Filioque??

[chrisb]

I. Council of Lyons (1274)

i. Declaration Concerning the Procession of the Holy Spirit

In faithful and devout profession we declare that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two beginnings, but from one beginning, not from two breathings but from one breathing…

ii. Profession of Faith of Michael Palaeologus

…We believe also that the Holy Spirit is complete and perfect and true God, proceeding from the Father and the Son, coequal and cosubstantial, co-omnipotent, and coeternal through all things with the Father and the Son. We believe that this Holy Trinity is not three Gods but one God, omnipotent, eternal, invisible, and unchangeable.

(Note: "This profession of faith was proposed in the year 1267 by Clement IV to Michael Palaeologus and by him offered at the Council of Lyons to Gregory X, and was also proposed again by Urban IV on Aug 1, 1385 to the orthodox Greeks returning to the Church.)

II. Council of Florence (1438-1445)

Decree for the Greeks (From the Bull “Laetentur coeli”, July 6, 1439)

[The procession of the Holy Spirit] In the name of the Holy Trinity, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, with the approbation of this holy general Council of Florence we define that this truth of faith be believed and accepted by all Christians, and that all likewise profess that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son and has His essence and His subsistent being both from the Father and the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and one spiration; we declare that what the holy Doctors and Fathers say, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, tends to this meaning, that by this it is signified that the Son also is the cause, according to the Greeks, and according to the Latins, the principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, as is the Father also. And that all things, which are the Father’s, the Father Himself has given in begetting His only begotten Son; without being Father, the Son Himself possesses this from the Father, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son from whom He was moreover eternally begotten. We define in addition that the explanation of the words “Filioque” for the sake of declaring the truth and also because of imminent necessity has been lawfully and reasonably added to the Creed.

(Denzinger 460, 463, 691)

How was this ‘lawfully and reasonably added’? If the ‘imminent necessity’ is passed why not simply remove it and return the Creed to it’s original form? I mean you, as Catholics, are willing to completely change your entire Liturgical Traditions for the sake of appeasing Protestants but you won’t return the Creed to it’s original form… Why?

 

[johnnykins]

How was this ‘lawfully and reasonably added’? If the ‘imminent necessity’ is passed why not simply remove it and return the Creed to it’s original form? I mean you, as Catholics, are willing to completely change your entire Liturgical Traditions for the sake of appeasing Protestants but you won’t return the Creed to it’s original form… Why?

The answer is obvious - to make sure that there is no confusion as to the orthodox nature of the Filioque. The vehemence - and lack of unity - in the Orthodox Church on the acceptability of it requires it be kept in any reunion until, at least, it’s a non-issue. Already it is not required in eastern churches in union with Rome.

Turn the issue around: if the Orthodox really believe it is not heretical, why not allow it as an organic part of the Creed that’s been part of the Latin Rite for 1500 years or so.

Let’s get down to it: It’s either theologically acceptable or not. If it’s really acceptable to the east as explained by the west - why do we have these constant dismissals of the western explanation? The point being the east is divided on it - even as explained by the west. To simply drop it becomes impossible under those circumstances.

If it’s not acceptable to the east - there is no hope for reunion - so why bother?

As to the authority or ability to change the Creed, there is certainly dispute as what that means, but could be glossed over if it were really clear that the east does not reject the Filioque, IMHO.

The liturgical reform issue you raise is a red herring unrelated to the Filioque issue.

 

[bobzills]

The liturgical reform issue you raise is a red herring unrelated to the Filioque issue.

It is related to the issue of reunion.

 

[johnnykins]

It is related to the issue of reunion.

Not really - especially in its rather bold assertion of appeasement.

While there is much that could be said about the liturgical reforms - they have zip to do with the Filioque.

 

[chrisb]

Not really - especially in its rather bold assertion of appeasement.

Don’t take my word for it. Hear what Annibale Bugnini, secretary of the body that Pope Paul VI set up to implement the Second Vatican Council’s decree on the liturgy:

“Love of souls and the desire to facilitate in every way, by removing anything that could even remotely be an impediment or make them feel ill at ease, the road to union on the part of separated brethren, has induced the Church to make even these painful sacrifices” ~ L’Osservatore Romano of 19 March 1965 (page 6, column 4).

