Filioque Debate

[Seraphim73]

Read my posts properly. The son is not the ultimate origin of the Holy Spirit.

Then good, we agree.

 

[Randy_Carson]

lol… really Randy you wrote this to Ryan Black ? The Thinker and the Idea are distinct, the one is not the other, Father and Son are two persons. But they are not separate

Choking on lunch

Not TO Ryan, but in RESPONSE to him, yes.

Sort of.

(It was Frank Sheed from Theology for Beginners. Ssssh. Don’t tell.)

 

[RyanBlack]

Well, forgive this munchkin for stating the obvious folks, but we have a REAL scholar amongst us who knows more about the trinity than the rest of us put together. :yup:

So, while he objects to us hacks using poor arguments *about *the filioque, Ryan does not object to the filioque itself which he accepts as true doctrine.

Is that right, Ryan?

BTW - is your thesis available online?

I certainly would not say that I know more about the doctrine of the Trinity than the rest of you put together. There may be people participating in this thread who know more than I do.

Let me clarify again. I’m not objecting to the filioque itself. I’m not objecting to the explanation of the filioque found in the CCC. What I find to be an entirely unconvincing argument is that consubstantiality necessitates the filioque. If consubstantiality in and of itself means that both the Father and the Son generate the Spirit, then shouldn’t consubstantiality also mean that both the Father and the Spirit generate the Son? Wouldn’t it also mean that the Son and the Spirit generate the Father (which we know cannot be the case, since we know that the Father is unoriginate)?

My thesis is not available online, and right now, I don’t know where an electronic copy is. I wrote it nearly ten years ago.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I certainly would not say that I know more about the doctrine of the Trinity than the rest of you put together. There may be people participating in this thread who know more than I do.

Let me clarify again. I’m not objecting to the filioque itself. I’m not objecting to the explanation of the filioque found in the CCC. What I find to be an entirely unconvincing argument is that consubstantiality necessitates the filioque. If consubstantiality in and of itself means that both the Father and the Son generate the Spirit, then shouldn’t consubstantiality also mean that both the Father and the Spirit generate the Son? Wouldn’t it also mean that the Son and the Spirit generate the Father (which we know cannot be the case, since we know that the Father is unoriginate)?

So, you’re not satisfied with Sheed’s explanation?

 

[Cavaradossi]

With regards to the questionable nature of the council and its supposed authority; Apart from probable revocation of Photius’ excommunication, there is no evidence that Pope John ever assented to the content of the Photian synod of 879-880. He took no action, as far as the historical evidence shows from his numerous letters, against the addition of filioque to the Creed by Frankish clerics. He hardly can be said to have repudiated the Council of 869-870 as wrongfully condemning Photius; on the contrary, he had asked Photius to apologize for his past crimes. It is practically certain, from everything we know about John’s views on papal primacy (which show even in the edited letters accepted at the Photian synod) and his esteem for Nicholas, that he would not repudiate the previous council, and his ingratiating letter to Basil proves only that he was deceived as to the content of the Photian counter-synod.

There are no more references to Photius in the letters and decrees of Pope John. A late ninth-century compiler of the acts of the Eighth Ecumenical Council (869-70) tells the following story. When the Pope learned what really happened at the Photian synod, he sent the cleric Marinus to Constantinople to declare invalid what the legates had done. Marinus was mistreated and imprisoned for thirty days. Upon Marinus’ return to Rome, Pope John stood on the pulpit and anathematized Photius and anyone who supports him. Marinus renewed the anathema when he became Pope in 882.

Oh Wandile, your scholarship here is quite outdated. Both Dvornik and Grumel have demonstrated that there was no second Photian schism, as the anti-Photianist texts appended to the Council of 869 are unreliable and often falsified histories.

In support of this story, we find that Pope Stephen V (VI) wrote to Emperor Basil in 885-886 that Photius was still trying to get the Council (of 869-70) abrogated. Naturally, this does not make sense if John had already abrogated it. We have already noted that it is implausible that John would nullify or repudiate the Council, but acknowledge that he may have at least ended the excommunication of Photius in the interests of peace.

Pope John had plenty of reasons to accept the decisions of the council of 879 over the council of 869, as did future popes. The council of 879 officially translated jurisdiction of Bulgaria from Constantinople to Rome (this by the way, was the main reason for the quarrel between Pope Nicholas and Photius; Nicholas was no lover of Ignatius, owing to how Ignatius told him that he had no right to interfere concerning the matter of the excommunication of Gregory Asbestos, and he was in fact willing to trade recognizing Photius’ election in return for jurisdiction over Bulgaria). Furthermore, the Council of 869 had been a disaster for papal policy. The legates arrived expecting the bishops to sign a libellus which declared that the faith had been kept inviolate by the Roman See, only to have the emperor forbid anybody from signing it, and to have the council respond that the concurrence of the five patriarchs was needed on doctrinal matters. Similarly, the council of 869 voted down the legates on the matter of ecclesiastical jurisdiction over Bulgaria, ordaining that it was a matter for the Emperor to decide. Ironically, the council of 879 was friendlier to certain papal claims, and Photius was more disposed to have friendly relations with the papacy than Ignatius.

