Filioque. An Option Now For Eastern Catholics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RomanCatholic66
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wryman said:
It’s worth remembering that there are two levels to the filioque debate:
  1. Is it true?
  2. Should we recite it in the Creed?
It should be quite OK for ANY Catholic to allow the recitation of the Creed in its original form without the filioque, and in fact recent popes have done so. There is no need for any Latin-rite Catholic to be scandalized over the omission of the filioque in the Eastern Catholic churches, because this deals with #2 above and not with #1. In any reunion between East and West, the filioque would obviously have to be settled, but it need not be settled to allow Eastern Catholic churches the ability to retain their traditions and not use it in the recitation of the Creed.
Consider this: When the popes declared the Immaculate Conception and Assumption as de fide, they did not insert these propositions into the Creed.
Click to expand...
👍

P.S. Sadly, for many Orthodox the absence of the filioque in the original Creed is proof that it isn’t authentic Church teaching. 😦
 
Can any orthodox christians point me to the pre schism schism/riots that took place before the schism to end all schisms on the basis of the filoque. What I am saying is that the filoque was used for hundreds of years in different places of western christianity before the eventual full schism but I can’t find the absolute **** hitting the fan before hand from its use which clearly it should have its meaning was not original christian meaning.

We can debate over semantics of what it does nor does not mean but the simple fact from my study is that the east was not all over the west for its use for many a long year before the eventual main schism.

This clearly indicates to me that it is a matter of politics rather than a matter of faith.
 
In short, the filioque wasn’t used in the original creed, for hundreds of years in an undivided Christendom. Even when there was the separation between those who accepted Chalcedon, and who didn’t, the creed without the filioque was maintained. Even the major council or agreement between St. Photius and his Western counterpart agreed the filioque as problematic, in the 800-900s.

It was when the Frankish/Germanic influence took over, was when the filioque became commonplace, in the west.
 
Thanks Lester, but actually what I am referring to is the filoque as an expression, it was first used at the very least in the early 400’s and from then on in various places.

What we do know is that the expression and or though behind it was not considered to be against the faith. Now the use of the filoque within the creed could be argued both for and against.

My study though shows that ultimately the issue nearly always rears its head first and foremost for rejection of the actual expression etc.

That is why I said it is a political issue, because the "orthodoxy’ of the filoque is without any doubt, the insertion of it into the creed etc may be a different matter.
 
At the second ecumenical council the procession from the Son was not explicitly mentioned since there was no error to defend. When the error arose then it was addressed, the filioque was also addressed in the creed;

First in Spain, then France and Germany, fifth, sixth and seventh centuries. Benedict the VIII approved and it was accepted at Lyons and Florence. What everyone agreed on at Florence with Bessarion and John the Theologian is where the West picks up- 8th session

As we see the early church fathers support also.

“We must confess the Father and the Son are not two principles, but one principle of the Holy Ghost” agreed upon by Basil and Ambrose and proclaimed at Lyons and Florence.

There is “no” different Faith. To put this in proper perspective, there is no difference in the Creeds. There is “only” various incorrect understandings of the Creed.

If one would like to hold to the point that the Original Creed be upheld, then Amen. The rest is lack of reading and understanding.

One more time…

“We must confess the Father and the Son are not two principles, but one principle of the Holy Ghost” agreed upon by Basil and Ambrose and proclaimed at Lyons and Florence. 🤷
 
Here’s more. I repeat…“There is No Different Faith”

Also while the East concedes the Latin Fathers used the Trinity formula early, so too did the East.

St Athanasius- “We find that the same property the Son has to the Father, the Holy Ghost has to the Son.” [Ad Serapion epist III]

St Athanasius- calls the Son “The Font of the Holy Ghost” [De Incarnatione 9]

Gregory of Nyssa-“The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are like three lights of which the Second is lit by the First and the Third by the Second” [Oratio 31]

Cyril of Alexandria- “Since therefore the Holy Ghost dwelling in us makes us comfortable with the Father, He truly proceeds from the Father and the Son, it is clear from the Divine Essence that He is essentially in it and producing from it, and proceeding from it, just as a breath come from the human mouth, although this a humble and unworthy illustration of such a sublime thing” [Thesaurus, assert. 34 pg LXXV]

I believe we are saying the same thing differently. East early church fathers again “He truly proceeds from the Father and the Son,” that is the Holy Spirit!

and…

Also the Council of Toledo 675 “The Holy Ghost is shown to have proceeded from the Father and the Son because He is acknowledged to be the Charity or the Holiness of both”
 
Lester_S said:
In short, the filioque wasn’t used in the original creed, for hundreds of years in an undivided Christendom.
Click to expand...
That’s fair enough.