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother VL93,

Thanks for helping me prove my point with the quotes (I hope that was your intention). I don’t have time to do research most of the time.

As anyone can see, filioque was never forced on the CREED of the Greeks.

Blessings,
Marduk

How about on the Creed of the ORTHODOX?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The answer is obvious - to make sure that there is no confusion as to the orthodox nature of the Filioque. The vehemence - and lack of unity -

I don’t know who you are talking to, or about.

in the Orthodox Church on the acceptability of it requires it be kept in any reunion until, at least, it’s a non-issue. Already it is not required in eastern churches in union with Rome.

And what is a “latinization?”

Turn the issue around: if the Orthodox really believe it is not heretical,

then they hold heretical ideas.

why not allow it as an organic part of the Creed that’s been part of the Latin Rite for 1500 years or so.

The popes forbade it until 1014, when Henry II forced it on him.

Let’s get down to it: It’s either theologically acceptable or not.

Not.

If it’s really acceptable to the east as explained by the west - why do we have these constant dismissals of the western explanation?

St. Maximus tried that. Pope Nicholas I caused a schism as a result.

The point being the east is divided on it -

unless you are speaking of those who submitted to the Vatican, EO, OO and Assyrians are united on it.

even as explained by the west. To simply drop it becomes impossible under those circumstances.

If it’s not acceptable to the east - there is no hope for reunion - so why bother?

That’s your call.

As to the authority or ability to change the Creed, there is certainly dispute as what that means, but could be glossed over if it were really clear that the east does not reject the Filioque, IMHO.

How about it being clear that the East rejects it?

The liturgical reform issue you raise is a red herring unrelated to the Filioque issue.

Just the theme of change, not matter how ill conceived.

 

[Ignatios]

In other words,the writings of the Church Fathers,as I said. But the Church Fathers before the Schism did not what the filioque says,whereas some of them affirmed it.

That is what you said earlier anthony>>> …We don’t draw our beliefs from scripture alone,but also the writings of the Church Fathers…
The way you put it down, it sounds like you have other source then the Holy Tradition in which the Holy Scriptures occupy the highest the first place, the Fathers of the Church also held the Holy Scriptures as the reffrence, they are not the source of another beleif, but they are the ones whom set the boundry lines for the Faithfull according to the Holy Scritpures part of the Holy Tradition .
But yes we know this is a diffrent story when it comes to the RCC. for in the RCC you have Tradition and THEN you have the scriptures.

The rigid Photian and Palamite theology which denies that the Son has no eternal participation in the Spirit’s procession was only taught in Byzantium.

"eternal participation in the Spirit’s procession " ???
What we deny is that the Holy Spirit Proceeded from both the FATHER “and the SON” (Filioque) and what we confess to is what was revealed to us that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the FATHER. (Period)

The original Nicene creed does not mention the procession of the Spirit.

The “Original” N.Creed ??? and what is the Flawed one???hhhhmmmm No further comments

It is the Nicene-Constantinoplan creed with the filioque.

hhhmmmm the Popes prior to the schism confessed to the one without the filioque. but yes after the schism your popes switched and condemned whoever doesnt confess the fiflioque.

And here comes to mind, what had become of those popes who rejected the addition of the filioque to the Creed, does that mean they got condemned too by the Popes after the schism???hhhmmm.

An extention is an alteration.

As a foreigner, I rely on the dictionary to know what words means … Lets take a look at the dictionary together, shall we?..
dictionary.reference.com/browse/extension

ex·ten·sion Audio Help /ɪkˈstɛnʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ik-sten-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
that by which something is extended; an addition: a four-room extension to a house.
Synonyms 1. stretching, expansion, enlargement, increase, dilation. 3. lengthening, protraction, continuation. 4. delay. 6. limit.
—Antonyms 1. contraction
OKAY
Now lets look up the word alteration
dictionary.reference.com/browse/alteration
the act of making something different (as e.g. the size of a garment)
3. the act of revising or altering (involving reconsideration and modification); “it would require a drastic revision of his opinion” [syn: revision]

You are wrong over and over again and again as usual.

