Filioque Debate

[Gabriel_of_12]

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.

Thanks Ryan;

Well, if they did not use the apostles Creed when the Nicene Creed never existed yet. What did their Church communities use to baptize before the Nicene Creed was ever introduced?

If they claim to an Orthodox baptism as the Roman practice is Apostolic, why don’t they maintain their apostolic Orthodox Tradition of baptism and change to a Nicene Creed baptism?

Who is practicing the Orthodox faith here in the East? pre-Nicene Creed or post-Nicene Creed?

 

[Kmon23]

Thanks Ryan;

Well, if they did not use the apostles Creed when the Nicene Creed never existed yet. What did their Church communities use to baptize before the Nicene Creed was ever introduced?

If they claim to an Orthodox baptism as the Roman practice is Apostolic, why don’t they maintain their apostolic Orthodox Tradition of baptism and change to a Nicene Creed baptism?

Who is practicing the Orthodox faith here in the East? pre-Nicene Creed or post-Nicene Creed?

I assume what is the apostolic faith is whatever is accepted as what the Fathers/early church did or something that would later come out of an ecumenical council. In the Orthodox faith, I assume the pre and post Nicene Creed Christians are both Orthodox because they both practiced what was orthodox in their respective times. Post Nicene Creed can be seen as an update to the pre-Nicene use of the Apostle’s creed, just like any ecumenical council that has affected the Church. As long as it does not contradict/go against what has been practiced prior. Changing a creed probably wouldn’t be such an example as it is just a statement of faith, which the Nicene Creed does expound upon over the Apostle’s Creed. Something like the changing of baptism with pouring as the norm instead of immersion could be considered going against the practices of the fathers since it changes drastically the form of the sacrament. Not necessarily that it is invalid, but that it is something that is an exception and should remain as such since full immersion captures the meaning of the sacrament more fully than pouring.

 

[RyanBlack]

Thanks Ryan;

Well, if they did not use the apostles Creed when the Nicene Creed never existed yet. What did their Church communities use to baptize before the Nicene Creed was ever introduced?

If they claim to an Orthodox baptism as the Roman practice is Apostolic, why don’t they maintain their apostolic Orthodox Tradition of baptism and change to a Nicene Creed baptism?

Who is practicing the Orthodox faith here in the East? pre-Nicene Creed or post-Nicene Creed?

There were numerous local creeds prior to Nicea, the Apostles’ Creed being that of the Church of Rome.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

There were numerous local creeds prior to Nicea, the Apostles’ Creed being that of the Church of Rome.

Thanks, your post here supports the answer to my question from an earlier post, which proves both the apostles Creed in the Latin church and the Nicene Creed used in the Eastern baptism should remove the Orthodox false accusations against the
Roman Apostolic baptism.

The Orthodox argument has a false pretense against the baptism by Rome and her disciplines which never infect the Apostolic faith.

When they look back into their own history pre-Constantinople of baptism.

Rome has never changed from her Apostolic Tradition of baptism, when all others have changed their baptism profession of faith creed, which never infects the apostolic faith.

 

[Kmon23]

Thanks, your post here supports the answer to my question from an earlier post, which proves both the apostles Creed in the Latin church and the Nicene Creed used in the Eastern baptism should remove the Orthodox false accusations against the
Roman Apostolic baptism.

The Orthodox argument has a false pretense against the baptism by Rome and her disciplines which never infect the Apostolic faith.

When they look back into their own history pre-Constantinople of baptism.

Rome has never changed from her Apostolic Tradition of baptism, when all others have changed their baptism profession of faith creed, which never infects the apostolic faith.

I actually think that it doesn’t necessarily solve the problem against Rome’s change in discipline regarding the form of baptism. It may not change the faith associated with the baptism, but reading the previous posts, the issue with pouring is that it is the norm instead of the exception since that is how it was in the early church (specifically Rome).

