Filioque Debate

[Randy_Carson]

St. Maximus the Confessor

Defending the Romans, Maximus wrote:

“They [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the Gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause (aitian) of the Spirit–they know in fact htat the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by *ekporeusis *(procession)–but they have manifested the procession through Him (to dia autou proeinai) and have shown the unity and the identity of the essence…I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them (the ‘also from the Son’) in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided.”

Likoudis presents page after page after page of Eastern Bishops acknowledging that the Latins were not adding anything to the Creed that was not believed by the Fathers.

There is really no question that Photius stirred up a hornet’s nest by falsely accusing the Roman Church of heresy.

The ‘Filioque’ as properly professed in scripture, the Fathers, the Councils and Eastern theologians and bishops including Bishop Eulogius, Sergei Svietlov, Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia, should, in the words of Rev. Dr. Theodore G. Stylianopoulos and Bishop Vsevolod of Scopelos, “need not disturb us.”

Indeed, Kallistos Ware, speaking at a May 1995 Symposium on the Trinity as Rose Hill, SC, affirmed:

The ‘Filioque’ controversy, which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicaltity, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I know believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences."

+++

In light of these opinions by Orthodox theologians and bishops, will the rank-and-file laity of the East lay down their arms against the Catholic Church which rely upon a false assumption that East and West have not and are not agreed upon the procession of the Holy Spirit?

What about it, guys?

 

[Randy_Carson]

AN OBSERVATION

Over the course of many threads and weeks of discussion, we Catholics have endeavored to explain that:

• Peter is the rock.
• Peter is the strengthener of his brothers.
• Peter is the Keeper of the Keys (and Royal Steward).
• Peter is the Chief Shepherd of the one Flock of Christ.
• Peter and his successors do have universal jurisdiction.
• Mary died before being assumed into heaven.
• The ‘Filioque’ is not a Western heresy.

As we slowly peel away these layers of disputation put forth by the Orthodox controversialists to justify their continued separation from the See of Rome by refuting them one by one, we are left with an inescapable conclusion: all that remains as the *real *explanation for the Eastern Schism is pride.

Merely saying this will not end the debate, but this needed to be said and heard nonetheless.

And so we continue.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Somewhere Ryan bought up the point of the concern with Consubstantial, and in regards above we see the other side of the concern. They are both fair concerns, however it appears to me that one safeguards the other. I don’t see wrong with this especially when we are merely speaking of words to place both understandings in perspective. As I suggested on the other thread, the truth illuminates the truth.

 

[Cavaradossi]

St. Maximus the Confessor

Defending the Romans, Maximus wrote:

“They [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the Gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause (aitian) of the Spirit–they know in fact htat the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by *ekporeusis *(procession)–but they have manifested the procession through Him (to dia autou proeinai) and have shown the unity and the identity of the essence…I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them (the ‘also from the Son’) in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided.”

Likoudis presents page after page after page of Eastern Bishops acknowledging that the Latins were not adding anything to the Creed that was not believed by the Fathers.

Oh, I suppose that Likoudis, in his typical fashion of offering only half-truths, mentions nothing of how the Greeks at Florence proposed the letter of Maximus as the grounds for reunion, but that the Latins refused, because the letter so clearly shows that even the Romans of St. Maximus’ day believed that the Father was the only cause of the Holy Spirit? In fact, St. Maximus’ letter is a clear testimony to the Greek tradition as is reflected by St. Photius, the Council of Blachernae, and St. Gregory Palamas, which is that the Son is not cause of the Holy Spirit, which is why the Spirit cannot be said to proceed (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from the Son, but only to progress (προϊέναι) from the Son, or to proceed (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from the Father through the Son.

Indeed, these many ecumenists who say that the filioque is consistent with Orthodoxy are also guilty of offering up half-truths. The filioque is indeed consistent with Orthodoxy when confessed in an Orthodox manner, as St. Maximus witnesses. But the doctrine of Florence is utterly incompatible with the words of St. Maximus (which many ironically now use to try to support the doctrine of the filioque), as Florence says, right in the decree, that the Greeks must confess the Son to be cause of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Cavaradossi;12517385]Oh, I suppose that Likoudis, in his typical fashion of offering only half-truths, mentions nothing of how the Greeks at Florence proposed the letter of Maximus as the grounds for reunion, but that the Latins refused, because the letter so clearly shows that even the Romans of St. Maximus’ day believed that the Father was the only cause of the Holy Spirit? In fact, St. Maximus’ letter is a clear testimony to the Greek tradition as is reflected by St. Photius, the Council of Blachernae, and St. Gregory Palamas, which is that the Son is not cause of the Holy Spirit, which is why the Spirit cannot be said to proceed (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from the Son, but only to progress (προϊέναι) from the Son, or to proceed (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from the Father through the Son

.

