Filioque Debate

[Seraphim73]

LOL. And if I told you that we hold a certain council to be as authoritative as an ecumenical council because our Church says so, I don’t have to ask what your reaction would be.

Well how else would you determine if one of your councils is ecumenical if not by the Church?

In any case, we might be talking about two different councils when we speak of the 4th Council of Constantinople:

*The Fourth Council of Constantinople (Roman Catholic) was the eighth Catholic Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople from October 5, 869, to February 28, 870. It included 102 bishops, three papal legates, and four patriarchs.[1] The Council met in ten sessions from October 869 to February 870 and issued 27 canons.

The council was called by Emperor Basil I the Macedonian and Pope Adrian II.[2] It deposed Photios, a layman who had been appointed as Patriarch of Constantinople, and reinstated his predecessor Ignatius.

The Council also reaffirmed the decisions of the Second Council of Nicaea in support of icons and holy images and required the image of Christ to have veneration equal with that of the gospel book.[3]

A later council, the Greek Fourth Council of Constantinople, was held after Photios had been reinstated on the order of the emperor. Today, the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the council in 869–870 as “Constantinople IV”*, while the Eastern Orthodox Churches recognize the councils in 879–880 as “Constantinople IV” and revere Photios as a saint. At the time that these councils were being held, this division was not yet clear.[4] These two councils represent a growing divide between East and West. The previous seven ecumenical councils are recognized as ecumenical and authoritative by both Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Christians. These kinds of differences led eventually to the East-West Schism of 1054. - Wikki

Yes we are talking about two different councils.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No one says you can’t better explain a teaching or understand it more deeply. The first clause you cite simply expands on an already existing teaching.

But this is EXACTLY what you do when you deny the supremacy of the papacy simply because it was not understood as deeply in the first millenium as it was in the second.

You need to mull that over for a loooong time before responding. :sad_yes:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Some have charged…that three ecumenical councils forbade any tampering with the Creed under pain of anathema, and the Catholics are under that anathema. Opponents of the filioque have long been fond of quoting a decree of the Council of Ephesus (431) and which is repeated in the Councils of Chalcedon (451) and Constantinople III (680-681). This decree prohibited the drawing up of any Creed that would alter or change the Catholic faith. It forbade the expression of “another faith” (hetera pistis) that would be contrary or contradictory to the traditional belief of the Church. But it certainly did not forbid additions that would further explain or clarify the meaning of revealed truths.

Opponents of the filioque conveniently forget that the decree of the Council of Ephesus only forbade any ***heretical ***tampering with the original Creed of the Council of Nicaea. Fifty-six years after Nicaea, Constantinople I would add many clauses expanding that original Nicene Creed including the clauses stating that the Holy Spirit “proceeded from the Father” and “We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.”

Thus, the prohibition of the Council of Ephesus and later Ecumenical Councils could not have been considered an absolute ban on doctrinal clarifications considered necessary to combat serious errors spreading in the Church. If Constantinople I, moreover, could expand and elaborate the original Nicene Creed, so could future Ecumenical Councils expand and elaborate on the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (James Likoudis, The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy, p. 19).

 

[SteveVH]

Well how else would you determine if one of your councils is ecumenical if not by the Church?

I did find where this council is referred to as ecumenical in the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1848. Obviously, there is wide disagreement between us as to the validity of that claim. I’ll just leave it at that.

Yes we are talking about two different councils.

Yes.

 

[Seraphim73]

But this is EXACTLY what you do when you deny the supremacy of the papacy simply because it was not understood as deeply in the first millenium as it was in the second.

You need to mull that over for a loooong time before responding. :sad_yes:

I don’t need to mull it over at all. Those teachings did not exist.

 

[Seraphim73]

With respect Seraphim, you are the one who insisted that there is some meaningful distinction between the addition of the filioque and the plethora of other additions made to the creed by Constantinople; based upon whether one is an “economic” reality or an “ontological/immanent” reality. I’m simply addressing your argument.

Well that certainly is an argument; just not the argument you made above. I would fully agree with you that if the filioque contradicts Scripture, then the Catholic Church is wrong and must remove it.

Again, it is you who insisted that there is some real difference in this instance between “changing” an existing teaching and “understanding it more deeply.” To you it may seem obvious that the addition of the filioque is a “change” to an existing teaching while all the other additions (incarnate by the Holy Spirit, Jesus seated at the right hand of the Father, the Holy Spirit being co-glorified with the Father and the Son, etc.) are so-called “better explanations” of existing teachings. The difference is not apparent to me, and even if it were, it still doesn’t remove the arbitrariness of your claim.

That’s exactly what the Catholic Church claims about the filioque.

It’s odd then that the Cappadocian Fathers (who were living during Constantinople I) teach at length about attributes of the Immanent Trinity not found in the creed; including that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son.

Proceeding through the Son and having the Spirit’s cause as the Son are two different things entirely.

 

[RyanBlack]

If the Eternal Son did not participate equally in the Father’s breathing forth the Spirit from all eternity, then, as the heretics claimed, the Son was NOT equal to Him. The Son was inferior to the Father. The divinity of the Son was at stake.

Does the Spirit participate equally in the Father’s begetting of the Son from all eternity? If not, does this make the Spirit not equal to the Father? Is the Spirit inferior to the Father? Is the teaching of the divinity of the Spirit not at stake?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t need to mull it over at all. Those teachings did not exist.

I just said that.

If the papacy was not clearly seen or understood in the first millenium, it is not a problem if it came more clearly into view in the second.

So, while you wrote, “No one says you can’t better explain a teaching or understand it more deeply,” this is EXACTLY what you are doing when you deny the development of the modern papacy.

It HAS been “understood more deeply” in the West.

Who do you expect to have a better grasp of the papacy? Those who accept it and live with the keeper of the keys or those Easterns who admit to being separated over time by language and culture and geography?

I gotta go with the idea that the one who holds the keys understands them best.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Does the Spirit participate equally in the Father’s begetting of the Son from all eternity? If not, does this make the Spirit not equal to the Father? Is the Spirit inferior to the Father? Is the teaching of the divinity of the Spirit not at stake?

This is an excellent question, Ryan. I had a feeling you were following this discussion.

I, personally, am ignorant of the proper words to answer properly. However, I own books that contain them. Should I go read up on this and come back with the “orthodox” answer, or is there some other reason for your question?

As an Eastern Catholic, I believe you are free to omit the filioque are you not?

 

[Seraphim73]

I just said that.

Then we agree. We will welcome you home with open arms.

 

[Wandile]

Proceeding through the Son and having the Spirit’s cause as the Son are two different things entirely.

The great Trinitarian father and doctor od the Church said this :
Archbishop St. Athanasius the Great of Alexandria On the Incarnation of the Word Against the Arians

"David sings in the psalm [35:10], saying: ‘For with You is the Font of Life;’** because jointly with the Father the Son is indeed the source of the Holy Spirit**

Further he goes on to say :

** "Everything the Spirit has, He has from the Word**

 

[GaryTaylor]

Does the Spirit participate equally in the Father’s begetting of the Son from all eternity? If not, does this make the Spirit not equal to the Father? Is the Spirit inferior to the Father? Is the teaching of the divinity of the Spirit not at stake?

I don’t see how Ryan, The Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son in the final continuity resolves as proceeding from the Father and Son. Imho we are looking at the reality from a previous point and a later point. Where the conversation becomes blurred imho is when we discuss the eternally begotten Son without time, in other words the Son was begotten from all eternity.

 

[RyanBlack]

This is an excellent question, Ryan. I had a feeling you were following this discussion.

I, personally, am ignorant of the proper words to answer properly. However, I own books that contain them. Should I go read up on this and come back with the “orthodox” answer, or is there some other reason for your question?

As an Eastern Catholic, I believe you are free to omit the filioque are you not?

Eastern Catholics generally do not include the *filioque *when singing/reciting the Creed.

The reason for my question is not a matter of rejecting the filioque per se. Rather, I find the claim that the denial of the filioque essentially denies the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father to be entirely unconvincing since the same people who make the argument that the Son must share in the spirating of the Spirit if he is consubstantial with the Father do not also insist that the Spirit must share in the begetting of the Son if he is consubstantial with the Father.

 

[Seraphim73]

The great Trinitarian father and doctor od the Church said this :
Archbishop St. Athanasius the Great of Alexandria On the Incarnation of the Word Against the Arians

I would like to read that quote in Greek. But either way teaching that the Son and the Father together are the source of the Spirit in an ontological sense is heterodox for the reasons stated above. You can rest assured that St Athanasius did not mean it in that sense.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Seraphim73;12510873]You are quibbling over words. What is important is the teaching. Scripture says Jesus became incarnate by the power of the Holy Spirit.

“The Father and the Son is One”, the filioque never contradicts this divine revelation from Jesus recorded in the memoirs of the Apostles. The filioque confirms from scripture “and the Word became flesh”, suggesting that there never was a time that the Word was not God, to include; “I am in the Father” supports the filioque.

It also says, quite clearly, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

Jesus teaches; “if you seen me, you have seen the Father” which supports the filioque, and elsewhere; " But if I go, I will send Him (paraclete) to you" and again, “He (paraclete) will glorify me, for He will take what is mine and declare it to you, All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that He (paralclete) will take what is mine and declare it to you”.

“All that the Father has is mine” is a direct teaching from CCC relating to the filioque.

Because Jesus said the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, we are to excommunicate Him because Jesus added clarification or changed His theology, when Jesus teaches that He will send the Holy Spirit to us?

You are setting up a false dilemma that really is quite ridiculous. No one says you can’t better explain a teaching or understand it more deeply.

Interesting that you said this Seraphim73; Constantinople, whether you claim this council did not change the Nicene Creed, but added to the Nicene Creed. Does not the anathema still apply to the council of Constantinople for it’s addition?

