Filioque Debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wandile
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Seraphim73 said:
But we are told it was added to combat Arianism. That seems to be the justification used.
Click to expand...
You are correct;

Although the filioque is not professed or included in the Creed to prove that the Holy Spirit must proceed from the Son in order to prove what is consubstantial of the Father and the Son.

The position for the filioque that must prove the procession in what is consubstantial is foreign to the filioque and the Creed.
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
You are correct;

Although the filioque is not professed or included in the Creed to prove that the Holy Spirit must proceed from the Son in order to prove what is consubstantial of the Father and the Son.

The position for the filioque that must prove the procession in what is consubstantial is foreign to the filioque and the Creed.
Click to expand...
But the question is why not. If the filioque is necessary to defend the Son’s divinity why wouldn’t the Spirit need to beget the Son in order to defend the Spirit’s divinity?
 
Randy_Carson said:
The First Council of Constantinople is considered to be an ecumenical council despite the fact that no Western Bishops were in attendance.
Click to expand...
True, for two reasons that are a bit complicated to explain. The East generally believed this to be an ecumenical council because Pope Damasus had already sent his tome (the product of an earlier Roman council) to Constantinople. That council referred to the tome and largely agreed with it, save for the new status of the See of Constantinople as 2nd in priority. The eastern bishops could not attend the council of Rome because of multiple historical circumstances.

Rome adopted the decrees of Constantinople I at the Council of Chalcedon; except for canon 28, which Pope Leo expressly rejected. The Patriarch of Constantinople recognized that rejection. The East also recognized at Chalcedon that Rome had never actually approved Constantinople I, which was then ratified at Chalcedon, save for canon 28 that again attempted to affirm the priority of the See of Constantinople.

Canon 28 became a moot point after Florence, because the 2nd position of authority was expressly agreed to by Rome at that council.
Vatican I is not considered an ecumenical council (by the Orthodox) because of the fact that no Eastern Bishops were in attendance.
Click to expand...
Eastern Catholic bishops attended, but not Eastern Orthodox bishops. It is true that it is not considered ecumenical by the Orthodox for that reason. Then again, the East believed at Constantinople I that Rome had (or would) approve of its decrees because of the Tome of Pope Damasus. Ratification was sought and received from Rome at Chalcedon, except for canon 28. I think there are few Orthodox who would seriously argue (although there are some) that Rome’s approval of Constantinople I was unnecessary. The fact is that approval was sought and received at Chalcedon.
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?
Click to expand...
By the time we get to Vatican I, the Orthodox had already declared that Rome was in schism, and more importantly, was also teaching heretical doctrine eg. the filioque. In the view of the Orthodox, Rome didn’t have the authority to call Vatican I at all.
 
Seraphim73 said:
But the question is why not. If the filioque is necessary to defend the Son’s divinity why wouldn’t the Spirit need to beget the Son in order to defend the Spirit’s divinity?
Click to expand...
That is a subject that can be dealt with outside of the filioque and the Creed. Because you call into question the Spirit’s divinity, when the filioque never does.

One reason is to falsely teach; “the Spirit need to beget the Son”, I think the locals and the bishops in Spain would of put the Pope in a white jacket and called a mental doctor.

I don’t think it was necessarily just the divinity of Jesus Christ, but when Jesus attained His divinity was also infecting the Creed at the time.

This subject relates to the historical present situation of the heretics who are teaching the flock that Jesus is not God but became God at a later time.

For one illiteracy is very high among the fold, so a major theological discourse of the divine eternal procession and divine essence by the Pope or local bishop is not profitable.

Yet, because the fold are aware of the Nicene Creed which everyone professes and the heretics are infecting the source from which they teach their heretical views. The filioque quickly extinguished the heretics teachings. When the heretics have no authority on the matter when it came to what is professed in the Liturgy.

The faithful never doubt the divinity of Jesus Christ, until their heretical teachers or wolves entered the fold teaching heresy from what is already believed from the Nicene Creed. The Pope in order to remove the heretical infection, included the filioque without spilling blood, and protected the Apostolic faith which professed that Jesus is God incarnate, and there never was a time that Jesus was not God.

