Filioque Debate

[GaryTaylor]

And how will the Church know what to believe is true? How will the church sift through what is false and the truth?

Theoria and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to the elect, the EO state they have a unique claim over this as opposed to the CC. I just read it here on another new thread.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTheoria&ei=K2NwVJeQMYKiNtzCg6gC&usg=AFQjCNE6JYRwFuJIV0gWjTxSrPIgVO_O9g

So when we read these fringe accusations based on theological speculation as we obviously see above. its proposed thats theoria and divinely inspired.

Various Orthodox theologians including St. Symeon the New Theologian,[117] St Gregory Palamas, John Romanides,[118] Vladimir Lossky,[119] Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos,[120] Thomas Hopko,[121] Professor George D. Metallinos[122] Nikolaos Loudovikos, Dumitru Stăniloae, Stanley S. Harakas and Archimandrite George, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of St. Gregorios of Mount Athos [123] hold that this criterion is at the very heart of many theological conflicts between Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Western Christianity,

Just saying

 

[Randy_Carson]

That is a logical fallacy. You are begging the question.

Here is another point of departure. Appearances are irrelevant. What matters is what is taught, not what it looks like.

We don’t accept that anyone has the inherent ability to “declare” a council invalid.

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.

How many infallible proclamations have been made by popes again?

I’m going to start a new thread later today or tomorrow to discuss these things; this one should stay focused on the filioque.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

As tempting as it is for me to pursue this, I’ve actually just discovered another topic that I simply must pursue because it is far more significant in terms of East-West discussion. You’ll be seeing a post or two from me once I have written up the points I wish to present.

In the meantime, I do hope that RyanBlack will address your posts because I am very interested in learning the answers to your questions from him.

 

[Randy_Carson]

And how will the Church know what to believe is true? How will the church sift through what is false and the truth?

Theoria and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to the elect, the EO state they have a unique claim over this as opposed to the CC. I just read it here on another new thread.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTheoria&ei=K2NwVJeQMYKiNtzCg6gC&usg=AFQjCNE6JYRwFuJIV0gWjTxSrPIgVO_O9g

So when we read these fringe accusations based on theological speculation as we obviously see above. its proposed thats theoria and divinely inspired.

Just saying

Gentlemen:

We have just come upon the “unanswerable question” of Eastern Orthodoxy. Or maybe you have always known of this, and I have just found it.

As you know, Protestants cling to sola scriptura and yet, they cannot say with certainty which books belong in the canon apart from the authority of the Catholic Church’s councils which established the canon.

Similarly, the Orthodox accept Seven Ecumenical Councils, but they cannot say with certainty WHY they accept these and no others. Moreover, the councils they do accept are not actually the first seven; they reject the Second Council of Ephesus, and their reason for doing so is based upon the authority of Rome. So, while the Orthodox claim a conciliar model, in fact, they are dependent upon the supreme authority of the papacy to determine the councils to which they cling.

And if their basis for acceptance of a council is actually based upon a papal decision, then they have no basis for rejecting Vatican I or II which have also received papal approval, do they? :nope:

Of course, they will present arguments and explanations as to why I’m wrong and how things actually work, etc. (Sound familiar? Protestants also have responses - just no answers.) However, at the end of the day, Kallistos Ware’s observation still remains:

“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.”

I’ll be starting a new thread soon.

Christmas has come early, boys. Let’s have some fun! :christmastree1:

 

[Seraphim73]

And how will the Church know what to believe is true? How will the church sift through what is false and the truth?

Well the Church already knows what is true. It has believed it from the beginning. It’s not secret.

 

[Seraphim73]

Gentlemen:

We have just come upon the “unanswerable question” of Eastern Orthodoxy. Or maybe you have always known of this, and I have just found it.

As you know, Protestants cling to sola scriptura and yet, they cannot say with certainty which books belong in the canon apart from the authority of the Catholic Church’s councils which established the canon.

Similarly, the Orthodox accept Seven Ecumenical Councils, but they cannot say with certainty WHY they accept these and no others. Moreover, the councils they do accept are not actually the first seven; they reject the Second Council of Ephesus, and their reason for doing so is based upon the authority of Rome. So, while the Orthodox claim a conciliar model, in fact, they are dependent upon the supreme authority of the papacy to determine the councils to which they cling.