It may not be a Byzantine tradition,but is was a belief of Alexandrian and Western theologians,and popes.

See post 269.

I see someone else answered you on this one, but my answer to you on this," Your Imaginations are getting wider."

 

[anthony022071]

The way you put it down, it sounds like you have other source then the Holy Tradition in which the Holy Scriptures occupy the highest the first place, the Fathers of the Church also held the Holy Scriptures as the reffrence, they are not the source of another beleif, but they are the ones whom set the boundry lines for the Faithfull according to the Holy Scritpures part of the Holy Tradition .

So what about the Church Fathers who said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son? Were they heretical? Pope Leo the Great and Pope Gregory the Great said it,and they are saints of the Orthodox Church.

See post 267.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=256215&page=18

But yes we know this is a diffrent story when it comes to the RCC. for in the RCC you have Tradition and THEN you have the scriptures.

They are both of the equal force,as Basil said.

"eternal participation in the Spirit’s procession " ???

Photios believed that the Son has no participation in the eternal procession of the Spirit,and has no eternal,personal connection with the Spirit. It is from that belief that Orthodox theologians argue against the filioque.

What we deny is that the Holy Spirit Proceeded from both the FATHER “and the SON” (Filioque) and what we confess to is what was revealed to us that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the FATHER. (Period)

Except that the Son is one in being with the Father,has everything that he has,and does what he does.

The “Original” N.Creed ??? and what is the Flawed one???hhhhmmmm No further comments

I didn’t say there was a flawed one.

hhhmmmm the Popes prior to the schism confessed to the one without the filioque. but yes after the schism your popes switched and condemned whoever doesnt confess the fiflioque.

The popes prior to the Schism confessed to the belief.

And here comes to mind, what had become of those popes who rejected the addition of the filioque to the Creed, does that mean they got condemned too by the Popes after the schism???hhhmmm.

Pope Leo 3’s decision to not include the filioque was only a pastoral decision,not an infallible decision.

You are wrong over and over again and again as usual.

If something is extended,it is de facto altered.

 

[Ignatios]

So what about the Church Fathers who said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son? Were they heretical? Pope Leo the Great and Pope Gregory the Great said it,and they are saints of the Orthodox Church.

Without researching what the mentioned fathers above said ( please could you post the link to their statements next time, the link that you are getting you information from that is, thanks ) and assuming that perhaps they said that, my reply is, that, although they are Saints, It does not mean that they are infallible , ( shall I remind you that Saint Paul persecuted the christians beyond what all the jews did, Or how about Saint Peter commited one of the gravest sins, he rejected CHRIST 3 times ) Nor anyone is.

But, all the Fathers of the Church who had said that the Holy Spirit proceeded “Through the SON” they by no means had implied nor they had in mind that the SON somehow share in originating or HE is the Cause along with the FATHER in the Procession of the Holy Spirit from.

They are both of the equal force,as Basil said.

Please give a reffrence, the link to where you got your info. from?

Photios believed that the Son has no participation in the eternal procession of the Spirit,and has no eternal,personal connection with the Spirit. It is from that belief that Orthodox theologians argue against the filioque.

The Roman Popes fully accepted the dogmatic and legal authority of all Roman Ecumenical Councils, including the eigth of 879 which condemned the Filioque in the Nicene Creed and annuled the Council of 869 by **accepting the restoration of Photius as Patriarch **of the New Rome. The Franks and Germans rejected this Council because it condemned their addition to the Creed. They of course could not accept Photius since he had been attacking their Filioque. So they continued accepting the Council of 869.

