Filioque Debate

[Wandile]

From USCCB:

The Filioque: A Church Dividing Issue?: An Agreed Statement

Amen

Nobody is explaining away anything. Im just explaining the Catholic doctrine and its true meaning and complementary expressions in the Eastern Fathers.I’m of the belief that at least most Orthodox apply a strict photian theology that further developed and is really a departure from their patristic tradition. If I believe otherwise I would be Orthodox

Same as they believe we have departed from the Latin partristic tradition on the matter or else they would be Catholic. However there is some middle ground as some Orthodox believe as theirs fathers teach and with these, the filioque is truly a matters of semantics (I.e. Kalistos Ware, Vasily Bolotov,[213] Paul Evdokimov, I. Voronov and Sergei Bulgakov etc )

 

[Seraphim73]

Amen

Nobody is explaining away anything. Im just explaining th Catholic doctrine and its true meaning and complementary expressions in the Eastern Fathers.I’m of the belief that at least most Orthodox apply a strict photian theology that further developed and is really a departure from their patristic tradition. If I believe otherwise I would be Orthodox

Same as the believe we have departed from the Latin partristic tradition on the matter or else they would be Catholic. However there is some middle ground as some Orthodox believe as theirs fathers teach and with these, the filioque is truly a matters of semantics (I.e. Kalistos Ware, Vasily Bolotov,[213] Paul Evdokimov, I. Voronov and Sergei Bulgakov etc )

Then explain it to your hearts content. But don’t change the universally received Creed. Even the Agreed Statement recommends using only the Creed as formulated in 381 as normative for all liturgical and catechetical translations.

 

[Wandile]

Then explain it to your hearts content. But don’t change the universally received Creed. Even the Agreed Statement recommends using only the Creed as formulated in 381 as normative for all liturgical and catechetical translations.

I believe the change of the creed as a valuable addition that need not be revoked as it only exists in our tradition. Just as once upon a time the creed of nicaea never even mentioned the procession of the Holy Spirit. Additions serve a purpose and the filioque has one. Tye creed for ecumenical purposes should be the one of Constantinople but for purbown specific traditional use in our day to day affairs we retain our own.

The Armenians Use a variant of the nicene creed that is different to both Catholics and EO. Additions to the creed should only be frowned upon if they are heretical. That’s why nobody got upset when the Latins added “God from God” …

 

[Seraphim73]

I believe the change of the creed as a valuable addition that ned no yr be revoked as it only exists in our tradition. Just as once upon a time the creed of nicaea never even mentioned the procession of the Holy Spirit. Additions serve a purpose and the filioque has one.

The Armenians Use a variant of the nicene creed that is different to both Catholics and EO. Additions to the creed should only be frowned upon if they are heretical. Thafa why nobody got upset when the Latins added “God from God” …

I think the fruits are obvious. The addition has led to painful divisions between the Roman Catholic Church and every other ancient Church. None of the other ancient Churches have made the addition. Since we have not changed and you have the way forward to reconciliation should be your return to the Creed we once shared, the same Creed we continue to profess to this day.

 

[Wandile]

I think the fruits are obvious. The addition has led to painful divisions between the Roman Catholic Church and every other ancient Church.

No. The divisions were over other reasons :

Assyrian Church of the east : Council of Ephesus was the reason
Oriental Orthodox : Council of Chalcedon was the reason
Eastern Orthodox : Various disputes from the 6th to 11th century due mainly to politics and authority. The filioque only became a huge issue post-schism

None of the other ancient Churches have made the addition

Yeah just like nobody made the additions that the Armenians made. Do you even known that there were various creeds being used and variants of the creed of Nicaea despite your arguments. What’s has been condemned by the councils was not additions to the creed but heretical additions. In other words, additions that change the faith of the creed were forbidden.

Since we have not changed and you have the way forward to reconciliation should be your return to the Creed we once shared, the same Creed we continue to profess to this day.

Straw man. We use both so no need for change. One is for the Latin church and one for the Church universal. I thought Byzantines were all about respects for ones traditions (although the canons of trullo prove otherwise as they effectively attempted to make everyone Byzantine)

 

[Seraphim73]

No. The divisions were over other reasons :

Assyrian Church of the east : Council of Ephesus was the reason
Oriental Orthodox : Council of Chalcedon was the reason
Eastern Orthodox : Various disputes from the 6th to 11th century due mainly to politics and authority. The filioque only became a huge issue post-schism

Yeah just like nobody made the additions that the Armenians made. Do you even known that there were various creeds being used and variants of the creed of Nicaea despite your arguments. What’s has been condemned by the councils was not additions to the creed but heretical additions. In other words, additions that change the faith of the creed were forbidden.