And if their basis for acceptance of a council is actually based upon a papal decision, then they have no basis for rejecting Vatican I or II which have also received papal approval, do they? :nope:

Of course, they will present arguments and explanations as to why I’m wrong and how things actually work, etc. (Sound familiar? Protestants also have responses - just no answers.) However, at the end of the day, Kallistos Ware’s observation still remains:

“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.”

I’ll be starting a new thread soon.

Christmas has come early, boys. Let’s have some fun! :christmastree1:

Sometimes you have to look at the reality divorced from your own preconceived notions. You say that we need papal authority and that we don’t know which councils are true. But the reality is, almost 1,000 years after the schism we are still here, still united in an unchanging faith, still in communion. All of this without the things you say we need. I understand it’s very difficult to understand. Our understanding of our self, our entire mindset is so totally foreign that we can’t even begin to understand each other. You seek a precisely defined organ of infallibility to give you surety in what you believe. If A + B + C happens then what is said is infallibly true. We don’t have anything like that concept. But yet in matters of faith and praxis we are far more united and consistent that you are. At some point Randy you have to move beyond the platitudes of what you’ve been taught will happen and look at what has happened and is happening.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sometimes you have to look at the reality divorced from your own preconceived notions. You say that we need papal authority and that we don’t know which councils are true. But the reality is, almost 1,000 years after the schism we are still here, still united in an unchanging faith, still in communion. All of this without the things you say we need. I understand it’s very difficult to understand. Our understanding of our self, our entire mindset is so totally foreign that we can’t even begin to understand each other. You seek a precisely defined organ of infallibility to give you surety in what you believe. If A + B + C happens then what is said is infallibly true. We don’t have anything like that concept. But yet in matters of faith and praxis we are far more united and consistent that you are.

The Catholic Church has been here for 2,000 years, and it’s wrong in your opinion.
Some of the Protestant groups have been around for 500 years, and they’re wrong in your opinion.

Right?

So, the mere fact that “you’re still here” means nothing with regard to proving that Orthodoxy is the one, true Church promised by Jesus.

At some point Randy you have to move beyond the platitudes of what you’ve been taught will happen and look at what has happened and is happening.

At some point, Joey, you have to move toward what you haven’t been taught.

Baby steps…one thread, one post at a time.

 

[Seraphim73]

The Catholic Church has been here for 2,000 years, and it’s wrong in your opinion.
Some of the Protestant groups have been around for 500 years, and they’re wrong in your opinion.

Right?

So, the mere fact that “you’re still here” means nothing with regard to proving that Orthodoxy is the one, true Church promised by Jesus.

But you’ve only been wrong for about 1,000 of those years.

At some point, Joey, you have to move toward what you haven’t been taught.

Baby steps…one thread, one post at a time.

Hopefully I’m always moving towards what I don’t know. But that has to be founded in truth.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Seraphim73;12512467]Maybe we are misunderstanding each other.

Misunderstandings of the filioque is center and the main theme.

What I find interesting from my personal view from Greek theological expressions raises the intellect of the mysteries pertaining to the procession, divine economy and essence of God.

While the Latin Expression again my personal view, expresses my Catholic faith from the heart.

In both cases the Spirit proceeding reveals God’s Love in presence who is Love, and the Holy Spirit revealing divine revelation of Truth to my understanding.

Because we express and say the word tomatoe in Latin differently from the Greek word of tomatoe never changes what a tomatoe is.

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.

I don’t call your statements into question here; I can only reflect my faith expression from the questions you ask, which are foreign to my faith. When I reflect the filioque from within the Nicene Creed from my heart that Jesus is God.

The filioque as professed does not leave the Nicene Creed with rigid terminology to define the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father or from the Son.

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?

I would object to any double procession in regards to the filioque, because the procession of God revealed in Presence is never divided, and the procession is eternal that disqualifies any other double procession of the Holy Spirit proceeding, when God is One, and the presence of the Trinity of persons is One God and no other.

Because the filioque relates to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, a double procession does not take place from eternity where there is no time and created space to constitute a double procession.

It is here where the filioque raises my faith and leaves my human understanding to enter the mysteries of God in faith, which God calls us too.

 

[Randy_Carson]

But you’ve only been wrong for about 1,000 of those years.

