Do Eastern Catholics accept the filioque?

[Diak]

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

This is simply not historically correct. To complement the post by Formosus, “Pope” is an ancient part of the title of the Patriarch of Alexandria as well - and was attributed to Alexandria before that of Rome. Heraclius of Alexandria is already attributed that title in the mid-third century, long before anyone from Rome was acknowledged to have any other title than “Bishop of Rome”.

 

[Clarky]

No, I already told you this incorrect. Gregory the Great recognized Constantinople as it was accorded in the Chalcedon canons.

The council was called by Emperor Theodosius, to provide for a Catholic succession in the patriarchal See of Constantinople, to confirm the Nicene Faith, to reconcile the semi-Arians with the Church, and to put an end to the Macedonian heresy.

Originally it was only a council of the Orient. It was attended by 150 Catholic and 36 heretical (Semi-Arian, Macedonian) bishops, and was presided over by Meletius of Antioch; after his death, by the successive Patriarchs of Constantinople, St. Gregory Nazianzen and Nectarius.

Its first measure was to confirm St. Gregory Nazianzen as Bishop of Constantinople. The Acts of the council have almost entirely disappeared, and its proceedings are known chiefly through the accounts of the ecclesiastical historians Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret.

The first canon is an important dogmatic condemnation of all shades of Arianism, also of Macedonianism and Apollinarianism.

The second canon renews the Nicene legislation imposing upon the bishops the observance of diocesan and patriarchal limits.

The fourth canon declares invalid the consecration of Maximus, the Cynic philosopher and rival of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, as Bishop of Constantinople.

The famous third canon declares that because Constantinople is New Rome the bishop of that city should have a pre-eminence of honour after the Bishop of Old Rome. Baronius wrongly maintained the non-authenticity of this canon, while some medieval Greeks maintained (an equally erroneous thesis) that it declared the bishop of the royal city in all things the equal of the pope.

The purely human reason of Rome’s ancient authority, suggested by this canon, was never admitted by the Apostolic See, which always based its claim to supremacy on the succession of St. Peter. Nor did Rome easily acknowledge this unjustifiable reordering of rank among the ancient patriarchates of the East.

It was rejected by the papal legates at Chalcedon. St. Leo the Great declared that this canon has never been submitted to the Apostolic See and that it was a violation of the Nicene order.

At the Eighth General Council in 869 the Roman legates acknowledged Constantinople as second in patriarchal rank.

In 1215, at the Fourth Lateran Council this was formally admitted for the new Latin patriarch, and in 1439, at the Council of Florence, for the Greek patriarch.

At the close of this council Emperor Theodosius issued an imperial decree declaring that the churches should be restored to those bishops who confessed the equal Divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and who held communion with Nectarius of Constantinople and other important Oriental prelates whom he named.

Gregory the Great, following the example of Vigilius and Pelagius II, recognized it as one of the four general councils, but only in its dogmatic utterances.

 

[Formosus]

Well I am glad that you recognize that it was approved of at the 8th council and not at Lateran IV. Gregory the Great defacto approved of the canon when sending his confirmation of election to the papacy to Constantinople though, in that document at least.

 

[Clarky]

This is simply not historically correct. To complement the post by Formosus, “Pope” is an ancient part of the title of the Patriarch of Alexandria as well - and was attributed to Alexandria before that of Rome. Heraclius of Alexandria is already attributed that title in the mid-third century, long before anyone from Rome was acknowledged to have any other title than “Bishop of Rome”.

Names of Christian dignitaries were in early days taken sometimes from civil life (episkopos, diakonos), sometimes borrowed from the Jews. The name patriarch is one of the latter class. Bishops of special dignity were called patriarchs just as deacons were called levites, because their place corresponded by analogy to those in the Old Law.

All such titles became technical terms, official titles, only gradually. 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.

The bishops of the Byzantine jurisdiction apply it to their chief, Acacius (471-89; Evagrius, But it was still merely an honourable epithet that might be given to any venerable bishop.

St. Gregory of Nazianzus says: “the elder bishops, or more rightly, the patriarchs”. Socrates says that the Fathers of Constantinople I (381) “set up patriarchs”, meaning apparently metropolitans of provinces . As late as the fifth and sixth centuries Celidonius of Besancon and Nicetius of Lyons are still called patriarchs.

During these earlier centuries the name appears generally in conjunction with “archbishop”, "archbishop and patriarch. The dispute about the title ecumenical Patriarch in the sixth century shows that even then the name was receiving a technical sense.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Formosus,

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.

Great post! I would only make a slight adjustment to the portion I highlighted above. IIRC several Ecumenical Councils specifically declared the unique Petrine Successorship of the bishop of Rome.

Also, thank you for correcting brother Clarky on the order of the Sees.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Formosus,

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.

Pope St. Leo opposed Canon 28 not only because it violated the ancient order, but also because it explicitly attributed the importance of the Sees to its secular status, and not its apostolicity. When the Canon was renewed at Trullo, the Easterns removed any reference to secular status.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Clarky]

Dear brother Formosus,

Also, thank you for correcting brother Clarky on the order of the Sees.