Your argument or opinion assumes that St. Maximus, and Photius, and the widely unaccepted council of Blachernae and a St.Gregory Palamas speak for the whole of Christendom when they don’t.

Although when the filioque is officially defined by Nicene Creed or the Roman Catholic Church she never has the Son as the cause of the Holy Spirit proceeding.

As St. Hilary statesl “Whether it is the same to receive from the Son as to proceed from the Father?”…"We shall have to admit that it is the One and the Same, to receive from the Son as it is to receive from the Father"

Indeed, these many ecumenists who say that the filioque is consistent with Orthodoxy are also guilty of offering up half-truths

.

Your reasoning contradicts not only the Nicene Creed but also the defined filioque as applied per the CCC which never contradicts the Apostolic faith handed down from the Apostles,

The filioque is indeed consistent with Orthodoxy when confessed in an Orthodox manner, as St. Maximus witnesses.

St. Maximus does not speak for the whole Christian faith, nor do any of the Fathers by themselves.

But the doctrine of Florence is utterly incompatible with the words of St. Maximus (which many ironically now use to try to support the doctrine of the filioque), as Florence says, right in the decree, that the Greeks must confess the Son to be cause of the Holy Spirit.

This theology from it’s present tense does not make it into the Nicene Creed when the filioque does as proscribed in the CCC.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Back to double procession so soon?

"We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike. But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one."Lyons

“The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto.” Florence session 6

As indicated I took the advice and have been scanning the controversial figure of Sergei Bulgakov who in the ecumenical movement is distinguished as a most Orthodox theologian.

Sergei Bulgakov’s “The Comforter” states:
“It is a difference of theological opinions which was dogmatized prematurely and erroneously. There is no dogma of the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Son and therefore particular opinions on this subject are not heresies but merely dogmatic hypotheses, which have been transformed into heresies by the schismatic spirit that has established itself in the Church and that eagerly exploits all sorts of liturgical and even cultural differences” pg80

 

[Seraphim73]

BAs indicated I took the advice and have been scanning the controversial figure of Sergei Bulgakov who in the ecumenical movement is distinguished as a most Orthodox theologian.

You can’t trust the “ecumenical movement.” Some of his teachings were synodically condemned as heretical. Also he had quite a love affair with Roman Catholicism for a while. If you pick writings from that time frame you are not getting the entire picture.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

GaryTaylor;12517590]Back to double procession so soon?

A double procession can be falsely attributed to the incarnation of God after He became visible in the fullness of times.

Holding the CCC that the filioque is an eternal procession that supports scripture when it is declared 1Cor.15:25-28…“Scripture reads that God “has placed all things under his feet.” **But when it says that everything has been made subject, it is clear that He who made everything subject to Christ is EXCLUDED”…"**so that God may be all in all".

Because the filioque rightly professes faith in the eternal procession. That which proceeds eternally in the persons of the Trinity is excluded from all things the Father makes subject to Christ our King, when the Trinity is One God.

For anyone to produce an opinion or argument for a double procession of the Holy Spirit in space and time finds his/her argument protesting Holy Writ, when the Incarnation in His presence veils the Eternal Essence of God, to which the filioque professes from within the Nicene Creed what is consubstantial of the Father and the Son the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds.

So the “HE” in the Father and or the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son places all things visible and invisible subject to Christ, the Trinity of persons in presence is not subject to Christ, when all other things are. So a double procession does not exist in Christ himself.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Oh, I suppose that Likoudis, in his typical fashion of offering only half-truths, mentions nothing of how the Greeks at Florence proposed the letter of Maximus as the grounds for reunion, but that the Latins refused, because the letter so clearly shows that even the Romans of St. Maximus’ day believed that the Father was the only cause of the Holy Spirit? In fact, St. Maximus’ letter is a clear testimony to the Greek tradition as is reflected by St. Photius, the Council of Blachernae, and St. Gregory Palamas, which is that the Son is not cause of the Holy Spirit, which is why the Spirit cannot be said to proceed (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from the Son, but only to progress (προϊέναι) from the Son, or to proceed (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from the Father through the Son.