When something is built upon falsehood, it typically does not stand. The experience of Protestantism proves this out, because today, Protestantism has splintered into thousands of competing, conflicting and contradictory denominations and doctrines.

It is a testament to the truth of Orthodoxy that it has survived its separation from the Captain of the ship without foundering upon the shoals, but this has come at a cost: the ossification of doctrine.

On another point, you seem fond of asserting that Protestants are streaming into Orthodoxy in great numbers, and I do not doubt this at all. Having been adrift at sea, tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, why wouldn’t these seasick souls long for the stability of an ancient Church like Catholicism or Orthodoxy?

Orthodoxy offers not only the pageantry of a beautiful liturgy but also the freedom to contracept, to divorce and to marry as a priest. No wonder some folks find it easier to become Orthodox than Catholic.

But seriously, can we allow this thread to return to the OP?

 

[RyanBlack]

The Orthodox do permit the ordination of married men, as do most Eastern Catholic Churches, but they do not permit the freedom to “marry as a priest.”

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Orthodox do permit the ordination of married men, as do most Eastern Catholic Churches, but they do not permit the freedom to “marry as a priest.”

Indeed the only marrying a priest does is administering matrimony to others.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Orthodox do permit the ordination of married men, as do most Eastern Catholic Churches, but they do not permit the freedom to “marry as a priest.”

For clarification, are you saying that if a man is ordained first, he cannot marry later?

It is my understanding that EO priests may be married, but Bishops may not be married. May they be divorced or widowers? I think not, but I want to be sure.

And how 'bout some help with the filioque/trinity posts above???

 

[Nektarios_Lady]

Randy Carson, thank you for asking the clarifying question. An ordained priest may never marry. If he was single at ordination, he must remain single until death. If he was married at ordination, but his wife has since died or otherwise left him, he must remain single even if he has multiple young children to care for in addition to his responsibilities as a priest. Only priests who are single, for example whether never married or widowed, may be selected to become a Bishop.

I believe this to be the same as it is in the Catholic Church, but if not please clarify for me the differences.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy Carson, thank you for asking the clarifying question. An ordained priest may never marry. If he was single at ordination, he must remain single until death. If he was married at ordination, but his wife has since died or otherwise left him, he must remain single even if he has multiple young children to care for in addition to his responsibilities as a priest. Only priests who are single, for example whether never married or widowed, may be selected to become a Bishop.

I believe this to be the same as it is in the Catholic Church, but if not please clarify for me the differences.

Thank you for this.

At present, in the Latin rite, married men are not ordained as priests. If a married Anglican (or Orthodox) priest converts, he might be eligible to receive faculties from his local bishop. This may be a bigger hurdle for the Anglican than for the Orthodox, but I’m only guessing there.

The former Anglican priest, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, is one example mentioned because of his high-visbility on the blogosphere.

There was some news from the Vatican recently about changes for the Eastern Catholic churches, but I did not read those articles. Discussions are probably underway in the Eastern Catholicism forum now.

One follow up question: it is my understanding that Orthodoxy allows for one divorce, correct? But from what you have said, this mulligan does not apply to priests.

 

[Nektarios_Lady]

Thank you for this.

At present, in the Latin rite, married men are not ordained as priests. If a married Anglican (or Orthodox) priest converts, he might be eligible to receive faculties from his local bishop. This may be a bigger hurdle for the Anglican than for the Orthodox, but I’m only guessing there.

The former Anglican priest, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, is one example mentioned because of his high-visbility on the blogosphere.

There was some news from the Vatican recently about changes for the Eastern Catholic churches, but I did not read those articles. Discussions are probably underway in the Eastern Catholicism forum now.

One follow up question: it is my understanding that Orthodoxy allows for one divorce, correct? But from what you have said, this mulligan does not apply to priests.

You’re welcome

Is it true that Roman Catholic priests that are married, limited to converts as you mentioned, are not permitted to have children and martial relations?

Divorce is very, very rare among families actually living the Orthodox Faith. It comes from sin. But the Church has used her authority to loose to more than just the one exception of “sexual immorality” which Christ Himself gave as to when ecclesiastical divorce is permitted. That being said, the reasons it could be permitted are still very limited.

Remarriage is permitted to the laity who have been granted an ecclesiastical divorce (not just a civil divorce) a maximum of twice - even if they want to reconcile with a former spouse.

