Do Eastern Catholics accept the filioque?

[chrisb]

Nothing was lifted; the event was renounced by both sides. There was no mention of lifting any existing canonical penalties.

As I said, there were plenty of events. This is not the thread for such a discussion, however.

I honestly can’t see how one can bring up the Sack of Constantinople without at least mentioning what proceeded it. The fact that the East felt the West beneath them seems to be telling why they might have denied the filioque. I’m not sure it was motivated on theological grounds but political/racial biases which existed in the east.

I don’t seem to see them explored as grounds for much of the attitude toward the Western Empire and the Western Patriarch, the Pope. Until I attended a lecture series on the Eastern Empire I really didn’t understand their point of view. A point of view which I seem to see even within the modern Eastern Orthodox Church…

A certain kind of self-righteous contempt toward the West, it’s saints and the Church which seems to blind them to evils and errors which they have committed and the biases which they continue to hold toward the West.

 

[Formosus]

I’m not saying there wasn’t tension, just that the incident of 1054 a) doesn’t represent a definite point of schism, and b) was not enforced (at least by the Catholic side) as a legitimate excommunication. It’s this second point which is key to the discussion at hand, IMO.

Peace and God bless!

From my understanding, even assuming the 1054 excommunication was invalid (which I do), the Councils of Lyons and Florence did at least anathematize the Eastern Orthodox if not excommunicated (memory is a bit fuzzy on this point).

 

[sidbrown]

From my understanding, even assuming the 1054 excommunication was invalid (which I do), the Councils of Lyons and Florence did at least anathematize the Eastern Orthodox if not excommunicated (memory is a bit fuzzy on this point).

You mentioned the Council of Lyons. I read the following declaration from the second Council of Lyons 1274.:
" We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike. But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one. "

 

[chrisb]

You mentioned the Council of Lyons. I read the following declaration from the second Council of Lyons 1274.:
" We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike. But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one. "

Bamm! I was wondering what Our Holy Father lifted some years back with the Greek Patriarch…

 

[Formosus]

If point ‘b’ is true, why did Our Holy Father Pope John Paul II (memory eternal) lift that excommunication?

Also wasn’t this ‘tension’ which rose in the East stem from Greek Platonist ideas of eugenics of the Guardian Class? I recall a lecture by Professor Thomas Madden where this was posited as the ‘root’ for Eastern dismissal of the West as worthy.

I have never read anything that would ever have suggested that. You are more then welcomed to explain why that was the case though.

From my reading of history,the Eastern Empire did indeed have contempt for the western world, but this is not rooted in eugenics. Rather it was probably rooted in the idea that outside of the [Roman]Empire, their lay a world of barbarism. The Empire viewed itself as the civilized world (Oikoumene). Whatever there was outside of the Empire was in some way inferior culturally. To some extent, especially where the west is concerned, there was some truth in this as literacy rates remained much higher among the population of the Empire then in western Europe. Outward antagonism towards the west ,though, only developed after Charles the Great usurped the Imperial title.

Also, though you list the Latin massacre of 1182AD, I think its fair to point out that the Norman invasion of southern Italy, and Greece are evidence of aggression towards the Easterners by the Latin west well before this particular massacre. (Not to mention, if this is the massacre I am thinking of it was motivated by resentment of the Venetian merchants draining the Empire’s economy then at the Latin church itself). Either way, we can point fingers at who committed more violence before the other, but that ultimately doesn’t resolve anything and all it does is imitate the medieval politics that had no business separating the Church to begin with. Yes the East is still upset over the sack of Constantinople, but you know everyone in the west should equally be upset that it ever came to that. Maybe they massacred Latins first, but doesn’t Christ say to turn the other cheek? Western humility will go , and has gone, a long way in helping the East forgive the west for its crimes and allowing them to recognize their own historical imperfections.

 

[Mickey]

you are indeed either being arrogant or obstinate.

There you go again.

You can take it merely as an attack,

Okay.

or you can take it as an opportunity to look at yourself and how you keep insisting on things that have already been clarified

Nothing has been clarified, my friend. The translation remains vague. Perhaps it is you who are being arrogant and/or obstinant? Rome has recently revised the Liturgy. It is too bad that they did not make the proper adjustment to the creed.

Obviously this is a rhetorical question, since you know that the word “que” means “and”. You obviously also realize that “and” does not necessarily make the Son the Source with the Father, and that it is fully compatible with “through” (and is used with this compatibility in mind).

So then no problem with using the word “through”…eh?

But this continued argument shows that it is not the wording at all which is the issue

The wording speaks volumes.

You yourself have taken a stand against the Fathers on this matter

I believe that if the fathers were here today, they would be mortified at the insertion of the filique in the creed. Just a gut feeling.

 

[chrisb]

I have never read anything that would ever have suggested that. You are more then welcomed to explain why that was the case though.

Plato’s Theory on the breeding of the Guardian Class… comes to mind.