We have to remember the filioque is not something new by 1014 a.d. The theological understanding of the filioque already exists among the Magisterium.

It is the Nicene Creed and the faithful who need to be protected and tended by Peter, not a theological discourse to defend what would of given voice to known heretics, but to remove the wolves (threat) from the faithful.

The filioque when professed with in the Creed limits the filioque only to what is professed within the Creed. Which removed the heretics and exposed them before the faithful, when it is professed without doubt Jesus is God because the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

When the Arians infected the East, the Church developed the Nicene Creed. I would ask, why did the East develop a new creed, when we already had the Apostles Creed? To answer this, would answer your question why, the Pope included the filioque to defend Jesus is God incarnate.
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
That is a subject that can be dealt with outside of the filioque and the Creed. Because you call into question the Spirit’s divinity, when the filioque never does.
Click to expand...
The only thing I’m calling into question is why the filioque was necessary. I have not called the divinity of the Spirit into question. Please don’t misrepresent what I am saying, especially in such an egregious way.
 
Randy_Carson said:
Anyone?
Click to expand...
If Bishops from East and West were not required to be in attendance at Constantinople I
Click to expand...
,

If the issues of the council is addressing specifically Eastern heretics and Eastern heresies, the Western bishops need not attend, but required the approval of the Popes, when the church was under Emperor rule and the Emperor’s patristic laws.
why would the presence of Bishops from East and West be required at Vatican I?
Click to expand...
The circumstance is changed here, when the West is no longer under imperial or secular rulers, while the East remains under her Emperor or secular powers.

Vatican I, invites all valid apostolic successors to attend and who are able to attend, including some protestants attended or was it Vatican II?.

The West councils to address western issues in the Church.

Another thing to consider here is: When ever a topic is raised that impacts the whole of Apostolic faith in any council the Bishop of Rome who presides in Peter’s Chair sends delegates and requires the Popes approval and not necessarily all the Bishops to attend.
When it is uncommon for a Pope to attend any council.
Why does the absence of Eastern Bishops at Vatican I invalidate it as an ecumenical council
Click to expand...
It doesn’t invalidate an approved council by the Popes. The question needs to address why the Eastern Bishops are absent?
 
Seraphim73 said:
No not quite. We’ve had lots of councils without him. Of course if he were part of the Church it would matter.
Click to expand...
If councils don’t need papal approval to be valid, then we have to recognize and accept all the councils. But that’s impossible since the Robber Council explicitly contradicts the Council of Ephesus, and it was explicitly condemned by the Council of Chalcedon.

Instead, the Second Council of Ephesus was condemned by the papal legate and later by Pope Leo. Three points:
  1. By all appearances, the Council was a true, ecumenical council. So, was it a true council that taught error? Or an invalid council that taught error? If it was determined to be invalid, then who made that decision (certainly not the bishops in attendance who advanced the heresy!)?
  2. Eastern Orthodox accepted the pope’s authority in declaring Second Ephesus to be invalid. Did they do so because the Council was wrong? Or because the pope condemned it? If the bishops in attendance voted in support of the heresies at the council itself, it was only on the authority of the pope’s condemnation that the Eastern Church later rejected the Council their Bishops had attended!
  3. Those condemned by the Council looked to the Pope to determine the Council’s validity. Bishop Theodoret of Cyprus, one of the men condemned by the Robber Council, appealed to the Pope, and said, “I await your sentence, and if you command me to abide by my condemnation, I will abide by it.” This is an Eastern Bishop acknowledging that the Pope, and not an unapproved Council, has the final say.
So in the end, concilarism is certainly false. Instead, the truth is that the pope, led by the Holy Spirit, has the ability to declare which Councils are and are not valid.