It’s very rare for an Orthodox Christian to have a third marriage. It’s usually only permitted do to the death of a spouse and there are young children involved, not do to divorce.

When a second or third marriage is permitted, following either death or divorce, the marriage ceremony is very different, not joyful tone, but one of repentance.

If a lay person is unlucky and they have 3 spouses who have died, they may Not remarry. If a priest’s wife dies or leaves him, he may Never remarry. Typically, a divorced man, remarried or not, may Not become a priest; however, I’ve heard that it’s possible for a Bishop to make an exception on a rare case basis - there was a seminarian I knew years back who’s wife had an affair and left him with their small son and he was looking to remarry as he’d received an ecclesiastical divorce and was hoping that following graduation from seminary that he might receive an exception by his Bishop to be ordained. I lost touch with him and an not sure what happened.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

RyanBlack;12511822]

What I find to be an entirely unconvincing argument is that consubstantiality necessitates the filioque.

The answer to the dilemma requires a definition of what is that exact Essence of God which is consubstantial of the Father and the Son?

I don’t find it reasonable to imply that consubstantiality must necessitate the filioque.

When the filioque professes the eternal procession is from what is consubstantial of the Father and the Son.

The Nicene Creed never professes the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son. This does not negate what is consubstantial of all three persons of the Trinity.

What is convincing of the filioque professed within the Nicene Creed relates to the Presence of God proceeding God’s presence in the Holy Spirit from the presence of the Father and the presence of the Son.

Thus it is from the PRESENCE OF GOD that veils the Essence of God, which does not come down to us, that the Nicene Creed can profess the Son is consubstantial with the Father from which the Holy Spirit proceeds from both as professed from the filioque.

If consubstantiality in and of itself means that both the Father and the Son generate the Spirit,

The Creed, consubstantiality nor the filioque never professes that “both the Father and the Son generate the Spirit”.

You have not defined what is consubstantial of the Father and the Son in order to draw a precise conclusion.

We profess the eternal order of the eternal procession from the divine economy specifically (filioque) of the Holy Spirit in presence not Essence.

The Essence of God does not proceed, ( the Nicene Creed does not reveal God’s Essence proceeding), thus how can what is consubstantial of the Father and the Son proceed the Holy Spirit when all three are consubstantial?

The answer is Presence, because the Presence of God, revealed in the Trinity of persons in procession, when the Father is the principle who does not proceed from no one, yet the Father begins the eternal procession of the Trinity.

then shouldn’t consubstantiality also mean that both the Father and the Spirit generate the Son?

No, for one it is not professed from the filioque that the Father and the Spirit generate the Son.

We do profess from our Catholic faith, that the Father eternally begets the Only begotten Son of the Father.

One can reflect here from the One and Only begetting from the Father and the ONE and ONLY begotten of the Son, when the Father gives (all) to the Son in the begotten of the Father in what is Consubstantial of the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from both.

When we profess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and the Father is the only one who begets a Son and the Holy Spirit is not begotten of the Father, only the Son is begotten of the Father.

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)?

Only the Father eternally sends the Holy Spirit and eternally begets the Only begotten Son.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You’re welcome

Is it true that Roman Catholic priests that are married, limited to converts as you mentioned, are not permitted to have children and martial relations?

No!

Divorce is very, very rare among families actually living the Orthodox Faith. It comes from sin. But the Church has used her authority to loose to more than just the one exception of “sexual immorality” which Christ Himself gave as to when ecclesiastical divorce is permitted. That being said, the reasons it could be permitted are still very limited.

Remarriage is permitted to the laity who have been granted an ecclesiastical divorce (not just a civil divorce) a maximum of twice - even if they want to reconcile with a former spouse.

It’s very rare for an Orthodox Christian to have a third marriage. It’s usually only permitted do to the death of a spouse and there are young children involved, not do to divorce.

When a second or third marriage is permitted, following either death or divorce, the marriage ceremony is very different, not joyful tone, but one of repentance.

If a lay person is unlucky and they have 3 spouses who have died, they may Not remarry. If a priest’s wife dies or leaves him, he may Never remarry. Typically, a divorced man, remarried or not, may Not become a priest; however, I’ve heard that it’s possible for a Bishop to make an exception on a rare case basis - there was a seminarian I knew years back who’s wife had an affair and left him with their small son and he was looking to remarry as he’d received an ecclesiastical divorce and was hoping that following graduation from seminary that he might receive an exception by his Bishop to be ordained. I lost touch with him and an not sure what happened.

