Latin Tradition uses the word procedit. So there is no doctrinal inappropriateness with using the filioque.

But to answer your question more directly, I have NEVER stated that filioque and per filium mean exactly the same thing. What I have stated is that filioque used with procedit on the one hand, and per filium used with ekporeusai or an exact Latin equivalent, on the other, would mean the same thing.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Formosus]

Rome is the first because Peter was in residence there. The second was Antioch because Peter was bishop there first. Then Peter sent Mark to Alexandria to form the Church there.

After some time Jerusalem was added; remember it had been destroyed by Hadrian because Peter first exercised his ministry there.

Finally Constantinople applied for the rank of patriarch because Peter’s brother, Andrew, brought the Faith there. So you see, the patriarchates all are related to PETER.

The five sees were ranked in descending order of precedence: Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Constantinople.

The order of course later changed. As I already pointed out.

That is not accurate in the least. Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were all considered the major patriarchates because of their Apostolicity and because of their major population centers of the Empire. Constantinople was raised up before Jerusalem was because it became the second capital of the Empire, not because of Andrew which if you read the Ecumenical Councils they say nothing of Andrew or Peter being the reasons for these sees being the Patriachates. Jerusalem was added out of piety because it was viewed as originating see of Christianity and it was an Apostolic see as well (St. James). In the earlier centuries, Rome was considered both Petrine and Pauline in its founding.

 

[Diak]

As Formosus has well said, the joint prominence of the five Patriarchates of the Pentarchy are assumed by the Councils (at least until Chalcedon). No Pope ever erected any of the ancient Patriarchates.

While primacy may have been understood, it was understood in a synodal/conciliar context and not at all as a personal unilateral action or possession of the person occupying the See of Rome.

 

[Clarky]

That is not accurate in the least. Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were all considered the major patriarchates because of their Apostolicity and because of their major population centers of the Empire.

When pilgrims began to flock to the Holy City, the Bishop of Jerusalem, the guardian of the sacred shrines, began to be considered as more than a mere suffragan of Caesarea.

The Council of Nicaea in AD 325 gave him an honorary primacy, saving, however, the (metropolitical) rights of Caesarea.

Juvenal of Jerusalem (420-58) succeeded finally, after much dispute, in changing this honorary position into a real patriarchate.

The Council of Chalcedon in AD 451 cut away Palestine and Arabia (Sinai) from Antioch and of them formed the Patriarchate of Jerusalem.

But the greatest change, the one that met most opposition, was the rise of Constantinople to patriarchal rank. Because Constantine had made Byzantium “New Rome”, its bishop, once the humble suffragan of Heraclea, thought that he should become second only, if not almost equal, to the Bishop of Old Rome.

For many centuries the popes opposed this ambition, not because any one thought of disputing their first place, but because they were unwilling to change the old order of the hierarchy.

In AD 381 the Council of Constantinople declared that: “The Bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honour (after the Bishop of Rome), because it is New Rome”.

Chalcedon in AD 451 established Constantinople as a patriarchate with jurisdiction over Asia Minor and Thrace and gave it the second place (after) Rome. Pope Leo I (440-61) refused to admit this canon, which was made in the absence of his legates; for centuries Rome still refused to give the second place to Constantinople.

It was not until the Fourth Lateran Council (AD 1215) that the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople was allowed this place; in 1439 the Council of Florence gave it to the Greek patriarch.

Nevertheless in the East the emperor’s wish was powerful enough to obtain recognition for his patriarch; from Chalcedon we must count Constantinople as practically, if not legally, the second patriarchate.

So we have the (new) order of the five patriarchs: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. To the Eastern bishops it became an essential element of the constitution of the Church.

 

[Clarky]

As Formosus has well said, the joint prominence of the five Patriarchates of the Pentarchy are assumed by the Councils (at least until Chalcedon). No Pope ever erected any of the ancient Patriarchates.

While primacy may have been understood, it was understood in a synodal/conciliar context and not at all as a personal unilateral action or possession of the person occupying the See of Rome.

The title (Patriarch) was given to the highest ecclesiastical dignitaries after the pope, and the word (Patriarchate) to the territory they ruled.

At first they were used (loosely) as names of honour without any strict connotation; but in all such cases the (reality) existed before any special name was used.

There were ecclesiastical dignitaries with all the rights and prerogatives of patriarchs in the first three centuries; but the (official) title does not occur till later.

As a Christian title of honour the word (patriarch) appears first as applied to Pope Leo I in a letter of Theodosius II (408-50; Mansi, VI, 68).

Certainly from the eighth and ninth centuries the word becomes an official title, used only as connoting a definite rank in the hierarchy, that of the chief bishops who ruled over metropolitans being subject only to the first patriarch at Rome.

Patriarchate (Greek patriarcheia; Latin patriarchatus) is the derived word meaning a patriarch’s office, see, reign, or, most often, the (territory) he governs.

It corresponds to episcopacy, episcopate, and diocese in relation to a bishop.

 

[Formosus]

Chalcedon in AD 451 established Constantinople as a patriarchate with jurisdiction over Asia Minor and Thrace and gave it the second place (after) Rome. Pope Leo I (440-61) refused to admit this canon, which was made in the absence of his legates; for centuries Rome still refused to give the second place to Constantinople.

It was not until the Fourth Lateran Council (AD 1215) that the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople was allowed this place; in 1439 the Council of Florence gave it to the Greek patriarch.

No, I already told you this incorrect. Gregory the Great recognized Constantinople as it was accorded in the Chalcedon canons. Later, John VII acknowledged the canon as well (8th or 9th century). Both of these Popes were well before the IV Lateran Council. St. Leo I only opposed change of order because it contradicted that of the first Nicean council as he cites in his own letters to the Emperor and others on the subject. I still don’t see what the context of why you were quoting me, since all I said was why those three sees held the initial primacy, which still has nothing to do with the petrine origins of Alexandria and Antioch, but rather the fact that they were founded by Apostles. Constantinople’s elevation had nothing to do with Andrew as the canon makes no mention of that. So really all you have done is prove that your initial statement is incorrect by quoting the canon and ignoring the proof that Rome acknowledged that canon well before Lateran IV.