Filioque and Eastern Christian Trinitarian understanding

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hesychios
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
MaggieOH:
Mickey,

you did not offend me. My point is directed to all who offer these insipid answers. The Spiration of the Holy Spirit comes from both Father and Son, and this is evidenced by John’s Gospel, especially when Jesus “Gave up his Spirit”.

The blame for this whole issue is sheeted back to the monk Photius who was prepared to find a way for the emperor of Constantinople to defy Rome, thus attempting to cause a split.

Fr. Ambrose has been making some good points and there is definitely no animosity between any of us, and I would hate to think that this was not so with yourself.

Maggie
No animosity Maggie,

It’s just that you use the word “insipid”, which means tasteless. As a fellow Catholic, I don’t feel that my answers are not in good taste. But, then again, if I was insulted, it is my own ego, and we all know this is a passion that must be held in check.

:blessyou:
 
Fr Ambrose:
I have not heard of monk Photius. Who is he? And what is he blamed for? :confused:
Father Ambrose,

Maybe he is refering to St. Photios the Great (820-891), Patriarch of Constantinople?

StMarkEofE
 
Aris, Greetings.
40.png
Aris:
Hi Michael,

Thanks for the information.

So when you say the creed, do you say “through the Son” or do you say “And the Son”?

How does the Eastern Catholic view the filioque issue that separates the Orthodox from the Catholic Church?

I ask this because there are many seeming similarities in culture and rite or practices between the Eastern Catholics and Orthodox.
As ByzCath pointed out, we use the Nicene Creed agreed upon by all the Patriarchs during the 4th Ecumenical Council. That is “proceeds from the Father.” end, no additions. The Filioque was inserted into the Creed sometime in the 5th or 6th century in Spain to help combat the movement of Arianism that prevailed throughout the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church at that time.

Regarding your question on how the Eastern Catholic views the filique issue, I cannot speak for all Eastern Catholics, but of the ones I communicate with and worship with, we are taught that the Filique is a complementary understanding to the Trinity by the Roman Catholics since Scholasticsm is an important focus of the Western Church (not so in the Eastern Catholic Church).

The Filioque was actually forced upon the majority of the Eastern Catholic Churches within the US for many many years (and elsewhere) during the Divine Liturgy (which is what we call the Mass).

In 1995, His Holiness Pope John Paul II authored the Oriental Lumens, which called for all Eastern Catholic churches to restore themselves to their original Eastern Theology, which meant removal of all Roman/Latin rite influences. We are in a wonderful time in this new Millenium. As you stated, you are correct in your observations that you see many similarities between Eastern Catholic and our Eastern Orthodox counterparts. As per our Holy Father, we are striving to make that difference seamless.

In my particular Church, to an Orthodox visitor, there is almost virtually no differences at all other than we commemorate Pope John Paul II during the Litanys 4 times. (actually more than in my local Roman Catholic Church down the street), however, where we say Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, now and ever and forever, Amen, our local OCA church says Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, now and Ages unto Ages, Amen.

Also, I previously touched upon the Seven Mysteries of Christ, as opposed to the Seven Sacraments of Christ. They are one and the same, but in my personal observations, we in the Eastern side tend to accept the Mysteries, as opposed to analyzing them into a Dogma. Once again, a complementary understanding between the two lungs of our Church.

Bottom line. The Trinity is real. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

Does it really matter to your salvation to know who proceeds from who? All are equal, and all are Lord! It is a mystery.

Aris, I hope I was able to answer your questions.

Slava Isusu Christu! Glory to Jesus Christ!

As an FYI, I was born and raised as a Roman Catholic, but through the Mysteries of the Holy Spirit, my family and I were brought to our local Byzantine Catholic Church. I am now one of the oldest alter servers in our parish, and I love it. I truly cannot get enough of the Divine Liturgy, and celebrating the Divine Liturgy, which is over 1700 years old, and being a member of the Church founded by St. Peter the Rock, and St. Andrew the First Called, is a very moving and spiritual blessing indeed! Please feel free to PM me if you wish.

To become one, we must approach the Lord and the Church as a child, in true innocence and just accept things, not necessarily always try to define them (which is okay for those who need it), and then require the definition be accepted by all. Once we can succeed in this challenge, then hopefully the Body of Christ will start to come together again.