 

[Cavaradossi]

On the contrary supposition that the popes from John VIII through Stephen V were on friendly terms with Photius, we have only the claims of Photius himself, a known prevaricator on such matters, as proved in earlier controversies. Yet the exact nature of papal attitudes toward Photius from 880 to 885 is uncertain.

Pope Stephen, for his part, certainly denied the legitimacy of Photius as patriarch. When explaining to Basil why he did not write about a recently assembled Constantinopolitan synod, Pope Stephen says:

Basil was dead when this letter arrived, and the new emperor Leo VI used it as justification to depose Photius in 886.

If the letter you cite is genuine (and it seems like quite the reversal of policy for the papacy, since John accepted the deal presented by the council of 879), the conclusion you draw seems rather unsound in that the emperor himself extracted a resignation out of Photius, something which would have been unnecessary, had Photius been widely believed to be a mere layman.

Some of the anti-Photian bishops would not accept Leo’s new patriarch, Stephen, on account of the fact that he had been ordained by Photius. According to a Greek codex that includes Pope Stephen’s letter, Emperor Leo wrote to these anti-Photians, saying:

Evidently, Leo and various anti-Photians considered that the Roman anathemas against Photius had never been lifted, so that even those ordained by Photius should be kept out of communion.

The emperor referred to himself as “the emperor” in a narrative past tense in one of his letters? It looks more like you have plagiarized somebody’s commentary and forgot to remove the commentary from the letter. Care to share your source?

At any rate, your interpretation is untenable. The aforementioned Stylianos of Neocaesarea was an opponent of Photius, who only returned into communion with the church in 899. Of his letters which survive, we have letters to Pope Stephen V, Pope Formosus, and Pope John IX. In his letters to Pope Stephen V, Stylianos attempted to justify his refusal to commune with the Photianists, and in his letter to Formosus, he had similar concerns. Had it truly been the case that these popes held Photius to be a layman or held the anathemas of 869 still to have been in effect, then we should have expected either that they would have supported Stylianos, or that Stylianos would at the very least have mentioned that the anathemas of 869 were held by these popes to be in effect (something which would have been entirely to his advantage).

 

[Cavaradossi]

So, you’re not satisfied with Sheed’s explanation?

Perhaps you can venture to explain the logic behind that argument. If it must be that the Spirit proceeds from the Son in order for the Son to be consubstantial with the Father, why does this not imply that the Spirit must proceed from itself in order to be consubstantial with the Father?

 

[Cavaradossi]

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

Further he goes on to say :

But the Spirit does not properly have the super-essential essence so much as the Spirit is the super-essential essence. What the Spirit “has” in this sense refers to the many self-differentiations or manifestations of the divine nature into being (these being the divine and uncreated energies according to Ss. Dionysius, Maximus the Confessor, and Gregory Palamas) which the Spirit receives from the Father and through the Son, because the Logos as the supra-rational principle (logos) of all things in His own self-differentiation into the principles (logoi) of things determines the self-differentiation of the divine nature in the Holy Spirit. In this way, the spirit is said to progress (προϊέναι) from the Father and the Son or to proceed (εκπορεύεσθαι) from the Father through the Son, but not to proceed (εκπορεύεσθαι) from the Father and the Son.

 

[SteveVH]

I understand all of this.

Then pardon me. I just had this very discussion with another poster and he went directly to the incarnation to prove the Holy Spirit had begotten the Son. Looks like I jumped the gun.

In my course of earning two graduate degrees in theology, I have taken two courses in christology, a course in pneumatology, and a course in trinitarian theology. Also, my thesis dealt extensively with trinitarian theology.

Very impressive. I hope you aren’t going to ask for my credentials.

My point is that the claim that the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father necessitates the* filioque* is entirely unconvincing since the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father does not necessitate teaching that the Son is eternally begotten by both the Son and the Spirit.

Do you mean “the Son is eternally begotten by both the Father and the Holy Spirit”?

Now, I am going to take advantage of your scholarly insight. Doesn’t this have more to do with the relationships between the divine persons; the Father begets the Son, the Son is begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from…?

