Filioque??

[chrisb]

If you’re refering to the Council that validated Photios claim to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Rome never “signed on” to anything other than that point. It also was never regarded as an Ecumenical Council, East or West; it was a local Council dealing with the claims to the See, and Rome was a part of it.

Peace and God bless!

Hi Ghosty,

So are you saying that Rome ‘did’ sign on to not include any additions to the Creed?

 

[bobzills]

Hi Ghosty,

So are you saying that Rome ‘did’ sign on to not include any additions to the Creed?

That would appear to be incosistent because they did agree to add the filioque to the creed later on.

 

[chrisb]

That would appear to be incosistent because they did agree to add the filioque to the creed later on.

In 809 AD Pope Leo III refused Charlemagne’s request to sing the Filioque in the creed. Leo even had the creed inscribed, without the Filioque, on silver plaques. We really get the impression that until the Gregorian Reforms of the 11th century and the crowning of Otto I as emperor the Popes refused the Filioque but seemed to lose this conviction once they where Germans Post-Otto I.

 

[Ghosty]

Sorry for not being more clear. I meant that Rome signed on to nothing aside from Photius’ right to be Patriarch of Constantinople. It never agreed with the attacks on the filioque made by Photios after the representatives from Rome left the Council.

Peace and God bless!

 

[bobzills]

In 809 AD Pope Leo III refused Charlemagne’s request to sing the Filioque in the creed. Leo even had the creed inscribed, without the Filioque, on silver plaques. .

This would appear to be inconsistent —
At one point in time the Catholic authorities say do not add the filioque to the creed.
At another point in time the Catholic authorities say to add the filioque to the creed.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

If you’re refering to the Council that validated Photios claim to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Rome never “signed on” to anything other than that point. It also was never regarded as an Ecumenical Council, East or West; it was a local Council dealing with the claims to the See, and Rome was a part of it.

Peace and God bless!

Local? Only in the way hurracane Katrina was a local issue.

There are SOME Orthodox who claim it is Ecumenical.

Since the Vatican denies signing onto anything, I don’t know what sifting through points would serve at this point.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

That would appear to be incosistent because they did agree to add the filioque to the creed later on.

Your point?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

This would appear to be inconsistent —
At one point in time the Catholic authorities say do not add the filioque to the creed.
At another point in time the Catholic authorities say to add the filioque to the creed.

Ah, the joys of defending infallibility.

 

[chrisb]

This would appear to be inconsistent —
At one point in time the Catholic authorities say do not add the filioque to the creed.
At another point in time the Catholic authorities say to add the filioque to the creed.

Which is why I’m bringing it up. Why would In 809 AD Pope Leo III refused Charlemagne’s request to sing the Filioque in the creed and then had the creed inscribed, without the Filioque, on silver plaques and then Pope John VII’s Legates sign on to the reunion council held in Constantinople in 879 AD only to switch after German Popes rose to power?

It does appear to be inconsistent.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Which is why I’m bringing it up. Why would In 809 AD Pope Leo III refused Charlemagne’s request to sing the Filioque in the creed and then had the creed inscribed, without the Filioque, on silver plaques and then Pope John VII’s Legates sign on to the reunion council held in Constantinople in 879 AD only to switch after German Popes rose to power?

It does appear to be inconsistent.

Yes, all this talk of Caesaropapism being an Eastern phenomenon, with that Frankish log of the Germanic emperors.

Btw, love the sig, and the icon on your profile (love neo-Coptic Art). Are you Coptic Orthodox?

 

[Ghosty]

Local? Only in the way hurracane Katrina was a local issue.

There are SOME Orthodox who claim it is Ecumenical.

Since the Vatican denies signing onto anything, I don’t know what sifting through points would serve at this point.

It was local in the sense that it dealt with a local issue, as opposed to an Ecumenical Council. Deciding between claimants of a See is hardly an Ecumenical issue.