Bless, Father Ambrose! You are truly insightful.

Michael
 
Greetings to all.
40.png
StMarkEofE:
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848

A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, “to the Easterns”

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

This may help the westerner in understanding the Eastern Patriarchal side of the Filioque debate.

StMarkEofE
Regarding the above link, I use this website as educational in my search for Eastern Thought and Theology, but I wish to make you aware, that this is not the prevalent thought of all Orthodox Churches. Just as the Catholic Church has groups that range from Extreme Fundamentalist to Very Liberal, so does Orthodoxy. The bullet points in the site above explains the basic concept of what the Eastern Orthodox Church feels regarding the Filique, but any site using the “h” word everywhere should give you reason to be cautious in the overall tone of what you are reading. Maybe a better term should be “error” as percieved by our Eastern Bretheren. Errors can be made and corrected. I am not stating the Filique is an error, but I do believe that some things can be over analyzed that do not need to be. The Creed was fine for many hundreds of years, and I believe it is still fine today, 1700 years later.

Slava Isusu Christu. Glory to Jesus Christ.

Michael
 
40.png
StMarkEofE:
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, “to the Easterns”

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

This may help the westerner in understanding the Eastern Patriarchal side of the Filioque debate.

StMarkEofE
There was mention of councils or synods that condemened this. I am not aware of such councils. And why or how do we define such councils as valid.

It said an Eighth ecumenical council, I thought the Orthodox has claimed that there were only seven. Where did the Eighth come from? How was it declared ecumenical?
 
40.png
lost-n-found:
Greetings to all.
Regarding the above link, I use this website as educational in my search for Eastern Thought and Theology, but I wish to make you aware, that this is not the prevalent thought of all Orthodox Churches. Just as the Catholic Church has groups that range from Extreme Fundamentalist to Very Liberal, so does Orthodoxy. The bullet points in the site above explains the basic concept of what the Eastern Orthodox Church feels regarding the Filique, but any site using the “h” word everywhere should give you reason to be cautious in the overall tone of what you are reading. Maybe a better term should be “error” as percieved by our Eastern Bretheren. Errors can be made and corrected. I am not stating the Filique is an error, but I do believe that some things can be over analyzed that do not need to be. The Creed was fine for many hundreds of years, and I believe it is still fine today, 1700 years later.

Slava Isusu Christu. Glory to Jesus Christ.

Michael
I still think that we have to look at the historical perspectives of why there was a dispute in the first place. Up until the monk Photius decided to look into this aspect of the Creed there was no argument. The same is true in 1056 when there was a second schism.

Maggie
 
40.png
Mickey:
No animosity Maggie,

It’s just that you use the word “insipid”, which means tasteless. As a fellow Catholic, I don’t feel that my answers are not in good taste. But, then again, if I was insulted, it is my own ego, and we all know this is a passion that must be held in check.

:blessyou:
Michael,

the word insipid might mean “tasteless” but that does not mean that it means “not in good taste”. There is another meaning that you have ignored. I was using inspid to mean that there was something missing, like in cooking.

Perhaps I can use an illustration from the movie State Fair to make my point that you are using “tasteless” in the wrong sense. There is a scene in this movie where the wife is making a mince dish of some sort to be judged at the local State Fair. The pot has been on the boil for a while, and she comes in and has a taste, then decides that an ingredient (sherry) is missing, so she adds some extra sherry into the dish. Then her husband comes along, and he adds a bit more sherry, and from memory I think that a few more people added just a nip of sherry to the pot. The dish went from being “tasteless” to something that was so tasty that she did win the first prize, and I think that the judges also got a little bit drunk (I have not seen this movie in a long time so I am working off memory here).

Insipid, or tasteless in this sense means that there is something missing, and not that a post is one that lacks taste (I will leave that to posts from the hijackers of threads who attack Catholics)

Your sister in Christ,
Maggie
 
40.png
lost-n-found:
Aris, I hope I was able to answer your questions.
Dear Michael,

Yes. You have answered at least two questions.

One is how our Eastern Catholic brethren look at the Filioque issue.

Also it is clear to me that Eastern Catholic really knows where he stands and that the Catholic Church is united without sacrificing Truth.

