Do Eastern Catholics accept the filioque?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alethiaphile
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
sidbrown said:
The EO are not all that enthusiastic about reunion with the RCC. Many say they prefer to stay just the way they are now. The RCC says it wants reunion with the EO.
Shouldn’t the side that wants the reunion make one or two concessions, such as for example, the date for Easter?
Click to expand...
That is what I was talking about before, Sid.

I think ECs for the most part are willing to make concessions.

The question is—can the Orthodox get over their resentment over what happened in the 11th century and move on???

Can they accept papal infallibility also??? (Like you mentioned previously).

I don’t know…
 
Dear OrdinaryMelkite,

In fact, in the Kyivan Orthodox tradition of the 17th and 18th (and 19th) centuries, belief in the Immaculate Conception was widespread together with actual Orthodox “Brotherhoods of the Immaculate Conception” of the Mother of God.

They all wore a medal similar to the Miraculous Medal of today and prayed: “All Immaculate Theotokos, save us!” They also took the “bloody vow” or the vow to defend to the death the Immaculate Conception.

Also, St Peter Mohyla (and other Kyivan Baroque era Orthodox saints) believed in Purgatory.

When Mohyla’s “Confessio” had the references to Purgatory removed by the Orthodox Patriarchs, Mohyla insisted that they be left in for his Metropolitan province.

In fact, there is really nothing in Mohyla’s confession of faith that would prevent it from being used by Eastern Catholics (save for the Papacy).

Alex
 
Alexander_Roman said:
There shouldn’t be any reason for the entire Church, East and West, to keep to the original text of the Nicene Creed.

In fact, the words “Who proceeds from the Father” are taken directly from Scripture, from the Mouth of Christ Himself.

I don’t think anyone should presume to want to “improve” on our Lord’s Trinitarian theology! 😦

Another problem with the Filioque is that it is an entirely Scholastic construct that proceeds from Scholasticism (the Greeks at Florence did express their dismay that what they were being required to assent to were Scholastic conclusions).

IF both Churches agree that the distinction between the “Only Begotten Son” and the “Spirit that proceeds from the Father” are maintained by Their manner of spiration from the Father - why do we need the Filioque? Why can’t we then agree to what we already agree to that the Holy Spirit comes to us from the Father through the Son (in time)?

As for the doctrine of the Filioque, it can be said, as I believe Ghosty is saying, that it is “culture specific.” That is, in Latin, it is one thing, in Greek, something altogether different.

IF that is true (and Ghosty can always be trusted! 👍), then the Filioque really is a legitimate Latin teaching but which should not be imposed on the universal Church. As such, it hads nothing to what the Church universal has always believed about the Trinity and that the Spirit comes to us from the Father through the Son (in time).

Alex
Click to expand...
The filioque was added to defend the faith against Arianism (which denied full divinity of the Son - consubstantial, one in essence) but not added in the Greek version, which would have introduced the wrong meaning. Latin and Eastern have always, and still do, agree on the monarcy of the Father who is the One Source (aitia) of both the Son and the Holy Spirit.
 
Dear Vico,

I agree sir!

But that need no longer exists and so we might think about returning to the ancient Symbol of Faith without the Filioque.

As for the Arians, it is interesting to note that they were quite different from the modern groups that claim “Arian theology.”

There were three distinct groups of Arians, but all of them worshipped Christ, even though they believed He was “inferior to the Father.” One Arian group was obliged to admit more than one God since it believed that Christ was a “Great God” but still not equal to His Father (would this be a fair representation of LDS Christology?).

When the Arian movement collapsed, a number of their saints came into the calendar of the Catholic Church e.g. St Nikita, St Savas the Goth, St Artemius the Dux Augustalis of Egypt and others.

The Bollandists even found one “St Artotis” in the calendar of Saints under June 6th.

After their research, they concluded that “St Artotis” was none other than Arius himself whom some Arian scribe inserted into the calendar under a different name.

Needless to say, “St Artotis” was expunged from the calendar forthwirth.

Alex
 
Alexander_Roman said:
Dear OrdinaryMelkite,

In fact, in the Kyivan Orthodox tradition of the 17th and 18th (and 19th) centuries, belief in the Immaculate Conception was widespread together with actual Orthodox “Brotherhoods of the Immaculate Conception” of the Mother of God.

They all wore a medal similar to the Miraculous Medal of today and prayed: “All Immaculate Theotokos, save us!” They also took the “bloody vow” or the vow to defend to the death the Immaculate Conception.

Also, St Peter Mohyla (and other Kyivan Baroque era Orthodox saints) believed in Purgatory.

