Filioque??

[mardukm]

Because Holy Orthodoxy demands that the Faith of the Fathers ‘all’ recite ‘one’ Creed, not ‘two’.

Many Creeds were in existence in the early Church. The main point was that they all professed the SAME FAITH, not that their wording was identical. But it is more than just professing the same Faith. It is more about BELIEVING the same Faith, whether expressed in the Creeds or not. This was the position of my holy Pope St. Cyril, and I side with him (as a Copt).

So that goes back to my original question. If according to WESTERN theology, without imposing Eastern theology on the Westerns, filioque is acceptable and orthodox, then what is the problem? I recall reading that during one of the Orthodox-Catholic colloquies on Christology (with participation from the Eastern,Orthodox, Catholic, and Oriental Orthodox Churches), one of the Oriental Orthodox bishops asserted that the Easterns should not think they have the monopoly on understanding/interpreting the Faith of the Fathers. There are other Traditions who have just as valid an interpretation of the Fathers. We may use different terminologies, or even the same terminologies with different meanings, but our goal towards unity is not uniformity, but rather UNDERSTANDING each others’ different Traditions.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ghosty]

Chris,
God Bless you for knowing the details of what I know! I only remembered the gist of it. You are very correct. What you have written is what taught in the Melkite Greek Catholic Church I attend. I’m not sure why Ghosty a Melkite of another parish would have been taught something contrary to what History proves. Thank you Chris!
Christy

Nothing Chrisb wrote in that post contradicts what I’ve said before, other than his false implication that Rome opposed the filioque teaching (as opposed to its place in the Creed) prior to 1014, but it doesn’t match what you’ve posted. That’s why I’ve corrected you and not that post by ChrisB.

The main thing is that Rome never taught that the filioque was erroneous. It even used the filioque in a profession of Faith to Constantinople during the time of St. Maximos the Confessor (this is a historical fact as well, as St. Maximos the Confessor defended Rome on this matter, and this was centuries before the Franks became involved, which is something you’ve pushed as a cause for the filioque). Rome just opposed it being placed in the Nicaean Creed, something that ChrisB mentions and I’ve said as well.

If you’ve been taught at your Melkite parish that Rome refuted the filioque as a teaching, you’ve been taught wrong, and I’d be happy to send the facts to your instructor, such as Pope St. Gregory the Great (6th century) teaching the filioque in his writings. At the very least, if Rome had opposed it as a teaching then St. Maximos never would have had to defend Rome over the filioque. Can you answer why St. Maximos would write defending the city of Rome using the filioque if it was condemned in Rome?

geocities.com/athens/atrium/8410/maxfilioque.html

In short, if your Melkite instructors have really taught you these historical errors, they need to learn up a bit more on the facts of history.

As for our Melkite community, we don’t worry about such things as the filioque. It’s not in the Creed we recite, and it’s not heretical, so why bother? It’s not something that’s ever come up in discussion, but if the same historical errors were taught here I’d correct them. There are far more important catechetical issues at stake than a Latin terminological issue.

Peace and God bless!

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace Everyone,

I’m not sure I really want to get inbetween two Melkites… it seems ‘risky’ too me.

But I would like to know if those silver-plaques of the Creed sans filioque are still outside of Tomb of St. Peter or if they have been replaced with plaques ‘with’ filioque?

 

[Ghosty]

Grace and Peace Everyone,

I’m not sure I really want to get inbetween two Melkites… it seems ‘risky’ too me.

But I would like to know if those silver-plaques of the Creed sans filioque are still outside of Tomb of St. Peter or if they have been replaced with plaques ‘with’ filioque?

We won’t be throwing falafel or roast lamb, don’t worry.

As for your question, the silver plaques remain as they were. The expression of the Creed in the Latin Church has the filioque, but the universal Creed remains unchanged. Hence, when then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote “Dominus Iesus” to the Catholic Church, the Creed was written even in Latin without the filioque.

Whether the plaques remain where they were, I’m not sure. I can see if they were moved somewhere else during certain periods in Church history.

Peace and God bless!

 

[bobzills]

We won’t be throwing falafel or roast lamb, don’t worry.

As for your question, the silver plaques remain as they were. The expression of the Creed in the Latin Church has the filioque, but the universal Creed remains unchanged. Hence, when then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote “Dominus Iesus” to the Catholic Church, the Creed was written even in Latin without the filioque.

Whether the plaques remain where they were, I’m not sure. I can see if they were moved somewhere else during certain periods in Church history.

Peace and God bless!

However, wasn’t the issue of the filioque mentioned in the declaration of excommunication laid by Cardinal Humberto at the altar of the Hagia Sophia in 1054? Why was it a big deal then, but not such a big deal now?

 

[Ghosty]

However, wasn’t the issue of the filioque mentioned in the declaration of excommunication laid by Cardinal Humberto at the altar of the Hagia Sophia in 1054? Why was it a big deal then, but not such a big deal now?

Yeah, it was right up there with Greek priests wearing beards, and not giving Communion to those men who shaved.

Cardinal Humbert wrote up the declaration himself, and it contains all kinds of silly things. He was a hothead, but it is true that the Latins looked askance at the Greeks for so vehemently denying the filioque, and some believed the Greeks had taken it out of the Creed (since the Latins had been teaching it since before the Holy Spirit portion of the Creed was added in the West, it was pretty well ingrained as a teaching for them).

It was never such a big deal that the Latins pushed the filioque onto the Greek recitation of the Creed, however. It should be remembered that Cardinal Humbert has not been viewed as totally representing the West, even in the past; he’s never been canonized, and never received many accolades to my knowledge. He went down in history as a bit of a jerk who took things further than they needed to be (whether that reputation is deserved or not).

The real reason for the spat between East and West was over the use of unleavened bread, and the reported desecration of the Latin Eucharist by Greek clergy. That was why Cardinal Humbert was sent, and the real weight behind the excommunication; he basically just threw everything else he could think of (including beards) into the mix when he drew up the decree.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Turtullian]

However, wasn’t the issue of the filioque mentioned in the declaration of excommunication laid by Cardinal Humberto at the altar of the Hagia Sophia in 1054? Why was it a big deal then, but not such a big deal now?

The excommunication of 1054 was not over the filioque. Michael I does not cite it as a reason for the excommunication of the Pope. The reason for the excommunication of Michael I was over Michael I’s encorachment into sicily and in particular, forcing sicilians to abandon the western flatbread wafer. Michael I went so far as to deem the unleavened bread heretical.

 

[bobzills]

The excommunication of 1054 was not over the filioque.

I thought it was mentioned as one of the issues in the decree of excommunication laid down on the altar of the Hagia Sophia by Cardinal Humberto?

 

[mardukm]

However, wasn’t the issue of the filioque mentioned in the declaration of excommunication laid by Cardinal Humberto at the altar of the Hagia Sophia in 1054? Why was it a big deal then, but not such a big deal now?

It was a big deal then because there was still a lot of misunderstanding on the issue. Humbert indeed did mention the issue of filioque, but the issue was not initiated by the Latins. Prior to that, two previous patriarchs of Constantinople had repeated the charges made by Photius about a century before.

I think if the Easterns just left well enough alone, the issue of filioque would not have left the Western borders.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[White_Russian]

catholicity.com/encyclopedia/p/photius_of_constantinople.html
Photius of Constantinople, chief author of the great schism between East and West,…

< …In 867 he carried the war into the enemy’s camp by excommunicating the pope and his Latins. The reasons he gives for this, in an encyclical sent to the Eastern patriarchs, are: that Latins

fast on Saturday
do not begin Lent till Ash Wednesday (instead of three days earlier, as in the East)
do not allow priests to be married
do not allow priests to administer confirmation
have added the filioque to the creed.
Because of these errors the pope and all Latins are: “forerunners of apostasy, servants of Antichrist who deserve a thousand deaths, liars, fighters against God” (Hergenröther, I, 642-46)…
I don’t really want to get into this thread, as I do not have the background and reading material of all the thread subscribers. I am impressed by their research. However, my only comment I will make is that the above are not dogma or doctrine but “disciplines.” Why the uproar?

Also, on the Feast of St. Peter and Paul, at St. Paul Outside the Walls, Mass was celebrated by BXVI with Patriarch Bartholomew.
during the Mass, the Gospels were proclaimed by both Latin and Orthodox deacons. BXVI kissed the Gospels used by the Greek deacon and Bartholomew kissed the Gospels used by the latin deacon. NOW FOR THE REALLY BIG NEWS: The Greek formula of the Nicene Creed was recited. Hopefully, we are on the way.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Many Creeds were in existence in the early Church. The main point was that they all professed the SAME FAITH, not that their wording was identical. But it is more than just professing the same Faith. It is more about BELIEVING the same Faith, whether expressed in the Creeds or not. This was the position of my holy Pope St. Cyril, and I side with him (as a Copt).