**“All Orthodox know which are the seven councils that their Church accepts as ecumenical, but precisely what it is that makes a council ecumenical is not so clear.”
  • Bishop Kallistos Ware**
 
Seraphim73 said:
No, it’s considered true if the Church believes it.
Click to expand...
But which Church? The Church advancing a heresy or the Church rejecting it?

IOW, why did those who anathematized Nestorius come to be regarded as ‘Catholics’ rather than those who still accept his doctrines?

Because the party in which the Bishop of Rome is found is ALWAYS the true Church.
 
Seraphim73 said:
The only thing I’m calling into question is why the filioque was necessary. I have not called the divinity of the Spirit into question. Please don’t misrepresent what I am saying, especially in such an egregious way.
Click to expand...
How did I misrepresent your quote here in the bold and underline below;
But the question is why not. If the filioque is necessary to defend the Son’s divinity why wouldn’t the Spirit need to beget the Son in order to defend the Spirit’s divinity?
Click to expand...
To be direct; The filioque was necessary to defeat Arian heretics and an Arian heresy infecting the Nicene Creed in the Western Latin Church.

No one in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church ever professes that the “Spirit begets the Son”.

When only the Father begets the Son from His presence when the Father never proceeds from no one. The Holy Spirit proceeds God’s presence from the Father and Son eternally from what is consubstantial of the Father and the Son.

Define what is consubstantial of the Father and the Son, if you find it, “is necessary to prove why the Spirit need to beget the Son in order to defend the Spirit’s divinity”. Then it can be answered why the filioque is necessary for your view.

Peace be with you Seraphim73:)
 
tdgesq said:
True, for two reasons that are a bit complicated to explain. The East generally believed this to be an ecumenical council because Pope Damasus had already sent his tome (the product of an earlier Roman council) to Constantinople. That council referred to the tome and largely agreed with it, save for the new status of the See of Constantinople as 2nd in priority. The eastern bishops could not attend the council of Rome because of multiple historical circumstances.

Rome adopted the decrees of Constantinople I at the Council of Chalcedon; except for canon 28, which Pope Leo expressly rejected. The Patriarch of Constantinople recognized that rejection. The East also recognized at Chalcedon that Rome had never actually approved Constantinople I, which was then ratified at Chalcedon, save for canon 28 that again attempted to affirm the priority of the See of Constantinople.

Canon 28 became a moot point after Florence, because the 2nd position of authority was expressly agreed to by Rome at that council.

Eastern Catholic bishops attended, but not Eastern Orthodox bishops. It is true that it is not considered ecumenical by the Orthodox for that reason. Then again, the East believed at Constantinople I that Rome had (or would) approve of its decrees because of the Tome of Pope Damasus. Ratification was sought and received from Rome at Chalcedon, except for canon 28. I think there are few Orthodox who would seriously argue (although there are some) that Rome’s approval of Constantinople I was unnecessary. The fact is that approval was sought and received at Chalcedon.

By the time we get to Vatican I, the Orthodox had already declared that Rome was in schism, and more importantly, was also teaching heretical doctrine eg. the filioque. In the view of the Orthodox, Rome didn’t have the authority to call Vatican I at all.
Click to expand...
Nicely answered. And the reasons for my questions were to illustrate that the validity of an ecumenical council does not appear to rest on who is in attendance but on whether the Pope accepts the council’s decisions or even all but one canon.
 