When Mohyla’s “Confessio” had the references to Purgatory removed by the Orthodox Patriarchs, Mohyla insisted that they be left in for his Metropolitan province.

In fact, there is really nothing in Mohyla’s confession of faith that would prevent it from being used by Eastern Catholics (save for the Papacy).

Alex
Click to expand...
Good to know, AlexanderRoman…😉
 
Alexander_Roman said:
Dear Vico,

I agree sir!

But that need no longer exists and so we might think about returning to the ancient Symbol of Faith without the Filioque.

As for the Arians, it is interesting to note that they were quite different from the modern groups that claim “Arian theology.”

There were three distinct groups of Arians, but all of them worshipped Christ, even though they believed He was “inferior to the Father.” One Arian group was obliged to admit more than one God since it believed that Christ was a “Great God” but still not equal to His Father (would this be a fair representation of LDS Christology?).

When the Arian movement collapsed, a number of their saints came into the calendar of the Catholic Church e.g. St Nikita, St Savas the Goth, St Artemius the Dux Augustalis of Egypt and others.

The Bollandists even found one “St Artotis” in the calendar of Saints under June 6th.

After their research, they concluded that “St Artotis” was none other than Arius himself whom some Arian scribe inserted into the calendar under a different name.

Needless to say, “St Artotis” was expunged from the calendar forthwirth.

Alex
Click to expand...
Thanks for the information, BTW!!!

To be honest, though…I really don’t see any modern expression of “Arian Theology,” , unless you mean Unitarian Universalism??? Sort of???

Now Pelagianism, yes, I do see some modern examples of THAT heresy.

Not saying you’re wrong—just that I don’t know of any. Please feel free to enlighten me. 👍
 
OrdinaryMelkite said:
That is what I was talking about before, Sid.

I think ECs for the most part are willing to make concessions.

The question is—can the Orthodox get over their resentment over what happened in the 11th century and move on???

Can they accept papal infallibility also??? (Like you mentioned previously).

I don’t know…
Click to expand...
I completely agree that we must get over the terrible events of the past and move on in Christian love and forgiveness. Both sides have done awful things, but we can’t allow ourselves to harbor enmity forever. I’m far more concerned with what the Churches are doing now than what mistakes they made 1000 years ago.

I have to say, however, that theologically “papal infallibility” as defined at Vatican I is unacceptable and will remain a major point of contention between us.
 
dcointin said:
I completely agree that we must get over the terrible events of the past and move on in Christian love and forgiveness. Both sides have done awful things, but we can’t allow ourselves to harbor enmity forever. I’m far more concerned with what the Churches are doing now than what mistakes they made 1000 years ago.

I have to say, however, that theologically “papal infallibility” as defined at Vatican I is unacceptable and will remain a major point of contention between us.
Click to expand...
Sadly, I agree with you, Dcointin…
 
To answer the original subject of this thread—

The best answer I’ve gotten so far regarding whether ECs should do the Filioque comes from none other than the head of my Publicans Group (which I am a proud member of). Great woman who has answered all my questions regarding the Faith.

Last Friday while we were sitting around talking after prayers I asked her whether she ever went to RC churches. She said she did. (We as Melkite ECrs can, of course, do that.)

The subject of the conversation happened to turn to the Filioque and the difference between the “Father” only in the Melkite church and the “Father and Son” one in the RC.

I asked her if she said the RC version while reciting the creed with others. She said, “No I don’t say that, (Father and Son), just our version (The Father).”

Our Liturgy books have the eastern version of the creed (Father), and we recite it that way, yet we are full Catholics.

According to one of my local Fathers, we OFFICIALLY accept and follow the full dogma of Rome (many disagree, of course) we just have a different manner of expressing the rituals of our shared faith.

So as far as I know, we are not required to do the Filioque if we are ECers.
Remember, we are not technically PART of Rome, we are in COMMUNION with Rome.

We are Catholics indeed—just another “aspect” of Catholicism. We accept our Blessed Pope as the Ultimate Head of the Church (First among Equals), but we are not required to agree and follow in all matters.

In one of the pamphlets that I received when I was first welcomed into the Church, there were scattered throughout the text testimonials from people who became Melkites. One of them was Sam Rosenbaum (I think that was his name) who used to be a Protestant and memeber of Operation Rescue but who wanted to become a Catholic but had problems accepting the “unconditional authority” of the Pope. He said the Melkite faith allowed him to be a Catholic without having to obey the Pope in all things.

We are a tent—one faith, but different expressions of worship of that faith within the “tent.”

Hope I’m being clear. :o
 
One thing—to clarify—

Melkites at least may say the Filioque if they so desire, but we are not REQUIRED to.

