Filioque Debate

[Gabriel_of_12]

The name is in the title so ill get things going.

for all who don’t know , the filioque is the Roman Catholic belief that The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the Son.

So the Filioque does not deny the Father’s singular role as the Cause (Aition) of the Spirit; but merely acknowledges the Son’s necessary Presence (i.e., participation) for the Spirit’s eternal procession. The Father and Son are thus collectively identified as accounting for the Spirit’s procession. This is all that the Filioque was ever intended to address; and it was included in the Creed by the Western fathers at Toledo in order to counter the claims of the 6th Century Spanish (Germanic) Arians. These Arians were of course denying this essential and orthodox truth, that is, the Son’s eternal participation in the Spirit’s procession and thus the Son being somewhat less divine than the Father

The filioque claims that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son which if understood, is equivalent to the eastern formula " from the Father through the Son". The Catholic Church simply teaches that all 3 persons are eternal. They are equally God and only differs in rank according to relationships. The Father is the Father becasue he begets the son. The son is son because he is begotten of the father. The Holy Spirit does not beget nor is he begotten, but proceeds from the father and the son as from one principle. The main issue is the understanding of “as from one principle”. The Father is the ultimate origin of the Holy Ghost alone. However the procession of the the Holy Ghost involves the Son as the father gave everything to the Son except being the father. That is except the property to Beget. So the son inherits the Spirit of the Father as his own and the spirit is manifested through Son. As the Father is the origin of deity and in having the Holy Ghost proceeding, the son is a participant in transmission of being. Thus it is by way of the son that the spirit proceeds from the Father. He gets his being from the father and the Son as from one principle. That is what is meant to proceed from the son. The only reason the Holy Ghost proceeds from the son is because the Son is begotten of the Father. As such monarchy of the father is still maintained as everything is only becasue it has ultimate origin in the father.

My hats off to Wandile who does an excellent simple commentary of the filioque understanding.

The early councils never address or rule on the filioque for one to abuse these councils findings in from their current situations of their time and disrespect them and order them to object to the filioque.

There is no official Church councils that expressly objects to the filioque, when all others support the filioque who have to rule on binding and loosing heretics in their time from the abuse of the Nicene Creed.

The filioque never changes nor adds to the Apostolic faith professed within the Nicene Creed. Which is another abuse by those who hold to diverse opinions of objection to the filioque., the opinions of opposition to the filioque, never proves a change nor an addition to what is already believed in the Apostolic Catholic faith. But feeds fuel to an existing schism and attempts to abuse the innocent sheep fold of Jesus Christ to believe something other than what the filioque professes within the Nicene Creed.

The insertion of the filioque in the West in order to defeat an existing heresy carries with it the same weight, as when the early Church councils in the East defeated the Eastern heretics and heresies by developing the Nicene Creed in their domain. Which the Pope approved.

cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Cont;

Arguments and debates over the filioque has tendencies to reach back to authority.

If authority is an issue. Peter has removed himself from under Emperors and secular powers once again as was Peter was present in the apostolic age. The East continues to be associated with their emperors and secular powers, which impacts and infects the schism today. There remains an avenue to which, Peter can call his brethren back to Christ the King as it was pre-Constantinople.

History proves after many centuries post-Constantinople the Church no longer rejoices in the false Utopia from the East of combining Secular powers with the Church, including the West with her royal partners after the falling of the Roman Empire. This is not to discount the many great things which transpired of the freedom for the Church to practice her faith without persecution by secular laws and able to council to defeat certain heresies infecting the Catholic faith before it reached our age and time. For this I rejoice for these seven councils and approved cannons by the Popes.

Re-visiting this Church history post-Constantinople up until the seventh council places the Eastern side of the Catholic faith frozen in time, which does not engage the times when the Western Church has to fend for herself against all enemies.

If and when the Eastern Apostolic successors can be free from secular powers in order to engage Peter and council freely once again, to address the schism on matters of faith and morals and not on matters of political, economic, false supreme authority of jurisdiction which leads to a false fear of being invaded by the West.

We the laity will continue to debate the ancient subjects and ancient fears and sentiments deriving from secular powers that influences the schism and then blame them on the Pope acting as the Vicar of Christ on earth to protect, feed and tend his flock as Jesus commissioned Peter to do.

So re-visiting ancient arguments in our time and age of the Church without addressing the root of the schism which stems from political secular powers, we are not getting to the root of the problem.