However you forgot to add Saint Gregory the Theologian in your reply above not to mention all the others too :

“…The one nature in the Three is God; but the union (ἕνωσις) is the Father, from whom the others proceed and to whom they refer, not so as to be confounded but rather to have all in common with Him, without distinction of time, will, or power.” St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 42; P.G. 36, col. 476B

There is not only unity of the same one nature in the Three, but also unity of the Three Persons of the same one nature. St. Gregory of Nazianzus expresses this neatly: “Each considered in himself is wholly God, as the Father so the Son, as the Son so the Holy Spirit…”
Gregory of Nyssa
“… The word ‘godhead’ signifies activity rather than nature.
We are not told that the Father does anything by himself in which the Son does not co-operate; or that the Son has any isolated activity, apart from the Holy Spirit. All activities which extends from God to creation are described by different names, in accordance with the different ways in which they are presented to our thought: but every activity originates from the Father, proceeds through the Son, and is brought to fulfilment in the Holy Spirit … The Father is acknowledged to be uncreated and also ingenerate; he is neither generated nor created. This uncreatedness is a property he holds in common with the Son and the Holy Spirit: but his ingeneracy, like fatherhood, is his special and incommunicable property, not found in the other Persons. The Son is linked to the Father and the Holy Spirit in his uncreatedness… .” Basil, ep. 189.7 but attributed to Greg. of Nyssa."

Except that the Son is one in being with the Father,has everything that he has,and does what he does.

Relations are not the basis of the Trinity, but the Father is. He is the plummet of the scales, maintaining the perfect equilibrium between the “ousia” and the Trinity. He is the principle of the common outgoing (as generation & procession) of the same one essence of God. The Trinity has a common essence, and the unity of the Three Persons is part of the monarchy of the Father.

I didn’t say there was a flawed one.

But if there is an "original’ ( as you mentioned in your past reply) one then there must be a non-original one, a " flawed ".

The popes prior to the Schism confessed to the belief.

What beleif are you implying the filioque?
if thats what you wanted to say but you were afraid to say it, then read again above about the 8th council of 879 ad.
And if you are saying the belief without the filioque, then our discussion had ended.

Pope Leo 3’s decision to not include the filioque was only a pastoral decision,not an infallible decision.

The filioque the “Symbol of the Faith” in" the Church Creed " wich it expresses what we believe, in the FAITH that is, has nothing to do with “faith and Moral”??? which is the bases for the Infallibility Dogma of your church

If something is extended,it is de facto altered.

why dont you write your own dictionary then, since you are rejecting reliable sources as I have put forth for you in my previous post, and it seems that you insist on your first comment that " An extention is an alteration. " in post #273.

 

[Ghosty]

Ignatios: There have been plenty of citations already on this thread showing that both Rome and many Eastern Fathers supported the teaching of the filioque. Yes, it was not allowed to be added to the Creed until much later, but it was certainly understood to be an orthodox doctrine, especially by Rome.

The idea that Rome opposed the theology of the filioque until the “Franks” came along is utterly absurd, and demonstrably false, and only found polemical material with little basis in historical reality. At the very least, if it was not until the after the 9th century that the Popes taught the filioque, then it is impossible that St. Maximos the Confessor defended Rome’s own use of the filioque in the 7th century.

On a different note, the notion that Rome somehow renounced the previous Council by recognizing Photios as Patriarch has not merit. Rome never supported Photios against the rightfully elected Patriarch, Ignatios of Constantinople. Rather, after Ignatios died and Photios was rightfully elected, Rome supported Photios’ claim to the See against those who were wrongly appealing to the decision of the previous dispute. Rome overturned nothing, it simply said that the previous decision against Photios in favor of Ignatios no longer applied to the then-current situation. As for Photios’ rantings against the filioque, there’s not a shred of evidence that Rome ever supported it.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

So what about the Church Fathers who said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son? Were they heretical? Pope Leo the Great and Pope Gregory the Great said it,and they are saints of the Orthodox Church.

St. John of Damascus says that the Spirit does NOT proceed from the Father and he is a saint of the Orthodox Church (and the Vatican claims him as a doctor). Saints aren’t infallible, only Christ is infallible.

See post 267.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=256215&page=18

They are both of the equal force,as Basil said.

Ignatios has already taken this.

Photios believed that the Son has no participation in the eternal procession of the Spirit,and has no eternal,personal connection with the Spirit. It is from that belief that Orthodox theologians argue against the filioque.

Has “no eternal, personal connection with the Spirit?” Where do you get these things?

It is from the monarchy of the arche, the Father, that we argue against the filioque.

