M
MaggieOH
Guest
steve b said:
That is also my position. I agree, according to the Scripture the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Can the above be any clearer?
MaggieOH
- Status
That is also my position. I agree, according to the Scripture the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Can the above be any clearer?
MaggieOH
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
According to the Lord, the Spirit proceeds from the Father… John 15:26 “qui a Patre procedit”
**According to the Creed ** of the Universal Church, the Spirit proceeds from the Father… “qui ex Patre procedit”
What could be clearer?
“Remove not the ancient landmarks which your fathers have set” -Proverbs 22.28
M
Matthew_P
Guest
By the way Father Ambrose,
So much for “Rome has spoken case closed” as the issue still is not closed in the west.
**
The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895
Matthew Panchisin
**
So much for “Rome has spoken case closed” as the issue still is not closed in the west.
**
The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895
A Reply to the Papal Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII (1895) on Reunion
"Pope Leo III, in the year 809 denounced synodically this anti-evangelical and utterly lawless addition, and from the Son (Filioque); and engraved on two silver plates, in Greek and Latin, the holy Symbol of Faith of the first and second Ecumenical Synods, entire and without any addition; having written moreover, These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the orthodox faith (Haec Leo posui amore et cautela fidei orthodoxa)."
In Christ,Matthew Panchisin
**
M
MaggieOH
Guest
Fr Ambrose said:
A
Aris
Guest
Fr Ambrose said:
Father,
I think if Jesus said it just shows his humility by not saying that the Spirit also proceeds from Him. I think we have to answer MaggieOH and steveb’s reasoning. Why is it incorrect since it is also biblical?
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
I don’t think that an “argument from humility” is a bird that will fly. After all our Lord had no problem in saying such things as “I and the Father are one” and “he who sees Me sees the Father” etc.
The early Church did not believe so.
The Filioque, i.e. the belief that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son is a theological position put forward by the Roman Catholic Church. This is a novel addition to the ancient creed of the Church, which creed was formulated within the first two Ecumenical Councils (Nicea 325, Constantinople 381). The Nicene Creed states the “Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father”. However centuries later the Church in the West tampered with the creed. Although it was first added in Toledo in the Sixth Century, it was not widely accepted in the West until the 11th Century, when the Franks took over the Papacy. It is to be noted that before then the Popes of Rome did not accept this interpolation . Pope Leo III even went so far as to have a silver engraved plaque of the Creed made and mounted in Rome with the Filioque conspicuously absent.
The Orthodox position is that the Spirit proceeds only from the Father.
St. Photius clearly showed that this was a common belief of the Fathers and the Ecumenical councils when he wrote “It was openly preached as doctrine by the Seven Holy Councils - the Second, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, to be followed by the Third, confirmed by the Fourth, also agreed on by the Fifth, also preached by the Sixth, and was sealed with the bright struggle of the Seventh” [PG 102, 285AB]
The decisions of all these Councils were accepted by the Pope of Rome who either took part himself, or by representation. All Seven Ecumenical Councils held the common belief that the Son is begotten eternally from the Father, whereas the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father.
Particular note may be made of the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon where the representatives of Pope Leo I chaired the proceedings. All its decisions were accepted by the Pope of Rome.
agrino.org/cyberdesert/filioque.htm
“Remove not the ancient landmarks which your fathers have set” -Proverbs 22.28
A
Aris
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
“I and the Father are one” does not dispel the Filioque but in fact makes the case stronger for it.
I think since they have quoted from the Bible proof for the Filioque. It must be shown why that proof can not be.
Fr Ambrose:
If you can, wow, you’ve just found the key to demolish papal infallability!
But let’s focus first on scripture. we can dwell on history later. Is that ok?
Which just means that you have to take all of scripture in context not just one verse. We can probably cite conflicting statements about Christ’s humility if we are to take each verse separately and not as part of the whole Truth.
“I and the Father are one” does not dispel the Filioque but in fact makes the case stronger for it.
I think since they have quoted from the Bible proof for the Filioque. It must be shown why that proof can not be.
Fr Ambrose:
you mention that it was inserted. So this must be heresy. Was there a council that pronounced it as heresy? you have to be very clear on this historically. If it was an insertion can you please cite any document from the Church that says that this was opposed and who opposed it. You mention that this was inserted beginning the 7th century then you would have ample documents to prove it. If as you say Pope Leo III oppposed it can you please cite any writings from him?