As St. Paul reminds us; We do not battle against the flesh, but against evil powers and principalities. When we look to Peter as did the early Church pre-Constantinople, which is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church for all other Church’s are to follow. The supremacy of Peter in his apostolic successor the Bishop’s of Rome, The Supremacy of Peter to bind and loose on earth is addressing Supremacy over the evil powers and principalities. When it applies to jurisdiction, Peter is to feed and tend the flock which belongs to Jesus not to the Bishop of Rome, and it supreme jurisdiction does not imply the Pope has jurisdiction over ones secular standards of economics and ands to live.

When it is the secular powers presiding the East and some in the West who do all they can to never see a United East and West Catholic Church once again. The secular powers fear this most of all, because this Unity of one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, moves mountains, and defeats all Goliaths who attack the Church militant.

Peace be with you Wandile,

 

[GaryTaylor]

Its required to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome traditionally imho. Perhaps from that point the significance of milk and honey with Baptism and other ancient traditions are plausible. Just saying things changed and in the east too.

 

[Seraphim73]

My hats off to Wandile who does an excellent simple commentary of the filioque understanding.

The early councils never address or rule on the filioque for one to abuse these councils findings in from their current situations of their time and disrespect them and order them to object to the filioque.

There is no official Church councils that expressly objects to the filioque, when all others support the filioque who have to rule on binding and loosing heretics in their time from the abuse of the Nicene Creed.

The filioque never changes nor adds to the Apostolic faith professed within the Nicene Creed. Which is another abuse by those who hold to diverse opinions of objection to the filioque., the opinions of opposition to the filioque, never proves a change nor an addition to what is already believed in the Apostolic Catholic faith. But feeds fuel to an existing schism and attempts to abuse the innocent sheep fold of Jesus Christ to believe something other than what the filioque professes within the Nicene Creed.

The insertion of the filioque in the West in order to defeat an existing heresy carries with it the same weight, as when the early Church councils in the East defeated the Eastern heretics and heresies by developing the Nicene Creed in their domain. Which the Pope approved.

cont;

Well I don’t know what else to say on this issue except the ecumenical councils were not silent on this issue, they all subscribed to the Creed of 381, and that the insertion of the filioque was resisted for many centuries in Rome itself, with Pope Leo III going so far as to have the Creed, without the filioque, inscribed on silver plates and placed on the steps of St Peter’s in Rome. Also the 879 Council of Constantinople, with papal legates in attendance, subjected to anathema anyone who adds or subtracts from the Creed. So the Church certainly was not silent on the subject.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Pope Leo approved the doctrine of the filioque. The Father is the first principle, the Son is not the cause of the Holy Spirit. And…

The Photian Schism (863–867) that led to the councils of 869 and 879 represent a break between East and West. While the previous seven ecumenical councils are recognized as ecumenical and authoritative by both East and West, many Eastern Orthodox Christians recognize the council of 879 as the Eighth Ecumenical Council,[1] arguing that it annulled the earlier one. This council is referred to as Ecumenical in the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1848.[6] The Roman Catholic Church, however, recognizes the council of 869 as the Eighth Ecumenical Council and does not place the later council among Ecumenical Councils. At the time that these councils were being held, this division was not entirely apparent. Wiki-Pedia

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Well I don’t know what else to say on this issue except the ecumenical councils were not silent on this issue, they all subscribed to the Creed of 381, and that the insertion of the filioque was resisted for many centuries in Rome itself, with Pope Leo III going so far as to have the Creed, without the filioque, inscribed on silver plates and placed on the steps of St Peter’s in Rome. Also the 879 Council of Constantinople, with papal legates in attendance, subjected to anathema anyone who adds or subtracts from the Creed. So the Church certainly was not silent on the subject.

You did not address my post. No councils you mentioned specifically objected to the filioque.

If you are implying a change to the Nicene Creed and an anathema, then the new developed Nicene Creed disappears from it’s inception, because the multiple council themselves change the Creed multiple times. So there is a fallacy in your perspective here.

Pope Leo III has no problem with the East defending the Apostolic faith with the Nicene Creed by his approval, because the Arians in his time did not infect the new Nicene Creedd, when Pope Leo III has the pre-Nicene Creed from the Apostles Creed.