So that goes back to my original question. If according to WESTERN theology, without imposing Eastern theology on the Westerns, filioque is acceptable and orthodox, then what is the problem? I recall reading that during one of the Orthodox-Catholic colloquies on Christology (with participation from the Eastern,Orthodox, Catholic, and Oriental Orthodox Churches), one of the Oriental Orthodox bishops asserted that the Easterns should not think they have the monopoly on understanding/interpreting the Faith of the Fathers. There are other Traditions who have just as valid an interpretation of the Fathers. We may use different terminologies, or even the same terminologies with different meanings, but our goal towards unity is not uniformity, but rather UNDERSTANDING each others’ different Traditions.

Blessings,
Marduk

Even the Vatican won’t allow the translation of filioque into the original Greek. Now, since the original Creed is in Greek, and they are quoting the Gospel, also in Greek, these poses a problem. The fact that the addition was stuck in at a local council, and was opposed by the patriarch of Rome for centuries should be enough said. Pope Leo III didn’t find it as valid, why make the fuss and post the original, in Greek and LATIN, on the doors of St. Peter’s?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

It was a big deal then because there was still a lot of misunderstanding on the issue. Humbert indeed did mention the issue of filioque, but the issue was not initiated by the Latins. Prior to that, two previous patriarchs of Constantinople had repeated the charges made by Photius about a century before.

I think if the Easterns just left well enough alone, the issue of filioque would not have left the Western borders.

Blessings,
Marduk

Uh, you mean if the Westerners had left well enough alone, and stayed home.

Humbert was in Constantiople. Where is that?

The Latin monks reciting the filioque on Olivet (Mount of Olives). Where is that?

The imposition of the filioque on Bulgaria. Where is that?

Not in the West.

 

[mardukm]

Even the Vatican won’t allow the translation of filioque into the original Greek. Now, since the original Creed is in Greek, and they are quoting the Gospel, also in Greek, these poses a problem. The fact that the addition was stuck in at a local council, and was opposed by the patriarch of Rome for centuries should be enough said. Pope Leo III didn’t find it as valid, why make the fuss and post the original, in Greek and LATIN, on the doors of St. Peter’s?

I think you are avoiding the issue once again. My point was that there were different creeds that expressed the SAME FAITH. Your bringing up issues of original language doesn’t address the issue. The Latins may have translated ekproeusai wrongly into procedit, but that does not mean that the Latins and Greeks are professing DIFFERENT FAITHS when they add filioque to procedit but refuse to add it to ekporeusai.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Uh, you mean if the Westerners had left well enough alone, and stayed home.

Humbert was in Constantiople. Where is that?

What occasioned his going to Constantinople? Did he just willy-nilly decide to make trouble in Constantinople one day?

The Latin monks reciting the filioque on Olivet (Mount of Olives).

Where is that?
Oh so the Western Christians had no right to visit holy places in the Orient. Gotcha!

The imposition of the filioque on Bulgaria. Where is that?

They were invited there by the Bulgarian king. And they did not impose it, but the Greeks that were there complained about it.

Not in the West.

Yes, I know that the EO believe that the Church has boundaries. CATHOLICS don’t believe in that innovation. I’m talking about doctrinal issues between Easterns and Westerns, and you’re talking about geographical boundaries.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[bobzills]

They were invited there by the Bulgarian king.

Yes. And of course the Crusaders were invited to visit Constantinople in 1203.

 

[mardukm]

Yes. And of course the Crusaders were invited to visit Constantinople in 1203.

The BULGARIAN king invited the Latins.

And yes the Crusaders were actually invited to Constatinople by a GREEK claimant to the throne.

And your point was?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[bobzills]

The BULGARIAN king invited the Latins.

And yes the Crusaders were actually invited to Constatinople by a GREEK claimant to the throne.

And your point was?

Blessings,
Marduk

And the US was invited to invade Vietnam.

 

[mardukm]

And the US was invited to invade Vietnam.

Don’t know the specifics of that. What was your point again?

Btw, please don’t hijack this thread with senseless quips.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[chrisb]

We won’t be throwing falafel or roast lamb, don’t worry.

As for your question, the silver plaques remain as they were. The expression of the Creed in the Latin Church has the filioque, but the universal Creed remains unchanged. Hence, when then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote “Dominus Iesus” to the Catholic Church, the Creed was written even in Latin without the filioque.

Whether the plaques remain where they were, I’m not sure. I can see if they were moved somewhere else during certain periods in Church history.

So they aren’t the one’s Pope Leo III put there? Neither the Latin or the Greek had the filioque by Pope Leo III. That means someone changed the Latin one… why?

 

[Christy74]

So they aren’t the one’s Pope Leo III put there? Neither the Latin or the Greek had the filioque by Pope Leo III. That means someone changed the Latin one… why?

Because the Latins keep changing their faith?