Filioque. An Option Now For Eastern Catholics?

[dvdjs]

The argument that the Orthodox and the Heterodox do not share the same faith is not posturing, however. For at least some Orthodox this difference is exemplified (not in toto, of course) by the filioque, in that they cannot agree with it any more than the Latins may disagree with it, and as such there is no middle ground or compromise. There are others for whom the filioque is regarded as a more manageable issue (e.g., Met. Kallistos Ware), but still even those would not say that therefore the faith of the two communions is the same.

I don’t doubt that there are folk who sincerely believe that the distinct communions do not share the same faith. But that is hardly the point. On the filioque, as you have pointed out, there is a range of opinions in the EOC about the gravity of the matter. Many theologians do not see it as a church dividing issue. But they are not outside of the EOC for holding that view. Those who do hold it, then, hold it against learned opinions and without any necessity whatsoever. That may not be posturing, but when the arguments for holding that view are based in debunked objections that even go so far as to violate or suppress the actual history, then that, I would say, is.

 

[dzheremi]

Now what I am trying to get at is if the Armenians can have a different creed why can’t the Westerners have the Filioque in their creed?

Because the Armenians still believe the same as their sister OO churches, so it isn’t a problem. Do the Latins have the same faith as the EO churches? Nope. Is the filioque part of the reason why/an example of that fact? According to some, yes. (Again, according to some, no.)

According to what you are saying in the first quote; is that by having a different creed or a difference in your creed you “do not profess the same faith anymore” but if that is the case then Armenian Orthodox have a different faith from her Sister Churches, could you clarify this?

No, that isn’t the case. The OO recognize the Armenians as sharing the same faith in common with them despite their different Creed (cf. the Ethiopians having a much wider canon than any of the rest of the OO, or any other church, for that matter). This is not the case regarding the Latin Church and the EO or OO.

in my opinion this would be an easternization of the Western Church.

Pope Leo III was an Eastern(iz)er?

 

[Schism_hater]

1. It became a church dividing issue only after the schism.
2. what are these decrees of the “Frankish church” ?

You are simply mistaken on the first point. On the second, I don’t have time to look everything up, but I respectfully and strongly suggest you read a history such as East and West, the Making of a Rift in the Church by renowned Anglican church historian Henry Chadwick, or some similar study. This is all gone into at length there.

 

[dvdjs]

You are simply mistaken on the first point.

Continued use, no break of communion, what is mistaken?

On the second, I don’t have time to look everything up, …

OK not to look things up, but just what is this Frankish church? And what kind of decrees does this Frankish church have?

 

[Aramis]

Continued use, no break of communion, what is mistaken?

OK not to look things up, but just what is this Frankish church? And what kind of decrees does this Frankish church have?

Those dioceses who adoped the filioque first were the particular churches (=dioceses) of the Franks and of the Iberians… The descendents of the Franks are the French, and of the Iberians are the Spanish.

The Mozarabic Credo differs from the Latin…

Mozarabic:Et in Spíritum Sanctum, Dóminum vivificatórem,
et ex Patre et Fílio procedéntem.
Cum Patre et Fílio adorándum et conglorificándum.
Qui locútus est per prophétas.
([source: mercaba.org](Missale Hispano EUCHARISTICA))

Roman: Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem: **qui ex Patre Filioque procedit. **
Qui cum Patre, et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur: qui locutus est per Prophetas.
(source: Fordham University)

Says the same thing but in different wording. The Franks first used what is in the Tridentine missal.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t think anyone thinks that the Orthodox and “the Heterodox” (by which you presumably mean both Catholic and protestants) share the same beliefs.

Some might be under the impression that just Orthodox and Catholics share the same beliefs, but that’s about as far as it would go.

What was said specifically is Faith. I don’t know what the Orthodox follow if that’s the case then. We follow Jesus Christ Cruicified, perhaps there is different Faith in the East? He comes to judge the living and the dead.