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I assume what is the apostolic faith is whatever is accepted as what the Fathers/early church did or something that would later come out of an ecumenical council. In the Orthodox faith, I assume the pre and post Nicene Creed Christians are both Orthodox because they both practiced what was orthodox in their respective times. Post Nicene Creed can be seen as an update to the pre-Nicene use of the Apostle’s creed, just like any ecumenical council that has affected the Church. As long as it does not contradict/go against what has been practiced prior. Changing a creed probably wouldn’t be such an example as it is just a statement of faith, which the Nicene Creed does expound upon over the Apostle’s Creed. Something like the changing of baptism with pouring as the norm instead of immersion could be considered going against the practices of the fathers since it changes drastically the form of the sacrament. Not necessarily that it is invalid, but that it is something that is an exception and should remain as such since full immersion captures the meaning of the sacrament more fully than pouring.

I can appreciate your view here. But my point addresses the false accusation made by the Orthodox against the Latin rite of baptism which has never changed since apostolic times. How do we know this? Because the Latin Church has existed since the Apostles Peter and Paul walked the earth.

A valid sacrament is a work wrought by God, the priest is only an instrument. Jesus divinely revealed that baptism is to be done by water and the Holy Spirit in the name of the blessed Trinity One God. Jesus did not give the discipline of immersion or pouring etc… Jesus left these disciplines to the Apostles which are subject to change. Yet the Latin rite allows a valid baptism can be performed in any circumstance of life in every age, even when water is not available, the Roman Church makes every effort to administer the sacrament of baptism at all times in any circumstance which may prevent it.

The full meaning of baptism in not the symbolism one partakes in, but the reality of the Sacrament of Christ presence and the Holy Spirit proceeding creating a new creature in Christ. The most important symbols of the sacrament is water, oil, God Himself will supply the sacrifice for each baptism.

The Orthodox argument against the Roman Rite of baptism has no weight. When Rome will do all she can to obey the commission God gives her to baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I actually think that it doesn’t necessarily solve the problem against Rome’s change in discipline regarding the form of baptism. It may not change the faith associated with the baptism, but reading the previous posts, the issue with pouring is that it is the norm instead of the exception since that is how it was in the early church (specifically Rome).

No that is a myth. Baptism was ordered and conducted in the desert, in large community converts by sprinkling, pouring, when ever it was possible any river or pond would suffice a valid baptism.

The immersion granted is a beautiful gesture. But the Latin rite does not baptize to gain a beautiful gesture or symbolism. She takes baptism very seriously as to make sure a lack of a river never prevents a valid baptism. Immersion has never ceased in the Latin Rite and is still practiced in the Latin Rite, where the norm of pouring and sprinkling is not the norm.

The argument is fruitless when viewed from the whole Roman Rite in every age in every place of the globe, these Roman Rite disciplines used would never prevent a baptism from happening due to lack of a river or running water, when pouring and or sprinkling has always been a Judeo practice and an Apostolic practice of baptism.

 

[Kmon23]

I can appreciate your view here. But my point addresses the false accusation made by the Orthodox against the Latin rite of baptism which has never changed since apostolic times. How do we know this? Because the Latin Church has existed since the Apostles Peter and Paul walked the earth.

A valid sacrament is a work wrought by God, the priest is only an instrument. Jesus divinely revealed that baptism is to be done by water and the Holy Spirit in the name of the blessed Trinity One God. Jesus did not give the discipline of immersion or pouring etc… Jesus left these disciplines to the Apostles which are subject to change. Yet the Latin rite allows a valid baptism can be performed in any circumstance of life in every age, even when water is not available, the Roman Church makes every effort to administer the sacrament of baptism at all times in any circumstance which may prevent it.

The full meaning of baptism in not the symbolism one partakes in, but the reality of the Sacrament of Christ presence and the Holy Spirit proceeding creating a new creature in Christ. The most important symbols of the sacrament is water, oil, God Himself will supply the sacrifice for each baptism.