I think it is clear from the development of the Nicene Creed from it’s changes or additions from these two early councils, disqualifies your non Apostolic traditional reason to faith and development.

You said; “No one says you can’t better explain a teaching or understand it more deeply”.

Did not the councils develop her doctrines from the Apostolic sacred Traditions using your own perspective? Did not the Pope at a later time use this same reasoning and faith to defeat heretics in the West with the filioque and the same Creed, which was changed, added from earlier Church councils?

You say the filioque changed the Creed, so did the earlier the Church councils of Nicea and Constantinople. The difference here is; That neither the filioque nor the insertion into the Creed from Nicea or Constantinoplle ever change the apostolic faith handed down to us from Jesus and His apostles.

I have a question for you Seraphim? Why did the Eastern Church’s find it necessary to invent or introduce and develope a Nicene Creed when the Church already had the Apostles Creed in practice?

The first clause you cite simply expands on an already existing teaching. The filioque changes the existing teaching.

If you find it necessary to make such a case of the filioque that changes the existing Apostolic faith, then it remains to be proven by those who hold to such a claim.

Do you think, your same claim; if spoken from the Nicea Council? would made any impact to the Council of Constantinople who added or changed the Nicene Creed?

Using your reasoning when it is professed from the Nicene Creed the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, does not the filioque apply when the “first clause you cite simply expands on an already existing teaching”?

Is it not ridiculous to apply a secular reason and tradition to an Already Apostolic Tradition of reason and faith to develop Church doctrine against any heretics or heresies in every and any age which predate Constantinople and post Constantinople to the present?

Peace be with you

 

[SteveVH]

Eastern Catholics generally do not include the *filioque *when singing/reciting the Creed.

The reason for my question is not a matter of rejecting the filioque per se. Rather, I find the claim that the denial of the filioque essentially denies the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father to be entirely unconvincing since the same people who make the argument that the Son must share in the spirating of the Spirit if he is consubstantial with the Father do not also insist that the Spirit must share in the begetting of the Son if he is consubstantial with the Father.

But the Son is not begotten of the Holy Spirit so to include this would be heretical. The Son is “eternally begotten of the Father”. The Holy Spirit is the Love between the Father and the Son and therefore proceeds from both.

And before you go to the incarnation to show that the Son was conceived by the Power of the Holy Spirit we are not taking about being born, but rather “eternally begotten”. One happened in eternity, the other in time and being born is not the same as being begotten, in terms of the Trinity.

 

[Seraphim73]

But the Son is not begotten of the Holy Spirit so to include this would be heretical. The Son is “eternally begotten of the Father”. The Holy Spirit is the Love between the Father and the Son and therefore proceeds from both.

And before you go to the incarnation to show that the Son was conceived by the Power of the Holy Spirit we are not taking about being born, but rather “eternally begotten”. One happened in eternity, the other in time and being born is not the same as being begotten, in terms of the Trinity.

How do you know the Son is not begotten of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is God and the Father is God correct? How can the Spirit and the Father be of the same substance if the Spirit does not beget the Son as well?

 

[Wandile]

Eastern Catholics generally do not include the *filioque *when singing/reciting the Creed.

The reason for my question is not a matter of rejecting the filioque per se. Rather, I find the claim that the denial of the filioque essentially denies the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father to be entirely unconvincing since the same people who make the argument that the Son must share in the spirating of the Spirit if he is consubstantial with the Father do not also insist that the Spirit must share in the begetting of the Son if he is consubstantial with the Father.

This is a straw man although a respectable one. Your objection is based on a confusion of the divine persons.

The Son must participate in the procession of the Holy Spirit because the Son is everything the Father is except being the Father. That is; The only difference between the Father and the Son is that the Father begets the Son and the Son is begotten of the Father. That is why the Father is called The Father and the Son called The Son.

The Holy Spirit need not participate in the begetting of the Son because that is a property of the Father alone. The sole reason why the Father is called the Father is because he ** begets**. This is the only reason… Whereas the procession of the Holy Spirit is not what makes the Father the Father nor does it make the Son the Son. As such; all that is the fathers is the Son’s (John 16:15) and whatever the Father does the Son does also (John 5:19)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Then we agree. We will welcome you home with open arms.

But Joey, this is what I have been saying for days or even weeks to Isaiah.

The acorn was planted in Matthew 16:18-19. We see the mature tree in the Vatican Councils I & II.

What Isaiah could not or would not acknowledge is that there are valid and logical reasons WHY he cannot find the supremacy of the papacy in the first millennium.

If you, like Newman, can see those reasons, then you, like Newman, will be home at last.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Proceeding through the Son and having the Spirit’s cause as the Son are two different things entirely.

For the life of me Seraphim, I have no clue to who informed you that the filioque has the Son as being the Cause of the Holy Spirit?

Can you please provide any authoritative source? I keep hearing this from you, and have no clue why and where you get that view of the filioque?