Where’s the different Faith? 5X on this thread, if you want to exclaim it, then explain it.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I would have to disagree with you dzheremi

I want to go back to something earlier in this post, I asked about the Armenian creed and why it does not mention procession the Holy Spirit and you stated that:

Now what I am trying to get at is if the Armenians can have a different creed why can’t the Westerners have the Filioque in their creed? According to what you are saying in the first quote; is that by having a different creed or a difference in your creed you “do not profess the same faith anymore” but if that is the case then Armenian Orthodox have a different faith from her Sister Churches, could you clarify this?

Now this is for everyone: My understanding is the creed in the West is saying is that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father and passes through the Son, this is why many Orthodoxs and Catholics have been able to agree on this, because this is an orthodox belief - correct me if I am wrong there. Now I am against the latinization of the Filioque(any latinization of Liturgy for that matter) in the Eastern Churches but I am also against the Filioque being taken out of the Creed in the West, in my opinion this would be an easternization of the Western Church.

Its called a double standard. Then proclaimed as a different faith,

 

[Maron_Ignatius]

Because the Armenians still believe the same as their sister OO churches, so it isn’t a problem. Do the Latins have the same faith as the EO churches? Nope. Is the filioque part of the reason why/an example of that fact? According to some, yes. (Again, according to some, no.)

dzheremi, I think some people like to make it part of the reason, but we see that it is not as dividing issue as some would like to think - Catholic or Orthodox…

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/filioque-church-dividing-issue-english.cfm

No, that isn’t the case. The OO recognize the Armenians as sharing the same faith in common with them despite their different Creed (cf. the Ethiopians having a much wider canon than any of the rest of the OO, or any other church, for that matter). This is not the case regarding the Latin Church and the EO or OO.

According to what you said here;

Because, as the Eastern view goes, the Latins’ change to the Creed has created a situation in which the East and the West do not profess the same faith anymore. You don’t get to have your own when you’d already been using the common version together with the East.

A difference of creed is a difference of faith, but the Armenian Orthodox have a different creed but the same faith as you… my point here is that if we can agree on the Filioque from a doctrinal/theological stance then we can share the same faith and still profess a different creed

Pope Leo III was an Eastern(iz)er?

So you do agree with Pope Leo III?
Taking up the issue of the Jerusalem controversy, Charlemagne asked Theodulf of Orleans, the principal author of the Libri Carolini, to write a defense of the use of the word Filioque. Appearing in 809, De Spiritu Sancto of Theodulf was essentially a compilation of patristic citations supporting the theology of the Filioque. With this text in hand, Charlemagne convened a council in Aachen in 809-810 to affirm the doctrine of the Spirit’s proceeding from the Father and the Son, which had been questioned by Greek theologians. Following this council, Charlemagne sought Pope Leo’s approval of the use of the creed with the Filioque (Mansi 14.23-76). A meeting between the Pope and a delegation from Charlemagne’s council took place in Rome in 810. While Leo III affirmed the orthodoxy of the term Filioque, and approved its use in catechesis and personal professions of faith, he explicitly disapproved its inclusion in the text of the Creed of 381, since the Fathers of that Council - who were, he observes, no less inspired by the Holy Spirit than the bishops who had gathered at Aachen - had chosen not to include it. Pope Leo stipulated that the use of the Creed in the celebration of the Eucharist was permissible, but not required, and urged that in the interest of preventing scandal it would be better if the Carolingian court refrained from including it in the liturgy. Around this time, according to the Liber Pontificalis, the Pope had two heavy silver shields made and displayed in St. Peter’s, containing the original text of the Creed of 381 in both Greek and Latin.

What I mean by an easternization is that the Latin Church professes the creed with the Filioque - and not just Catholics that profess the creed with the Filioque, Lutherans and Anglicans do as well - the creed being professed with the Filioque as been done for many centuries, according to the Orthodox wiki page “‘and the Son’ which was added to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Church of Rome in the 11th century” I take this to mean that it was universally put in the creed in all Latin churches in the 11th century because its been in the creed of the Franks and those of the Iberian Peninsula for centuries before that, this shows that it is part of the people in the West and to take it away would be wrong.