The Orthodox argument against the Roman Rite of baptism has no weight. When Rome will do all she can to obey the commission God gives her to baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

When I refer to the opposition to the current Roman Rite baptism from our Orthodox brothers, I am not saying that in doing so that it is invalid. Just that it is more acceptable to maintain how it was, that immersion baptism should remain the norm. It is true that disciplines can be changed, but regardless the initial argument still stands that it is preferable that it not be the norm if it initially was not so (unless current needs of the Church really call for the change in discipline, such as the celibacy of priests).
If the “Orthodox view” is that pouring is invalid as a result of the change from immersion, then no that is not what I’m referring to when discussing baptism by pouring of the Roman Church. If anything I fully accept baptism by pouring.
For my own personal opinion however, I don’t have to many qualms by making it the norm.

 

[Kmon23]

No that is a myth. Baptism was ordered and conducted in the desert, in large community converts by sprinkling, pouring, when ever it was possible any river or pond would suffice a valid baptism.

The immersion granted is a beautiful gesture. But the Latin rite does not baptize to gain a beautiful gesture or symbolism. She takes baptism very seriously as to make sure a lack of a river never prevents a valid baptism. Immersion has never ceased in the Latin Rite and is still practiced in the Latin Rite, where the norm of pouring and sprinkling is not the norm.

The argument is fruitless when viewed from the whole Roman Rite in every age in every place of the globe, these Roman Rite disciplines used would never prevent a baptism.

In no way am I saying that baptism should be not done for the sake of immersion of baptism. In the case of a desert setting then no doubt pouring is a valid baptism. I believe the argument our Orthodox brothers are saying is not the validity of such because of the disciple change but that it should not be the norm should it be possible to have a full immersion baptism in the church (such as how a baby can easily be baptized by immersion if the baptismal font is large enough in some churches, yet it is still poured). A similar situation would be if 500 years ago the church suddenly said that communion in the hand is now the norm. It would probably make many people not particularly happy. Of course in emergency situations where someone has to take communion in the hand (whatever crazy circumstance it is) then of course take it in the hand. Just that in the context of what is the normative method that it should be maintained from the early church practice unless the church requires the discipline change for some greater good or effect. After all, places such as Alexandria, Jerusalem and Rome had great honor associated with them because the tradition passed down by the apostles had a more tangible connection in those places. Similarly the roots of baptism are more closely tied with full immersion and that unless the church is called to change the discipline for some greater purpose, that it should be maintained as in there is not much of a reason to change. However, regarding this issue maybe there was an issue that caused the Church to change the discipline but I’m not aware of it if there is such a cause/reason.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

When I refer to the opposition to the current Roman Rite baptism, I am not saying that in doing so that it is invalid. Just that it is more acceptable to maintain how it was, that immersion baptism should remain the norm. It is true that disciplines can be changed, but regardless the initial argument still stands that it is preferable that it not be the norm if it initially was not so (unless current needs of the Church really call for the change in discipline, such as the celibacy of priests).
If the “Orthodox view” is that pouring is invalid as a result of the change from immersion, then no that is not what I’m referring to when discussing baptism by pouring of the Roman Church. If anything I fully accept baptism by pouring.

Whooo slow down there; Celibacy is always been an Apostolic Tradition in the Roman Rite including all the Eastern Church’s… The Orthodox changed their celibacy rules of discipline later in the seventh century. So don’t go there about celibate priests, The Orthodox will loose this argument who took upon change here., not the Roman rite of priest hood.

I am stating the Orthodox argument is false. One the Apostles where Jews, who practiced, sprinkling, pouring and immersion in the Jewish cleansing rituals. Our Roman rite of baptism did not change the Jewish ceremonial cleansing, the Roman Rite of baptism fulfilled them, as we continue the Jewish roots of Jesus and his apostles of immersion, pouring and sprinkling in baptism which is a cleansing rite of the whole person and soul not just the outer.