Except that the Son is one in being with the Father,has everything that he has,and does what he does.

So again the Son begets, since he "does what [the Father] does.

I didn’t say there was a flawed one.

Of course not. You don’t see the flaw in Toledo’s.

The popes prior to the Schism confessed to the belief.

Neither in the Liturgy nor on the doors of St. Peter’s they didn’t.

Pope Leo 3’s decision to not include the filioque was only a pastoral decision,not an infallible decision.

What does Lumen Gentium say about giving the assent of the will to the pope, even when he is not speaking infallibly?

If something is extended,it is de facto altered.

And if something is changed it is de facto altered.
Since the Fathers of Constantinople I forbade changing the Creed, either anathematize them, or admit that they were not talking about things in agreement with what they had set before. ekporeusis ek uio does not agree with what went before.

Btw, real life calls, and I’m taking my sons to AZ. May not be able to reply for a while. God bless you all.

 

[bobzills]

Since the Fathers of Constantinople I forbade changing the Creed, either anathematize them, or admit that they were not talking about things in agreement with what they had set before. ekporeusis ek uio does not agree with what went before…

Would that then mean that Roman Catholics are subject to an anathema since they have changed the creed to include the filioque?

 

[mardukm]

Would that then mean that Roman Catholics are subject to an anathema since they have changed the creed to include the filioque?

No, because the Latins don’t attach filioque to ekporeusis, but rather to procedere. So the anathema can in no way be attached to the Latin Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

mardukm:

filioque was never forced on the CREED of the Greeks.

How about on the Creed of the ORTHODOX?

Are you saying the Greeks are not orthodox?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[StRaphael]

Ignatios:

On a different note, the notion that Rome somehow renounced the previous Council by recognizing Photios as Patriarch has not merit. Rome never supported Photios against the rightfully elected Patriarch, Ignatios of Constantinople. Rather, after Ignatios died and Photios was rightfully elected, Rome supported Photios’ claim to the See against those who were wrongly appealing to the decision of the previous dispute. Rome overturned nothing, it simply said that the previous decision against Photios in favor of Ignatios no longer applied to the then-current situation. As for Photios’ rantings against the filioque, there’s not a shred of evidence that Rome ever supported it.

Peace and God bless!

Amen, brother Ghosty! From a recent blog post of mine: A common myth among Eastern Orthodox apologists and polemicists is that the Ecumenical Council of 869-870 was actually a Robber Council abrogated by the Catholic Church in 879-880 in the Photian synod. Actually, the later Photian synod was not ecumenical, whereas the synod a decade earlier was. We know this from seven facts which Dr. Philip Blosser recalls in his excellent post on the Photian schism of the 9th century:

1. The 869-870 council called itself universalis octava synodus, i.e. the Eighth Ecumenical Council.
2. People from all the churches were present or represented at the 869-870 council.
3. Pope Adrian approved the 869-870 council’s ecumenical status in his 11/10/871 letter and his 875 letter to Catholics in Salerno and Amalfo.
4. Pope John VIII called the 869-870 council sancta octava synodus.
5. Byzantine Catholics accepted the 869-870 council as ecumenical until 879-880.
6. The Greek text of the last two sessions of the 879-880 is of dubious authenticity since the party of Patriarch St. Photius I the Great of Constantinople had a history of altering the letters before reading them, which angered Pope John VIII.
7. The letter of Pope Stephen V to Emperor Basil I in 885-886 says that St. Photius was still trying to have the 869-870 council annulled but he would not be doing this if Pope John VIII had abrogated the 869-870.

 

[StRaphael]

St. John of Damascus says that the Spirit does NOT proceed from the Father and he is a saint of the Orthodox Church (and the Vatican claims him as a doctor). Saints aren’t infallible, only Christ is infallible.