The Nicene Creed when it was developed in the East, addressed specific heretics and heresies in their present age. It is not until after 1014, we find the Church in the West dealing with a new form of Arianism attacking this same Nicene Creed with Jesus is not God because the Creed states the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only and never the Son, thus Jesus is not God eternally Jesus became God at another time. This is what was being taught by the Arian priests in the West to the flock.

Now these Arians are speaking Latin, not Greek at this time, so these Eastern heretics are more shrewd than the earlier Greek Arians which were defeated by the Earlier Nicene Creed. The filioque professed with the same Nicene Creed ultimately defeated the new shrewd and experienced form of Arians in the West.

Thus the Nicene Creed in it’s development defeated one form of Arians in the East and with the same Nicene Creed developed and approved by the Pope defeated a more improved form of Arian heresy in the West.

And you a member of the body of Christ objects to this victory?? and reject something that never changes nor adds to the Nicene Creed but removes heretics from infecting what is already professed and believed by both and East and West that Jesus is God incarnate and there never was a time, when God the only begotten Son of the Father did not exist.

I think, you should really re-think your position about the filioque, and your objections do not hold water when compared to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith which never changes.

History is not on your side here.

Peace be with you

 

[Seraphim73]

You did not address my post. No councils you mentioned specifically objected to the filioque.

If you are implying a change to the Nicene Creed and an anathema, then the new developed Nicene Creed disappears from it’s inception, because the multiple council themselves change the Creed multiple times. So there is a fallacy in your perspective here.

Pope Leo III has no problem with the East defending the Apostolic faith with the Nicene Creed by his approval, because the Arians in his time did not infect the new Nicene Creedd, when Pope Leo III has the pre-Nicene Creed from the Apostles Creed.

The Nicene Creed when it was developed in the East, addressed specific heretics and heresies in their present age. It is not until after 1014, we find the Church in the West dealing with a new form of Arianism attacking this same Nicene Creed with Jesus is not God because the Creed states the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only and never the Son, thus Jesus is not God eternally Jesus became God at another time. This is what was being taught by the Arian priests in the West to the flock.

Now these Arians are speaking Latin, not Greek at this time, so these Eastern heretics are more shrewd than the earlier Greek Arians which were defeated by the Earlier Nicene Creed. The filioque professed with the same Nicene Creed ultimately defeated the new shrewd and experienced form of Arians in the West.

Thus the Nicene Creed in it’s development defeated one form of Arians in the East and with the same Nicene Creed developed and approved by the Pope defeated a more improved form of Arian heresy in the West.

And you a member of the body of Christ objects to this victory?? and reject something that never changes nor adds to the Nicene Creed but removes heretics from infecting what is already professed and believed by both and East and West that Jesus is God incarnate and there never was a time, when the God the Son did not exist.

I think, you should really re-think about the filioque of what you have been taught falsely.
History is not on your side here.

Peace be with you

879 Constantinople did. There would be no reason for any of the ecumenical councils to object to it because it wasn’t added in Rome until the 11th century. And the Creed has never been changed on a question it already addresses. Nicea addressed the Father and the nature of the Son and His mission, Constantinople kept that and then addressed the Holy Spirit. The question of procession was addressed. The filioque changes a clause already agreed to at an ecumenical council.

 

[Randy_Carson]

We don’t have to “search” for differences. Every difference we point out is a change in the Catholic Church. You used to profess the exact same Creed we do today, you used to follow the same Apostolic patterns of worship we do today, you used to profess the same dogmas we still profess today. In all of these cases the Catholic Church has changed and Orthodoxy has remained the same.

The idea that the Orthodox have “ossified” was presented by a Russian Orthodox theologian, Vladimir Soloviev.

My own opinion would be that I don’t see how it would be possible for folks NOT to develop new ideas and make new connections as they reflect on the Divine Revelation.

However, many EO posting in these threads over the past few weeks have pointedly told me with obvious pride that they cling to the Old Faith in contradistinction to the Novelties of Rome. So, it seems to me that EO take great pains to “preserve” the faith of the fathers while looking upon theological development with disdain or distrust. Since “ossify” means “cease developing”, it is the perfect word for what many EO seem to aspire to.

Again, I’m not saying it is the case, but that’s what I HEAR from EO, and that’s what Soloviev observed as an EO himself, apparently.

I understand that can be frustrating. It’s not easy when someone points out that the institution you thought was an immovable bulwark of consistency is not what you thought it was.

So it’s a lot easier just to say, “well they are just prideful”, or “there are no real differences, they just don’t want unity.” That way you can just dismiss the cognitive dissonance without actually dealing with it.