Also what are your thoughts on Cyril of Alexandria “from the Father through the Son”?

I hope I have not offended you dzheremi, I just want us to find common ground to work on and that was not my intention if I have offended you I am really sorry.

And one last thing, could you help me find some Coptic Icons? I’ve looked online but I haven’t been able to find that many, and do you know where I could find a Ethiopian bible? I can’t find one any where. Thanks for the help dzheremi

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t think its a matter of being disrespectful. Look at this earlier statement on this thread. This is the mindset we are constantly confronted with.

“As soon as Eastern monks heard the Filioque recited by western monks in and around Jerusalem in the late 700s/early 800s, they protested”

One more time

“As soon as Eastern monks heard, they protested” thus…“Different Faith”

No analysis? Just an assumption that different is in fact wrong. Seems to be constant unless I am misunderstanding.

 

[dzheremi]

dzheremi, I think some people like to make it part of the reason, but we see that it is not as dividing issue as some would like to think - Catholic or Orthodox…

Well, yeah. Isn’t that what I wrote? To some people, it is a Church-diving issue, while to some it is not.

A difference of creed is a difference of faith, but the Armenian Orthodox have a different creed but the same faith as you…

No, that’s not actually what I said. If you read the portion of my post that you have quoted carefully, you’ll see that what I said is that by that particular change to the Creed, the Easterners see the faith as changed. The Latins, unlike the Armenians (as far as I know, from what Armenians have told me), had been using the standard version of the Creed together with the East for some time (as others have pointed it, it might not have been very common liturgically, but the actions of Pope Leo III show that at least by some point it was meant to be taken as the standard of belief), then what had been a local change gradually became a problem as it spread and was eventually heard by Easterners, who had a problem with it. Probably if it was kept in Toledo only, Toledo would be looked at as odd, but we wouldn’t be talking about it as we do now.

In the Armenians’ case, as far as I am aware the version of the Creed that they use was not some sort of change away from a common form, but is something unique to their Church. So the case is not really comparable, because with the Latins you have a Church that had been using the common form of the Creed together with the Byzantines, whereas with the Armenians you have a Church that didn’t use the common form in the first place. It likewise took the Armenians some time to formally condemn Chalcedon (at least relative to the more immediate negative reaction on the part of the Egyptians), and their reasoning apparently didn’t include all of the reasons Egypt didn’t like it (as far as I know, the Armenians still do not venerate our teacher St. Dioscorus), but we recognize that the faith is the same despite these differences. Again, this is the opposite in the case of the Latins, where there are also differences but the other churches do not recognize the faith being the same. So the distinction I’m actually trying to draw is not one of sameness vs. difference (period), but of whether or not the faith is the same even if there is external difference. I know you guys will say that the faith is the same or compatible or whatever, but apparently others don’t see it that way, and arguments as to how it is have thus far proved unconvincing.

So you do agree with Pope Leo III?

In his banning of the filioque from being recited in the Creed, yes.

What I mean by an easternization is that the Latin Church professes the creed with the Filioque - and not just Catholics that profess the creed with the Filioque, Lutherans and Anglicans do as well - the creed being professed with the Filioque as been done for many centuries…this shows that it is part of the people in the West and to take it away would be wrong.

I don’t agree with that idea. If the filioque is wrong, it doesn’t matter how long it’s been used or where, right? The content of an idea must trump its antiquity, or else why did our Fathers go through such trouble to condemn and stamp out Arianism and Nestorianism?

Also what are your thoughts on Cyril of Alexandria “from the Father through the Son”?

