Filioque??

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I have another quick question: What do those who reject the filiquoe have to say about the quotes I provided in post #66. Those quotes, which were from the 300’s and 400’s, prove that the Fathers of both the East and West believed in the filioque. It is even taught in the Athanasian Creed!

Are you willing to concede that the Fathers of the East and West believed in the filioque long before the controversy errupted?

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

If this were to happen - if the contemplation of the being and the word spirated infinite love, would the love that proceeded from both the being and the word, be dual or singular prcession?

This still requires a sense of time, but I’ll ignore that for now, and answer your question as if I were a Latin that agreed with your presuppositions:

The contemplation of the *word *pours from the being, while the contemplation of the *being *pours from the word. Having poured forth from their sources, the sum contemplation generates infinite love. In that the sum contemplation was partially derived from the word, and partially derived from the being, the infinite love has two sources. While it may seem at first that there is a single procession due to there being one sum contemplation, that is not technically the case. Rather, the sum contemplation proceeds from two sources along two distinct paths to converge in a sum contemplation, thus spirating infinite love. Therefore, there would initially be two acts of procession which converge into a single act of procession. Nonetheless, if you take the system of processions as a whole, it could possibly be rationalised as one, since it could either be described as two processions that act synergistically as one, or a single procession in which the *being *and *word *are each a partial source of the infinite love. All-in-all, given the scenario presented, the most accurate response would probably be that the spiration is neither a double procession, nor a single procession, but middle ground between the two, having characteristics of both.

 

[chrisb]

I have another quick question: What do those who reject the filiquoe have to say about the quotes I provided in post #66. Those quotes, which were from the 300’s and 400’s, prove that the Fathers of both the East and West believed in the filioque. It is even taught in the Athanasian Creed!

Are you willing to concede that the Fathers of the East and West believed in the filioque long before the controversy errupted?

As I understand it, both Roman Catholic and non-Roman Catholic scholars agree that the Creed of the Church, the Nicene Creed, was the progeny of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils - it read that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father - not the Father and the Son (Filioque). The Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils, (Ephesus A.D. 431 and Chalcedon A.D. 451) specifically prohibited any changes to the Creed.

As I understand it, this novel teaching made its first appearance at the National Council of Toledo, Spain, in A.D. 586… not exactly the center of the Christian World and from there managed to spread throughout the Western Church.

As I understand it, Rome resisted this novelty and defended the Creed as laid down by the Ecumenical Councils even as late as A.D. 879-880, Pope John VIII, through his legates at the Council of Constantinople, reaffirmed Rome’s opposition to its use. Also Pope Leo III, A.D. 795-816, while not personally seeing anything wrong with the Filioque clause, forbade its use on the grounds that the Ecumenical Councils had forbidden any additions to be made to the Creed. To reinforce his defense of the original Creed, he had two silver plagues, one in Latin and one in Greek, placed before the tomb of St. Peter containing the Creed ‘without’ the Filioque. However, in violation of the Pope’s commands, Filioque continued to be used in the court of Charlemagne and throughout the West. Eventually, around 1014 Rome accepted it into her liturgy. On these points both Roman Catholic and non-Roman Catholic scholars agree.

Personally, I believe it was a grave error to allow a lowly synod on the periphery of Christendom to dictate unilateral changes to the Creed in opposition to the Ecumenical Councils of the ‘whole’ Church.

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

I have another quick question: What do those who reject the filiquoe have to say about the quotes I provided in post #66. Those quotes, which were from the 300’s and 400’s, prove that the Fathers of both the East and West believed in the filioque. It is even taught in the Athanasian Creed!

Are you willing to concede that the Fathers of the East and West believed in the filioque long before the controversy errupted?

I don’t have time to look into all the quotes since I’m busy studying for final exams. I will look at the Athanasian Creed though.

The Holy Ghost is **of **the Father, and **of **the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm

Notice the "of"s, as opposed to your "from"s. Most copies of the creed I saw used “of”, which has a very different meaning than “from”. “Of” signifies possession, while “from” signifies origins. The quote using “of” in no way supports the filioque. I wonder if the minority translation using “from” was theologically biased, especially since I only saw it used by one denomination (Reformed, a.k.a. Calvinist), and only on some of that denomination’s sites. A thought to chew on.

 

[dvdjs]

• While 'light" often is used to refer to “visible light”, it can also be used to refer to electromagnetic radiation that does not fire human visual receptors e.g., infrared or ultraviolet light.
• The electromagnetic radiation of the Sun lies primarily in the visible, not the infrared.
• Heat is not a substance.

