Filioque??

[Ghosty]

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

Your point?

Either there is rejection of something that isn’t understood (I’ve yet to see a rejection of the filioque properly understood that doesn’t fall into some other heresy), or there is a refusal to accept its addition to the Catholic Creed. The first is simply absurd, and stands against the testimony of the Fathers, and the second is simply standing with historical reality; the filioque was never added to the Universal Creed.

Latins recite the Creed with the filioque in their Liturgy, but the Creed used in the Liturgy is not the Universal Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople (nor does it contradict that Creed). Byzantine-tradition Catholics, like myself, don’t recite the filioque, and no one outside our Churches has ever required us to.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ignatios]

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.

At least give names of those “many” Eastern Fathers who supported the teaching of the Filioque and in order to make your arguement valuable and complete then you must present what they have said through presenting a reffrence in relation to your arguement.

Yes, it was not allowed to be added to the Creed until much later,

“Allowed” ??? the Creed was the results of an E.C. show me an E.C that allowed it.

but it was certainly understood to be an orthodox doctrine, especially by Rome.

The above statement would have been correct if you had said " but it was certainly understood to be an orthodox Roman Catholic doctrine.", then we would have had somewhat something to agree on.

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.

Why you are contributing those things to me, when it is not what I have said.
Please my Dear pay heed to what had been said, and reply accordingly otherwise you are going to earn the strawman reputation, I didnt say that Rome opposed the theology of the Filioque, what I said is, here let me copy and paste for you from my post# 290 >>>"… 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**
I didnt say the “theology” I said " In the N.C."
And here is where the Romans shift to the theology when the addition is the first and cheif problem, they hope to justify the addition through " if we can make it thelogically permited then we can justity it in the Creed and thus we can show that the RCC can never be wrong, thus we protected the Infallability…etc"

But when the franks came along they allowed it in the Creed despite the previous decission of the previous popes.

At the very least, if it was not until the after the 9th century that the Popes taught the filioque…

Are you guessing here or you are trying to imply something or is it a fact?
If it is the last please present us with evidence of that, thank you.

… then it is impossible that St. Maximos the Confessor defended Rome’s own use of the filioque in the 7th century

First, The Latin Documents of Saint Maximos are fragmented, In the world of the Scholars when something is fragmented the flag goes up, Then there is statements in some of those documents that would show an evidence of either flawed, forgery in which it was going around quite a bit at that time among the Romans or Saint Maximos was presented with a false documents by the Romans at that time in which it lead him to make such statement.

However,
Let us shed some light on this from the orthodox side,

Saint Maximos the Confessor and Pope Martin I

There is a fragment of a letter purportedly written by Saint Maximos the Confessor to the priest Marinus is frequently cited by proponents of the Filioque … Its authenticity is not certain. According to Haugh, there are three reasons for doubting its authenticity: Saint Maximos elsewhere writes of a letter to Marinus falsely attributed to him, there is no extant synodical letter by Pope Martin I stating the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son as is claimed in this doubtful letter, and the letter in question mentions six councils when only five had been held. (Haugh, p. 32, fn 31) We have no way of knowing whether this letter in question is the one Maximos says was falsely attributed to him and the absence of a synodical letter does not prove it was not written, but the reference to six councils is an extreme problem and suggests the letter may have been written after the Sixth Ecumenical Synod of 680-681, (Saint Maximos died in 662, Pope Martin in 655).

If the letter is authentic, then we have a problem reconciling the words of Saint Maximos:
[The Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit — they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession — but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence. (Letter to Marinus, PG 91, 136)
with the words of Augustine:
Further, in that Highest Trinity which is God, there are no intervals of time, by which it could be shown, or at least inquired, whether the Son was born of the Father first and then afterwards the Holy Spirit proceeded from both (On the Trinity, 15:26:45)
Wherefore let him who can understand the generation of the Son from the Father without time, understand also the procession of the Holy Spirit from both without time. (On the Trinity, 15:26:47)
Clearly, Augustine taught a double procession of the Holy Spirit outside time. Thus, if the letter is authentic, Saint Maximos may well have been mistaken about the Latin meaning of the Filioque. He certainly did not endorse the Filioque of the double procession taught by Augustine.
Finally, it should be noted that when the letter purportedly from Saint Maximos was presented by the Latins to the Greeks at the Council of Florence, the Greeks suggested it as the basis for an agreement on the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Latins rejected this proposal, insisting on the double processsion of Augustine.
[geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/work(name removed by moderator)rog_filioque.html](http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/work(name removed by moderator)rog_filioque.html)

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.