I do not see a problem with it, understood properly. I do not think it says what the filioque says at all. Please see this response from HG Bishop Youssef on the procession of the Holy Spirit. We recognize that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in terms of temporal procession (read: originating from the Father alone, and then being sent to the world through Christ [John 15:26]), but not eternally as was defined by the Council of Florence. The Father is the only source of the Holy Spirit.

I hope I have not offended you dzheremi, I just want us to find common ground to work on and that was not my intention if I have offended you I am really sorry.

You haven’t offended me at all.

And one last thing, could you help me find some Coptic Icons? I’ve looked online but I haven’t been able to find that many, and do you know where I could find a Ethiopian bible? I can’t find one any where. Thanks for the help dzheremi

Coptic icons can be difficult to find. With respect to my brothers and sisters in the faith, it seems that there is very little being produced in terms of traditional Coptic iconography, with most of what is made being in the so-called “neo-Byzantine” style, with its very harsh colors and sharp lines. But there is a lot of that available if you want it (and honestly it’s not terrible, just different; I much prefer it to the RC-inspired/copied art that is in many Coptic churches). Try a place like Orthodox Bookstore. I’ve never ordered an icon from them, but I have ordered some books, so I know that they are reliable.

An Ethiopian bible, I have no idea. I think you’d have to ask a Tewahedo person about that, and maybe even go to one of their churches. The only Ethiopian bibles I have seen have either been antiques or modern Protestant translations made in Ethiopian languages. I have a PDF of the Ethiopian liturgy, but haven’t ever seen a translation of the Orthodox canon into English. Sorry.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Saying its wrong sounds like the Monks above, a statement which only claims “because we said so”. Doesn’t wash.

Look carefully at this issue again…

I believe in one God the Father Almighty; Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost,* the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spake by the prophets. And one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead and thelife of the world to come. Amen…from [Early Christian Writings]

As St Basil has stated " by whom" “through whom” is an issue. The use of by and through Whom indicates time,… “The object of all this is that the Creator of the universe may be regarded as of no higher dignity than an instrument, and that the Holy Spirit may appear to be adding to existing things nothing more than the contribution derived from place or time.” “through or by means of which, and Christians feel no shame in applying to the Creator of the universe language belonging to a hammer or a saw.”
“On the Holy Spirit” pg-5

“For the maker they think the proper expression is “by whom,” maintaining that the bench is produced “by” the carpenter; and for the instrument “through which,” in that it is produced “through” or by means of adze and gimlet and the rest.”

"The Nicene Creed ended. Appended to it, however, was the following anathema: “But those who say that ‘there was once when He was not,’ and ‘before He was begotten He was not,’ and that ‘from the not being He came to be’; or those who say that the Son of God is ‘of another substance or essence,’ or ‘created,’ or ‘alterable,’ or ‘mutable,’ the Catholic Church anathematizes.”

Posterior does not exist as I have explained earlier only through analogy. Monarchy is conceded “but not in the analogy of time”. Principle of Principle.

When was this produced in time. and where? There “was” never a time when there “was” not.

 

[dzheremi]

What’s your point, Gary? As I wrote earlier, we recognize the temporal procession in the very specific sense as laid out by our Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospel according to St. John, but not any kind of eternal procession from both Father and Son as you guys do. Hence the filioque is inappropriate for us. There is no room for any other opinion here. The Father alone is the origin of the Holy Spirit, just as surely as the Son is begotten from Him. There’s no need to look at it again. It’s already in there in the Creed. You guys created the need to go over and over this stuff in an effort to justify the filioque to people who will not accept it. The matter is settled for the rest of Christendom.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Settled, according to whom? Basil and Ambrose? Origin, this again indicates “time” when then did this occur? There is no time. So yes it is either eternal or you are left to indicate when? As I stated earlier. [There is but one nature with God,] In other words whatever is posterior to another in nature must depend according to its own nature, on the nature of another.