If you can, wow, you’ve just found the key to demolish papal infallability!
But let’s focus first on scripture. we can dwell on history later. Is that ok?
P
prodromos
Guest
Aris said:
If understood in the manner you wish it to, then we would also have to interpret the Son as begetting Himself.
Gal.4:6 and Matt.10:20 say nothing at all about the procession of the Holy Spirit and John 15:26 specifically states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son. They are not equivalent principles.
John.
S
steve_b
Guest
Fr Ambrose said:
**In Jn 15:26 **
The Word for "Proceed" (1601 Strongs), in Greek ekporeuomai {ek-por-yoo’-om-ahee}
means
1) to go forth, go out, depart
2) metaph.
a) to come forth, to issue, to proceed
1) of feelings, affections, deeds, sayings
b) to flow forth
1) of a river
c) to project, from the mouth of one
d) to spread abroad, of a rumour
{ekporeuomai} is translated as “proceed” 10 times in the NT,
Mat 4:4 proceedeth 1607 out of the mouth of God .
Mt :15:18 But those things which proceed 1607 out of the mouth come forth from the heart and they defile the man
Mar 7:21 out of the heart of men, proceed 1607
Lk: 4:22 And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded 1607 out of his mouth
Jn 15:26 which proceedeth 1607 from the Father
Eph 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed 1607 out of your mouth
Rev 4:5 out of the throne proceeded 1607 lightnings and thunderings and voices and [there were] seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.
Rev 11:5 fire proceedeth 1607 out of their mouth,
Rev 19:21 which [sword] proceeded 1607 out of his mouth:
Rev 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding 1607 out of the throne of God ***and of the Lamb. ***
{ekporeuomai} is also translated as
go out, (6)
go, (5)
come, (4)
depart, (3)
go forth, (2)
The filioque is correct. Your understanding of Catholic theology is flawed.
P
prodromos
Guest
steve b:
John.
I beg your pardon Steve, but none of those meanings comes close to “being sent” which is what Holy Spirit is doing in relation to the Son. The filioque is wrong.
John.
S
steve_b
Guest
I beg YOUR pardon John. Stay on topic. The word I focused on was proceed NOT sent. Go back and look at it again.
.
S
steve_b
Guest
I focused on the word “proceed” {in the Greek} and the ways that word is translated and used in the NT. Address what I posted. BTW, the filioque is correct.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
I have not seen any Bible proof so far. A couple of people have simply placed a couple of verses before us:
No attempt has been made to show us how either of them is proof of the filioque dogma. So really there is no argument to address.
OK. I remember that Maggie said she will present us with a scriptural foundation for the filioque, so we are awaiting that.
PS: It would still be wonderful to hear from the Eastern Catholics here how they understand the filioque. This would be of great interest to me and probably to the other Orthodox following this thread.
“Remove not the ancient landmarks which your fathers have set” -Proverbs 22.28
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
The dispute between East and West grew and became the focus of the Synod of Constantinople which met A.D. 879-880. This synod ([potentially]recognised as the Eighth Ecumenical Synod by Orthodox Christians) reaffirmed the Symbol of A.D. 381 and declared any and all additions to the creed invalid.
This synod’s teaching was affirmed by the patriarchs of Old Rome (John VIII), New Rome [Constantinople] (Photius), Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria and by Emperor Basil I
geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/filioque.html
“Remove not the ancient landmarks which your fathers have set” -Proverbs 22.28
O
Orthodoc
Guest
[you mention that it was inserted. So this must be heresy. Was there a council that pronounced it as heresy? you have to be very clear on this historically. If it was an insertion can you please cite any document from the Church that says that this was opposed and who opposed it. You mention that this was inserted beginning the 7th century then you would have ample documents to prove it. If as you say Pope Leo III oppposed it can you please cite any writings from him?]
It is the Canons themselves that prohibit any change to the Creed as heresy -
It is Canon 1 of the Second Ecumenical Council that proclaims an anathema on the Roman Catholic Church for changing the Creed.
After the Creed was proclaimed (without the filioque) the following was proclaimed by all one hundred and fifty Bishops who were present -
Canons of the One Hundred and Fifty Fathers
Who Assembled at Constantinople During the Consulate of Those Illustrious Men, Flavius Eucherius and Flavius Evagrius on the VII of the Ides of July.1
The Bishops out of different provinces assembled by the grace of God in Constantinople, on the summons of the most religious Emperor Theodosius, have decreed as follows:
Canon I.