But if you want to have good fun, consider how radiative heat transfer provides a beautiful analogy for “created grace”.

 

[Gofer]

Making mountains out of molehills, or rather plains.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

• While 'light" often is used to refer to “visible light”, it can also be used to refer to electromagnetic radiation that does not fire human visual receptors e.g., infrared or ultraviolet light.
• The electromagnetic radiation of the Sun lies primarily in the visible, not the infrared.
• Heat is not a substance.

But if you want to have good fun, consider how radiative heat transfer provides a beautiful analogy for “created grace”.

So back to the single hypostasis.

 

[anthony022071]

[Isa Almisry]

Pronounce sentence against the supreme pontiffs of old Rome.

Hmmm.

Souds that he can be tried (though not rashly).

But Vatican I and II say the pope can’t be tried by anyone, as it speaks of authority being himself alone, or in conjunction with the other “bishops,” and explicitly states it is not a question of the college of bishops acting without its head.

Sovereign immunity would seem to be in order. But that conflicts with your so called council.

Welcome back,Isa!

I saw your quip about Honorius.

I’m not sure what you mean by saying soverreign immunity conflicts with the councils.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I have another quick question: What do those who reject the filiquoe have to say about the quotes I provided in post #66. Those quotes, which were from the 300’s and 400’s, prove that the Fathers of both the East and West believed in the filioque. It is even taught in the Athanasian Creed!

Are you willing to concede that the Fathers of the East and West believed in the filioque long before the controversy errupted?

We had a long, fact packed thread on this topic, which doesn’t seem to be here anymore. So I’m a little learey of putting too much into ephemeral media. I do recall some problems for your side with Cyril’s quotes once the originals were produced (also the reference to essence and energies was a severe disappointment to those looking for development of doctrine to denigrate the Palamites). As for the Athanasian Creed, it dates nearly two centuries after his death, it is not attributed to him until two centuries after that, and seems to date from Gaul around the same time, a little earlier perhaps, as the filioque makes its appearance in Spain. So, no, not impressed.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

[Isa Almisry]

Welcome back,Isa!

I saw your quip about Honorius.

I’m not sure what you mean by saying soverreign immunity conflicts with the councils.

The warnig about not judgimg the pope of Rome rashly in the citation from the so called 8th council conflicts with Vatican I and II, as according to them, no council has the power to judge the pope and pass judgement. rashly or otherwise.

 

[anthony022071]

[Isa Almisry]

The warnig about not judgimg the pope of Rome rashly in the citation from the so called 8th council conflicts with Vatican I and II, as according to them, no council has the power to judge the pope and pass judgement. rashly or otherwise.

Yes,a council does not have the sacerdotal authority to judge the pope. But that does not prevent people from doing just that. People rebel. The canons of Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 say nothing about whether people are actually going to be obedient. The canons just lay down the law.

 

[bobzills]

The warnig about not judgimg the pope of Rome rashly in the citation from the so called 8th council conflicts with Vatican I and II, as according to them, no council has the power to judge the pope and pass judgement. rashly or otherwise.

However, the Council of Constance (1414-1418) decided who was the true Pope at that time and ruled that the other two claimants were anti-Popes.

 

[Ghosty]

However, the Council of Constance (1414-1418) decided who was the true Pope at that time and ruled that the other two claimants were anti-Popes.

Yes, under the authority of two of the claimants.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

The warnig about not judgimg the pope of Rome rashly in the citation from the so called 8th council conflicts with Vatican I and II, as according to them, no council has the power to judge the pope and pass judgement. rashly or otherwise.

There are only several instances when the Pope is called to judge:

1. Pronouncing on a doctrine ex cathedra, wherein the doctrinal decision of the Pope is formed with the advice and judgments of his fellow bishops (though the final decision is promulgated by virtue of his unique Petrine office).
2. In the enforcement of a universal canon, which everyone is bound to follow anyway.
3. When local bishop(s) appeal to the Pope for a judgment on a disciplinary or canonical question. This is a prerogative granted by several ancient canons.

That is the way the Church has been structured from the beginning. To go against the canons is to promote schism, which is a sin.

I think you are working off of the erroneous assumption that the Pope can make judgments willy-nilly for whatever reason, wherever and whenever he chooses. That is not the way the Catholic Church works.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Bob,

However, the Council of Constance (1414-1418) decided who was the true Pope at that time and ruled that the other two claimants were anti-Popes.

