Do Eastern Catholics accept the filioque?

[dvdjs]

The Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople, which Popes of Rome were in attendance (or at least had representatives in their stead) damned anyone who would change the Creed “one iota.”

I think you are confused here Harpazo. Perhaps citing the relevant anathemas might help clear things up.

 

[Alethiaphile]

Originally Posted by Ghosty
I’m referring to the Spiration as a “power”, not an action. The Spiration is the Principle of the Holy Spirit.

What exactly do you mean by a “power”? A “power” usually means a mere potency, and a potency never caused or originated anything. We never talk of “powers” without an agent.
And how does the “one power” account fit with the spring-stream-lake example? You clearly have two powers, the power of the spring bringing water vertically out of the earth, and the power of the stream bringing the water horizontally (roughly) to the lake. Seems like different “powers” to me.

The stream is definitely the principle of the lake, when the lake is considered as the result. If only the spring were the principle, and not the stream as well, then the lake would not flow from the stream at all, which is nonsense. Since the lake is equally from the stream and the spring (is the lake from the stream: yes; is the lake from the spring: yes) the stream and spring can together be called the principle of the lake. Additionally, calling them together the principle of the lake says nothing about the relationship of the spring to the stream, or the status of the spring as the source of all the water being spoken of; all it says, all it CAN say, is that the lake comes from the stream and spring.

The most natural and precise way to speak is that the lake is from the spring by way of the stream. To say “it comes from the spring and the stream” would be considered a sloppy way of speaking. And it is especially clear that one would not normally say that the lake was from the spring and the stream “equally”. If there were two springs or steams feeding the lake, then it would be natural to say that the lake was from the two springs or two streams “equally”, and that is the picture conveyed the Fathers of Lyons and Florence when they say “equally” and “as from one principle”

You’re using “principle” in a manner that is far too restricted, and which is not consistent with the Latin use throughout history.

I believe I’m using “principle” in the sense that it has been used consistently in theological and philosophical writing over the last 2000 years. If “principle” as used in the decrees of Lyons and Florence is used in a specialized sense, then I think that would have been disclosed. Joe

 

[Alethiaphile]

Actually, it’s a lot more complicated than you represent. Remember that the Son proceeds from the Father; He does not proceed from the Father and the Holy Spirit. So when we in the Latin Rite say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, it is implicit that the Holy Spirit ultimately proceeds from the Father since the Father is the originating source of the Son.

Again, the problem is the Lyons/Florence language that the Father and the Son spirate the Spirit “equally” and “as from one principle”. That language simply cannot be squared with the Father as the sole originating source of the Son and the Spirit. If the Father and the Son “together”“equally” spirate the Spirit, this must be a separate action or power than the Father’s begetting of the Son.

Now, whether the Greek Orthodox are justified in their opposition to the use of the “filioque” is another matter. As shown above, it is doctrinally acceptable (if a little less precise) to use the “filioque”. Moreover, the criticism that the “filioque” was adopted in the Latin Rite without the consent of the Greek Orthodox at an ecumenical council is a bunch of baloney (IMHO). The Greek Orthodox made much more serious changes to the decrees of the Council of Nicea when they elevated Constantinople without the benefit of an intervening ecumenical council and in opposition to Pope St. Leo the Great.

You’re comparing apples and oranges. The Latins may have a legitimate beef about Canon 28 (I think), but that is not the same thing as an addition to the Creed.

 

[Ghosty]

What exactly do you mean by a “power”? A “power” usually means a mere potency, and a potency never caused or originated anything. We never talk of “powers” without an agent.
And how does the “one power” account fit with the spring-stream-lake example? You clearly have two powers, the power of the spring bringing water vertically out of the earth, and the power of the stream bringing the water horizontally (roughly) to the lake. Seems like different “powers” to me.

In this case the power isn’t a “mere potency”, because it is an eternal act and never merely “potential”. The Spiration is a single power of breathing forth the Holy Spirit, and it is shared by two agents, the Father and the Son, albeit in a different manner (the Father being the Source, the Son being the participant). This doesn’t make for two “powers”, nor does it make for two principles since it is a single “breathing forth”.

As for how the example fits the spring-stream-lake example with the “power of flowing forth”. The water “flows forth” at once from both the spring and the stream, and there are not two flowings of water, but a single one that has its source in the spring.

The most natural and precise way to speak is that the lake is from the spring by way of the stream. To say “it comes from the spring and the stream” would be considered a sloppy way of speaking. And it is especially clear that one would not normally say that the lake was from the spring and the stream “equally”.

You’re still trapped in thinking only in modern English, rather than that of previous ages, and entirely different languages such as Latin. You keep appealing to modern grammatical use, which is pointless and proves nothing because we’re not discussing terms that were formulated with modern English grammar.