I really have to go so I will make it short and sweet,
You can find the following from the minutes of the sixth and the seventh acts of the Eighth Council…
"…Thus, having in mind and declaring all these things, we embrace with mind and tongue (τῇ διανοίᾳ καὶ γλώσσῃ) and declare to all people with a loud voice the Horos (Rule) of the most pure faith of the Christians which has come down to us from above through the Fathers, subtracting nothing, adding nothing, falsifying nothing; for subtraction and addition, when no heresy is stirred up by the ingenious fabrications of the evil one, introduces disapprobation of those who are exempt from blame and inexcusable assault on the Fathers. As for the act of changing with falsified words the Horoi (Rules, Boundaries) of the Fathers is much worse that the previous one. Therefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod embracing whole-heartedly and declaring with divine desire and straightness of mind, and establishing and erecting on it the firm edifice of salvation, thus we think and loudly proclaim this message to all:
“I believe in One God, Father Almighty, … and in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God… and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord … who proceeds from the Father… [the whole Creed is cited here]
Thus we think, in this confession of faith we were we baptized, through this one the word of truth proved that every heresy is broken to pieces and canceled out. We enroll as brothers and fathers and coheirs of the heavenly city those who think thus. If anyone, however, dares to rewrite and call Rule of Faith some other exposition besides that of the sacred Symbol which has been spread abroad from above by our blessed and holy Fathers even as far as ourselves, and to snatch the authority of the confession of those divine men and impose on it his own invented phrases (ἰδίαις εὑρεσιολογίαις) and put this forth as a common lesson to the faithful or to those who return from some kind of heresy, and display the audacity to falsify completely (κατακιβδηλεῦσαι ἀποθρασυνθείη) the antiquity of this sacred and venerable Horos (Rule) with illegitimate words, or additions, or subtractions, such a person should, according to the vote of the holy and Ecumenical Synods, which has been already acclaimed before us, be subjected to complete defrocking if he happens to be one of the clergymen, or be sent away with an anathema if he happens to be one of the lay people.”

Also

Pope John VII sent legates to the Council of Constantinople of 879, which condemned such an addition to the Creed. Pope John VII furthermore writes of addition to the Creed as “blasphemy,” and places those who add to the Creed with Judas.

But I promise you that I will come back to speak more about the subject
Peace and God bless!

OH btw StRaphael, I will respond to you too indeed, you earned it my freind, I will do so at the first chance I get

 

[bobzills]

Pope John VII sent legates to the Council of Constantinople of 879, which condemned such an addition to the Creed. Pope John VII furthermore writes of addition to the Creed as “blasphemy,” and places those who add to the Creed with Judas.

What would then be the implication for Roman Catholics who say the Creed with the addition?

 

[Ghosty]

At least give names of those “many” Eastern Fathers who supported the teaching of the Filioque and in order to make your arguement valuable and complete then you must present what they have said through presenting a reffrence in relation to your arguement.

St. Maximos the Confessor, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Athanasius, to name a few.

I’m not in the habit of spending hours writing quote-laden posts when the topics have already be covered, just to try and convince someone who has no interest in being persuaded. You can read some of these quotes here, just as I would have typed them from their original sources, and you can find the references as well.

Allowed" ??? the Creed was the results of an E.C. show me an E.C that allowed it.

There have always been local variations in the Liturgical Creeds, and the Latin one includes the filioque, as the Armenian one contains reference to the Holy Spirit descending upon the Jordan. No changes have been made to the Universal Creed; non-Latin Churches do not recite the filioque, because it’s not in the Universal Creed.

The Pope allowed the Latins to use the filioque in the 11th century, though the Popes had confessed belief in that teaching for centuries before that. That’s what I’m refering to.

Please my Dear pay heed to what had been said, and reply accordingly otherwise you are going to earn the strawman reputation

I’m not really concerned about the “reputation” I might gain from talking to you. You’ve come to these forums a few months ago, and haven’t contributed much new in that time, and I don’t plan to re-hash the same arguments with every new person who comes along. I’ll leave the apologetics/polemics battles to others who are more interested.

That being said, let’s discuss what you actually said:

There was no Eighth Ecumenical Council, according to the Byzantine tradition, and Rome certainly never regarded the Council of 879 as Ecumenical. By all means show us something, anything, that demonstrates that Rome viewed the Council that allowed Photios to be Patriarch of Constantinople as Ecumenical.

Rome maintained the same position it always had: the universal Creed remains unchanged, the filioque is true and orthodox.

Your implication is that the Franks influenced Rome to overturn its previous, anti-filioque position. Deny it all you like, but those of us who have participated in these discussions for years, and even in the previous few hundred posts on this thread, recognize the language of “the Franks” and “the filioque” as an indication of a certain belief in the pressure the “Franks” put on Rome to get it to deform the “true Faith”. Such language is like a fingerprint which identifies a stream of Eastern Orthodox polemics that are particularly popular whenever this subject comes up; it’s already been discussed in this thread, and other recent threads, in this forum.

Are you guessing here or you are trying to imply something or is it a fact?
If it is the last please present us with evidence of that, thank you.

You said Rome rejected the filioque prior to the 9th century, didn’t you? If not, then you had no point in saying that Rome rejected its addition to the universal Creed of Nicaea, since it still professes that Creed without the filioque (see Dominus Iesus if you don’t believe me).

First, The Latin Documents of Saint Maximos are fragmented, In the world of the Scholars when something is fragmented the flag goes up, Then there is statements in some of those documents that would show an evidence of either flawed, forgery in which it was going around quite a bit at that time among the Romans or Saint Maximos was presented with a false documents by the Romans at that time in which it lead him to make such statement.