This is an excerpt from a response I gave in another thread on this particular issue:

What does it matter [OBJECTIVELY speaking] if a Council deposes FALSE popes (Benedict XIII and John XXIII)? In fact, the legitimate Pope Gregory XII was NOT deposed by the Council, but rather abdicated. This abdication was a condition to which he already agreed when he was elected in 1406 (several years before the Council of Constance was even a twinkle in the eye). This agreement stated that, to facilitate peace in the Church, the next Pope to be elected – i.e., Gregory XII - would willfully abdicate when the other would-be Popes relinquished or were effectively deprived of power. When this occurred, the Cardinals, along with a few representatives of certain States, voted Martin V into the papacy. This is the ACTUAL course of events, not the caricature presented by Valentine.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

Dear brother Isa,

There are only several instances when the Pope is called to judge:

1. Pronouncing on a doctrine ex cathedra, wherein the doctrinal decision of the Pope is formed with the advice and judgments of his fellow bishops (though the final decision is promulgated by virtue of his unique Petrine office).
2. In the enforcement of a universal canon, which everyone is bound to follow anyway.
3. When local bishop(s) appeal to the Pope for a judgment on a disciplinary or canonical question. This is a prerogative granted by several ancient canons.

That is the way the Church has been structured from the beginning. To go against the canons is to promote schism, which is a sin.

I think you are working off of the erroneous assumption that the Pope can make judgments willy-nilly for whatever reason, wherever and whenever he chooses. That is not the way the Catholic Church works.

Blessings,
Marduk

I believe he was talking about judging the Bishop of Rome, not whether or not the Bishop himself can judge.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Zabdi,

I believe he was talking about judging the Bishop of Rome, not whether or not the Bishop himself can judge.

IIRC, VI and V II don’t say anything about judging the Bishop of Rome per se, but they DO say something about appealing from a judgment of the Bishop of Rome to a higher authority, which is not allowed.

Brother Isa is the one who appealed to V I and V II. I’m responding to the only thing contained in them regarding judgments against the Bishop of Rome (which cannot be done) - and it is only with regards to his decisions, not his person.

As far as his person is concerned, there have been no decisions on the matter coming from Ecumenical Councils, apart from the so-called Eighth Ecumenical, which is a rather fair ruling, IMHO.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

Dear brother Zabdi,

IIRC, VI and V II don’t say anything about judging the Bishop of Rome per se, but they DO say something about appealing from a judgment of the Bishop of Rome to a higher authority, which is not allowed.

Brother Isa is the one who appealed to V I and V II. I’m responding to the only thing contained in them regarding judgments against the Bishop of Rome (which cannot be done) - and it is only with regards to his decisions, not his person.

As far as his person is concerned, there have been no decisions on the matter coming from Ecumenical Councils, apart from the so-called Eighth Ecumenical, which is a rather fair ruling, IMHO.

Blessings,
Marduk

To be honest, I have no idea what was proclaimed in Vatican I & II concerning judgments and the bishop of Rome. I was just pointing out that you didn’t address what Brother Isa said. By the way, what are you guys refering to as the “so-called Eighth Ecumenical”? The Robber Council of 869-870, or Constantinople IV? I assume it’s the former, but I want to make sure.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Isa,

There are only several instances when the Pope is called to judge:

1. Pronouncing on a doctrine ex cathedra, wherein the doctrinal decision of the Pope is formed with the advice and judgments of his fellow bishops (though the final decision is promulgated by virtue of his unique Petrine office).
2. In the enforcement of a universal canon, which everyone is bound to follow anyway.
3. When local bishop(s) appeal to the Pope for a judgment on a disciplinary or canonical question. This is a prerogative granted by several ancient canons.

That is the way the Church has been structured from the beginning. To go against the canons is to promote schism, which is a sin.

I think you are working off of the erroneous assumption that the Pope can make judgments willy-nilly for whatever reason, wherever and whenever he chooses. That is not the way the Catholic Church works.

Blessings,
Marduk

The is issue wasn’t on the limits of the pope’s judgement, or lack thereof. It was the question of judging the pope, which Vatican I and II doesn’t hold out as a possibility.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Zabdi,

IIRC, VI and V II don’t say anything about judging the Bishop of Rome per se, but they DO say something about appealing from a judgment of the Bishop of Rome to a higher authority, which is not allowed.

Brother Isa is the one who appealed to V I and V II. I’m responding to the only thing contained in them regarding judgments against the Bishop of Rome (which cannot be done) - and it is only with regards to his decisions, not his person.

As far as his person is concerned, there have been no decisions on the matter coming from Ecumenical Councils, apart from the so-called Eighth Ecumenical, which is a rather fair ruling, IMHO.

Blessings,
Marduk

So called is right.

But then there’s the Sixth Ecumenical Council and the anathematization of Pope Honorius of Rome.