Filioque Debate

[Cavaradossi]

Discipline changes. And our new disciplines have their own meanings for why they are the norm now.

secondly when Rome was the bastion of orthodoxy, she taught the filioque
… A teaching your church today denies or at least misunderstands … Some in your communion teach it while others deny it with rigorist heretical positions.

She taught it as St. Maximus the Confessor explained in his letter to Marinus. The same letter the Latins refused to accept as authentic at Florence, which taught, contrary to St. Maximus, that the Son should be confessed as cause of the Holy Spirit

 

[Wandile]

She taught it as St. Maximus the Confessor explained in his letter to Marinus. The same letter the Latins refused to accept as authentic at Florence, which taught, contrary to St. Maximus, that the Son should be confessed as cause of the Holy Spirit

We still teach it that way Cav… The only reason why the Latins rejected it is because it fails to express the depth of the Latin doctrine explained in the decree of Florence. Yet all the decree of Florence states is that the Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father by way of the Son who is inseparable from this process. Thus summed up to be From the father and the Son as from one principle through one spiration. Maximus explained the Latin teaching in greek terms that left out the depth of the Latin doctrine. That’s why he himself even confessed that the Latins can only best explain themselves in their own tongue. Maximus was defending the Latins against the Greeks saying that we never made the Son the ultimate origin of the Holy Spirit. A fact admitted at Florence by the profession by the Latina of the Father as the Principal without principal…

 

[Wandile]

Rome did not add the filioque to the Creed until after 1054 my friend.

And yet the popes taught it in their letter friend

Here are some examples…

Pope Gregory the Great :

“It is certain that the comforting Spirit always proceeds from the Father and the Son”

“…the Spirit, even in substance, flows from the Son”

Pope Leo the Great :

“As though there were not one Who begat, another Who is begotten, another Who proceeds from both”

Pope Hormisdas :

“…characteristic of the Spirit to proceed from Father and Son in one substance of deity”

And of course the Famous Pope Leo III who denied the addition of the filioque in the creed because of Greek sensitivity but yet still taught :

“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…”

 

[Seraphim73]

And yet the popes taught it in their letter friend

Interesting. Every time Honorius is brought up we’re told letters are meaningless.

 

[Wandile]

Interesting. Every time Honorius is brought up we’re told letters are meaningless.

Oh nobody ever maintains that… Only that honorius’ letter was misunderstood… Secondly letter are not dogmatic statements but are, in most cases, private teaching that are not binding on the church. However all the above letters are references to the teaching of the western church pre-schism!

 

[Randy_Carson]

No hypocrisy Randy. The Apostolic practice was to baptize by triple immersion. And it was the practice of the Roman Church for over a millennium. That’s the bottom line. Second this is not about discipline. Lex orandi lex credendi. When you change how you worship you change the belief. There is a reason these things that seem so insignificant to those who aren’t in the Church are guarded so carefully. A small deviation today leads to massive deviation tomorrow. I think again this is shown quite clearly in the direction the modern Catholic Church is going. You ask what is “valid” or “necessary.”

That is the exact same questions the Protestants asked, they just came up with a slightly smaller list that you have. It’s not about that, it’s about how do we worship God and proclaim His kingdom. Take baptism in particular. When we are baptized we die to this world. We are dead and buried. That’s why being immersed in the water is so important. You place so little significance on why things were done the way there were. The Church had a good reason for adopting the patterns of worship it did. Those patterns safeguard the Apostolic faith. And Rome followed every single one of those practices when it was still a bastion of orthodoxy. So we’ll never view these variations as some small and unimportant deviation in practice.

Were you baptized outdoors in a cold, running river?

 

[Randy_Carson]

No hypocrisy Randy. The Apostolic practice was to baptize by triple immersion. And it was the practice of the Roman Church for over a millennium. That’s the bottom line.

After Peter’s first sermon, three thousand people were baptized in Jerusalem (Acts 2:41). Archaeologists have demonstrated there was no sufficient water supply for so many to have been immersed. Even if there had been, the natives of Jerusalem would scarcely have let their city’s water supply be polluted by three thousand unwashed bodies plunging into it. These people must have been baptized by pouring or sprinkling.

Even today practical difficulties can render immersion nearly or entirely impossible for some individuals: for example, people with certain medical conditions—the bedridden; quadriplegics; individuals with tracheotomies (an opening into the airway in the throat) or in negative pressure ventilators (iron lungs). Again, those who have recently undergone certain procedures (such as open-heart surgery) cannot be immersed, and may not wish to defer baptism until their recovery (for example, if they are to undergo further procedures).

Other difficulties arise in certain environments. For example, immersion may be nearly or entirely impossible for desert nomads or Eskimos. Or consider those in prison—not in America, where religious freedom gives prisoners the right to be immersed if they desire—but in a more hostile setting, such as a Muslim regime, where baptisms must be done in secret, without adequate water for immersion.