As far as I know, of course. If I’m wrong someone enlighten me. 😛
 
Dear (Extra)Ordinary Melkite,

Your posts show that you are “no ordinary” person - that is why I have interpolated the “extra!” 😃

And speaking of interpolations, the whole Filioque issue could be put to rest if the Churches went back to the original Creed of the fourth century and then allowed for both East and West to have their own Trinitarian theologies (which make sense within their own theological traditions, but not outside of them).

The root of the conflict arises precisely from the inability of either side to “think outside the box” of their own theological traditions.

But ultimately I believe the best principle is the traditional principle - that what was held on certain issues from the very beginning is the way to go today. Some people will say, “Well, then why the Immaculation Conception and Assumption dogmas?” In fact, that Mary was sanctified in the womb of her mother at her conception and was taken, body and soul, to heaven actually is the ancient Apostolic tradition (as an aside, the Eastern Orthodox monastics, to this day, still perform the service of the “Panaghia” or “All Holy” referring to the Mother of God in memory of her appearance soon after her death to the Apostles while they were having supper at table and told them that she was with her Son and to invoke her aid with the prayer “All Holy Mother of God, help us!” The very same invocation is repeated during this service as well, as you know).

As for the contemporary groups affirming Arian theology, the Jehovah’s Witnesses actually do see themselves as descendants of the Arians. But one needs to ask - which Arians? And since all the Arians worshipped Jesus, why don’t they?

Also, the LDS insofar as they affirm (as their reps have told me at the door) that Christ is a “great God and Saviour” but not as great as His Heavenly Father - this groups espouses a form of Arianism which was called “Semi-Arianism” which is actually a form of Tritheism. But they at least do worship Jesus - so they would probably be the closest contemporary incarnation of one of the forms of Arianism.

(BTW, there is an online “Arian Catholic Church” that has canonized “St Arius.” Perhaps someone (it won’t be me) should tell them that Arius was honoured, albeit unawares, as a saint for centuries before the Bollandists expunged him from the Catholic calendar . . . 😉 ).

Alex
 
Alexander_Roman said:
Dear (Extra)Ordinary Melkite,

Your posts show that you are “no ordinary” person - that is why I have interpolated the “extra!” 😃

And speaking of interpolations, the whole Filioque issue could be put to rest if the Churches went back to the original Creed of the fourth century and then allowed for both East and West to have their own Trinitarian theologies (which make sense within their own theological traditions, but not outside of them).

The root of the conflict arises precisely from the inability of either side to “think outside the box” of their own theological traditions.

But ultimately I believe the best principle is the traditional principle - that what was held on certain issues from the very beginning is the way to go today. Some people will say, “Well, then why the Immaculation Conception and Assumption dogmas?” In fact, that Mary was sanctified in the womb of her mother at her conception and was taken, body and soul, to heaven actually is the ancient Apostolic tradition (as an aside, the Eastern Orthodox monastics, to this day, still perform the service of the “Panaghia” or “All Holy” referring to the Mother of God in memory of her appearance soon after her death to the Apostles while they were having supper at table and told them that she was with her Son and to invoke her aid with the prayer “All Holy Mother of God, help us!” The very same invocation is repeated during this service as well, as you know).

As for the contemporary groups affirming Arian theology, the Jehovah’s Witnesses actually do see themselves as descendants of the Arians. But one needs to ask - which Arians? And since all the Arians worshipped Jesus, why don’t they?

Also, the LDS insofar as they affirm (as their reps have told me at the door) that Christ is a “great God and Saviour” but not as great as His Heavenly Father - this groups espouses a form of Arianism which was called “Semi-Arianism” which is actually a form of Tritheism. But they at least do worship Jesus - so they would probably be the closest contemporary incarnation of one of the forms of Arianism.

(BTW, there is an online “Arian Catholic Church” that has canonized “St Arius.” Perhaps someone (it won’t be me) should tell them that Arius was honoured, albeit unawares, as a saint for centuries before the Bollandists expunged him from the Catholic calendar . . . 😉 ).

Alex
Click to expand...
You do me too much honor, Alexander Roman!!! :o

Thanks anyway!!!

I’m simply someone who spent WAY too much time in my high school and college years reading up on various things instead of going to parties and getting high/drunk. :rolleyes:

I was heavily into New Age/Pagan ideology mixed with “ancient astronaut” theory. I even believed in the Egyptian Pantheon for a while.

Christ is all I need to know of now.

Never thought of the Mormons as Arian-inspired, but I do see what you mean now if you put it THAT way.