Randy_Carson said:
If councils don’t need papal approval to be valid, then we have to recognize and accept all the councils.
Click to expand...
That is a logical fallacy. You are begging the question.
Randy_Carson said:
  1. By all appearances, the Council was a true, ecumenical council. So, was it a true council that taught error? Or an invalid council that taught error? If it was determined to be invalid, then who made that decision (certainly not the bishops in attendance who advanced the heresy!)?
Click to expand...
Here is another point of departure. Appearances are irrelevant. What matters is what is taught, not what it looks like.
Randy_Carson said:
  1. Eastern Orthodox accepted the pope’s authority in declaring Second Ephesus to be invalid. Did they do so because the Council was wrong? Or because the pope condemned it? If the bishops in attendance voted in support of the heresies at the council itself, it was only on the authority of the pope’s condemnation that the Eastern Church later rejected the Council their Bishops had attended!
Click to expand...
We don’t accept that anyone has the inherent ability to “declare” a council invalid.
Randy_Carson said:
  1. Those condemned by the Council looked to the Pope to determine the Council’s validity. Bishop Theodoret of Cyprus, one of the men condemned by the Robber Council, appealed to the Pope, and said, “I await your sentence, and if you command me to abide by my condemnation, I will abide by it.” This is an Eastern Bishop acknowledging that the Pope, and not an unapproved Council, has the final say.
Click to expand...
Then why have the council in the first place? And Leo was a perfectly orthodox pope. It wouldn’t be odd at all for an appeal to be made to the first bishop. But of course history is not as cut and dry as you present. The emperor went on to convoke Chalcedon against the expressed wishes of Leo in order to address the issue. So papal condemnation was not the final word.
Randy_Carson said:
So in the end, concilarism is certainly false. Instead, the truth is that the pope, led by the Holy Spirit, has the ability to declare which Councils are and are not valid.

**“All Orthodox know which are the seven councils that their Church accepts as ecumenical, but precisely what it is that makes a council ecumenical is not so clear.”
  • Bishop Kallistos Ware**
Click to expand...
How many infallible proclamations have been made by popes again? 😉
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
How did I misrepresent your quote here in the bold and underline below;
Click to expand...
Maybe we are misunderstanding each other. You said I called the divinity of the Spirit into question. I did not. I asked the question in order to point out the illogic of saying the filioque is necessary to defend the divinity of the Son.
Gabriel_of_12 said:
To be direct; The filioque was necessary to defeat Arian heretics and an Arian heresy infecting the Nicene Creed in the Western Latin Church.

No one in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church ever professes that the “Spirit begets the Son”.

When only the Father begets the Son from His presence when the Father never proceeds from no one. The Holy Spirit proceeds God’s presence from the Father and Son eternally from what is consubstantial of the Father and the Son.

Define what is consubstantial of the Father and the Son, if you find it, “is necessary to prove why the Spirit need to beget the Son in order to defend the Spirit’s divinity”. Then it can be answered why the filioque is necessary for your view.

Peace be with you Seraphim73:)
Click to expand...
Again, I never said it was necessary. I’m simply asking why, if a double procession is necessary to protect the Son’s divinity, which I do not believe it is, then why isn’t a double begetting necessary?
 
Randy_Carson said:
Perhaps you can explain why that must be implied.
Click to expand...
I am not addressing Sheed but rather a point which has been made multiple times in this thread that the Spirit should be confessed as proceeding from the Son in order to show how the Son and Father are equal (I believe that this logic is operative in that passage from Likoudis, which you posted). The obvious question which springs from this kind of thinking is that if the Son can only truly be equal to the Father if the Son participates as cause in the spiration of the Spirit, what does this imply about the equality of the Holy Spirit with the Father, since the Holy Spirit clearly does not participate in Its own Spiration?

That falls right into Lossky’s criticism too, that the Holy Trinity in the triadology of Thomas Aquinas and the West in general after Florence (which seems to have taken up his triadology) essentially never manages to expand beyond the dyad, but rather collapses back into a monad. First there is a Father–Son dyad which collapses into a monad which then itself is then opposed in another dyadic arrangement to the Holy Spirit. (Though Lossky does not go this far, the logical next step, is that even this dyad collapses into a monad which stands in opposition to creation). The dyad is inherently unstable in this fashion, since the dyad can only establish relative diversity and not absolute diversity, and relative diversity will always collapse into a monad when a dyad enters into a relation of opposition with another thing. The result is that God is depersonalized. Just as there can be no distinction between the relationship of the Father to the Spirit and the Son to the Spirit (otherwise, they would not relate to the Spirit as one principle), so too there can be no distinction in the relationship of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to creation, but the three rather are relegated to relating to creation as monad alone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top