Regarding your Patristic objection, etc. We predicate Ekporeusis of the Son in relation to the Father and of the Spirit in relation to the Father. But why don’t we predicate Ekporeusis of the Spirit in relation to the Son, if Filioque is true? The Greek Fathers, working from an approach different from the Latin one but complementary and equally legitimate rather than contradictory, say that the Spirit proceeds not from (ek) the Son (e.g. the Doctor St. John of Damascus) simply because ekporeusis can, by definition, characterize only the relationship of origin to the principle without principle of the Holy Trinity, viz. the Father. To say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son in that manner, rather than the correct sense of proceeds (proesi), would mean that the Son is the principle without principle and thus would turn the Son into the Father. That is why we avoid the error of professing that the Holy Spirit is to ek tou Patros ai tou Uiou ekporeuomenon.

This is not what Filioque does, pace St. Photius the Great and modern Eastern Orthodox authors who argue against Filioque from a doctrinal (as opposed to merely liturgical) basis. Nevertheless the illustrious Greek Fathers and Doctors maintained that the Spirit eternally proceeds ontologically, i.e. essentially, from the Father through the Son, and some even said explicitly from the Father and the Son, and these formulas are equivalent and correspond to Filioque as I will soon demonstrate. Before Patriarch St. Photius I the Great of Constantinople, no Father stated that the Son proceeds (in the Filioquist sense) as regards His eternal existence from the Father alone (the Catholic Encyclopedia says Theodoret meant to deny that the Spirit was a creature), or using a wrongheaded either-or approach, restricted the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through=and the Son to a merely economic or energetic procession to the exclusion of ontological procession.

The Filioque deals not with the ekporeusis of the Holy Spirit from the Father as the sole principle without principle (arche anarchos) and source (peghe) of the Godhead, but reveals the procession (proienai = processio) of the Holy Spirit in consubstantial communion from the Father and the Son, i.e. the communication of consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father, through and with the Son, to the Holy Spirit.

As Blemmidus, Patriarch John XI Bekkos of Constantinople, Calecas, and Basilios Bessarion pointed out, the Greek formula and the Latin formula are equivalent. We know this from the following facts: (1) the great Byzantine Fathers and Doctors had no reservations about being in communion with those great Latin Fathers and Doctors who openly and dogmatically professed Filioque; (2) several Latin and even Byzantine Fathers and Doctors used “from” and “through” interchangeably when speaking of the eternal ontological procession of the Holy Spirit; and (3) the complementarity of the formulas as manifested in their different priorities but identical tenets. To wit, the Greek formula directly expresses the order according to which the Father and Son are the one principle of the Holy Spirit, and implies Their equality as principle. As St. John Chrysostom the Great says, we confess “through (dia = per) Him” so that it is clear that the Son is eternally generated. The Latin formula directly expresses the equality of the Father and Son as principle, and implies the order.

The above comes from my blog; I don’t have time for citations (from the Catholic Encyclopedia article and the PCFPCU) for the purpose of this post.

God bless you and yours with holiness, health, and happiness!

 

[StRaphael]

Ignatios: There have been plenty of citations already on this thread showing that both Rome and many Eastern Fathers supported the teaching of the filioque. Yes, it was not allowed to be added to the Creed until much later, but it was certainly understood to be an orthodox doctrine, especially by Rome.

The idea that Rome opposed the theology of the filioque until the “Franks” came along is utterly absurd, and demonstrably false, and only found polemical material with little basis in historical reality. At the very least, if it was not until the after the 9th century that the Popes taught the filioque, then it is impossible that St. Maximos the Confessor defended Rome’s own use of the filioque in the 7th century.

Another Amen, brother Ghosty! The following forms the basis of Filioque; many are explicit foundations but others are implicit; nevertheless, they all contribute to the truly Catholic understanding of Filioque. We have sound Scriptural, theological, conciliar, Patristic, and post-Patristic papal bases. When you read this veritable laundry list which I do not have time to develop in depth, keep in mind my previous post about the different languages and compatibility of the formulas:

Scriptural Basis: St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out in Summa Contra Gentiles that Jn 16:12-15 proves that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as opposed to the Father alone.{42} The economic Trinity sheds light on the immanent Trinity; i.e. mission reflects the inner life of the Trinity.{43} Since the Son sends the Holy Spirit, He must have some authority over the Holy Spirit. There are four kinds of authority: (1) superiority; (2) seniority; (3) dominion; and (4) origin. Only authority of origin is admissible in the Trinity of co-equal and co-eternal Persons. Thus we must say that the Holy Spirit has His origin from the Son in some way. Therefore, the Spirit proceeds not only from the Father but from the Father and the Son as regards His eternal existence. St. Thomas also addressed Jn 15:26 and showed that, based on Mt 11:27, “is said of the Father, applies to the Son, although there be added an exclusive term; except only as regards what belongs to the opposite relations, whereby the Father and the Son are distinguished from each other.”