However, I am still wondering why the Orthodox still view there is a conflict and heresy. Why don’t the Orthodox view the filioque as something complementary instead of opposed?
 
40.png
Aris:
There was mention of councils or synods that condemened this. I am not aware of such councils. And why or how do we define such councils as valid.

It said an Eighth ecumenical council, I thought the Orthodox has claimed that there were only seven. Where did the Eighth come from? How was it declared ecumenical?
Here is a listing of Councils of the Orthodox Church, both Ecumenical and important local Councils and including some rejected Councils.

Orthodox Church Listing of Synods and Councils
mb-soft.com/believe/txw/orthcoun.htm

Here is an article about the proposed “Eighth” Ecumenical Council (which is unlikely to actually take place.)

Towards the “Eighth” Ecumenical Council

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/towards.aspx
 
40.png
MaggieOH:
Michael,

the word insipid might mean “tasteless” but that does not mean that it means “not in good taste”. There is another meaning that you have ignored. I was using inspid to mean that there was something missing, like in cooking.

Perhaps I can use an illustration from the movie State Fair to make my point that you are using “tasteless” in the wrong sense. There is a scene in this movie where the wife is making a mince dish of some sort to be judged at the local State Fair. The pot has been on the boil for a while, and she comes in and has a taste, then decides that an ingredient (sherry) is missing, so she adds some extra sherry into the dish. Then her husband comes along, and he adds a bit more sherry, and from memory I think that a few more people added just a nip of sherry to the pot. The dish went from being “tasteless” to something that was so tasty that she did win the first prize, and I think that the judges also got a little bit drunk (I have not seen this movie in a long time so I am working off memory here).

Insipid, or tasteless in this sense means that there is something missing, and not that a post is one that lacks taste (I will leave that to posts from the hijackers of threads who attack Catholics)

Your sister in Christ,
Maggie
Fair enough Maggie! God Bless! 🙂
 
40.png
MaggieOH:
I still think that we have to look at the historical perspectives of why there was a dispute in the first place. Up until the monk Photius decided to look into this aspect of the Creed there was no argument. The same is true in 1056 when there was a second schism.

Maggie
Personally, I think that the reason why the Filioque wasnt discussed a lot then was that it wasnt being taken seriously not just by the eastern church but also later on by Pope Leo of Rome. I also feel that the thinking of the time was that this Filioque issue would die out but it didnt. Eventually someone, in this case Photios, took a look at and analyzed the issue.

StMarkEofE
 
40.png
Aris:
There was mention of councils or synods that condemened this. I am not aware of such councils. And why or how do we define such councils as valid.

It said an Eighth ecumenical council, I thought the Orthodox has claimed that there were only seven. Where did the Eighth come from? How was it declared ecumenical?
As I understand it, it takes another council, in this case, the 8th to consider the previous council ecumenical. This does not make the 8th council ecumenical though. That would take another council to determine this.

StMarkEofE
 
My question still remains.

Why have the Eastern Catholics accepted Rome’s explanation and the Orthodox have not?

or is it as they say that this is already been resolved with past agreements?
 
40.png
Aris:
My question still remains.

Why have the Eastern Catholics accepted Rome’s explanation and the Orthodox have not?

or is it as they say that this is already been resolved with past agreements?
I am not sure what you mean, speaking only for the Byzantine Catholics I can tell you that we do not think in terms that make the filioque sensible. We do not teach our children the filioque, or a Trinitarian understanding that would make sense with a double procession of the Holy Spirit. (we did at one time, but that’s over now)

Speaking for myself, I really don’t accept the west’s explanation of the filioque. I personally don’t understand or accept the theology behind it.

So then, another good question might be: “why does Rome allow Eastern Catholics to believe and teach in this way?”

Rome is wiling to allow us our own theology because they understand that it is perfectly valid. The hope is (apparently) to demonstrate that the two theologies can coexist side-by-side as equally valid theologies in a future united church. I doubt that it would work in the long run, judging from all the grief this notion has caused on these discussion boards.

But hopefully God is smiling down upon us amused at all our feeble attempts to be true to Him.