What are we to do in these and similar cases? Shall we deny people the sacrament because immersion is impractical or impossible for them? The Catholic, who believes baptism confers grace and is normatively necessary for salvation, maintains that God wouldn’t require a form of baptism that, for some people, is impossible.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That’s why being immersed in the water is so important. You place so little significance on why things were done the way there were. The Church had a good reason for adopting the patterns of worship it did. Those patterns safeguard the Apostolic faith. And Rome followed every single one of those practices when it was still a bastion of orthodoxy. So we’ll never view these variations as some small and unimportant deviation in practice.

The testimony of the Didache is seconded by other early Christian writings.

Hippolytus of Rome said, “If water is scarce, whether as a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available” (The Apostolic Tradition, 21 [A.D. 215]).

Pope Cornelius I wrote that as Novatian was about to die, “he received baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring” (Letter to Fabius of Antioch [A.D. 251]; cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:4311).

Cyprian advised that no one should be “disturbed because the sick are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord’s grace” (Letter to a Certain Magnus 69:12 [A.D. 255]).

Tertullian described baptism by saying that it is done “with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, and finally, without cost, a man is baptized in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner” (On Baptism, 2 [A.D. 203]). Obviously, Tertullian did not consider baptism by immersion the only valid form, since he says one is only sprinkled and thus comes up from the water “not much (or not at all) the cleaner.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

Those patterns safeguard the Apostolic faith. And Rome followed every single one of those practices when it was still a bastion of orthodoxy. So we’ll never view these variations as some small and unimportant deviation in practice.

Then there is the artistic evidence. Much of the earliest Christian artwork depicts baptism—but not baptism by immersion! If the recipient of the sacrament is in a river, he is shown standing in the river while water is poured over his head from a cup or shell. Tile mosaics in ancient churches and paintings in the catacombs depict baptism by pouring. Baptisteries in early cemeteries are clear witnesses to baptisms by infusion. The entire record of the early Church—as shown in the New Testament, in other writings, and in monumental evidence—indicates the mode of baptism was not restricted to immersion.

Other archaeological evidence confirms the same thing. An early Christian baptistery was found in a church in Jesus’ hometown of Nazareth, yet this baptistery, which dates from the second century, was too small and narrow in which to immerse a person.

Here’s an example from the Orthodox Baptistry of Ravenna. Note that John is pouring water on Jesus’ head. The Apostles witnessed this Baptism and and may have repeated it in their own ministries.

http://alastair.adversaria.co.uk/wp-content/battistero-neoniano.jpg

 

[Randy_Carson]

Orthodox Acknowledge: Baptism By Pouring Is Valid

Normally baptism is by triple immersion, and a licit baptism must be performed by a priest or a deacon. But in case of necessity, as in clinical or other settings where there is a risk of imminent death and baptism by immersion is impractical, or where a deep pool of water is really unavailable, a person may properly be baptized by an Orthodox Christian clergyman or layman by pouring water three times on the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (orthodoxwiki.org/Baptism)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Interesting. Every time Honorius is brought up we’re told letters are meaningless.

Again, you misunderstand. If Honorius privately held a false doctrine, so what?

But the facts are that Honorius did not teach anything in this matter in a formal manner that suggests he was attempting to bind all Christians to that teaching. In fact, the opposite is true for he among his letters on the matter, we find:

(a) “We must not wrest what they say into Church dogmas”;
(b) “We must not define either one or two operations”;
(c) “We leave the matter to grammarians”;
(d) “We must not, defining, pronounce one or two operations.”

Somehow, despite these clear statements that Honorius had no intention of making a binding decision, some controversialists insist that Honorius was attempting to make a formal, binding pronouncement and, because the matter in questions proved to be heretical, that Honorius’ private opinions disprove papal infallibility.

Thus, infallibility is not disproven by Honorius.

And far from being “meaningless”, the Letters of Honorius are very helpful to proving his innocence of the charges which some controversialists which to lay against him.

 

[prodromos]

We still teach it that way Cav… The only reason why the Latins rejected it is because it fails to express the depth of the Latin doctrine explained in the decree of Florence.

What rot. Greek has four times the vocabulary of Latin, and you claim it was not able to express the “depth” of the Latin doctrine?

 

[Wandile]

What rot.

Such language is really unnecessary nor expected from a Christian. Please may we remain charitable?

Greek has four times the vocabulary of Latin, and you claim it was not able to express the “depth” of the Latin doctrine?

Firstly, have you read the letter of St.Maximus? He doesn’t go too deep into the theological aspects of the filioque. The depth isn’t captured there.

Secondly, Greek terminology is different to Latin terminology. This is a simple fact. The Latins could best express themselves in Latin to a depth not captured in Greek due to terminology differences.Latin Catholic philosophical and theological thought is very different to that of the greeks.

I’m not claiming a superiority of languages. I’m simply claiming a difference. Since the filioque had been mostly articulated ok in the Latin church, its is best taught in Latin and it’s depth captured in Latin. Just as the new testament is best captured in Greek due to it largely being written in Greek… Or miaphysitism being best explained in Greek.

 

[Randy_Carson]

A farmer walked over to his neighbor’s house and asked to borrow an axe.