Various thinking exists East and West. Don’t see where its settled East or West.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque

 

[dzheremi]

Forgive me, I mean settled in the sense that the Orthodox have definitively rejected the filioque. Even for those who maintain it is not a Church-dividing issue, you won’t see them adopting it or the theology behind it. There is no need to. We have the Creed, which already tells us very clearly from Whom the Holy Spirit proceeds.

(By the way, when speaking of the Holy Trinity, ‘origin’ does not indicate time. God is outside of time, which is a created thing. God is uncreated. It is a trick of our language, such as the forms of verbs we use, that seems to give the whole thing a certain “past tense” hue in certain instances. But God is eternal, so time as a construct does not really apply to Him.)

 

[Maron_Ignatius]

Well, yeah. Isn’t that what I wrote? To some people, it is a Church-diving issue, while to some it is not.

My point is it really isn’t. That is why I posted the link with the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue that explained that it isn’t.

No, that’s not actually what I said. If you read the portion of my post that you have quoted carefully, you’ll see that what I said is that by that particular change to the Creed, the Easterners see the faith as changed. The Latins, unlike the Armenians (as far as I know, from what Armenians have told me), had been using the standard version of the Creed together with the East for some time (as others have pointed it, it might not have been very common liturgically, but the actions of Pope Leo III show that at least by some point it was meant to be taken as the standard of belief), then what had been a local change gradually became a problem as it spread and was eventually heard by Easterners, who had a problem with it. Probably if it was kept in Toledo only, Toledo would be looked at as odd, but we wouldn’t be talking about it as we do now.

In the Armenians’ case, as far as I am aware the version of the Creed that they use was not some sort of change away from a common form, but is something unique to their Church. So the case is not really comparable, because with the Latins you have a Church that had been using the common form of the Creed together with the Byzantines, whereas with the Armenians you have a Church that didn’t use the common form in the first place. It likewise took the Armenians some time to formally condemn Chalcedon (at least relative to the more immediate negative reaction on the part of the Egyptians), and their reasoning apparently didn’t include all of the reasons Egypt didn’t like it (as far as I know, the Armenians still do not venerate our teacher St. Dioscorus), but we recognize that the faith is the same despite these differences. Again, this is the opposite in the case of the Latins, where there are also differences but the other churches do not recognize the faith being the same. So the distinction I’m actually trying to draw is not one of sameness vs. difference (period), but of whether or not the faith is the same even if there is external difference. I know you guys will say that the faith is the same or compatible or whatever, but apparently others don’t see it that way, and arguments as to how it is have thus far proved unconvincing.

I want to know how you see it? Why you don’t see it as the same faith? Do you believe the Filioque to be a heresy? - I don’t know if I can ask it that way or if the wording will be changed, I can’t think of a different word there.

In his banning of the filioque from being recited in the Creed, yes.

According to the link I shared he didn’t really ban it, he just disproved of its use in the Eucharistic celebration.

I don’t agree with that idea. If the filioque is wrong, it doesn’t matter how long it’s been used or where, right? The content of an idea must trump its antiquity, or else why did our Fathers go through such trouble to condemn and stamp out Arianism and Nestorianism?

You are right, but what makes the filioque wrong? You are comparing Arianism and Nestorianism - heresies - to the filioque, if the filioque is not an orthodox belief then why do the EO honor Pope Leo I? I know that might not matter to you as an OO but what are your thoughts? Or what of St Hilary of Poitiers who is honored in the EO and OO? Its kinda funny you mention Arianism when the filioque is anti-Arian.

Also I was thinking about where to place this question - since there are so many places I could - so I decided to place it here: The filioque come to be around 450, so the churches in the Iberian Peninsula, Gaul, Germany and England started using the filioque shortly after that and by 600 the filioque was in wide use in the West, yet no one spoke out against it, then in 700s or 800s there was an opposition to it. Why? Especially when early Church Fathers both Eastern and Western - Augustine of Hippo, Ambrose of Milan, Cyril of Alexandria, mentioned at times the Holy Spirit as proceeding from both the Father and the Son.