Straw man. We use both so no need for change. One is for the Latin church and one for the Church universal. I thought Byzantines were all about respects for ones traditions (although the canons of trullo prove otherwise as they effectively attempted to make everyone Byzantine)

If additions to the Creed are forbidden by an ecumenical council then an addition is not a legitimate local tradition. And certainly in the case of the EO the filioque had been a point of controversy for centuries. The filioque was named by Cardinal Humbert as one of the reasons to excommunicate Patriarch Michael. So I’m not sure how you can say it wasn’t one of the reasons for the schism.

 

[Wandile]

If additions to the Creed are forbidden by an ecumenical council then an addition is not a legitimate local tradition

No council did such a thing. The councils banned heretical additions to the creed. See this is what the council of Ephesus did

the prohibition was passed by the Council immediately after it had heard Charisius read his creed, which it had approved, and on the strength of which it had received its author, and after the reading of a Nestorian creed which it condemned. From this it seems clear that ἑτέραν must mean “different,” “contradictory,” and not “another” in the sense of mere explanatory additions to the already existing creed.

(E. B. Pusey, On the Clause “and the Son,” p. 81.)

St. Cyril ought to understand the canon, which he probably himself framed, as presiding over the Council of Ephesus, as Archbishop of Alexandria and representative of Celestine, Bishop of Rome. His signature immediately succeeds the Canon. We can hardly think that we understand it better than he who probably framed it, nay who presided over the Council which passed it. He, however, explained that what was not against the Creed was not beside it. The Orientals had proposed to him, as terms of communion, that he should “do away with all he had written in epistles, tomes, or books, and agree with that only faith which had been defined by our holy Fathers at Nice.” But, St. Cyril wrote back:

“We all follow that exposition of faith which was defined by the holy fathers in the city of Nice, sapping absolutely nothing of the things contained in it. For they are all right and unexceptionable; and anything curious, after it, is not safe. But what I have rightly written against the blasphemies of Nestorius no words will persuade me to say that they were not done well:”

and against the imputation that he “had received an exposition of faith or new Creed, as dishonouring that old and venerable Creed,” he says:

"Neither have we demanded of any an exposition of faith, nor have we received one newly framed by others. For Divine Scripture suffices us, and the prudence of the holy fathers, and the symbol of faith, framed perfectly as to all right doctrine. But since the most holy Eastern Bishops differed from us as to that of Ephesus and were somehow suspected of being entangled in the meshes of Nestorius, therefore they very wisely made a defence, to free themselves from blame, and eager to satisfy the lovers of the blameless faith that they were minded to have no share in his impiety; and the thing is far from all note of blame. If Nestorius himself, when we all held out to him that he ought to condemn his own dogmas and choose the truth instead thereof, had made a written confession thereon, who would say that he framed for us a new exposition of faith? Why then do they calumniate the assent of the most holy Bishops of Phœnicia, calling it a new setting forth of the Creed, whereas they made it for a good and necessary end, to defend themselves and soothe those

who thought that they followed the innovations of Nestorius? For the holy Ecumenical Synod gathered at Ephesus provided, of necessity, that no other exposition of faith besides that which existed, which the most blessed fathers, speaking in the Holy Ghost, defined, should be brought into the Churches of God. But they who at one time, I know not how, differed from it, and were suspected of not being right-minded, following the Apostolic and Evangelic doctrines, how should they free themselves from this ill-report? by silence? or rather by self-defence, and by manifesting the power of the faith which was in them? The divine disciple wrote, ‘be ready always to give an answer to every one who asketh you an account of the hope which is in you.’ But he who willeth to do this, innovates in nothing, nor doth he frame any new exposition of faith, but rather maketh plain to those who ask him, what faith he hath concerning Christ.”268

 

[Wandile]

Further the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, by their practice, are authoritative exponents of the Canon of Ephesus. This is because they renewed the prohibition of the Council of Ephesus to “adduce any other faith,” but, in “the faith” which is not to be set aside, they included not only the Creeds of Nice and Constantinople, but the definitions at Ephesus and Chalcedon itself. The statements of the faith were expanded, because fresh contradictions of the faith had emerged. After directing that both Creeds should be read, the Council says,

“This wise and saving Symbol of Divine grace would have sufficed to the full knowledge and confirmation of the faith; for it teaches thoroughly the perfect truth of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and presents to those who receive it faithfully the Incarnation of the Lord.”