If you have access to the documents that St. Maximos read, by all means provide them for us to discuss. Until then, all we have to go on is the commonly available documents, Eastern and Western, and all you have is bluster and claims of forgery without any substance. At this point your claims look more like a consipracy theory, not historical argument.

If the letter is authentic, then we have a problem reconciling the words of Saint Maximos: ect. ect. ect.

Sorry, I don’t rely on T. R. Valentine for anything. He doesn’t even understand St. Augustine’s writings; what St. Maximos’ letter says is identical in meaning to what St. Augustine says. Both were speaking of eternal procession, and both were relating it to the Son. St. Maximos wasn’t the only Greek Father to do so, either; St. Gregory of Nyssa made the most explicit account of eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son of any Father, East or West (you can see that quote in this thread, and in the link I provided above).

I really have to go so I will make it short and sweet,
You can find the following from the minutes of the sixth and the seventh acts of the Eighth Council…

Ahhh, more direct cut-and-paste from T.R. Valentine (and this time without citation)? I’ll leave this to the Latins who cut-and-paste from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

All I can say is that the fact that this is refered to as the “Eighth Ecumenical Council” renders the whole article suspect; there is no Eighth Ecumenical Council recognized by the Byzantine East.

Pope John VII furthermore writes of addition to the Creed as “blasphemy,” and places those who add to the Creed with Judas.

Citations are nice, but ultimately unnecessary; the Catholic Church has not added to the Universal Creed. If you don’t believe me, come to my church and listen to us not recite the filioque, while still proclaiming the Catholic Faith.

If you want to simply trade quotes from low-end apologetics and polemics websites, I won’t participate. If you want to move beyond the Catholic Encyclopedia on one side, and T.R. Valentine on the other, and discuss the actual theology behind the filioque as it is really taught in the Latin Church, I’ll be happy to continue.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

If you don’t believe me, come to my church and listen to us not recite the filioque, while still proclaiming the Catholic Faith.

Same with the Chaldean Church.

 

[Fuerza]

This thread has grown a little long for my childlike attention span, but out of curiosity, would either side have a problem with a statement such as “who has His cause in the Father and flows forth through the Son”? Is the word “proceeds” actually required to be there?

 

[White_Russian]

I go to a Ukrainian Catholic Church and I know we do not have have the Filioque in the creed.

I have also read somewhere that Bishop Ware of the Orthodox state this is no longer an issues between Catholics and Orthodox.

Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware (formerly Timothy Ware), who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, states: “The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences” (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

This thread has grown a little long for my childlike attention span, but out of curiosity, would either side have a problem with a statement such as “who has His cause in the Father and flows forth through the Son”? Is the word “proceeds” actually required to be there?

I would because the doctrine has already been defined. The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. Those who reject that dogma are anathema.

Personally, I have no interest in negotiating with such heretics, nor do I want to be united with them. Let them renounce their errors, accept the dogma as defined at Florence, return on their knees to Rome, and then we can talk about unity. Until then, they will simply serve as a means of manifesting those who have the true faith.

1 Cor 11:19: “For there must also be heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest among you”.

 

[White_Russian]

Bobzills can’t do that, and judging from his comments he couldn’t care less. He is just here to incite bad feelings against the Latin Church. He has no real interest in fairness, judging from his past comments here.

Here’s a little bit of history for Bob as to the role of the Pope in the Fourth Crusade. If any of you have ever read Byzantine history to some degree and not gotten confused, you will know the meaning of the term “Byzantine politics” – part of the cause of the sack of Constantinople, Their Emperors were either deposed or very seldom ever died in bed of natural causes, and one of the deposed Emperors was involved in the Fourth Crusade – the facts of which are too long and complicated to enumerate here. So, here are just a few nuggets about the role of the Pope in this Crusade.

Pope Innocent III, the man who had launched the expedition quickly lost control of the Crusade because the blind 90-year old Doge, Enrico Dandolo and the Venetians succeeded in turning the crusade from a spirtual movement to an economic gain as a form of repayment and revenge against the Greeks. The Venetian merchants had been expelled by the Byzantine Emperor following the 1182 massacres of all foreigners in Constantinople. Dandolo supposedly had his eyes burned out by the then Emperor. Dandolo may have been blind and aged, but he still had a cunning intellect, and he wanted his money back from the Greeks. Also murky Byzantine internal politics as to the overthrow of the Emperor were in this mix of greed and avarice. After the sack of Constantinople by the Venetians and the French, the Pope excommunicated and thundered against the crusaders:

"How, indeed, will the church of the Greeks, no matter how severely she is beset with afflictions and persecutions, return into ecclesiastical union and to a devotion for the Apostolic See, when she has seen in the Latins only an example of perdition and the works of darkness, so that she now, and with reason, detests the Latins more than dogs? As for those who were supposed to be seeking the ends of Jesus Christ, not their own ends, who made their swords, which they were supposed to use against the pagans, drip with Christian blood,¬ they have spared neither religion, nor age, nor sex. (…) They have even ripped silver plates from the altars and have hacked them to pieces among themselves. They violated the holy places and have carried off crosses and relics.”

These facts do nothing to excuse the Crusaders from their guilt, but the Pope had nothing to do with the sacking of Constantinople. As a matter of fact, he sent a letter commanding that Constantinople not be attacked, but the letter was suppressed. It was all about greed, avarice and revenge. the spirituality of the cause was thrown out the window. Sorry to get away from the filioque, though, but the Orthodox and Latin Church are rapidly reaching an agreement on this. Viva, Benedict XVI and the Patriarch of Constantinope…

I agree with Bishop Ware regarding the semantics. Let’s all get rid of the baggage about the Filioque and the sack of Constantinope and talk about our respective churches being truly sacramental churches and the unity we will someday have because we are truly sacramental churches.

 

[Allyson]

Praised be Jesus Christ!

Is the whole “Filioque clause” of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed a real doctrinal chasm, or is it more of a superficial thing?

XC
Pat

So what do you think now, 21 pages later?

God Bless,
R.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

So what do you think now, 21 pages later?

God Bless,
R.

Good answer

 

[Ignatios]

ghosty:

St. Maximos the Confessor, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Athanasius, to name a few

The Latin fragmented Documents of Saint Maximos are Not genuine as I prooved in my past post, so this one is out. And for the sake of arguement even if this Latin fragmented document was genuine, it still doesnt help you if we pay heed to what has been said in it
Saint Maximus the Confessor insisted, in defence of the Roman use of the Filioque, the decisive thing in this defence lies precisely in the point that in using the Filioque the Romans do not imply a “cause” other than the Father. The notion of “cause” seems to be of special significance and importance in the Greek Patristic argument concerning the Filioque. If Roman Catholic theology would be ready to admit that the Son in no way constitutes a “cause” (aition) in the procession of the Spirit, then this would bring the two traditions much closer to each other with regard to the Filioque.
St Cyrill of Alexandria, concerning the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, thesis 34.

Saint Cyril also taught that the Holy Spirit had His “perfect procession” from the Father. Besides, The Synod of Blachernae (1285) concluded that Saint Cyril was addressing the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity rather than the eternal and existential origin of the Holy Spirit. so in another words St Cyrill was not speaking of defence of the Filioque as defined by the RCC .
Now to St Anathanasios,

The Romans try to give an allussion that this St. is speaking in support of the Filioque but again when we pay heed we find that the RCC dont pay attention to the word . “Announcing” in [John 16:15] this word is obviously is not the equivalent of existential origin. as for the other passage that the saint recited namely Gal 4:6 and similar passages that speak of the ‘Spirit of the Son’. saint John Damascene explained it well and there was no opposition to his interpretation whatsoever if there was then we would have heard about, So St John Damascene said “The Holy Spirit we say is from the Father, and we name Him Spirit of the Father, but we do not say the Holy Spirit is from the Son, although we name Him the Spirit of the Son.” Therefore the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son. AAAAAAAAAAAAmen.
Now to St Gregory of Nyssa
Also if we read his writtings within context we find it to be inline with the Teaching of the Holy Orthodox Church of GOD…
Letter to Ablabius “…In our belief that it is one thing to be the cause and another to be from the cause; and in that which is from the cause, we recognize yet another distinction. It is one thing to be directly from the First Cause, and another to be through Him who is directly from the First, so the distinction of being Only-begotten abides undoubtedly in the Son…”
Eastern formula “through the SON”.
If you like to go in detail with these issues let me know

I’m not in the habit of spending hours writing quote-laden posts when the topics have already be covered,…

HHHHmmmm ,
you say one thing and do another, if that was so, then why write this long post for???

…just to try and convince someone who has no interest in being persuaded

Did not know that you were trying to persuade me, it sounded more like you are trying to refute what the Orthodox Church of GOD belived and practiced from the beginning without any alteration or subtraction.

… You can read some of these quotes here, just as I would have typed them from their original sources, and you can find the references as well.

hhhmmm yes I looked at this link you provided, it didnt take too long before I knew the whole content of it ( typical apologetics) nothing that I dont know, only now by James E. Kiefer
here is some info about this james >>>…" James E. Kiefer is a quiet soul whose day job is in a government research laboratory, but who enriches all of us by using his spare time to write down the stories of the people who, through the centuries, have made the Christian church be what it is today…" interesting :tiphat:

There have always been local variations in the Liturgical Creeds…

Maybe but not fundamental ones like the Filioque.

… No changes have been made to the Universal Creed non-Latin Churches do not recite the filioque, because it’s not in the Universal Creed.

The Nicene Creed IS UNIVERSAL or what is universal( Ecumenical) in your mind? Please sermon on this one, thanks. or are you implying that there is a Universal Creed and Non-universal Creed??? and according to your words it appears that the Universal Creed is the Latin one.

