R
ralphinal
Guest
That is correct. Either way is acceptable.
- Status
R
ronyodish
Guest
ralphinal,
The above quote taken from here is a reference to the Aramaic Creed of the Church of the East in the Persian empire at the time of the Synod of Mar Isaac in 410. Here is a picture of the Aramaic text that includes the reference to the Holy Spirit. It is also available here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=TK...GbSsz_RGP_ZUS6n3Zs&ci=239,1067,699,226&edge=1
The relevant words are the 7th, 8th, and 9th words from top to bottom, right to left, which says: “dmin aba wabra” and means “From the Father and the Son”. The Eastern Aramaic word for “proceeds” which is “napeq” as in “proceeds from the Father and the Son” is not actually used in this text, but is being assumed by the usage of the word “dmin” or “from”. Whether or not it should be assumed is a matter that can be debated.
In any case, here is what one scholar says on the matter with regards the difference between this Creed and the Creed in the Roman Empire:
Conformity with the beliefs of the Church of the Roman Empire was firmly established at the Synod of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in 410, though the canons and the creed were not simply assumed. The canons were adjusted to meet the needs of the Church of the East, and the creed was altered on the basis of a local Persian creed . . . This creed is a wonderful historical example of an agreement of faith despite differing formulations. The conformity with the Council of Nicaea is expressed in words the Persian father deemed adequate for their church
Taken from The Church of the East: A concise history by Wilhelm Baum and Dietmar W. Winkler
God bless,Rony
R
ralphinal
Guest
Thank you.
R
ralphinal
Guest
I have seen it claimed that the addition of the filioque itself as illicit. I have also seen it claimed that the Nicean Creed was changed when it became the Nicea-Constantinople Creed, and that change was illicit as well. Any truth to that?
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
Then may I speculate as to why many Early Church Fathers (Western) take a stance for the Filioque. I’m not saying that it is necessary, however are we to assume that every Church Father who agrees with it is a heretic. Did not Pope St. Leo III agree with it theologically (although not the insertion)?Brother, the Filioque is not theologically correct, at least, not as it is stated, nor is it’s addition to the creed correct… with nothing but brotherly love I recommend as an inquirer to Catholicism(and this is good advice for all of us) that you do more listening than teaching, especially for where you are in your journey, particularly as I have seen you write things regarding Catholicism and Orthodoxy that are incorrect. I wish you nothing but the most spiritually rewarding journey in your faith, but I sincerely worry about some of the things you state as fact, being somewhat incorrect, being taken as fact by others particupating or simply reading these forums.
God Bless.
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
No because most Churches agree with that change. The Orthodox argument is that since a Ecumenical Council did not change the Creed and only Pope Leo IX did, it could not have been done.
However you are right the Catholic Church believes that the Creed is correct with or without the Filioque.
R
ralphinal
Guest
Three pages and not much rude behavior… amazing
B
bobzills
Guest
Wouldn’t this be regarded as contradictory by the Eastern Orthodox?
R
ralphinal
Guest
Probably. That is one of the issues to me. We can conciede that it is correct without it. They cannot accept that it might be correct with it.
N
Nicholas82
Guest
… great reason to drop it for good!
R
ralphinal
Guest
Why drop it? The understanding that the Latin Rite has of it is correct. The Holy Spirit DOES procede from the Father AND the Son. I understand that the word filioque does not work in Greek to mean the same thing, but can another word or words not convey the same message?… great reason to drop it for good!
J
jimmy
Guest
The Greeks don’t accept the theology behind the filioque. They do not accept that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as one source. The one source to them is the Father alone. The only sense that they would accept a procession from the Son is in an energetic way, or in other words by manifestation. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and is manifested by the Son according to the Greeks. They would say that the Spirit recieves His person from the Father alone.
R
ralphinal
Guest
Well, once you put it like that. They do understand that we do not beleive in two spirations right?
How do they read the verse where Jesus breaths on them and says receive the Spirit? Or that Jesus asks the Father to send the Spirit (no Jesus, no Spirit)
J
jimmy
Guest
As I said above, they would say that the Son manifests the Spirit. It is an energetic procession according to the Byzantines. This basically means that it is only through Gods actions that the Spirit proceeds through the Son. But they will also quote scripture as saying the Spirit proceeds from the Father but it says nothing of a procession from the Son.
So to the Greeks or Byzantines the verse you mention would refer simply to Gods actions within the world.
R
ralphinal
Guest
Ok.
M
Madaglan
Guest
Recitation of the creed without the filioque is allowed BUT–and here is the sticking point–those who recite the creed without the filioque must accept the theological reality of the filioque.
M
Madaglan
Guest
Economically.
In a similiar fashion, you can argue that both the Father and the Spirit (as though a single principle) beget the Son, using passages on the Annunciation.
- Status