Indeed, these many ecumenists who say that the filioque is consistent with Orthodoxy are also guilty of offering up half-truths. The filioque is indeed consistent with Orthodoxy when confessed in an Orthodox manner, as St. Maximus witnesses. But the doctrine of Florence is utterly incompatible with the words of St. Maximus (which many ironically now use to try to support the doctrine of the filioque), as Florence says, right in the decree, that the Greeks must confess the Son to be cause of the Holy Spirit.

Hang on…I need to make sure I’ve got all this straight:

• The scriptures don’t actually say that Peter is the rock;
• The early Church Fathers don’t actually say what I think they say;
• Catholics can’t be trusted to read the original source materials and draw pertinent passages from them accurately; and
• the Orthodox theologians who recognize that the ‘Filioque’ is not a problem are merely lying ecumenists.

I think that sums up your views accurately, doesn’t it?

Thanks so much for helping me to understand Orthodoxy, Cav.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Hang on…I need to make sure I’ve got all this straight:

• The scriptures don’t actually say that Peter is the rock;
• The early Church Fathers don’t actually say what I think they say;
• Catholics can’t be trusted to read the original source materials and draw pertinent passages from them accurately; and
• the Orthodox theologians who recognize that the ‘Filioque’ is not a problem are merely lying ecumenists.

Got it. Thanks for helping me to understand Orthodoxy, Cav.

Your childish barbs aside, you seem not to understand the issue of the Filioque at all. The issue is particularly with how the doctrine was explained at Lyons and Florence where the Son was made cause of the Holy Spirit. This contradicts not only the whole of patristic Greek thought, but it contradicts even what the Latins meant by the Filioque in St. Maximus’ time, if you accept his letter to Marinus as an authentic witness (I would assume so, since you naively attempted to turn it into a proof text for the Filioque). Your appeal to ecumenism Orthodox theologians will be of no help to you either, because their zeal for ecumenism often causes them to gloss over certain inconveniences. It is in fact true that the Filioque when confessed in a certain manner can have an orthodox meaning, but its meaning as explained at Florence is not consistent with the orthodox meaning of the Filioque. Ecumenists don’t really take the Roman claim that its councils are irreformable very seriously, which is why they feel free to gloss over the problems created by Florence.

By the way, there is plenty of good scholarship written by Latins. I don’t trust Likoudis, however, because there are too many examples of him misrepresenting the Orthodox position on something or of him cleverly doctoring quotes with ellipses to make them say things that they don’t in context.

 

[wynd]

AN OBSERVATION

Over the course of many threads and weeks of discussion, we Catholics have endeavored to explain that:

…]

• Mary died before being assumed into heaven.
  …]

Is this a typo? This is the teaching of the Orthodox Church, you will find no argument from us on that one.

As we slowly peel away these layers of disputation put forth by the Orthodox controversialists to justify their continued separation from the See of Rome by refuting them one by one, we are left with an inescapable conclusion: all that remains as the *real *explanation for the Eastern Schism is pride.

Something about a splinter and a log…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Is this a typo? This is the teaching of the Orthodox Church, you will find no argument from us on that one.

Wynd-

No, it’s not a typo. It has been asserted that Catholics believe that Mary did not die; indeed, I find this is the case often in these forum discussions. However, I think those pious Catholics who wish to deny the death of Mary are in error, and I have offered passages from Munificentissimus Deus in support of that position.

I listed this in the post you quoted simply to say that this is one LESS reason for Orthodox believers to be separated from us. Make sense?

 

[Seraphim73]

Wynd-

No, it’s not a typo. It has been asserted that Catholics believe that Mary did not die; indeed, I find this is the case often in these forum discussions. However, I think those pious Catholics who wish to deny the death of Mary are in error, and I have offered passages from Munificentissimus Deus in support of that position.

I listed this in the post you quoted simply to say that this is one LESS reason for Orthodox believers to be separated from us. Make sense?

On the contrary the implications of erroneous teachings are always an important point. In fact it’s one of the most important reasons to oppose heterodox teachings.

 

[GaryTaylor]

On the contrary the implications of erroneous teachings are always an important point. In fact it’s one of the most important reasons to oppose heterodox teachings.