 

[Ignatios]

…Continued

…The Pope allowed the Latins to use the filioque in the 11th century, though the Popes had confessed belief in that teaching for centuries before that. That’s what I’m refering to.

And prior to the eleventh century they forbade it, come figure who is the right one. did you even read my previous post concerning the pope who forbade it, I am sure a person like you MUST know the history of this, but it this obvious that you want to pretend that it doesnt exist.

I’m not really concerned about the “reputation” I might gain from talking to you…

OOO No Not me my Dear that you should be concerned about, but the 10s if not 100s of people who are reading and watching, Remeber you are being looked at, as the “Roman Catholic Side”,

…and I don’t plan to re-hash the same arguments with every new person who comes along. I’ll leave the apologetics/polemics battles to others who are more interested.

??? , exuse me, but … why writting so much if it is what you are implying, besides if this long post of yours is not " apologetics/polemics " then what is it?.

That being said, let’s discuss what you actually said:

ok
are you the same person who wrote those words above??? But, ok .

There was no Eighth Ecumenical Council, according to the Byzantine tradition…

OOO Veeeery smart move, I must admit, you almost got me with this one,
First I didnt say Eighth E.C (879) , By all means show me where I said that.

…and Rome certainly never regarded the Council of 879 as Ecumenical. By all means show us something, anything, that demonstrates that Rome viewed the Council that allowed Photios to be Patriarch of Constantinople as Ecumenical

I am so sorry my Dear, actually Rome accepted this Council as Eumenical up untill the eleventh century

“…The Eighth Ecumenical Council of 879-880 was affirmed by the patriarchs of Old Rome (Pope John VIII), New Rome [Constantinople] (Saint Photius), Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria and by the Emperor Basil I. This council condemned any ‘additions’ to the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople, condemned anyone who denied the legitimacy of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and its decree on icons, and contained an agreement that patriarchates would not interfere in each others’ internal affairs. This council was regarded by (Old) Rome (present-day Rome) as the Eighth Ecumenical Council until the eleventh century. At that time, Roman Catholicism found it more convenient to replace it with a council held in Constantinople in 869 (a council that was never accepted in the East and was condemned by the Eighth Ecumenical Council of 879-880). It was at that time that Old Rome began to use the heretical Filioque in the Creed. They could no longer embrace a council which condemned that which they did.”

Rome maintained the same position it always had: the universal Creed remains unchanged, the filioque is true and orthodox.

Your statement is in grave error when measured up against History.

Your implication is that the Franks influenced Rome …

Such language is like a fingerprint which identifies a stream of Eastern Orthodox polemics that are particularly popular whenever this subject comes up;…

I gave facts from history, None of my words were of mine, … Now if reciting written facts ( gistory) somehow became to mean “polemic” in your mind, Very well then, lets call history a “polemic”.
But then also, as they say what goes around comes around, …Now then, Polemic must be history to you

… it’s already been discussed in this thread, and other recent threads, in this forum.

You Keep saying it’s been discussed …etc, BUT, you keep going on … If it;s discussed , then why not STOP my Dear.

You said Rome rejected the filioque prior to the 9th century, didn’t you? If not, then you …

uuummm , hhhmmm, see what you did? you got me nervious now, I cant remember … just joking with you … lightin;up will ya . remember ghosty …those conversation are good, and we, all of us everyone can bemnefit from, even those who keep loosing like you … ( hold on I am kiddin; you ) and those dont know and those who wins, In a short word …we sharpen eachothers knowledge, and may it be all ends by drawing us closer to our LORD and SAVER JESUS the CHRIST, but lets do it in the LOVE of CHRIST.
Now to answer your question, what I said is, Rome rejected the addition of the Filioque to the Creed.

If you have access to the documents that St. Maximos read, by all means provide them for us to discuss. Until then, all we have to go on is the commonly available documents, Eastern and Western, and all you have is bluster and claims of forgery without any substance. At this point your claims look more like a consipracy theory, not historical argument.

You mean you have been reciting from the Latin fragmented document of Saint Maximos without knowing what they read???

without any substnace??? I believed I recite to you froma scholar the wrods and/or the sentences that are in question and they dont make any sence since he was ( St Maximos that is) speaking of the sixth E.C. and he died before that.
Now if you think I am wrong, Please, by all means, refute me.

Sorry, I don’t rely on T. R. Valentine for anything. He doesn’t even understand St. Augustine’s writings; what St. Maximos’ letter says is identical in meaning to what St. Augustine says. Both were speaking of eternal procession, and both were relating it to the Son. St. Maximos wasn’t the only Greek Father to do so, either; St. Gregory of Nyssa made the most explicit account of eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son of any Father, East or West (you can see that quote in this thread, and in the link I provided above).

I shall render on the same thing over more then 2/3 times a post. Just read the past 2 posts of mine concerning this, and if you perceive it the way you wish it to be thats fine , but this does not change the facts.

Citations are nice, but ultimately unnecessary; the Catholic Church has not added to the Universal Creed. If you don’t believe me, come to my church and listen to us not recite the filioque, while still proclaiming the Catholic Faith.

If you are reffering to the Melkite, then you are in error saying the Catholic faith, since the Melkite synods declare that they beleive everything the Orthodox Church teaches BUT they are in communion with Rome, so your faith would be Orthodox then, that IF you are Melkite, remeber that the Melkite Church sends those who wants to become preist to an Orthodox seminary so they can learn their own Church rules and theology …you didnt know that???

If you want to simply trade quotes from low-end apologetics and polemics websites, I won’t participate. If you want to move beyond the Catholic Encyclopedia on one side, and T.R. Valentine on the other, and discuss the actual theology behind the filioque as it is really taught in the Latin Church, I’ll be happy to continue.

I am willing to dance with you at any stage you want at any tunes you desire.
Besides as a Melkite shouldnt you be speaking for your own church rather then the Latin’s

 

[Fuerza]

The Latin fragmented Documents of Saint Maximos are Not genuine as I prooved in my past post, so this one is out. And for the sake of arguement even if this Latin fragmented document was genuine, it still doesnt help you if we pay heed to what has been said in it
Saint Maximus the Confessor insisted, in defence of the Roman use of the Filioque, the decisive thing in this defence lies precisely in the point that in using the Filioque the Romans do not imply a “cause” other than the Father. The notion of “cause” seems to be of special significance and importance in the Greek Patristic argument concerning the Filioque. If Roman Catholic theology would be ready to admit that the Son in no way constitutes a “cause” (aition) in the procession of the Spirit, then this would bring the two traditions much closer to each other with regard to the Filioque.
St Cyrill of Alexandria, concerning the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, thesis 34.

**Saint Cyril also taught that the Holy Spirit had His “perfect procession” from the Father. Besides, The Synod of Blachernae (1285) concluded that Saint Cyril was addressing the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity rather than the eternal and existential origin of the Holy Spirit. so in another words St Cyrill was not speaking of defence of the Filioque as defined by the RCC .**Now to St Anathanasios,

The Romans try to give an allussion that this St. is speaking in support of the Filioque but again when we pay heed we find that the RCC dont pay attention to the word . “Announcing” in [John 16:15] this word is obviously is not the equivalent of existential origin. as for the other passage that the saint recited namely Gal 4:6 and similar passages that speak of the ‘Spirit of the Son’. saint John Damascene explained it well and there was no opposition to his interpretation whatsoever if there was then we would have heard about, So St John Damascene said “The Holy Spirit we say is from the Father, and we name Him Spirit of the Father, but we do not say the Holy Spirit is from the Son, although we name Him the Spirit of the Son.” Therefore the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son. AAAAAAAAAAAAmen.
Now to St Gregory of Nyssa
Also if we read his writtings within context we find it to be inline with the Teaching of the Holy Orthodox Church of GOD…
Letter to Ablabius “…In our belief that it is one thing to be the cause and another to be from the cause; and in that which is from the cause, we recognize yet another distinction. It is one thing to be directly from the First Cause, and another to be through Him who is directly from the First, so the distinction of being Only-begotten abides undoubtedly in the Son…”
Eastern formula “through the SON”.
If you like to go in detail with these issues let me know

HHHHmmmm ,
you say one thing and do another, if that was so, then why write this long post for???

Did not know that you were trying to persuade me, it sounded more like you are trying to refute what the Orthodox Church of GOD belived and practiced from the beginning without any alteration or subtraction.

hhhmmm yes I looked at this link you provided, it didnt take too long before I knew the whole content of it ( typical apologetics) nothing that I dont know, only now by James E. Kiefer
here is some info about this james >>>…" James E. Kiefer is a quiet soul whose day job is in a government research laboratory, but who enriches all of us by using his spare time to write down the stories of the people who, through the centuries, have made the Christian church be what it is today…" interesting :tiphat:

Maybe but not fundamental ones like the Filioque.

The Nicene Creed IS UNIVERSAL or what is universal( Ecumenical) in your mind? Please sermon on this one, thanks. or are you implying that there is a Universal Creed and Non-universal Creed??? and according to your words it appears that the Universal Creed is the Latin one.

Ignatios,

It might do you well to read the article posted on the first page of this thread. Here it is again:

catholic-legate.com/articles/filioque.html

In addition to all your other assertions, it specifically addresses the idea of consubstantiality of which you speak in the highlighted paragraph, to which the Latins also hold.

 

[buffgbob]

If you are reffering to the Melkite, then you are in error saying the Catholic faith, since the Melkite synods declare that they beleive everything the Orthodox Church teaches BUT they are in communion with Rome, so your faith would be Orthodox then, that IF you are Melkite, remeber that the Melkite Church sends those who wants to become preist to an Orthodox seminary so they can learn their own Church rules and theology …you didnt know that???

I think you are confused.

melkite.org/eastern.htm

Eastern Catholic Churches are groups of Christians whose traditions are based on the style of Constantinople but are in union with the church of Rome. The Eastern Catholic is a member of the Catholic Church, under the authority of the Vatican and the Pope, but worshipping within a different organizational structure.

(emphasis mine)

melkite.org/xCouncil/Council-1.htm

The primacy of Peter, the infallible primacy, is a great grace, a charism granted by God to His Church, not for the advantage of a few, nor of Catholics alone, but of all Christians, including Orthodox and Protestants. All these Christians have the right to profit from this charism. At the present time there are obstacles that prevent them from seeing and attaining to this charism, obstacles placed either by them or by us Catholics. For our part, we must begin by removing the obstacles that stem from us, without waiting for the others to get started. This work will be part of the functions of the proposed commission.

(emphasis mine)

Of course the Melkites believe everything the Orthodox do (dogmatically, not practically), so does every other Catholic. It’s the Orthodox who are lacking.

 

[Ignatios]

Ignatios,

It might do you well to read the article posted on the first page of this thread. Here it is again:

catholic-legate.com/articles/filioque.html

In addition to all your other assertions, it specifically addresses the idea of consubstantiality of which you speak in the highlighted paragraph, to which the Latins also hold.

Fuerza,
Nothing new in this article you suggested it is a like any other RC article more or less. It may do you well if you open your heart and mind let your pride aside and try to understand the whole issue through your mind and not your sences.
My assertions are attached with facts , Does yours has any fact?

…Saint Cyril was addressing the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity rather than the eternal and existential origin of the Holy Spirit.
Please try to understand what had been said here, I was not discussing whether the Romans believe the same thing or not, but, rather what St. Cyrill was talking about Is The Holy Trinity rather than the Holy Spirit.

.

 

[anthony022071]

“Allowed” ??? the Creed was the results of an E.C. show me an E.C that allowed it.

The filioque didn’t need to be added by an Eastern council to be valid. It needed the ratification of the pope,like the Eastern councils did.

Why you are contributing [attributing] those things to me, when it is not what I have said.
Please my Dear pay heed to what had been said, and reply accordingly otherwise you are going to earn the strawman reputation, I didnt say that Rome opposed the theology of the Filioque, what I said is, here let me copy and paste for you from my post# 290 >>>"… 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**

Rome did not accept the council of 879.

I didnt say the “theology” I said " In the N.C."
And here is where the Romans shift to the theology when the addition is the first and cheif problem, they hope to justify the addition through " if we can make it thelogically permited then we can justity it in the Creed and thus we can show that the RCC can never be wrong, thus we protected the Infallability…etc"

And if the filioque is theologically permittable,then the Orthodox Church cannot justify it’s separate existence from the Catholic Church.

But when the franks came along they allowed it in the Creed despite the previous decission of the previous popes.

So the Franks were doctrinally right,even though they were disobedient.

If the letter is authentic, then we have a problem reconciling the words of Saint Maximos:
[The Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit — they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession — but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence. (Letter to Marinus, PG 91, 136)
with the words of Augustine:
Further, in that Highest Trinity which is God, there are no intervals of time, by which it could be shown, or at least inquired, whether the Son was born of the Father first and then afterwards the Holy Spirit proceeded from both (On the Trinity, 15:26:45)

Where is the problem? Is trvalentine denying that there are no intervals in time in the Trinity? If there aren’t,then Augustine was right.

Wherefore let him who can understand the generation of the Son from the Father without time, understand also the procession of the Holy Spirit from both without time. (On the Trinity, 15:26:47)

Clearly, Augustine taught a double procession of the Holy Spirit outside time.

Clearly,Augustine taught one procession of the Spirit from both Father and Son outside time.

Thus, if the letter is authentic, Saint Maximos may well have been mistaken about the Latin meaning of the Filioque.

How could he,when he said nothing that a Catholic would disagree with? If the procession is manifested through the Son,and there is unity and identity of essence,then the Spirit eteranlly proceeds from both Father and Son.

He certainly did not endorse the Filioque of the double procession taught by Augustine.

Augustine didn’t teach a double procession.

Finally, it should be noted that when the letter purportedly from Saint Maximos was presented by the Latins to the Greeks at the Council of Florence, the Greeks suggested it as the basis for an agreement on the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Latins rejected this proposal, insisting on the double processsion of Augustine.

Again,Augustine did not teach a double procession. Maximos was not the theologian to use as a basis for agreement because he only learned of the filioque from the Latins.

[geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/work(name removed by moderator)rog_filioque.html](http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/work(name removed by moderator)rog_filioque.html)

trvalentine makes many stupid errors in that article. The only way he can argue against the filioque doctrine is to deliberately misunderstand it. He thinks,for example,that Augustine taught in a fourth person of God.

See post 300.

 

[Diak]

Originally Posted by Ignatios
“Allowed” ??? the Creed was the results of an E.C. show me an E.C that allowed it.

The filioque didn’t need to be added by an Eastern council to be valid. It needed the ratification of the pope,like the Eastern councils did.

Anthony, “EC” means ECUMENICAL COUNCIL. In the Magisterial triage, these are the highest-level documents, according to 891 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s sucessor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium, **above all in an Ecumenical Council. **

 

[Ignatios]

I think you are confused.

melkite.org/eastern.htm
(emphasis mine)

melkite.org/xCouncil/Council-1.htm
(emphasis mine)

Of course the Melkites believe everything the Orthodox do (dogmatically, not practically), so does every other Catholic. It’s the Orthodox who are lacking.