I do not see a problem with it, understood properly. I do not think it says what the filioque says at all. Please see this response from HG Bishop Youssef on the procession of the Holy Spirit. We recognize that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in terms of temporal procession (read: originating from the Father alone, and then being sent to the world through Christ [John 15:26]), but not eternally as was defined by the Council of Florence. The Father is the only source of the Holy Spirit.

So my question is why don’t you see the filioque that way? My understanding has been - always has been - that the filioque is the Holy Spirit originating from the Father and passes through the Son. John 15:26 explains the filioque

You haven’t offended me at all.

Very good! I was afraid that I might have for a moment.

 

[Maron_Ignatius]

Coptic icons can be difficult to find. With respect to my brothers and sisters in the faith, it seems that there is very little being produced in terms of traditional Coptic iconography, with most of what is made being in the so-called “neo-Byzantine” style, with its very harsh colors and sharp lines. But there is a lot of that available if you want it (and honestly it’s not terrible, just different; I much prefer it to the RC-inspired/copied art that is in many Coptic churches). Try a place like Orthodox Bookstore. I’ve never ordered an icon from them, but I have ordered some books, so I know that they are reliable.

An Ethiopian bible, I have no idea. I think you’d have to ask a Tewahedo person about that, and maybe even go to one of their churches. The only Ethiopian bibles I have seen have either been antiques or modern Protestant translations made in Ethiopian languages. I have a PDF of the Ethiopian liturgy, but haven’t ever seen a translation of the Orthodox canon into English. Sorry.

Thanks man! And uh… RC icons in a Coptic churches? That is… interesting

 

[GaryTaylor]

Forgive me, I mean settled in the sense that the Orthodox have definitively rejected the filioque. Even for those who maintain it is not a Church-dividing issue, you won’t see them adopting it or the theology behind it. There is no need to. We have the Creed, which already tells us very clearly from Whom the Holy Spirit proceeds.

(By the way, when speaking of the Holy Trinity, ‘origin’ does not indicate time. God is outside of time, which is a created thing. God is uncreated. It is a trick of our language, such as the forms of verbs we use, that seems to give the whole thing a certain “past tense” hue in certain instances. But God is eternal, so time as a construct does not really apply to Him.)

Then we have principle of principle one essence, first principle intact in the Monarchy without deviation. Through, creates an issue “only” in misunderstanding as St Basil is stating.

Then what is the understanding here?

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]

 

[dzheremi]

My point is it really isn’t. That is why I posted the link with the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue that explained that it isn’t.

In my experience, Orthodox people tend to look at these meetings and documents produced at them in a different way than Catholics do, but okay.

I want to know how you see it? Why you don’t see it as the same faith? Do you believe the Filioque to be a heresy? - I don’t know if I can ask it that way or if the wording will be changed, I can’t think of a different word there.

I do not believe that it expresses the truth, no. I guess people could argue that it’s a heresy, but I’d just as soon not get involved in that debate, since I don’t affirm it either way.

According to the link I shared he didn’t really ban it, he just disproved of its use in the Eucharistic celebration.

Yeah, that’s why I qualified my reply: In so far as concerns his banning of it from being recited in the Creed, I agree with him.

You are right, but what makes the filioque wrong? You are comparing Arianism and Nestorianism - heresies - to the filioque

What? No I’m not. I’m stating a general principle that things that are wrong are wrong regardless of their antiquity or who affirms them or where they come from, in response to your argument that the filioque was used by others for centuries before it was formally adopted by Rome, so it would be wrong to deprive the Franks and the Mozarabs or whoever of their right to affirm it. That’s not how it works. Once again, if the filioque is wrong, it’s wrong and nobody has the right to use it just because they’ve been doing so for a long time and taking it away would be robbing them of that heritage or whatever. It’s a heritage of wrongness, in that case. It should not be continued.

if the filioque is not an orthodox belief then why do the EO honor Pope Leo I?

