Filioque??

[Allyson]

Ok, I just had to laugh.

Yes, yes the most uncharitable poster is back for just a sec.

Here is how all the Filioque stuff seems to me.

Catholics say Filioque, which is Latin for “and by means of the son” .

Easterns disagree with this Orthodox expression of faith because they don’t say it and they want everyone to be like them.

They originally broke with us over the issue of Leavened bread but they kind of lost that issue since Latin aren’t going to take them seriously on it.

So they go back to Filioque because they think they have a slamdunk, but they don’t.

The 7th ecumenical council said that the Holy Spirit procedes from the Father Through the Son. How do you say that in Latin? Ex Patre Filioque.

Notice the verb used is Procede not Originate.

But we have all been here before.

Easterns complain about the Filioque to say that Catholics are heretics. We prove why the Filioque is right. The Eastern go away. They then force their minds to forget completely the conversation from before. They come back and complain about the Filioque again. After a while it becomes like a broken record.

Ad infinitum this goes on.

Then if they are talking to someone who they think they are winning against they throw Honorius, or the Sack of Constantinople or even made up events that never even happened at them. To convert them? NO, just to tell them that they hate them and are somehow justified for hating them.

What this really boils down to is that even though Catholics have apologized for what we have done wrong, in accordance with the teachings of Christ, the “orthodox” will never apologize for what they have done wrong. They won’t even acknowledge that Ceruleus was denounce by the Eastern Orthodox Church as a heretic before he died. They deny it ever happened. It wasn’t just us, their own Church excommunicated him. But they will not apoligize to us.

But that is ok. They can think they are better than us. They can think that they are high and we are the slime of the earth. That is ok. We Catholics much be good to them. We must bless them and pray for them. We Catholics are called to do and live as Christ commanded. We must forgive them even if they do not apoligize or forgive us. We must be blameless in the eyes of God. We are called to a higher standard and we must live up to that standard. We Catholics are called to be perfect, for nothing unclean will enter into the presence of God.

Let us all remember this. Just before the Muslims took Constantinople, the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholics were in perfect communion with each other, including unleavened bread, Filioque and the primacy of the Pope. Don’t let them fool you. Stick to the truth. We were in communion with each other and it was only the sword of a non Christian infidel that forced this schism. Why we allow it to continue now that we are free to come back into communion with each other is beyond me but we must. Not by denying the truth of the Filioque or history but by looking to Christ, the Truth. Lord Jesus prayed that we all be one, so we must do all we can in faithfulness to end the schism because it is a sin if we don’t.

In the meantime I am going to make little cards that explain the Filioque so that I can hand them out to Eastern Orthodox people who want to argue. When they forget that the conversation took place, I will ask them for the card back, thus proving that we have been over this before. But they will probably loose those the same as their memory so I will hand them a new one and explain it over again and count how many days it takes for them to forget again.

Say What?! Which “Chic Track for Catholics” have you been reading?

All I have to say is O Brother

God Bless You.

R.

 

[Formosus]

The Truth is your dates are off: for one thing, the Crusaders sacked Constantinople 1204 and set up a Latin patriarch for each of the Orthodox patriarchates and imposed unleavened bread before the Muslims took Constantinople in 1453 .

Well the latin patriarchs of constantinople/latin empire was well gone before 1453. I don’t remember the exact date but it was probably in the 1300s when the latin empire collapsed and the East Romans restored. The last Emperor of the Romans to reign in his city was the blessed martyr Constantine XI, whom was in full communion with Rome and last recieved communion from a Catholic cardinal. So yeah we were united , though it was more of a political reunion and not so much one of real conviction on the part of the greeks. So once the political need was gone (aka the turks flooded into the city) the reunion fell apart quite swiftly.

 

[8eofilos]

Your silence was more senseful than your words.

Indeed their words speaks much of them.

May GOD guide you to the true Faith.

This is for Claudius. You must have much anger towards the Orthodox when you accuse us of all these sayings that are not true. Orthodox don’t think of Catholics as slime or anything else. I once myself asked someone from my church about the Catholics and you know what he responded? Don’t judge my child because you will be judged. Everyone will be judged by the Lord according to his faith and his life. As for the “Filioque”, no comment but this.
“all sins shall be forgiven but the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit shall not”… Jesus is not a liar and He keeps His promises.

 

[8eofilos]

Hey T-Lig’-git (Like k’-nig’-git in Holy Grail),

Don’t forget “lex orandi, lex credeni” , . So - yes - if it is a matter of semantics, it’s not a big deal; even so, a liturgical practice is supposed to be indicative of a dogmatic belief. All liturgical practice is catechetical, so it is easy to see how the addition is/was perceived as problematic, and how working out the semantics is important. (Obviously, I am using dogmatic in the broader, less technical way).