So an immersion baptism was the norm in the first Judeo Christian community is a myth, when all types of water baptism is used in the Roman Rite which fulfilled the Jewish rituals by immersion, by sprinkling, by pouring. The Roman Rite has not changed since apostolic times from her disciplines of baptism.

If you want to know of the Roman rite’s of baptism practice, look to her roots from the Judeo Christians when the norm was sprinkling, pouring and immersion. The Jewish rites of pouring, sprinkling and immersion are fulfilled in the Latin rite disciplines of pouring, sprinkling and immersion which has not changed since apostolic times.

 

[Seraphim73]

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:

I just pulled the stickers off.

 

[Kmon23]

Whooo slow down there; Celibacy is always been an Apostolic Tradition in the Roman Rite including all the Eastern Church’s… The Orthodox changed their celibacy rules of discipline later in the seventh century. So don’t go there about celibate priests, The Orthodox will loose this argument who took upon change here., not the Roman rite of priest hood.

I am stating the Orthodox argument is false. One the Apostles where Jews, who practiced, sprinkling, pouring and immersion in the Jewish cleansing rituals. Our Roman rite of baptism did not change the Jewish ceremonial cleansing, the Roman Rite of baptism fulfilled them, as we continue the Jewish roots of Jesus and his apostles of immersion, pouring and sprinkling in baptism which is a cleansing rite of the whole person and soul not just the outer.

So an immersion baptism was the norm in the first Judeo Christian community is a myth, when all types of water baptism is used in the Roman Rite which fulfilled the Jewish rituals by immersion, by sprinkling, by pouring. The Roman Rite has not changed since apostolic times from her disciplines of baptism.

If you want to know of the Roman rite’s of baptism practice, look to her roots from the Judeo Christians when the norm was sprinkling, pouring and immersion. The Jewish rites of pouring, sprinkling and immersion are fulfilled in the Latin rite disciplines of pouring, sprinkling and immersion which has not changed since apostolic times.

If I am mistaken then well, my mistake Although I thought celibacy wasn’t a universal rule of the priesthood during the early church, and that there were some who were married. My example pertains to a larger universal discipline to be held by the Roman Church for celibacy for the priesthood, a rule that wasn’t necessarily there in the early Church? Unless I am mistaken and the Roman Church always held celibacy as a rule for the priesthood?

And are you saying that the in the Early Roman Church, that pouring/sprinkling/immersion was all equally the norm and that immersion was not the preferred form of baptism? At least going by the Didache for the general Christian community it seems to say that immersion is preferable over sprinkling.

 

[prodromos]

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

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.

Some wisdom from the Talmud “Four languages are of value: Greek for song, Latin for war, Aramaic for dirges, and Hebrew for speaking”

 

[Kmon23]

Some wisdom from the Talmud “Four languages are of value: Greek for song, Latin for war, Aramaic for dirges, and Hebrew for speaking”

I guess we should all be typing in Hebrew in this thread then

 

[Wandile]

Some wisdom from the Talmud “Four languages are of value: Greek for song, Latin for war, Aramaic for dirges, and Hebrew for speaking”

I guess we should all write theological works in Hebrew

 

[GaryTaylor]

Lets get back and talk about the Orthodox expression. I understand what Rome is saying perhaps I am understanding wrong in regards to the East.

When this is expressed does this not mean the HS proceeds from the Son also?

381- We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

And [we believe] in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us, humans, and for our salvation, he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, and became fully human. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate. He suffered death and was buried. He rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who in unity with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. [We believe] in one holy universal and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Let talk clearly about what the EO is saying. OK so you do not say that the Holy Spirit is from the Son.’ And you do not say that the Holy Spirit is also from the Son, then it seems clear that what you do say is the Holy Spirit is only from the Father.