Theological Basis
Four chief theological considerations lead us to maintain Filioque: (1) order of procession of things not materially distinct; (2) the Spirit as the unitive Love of the Father and Son; (3) the fact that God is not only essentially hypostatic but essentially perichoretic (see the work of Dr. Michael Liccione); and (4) the order of intellect and love in nature which is a reflection of the Trinity.

Conciliar Basis
Ecumenical Councils: Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II (553), Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II (787)
Local Councils: Councils of Seleucia in Mesopotamia (410), Toledo II (447), Toledo III (589), Mérida (666), Toledo XI (675), Braga (675), Hatfield (680), Toledo (693), Friaul (796), Aachen (809)

The Eastern Fathers: Origen Adamantius of Alexandria, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus of Neocaesarea, St. Athanasius the Great of Alexandria (Doctor), St. John Chrysostom the Great (Doctor), St. Gregory the Great Theologian of Nazianzus (Doctor), St. Basil the Great of Caesarea (Doctor), St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Cyril of Alexandria (Doctor), St. Epiphanius of Salamis, St. Didymus the Blind of Alexandria, St. Maximus the Confessor of Constantinople, St. John of Damascus (Doctor)
The Western Fathers: St. Hippolytus of Rome (Arabic versions of his canons), Tertullian of Carthage, Marius Victorinus, St. Hilary of Poitiers (Doctor), St. Ambrose the Great of Milan (Doctor), St. Augustine the Great of Hippo (Doctor), St. Fulgence of Ruspe, Pope St. Leo I the Great of Rome (Doctor), St. Eucherius of Lyons, Gennadius Scholasticus of Massilia, Julianus Pomerius of Arles, Paschasius of Rome, Pope St. Hormisdas of Rome, St. Alcimus Ecdicius Avitus of Vienne, Cassiodorius, Pope St. Gregory I the Great of Rome (Doctor), St. Isidore of Seville (Doctor), Pope St. Martin I

Post-Patristic Papal Basis: Popes Adrian I, Leo III

You can see full quotes and explanations that show that we Catholics are not simply being anachronistic and taking things out of proper context, at my blog, The Banana Republican (see link in my profile).

God bless you and yours with holiness, health, and happiness!

 

[bobzills]

Another Amen, brother Ghosty! The following forms the basis of Filioque; many are explicit foundations but others are implicit; nevertheless, they all contribute to the truly Catholic understanding of Filioque. We have sound Scriptural, theological, conciliar, Patristic, and post-Patristic papal bases. When you read this veritable laundry list which I do not have time to develop in depth, keep in mind my previous post about the different languages and compatibility of the formulas:

Scriptural Basis: St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out in Summa Contra Gentiles that Jn 16:12-15 proves that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as opposed to the Father alone.{42} The economic Trinity sheds light on the immanent Trinity; i.e. mission reflects the inner life of the Trinity.{43} Since the Son sends the Holy Spirit, He must have some authority over the Holy Spirit. There are four kinds of authority: (1) superiority; (2) seniority; (3) dominion; and (4) origin. Only authority of origin is admissible in the Trinity of co-equal and co-eternal Persons. Thus we must say that the Holy Spirit has His origin from the Son in some way. Therefore, the Spirit proceeds not only from the Father but from the Father and the Son as regards His eternal existence. St. Thomas also addressed Jn 15:26 and showed that, based on Mt 11:27, “is said of the Father, applies to the Son, although there be added an exclusive term; except only as regards what belongs to the opposite relations, whereby the Father and the Son are distinguished from each other.”