You thought wrong Sir:
Everything I said is from the Melkites, It is not of myself,
you will find the following in this link, in the fourth paragraph.
acorn.net/stjomelk/structure.htm

"These differences in structure have theological and psychological sides as well. In the Byzantine Churches the patriarch or metropolitan is not seen as over the Church as the Pope of Rome is often seen in the West. He is the chief bishop of the Church, not its head. Eastern Christians recall that the Holy Spirit is the One sent by Christ to be the guide and guardian of the Church and so do not surround the person of a patriarch with the kind of aura often seen in the case of the pope in the West: a kind of adulation which has led many to label him “antichrist”.

And you will find the following in the 12th Para. in the same link.

" St. Gregory’s Seminary - located in Newton, Ma., maintains two programs. Students for the priesthood reside there and attend classes at Holy Cross Theological School operated by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, a full-time, four year program. Candidates for the diaconate meet there for three weeks each June for intensive training for three years and complete their training at home by guided study during the intervening time. Application for either program should be made to the rector."

sorry my freind, but not every other Catholic believe everything the Orthodox Church Teaches, does this thread with its 316 posts tell you something?, and if so, then why the RCs do not beleive the same thing as the Orthodox believes concerning the Filioque the Purgatory the Original Sin the Indulgences …etc:shrug:

Zoghby, the former archbishop of Baalbek and a long-time leader among the Melkite bishops, offered this brief statement in 1995 and it was subscribed to by 24 of the 26 bishops present at the 1995 Holy Synod:
I believe everything, which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation
melkite.org/sa3.htm

And those 2 bishops who voted against are the ones who are going around and posting Ideas that it is foreign to the Melkite Church ( My relatives in the Middle east whom are Melkites Catholics call those bishops the agents of Rome) sorry again my freind, but in the eastern Churches( Orthodox and E. Catholics ) the Final word belongs to the Synods.

 

[Ignatios]

anthony:

The filioque didn’t need to be added by an Eastern council to be valid. It needed the ratification of the pope,like the Eastern councils did.

And the result of this was, that without the ratification of the Eastern Patriarchs, puts it outside of the Ecumenical circle, and it was only one apostolic see binding to it.
All Ecumenical councils needs the ratification of all the Patriarchs, the least to say. Ecumenical means “ALL” agree to it and obide by it, if not “ALL” agree to it then where is the ecumenicity of it?

Rome did not accept the council of 879.

As I mentioned and gave a proof in my past Post, it was not untill later ( eleventh century) that Rome rejected it and replaced it with the previous one.
Read Post #312 concerning this.
anthony I dont know how many times you have done this, either you dont read or you dont comprehend or you figure " let me see if I can pull this one on him, I pretend that he never said it"

And if the filioque is theologically permittable,then the Orthodox Church cannot justify it’s separate existence from the Catholic Church.

That is a big “IF”, however it is not, since we didnt change the “symbol of faith” that was written down by the Church Fathers.

btw, the Orthodox Church is the true catholic Church, actually the word “catholic” was first appeared in the Middle east and it is a Greek word “KATHOLIKOS” means whole, complete. It wasnt untill later that this word took the meaniong as Universal.

So the Franks were doctrinally right,even though they were disobedient.

In your book, I wouldnt expect anything else then that statement above, and it dont matter how we put it, to you " IT IS AN APPLE EVEN THOUGH IT IS AN ORANGE".

Where is the problem? Is trvalentine denying that there are no intervals in time in the Trinity? If there aren’t,then Augustine was right.

HUH ??? … Just forget it, it is obvious that it is beyond your comprehention, No wonder if you failed to see the above the way that they are written ( clearly) I surely have no hope of explaining to you in a way that you will comprehend the above. Just pray on it †††.

Clearly,Augustine taught one procession of the Spirit from both Father and Son outside time

loooool, ok, and that would be double procession, since he proceed ( according to RCC teaching) from both or( double).

How could he,when he said nothing that a Catholic would disagree with? If the procession is manifested through the Son,and there is unity and identity of essence,then the Spirit eteranlly proceeds from both Father and Son.

Now, this is when you get the Trinity ( the one GODHEAD) mixed up with the persons.

Augustine didn’t teach a double procession.

If it is single procession then that would be the GOD the FATHER, but when you say from" BOTH" then it is more then one.

Again,Augustine did not teach a double procession. Maximos was not the theologian to use as a basis for agreement because he only learned of the filioque from the Latins.

The fiflioque that Maximos spoke of , is diffrent than how the RCC defined it.

trvalentine makes many stupid errors in that article. The only way he can argue against the filioque doctrine is to deliberately misunderstand it. He thinks,for example,that Augustine taught in a fourth person of God.

:banghead: yap sure, have a good night anthony, sorry for responding to you so shortly, but got to go, maybe another time.