Which is why we suggest you guys arrive at “one” model taught from antiquity such as the petrine primacy and yes when we talk orthodox and heterodox those questions seem to arise.

 

[Randy_Carson]

On the contrary the implications of erroneous teachings are always an important point. In fact it’s one of the most important reasons to oppose heterodox teachings.

I am happy to correct Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox with equal patience.

In turn, I am happy to be corrected by Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox with equal humility and gratitude.

 

[Seraphim73]

Which is why we suggest you guys arrive at “one” model taught from antiquity such as the petrine primacy and yes when we talk orthodox and heterodox those questions seem to arise.

There is one model Where did you get the idea there wasn’t?

 

[GaryTaylor]

There is one model Where did you get the idea there wasn’t?

Same article I showed you this week, and of course its often discussed here. We simply have various ideas on the primacy of the Church. In which the CC has repetitively stated they were willing to discuss the Popes role and responsibility. But the truth is that can’t happen till this happens.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholicworldreport.com%2FItem%2F3001%2Fthe_fragile_promise_of_the_panorthodox_council.aspx&ei=SwJ5VKzwKYWYNsGJgoAI&usg=AFQjCNF_WGobCTTGaX5zA0QpXqtnW30Nww&bvm=bv.80642063,d.eXY

 

[Seraphim73]

Same article I showed you this week, and of course its often discussed here. We simply have various ideas on the primacy of the Church. In which the CC has repetitively stated they were willing to discuss the Popes role and responsibility. But the truth is that can’t happen till this happens.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholicworldreport.com%2FItem%2F3001%2Fthe_fragile_promise_of_the_panorthodox_council.aspx&ei=SwJ5VKzwKYWYNsGJgoAI&usg=AFQjCNF_WGobCTTGaX5zA0QpXqtnW30Nww&bvm=bv.80642063,d.eXY

So you think the question of a few prerogatives speaks to the model? There is no question as to the model. I could say the same thing about disagreements as to how the pope’s powers should be applied. Many Eastern Catholics interpret things very differently from how Latin Catholics often interpret things. I could argue that means you all need to agree on a model but that wouldn’t be very intellectually honest. It’s no different from how the US Constitution is interpreted. There are often questions as to how the model should be applied but the model is there nonetheless.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Same article I showed you this week, and of course its often discussed here. We simply have various ideas on the primacy of the Church. In which the CC has repetitively stated they were willing to discuss the Popes role and responsibility. But the truth is that can’t happen till this happens.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholicworldreport.com%2FItem%2F3001%2Fthe_fragile_promise_of_the_panorthodox_council.aspx&ei=SwJ5VKzwKYWYNsGJgoAI&usg=AFQjCNF_WGobCTTGaX5zA0QpXqtnW30Nww&bvm=bv.80642063,d.eXY

Wow. Just wow. For some reason this scripture came to mind:

Luke 14:7-11
7 When [Jesus] noticed how the guests picked the places of honor at the table, he told them this parable: 8 “When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. 9 If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this person your seat.’ Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. 10 But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests. 11 For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

 

[GaryTaylor]

So you think the question of a few prerogatives speaks to the model? There is no question as to the model. I could say the same thing about disagreements as to how the pope’s powers should be applied. Many Eastern Catholics interpret things very differently from how Latin Catholics often interpret things. I could argue that means you all need to agree on a model but that wouldn’t be very intellectually honest. It’s no different from how the US Constitution is interpreted. There are often questions as to how the model should be applied but the model is there nonetheless.

The position of the Orthodox Churches on the issue of primacy of the Bishop of Rome depends entirely on the consensus on primacy within the Orthodox Church. Yet there is no such a consensus on this issue; instead, there are two dominating interpretations.

And so forth, how Eastern Catholic and Latin Rite and so forth interpret doesn’t come of question as they are in communion.

According to one of them, primus inter pares (“the first among equals”) is just an honorary title, a rudiment of the past, which does not imply any real authority of the first Church. Inter pares is accentuated in this interpretation, which was recently expressed in the document adopted by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy in the Universal Church.

According to the other perspective, primacy is something real within the Orthodox Church, and it implies real authority and responsibility of the first Church. According to Metropolitan Elpidophoros of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, who responded to the document of the Russian Orthodox Church, the first Church, in its primacy, has no equals among the other Churches.

Consistent in debates here. Romes response is consistent in regards to above also. The further conversation as indicated revolves around this one.