Consubstantiality does not seem to me to be at play, but rather Who does what according to relationship. The Holy Spirit does not beget the Son, He is eternally begotten of the Father. That does not necessarily mean that the Spirit cannot proceed from both the Father and the Son as there seems to be nothing that would prevent it in terms of Who each divine Person is in relation to the others. And, if the essence of the Holy Spirit is the divine Love between the Father and the Son then how could the Spirit help but proceed from both?

Thanks.

Steve

 

[Randy_Carson]

Perhaps you can venture to explain the logic behind that argument. If it must be that the Spirit proceeds from the Son in order for the Son to be consubstantial with the Father, why does this not imply that the Spirit must proceed from itself in order to be consubstantial with the Father?

Is that what Sheed said? :nope:

Perhaps you can explain why that must be implied. Or why you think Sheed’s explanation inadequate or erroneous. I’m quite eager to learn your thoughts.

Beyond this, surely RyanBlack, who has written his master’s thesis on this subject, would be the more appropriate recipient of your question.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I understand all of this. In my course of earning two graduate degrees in theology, I have taken two courses in christology, a course in pneumatology, and a course in trinitarian theology. Also, my thesis dealt extensively with trinitarian theology. My point is that the claim that the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father necessitates the* filioque* is entirely unconvincing since the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father does not necessitate teaching that the Son is eternally begotten by both the Son and the Spirit.

Ryan-

For the benefit of those of us who have not had such impressive formal training, could you skip over the arguments concerning the filioque and the Creed and simply explain why it is theologically correct to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

And Cavaradossi would like to know why it is not necessary for the Spirit to proceed from Himself in order to be consubstantial with the Father.

Thanks.

 

[tdgesq]

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

I agree. But since the Catholic Church does not teach that the Son is Cause (principle) of the Spirit, I’m not sure what you are objecting to.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ryan-

For the benefit of those of us who have not had such impressive formal training, could you skip over the arguments concerning the filioque and the Creed and simply explain why it is theologically correct to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

And Cavaradossi would like to know why it is not necessary for the Spirit to proceed from Himself in order to be consubstantial with the Father.

Thanks.

If I could edit that post, I would say “education” not “training”. My apologies.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Are these two statements correct?

1. 
   *]The First Council of Constantinople is considered to be an ecumenical council despite the fact that no Western Bishops were in attendance.
   
   *]Vatican I is not considered an ecumenical council (by the Orthodox) because of the fact that no Eastern Bishops were in attendance.
   
   Questions:
   
   1. 
      *]If Bishops from East and West were not required to be in attendance at Constantinople I, why would the presence of Bishops from East and West be required at Vatican I?
      
      *]Why does the absence of Eastern Bishops at Vatican I invalidate it as an ecumenical council?

1. 1. 
      Anyone?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Cavaradossi;12511875]Perhaps you can venture to explain the logic behind that argument.

If it must be that the Spirit proceeds from the Son in order for the Son to be consubstantial with the Father,

The filioque profession of faith within the Nicene Creed never indicates that the Spirit MUST PROCEED from the Son, "IN ORDER FOR THE Son to be consubstantial with the Father"

What you ask for does not exist within **the filioque profession faith **within the Nicene Creed.

Nor does the Nicene Creed as it developed from the multiple councils changes and additions ever attempt to define the divine eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from what is consubstantial, because what is consubstantial is suspended in faith. Which the Church never defines the Essence of God as it pertains to the procession of the Holy Spirit, when it is the from the divine economy not Essence to which the Nicene Creed and filioque reveal distinctly the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

**In retrospect; Your question is easily answered outside of the filioque and Nicene Creed profession of faith.

The procession of the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son in what is consubstantial relates to the PRESENCE OF GOD who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

When it is the presence of God that begins the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. When it is already believed the Father eternally begets the only begotten Son. The divine Presence of God is never divided, separated or confused from what is consubstantial of the Father and the Son. **

why does this not imply that the Spirit must proceed from itself in order to be consubstantial with the Father?

Because the filioque never attempts to define the consubstantiality of the Trinity of persons. And the Church never teaches such a concept from within the Nicene Creed.

 

[Seraphim73]

The filioque profession of faith within the Nicene Creed never indicates that the Spirit MUST PROCEED from the Son, "IN ORDER FOR THE Son to be consubstantial with the Father"

But we are told it was added to combat Arianism. That seems to be the justification used.

 

[Seraphim73]

Anyone?

I wouldn’t argue that it does make a difference. What matters is if the council is a true council or not.

 

[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).

Anyone?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I wouldn’t argue that it does make a difference. What matters is if the council is a true council or not.

It seems that what matters is whether the Bishop of Rome accepted the Council or not.

 

[Seraphim73]

It seems that what matters is whether the Bishop of Rome accepted the Council or not.

No not quite. We’ve had lots of councils without him. Of course if he were part of the Church it would matter.