Uh, huh. Sure.

:coffeeread:

So rest assured we want unity but that unity has to be based on a shared faith, not just **submission **to one hierarch.

I’m submitted to one. What’s the problem?

 

[GaryTaylor]

879 Constantinople did. There would be no reason for any of the ecumenical councils to object to it because it wasn’t added in Rome until the 11th century. And the Creed has never been changed on a question it already addresses. Nicea addressed the Father and the nature of the Son and His mission, Constantinople kept that and then addressed the Holy Spirit. The question of procession was addressed. The filioque changes a clause already agreed to at an ecumenical council.

I don’t see how you arrive at this conclusion. The creed was changed from the Council of Nicaea to Constantinople, words were changed? Just like with the filioque but the theology remains the same, and according to Maximus the Confessor? Why is it we ignore his understanding?

 

[Seraphim73]

I don’t see how you arrive at this conclusion. The creed was changed from the Council of Nicaea to Constantinople, words were changed? Just like with the filioque but the theology remains the same, and according to Maximus the Confessor? Why is it we ignore his understanding?

No it wasn’t changed. Constantinople commented on something Nicea did not. The filioque changes something that was already stated in the Creed.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Off topic, but which ecumenical council declared the Latins as heretics or schismatics?

 

[Seraphim73]

The idea that the Orthodox have “ossified” was presented by a Russian Orthodox theologian, Vladimir Soloviev.

My own opinion would be that I don’t see how it would be possible for folks NOT to develop new ideas and make new connections as they reflect on the Divine Revelation.

However, many EO posting in these threads over the past few weeks have pointedly told me with obvious pride that they cling to the Old Faith in contradistinction to the Novelties of Rome. So, it seems to me that EO take great pains to “preserve” the faith of the fathers while looking upon theological development with disdain or distrust. Since “ossify” means “cease developing”, it is the perfect word for what many EO seem to aspire to.

Again, I’m not saying it is the case, but that’s what I HEAR from EO, and that’s what Soloviev observed as an EO himself, apparently.

Well Soloviev is one person and he of course is welcome to his opinion. And yes we are quite proud to hold on to the faith once delivered. Doctrinal development can only come in the language used, not the principles themselves. Catholics often point to the Trinity as an example of development and it was a development in the language used. What it was not was a change in the actual belief. If for example the Church had believed their were two divine persons and Nicea said there were three that would have been illegitimate. That is why the filioque is illegitimate. Unlike the actual word “Trinity”, Holy Scripture itself relays Christ’s exact words about the procession of the Holy Spirit. Constantinople quoted Scripture word for word when formulating the Creed. The Church made a final, authoritative statement on the matter. To then come back and say no, the Spirit does not proceed from the Father as Scripture and the councils teach, but He proceeds from the Father and the Son, that is a not a development, it’s a change.

I’m submitted to one. What’s the problem?

Which one would that be, your diocesan bishop or the pope?

 

[GaryTaylor]

No it wasn’t changed. Constantinople commented on something Nicea did not. The filioque changes something that was already stated in the Creed.

And words were added a simple look at the two clearly shows the two are worded differently. Thus your sticking to ancient tradition seems rather a double standard. And no theology was changed and accorded to the Saint for the east? Right, Maximus the Confessor.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CD4QFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FNicene_Creed&ei=6JxuVOOOGYSqyQT-sICICA&usg=AFQjCNFnU2nV1zZ97a_bFwtNnmuqStRClw

 

[tdgesq]

No it wasn’t changed. Constantinople commented on something Nicea did not. The filioque changes something that was already stated in the Creed.

Nicaea did mention the Holy Spirit, yet Constantinople then defined that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Was that changing something that was already stated in the original Nicene Creed?

I mean, I could understand the objection if Constantinople decreed “the Holy Spirit who proceeds only from the Father.” Then the addition of the filioque would clearly be a contradiction.

Your criteria for what can be added to the creed seems arbitrary.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

The idea that the Orthodox have “ossified” was presented by a Russian Orthodox theologian, Vladimir Soloviev.

My own opinion would be that I don’t see how it would be possible for folks NOT to develop new ideas and make new connections as they reflect on the Divine Revelation.

However, many EO posting in these threads over the past few weeks have pointedly told me with obvious pride that they cling to the Old Faith in contradistinction to the Novelties of Rome. So, it seems to me that EO take great pains to “preserve” the faith of the fathers while looking upon theological development with disdain or distrust. Since “ossify” means “cease developing”, it is the perfect word for what many EO seem to aspire to.