Then, having in detail shewn how both heresies were confuted by it, and having set forth the true doctrine, they sum up:

"These things being framed by us with all accuracy and care on every side, the holy and ecumenical Synod defines, that it shall be lawful for no one to produce or compose, or put together, or hold, or teach others another faith, and those who venture, etc.” (as in the Council of Ephesus).

The Council of Chalcedon enlarged greatly the terms although not the substance of the faith contained in the Nicene Creed; and that, in view of the heresies, which had since arisen; and yet renewed in terms the prohibition of the Canon of Ephesus and the penalties annexed to its infringement. It showed, then, in practice, that it did not hold the enlargement of the things proposed as de fide to be prohibited, but only the producing of things contradictory to the faith once delivered to the saints.

Its prohibition, moreover, to “hold” another faith shows the more that they meant only to prohibit any contradictory statement of faith. For if they had prohibited any additional statement not being a contradiction of its truth, then (as Cardinal Julian acutely argued in the Council of Florence), any one would fall under its anathema, who held (as all must) anything not expressed in set terms in the Nicene Creed; such as that God is eternal or incomprehensible
.

 

[Wandile]

. The filioque was named by Cardinal Humbert as one of the reasons to excommunicate Patriarch Michael. So I’m not sure how you can say it wasn’t one of the reasons for the schism.

Yes but anyone who knows the history of the filioque will tell you :

The filioque had sporadically been brought up throughout the period of the unified church. Once with the monthelites at Constantinople. It died down but was brought up again with Photius during the Photian schism but died down again after that. Then again with the confrontation of Cardinal Humbert and Michael. Even in all these instances the filioque was never the main stumbling block or issue but rather one used as fuel to the fire. The Greeks had a bigger issue with the Latins using unleavened bread than with the filioque. Only after the schism did the filioque become the big issue it is today.

 

[Seraphim73]

Further the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, by their practice, are authoritative exponents of the Canon of Ephesus. This is because they renewed the prohibition of the Council of Ephesus to “adduce any other faith,” but, in “the faith” which is not to be set aside, they included not only the Creeds of Nice and Constantinople, but the definitions at Ephesus and Chalcedon itself. The statements of the faith were expanded, because fresh contradictions of the faith had emerged. After directing that both Creeds should be read, the Council says,

Then, having in detail shewn how both heresies were confuted by it, and having set forth the true doctrine, they sum up:

The Council of Chalcedon enlarged greatly the terms although not the substance of the faith contained in the Nicene Creed; and that, in view of the heresies, which had since arisen; and yet renewed in terms the prohibition of the Canon of Ephesus and the penalties annexed to its infringement. It showed, then, in practice, that it did not hold the enlargement of the things proposed as de fide to be prohibited, but only the producing of things contradictory to the faith once delivered to the saints.

Its prohibition, moreover, to “hold” another faith shows the more that they meant only to prohibit any contradictory statement of faith. For if they had prohibited any additional statement not being a contradiction of its truth, then (as Cardinal Julian acutely argued in the Council of Florence), any one would fall under its anathema, who held (as all must) anything not expressed in set terms in the Nicene Creed; such as that God is eternal or incomprehensible
.

An ontological statement about the relationship between the various Persons of the Trinity certainly concern the faith. There is a reason every ecumenical council and every pope on their elevation through at least the 11th century affirmed the Creed as formulated at Ephesus.

 

[Seraphim73]

Yes but anyone who knows the history of the filioque will tell you :

The filioque had sporadically been brought up throughout the period of the unified church. Once with the monthelites at Constantinople. It died down but was brought up again with Photius during the Photian schism but died down again after that. Then again with the confrontation of Cardinal Humbert and Michael. Even in all these instances the filioque was never the main stumbling block or issue but rather one used as fuel to the fire. The Greeks had a bigger issue with the Latins using unleavened bread than with the filioque. Only after the schism did the filioque become the big issue it is today.

But to say it wasn’t one of the reasons for schism simply is not accurate.

 

[Wandile]

An ontological statement about the relationship between the various Persons of the Trinity certainly concern the faith.