Interesting. Again, thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It does remain astonishing that the Patriarch Photius should have so misconstrued the teaching of his own Eastern Fathers, His uncle and predecessor on the throne of Constantinople and who was president of the 7th Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (787), had proclaimed in a profession of faith to the Fathers of the Council that “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through (dia) the Son.” Here St. Tarasius was referring (as did other Eastern Fathers like St. John of Damascus) to an eternal progression involving the Son. The Russian Orthodox theologian Sergius Bulgakov (no friend of the papacy) admitted that the Patriarch Photius had radically separated himself from the patristic teaching of both East and West regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit. Confessing in his “Mystagogy” that some of the Latin Fathers had indeed taught the ‘Filioque’, Photius had dared to place them in opposition to the Ecumenical Councils and erroneously accused them of having misinterpreted the Scriptures.

It is a monumental tragedy that Photius’ error concerning the Trinity and his battery of 31 arguments against the ‘Filioque’ were to spread throughout the Byzantine Greek Empire and into the Slav countries (especially Russia) and foster centuries of bitter anti-Catholic polemic charging the Catholic Church in communion with the See of Peter with “corrupting the Creed” and embracing a soul-destroying heresy. Seeking to overcome misconceptions fueling this ancient quarrel, an important document of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity has noted that Photius’ rigid formulation “from the Father ALONE” was acceptable of an orthodox meaning if the Son were not totally excluded from His respective role in the eternal progression of the Holy Spirit. No orthodox Father of the Church (East or West) had ever understood the Procession of the Holy Spirit in that sense. The Photian error was to be formally condemned as heretical in the great Reunion Councils of Lyons (1274) and Florence (1439). In this latter Council the ‘Filioque’ was exhaustively debated before it dogmatically defined the truth of the Procession:

The Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from both [the Father and the Son] as from on Principle and by a single spiration.

The definition had been prepared by Latins and Greeks finally coming to a common agreement which touches on the heart of the disagreement and miscomprehensions extending across centuries. In a clarification intended to explain the Council of Florence’s definition we read:

…the Greeks have assured us that in saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they did not intend to exclude the Son, but it seemed to them, they say, that the Latins professed that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son as from TWO PRINCIPLES and with TWO SPIRATIONS; that is why they abstained from saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.

To the contrary, the Latins have declared that in saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son, they did not intend to exclude the Father as if He were not the Source and Principle of the whole divinity, that is to say, the Source of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Nor did they pretend that the Son did not hold from the Father precisely this, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. Nor did they admit Two Principles or two spirations. They affirm rather that there is only one Unique Principle and only one spiration of the Holy Spirit, something they have always held.” (cf. Joseph Gill, S.J., The Council of Florence, Cambridge University Press, 1959, p.247).

The impasse resulting from the two apparently conflicting formulations: “The Spirit proceeds from the Father alone” and “The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son” is overcome when it is understood with St. Augustine that the Son receives from the Father alone the power to spirate the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone in as much as the Father is the first principle from Whom He proceeds. Proceeding principally from the Father, the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son Who has received the power from the Father to be with him the one cause or one principle of the Spirit. In the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC #248), the Father in the Trinity is “principle with principle” and the “first origin of the Spirit, but also as Father of the on Son, He is, with the Son, the single principle from with the Holy Spirit proceeds.” Thus, the Father and the Son constitute but one cause or principle of the Holy Spirit. They cause the divine being of the Holy Spirit to proceed from themselves not insofar as they differ as Father and Son but insofar as they are united in the Divine Essence. The Holy Spirit proceeds from God the Father as first origin, and the Son as God has all things in common with the Father. (James Likoudis, The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy, p. 22-23).

 

[GaryTaylor]

“from the Father ALONE” Thats what I always have doubts about…“bingo”…hits the nail right on the head, Father through the Son, its a constant danger of reducing the Divinity of Jesus Christ to a lesser deity. And its been historically a dilemma we have contended with. Look it even happened with the elect above!

I worry about that all the time and believe we should all use the filioque for this very reason.