**The Faith of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Fathers assembled at Nice in Bithynia shall not be set aside, but shall remain firm. And every heresy shall be anathematized, **particularly that of the Eunomians or [Anomoeans, the Arians or] Eudoxians, and that of the Semi-Arians or Pneumatomachi, and that of the Sabellians, and that of the Marcellians, and that of the Photinians, and that of the Apollinarians.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon I.
Let the Nicene faith stand firm. Anathema to heresy.
Orthodoc
It is the Canons themselves that prohibit any change to the Creed as heresy -
It is Canon 1 of the Second Ecumenical Council that proclaims an anathema on the Roman Catholic Church for changing the Creed.
After the Creed was proclaimed (without the filioque) the following was proclaimed by all one hundred and fifty Bishops who were present -
Canons of the One Hundred and Fifty Fathers
Who Assembled at Constantinople During the Consulate of Those Illustrious Men, Flavius Eucherius and Flavius Evagrius on the VII of the Ides of July.1
The Bishops out of different provinces assembled by the grace of God in Constantinople, on the summons of the most religious Emperor Theodosius, have decreed as follows:
Canon I.
**The Faith of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Fathers assembled at Nice in Bithynia shall not be set aside, but shall remain firm. And every heresy shall be anathematized, **particularly that of the Eunomians or [Anomoeans, the Arians or] Eudoxians, and that of the Semi-Arians or Pneumatomachi, and that of the Sabellians, and that of the Marcellians, and that of the Photinians, and that of the Apollinarians.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon I.
Let the Nicene faith stand firm. Anathema to heresy.
Orthodoc
O
oat_soda
Guest
if the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, or that he has no beginning, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father then through the Son, isn’t this the same thing as the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and Son because the Son has no beginning??
In order for the Holy Spirit to procees from the Father, then the Son, the Father would have to exist before the Son, in which case he would be begotten of the Father and not eternally begotten.
In order for the Holy Spirit to procees from the Father, then the Son, the Father would have to exist before the Son, in which case he would be begotten of the Father and not eternally begotten.
M
mtr01
Guest
This claim was already sufficiently refuted. The canon says that the Nicene “faith” shall stand firm, not the exact wording of the Creed (otherwise we wouldn’t be able to use translated versions of it…since they change the words, they would be anathema).
The filioque, understood properly does not change the faith of Nicea.
S
steve_b
Guest
review the HS
newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm
I looked up “Proceeds” in the Greek ekporeuomai } word # 1601 in Strongs… It’s used in many ways in the NT. I made an error in the following post. All the words in blue should have 1601 as the number for proceed not 1607. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?postid=428916#post428916
The HS proceeds from the Son, not by way of generation, but by way of spiration, from the Father and the Son together, as from a single principle. That’s why scripture states
**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).
4… Jesus breathed on them and said receive the HS.** (Jn 20:22)**
The filioque is correct.
O
Orthodoc
Guest
[This claim was already sufficiently refuted. The canon says that the Nicene “faith” shall stand firm, not the exact wording of the Creed (otherwise we wouldn’t be able to use translated versions of it…since they change the words, they would be anathema).
The filioque, understood properly does not change the faith of Nicea.]
No it hasn’t. If the filioque does not change the faith of Nicea then why not get rid of it for the sake of unity between the two halves of the Catholic Church? After all you put it there, you take it out. But the fact that you refuse to makes your claim empty.
Orthodoc
The filioque, understood properly does not change the faith of Nicea.]
No it hasn’t. If the filioque does not change the faith of Nicea then why not get rid of it for the sake of unity between the two halves of the Catholic Church? After all you put it there, you take it out. But the fact that you refuse to makes your claim empty.
Orthodoc
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
I am just wondering. Have any of the Catholics who believe the *filioque * dogma offered us a concise definition?
To date all I have seen is some confused (at least to me) linguistic argumentation that the “que” in filioque does not in fact mean “que” (and) but it means “per” (through).
So this little word is itself erroneous and the addition “filioque” is really meant to be “per filium”. This makes no sense. How could the Latin-speaking Church make such a basic blunder with Latin?
- Status