Mormons believe that even Christ will need to “justify” himself at the end of days. :eek:

Good ole Joe Smith must have inhaled too much ether or something while undergoing one of the Masonic rituals he may have gone through before getting kicked out. :cool:

I do understand JWs as Arian-derived. I’ll make them aware of that next time they come to my door on a Saturday morning. 👍
 
Hello Everyone 😃

Just would like to share something from history… The early days of the patriarchates… Found it here: newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm .

"Dogmatic meaning of filioque

The dogma of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son as one Principle is directly opposed to the error that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, not from the Son. Neither dogma nor error created much difficulty during the course of the first four centuries. Macedonius and his followers, the so-called Pneumatomachi, were condemned by the local Council of Alexandria (362) and by Pope St. Damasus (378) for teaching that the Holy Ghost derives His origin from the Son alone, by creation. If the creed used by the Nestorians, which was composed probably by Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the expressions of Theodoret directed against the ninth anathema by Cyril of Alexandria, deny that the Holy Ghost derives His existence from or through the Son, they probably intend to deny only the creation of the Holy Ghost by or through the Son, inculcating at the same time His Procession from both Father and Son. At any rate, if the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was discussed at all in those earlier times, the controversy was restricted to the East and was of short duration.

The first undoubted denial of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost we find in the seventh century among the heretics of Constantinople when St. Martin I (649-655), in his synodal writing against the Monothelites, employed the expression “Filioque”. Nothing is known about the further development of this controversy; it does not seem to have assumed any serious proportions, as the question was not connected with the characteristic teaching of the Monothelites."
 
Also from here: catholic.com/tracts/filioque . 😃

The quotations below show that the early Church Fathers, both Latin and Greek, recognized the same thing, saying that the Spirit proceeds “from the Father and the Son” or “from the Father through the Son.”

John Damascene
“Likewise we believe also in one Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life . . . God existing and addressed along with Father and Son; uncreated, full, creative, all-ruling, all-effecting, all-powerful, of infinite power, Lord of all creation and not under any lord; deifying, not deified; filling, not filled; sharing in, not shared in; sanctifying, not sanctified; the intercessor, receiving the supplications of all; in all things like to the Father and Son; proceeding from the Father and communicated through the Son” (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 8 [A.D. 712]).

“And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of his divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to himself, but different from that of generation” (ibid., 12).

“I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word [the Son] coming from himself and, through his Word, the Spirit issuing from him” (Dialogue Against the Manicheans 5 [A.D. 728]).

Cyril of Alexandria
“Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it” (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).

“[T]he Holy Spirit flows from the Father in the Son” (ibid.).

“Just as the Son says ‘All that the Father has is mine’ [John 16:15], so shall we find that through the Son it is all also in the Spirit” (Letters 3:4:33 [A.D. 433]).

Basil The Great
“Through the Son, who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity” (The Holy Spirit 18:45 [A.D. 375]).

“[T]he goodness of [the divine] nature, the holiness of [that] nature, and the royal dignity reach from the Father through the only-begotten [Son] to the Holy Spirit. Since we confess the persons in this manner, there is no infringing upon the holy dogma of the monarchy” (ibid., 18:47).

Tertullian
“I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son” (Against Praxeas 4:1 [A.D. 216]).

Origen
“We believe, however, that there are three persons: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and we believe none to be unbegotten except the Father. We admit, as more pious and true, that all things were produced through the Word, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ” (Commentaries on John 2:6 [A.D. 229]).
 
Greek and Latin understanding and application of proceeds is a slight difference in comprehension.

Latin is procedit

Greek is ekporeusai

Anyway aside from this the difficulty is in understating begotten and un-begotten in relation to uncreated and out side of time eternally.

I’ll let the East explain that since they invented philosophy.
 
Did anyone else notice that this thread is over 3 years old? Maybe it’s just me, but I think there are more than enough “filoque” threads as it is, without resurrecting one that has been sleeping peacefully.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Greek and Latin understanding and application of proceeds is a slight difference in comprehension.

Latin is procedit

Greek is ekporeusai

Anyway aside from this the difficulty is in understating begotten and un-begotten in relation to uncreated and out side of time eternally.

I’ll let the East explain that since they invented philosophy.
Click to expand...
First thanks for resurrecting this thread after 3 years, echoing the 3 days before the resurrection :D. I wasn’t ont his forum three years ago.

Correct me if I am wrong. I understasd tht the Vatican is encouraging the Melkite Church to drop the filioque from the Creed on the basis of this difference in terminology - that the Greek word conveys a concept that exclude the possibility of proceeding from the Son. Even the Greek translation of the Roman Missal dropped the filioque. Can someone confirm this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top