This is confirmed in Rome as First principle and by all the Fathers as I see. Still Nestorius was condemned at Ephesus

The Nestorians were the first to introduce the error that the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son, as appears in a Nestorian creed condemned in the council of Ephesus. This error was embraced by Theodoric the Nestorian, and several others after him, among whom was also Damascene. Hence, in that point his opinion is not to be held. Although, too, it has been asserted by some that while Damascene did not confess that the Holy Ghost was from the Son, neither do those words of his express a denial thereof. New Advent Aquinas

Point is, what are you saying?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Mark of Ephesus

Do you know what is said concerning the Generation? ‘Begotten of the Father before all ages.’ Would anyone add here ‘only of the Father?” Yet it is precisely thus and in no other way that we understand it, and, if need be will express it. For we have been taught that the Son is begotten of none else, but only of the Father. Therefore too John Damascene says, on behalf of the whole Church and all Christians: ‘We do not say that the Holy Spirit is from the Son.’ And if we do not say that the Spirit is also from the Son, then it is apparent that we thus say that the Spirit is only from the Father; therefore a little before this he says: ‘We do not call the Son Cause,’ and in the next chapter: ‘The sole Cause is the Father.’

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEcQFjAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fenergeticprocession.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F01%2F16%2Fsaint-mark-of-ephesus-on-false-union-and-the-filioque%2F&ei=bi2AVLCwNsX_yQSOsoLgDA&usg=AFQjCNGYW1YZ46xsPlHDW1QV7fWluStcsw

Thomas Aquinas

Therefore, because the Son receives from the Father that the Holy Ghost proceeds from Him, it can be said that the Father spirates the Holy Ghost through the Son, or that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son, which has the same meaning. Aquinas

If the Son received from the Father a numerically distinct power for the spiration of the Holy Ghost, it would follow that He would be a secondary and instrumental cause; and thus the Holy Ghost would proceed more from the Father than from the Son; whereas, on the contrary, the same spirative power belongs to the Father and to the Son; and therefore the Holy Ghost proceeds equally from both, although sometimes He is said to proceed principally or properly from the Father, because the Son has this power from the Father. Aquinas

As the begetting of the Son is co-eternal with the begetter (and hence the Father does not exist before begetting the Son), so the procession of the Holy Ghost is co-eternal with His principle. Hence, the Son was not begotten before the Holy Ghost proceeded; but each of the operations is eternal.

newadvent.org/summa/1036.htm#article4

In every council of the Church a symbol of faith has been drawn up to meet some prevalent error condemned in the council at that time. Hence subsequent councils are not to be described as making a new symbol of faith; but what was implicitly contained in the first symbol was explained by some addition directed against rising heresies. Hence in the decision of the council of Chalcedon it is declared that those who were congregated together in the council of Constantinople, handed down the doctrine about the Holy Ghost, not implying that there was anything wanting in the doctrine of their predecessors who had gathered together at Nicaea, but explaining what those fathers had understood of the matter. Therefore, because at the time of the ancient councils the error of those who said that the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son had not arisen, it was not necessary to make any explicit declaration on that point; whereas, later on, when certain errors rose up, another council [Council of Rome, under Pope Damasus] assembled in the west, the matter was explicitly defined by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, by whose authority also the ancient councils were summoned and confirmed. Nevertheless the truth was contained implicitly in the belief that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.

 

[GaryTaylor]

There is one principle of the Holy Spirit. Further the Second Council of Lyons (1274) defined that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle. Thus there is one principle of the HS and confirmed by numerous Fathers including St Basil

Both Father and Son constitute one principle of the Holy Spirit because the Son, by virtue of his eternal generation from the Father, possesses everything that the Father possesses except the fatherhood.

The East confirms what we all agree on but is silent on this point laid out unless I missed something.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I just pulled the stickers off.

And you said Orthodox don’t like changing the way things were in the beginning.

Kidding. Just kidding.

 

[GaryTaylor]

And you said Orthodox don’t like changing the way things were in the beginning.

Kidding. Just kidding.

Randy where is the work of St Athanasius taken from, as Thomas Aquinas also quotes him in reference to Father and Son. Is it from his Creed only or is there another source?