That’s irrelevant as the addition was orthodox. The orthodoxy of the additions is what matters. If the addition is orthodox, the faith of the creed is preserved. If it is heretical, thee has then been a change to the faith of the creed and thus the anathema of Ephesus kicks in.

There is a reason every ecumenical council and every pope on their elevation through at least the 11th century affirmed the Creed as formulated at Ephesus.

Orthodox LOVE mentioning this fact but always fail to mention how those same popes explicitly affirmed their belief in the filioque. The reason Pope Leo III and others resisted was for the preservation of church unity as they knew about the Greek’s touchy nature when it came to the creed.

 

[Wandile]

But to say it wasn’t one of the reasons for schism simply is not accurate.

You attempted to make it the main reason of the schism. Further, not just the schism of EO with the CC but the reason for all schisms (ACoE, OO and EO) which clearly was false. It was a minor reason at best. And in case you didn’t know, almost all orthodox pronouncements of doctrine has resulted in a schism so judging the filioque by this standard doesn’t really aid your case.

 

[benjohnson]

Thanks everybody for the reading list - I really appreciate that you took the time to help me in my faith formation.

I’m looking forward to the education that our Eastern brothers and sisters in Christ have set before me.

 

[Seraphim73]

That’s irrelevant as the addition was orthodox. The orthodoxy of the additions is what matters. If the addition is orthodox, the faith of the creed is preserved. If it is heretical, thee has then been a change to the faith of the creed and thus the anathema of Ephesus kicks in.

Orthodox LOVE mentioning this fact but always fail to mention how those same popes explicitly affirmed their belief in the filioque. The reason Pope Leo III and others resisted was for the preservation of church unity as they knew about the Greek’s touchy nature when it came to the creed.

Even the Roman Catholic Church teaches that a pope may privately believe heresy. The typicon was the “ex cathedra” statement of what the pope believed. Either way I don’t buy that popes accepted that the filioque was an ontological statement rather than an economic one.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

One mistake I make is to minimize the debate as a trivial change in one of the creeds. To be brutally honest, it seems to me to be much ado about nothing.

I’d like to be a bit wiser about it - as many people that I respect here on CAF have strong arguments that go right over my little head.

Cavaradossi or anybody else, would you have a recommendation for a book (or two) for me to begin to understand?

I’d love to know how to fully appreciate the arguments.

If it hasn’t been suggested already, I would strongly recommend the discussion on the Filioque controversy in Vladimir Lossky’s book “In the Image and Likeness of God”.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

That’s irrelevant as the addition was orthodox. The orthodoxy of the additions is what matters. If the addition is orthodox, the faith of the creed is preserved.

You are ignoring all the “dogmatic” declarations in the Western Church that added glosses on the clause itself. As Seraphim said, the clause itself is capable of an orthodox understanding, but these declarations, at Lateran IV, Lyons II, and Florence, that the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son equallyas from one principle, are not. This is where the real problem lies.

 

[Wandile]

Even the Roman Catholic Church teaches that a pope may privately believe heresy. The typicon was the “ex cathedra” statement of what the pope believed. Either way I don’t buy that popes accepted that the filioque was an ontological statement rather than an economic one.

What a cop out. Now we appeal to material heresy. At least you admit tacitly that the popes believed in the filioque. It would be nonsensical to believe otherwise. Secondly they didn’t just teach it privately but openly to councils and in decrees. They confirmed the acts of synods and even explicitly affirmed the filioque. They officially taught it so your material heresy charge does not work here. Its either what they say is orthodox and thus the filioque is orthodox or you they were formal heretics whom you were in communion with for centuries and even venerate in liturgy as saints for their “holy faith”. Problematic…

Pope St. Gregory the Great, however, affirms what St. Photius categorically denied. The holy pontiff states the following:

“it is certain that the comforting Spirit always proceeds from the Father and the Son” [Dialogues 2:38 in PL 76:204; qtd. in Fr. Jugie, p. 219].

This procession is eternal, because the pope says right afterward,

“the Son says that He will depart that the Comforter may come, Who never is absent from the Son.”

Is this an energetic manifestation or does the Holy Spirit derive His existence from the Son and not only from the Father? The latter is St. Gregory’s view, since he teaches

, “the Spirit, even in substance, flows from the Son” [Morals 2:92 in PL 75 ; qtd.