Blessings,
Marduk

There is no historical record which indicates a new order of patriarchates after the 1439 Council of Florence. The (new) order of the five patriarchs: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

 

[mardukm]

There is no historical record which indicates a new order of patriarchates after the 1439 Council of Florence. The (new) order of the five patriarchs: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

Originally you wrote that Antioch preceded Alexandria. That is all I was referring to.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JohnVIII,

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.

That is well put. This is reflected in the Canons of the Catholic Church as well - they do NOT say that the Pope’s disapproval would NULLIFY or CANCEL the Canon, but MERELY that it would make the Canon not obligatory.

I wish you would become Catholic (no offense intended). You would make a great Eastern apologist for the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Eastern_Guy]

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.

When you say that the Catholics on this board don’t go around saying what the Orthodox believe and don’t believe…or how we’re flawed b/c we’re not in union with Rome, you are very out of touch with these forums

Look at any of the posts where the OP asks a question as it pertains to Catholics and Orthodox or Eastern Catholics and Orthodox and someone always winds up taking it to St Peter and the “Keys” and that the Orthodox are in schism and we are not a true church etc. We believe in Primacy of the Bishop of Rome but not Supremacy period. We have at least 7 sacraments, however we believe that anything the Church does is a sacrament and mystery.

I’m just tired of hearing all the negative separationalist comments when the Patriarch of the West and the 4 Patriarchs of the Eastern Churches have been trying to reunite.

 

[Ghosty]

Look at any of the posts where the OP asks a question as it pertains to Catholics and Orthodox or Eastern Catholics and Orthodox and someone always winds up taking it to St Peter and the “Keys” and that the Orthodox are in schism and we are not a true church etc. We believe in Primacy of the Bishop of Rome but not Supremacy period. We have at least 7 sacraments, however we believe that anything the Church does is a sacrament and mystery.

With all due respect, aussie_melkite wasn’t talking about disagreements or polemics, and he didn’t say that Catholics don’t say that the Eastern Orthodox are wrong in some of their positions. He’s talking about the way that many Eastern Orthodox come on these forums and flat out tell Catholics what our beliefs are (we believe in two Sources of the Holy Spirit, for example) despite the fact that we show over and over again that we don’t believe such things.

It’s a totally different matter to disagree with the Eastern Orthodox on theological questions, and to state these disagreements. It’s the “telling us what we believe even when we show otherwise” that is the real problem.

Peace and God bless!

 

[system]

All these pages and the simple fact is the filioque is true. Anyone is entitled to speak the truth. There is no group that can make the truth false or something true becomes false if we don’t like who said it.

The Spirit does proceede from the Father and the Son and together with the Father and Son He is to be worshipped and glorified.

It’s biblical and part of Tradition what more does anyone need?

 

[buffgbob]

I suggest we all pray to the Mother of God that she begs God to convert our hearts to orthodoxy and be faithful to the truth He has revealed to us, to convert our hearts to charity and show love and compassion to our brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[sidbrown]

I am an Eastern Catholic and I do not accept the filioque. I believe that the Spirit as hypostasis proceeds (ekporeusis) only from the Father, and not from or through the Son. The Father is the sole cause of the Son by generation, and He alone is the sole cause of the Spirit by ekporeusis (see St. Maximos’ Letter to Marinus).

Now as far as the “per filium” is concerned, it applies only to the Spirit’s manifestation as energy, and so it does not concern His subsistent (hypostatic) being.

It looks like from the above, that Eastern Catholics do not accept the filioque. But to those who believe that they do, and supposing that they did, then what would be the use of dropping the filioque from their creed as they have done? By dropping the filioque from their creed, have they not signaled that the filioque is not acceptable to them?

 

[Ghosty]

It looks like from the above, that Eastern Catholics do not accept the filioque. But to those who believe that they do, and supposing that they did, then what would be the use of dropping the filioque from their creed as they have done? By dropping the filioque from their creed, have they not signaled that the filioque is not acceptable to them?

The addition to the Liturgical Creed is not acceptable, and even in the Latin Church it’s not always used (look at the Vatican document Dominus Iesus, for example).

Apotheoun’s response doesn’t represent the general Eastern Catholic attitude towards the filioque, so I wouldn’t take it with any more weight than a personal opinion.

Peace and God bless!

 

[George14]

At the risk of being “cute” or trite, I go back to something I tell a lot of people when the subject of “what we believe” comes up, and where it doesn’t negate my own fidelity to the true faith of the Catholic Church: “There is no quiz on judgment day!” Meaning, that living a life seeking truth and practicing love as a child of God is “where it’s at.”

My parish is Mother Seton, who was, of course, a non-catholic for a major part of her life. And the first American born canonized saint.

I have always wondered if the church will ever canonize anyone who was not a catholic. Or whether there are reasons why they would not, despite holiness of life.

But we don’t have a lot of answers to a lot of stuff that we won’t know until “later.”

God is funny that way: creation, His mind, His intentions, stuff - all bigger than the reach of our little minds. Darn. No, not darn: on second thought, I guess I’d prefer it that way. *

It is metaphorical that a new telescope in space is discovering our universe to be “a lot more than we thought.”

I heard a homily on EWTN in which a point was made as follows: imagine your puppy dog sitting next to you in your 2000 book library as you are studying and pondering serious stuff. Is there any way you can “lower yourself to the mind of your puppy and explain to him the significance of all these tomes, of your life, of existence itself?” I love it.*

 

[marymol]

Having happened to have looked more into this a while ago ( after having resisted same for a good while, with the annoyance that it is some petty issue that should just go away !) and then having wondered why this should be with us still …after so many centuries of prayers …and this is the bit that seems to have helped - read somewhere how in the council that defined Nicene Creed , the Fathers had intended to focus on the oneness of The Father and The Son …and thus did not explicitly spell it out …

Our Lord does ask us to call God as our Father , which include all Three Persons …

Could one reason for the lingering of this issue be that The Spirit want The Church(s) , to be more in a Father -child relationship, with all Three Persons and more honor to The Father …

It is interesting too that in the gospels, it is St. Philip, who also has the Greek connection , who pleads with our Lord - ’ show us The Father …’ to whom our Lord responds - ’ if you have seen Me , you have seen The Father .’

In a world that needs The Father Love and strenght , could this be the time to come together - to ‘see’ The Lord …for who He is too …and The Spirit …

And may be what would help us all , a great deal here , would be our HebrewCatholic brethren - hebrewcatholic.org/ and many other such groups …

Is there not something so exhilarating about them coming / being in The Church, that make us want to forget about protocols and all such …and could this be too what helped The Church, to want to open the doors wider, in the many recent years , to even Eastern Churches …

And , while we await The Father’s Love for us telling us that even a cave is good enough for Him, for the joy of being with us , even these little efforts by many little folk here , on these forums and such …who knows if in His mysterious designs , could even be the way that more hearts could move …to See …The Son …and The Father …in The Spirit , that has been poured into us , to tranform us , from may be what are like little (rabies virus harboring ) puppies, into God’s children , who call from the hearts ‘Ab ba …’

Peace !

 

[SHW]

Our spiritual life is all about a loving relationship between a Parent/Creator and His children (and all His children with each other). This is why we call God “Father.”

 

[marymol]

Our spiritual life is all about a loving relationship between a Parent/Creator and His children (and all His children with each other). This is why we call God “Father.”

Agree; thus hoping that if / when ’ filioque’ is dropped , it would be because of a fuller understanding of the children of The Bride , on who The Father is …and not from any notions of error at any level , in The Church , this matter …

Happened to notice a coincidence too - how Lourdes is under Bishop of Nice…(pardon me if mistaken ; my google skills not all that good ! ) …could there be a providential connection with the Nicene Creed … The Father role and relatedness , in our Lord, how it can be taken in better , with the firmer recognition of the Immaculate nature of our Mother …

And some intereting facts about the miraculous spring at Lourdes , how the waters of that spring had existed there hidden as in a pool , in the vicinity …St…Bernadette was used as God’s and our Lady’s tool, to make it accessible and available …( please google under ’ miraculous spring of Lourdes and Abbe Richard ’ , for some interesting facts )

Would those healing waters not be there , to point out healings in other realms too …in areas of conflict …how the Sacramental graces that flow from the pool of The Church are made available , in many ways …to those who are near and far …and God guiding The Bride too , to discern who / what are worthy tools / channels for the flow …

Peace !

 

[SHW]

I am an Eastern Catholic and I do not accept the filioque. ** I believe that the Spirit as hypostasis** proceeds (ekporeusis) only from the Father, and not from or through the Son. The Father is the sole cause of the Son by generation, and He alone is the sole cause of the Spirit by ekporeusis (see St. Maximos’ Letter to Marinus).

Now as far as the “per filium” is concerned, it applies only to the Spirit’s manifestation as energy, and so it does not concern His subsistent (hypostatic) being.

Scripture shows us that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

How do the Three Persons of God work together as One?

Jesus states in John 14:16-18 “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you. 18"I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.”

First Jesus asks His Father to give the Holy Spirit as Helper to the Church on earth.

John 14:26 “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.”

Then the Father Wills (gives) what Jesus asks and wills the Helper to be sent in Jesus’ name to the Church on earth.

John 15:26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.”

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father first. Jesus then sends Him (Holy Spirit) to the Church.

John 16:7-15 “But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. 8"And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; 9concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; 11and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged. 12"I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14"He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. 15"All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.”

Then Jesus Word (verbally) sends the Holy Spirit (Power) to do the Will of the Father. (The Father’s Will is to send the Holy Spirit in Jesus’ name as Helper to Jesus’ Church on earth.)
**
The Holy Spirit then fulfills the will of the Father when He is sent by the Son to the Church on earth. So the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.**
**
Both the Son and the Holy Spirit do the Will of the Father, but the Father’s Will is not carried out without the Son’s Word and the Holy Spirit’s Power.** Jesus states in John 6:38 “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.”

All three of Them cooperating together do the Will of God. They are always and forevermore in perfect undivided unity because They all desire the same thing. (Genesis 1:26) from: members.cox.net/studyhisword/HolyTrinity.pdf