The neighbor responded, “I’m sorry, but I can’t loan it to you. I’m making soup.”

The farmer thought about that for a moment then asked, “What does making soup have to do with an axe?”

“Nothing,” came the reply. “But when you really don’t want to do something, one excuse is as good as another.”

 

[Seraphim73]

Orthodox Acknowledge: Baptism By Pouring Is Valid

Normally baptism is by triple immersion, and a licit baptism must be performed by a priest or a deacon. But in case of necessity, as in clinical or other settings where there is a risk of imminent death and baptism by immersion is impractical, or where a deep pool of water is really unavailable, a person may properly be baptized by an Orthodox Christian clergyman or layman by pouring water three times on the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (orthodoxwiki.org/Baptism)

I’m sorry Randy you keep proving my point. You shouldn’t search for the bare minimum that is necessary. Again that is exactly what the Protestants did and still do. They just come up with a shorter list. Can’t you see that’s where this kind of thinking leads? Immersion was the normative way to baptize universally for over a thousand years for a reason.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m sorry Randy you keep proving my point. You shouldn’t search for the bare minimum that is necessary. Again that is exactly what the Protestants did and still do. They just come up with a shorter list. Can’t you see that’s where this kind of thinking leads? Immersion was the normative way to baptize universally for over a thousand years for a reason.

I can appreciate that you want to say that this is “bare minimum” thinking, etc. And I do wonder about your continued fascination with Protestantism. You mention it often. Perhaps you have some of your own family in mind as you write to me?

At any rate, I have shown in scripture, in the ECF’s and in ancient church artwork that baptism was performed by pouring long before the Byzantine Schism. I also demonstrated that even the Orthodox acknowledge that pouring is valid.

Joey, every once in awhile, you just need to admit that you overplayed your hand. Otherwise, you lose all credibility.

 

[Seraphim73]

I can appreciate that you want to say that this is “bare minimum” thinking, etc. And I do wonder about your continued fascination with Protestantism. You mention it often. Perhaps you have some of your own family in mind as you write to me?

Pretty sure the only family members I have who to go to church regularly are my in-laws. My aunt and uncle went to Mass weekly and took me with them a few times when I was a kid. Other than that my entire family is mostly ambivalent about religion.

Joey, every once in awhile, you just need to admit that you overplayed your hand. Otherwise, you lose all credibility.

Thanks for you laugh.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thanks for you laugh.

Did you ever get a Rubik’s Cube as a gift when you were a kid?

It’s a pretty challenging puzzle when you first come across it. So, you work at it and you work at it, but you just can’t figure it out. Then, one day, aha! Everything clicks, and all the sides and squares fall into place! You show everybody you know that you finally solved the puzzle!

Then you do it again. And again. But once you know how to unlock the puzzle, it’s not really a challenge anymore. The mighty Rubik’s Cube you worked so hard to figure out winds up on a shelf gathering dust and eventually in a box at a yard sale.

I had that “aha!” moment a few days ago, and I’m just not feeling the same sense of challenge that I had before.

:compcoff:

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I’m sorry Randy you keep proving my point. You shouldn’t search for the bare minimum that is necessary. Again that is exactly what the Protestants did and still do. They just come up with a shorter list. Can’t you see that’s where this kind of thinking leads? Immersion was the normative way to baptize universally for over a thousand years for a reason.

Interesting the Latin Church has always used the Apostles Creed for our baptisms pre-Constantinople. and we never left this Creed which predates the Nicene Creed.

Which profession of faith do you use for baptism? the apostles Creed or the Nicene Creed?

If you fail to use the Apostles Creed in baptism, your community moved from the Apostolic faith Tradition, which Rome has never left this Apostolic faith professed in the Apostles Creed.

I would really like to know if the Orthodox use the new Nicene Creed or the pre-Nicene Apostles Creed as Rome has always used in baptism. Which one holds to the true Apostolic faith? Rome or Nicaea?

The answer to this question does not conflict either one with Sacred Tradition and disproves the Orthodox argument of the Latin Church moved away from her Orthodox Apostolic faith of baptism.

 

[RyanBlack]

Interesting the Latin Church has always used the Apostles Creed for our baptisms pre-Constantinople. and we never left this Creed which predates the Nicene Creed.

Which profession of faith do you use for baptism? the apostles Creed or the Nicene Creed?

If you fail to use the Apostles Creed in baptism, your community moved from the Apostolic faith Tradition, which Rome has never left this Apostolic faith professed in the Apuseostles Creed.

I would really like to know if the Orthodox use the new Nicene Creed or the pre-Nicene Apostles Creed as Rome has always used in baptism. Which one holds to the true Apostolic faith? Rome or Nicaea?

The answer to this question does not conflict either one with Sacred Tradition and disproves the Orthodox argument of the Latin Church moved away from her Orthodox Apostolic faith of baptism.

In the Eastern Orthodox Church, as well as in the Eastern Catholic Churches of the Byzantine tradition, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is the baptismal creed. The Apostles’ Creed was likely never used in the East.