Pope Leo the Great said :

Thus, in the first chapter it is shown what impious notions they hold concerning the divine Trinity, when they assert that there is one and the same person of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, as though the same God should at one time be named Father, at another time Son, at another time Holy Spirit; And as though there were not one Who begat, another Who is begotten, another Who proceeds from both

Pope St. Hormisdas of Rome (8/8)
45. Pope St. Hormisdas says the following in his 517 Profession of Faith [PL 63:514B],:

Great and incomprehensible is the mystery of the Trinity. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, an undivided Trinity, and yet it is known because it is characteristic of the Father to generate the Son, characteristic of the Son of God to be born of the Father equal to the Father, characteristic of the Spirit to proceed from Father and Son in one substance of deity

Pope St. Leo III of Rome

. Eastern Orthodox apologists make much of the fact that Pope St. Leo III opposed the edition of Filioque to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 and had it engraved in its original form in Greek and Latin on two silver shields in front of St. Peter’s,but that is where the usefulness of their polemical weapon ceases. St. Leo III told Bl. Charlemagne (January 28) that he agreed with the doctrine of Filioque. But Pope St. Leo III–who omitted Filioque from the Creed for the sake of Church unity and was aware of the sensitivity of the Greeks about their Creed and the nuances of ἐκπορευόμενον vs. προείναι-- openly confessed, in letter to all the Eastern Churches, his belief in

** "the Holy Spirit, proceeding equally from the Father and from the Son,**

consubstantial, coeternal with the Father and the Son. The Father, complete God in Himself, the Son, complete God begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit, complete God proceeding from the Father and the Son…"
This manifestly concerns the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit.
[/quote]

 

[Wandile]

You are ignoring all the “dogmatic” declarations in the Western Church that added glosses on the clause itself. As Seraphim said, the clause itself is capable of an orthodox understanding, but these declarations, at Lateran IV, Lyons II, and Florence, that the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son equallyas from one principle, are not. This is where the real problem lies.

If the Spirit and the Son only interact in time and not eternally then how could it every be truly said that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ? Trinitarian relationships are ** eternal** and they existed before time.

The Father begot the Son not in time but in eternity. The Son begotten not in time but in eternity. The Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Father because he eternally proceeded from Him. By what other way can it be that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son also except by procession? Do you believe the spirit is the spirit of the son only in so far as time is concerned?

 

[Seraphim73]

What a cop out. Now we appeal to material heresy. At least you admit tacitly that the popes believed in the filioque. It would be nonsensical to believe otherwise. Secondly they didn’t just teach it privately but openly to councils and in decrees. They confirmed the acts of synods and even explicitly affirmed the filioque. They officially taught it so your material heresy charge does not work here. Its either what they say is orthodox and thus the filioque is orthodox or you they were formal heretics whom you were in communion with for centuries and even venerate in liturgy as saints for their “holy faith”. Problematic…

Pope St. Gregory the Great, however, affirms what St. Photius categorically denied. The holy pontiff states the following:

This procession is eternal, because the pope says right afterward,

Is this an energetic manifestation or does the Holy Spirit derive His existence from the Son and not only from the Father? The latter is St. Gregory’s view, since he teaches

Pope Leo the Great said :

Pope St. Hormisdas of Rome (8/8)
45. Pope St. Hormisdas says the following in his 517 Profession of Faith [PL 63:514B],:

Pope St. Leo III of Rome

. Eastern Orthodox apologists make much of the fact that Pope St. Leo III opposed the edition of Filioque to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 and had it engraved in its original form in Greek and Latin on two silver shields in front of St. Peter’s,but that is where the usefulness of their polemical weapon ceases. St. Leo III told Bl. Charlemagne (January 28) that he agreed with the doctrine of Filioque. But Pope St. Leo III–who omitted Filioque from the Creed for the sake of Church unity and was aware of the sensitivity of the Greeks about their Creed and the nuances of ἐκπορευόμενον vs. προείναι-- openly confessed, in letter to all the Eastern Churches, his belief in

This manifestly concerns the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit.

The way the filioque is explained today is that it does not refer to an ontological procession. So who is wrong?

Both traditions also clearly affirm that the Father is the primordial source (arch‘) and ultimate cause (aitia) of the divine being, and thus of all God’s operations: the “spring” from which both Son and Spirit flow, the “root” of their being and fruitfulness, the “sun” from which their existence and their activity radiates; both traditions affirm that the three hypostases or persons in God are constituted in their hypostatic existence and distinguished from one another solely by their relation*ships of origin, and not by any other characteristics or activities;

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/filioque-church-dividing-issue-english.cfm