Theological Basis
Four chief theological considerations lead us to maintain Filioque: (1) order of procession of things not materially distinct; (2) the Spirit as the unitive Love of the Father and Son; (3) the fact that God is not only essentially hypostatic but essentially perichoretic (see the work of Dr. Michael Liccione); and (4) the order of intellect and love in nature which is a reflection of the Trinity.

Conciliar Basis
Ecumenical Councils: Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II (553), Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II (787)
Local Councils: Councils of Seleucia in Mesopotamia (410), Toledo II (447), Toledo III (589), Mérida (666), Toledo XI (675), Braga (675), Hatfield (680), Toledo (693), Friaul (796), Aachen (809)

The Eastern Fathers: Origen Adamantius of Alexandria, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus of Neocaesarea, St. Athanasius the Great of Alexandria (Doctor), St. John Chrysostom the Great (Doctor), St. Gregory the Great Theologian of Nazianzus (Doctor), St. Basil the Great of Caesarea (Doctor), St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Cyril of Alexandria (Doctor), St. Epiphanius of Salamis, St. Didymus the Blind of Alexandria, St. Maximus the Confessor of Constantinople, St. John of Damascus (Doctor)
The Western Fathers: St. Hippolytus of Rome (Arabic versions of his canons), Tertullian of Carthage, Marius Victorinus, St. Hilary of Poitiers (Doctor), St. Ambrose the Great of Milan (Doctor), St. Augustine the Great of Hippo (Doctor), St. Fulgence of Ruspe, Pope St. Leo I the Great of Rome (Doctor), St. Eucherius of Lyons, Gennadius Scholasticus of Massilia, Julianus Pomerius of Arles, Paschasius of Rome, Pope St. Hormisdas of Rome, St. Alcimus Ecdicius Avitus of Vienne, Cassiodorius, Pope St. Gregory I the Great of Rome (Doctor), St. Isidore of Seville (Doctor), Pope St. Martin I

Post-Patristic Papal Basis: Popes Adrian I, Leo III

You can see full quotes and explanations that show that we Catholics are not simply being anachronistic and taking things out of proper context, at my blog, The Banana Republican (see link in my profile).

God bless you and yours with holiness, health, and happiness!

The Eastern Orthodox Church does not accept the filioque and the Eastern Catholic Churches do not use the filioque in their creed.

 

[anthony022071]

Without researching what the mentioned fathers above said ( please could you post the link to their statements next time, the link that you are getting you information from that is, thanks )

cin.org/users/jgallegos/filio.htm
“And so under the first head is shown what unholy views they hold about the Divine Trinity: they affirm that the person of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is one and the same, as if the same GOD were named now Father, now Son, and now Holy Ghost: and as if He who begot were not one, He who was begotten, another, and He who proceeded from both, yet another; but an undivided unity must be understood, spoken of under three names, indeed, but not consisting of three persons.”
Pope Leo the Great[regn. A.D. 440-461],To Turribius,Epistle 15(A.D. 447),in NPNF2,XII:21

“The Spirit proceeds essentially from the Son…the Redeemer imparted to the hearts of His disciples the Spirit who proceeds from Himself.”
Pope Gregory the Great(the Theologian)[regn A.D.590-604],Moral Teachings drawn from Job, 1:22,2:92(A.D. 595),in SW,348

“Our Lord … shews how the Spirit of Both so proceeds as to be coeternal with Both…He who is produced by procession is not posterior in time to those by whom He is put forth.”
Pope Gregory the Great(the Theologian)[regn A.D.590-604],Moral Teachings drawn from Job, 25:4(A.D. 595),in SW,348

“Great and incomprehensible is the mystery of the Trinity. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, an undivided Trinity, and yet it is known because it is characteristic of the Father to generate the Son, characteristic of the Son of God to be born of the Father equal to the Father, characteristic of the Spirit to proceed from Father and Son in one substance of deity.”
Pope Hormisdas[regn A.D. 514-523],Profession of Faith,PL 63:514B(A.D. 517),in GIL,216

hometown.aol.com/dtbrown/page2.html
The Formula of Pope Hormisdas,signed by the Eastern clergy:

"The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied…

…Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome."