Filioque??

[Allyson]

There were of course translators, but that doesn’t mean they were particularily fluent, nor that they understood the nuances of the languages. At the very least, the Latins never seemed to grasp the distinction between proinai and ekporousis, which is understandable since both words are translated into Latin as “procedit”, or proceeds.

As for the document, it was viewed as problematic by the East, which is why it was generally rejected. Folks who accepted it, like Bp. Bessarion, usually had a pretty firm grasp of the nuances of the languages, and accepted the Latin explainations of the theology (he was a Greek Bishop who went on to become a Cardinal, and was also instrumental in translating Greek texts into Western tongues, helping to spawn the Renaisance), but ultimately these people were the exceptions rather than the rule.

The Council of Florence was extremely flawed for these reasons, and couldn’t stand as a Reunion Council, though I do think it expresses the filioque in a manner that is non-problematic, at least when understood through the Latin and not the Greek translation.

Peace and God bless!

Hello Ghosty,

I do find you analysis to be enlightening; I just have questions about who was doing what and how … as you can probably tell. Who did the translation? Why not use proeinai? Why did the Greek participants not just say, to make sure that it was used in the right places and in a way distinct from ekporeusis? (This seems like a huge oversight given that they just concluded a dialogue. Surely this should have been brought up. If not? Why not?) Was ekporeusis used because it is the word used in the creed?

I would like to read more on the history of the session in question, which is why I asked for the title of the book you mentioned in your previous post.

I certainly agree that the Latin half probably had some trouble understanding the Greek language and theological issues, but this (6th) session of the council was called to deal with those issues. The same probably goes the other way, too. We seem to agree that it was insufficient.

God Bless,
R.

 

[Ghosty]

I forgot to mention the book last post, it’s “The Council of Florence” by Fr. Joseph Gill. There used to be entire chapters available online, but I don’t know if those pages are still around. It made for fascinating reading, because Fr. Gill actually went over the textual accounts of the sessions, and not just the final documents.

As for who did the translations and such, I don’t know who did them specifically, and I’ve not even seen them myself. I’ve only heard from those who have that the term “ekporousis” is used despite the Latins explicitely saying that they reserve “Source” for the Father.

While the Sixth Session was called to deal with the issues, it’s clear from reading the accounts (in such works as Fr. Gill’s) that the discussions never reached much depth. The Latins met the challenge of the Greeks with a lot of quotations from Early Fathers which supported their view, and ultimately the Greeks agreed to sign the agreement (with the exception of Bp. Mark of Ephesus), but the Greeks never got the chance to put forward the full nuance of the Byzantine theological tradition (the Byzantine Emperor, who wanted the Reunion, forbade them from going on at length). Whatever it was, the Sixth Session was not a free and open meeting of traditions and theologies in the interest of coming to an understanding.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Allyson]

I forgot to mention the book last post, it’s “The Council of Florence” by Fr. Joseph Gill. There used to be entire chapters available online, but I don’t know if those pages are still around. It made for fascinating reading, because Fr. Gill actually went over the textual accounts of the sessions, and not just the final documents.

As for who did the translations and such, I don’t know who did them specifically, and I’ve not even seen them myself. I’ve only heard from those who have that the term “ekporousis” is used despite the Latins explicitely saying that they reserve “Source” for the Father.

While the Sixth Session was called to deal with the issues, it’s clear from reading the accounts (in such works as Fr. Gill’s) that the discussions never reached much depth. The Latins met the challenge of the Greeks with a lot of quotations from Early Fathers which supported their view, and ultimately the Greeks agreed to sign the agreement (with the exception of Bp. Mark of Ephesus), but the Greeks never got the chance to put forward the full nuance of the Byzantine theological tradition (the Byzantine Emperor, who wanted the Reunion, forbade them from going on at length). Whatever it was, the Sixth Session was not a free and open meeting of traditions and theologies in the interest of coming to an understanding.

Peace and God bless!

Thanks for the title, I am very interested in reading it. It would seem at least then, that the councils failings showed up in the problematic translation into greek.

God Bless,
R.