From my reading of history,the Eastern Empire did indeed have contempt for the western world, but this is not rooted in eugenics. Rather it was probably rooted in the idea that outside of the [Roman]Empire, their lay a world of barbarism. The Empire viewed itself as the civilized world (Oikoumene). Whatever there was outside of the Empire was in some way inferior culturally. To some extent, especially where the west is concerned, there was some truth in this as literacy rates remained much higher among the population of the Empire then in western Europe. Outward antagonism towards the west ,though, only developed after Charles the Great usurped the Imperial title.

Also, though you list the Latin massacre of 1182AD, I think its fair to point out that the Norman invasion of southern Italy, and Greece are evidence of aggression towards the Easterners by the Latin west well before this particular massacre. (Not to mention, if this is the massacre I am thinking of it was motivated by resentment of the Venetian merchants draining the Empire’s economy then at the Latin church itself). Either way, we can point fingers at who committed more violence before the other, but that ultimately doesn’t resolve anything and all it does is imitate the medieval politics that had no business separating the Church to begin with. Yes the East is still upset over the sack of Constantinople, but you know everyone in the west should equally be upset that it ever came to that. Maybe they massacred Latins first, but doesn’t Christ say to turn the other cheek? Western humility will go , and has gone, a long way in helping the East forgive the west for its crimes and allowing them to recognize their own historical imperfections.

So, the fact that the Emperor ‘gave’ the Balkan Goths the ‘right’ to invade Italy and rule it in his name doesn’t come into the equation? The Eastern Emperor didn’t have the ‘right’ to give Italy (a Western Territory) to Balkan Goths in the first place. Southern Italy was ‘never’ part of the Eastern Empire.

 

[Diak]

What about the Massacre of the Latins in 1182AD? Wouldn’t that be a strong indication of the way Greeks felt to Latins, especially the Pope? I mean, the decapitated the Papal Legate and tied his head to a dogs tail to run it through the city

Certainly not to be ignored, but it cannot be denied that the atrocities of 1204 of the Papal-declared Fourth Crusade, in which the holy city of Constantinople was sacked and some of the most beautiful churches in Christiandom horribly desecrated by those wearing the Cross of the Crusaders was a serious breakpoint. As Dominico Tintoretto, an Italian Latin bemoaned:

How shall I begin to tell of the deeds wrought by these nefarious men! Alas, the images, which ought to have been adored, were trodden under foot! Alas, the relics of the holy martyrs were thrown into unclean places! Then was seen what one shudders to hear, namely, the divine body and blood of Christ was spilled upon the ground or thrown about. They snatched the precious reliquaries, thrust into their bosoms the ornaments which these contained, and used the broken remnants for pans and drinking cups, --precursors of Anti-Christ, authors and heralds of his nefarious deeds which we momentarily expect. Manifestly, indeed, by that race then, just as formerly, Christ was robbed and insulted and His garments were divided by lot; only one thing was lacking, that His side, pierced by a spear, should pour rivers of divine blood on the ground.

It is one thing to enact physical violence on men, but another thing entirely on the places of God and the Holy Mysteries - Churches and areas that had been minstered to by the likes of St. John Chrysostom, St. Theodore the Studite, and the Cappadocians. It has to be admitted that this sort of thing coming from purported Christians raises the level of passion and injury.

While Pope Innocent lamented the unfortunate events of the Fourth Crusade, and may have written some personal letters expressing his dismay, or personal excommunications, he does not appear (contrary to popular thought) to have ever issued a unconditional condemnation of the perpetrators. It was not until Pope John Paul II (everlasting memory!!!) that this major atrocity was apologized for directly to Constantinople and repentance made. And this was a huge step, even though it was 790+ years later.

The lack of most of the West to come to the assistance of the very pro-Union Constantine Paleologus at the final defense of the last capital of the Roman Empire was the other major break point. The fall of Constantinople also largely opened the door historically for the advancement of militant Islam throughout Europe.

Southern Italy, Corsica, etc. did have many Greek communities, some of whom have remained in communion with the Catholic Church, and some of these communities remain vibrant today.

 

[chrisb]

Certainly not to be ignored, but it cannot be denied that the atrocities of 1204 of the Papal-declared Fourth Crusade, in which the holy city of Constantinople was sacked and some of the most beautiful churches in Christiandom horribly desecrated by those wearing the Cross of the Crusaders was a serious breakpoint. As Dominico Tintoretto, an Italian Latin bemoaned:

You are aware that in the Massacre of the Latins, every single Latin within the city was killed, every man, woman and child? The very few who were left were then sold to Muslims as slaves… does that strike you as Christian?

The ensuing massacre was indiscriminate: neither women nor children were spared, and the Latin priests and monks received special attention. Cardinal John, the Pope’s representative, was beheaded and his head was dragged through the streets at the tail of a dog.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins

 

[sidbrown]

You are aware that in the Massacre of the Latins, every single Latin within the city was killed, every man, woman and child? The very few who were left were then sold to Muslims as slaves… does that strike you as Christian?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins

The Muslim chronicler, Ibn Judayr, wrote that it was the Msulim armies which committed the atrocities in 1182, not the Greeks.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother sidbrown,

The Muslim chronicler, Ibn Judayr, wrote that it was the Msulim armies which committed the atrocities in 1182, not the Greeks.

Historians discredit Ibn Judayr’s account as erroneous and biased towards a Muslim agenda (Ibn Judayr reported that the Muslims conquered Constantinople at this time, which is wholly false since the Muslim conquest did not occur until the 15th century), and prefer the chronicle of Nicetas Choniates, a Byzantine who lived during the event.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Diak,

It is well-known that the Pope did not authorize the sack of Constantinople but tried to avert it. Your statement “Papal-declared Fourth Crusade” might imply something false to some unwary reader.

Dear brother Chrisb,

Perhaps it is not proper to play one-upmanship in holiness (“does that strike you as Christian?”), especially when such atrocities from both sides is a plain historical fact.

Forgive me, brothers, if my words may have insulted.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Lola_Hoi]

Reference to the original posting
Oh dear, so much humanism terminology and not of the spirit of God. Does it make one wise to understand such words. Not in the least, as the opposite can be true.
Lola Hoi
Try to simplify life as Yeshua taught us.

 

[chrisb]

Dear brother Chrisb,

Perhaps it is not proper to play one-upmanship in holiness (“does that strike you as Christian?”), especially when such atrocities from both sides is a plain historical fact.

Forgive me, brothers, if my words may have insulted.

Blessings,
Marduk

Grace and Peace Marduk,

I take no offense to your words. And what you said rings true. I am not attempting to one-up our Greek Brothers and Sisters but I’ve seen a pattern of forgetting offenses and making out as if the West erred in a vacuum. Such is simply not true.

 

[stephraim]

I believe that if the fathers were here today, they would be mortified at the insertion of the filique in the creed. Just a gut feeling.

Perhaps at the insertion, but not at the theology since it has been taught in the West by many of the Fathers. I honestly think that, while orthodox in content (assuming procession = proeinai), it is quite ambiguous in language, and should perhaps be replaced by an expression using “through.” I also believe that, while it would be a grievous loss, the Creed should perhaps be omitted from the Liturgy as in the first millennium, or perhaps even replaced with the Roman Symbol for the sake of peace.

 

[Formosus]

Plato’s Theory on the breeding of the Guardian Class… comes to mind.

I am well aware of Plato’s theory but you have yet to actually connect it to any historical ideology of the Eastern Empire. And if they adopted this view, then why exactly didn’t the Byzantine Empire employ “female guardians” as per Plato’s theory?

So, the fact that the Emperor ‘gave’ the Balkan Goths the ‘right’ to invade Italy and rule it in his name doesn’t come into the equation? The Eastern Emperor didn’t have the ‘right’ to give Italy (a Western Territory) to Balkan Goths in the first place. Southern Italy was ‘never’ part of the Eastern Empire.

The Western and Eastern Emperors often played off against each other before the collapse of the western one. Southern Italy, and really all of Italy , did become “Eastern” Imperial territory once Justinian’s armies reconquered it from the barbarians. Even if you hold that the Italian peninsula was rightfully the Western Empire’s, then it still doesn’t show justification for the Norman conquest of southern Italy. The people of Southern Italy were Roman citizens, not meant to be subjects of barbarian Norman kings.

 

[patricius79]

Does anyone know what Athanasius’s word uses were as related to the Filioque?

 

[Vico]

Does anyone know what Athanasius’s word uses were as related to the Filioque?

Christ was divine and of the same substance, homoousios, with God. What is originated is of a different kind than the originator. What is begotten is the same kind as the begetter. The Son is eternally, and so unoriginately, begotten of the Father. The Son is not foreign but proper to the Father’s ousia.

De Incarnatione is his famous work, in English:
spurgeon.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm

This is an interesting book:

Athanasius: a theological introduction (2006) by Thomas Gerard Weinandy

 

[dcointin]

Dear brother Diak,

It is well-known that the Pope did not authorize the sack of Constantinople but tried to avert it. Your statement “Papal-declared Fourth Crusade” might imply something false to some unwary reader.

Dear brother Chrisb,

Perhaps it is not proper to play one-upmanship in holiness (“does that strike you as Christian?”), especially when such atrocities from both sides is a plain historical fact.

Forgive me, brothers, if my words may have insulted.

Blessings,
Marduk

Did he not set up latin bishops over the city afterward though?

 

[patricius79]

Christ was divine and of the same substance, homoousios, with God. What is originated is of a different kind than the originator. What is begotten is the same kind as the begetter. The Son is eternally, and so unoriginately, begotten of the Father. The Son is not foreign but proper to the Father’s ousia.

De Incarnatione is his famous work, in English:
spurgeon.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm

This is an interesting book:

Athanasius: a theological introduction (2006) by Thomas Gerard Weinandy

Thanks very much, Vico.

I have heard that Athanasius spoke a few times of the “dependence in origination of the Spirit in the Son”, but due to my ignorance, I’ve been unable to find these texts online.