The expressions “by way of” and “from/and” are equally correct in Latin, hence both were used interchangeably in Latin theology and philosophy (again, check out the Summa Theologica on this subject).

I believe I’m using “principle” in the sense that it has been used consistently in theological and philosophical writing over the last 2000 years.

Then you’re wrong, plain and simple. I’m sorry to put it so bluntly, but your use of the term plainly fails to stand up to actual usage. I’ve already shown where principle is used in the manner I’m using it by the most astute and influential Medieval Latin theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas, the man who’s definition and terminology formed the basis of the decree from Lyons and Florence (he actually died enroute to Lyons; he was summoned to explain the terminology and theology of the filioque). If you insist on using “principle” in a manner that it is not intended, and not used, by Latin theology then the error is entirely within your own mind, and you’ve done nothing to prove the Latin theology incorrect.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

You’re comparing apples and oranges. The Latins may have a legitimate beef about Canon 28 (I think), but that is not the same thing as an addition to the Creed.

Nah. The Latins only have an imaginary beef with Canon 28 (obejctively, the Canon does or did nothing to reduce the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome). It is the Coptic Orthodox who have the legitimate beef with Canon 28.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JohnVIII]

Nah. The Latins only have an imaginary beef with Canon 28 (obejctively, the Canon does or did nothing to reduce the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome). It is the Coptic Orthodox who have the legitimate beef with Canon 28.

Blessings,
Marduk

In the earlier years what I believe was “imagined” was that it would be bad for the church if Constantinople, with its history of falling into many heresies, have the same rank, or close to it, as did the see of Rome. Later on in history agreeing with the Greeks in any way shape or form even if they were correct would make the pope seem to be a weak pope. The Council held at the time of Photius patriarch of Constantinople, intended to be the eighth ecumenical Council, was rejected by the Pope because it said similar things as Canon 28 said. Yet Pope John VIII did agree with the anathema issued at that Council against anyone who should change anything in the Nicene Creed; and for this one thing he was said to have given into the Greeks, and was a weak Pope. Pope John VIII also told the Bulgarian king Boris that the faith of St. Photius and the faith of Pope John VIII were one and the same faith; and everyone knows it Saint Photius was very much anti-filioque!. I believe it was for this reason that Pope John VIII was given the honor of being the only pope that was ever replace the very day that he died. Popes after John VIII tried to undo all that this pope did. Pope Marinus even reversed his predecessor’s deposition of Bishop Formosus, enabling deposed Bishop Formosus to later became pope. But none of this can change the fact that Pope John VIII ratified be anathema against anyone who dared to change anything in the Nicene Creed, therefore it is binding on the entire Catholic Church and is of full ecumenical force. I quote this anathema:

As for the definition of the purest and most nobleest faith of the Christians which have come down to us from the fathers in the earliest times, we recognize and embrace it, and we herald it abroad to all men with the clarion voice, without taking anything away from it, without adding anything to it, without altering anything in it, without forging or counterfeiting anything. If therefore anyone should be led to such an extremity of madess as to dare, as has been said above, set forth any other creed (or symbol) and to call it a definition, or to make and obtain any addition or subtraction to the one handed down to us by the holy and Ecumenical great Council held for the first time at Nicaea, let him be anathema.

 

[jam070406]

In the earlier years what I believe was “imagined” was that it would be bad for the church if Constantinople, with its history of falling into many heresies, have the same rank, or close to it, as did the see of Rome. Later on in history agreeing with the Greeks in any way shape or form even if they were correct would make the pope seem to be a weak pope. The Council held at the time of Photius patriarch of Constantinople, intended to be the eighth ecumenical Council, was rejected by the Pope because it said similar things as Canon 28 said. Yet Pope John VIII did agree with the anathema issued at that Council against anyone who should change anything in the Nicene Creed; and for this one thing he was said to have given into the Greeks, and was a weak Pope. Pope John VIII also told the Bulgarian king Boris that the faith of St. Photius and the faith of Pope John VIII were one and the same faith; and everyone knows it Saint Photius was very much anti-filioque!. I believe it was for this reason that Pope John VIII was given the honor of being the only pope that was ever replace the very day that he died. Popes after John VIII tried to undo all that this pope did. Pope Marinus even reversed his predecessor’s deposition of Bishop Formosus, enabling deposed Bishop Formosus to later became pope. But none of this can change the fact that Pope John VIII ratified be anathema against anyone who dared to change anything in the Nicene Creed, therefore it is binding on the entire Catholic Church and is of full ecumenical force. I quote this anathema:

John,
no new article of Faith was added.
The Filioque today is used as a tool to further division. Division comes from the pits of Hell. The Filioque was recited in the West for 100’s of years before the Great schism. The Catholic Church today recites both Creeds. Two expressions of the same Faith. If you were to worship in union with Latin Catholics would it really impede your love of God and neighbor to know that down the street your brothers are reciting the Creed with the Filioque in it?

 

[mardukm]

I quote this anathema:

Strange. The anathema mentions that no one should change the creed of Nicea. Then this means that the Council of Constantinople was anathemized for it added new text to the Nicene Creed. Fancy that!

Brother JohnVIII, I think we all know that what was meant by “additions or deletions” were/are changes to the SUBSTANCE of the Faith. The additions of Constantinople did not change the SUBSTANCE of the Faith of Nicea. Neither did the addition of filioque change the SUBSTANCE of the Faith of Nicea. So stop making this a cause for division.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[bpbasilphx]

**Neither did the addition of filioque change the SUBSTANCE of the Faith of Nicea. So stop making this a cause for division.
**

Most Orthodox will dispute this.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother bpbasilphx,

**Neither did the addition of filioque change the SUBSTANCE of the Faith of Nicea. So stop making this a cause for division.
**

Most Orthodox will dispute this.

I think the fact that there is a difference between ekpoereusai and procedere in the Greek and Latin, which dictates that filioque actually means “through the Son” in context has been well-explained in several documents of the Catholic Church.

Are these Orthodox simply unaware of these explanations, or are they aware and still reject them as insufficient? If the latter, why do they reject the patristic teaching of “through the Son”? Would that not place such persons outside of patristic orthodoxy?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

**Neither did the addition of filioque change the SUBSTANCE of the Faith of Nicea. So stop making this a cause for division.
**

Most Orthodox will dispute this.

And permit me to remind that I and others here have quoted several Eastern Fathers indicating that “through the Son” touches upon the very Being of the Holy Spirit, and not just his economic manifestation. Either these Eastern Fathers such as St. John Damascene, Pope St. Cyril and others are heretics, or these certain Orthodox who still make filioque an issue for division are simply wrong, and need to repent.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JohnVIII]

Strange. The anathema mentions that no one should change the creed of Nicea. Then this means that the Council of Constantinople was anathemized for it added new text to the Nicene Creed. Fancy that!

Brother JohnVIII, I think we all know that what was meant by “additions or deletions” were/are changes to the SUBSTANCE of the Faith. The additions of Constantinople did not change the SUBSTANCE of the Faith of Nicea. Neither did the addition of filioque change the SUBSTANCE of the Faith of Nicea. So stop making this a cause for division.

Blessings,
Marduk

I’m sure you believe that the Orthodox are in schism, I do not, but giving that to you for the sake of argument if the pope were to return to the original completed Creed I’m sure 90% of the Orthodox or more would return to communion with the See of Rome. Since I’m told that there is absolutely no change in the Faith with or without the filioque, and union with Rome is needed for salvation, then, out of the love for the souls of millions, why doesn’t the pope do this? Instead, except for a few dispensations here and there, it is absolutely required!

You say “So stop making this a cause for division” but I bring it up not because of any other person except myself. I would indeed concider union with Rome for myself and my family if it were not for the filioque. I have read many of the postings and read the links contained in some of them about this issue and PERSONALLY I still see it as a heresy. Sorry, don’t take offence, I know that this is a CATHOLIC forum and I fell privileged to be here and I have learned a lot! Please don’t try to get me kicked out of this forum, because all I’m saying is that I believe still that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is build on the Rock of St. Peter and that the Rock of St. Peter is the Orthodox Faith itself.

God bless

• a d r i a n

 

[jam070406]

I’m sure you believe that the Orthodox are in schism, I do not, but giving that to you for the sake of argument if the pope were to return to the original completed Creed I’m sure 90% of the Orthodox or more would return to communion with the See of Rome. Since I’m told that there is absolutely no change in the Faith with or without the filioque, and union with Rome is needed for salvation, then, out of the love for the souls of millions, why doesn’t the pope do this? Instead, except for a few dispensations here and there, it is absolutely required!

You say “So stop making this a cause for division” but I bring it up not because of any other person except myself. I would indeed concider union with Rome for myself and my family if it were not for the filioque. I have read many of the postings and read the links contained in some of them about this issue and PERSONALLY I still see it as a heresy. Sorry, don’t take offence, I know that this is a CATHOLIC forum and I fell privileged to be here and I have learned a lot! Please don’t try to get me kicked out of this forum, because all I’m saying is that I believe still that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is build on the Rock of St. Peter and that the Rock of St. Peter is the Orthodox Faith itself.

God bless

• a d r i a n

You can rest in peace knowing that the Filioque was affirmed as orthodox by the council of Lyons & Florence.

 

[mardukm]

I’m sure you believe that the Orthodox are in schism, I do not, but giving that to you for the sake of argument if the pope were to return to the original completed Creed I’m sure 90% of the Orthodox or more would return to communion with the See of Rome. Since I’m told that there is absolutely no change in the Faith with or without the filioque, and union with Rome is needed for salvation, then, out of the love for the souls of millions, why doesn’t the pope do this? Instead, except for a few dispensations here and there, it is absolutely required!

The theology of Filioque (that the very Being of the Holy Spirit proceeds THROUGH the Son) is both patristic and absolutely required. What is not required for Easterns and Orientals is its addition to the Creed. Also, the matter of the Easterns and Orientals being “not required” to have it is not due to permission from Rome to not have it. It has always been that way. It is really because Rome has fessed up to its mistake of imposing the addition in the first place. Of course, that fact does not affect papal infallibility, because with or without filioque, the constant teaching of the Church that the very Being of the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son is still a de fide teaching.

You say “So stop making this a cause for division” but I bring it up not because of any other person except myself. I would indeed concider union with Rome for myself and my family if it were not for the filioque. I have read many of the postings and read the links contained in some of them about this issue and PERSONALLY I still see it as a heresy. Sorry, don’t take offence, I know that this is a CATHOLIC forum and I fell privileged to be here and I have learned a lot! Please don’t try to get me kicked out of this forum, because all I’m saying is that I believe still that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is build on the Rock of St. Peter and that the Rock of St. Peter is the Orthodox Faith itself.

I have not seen you participate in the discussions where I and others have quoted the Eastern Fathers teaching that the very Being of the Holy Spirit proceeds THROUGH the Son, and not merely the economic manifestation (as some EO apologists and polemicsts argue). How do you respond to these quotes from the Eastern Fathers? I would love to discuss the matter with you if and when you have time. I mean, what is it about filioque that you still find heretical despite all the explanation?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[bobzills]

The Catholic Church today recites both Creeds. Two expressions of the same Faith.

This is not the view of the E. Orthodox Church as I understand it to be. The E. Orthodox Church teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.
In one case, the procession is from the Father. And in the other case, the procession is from the Father and from the Son. Why would it not contradict ordinary logic, common sense and reason to say that they are exactly the same?

 

[JMJ_coder]

This is not the view of the E. Orthodox Church as I understand it to be. The E. Orthodox Church teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.
In one case, the procession is from the Father. And in the other case, the procession is from the Father and from the Son. Why would it not contradict ordinary logic, common sense and reason to say that they are exactly the same?

This might help show you how:

The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity: The Procession of the Holy Spirit in Greek and Latin Traditions

 

[Aramis]

This is not the view of the E. Orthodox Church as I understand it to be. The E. Orthodox Church teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.
In one case, the procession is from the Father. And in the other case, the procession is from the Father and from the Son. Why would it not contradict ordinary logic, common sense and reason to say that they are exactly the same?

Funny, but growing up RC, I was ALWAYS taught that the procession from the Son originates in the Father, and thus is through the Son.

If you were taught differently, Bobzills, your catechist’s instruction is the questionable item.

 

[bobzills]

Funny, but growing up RC, I was ALWAYS taught that the procession from the Son originates in the Father, and thus is through the Son.

If you were taught differently, Bobzills, your catechist’s instruction is the questionable item.

Why doesn’t the creed read per filium?

 

[bobzills]

Funny, but growing up RC, I was ALWAYS taught that the procession from the Son originates in the Father, and thus is through the Son.

If you were taught differently, Bobzills, your catechist’s instruction is the questionable item.

Is the Catholic encyclopedia wrong then?
What is the dogmatic meaning of the 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.”
“The rejection of the Filioque, or the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, and the denial of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff constitute even today the principal errors of the Greek church. While outside the Church doubt as to the double Procession of the Holy Ghost grew into open denial, inside the Church the doctrine of the Filioque was declared to be a dogma of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second council of Lyons (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438-1445). Thus the Church proposed in a clear and authoritative form the teaching of Sacred Scripture and tradition on the Procession of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity.”
This article was published with Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. September 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm

 

[Aramis]

Is the Catholic encyclopedia wrong then?

Imprimateur is not guarantee of non-error nor infallibility, only of being generally sound according to the granter thereof.

The 1909-1917 imprints have a number of errors. Otherwise, the 1956 would not have been needed.

And further, it is not a magisterial document, therefore magisterial infallibility doesn’t apply.