 

[8eofilos]

It seems that today, instead of simplifying things we complicate them and can’t even understand our own selves. First of all the Creed that is written and said in every Liturgy and many other occasions in the Greek Orthodox Church say’s “Και εις το Πνεύμα το Αγιον, το Κύριον, το Ζωοποιόν, το εκ του Πατρός εκπορευόμενον, το συν Πατρί και Υιώ συμπροσκυνούμενον και συνδοξαζόμενον, το λαλήσαν διά των Προφητων.” Translation…And to The Spirit The Holy, The Lord and Lifecreator, that comes from the Father, by Father and Son together Worshiped and Glorified, and Spoke through the Prophets."
There is no addition to the Creed but a clarification to all faithful Christians so there will be no misunderstanding on what the Orthodox Church believes.
Now to the point. The Father is A and the Ω, the beginning and end. Yes, The Holy Spirit comes from The Father but this does not diminish The Holy Spirit nor Jesus Christ. When Jesus says “but your will be done” and that without the permission of The Father nothing can be done, once again shows that everything and Jesus Himself bows to the Father’s will as The Holy Spirit does to. Through Mary The Holy Spirit, The Lifecreator planted our Lord Jesus Christ in Her Womb. God is He Who gives equality to Jesus and The Holy Spirit and they are One. How? I have written before about this but no one actually reads.
People today tend to prove things in order to believe them. The write about Synods but miracles, no! Saint Spyridwn sealed everyone’s mouth when was asked how Can God and Jesus and The Holy Spirit be one and Three persons at the same time in the 1st Ecumenical Synod 14 A.D.But then at 328 A.D another Synod was called by Great Constantine and even though Saint Spyridon did not have the knowledge of Areios his faith did the work. Because God was in him and was doing His work . Well he had a piece of a broken clay visor. He asked what he had in his hands and everybody answered what they saw correctly, when he said are you sure???
He said then “in the name of The Father” and fire came out and went towards the sky “and the Son” and water fell on the earth “and The Holy Spirit” and sand was left in his hand.
Many people will say that this is not true, but it is.
Does anyone remember what Jesus said to the Apostles when the Greeks came to see Him???
John 12.20-23
“And Jesus answered them, The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified”.
Not to Glorify the Greeks but Jesus knew that He will be worshiped as was intended by God. No misunderstanding, no misleading. This doesn’t make all the Greeks the chosen ones but the Greek Orthodoxy is the correctly indoctrinated Church of Christ. He who follows these by letter will be accepted in Heaven. So you don’t have to be Greek or Jewish or any other race to inherit the “Kingdom of God”. Are there any doubts about these words of Jesus?

 

[Taboric_Light]

I am always amazed at how complicated ecumenical councils are. That the Church is able to express the true faith amidst all the junk is a sure sign to me that they really are guided by the Holy Spirit.

This particular discussion concerning the Council of Florence has been fascinating and I am very grateful for it because Allyson asked the same questions that I had been wondering about. The Greek translation was poor and that is all there is to it. If Florence is to be judged it should be judged according to the Latin text and not the Greek translation. I think this would foster more openness for what the council fathers were really saying.

That said, I still have only one question regarding the decree on the filioque: How can the Holy Spirit proceed hypostatically from the Son, which is clearly decreed by Florence, without the Son being in some way a source of the Holy Spirit? I just don’t understand Western theological approaches well enough to get this. Any explanation is greatly appreciated.

In Christ through Mary

 

[8eofilos]

An Ecumenical Council by definition is a gathering of the body of bishops with and under the guidance and direction of the Pope as its head. If the Pope does not approve of any or all of the teachings and decisions of the body, then the teachings and decisions are not valid, for the body cannot act without the head.

As for the filioque, it is certainly taught by the universal Magisterium, so it is required belief.

In my understanding, the Spirit proceeds primarily from the Father and secondarily from the Son. So the emphasis in the East on procession from the Father has a basis, but procession from the Son also occurs.

There is no secondary proceeding, The Father is The Beginning and End of everything, without His will nothing happens

 

[Ghosty]

How can the Holy Spirit proceed hypostatically from the Son, which is clearly decreed by Florence, without the Son being in some way a source of the Holy Spirit? I just don’t understand Western theological approaches well enough to get this. Any explanation is greatly appreciated.

The same way that the lake, as lake, can completely and entirely proceed from the river without the river being the source of the lake.

The Person of the Holy Spirit proceeds in His entirety from the; the Holy Spirit does not exist in any sense without proceeding from the Son. The Father is the only Source of Divinity, however, even though the Son shares in the Spiration of the Holy Spirit. Since the Son is not the Source of Spiration (the Father shares it with the Son, the Son doesn’t have it from Himself).