Which is why I’m bringing it up. Why would In 809 AD Pope Leo III refused Charlemagne’s request to sing the Filioque in the creed and then had the creed inscribed, without the Filioque, on silver plaques and then Pope John VII’s Legates sign on to the reunion council held in Constantinople in 879 AD only to switch after German Popes rose to power?

He refused to add the filioque because it wasn’t part of the original Creed; Rome at that time was taking a hard-line on the matter. The “reunion Council” didn’t deal with the filioque while Rome was present, but rather only dealt with the legitimacy of Photios as Patriarch. There is no shred of evidence that Rome signed on to the things Photios said after the Papal legates left Constantinople, and there’s no reason to presume that they did.

Remember, though, that during the same period that Rome was taking a hard line against adding the filioque, it was teaching the filioque via the writings of St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Leo, and St. Gregory the Great; it did not condemn what its own Fathers had taught, especially not when those Saints were the basis of Latin theology during that period. The only inconsistency is that Rome no longer took a hard line against adding the filioque to the text of the Creed in later centuries, but it never flopped on the theology itself.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

It was local in the sense that it dealt with a local issue, as opposed to an Ecumenical Council. Deciding between claimants of a See is hardly an Ecumenical issue.

Does that go for the councils of Pisa and Constance?

He refused to add the filioque because it wasn’t part of the original Creed; Rome at that time was taking a hard-line on the matter. The “reunion Council” didn’t deal with the filioque while Rome was present, but rather only dealt with the legitimacy of Photios as Patriarch. There is no shred of evidence that Rome signed on to the things Photios said after the Papal legates left Constantinople, and there’s no reason to presume that they did.

The official line is that they didn’t signed on to anything at the Council of 879, and the elevation of the council of 869 to ecumenical status would seem to prevent that.

Remember, though, that during the same period that Rome was taking a hard line against adding the filioque, it was teaching the filioque via the writings of St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Leo, and St. Gregory the Great; it did not condemn what its own Fathers had taught, especially not when those Saints were the basis of Latin theology during that period. The only inconsistency is that Rome no longer took a hard line against adding the filioque to the text of the Creed in later centuries, but it never flopped on the theology itself.

the subject of many a thread.

 

[chrisb]

It was local in the sense that it dealt with a local issue, as opposed to an Ecumenical Council. Deciding between claimants of a See is hardly an Ecumenical issue.

I wasn’t there so I can’t confirm or deny but Christian scholars, like Pelikan, seems to say otherwise.

He refused to add the filioque because it wasn’t part of the original Creed; Rome at that time was taking a hard-line on the matter. The “reunion Council” didn’t deal with the filioque while Rome was present, but rather only dealt with the legitimacy of Photios as Patriarch. There is no shred of evidence that Rome signed on to the things Photios said after the Papal legates left Constantinople, and there’s no reason to presume that they did.

Remember, though, that during the same period that Rome was taking a hard line against adding the filioque, it was teaching the filioque via the writings of St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Leo, and St. Gregory the Great; it did not condemn what its own Fathers had taught, especially not when those Saints were the basis of Latin theology during that period. The only inconsistency is that Rome no longer took a hard line against adding the filioque to the text of the Creed in later centuries, but it never flopped on the theology itself

So taking a hard line isn’t flip-flopping… Post-German Pope taking a reverse on the Filioque/Creed inclusion doesn’t seem a bit strange to you?

I can tell you that Orthodox don’t take this Filioque issue so lightly. I know Pelikan in his book Spirit took a very grim look at the doctrine.

The Filioque was not only illegitimate, it was also mistaken. It was based on certain theological premises which the East found to be inadequate or erroneous and which became visible in the course of the debates. Several of these lay in the area of what must be called ‘theological method,’ for they involved differences over the way trinitarian doctrine was to be arrived at. Beyond such methodoligical differences lay some ultimate, metaphysical differences in the doctrine of God itself… (Pelikan, Spirit pp. 192-193)

Why do these scholars look at the issue of the Filioque with such concern, like Pope John VII, who wouldn’t even sing it at the request of Charlemagne himself, and a 50 years later, under German Popes, it is added without any concern at all?