Now that I have stated things you already know, I will bow out of the exchage.

God Bless,
R.

Anything that changes in “The Creed” is a big deal. By saying that you allow all these other heresies( Jehovah’s witness, baptists,etc.etc.) to say the same thing. When changing the word of God, then we are actually defying what Jesus said in Matthew 5:18, not to change a “,” or an “i”. The Creed is not a man creation and you know that good. It is the Truth of our faith and is written from our Lord’s Word, from The Bible. It is not something that was invented later. But when you add something that is not true, then Matthew 5:18 will take over and you or whoever thinks that it isn’t a big deal,

 

[anthony022071]

First, let me note here that although the eastern churches did not agree to the Filioque but further rejected it as a sound thelogical opinion as we all know, BUT they didnt cause the schism in the Church because of it, so long it was no more than a theological opinion, but when the Romans went further as to force it on the Eastern Churches and condemn those who do not obied by it then and only then the schism happened, and prior to that it was the Photian schism in which it included the filioque issue, but that was when the West was by then teaching it and singing it in many of their Churches, however after the Photian Schism, although the west didnt abandon this Idea in all their churches, BOTH EASTERN AND WESTERN Churches agreed NOT to include it in the Creed in order to preserve the Orthodox Faith.

No,there was no such agreement to not include it in order to preserve the orthodox faith. The Church of Rome never doubted the orthodoxy of the filioque doctrine. It was a pastoral decision to not include it. Rome did not include the filioque in the creed because it would have scandalized the Greeks.

Now what I see here that many are mixing the filioque in the Creed with the filioque as theological opinion, those two subjects cannot be discussed as one subject.

That’s what you just did. You said that the filioque was not included in the creed in order to preserve the orthodox faith,as if the filioque doctrine was not orthodox.

However, My own opinion on this issue, is that the Orthodox Church might tolerate the Idea of the Filioque but not agree to it, so long that the west would agree to restore the Creed in their churches back to its orthodoxy.

The Catholic Church believes the filioque doctrine is an orthodox belief,so removing it from the creed would not be a restoration of orthodoxy.

 

[8eofilos]

No,there was no such agreement to not include it in order to preserve the orthodox faith. The Church of Rome never doubted the orthodoxy of the filioque doctrine. It was a pastoral decision to not include it. Rome did not include the filioque in the creed because it would have scandalized the Greeks.

That’s what you just did. You said that the filioque was not included in the creed in order to preserve the orthodox faith,as if the filioque doctrine was not orthodox.

The Catholic Church believes the filioque doctrine is an orthodox belief,so removing it from the creed would not be a restoration of orthodoxy.

Didn’t the “Filioque” take place sometime in the 8th Century? The Schism took place in 1054, right?

 

[anthony022071]

Didn’t the “Filioque” take place sometime in the 8th Century? The Schism took place in 1054, right?

The filioque doctrine was expressed in The Quicunque Vult (an early Western Creed, c. A.D. 380):

“The Father is of none, neither made, nor created, nor begotten.
The Son is of the Father alone, neither made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.”

In the East,the doctrine was expressed in the creed of the Council of Seleucia,410:

“…the Holy Living Spirit, the Holy Living Paraclete, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” (Lamy, “Concilium Seleucia”, Louvain, 1868).

In 589,it was included in the creed of the Council of Toledo,which was ratified by the pope:

“We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Life-Giver, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son (i.e., Filioque). With the Father and the Son, He is worshipped and glorified.”

The Greeks first became aware of the filioque in the early 9th century.

usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml
< The different liturgical traditions with regard to the Creed came into contact with each other in early-ninth-century Jerusalem. Western monks, using the Latin Creed with the added Filioque, were denounced by their Eastern brethren. Writing to Pope Leo III for guidance, in 808, the Western monks referred to the practice in Charlemagne’s chapel in Aachen as their model. Pope Leo responded with a letter to “all the churches of the East” in which he declared his personal belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son. In that response, the Pope did not distinguish between his personal understanding and the issue of the legitimacy of the addition to the Creed, although he would later resist the addition in liturgies celebrated at Rome.