Hope that helps!

Peace and God bless!

 

[8eofilos]

Again not through the Son, that is not true and you can see it in the bible…The Holy Spirit in many occasions apears without the Son. "All sins shall be forgiven, but the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit never. I think people you should stop speculating what is written by him and him and him…The Word of God was not written by man but The Holy Spirit. You may this moment be doing blasphemy against The Holy Spirit. Care for your words. What the Catholic church says today was other before that and so on …The Orthodox hasn’t changed a thing and what you call additions are not but clarifications. And since nothing has changed because everything is Solid. As for the Catholic Church has given birth to thousand heresies…

 

[Alethiaphile]

This essay is worth reading through in its entirety. It’s very thorough in explaining the history behind the filioque controversy and it has many quotes from Eastern and Western theologians.

catholic-legate.com/articles/filioque.html

From the link:
This is the context in which the Catechism of the Catholic Church is speaking (as quoted above by Cyril Quattrone) when it asserts that the Spirit “has His nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principal and through one spiration.” That one Principal of the Spirit is the Father, and the Father alone. It is only in the collective sense of the Personal, consubstantial communion between Father and Son that the Spirit proceeds from both.

I don’t see that that explanation resolves anything. Even as qualified by the asterisked sentence, eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father and Son is simply unscriptural and unacceptable. It sets off two Persons of the Trinity from the third, and that is unacceptable. Why is that so hard to understand? Joe

 

[Ghosty]

I don’t see that that explanation resolves anything. Even as qualified by the asterisked sentence, eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father and Son is simply unscriptural and unacceptable. It sets off two Persons of the Trinity from the third, and that is unacceptable. Why is that so hard to understand? Joe

You’ll have to explain that to the numerous Church Fathers, East and West, who have the Holy Spirit being eternally “of” or “from” the Son.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Alethiaphile]

The same way that the lake, as lake, can completely and entirely proceed from the river without the river being the source of the lake.
!

That analogy does not work, because the river and it’s “source” (I assume you mean, following the patristic example, a spring) do not together produce the lake, as the Father and Son are said to (“as from one principle”) spirate the Spirit by Lyons and Florence. As much as you do not wish to, you need to honestly address the language “as from one principle”. Joe

 

[Alethiaphile]

You’ll have to explain that to the numerous Church Fathers, East and West, who have the Holy Spirit being eternally “of” or “from” the Son.
Peace and God bless!

“Numerous” is questionable. Most patristic quotations say “through”, which is quite a different notion than “equally” “as from one principle”. Patristic language using “of” or “from” is in the context of the Son being a secondary principle, not an “equal” principle with the Father.
Besides which, not all Fathers were right all of the time, or always spoke precisely, as you well know. When the Eastern church intended to speak precisely, as, for example, with St. John Damascene’s De Fide Orthodoxa, the language was “through” the Son. The Eastern Church, to my knowledge, has never stated that the Father and the Son spirated the Holy Spirit “equally” “as from one principle” as the western church did. Joe

 

[8eofilos]

That is correct , not all Fathers spoke correctly, that is why the Creed has never changed in any way after its form that we have today in the Greek Orthodox!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

That is correct , not all Fathers spoke correctly, that is why the Creed has never changed in any way after its form that we have today in the Greek Orthodox!

And alll the other Orthodox as well.

 

[8eofilos]

And alll the other Orthodox as well.

Sorry Yes Isa and all the Orthodox too. Well I believe all the Orthodox Churches that belong to Constantinouple follow the same Creed. Maybe others do to but I don’t really know about that.

 

[Ghosty]

That analogy does not work, because the river and it’s “source” (I assume you mean, following the patristic example, a spring) do not together produce the lake, as the Father and Son are said to (“as from one principle”) spirate the Spirit by Lyons and Florence. As much as you do not wish to, you need to honestly address the language “as from one principle”. Joe

I’ve honestly addressed “one principle” before, but I’ll do so again.

The term “one principle” does not mean that the two are united in such a way as to eliminate any differences, it simply means that there is one single Spiration, one flowing from one beginning. Again, if the Son was included as being Source, Florence would have said so; instead it says the Father is the Source, and the Son receives.