For the record, I don’t claim that Catholics should keeping saying the filioque forever and ever; but I do think that this isn’t the time to drop it.
 
The mistake in the article is the usual, which is sort sighted of the West. The Monarchy, the First Principle is conceded. This is the Faith of the Church.

Florence, “Principle without principle”, and in Toledo ; “We confess the un-begotten and uncreated Father, the Font and origin of the entire Trinity with whom there is not only paternity but also the principle of paternity”

Augustine- “The Father is the principle of the entire deity”

The other aspect which jumped out is the common misunderstanding of double procession. Last is the incorrect notion that everything documented in the West isn’t Biblical. However, seeing he fell short above, then I suppose some other conclusions would follow.
 
GaryTaylor said:
The mistake in the article is the usual, which is sort sighted of the West. The Monarchy, the First Principle is conceded. This is the Faith of the Church.

Florence, “Principle without principle”, and in Toledo ; “We confess the un-begotten and uncreated Father, the Font and origin of the entire Trinity with whom there is not only paternity but also the principle of paternity”

Augustine- “The Father is the principle of the entire deity”

The other aspect which jumped out is the common misunderstanding of double procession. Last is the incorrect notion that everything documented in the West isn’t Biblical. However, seeing he fell short above, then I suppose some other conclusions would follow.
Click to expand...
Well, what is double procession, as you understand it? And if there are clear declarations, like what you posted, then why have the confusion, in the first place? Further, the point of contention is the addition occurred without the council of all the churches. It’s one thing to raise the issue up; and have “and the son” agreed upon ecumenically, at the time it was originally inserted. But, even then it was very much an issue, even the pope, who had that agreement with Photius, understood how problematic the clause was, and in some cases, still is.
 
Lester_S said:
Well, what is double procession, as you understand it?
Click to expand...
The double procession in the West is the first principle thus the begotten Son, the Son sends the Holy Spirit Biblically, the Holy Spirit proceeds Biblically. This is the correct understanding. What the West does not say is the Holy Spirit proceeds alone from the Father.
 
GaryTaylor said:
The double procession in the West is the first principle thus the begotten Son, the Son sends the Holy Spirit Biblically, the Holy Spirit proceeds Biblically. This is the correct understanding. What the West does not say is the Holy Spirit proceeds alone from the Father.
Click to expand...
Why include the last clause, particularly when the Gospel of John clearly states from where the Holy Spirit proceeds, or shall I say originates?
 
Lester_S said:
Why include the last clause, particularly when the Gospel of John clearly states from where the Holy Spirit proceeds, or shall I say originates?
Click to expand...
Right originates, the Gospel of John also clearly states the Son will send the Holy Spirit. When the Son is begotten the Father and Son are consubstantial. This gets back to the Councils and as stated above. This is a perfect giver/receiver relationship. There is nothing lacking nor does one have something the other does not but the primacy.

Thus above; “We must confess the Father and the Son are not two principles, but one principle of the Holy Ghost” agreed upon by Basil and Ambrose and proclaimed at Lyons and Florence.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Right originates, the Gospel of John also clearly states the Son will send the Holy Spirit. When the Son is begotten the Father and Son are consubstantial. This gets back to the Councils and as stated above. This is a perfect giver/receiver relationship. There is nothing lacking nor does one have something the other does not but the primacy.

Thus above; “We must confess the Father and the Son are not two principles, but one principle of the Holy Ghost” agreed upon by Basil and Ambrose and proclaimed at Lyons and Florence.
Click to expand...
But the spirit does proceed from the father, alone, but is sent through the son.

The two councils you cite, aren’t representative of the seven ecumenical councils celebrated by the Chalcedonian Churches, when they were still one. That’s one of the reasons why the East has contention w/ the filioque, Not just theologically, but ecumenically as well. It was added w/o the consult of a synod, or ecumenical council. Even when the issue was raised; and discussed, it was agreed it shouldn’t be added.

Now w/ the influence of Frankish/Germanic oversight, it was then added w/o the address via ecumenical council; and growing arrogance on both sides has solidified the separation between the two churches, to this day.
 
Lester_S said:
Brother Peter, what’s your take on the following jbburnett.com/resources/lossky/lossky_img4-process-filioq.pdf

I don’t expect an immediate response, as I’m going through it, myself.
Click to expand...
I think I have read that before, but it’s been a while. (Several years ago I read many such articles.)

Rather than getting into yet another I-say-you-say-internet-“debate”, let me refer to the best Catholic explanations I can think of:

The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit
The Filioque: A Church Dividing Issue? (that one is an agree Catholic-Orthodox statement)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top