+T+
Michael
 
40.png
Hesychios:
I am not sure what you mean, speaking only for the Byzantine Catholics I can tell you that we do not think in terms that make the filioque sensible. We do not teach our children the filioque, or a Trinitarian understanding that would make sense with a double procession of the Holy Spirit. (we did at one time, but that’s over now)

Speaking for myself, I really don’t accept the west’s explanation of the filioque. I personally don’t understand or accept the theology behind it.

So then, another good question might be: “why does Rome allow Eastern Catholics to believe and teach in this way?”

Rome is wiling to allow us our own theology because they understand that it is perfectly valid. The hope is (apparently) to demonstrate that the two theologies can coexist side-by-side as equally valid theologies in a future united church. I doubt that it would work in the long run, judging from all the grief this notion has caused on these discussion boards.

But hopefully God is smiling down upon us amused at all our feeble attempts to be true to Him.

+T+
Michael
:amen:
 
[Rome is wiling to allow us our own theology because they understand that it is perfectly valid. The hope is (apparently) to demonstrate that the two theologies can coexist side-by-side as equally valid theologies in a future united church. I doubt that it would work in the long run, judging from all the grief this notion has caused on these discussion boards.]

And that’s exactly what the 32,000 forms of Protestant denominations also say!

I Corinthians 1:10

Orthodoc
 
40.png
Hesychios:
I am not sure what you mean, speaking only for the Byzantine Catholics I can tell you that we do not think in terms that make the filioque sensible. We do not teach our children the filioque, or a Trinitarian understanding that would make sense with a double procession of the Holy Spirit. (we did at one time, but that’s over now)
I had understood it that Eastern Catholics do not teach the double procession but that the Eastern Churches understand the Western Catholic position as not heretical. Is this correct?
40.png
Hesychios:
So then, another good question might be: “why does Rome allow Eastern Catholics to believe and teach in this way?”

Rome is wiling to allow us our own theology because they understand that it is perfectly valid. The hope is (apparently) to demonstrate that the two theologies can coexist side-by-side as equally valid theologies in a future united church. I doubt that it would work in the long run, judging from all the grief this notion has caused on these discussion boards.

But hopefully God is smiling down upon us amused at all our feeble attempts to be true to Him.

+T+
Michael
I think the better answer would be Rome allows the Eastern Church to teach without the Filioque because Rome understands that it is but one theology. What do you think?
 
40.png
Aris:
I had understood it that Eastern Catholics do not teach the double procession but that the Eastern Churches understand the Western Catholic position as not heretical. Is this correct?
I don’t know, honestly.

We have our own theology, and in the words of my bishop “we make no excuses for it”. As far as what my bishop thinks of Latin theology I cannot say, he doesn’t teach it and I cannot infer anything further from that without interposing my own personal interpretation.

To us, as far as I can tell, nothing is ever said on the subject.

Does a typical Latin bishop teach Eastern theology or make public statements about it’s validity or non-validity? When I was Latin I never heard a peep about it from anyone, the Eastern churches might just as well had not existed at all for all I knew.
I think the better answer would be Rome allows the Eastern Church to teach without the Filioque because Rome understands that it is but one theology. What do you think?
I think that what you suggest is impossible.

Don’t get me wrong, there is only one objective Truth, I really and truly believe that. The question then is “how really close are we to that Truth, in our own definitions?”. My guess is that we all miss the mark, if to varying degrees.

But God is utter simplicity, the more complicated we make this in our imaginatively derived descriptive analogies the more likely we are to blow it.

+T+
Michael
 
To Michael, Michael (lost and found) and Byzcath,

thank you for sharing your info.

I will visit the sites you’ve given and see how I can understand Eastern Catholic theology.

I am a little disappointed that this thread did not get much post from the Orthodox so that we could have a more complete picture.

It seems that no one wants to join a debate when we want to really talk amicably like friends. 😃
 
40.png
Mickey:
Without immersing myself in endless debate and theological diatribe on the subject, I will simply state: Byzantine Catholics do not say the filioque, and I believe that the Holy Spirit spirates from The Father. John 15:26 is quite clear.
**1… The Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6) **

**2… The Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20). **

***3…***The Spirit is sent into the world by the Son and the Father (John 15:26, & Acts 2:33).

Therefore, the HS proceeds from both Father AND Son.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top