Again, I’m not saying it is the case, but that’s what I HEAR from EO, and that’s what Soloviev observed as an EO himself, apparently.



Uh, huh. Sure.

:coffeeread:

I’m submitted to one. What’s the problem?

I want to challenge the “Ossification” charge now because I think it is misguided. It does not represent how the Orthodox view themselves and also seems to be infected with a modernist mindset that fails to distinguish between tradition and traditionalism. James R. Paton, in his “light from the Christian East: in introduction to the Orthodox Church”, defines traditionalism as holding on to old practices without thought or meaning. To quote from Jarislov Pelican “Traditionalism is the dead faith of the living” whereas "Tradition is the living faith of the dead. Orthodoxy is a contemporary family living in an old house according to Paton. They apply their theology to modern day concerns such as abortion and homosexuality just like any Catholic or Protestant would.

The EO also has a valid concern of trapping faith within a human system of thought (which can lead to ossification of its own kind).

 

[benjohnson]

Ben-

The challenge is that Orthodox don’t want to discuss scripture EVER.

I personally enjoy debating with you Randy and other Catholics, and I especially like trading scripture - but from the Lutheran perspective, interpretation of Scripture is a practice of the Church.

I suspect that perhaps our Orthodox friends are of the similar disposition. (again perhaps) That they already know how the Orthodox church behaves, so they don’t need to rely on scripture as an affirmative defense.

There also are other plausible explanations : Perhaps our Orthodox friends may not be comfortable with personally interpreting scripture.

I’m just trying to point out that the behavior you’ve noticed may not necessarily have bad motivation.

And finally, I think the shoe is actually on the other foot; the Orthodox avoid scripture precisely because the verses supporting Peter and the papacy are so breathtakingly clear that it is uncomfortable for them to twist them in ways that enable them to justify their schism.

The trouble is that Scripture also points to a consolatory model as well - so while Lutherans will acknowledge the Primacy of Peter, the Supremacy is a bit too far for us.

For Protestants, this is actually much easier…you simply made up a new doctrine - sola scriptura - and tied everything else to that. The EO don’t even have that novelty to fall back on.

AHEM Sola Scriptura is a practice of the church

 

[Randy_Carson]

I want to challenge the “Ossification” charge now because I think it is misguided. It does not represent how the Orthodox view themselves and also seems to be infected with a modernist mindset that fails to distinguish between tradition and traditionalism. James R. Paton, in his “light from the Christian East: in introduction to the Orthodox Church”, defines traditionalism as holding on to old practices without thought or meaning. To quote from Jarislov Pelican “Traditionalism is the dead faith of the living” whereas "Tradition is the living faith of the dead. Orthodoxy is a contemporary family living in an old house according to Paton. They apply their theology to modern day concerns such as abortion and homosexuality just like any Catholic or Protestant would.

The EO also has a valid concern of trapping faith within a human system of thought (which can lead to ossification of its own kind).

Interesting thoughts, and you may be right.

Are you familiar with Soloviev? His book, RUSSIA AND THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH, is online here:

strobertbellarmine.net/books/Solovyev–Russia_Universal_Church.pdf

 

[Seraphim73]

And words were added a simple look at the two clearly shows the two are worded differently. Thus your sticking to ancient tradition seems rather a double standard. And no theology was changed and accorded to the Saint for the east? Right, Maximus the Confessor.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CD4QFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FNicene_Creed&ei=6JxuVOOOGYSqyQT-sICICA&usg=AFQjCNFnU2nV1zZ97a_bFwtNnmuqStRClw

It’s not just that the words are different. Nicea made no ontological statement about the Holy Spirit. Constantinople did.

 

[Seraphim73]

Off topic, but which ecumenical council declared the Latins as heretics or schismatics?

4th Constantinople
5th Constantinople
1672 Jerusalem
1848 Constantinople
1895 Constantinople

That’s off the top of my head.

 

[SteveVH]

The trouble is that Scripture also points to a consolatory model as well - so while Lutherans will acknowledge the Primacy of Peter, the Supremacy is a bit too far for us.

But, Ben, if you look at the consolatory model found in Acts you will notice that after much discussion, after hearing all sides, Peter stood and the assembly fell silent. That is the same consolatory model we use today.