There is still one principle of Spiration even if the Father and Son are together and distinct, since the term “one principle” is an expression regarding the Holy Spirit, not the relationship of the Son and Father to the Spiration.

The Eastern Church, to my knowledge, has never stated that the Father and the Son spirated the Holy Spirit “equally” “as from one principle” as the western church did.

No, it’s a Latin theological expression, and it must be understood on Latin terms rather than putting foreign meanings on it. As for the distinction between “through” and “from”, that distinction isn’t a problem for the Latin terminology, since they are not contradictory at all. In fact, the term “through” accurately expresses the meaning of “from one principle”, as expressed by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica.

newadvent.org/summa/1036.htm

It was wrong of the Latins at Florence to expect the Greeks to understand Latin theological terminology, but that doesn’t make their theology wrong. It’s quite sound, and expresses the same thing as St. Gregory of Nyssa.

As a side note, many modern Eastern Orthodox object even to “through”, despite its constant use in ancient times to refer to the Holy Spirit’s eternal procession with relation to the Son.

Peace and God bless!

 

[8eofilos]

I’ve honestly addressed “one principle” before, but I’ll do so again.

The term “one principle” does not mean that the two are united in such a way as to eliminate any differences, it simply means that there is one single Spiration, one flowing from one beginning. Again, if the Son was included as being Source, Florence would have said so; instead it says the Father is the Source, and the Son receives.

There is still one principle of Spiration even if the Father and Son are together and distinct, since the term “one principle” is an expression regarding the Holy Spirit, not the relationship of the Son and Father to the Spiration.

But how can through and from be the same? So if in Latin terminology it is the same, why don’t we use one word instead of two that makes us confused. I read the example with the lake but still don’t think that analogy is absolute. Isn’t there a way to do so in one word? In Scriptures it is clear that The Father is the source of everything and that doesn’t degrade or diminish the equality of The Holy Spirit.
Again I come to the question “why do we try to complicate things that are so simple”?

No, it’s a Latin theological expression, and it must be understood on Latin terms rather than putting foreign meanings on it. As for the distinction between “through” and “from”, that distinction isn’t a problem for the Latin terminology, since they are not contradictory at all. In fact, the term “through” accurately expresses the meaning of “from one principle”, as expressed by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica.

newadvent.org/summa/1036.htm

It was wrong of the Latins at Florence to expect the Greeks to understand Latin theological terminology, but that doesn’t make their theology wrong. It’s quite sound, and expresses the same thing as St. Gregory of Nyssa.

As a side note, many modern Eastern Orthodox object even to “through”, despite its constant use in ancient times to refer to the Holy Spirit’s eternal procession with relation to the Son.

Peace and God bless!

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace,

What happened at the reunion council held in Constantinople in 879 AD? Did the legates of Pope John VIII sign the condemnation of any “additions” to the Nicene Creed and of anyone who denied the legitimacy of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and its decree o icons? Wasn’t this council confirmed by Pope John VIII and regarded in Rome as the Eighth Ecumenical Council?

On what authority did Charlemagne and his theologians have sending the Libri Carolini to the Pope condemning the Seventh Ecumenical Council and arguing for the inclusion of the filioque?

I’m hearing a lot of apology for the filioque but didn’t Rome agree in the reunion council to ‘not’ include the filioque into the Creed?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Sorry Yes Isa and all the Orthodox too. Well I believe all the Orthodox Churches that belong to Constantinouple follow the same Creed. Maybe others do to but I don’t really know about that.

Those that belong to Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Moscow, Bulgaria, etc. all of them follow the same Creed. One of the requirements to be in Orthodox communion.

 

[Ghosty]

Grace and Peace,

What happened at the reunion council held in Constantinople in 879 AD? Did the legates of Pope John VIII sign the condemnation of any “additions” to the Nicene Creed and of anyone who denied the legitimacy of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and its decree o icons? Wasn’t this council confirmed by Pope John VIII and regarded in Rome as the Eighth Ecumenical Council?

On what authority did Charlemagne and his theologians have sending the Libri Carolini to the Pope condemning the Seventh Ecumenical Council and arguing for the inclusion of the filioque?

I’m hearing a lot of apology for the filioque but didn’t Rome agree in the reunion council to ‘not’ include the filioque into the Creed?

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

Peace and God bless!