What changed in Rome? Why do so many scholars in the East or like Pelikan express so much concern over this shift? I get the impression that Rome seems to take a very Cavalier attitude on this issue and yet we see in history that it was a major issue and continues to be.

 

[East_and_West]

Why do these scholars look at the issue of the Filioque with such concern, like Pope John VII, who wouldn’t even sing it at the request of Charlemagne himself, and a 50 years later, under German Popes, it is added without any concern at all?

What changed in Rome? Why do so many scholars in the East or like Pelikan express so much concern over this shift? I get the impression that Rome seems to take a very Cavalier attitude on this issue and yet we see in history that it was a major issue and continues to be.

Ghosty already answered your questions.
:yawn:

 

[chrisb]

Ghosty already answered your questions.
:yawn:

I’m not asking ‘one’ question that can be addressed with just ‘one’ answer. I honestly believe that the West seems to gloss over this period because we assume we’re always right so any historical contradiction is down-played but clearly others have a real concern with the changes in Rome during this period of history and see many see reasonable concerns with Rome’s cavalier position on the subject.

It gets at the hart of exactly how doctrine should be brought into the body of Church. Is this something that finds it’s origin with the emperor and his theologians as appears to be the case with the Filioque coming out of Charlemagne’s group of advisers or is it more the proper object of the Church in total (i.e. Council).

I think we can see a shift on this issue of including the Filioque in Rome Post-Otto I which proceeded the reforms of the German popes. I think it is a fair question to ask if these changes where actually legitimate. Personally I would like a little bit more evidence than someone simply brushing it away.

 

[Taboric_Light]

So taking a hard line isn’t flip-flopping… Post-German Pope taking a reverse on the Filioque/Creed inclusion doesn’t seem a bit strange to you?

Flip-flopping, yes, but we need to remember that it is the filiogue itself which is a matter of doctrine, not its being added to the creed which is a disciplinary/liturgical matter. If the doctrine is sound then there is no real problem with its being added to the creed.

Thank you for the quote from Pelikan. Concerning the differences in “theological method… over the way trinitartian doctrine was to be arrived at” and “metaphysical differences in the doctrine of God itself,” he says exactly what I have been thinking for a good long while now. It was for this reason that I said earlier that I agreed with the Ukrainian bishop that Ghosty quoted. I hold that
we must acknowledge the legitimacy of both approaches (this is to recognize the legitimacy of both Eastern and Western tradition) and interpret what each says according to their approach.

It is for this reason that I keep coming back to the issue of hypostatic procession. Western coucils before Florence decreed that the Father is the sole source of the Trinity and that there is no duel procession. Then Florence came along and said that the Holy Spirit proceeds consubstantially (hypostatically) from the Son. This appears to contradict what the councils before Florence had decreed. However, I am looking at it from an Eastern approach not from the Western approach. This is why I have asked for an explanation of how a hypostatic procession can work in the Western approach without violating the Father as sole source or without professing duel procession.

I truly believe that getting a right understanding of what the West is saying and why it works in the Western approach is one of the most important keys to resolving this issue.

In Christ through Mary

 

[Taboric_Light]

I’m not asking ‘one’ question that can be addressed with just ‘one’ answer. I honestly believe that the West seems to gloss over this period because we assume we’re always right so any historical contradiction is down-played but clearly others have a real concern with the changes in Rome during this period of history and see many see reasonable concerns with Rome’s cavalier position on the subject.

It gets at the hart of exactly how doctrine should be brought into the body of Church. Is this something that finds it’s origin with the emperor and his theologians as appears to be the case with the Filioque coming out of Charlemagne’s group of advisers or is it more the proper object of the Church in total (i.e. Council).

I think we can see a shift on this issue of including the Filioque in Rome Post-Otto I which proceeded the reforms of the German popes. I think it is a fair question to ask if these changes where actually legitimate. Personally I would like a little bit more evidence than someone simply brushing it away.