You’d have to ask them that. I have no idea. The OO definitely do not honor Pope Leo I.

I know that might not matter to you as an OO but what are your thoughts?

I don’t have any thoughts on why other churches do what they do. That’s up to them.

Or what of St Hilary of Poitiers who is honored in the EO and OO? Its kinda funny you mention Arianism when the filioque is anti-Arian.

Yes, the filioque is meant to fight Arianism, I know, but it is not appropriate to introduce something contentious for the sake of fighting something else that’s contentious. Eutyches was finally rejected in that sort of context, because in his zeal to fight against the heresies of his day, he introduced something unacceptable and muddled, and so we say that Eutychianism is just as unacceptable as Nestorianism. Hopefully the parallel here is clear.

Also I was thinking about where to place this question - since there are so many places I could - so I decided to place it here: The filioque come to be around 450, so the churches in the Iberian Peninsula, Gaul, Germany and England started using the filioque shortly after that and by 600 the filioque was in wide use in the West, yet no one spoke out against it, then in 700s or 800s there was an opposition to it. Why?

Probably for the same reason as it took the Armenians until the Council of Dvin in 506 to formally reject Chalcedon. News traveled very slowly in ancient times, and somehow I doubt the fact that the Latins had added a single word to the Creed was of such high priority until the monks of the East actually begin to have regular contact with Latins (such as in Jerusalem), and hence could be exposed to what they were teaching and doing.

Especially when early Church Fathers both Eastern and Western - Augustine of Hippo, Ambrose of Milan, Cyril of Alexandria, mentioned at times the Holy Spirit as proceeding from both the Father and the Son.

Yes, but do they mean (again, as defined by your Church in their Council of Florence) that such procession is eternally from both, or is it more like HG Bishop Youssef explained it in the link I shared earlier? And note, by the way, that HG affirmed the temporal procession as outlined in John, yet we do not accept the filioque. The authors of the Creed apparently did not see the need to explain that the procession of the Holy Spirit is through the Son (maybe because the Gospel already explains what this means), and the article on the Holy Spirit was expanded to defend and explain His divinity to those who thought that He was not divine. In that context, do you think it would have been more important to explain His temporal procession in minute detail, or to affirm that He is of the same divine origin as the Son, which is to say, His ultimate source is from the Father alone?

So my question is why don’t you see the filioque that way? My understanding has been - always has been - that the filioque is the Holy Spirit originating from the Father and passes through the Son. John 15:26 explains the filioque

Because it doesn’t say that.

 

[dzheremi]

Thanks man! And uh… RC icons in a Coptic churches? That is… interesting

Not really icons. This is a Coptic icon:

http://www.fromallnations.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/copticpainting7-267x300.jpg

This is another:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

This is Roman Catholic-inspired religious art with Coptic themes:

http://images.ch-joy.com//uploads/images/ch-joy.com-1e4620090a.jpg

There is far too much of the latter in Coptic churches. I have asked both our priests about it, and they agree, but at the same time suggest that the religious art has been accumulated over time (apparently there is a lot of it in Egypt, and people bring it back as gifts), and to replace all the improper art with proper icons would be prohibitively expensive. The RC-style art is cheap(er). I do not like this explanation, but I don’t have the money to do anything about it anyway. For what it is worth, I have never seen any of that art treated as icons by people in my church (people don’t kiss it, venerate it, etc.; it’s just sort of there). It’s more like they just enjoy being surrounded by things that remind them of Christ and the saints. This might be what happens when you spend centuries in an environment where the primary divide is between Christians and everyone else (and you are the minority), rather than Orthodox and Catholics, or Catholics and Protestants, or some other inter-religious distinction.

 

[GaryTaylor]

There’s some beautiful art work in the Coptic Church in Egypt. I have to read Origen on the Trinity. I’ve been reluctant to tackle that.