It is a very good question. Here is the little that I know:

1. The filioque didn’t originate from Charlemagne’s group of advisors.
2. The Council of Toledo added the filioque to the creed as a defense against Arianism.
3. The Council of Toledo got the filioque from Western Fathers that pre-date the council by hundreds of years: St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and I think others.
4. Charlemagne’s advisors were greatly influenced by the theological approaches that came from the Council of Toledo, which they were geographically closer to than Rome (pretty sure).

The mistake that Rome made was elevating something that was regional to a universal level. However the filioque is not heterodox and one thousand years later what’s done is done making the filioque very much a part of the West. To take it out of the creed as it is professed in the West would have disastrous consequences, causing major divisions within the Church in the West, all the while not effecting union with the East.

In Christ through Mary

 

[Taboric_Light]

Ghosty,

The example of the spring, river, and lake didn’t do it for me. Could you give a theological metaphysical explanation? I heard from a friend yesterday that “hypostasis” in the West is understood and used more broadly than it is in the East. Could you explain this to me in greater detail? Thanks.

In Christ through Mary

 

[chrisb]

Flip-flopping, yes, but we need to remember that it is the filiogue itself which is a matter of doctrine, not its being added to the creed which is a disciplinary/liturgical matter. If the doctrine is sound then there is no real problem with its being added to the creed.

Thank you for the quote from Pelikan. Concerning the differences in “theological method… over the way trinitartian doctrine was to be arrived at” and “metaphysical differences in the doctrine of God itself,” he says exactly what I have been thinking for a good long while now. It was for this reason that I said earlier that I agreed with the Ukrainian bishop that Ghosty quoted. I hold that
we must acknowledge the legitimacy of both approaches (this is to recognize the legitimacy of both Eastern and Western tradition) and interpret what each says according to their approach.

It is for this reason that I keep coming back to the issue of hypostatic procession. Western coucils before Florence decreed that the Father is the sole source of the Trinity and that there is no duel procession. Then Florence came along and said that the Holy Spirit proceeds consubstantially (hypostatically) from the Son. This appears to contradict what the councils before Florence had decreed. However, I am looking at it from an Eastern approach not from the Western approach. This is why I have asked for an explanation of how a hypostatic procession can work in the Western approach without violating the Father as sole source or without professing duel procession.

I truly believe that getting a right understanding of what the West is saying and why it works in the Western approach is one of the most important keys to resolving this issue.

Ultimately isn’t the Western approach far too Middle-Platonist for the East? Central in Plotinus’ cosmology is the a chain of hypostases.

“…With regard to the existence that is supremely perfect *, we must say it only produces the very greatest of the things that are found below it. But that which after it is the most perfect, the second principle, is Intelligence (Nous). Intelligence contemplates the One and needs nothing but it. But the One has no need of Intelligence *. The One which is superior to Intelligence produces Intelligence which is the best ex-istence after the One, since it is superior to all other beings. The (World-)Soul is the Word (Logos) and a phase of the activity of Intelligence just as Intelligence is the logos and a phase of the activity of the One. But the logos of the Soul is obscure being only an image of Intelligence. The Soul therefore directs herself to Intelligence, just as the latter, to be Intelligence, must contemplate the One…Every begotten being longs for the being that begot it and loves it…”

Ultimately, isn’t it the similarity of Neo-Platonist emanation of the One and the Nous that makes the East so uncomfortable?**

 

[Taboric_Light]

Ultimately, isn’t it the similarity of Neo-Platonist emanation of the One and the Nous that makes the East so uncomfortable?

Honestly, I do not know anything about this. I have never heard it related to the filioque before so I am not really able to comment on it. I do have an observation though. In this One-Nous-Soul system that Plotinus has given there definitely seems to be a connection with hypostatic procession Father-Son-Spirit (which I think you were pointing out). There definitely isn’t a direct analogy though because the West has explicit said that the Father alone is the source of the Trinity. I just don’t understand how the West can say that the Father alone is source and then say the Spirit hypostatically proceeds from the Son. Earlier Ghosty explained the distinction between source and principle (for which I am very grateful), but I still do not see how the Spirit or why the Spirit proceeds from the Son hypostatically.

In Christ through Mary