Taking up the issue of the Jerusalem controversy, Charlemagne asked Theodulf of Orleans, the principal author of the Libri Carolini, to write a defense of the use of the word Filioque. Appearing in 809, De Spiritu Sancto of Theodulf was essentially a compilation of patristic citations supporting the theology of the Filioque. With this text in hand, Charlemagne convened a council in Aachen in 809-810 to affirm the doctrine of the Spirit’s proceeding from the Father and the Son, which had been questioned by Greek theologians. Following this council, Charlemagne sought Pope Leo’s approval of the use of the creed with the Filioque (Mansi 14.23-76). A meeting between the Pope and a delegation from Charlemagne’s council took place in Rome in 810. While Leo III affirmed the orthodoxy of the term Filioque, and approved its use in catechesis and personal professions of faith, he explicitly disapproved its inclusion in the text of the Creed of 381, since the Fathers of that Council - who were, he observes, no less inspired by the Holy Spirit than the bishops who had gathered at Aachen - had chosen not to include it. Pope Leo stipulated that the use of the Creed in the celebration of the Eucharist was permissible, but not required, and urged that in the interest of preventing scandal it would be better if the Carolingian court refrained from including it in the liturgy. Around this time, according to the Liber Pontificalis, the Pope had two heavy silver shields made and displayed in St. Peter’s, containing the original text of the Creed of 381 in both Greek and Latin. Despite his directives and this symbolic action, however, the Carolingians continued to use the Creed with the Filioque during the Eucharist in their own dioceses. >

 

[8eofilos]

The filioque doctrine was expressed in The Quicunque Vult (an early Western Creed, c. A.D. 380)

“The Father is of none, neither made, nor created, nor begotten.
The Son is of the Father alone, neither made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.”

In the East,the doctrine was expressed in the creed of the Council of Seleucia,410:

“…the Holy Living Spirit, the Holy Living Paraclete, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” (Lamy, “Concilium Seleucia”, Louvain, 1868).

In 589,it was included in the creed of the Council of Toledo,which was ratified by the pope.

“We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Life-Giver, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son (i.e., Filioque). With the Father and the Son, He is worshipped and glorified.”

The Greeks first became aware of the filioque in the early 9th century.

usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml
< The different liturgical traditions with regard to the Creed came into contact with each other in early-ninth-century Jerusalem. Western monks, using the Latin Creed with the added Filioque, were denounced by their Eastern brethren. Writing to Pope Leo III for guidance, in 808, the Western monks referred to the practice in Charlemagne’s chapel in Aachen as their model. Pope Leo responded with a letter to “all the churches of the East” in which he declared his personal belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son. In that response, the Pope did not distinguish between his personal understanding and the issue of the legitimacy of the addition to the Creed, although he would later resist the addition in liturgies celebrated at Rome.

Taking up the issue of the Jerusalem controversy, Charlemagne asked Theodulf of Orleans, the principal author of the Libri Carolini, to write a defense of the use of the word Filioque. Appearing in 809, De Spiritu Sancto of Theodulf was essentially a compilation of patristic citations supporting the theology of the Filioque. With this text in hand, Charlemagne convened a council in Aachen in 809-810 to affirm the doctrine of the Spirit’s proceeding from the Father and the Son, which had been questioned by Greek theologians. Following this council, Charlemagne sought Pope Leo’s approval of the use of the creed with the Filioque (Mansi 14.23-76). A meeting between the Pope and a delegation from Charlemagne’s council took place in Rome in 810. While Leo III affirmed the orthodoxy of the term Filioque, and approved its use in catechesis and personal professions of faith, he explicitly disapproved its inclusion in the text of the Creed of 381, since the Fathers of that Council - who were, he observes, no less inspired by the Holy Spirit than the bishops who had gathered at Aachen - had chosen not to include it. Pope Leo stipulated that the use of the Creed in the celebration of the Eucharist was permissible, but not required, and urged that in the interest of preventing scandal it would be better if the Carolingian court refrained from including it in the liturgy. Around this time, according to the Liber Pontificalis, the Pope had two heavy silver shields made and displayed in St. Peter’s, containing the original text of the Creed of 381 in both Greek and Latin. Despite his directives and this symbolic action, however, the Carolingians continued to use the Creed with the Filioque during the Eucharist in their own dioceses. >

Are you saying that the Greeks say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son?..

 

[anthony022071]

Are you saying that the Greeks say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son?..

No,I just said they became aware of the filioque in the early 9th century.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Pope Leo responded with a letter to “all the churches of the East” in which he declared his personal belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son. In that response, the Pope did not distinguish between his personal understanding and the issue of the legitimacy of the addition to the Creed, although he would later resist the addition in liturgies celebrated at Rome.

Can we get the text of said letter?

 

[Allyson]

Anything that changes in “The Creed” is a big deal. By saying that you allow all these other heresies( Jehovah’s witness, baptists,etc.etc.) to say the same thing. When changing the word of God, then we are actually defying what Jesus said in Matthew 5:18, not to change a “,” or an “i”. The Creed is not a man creation and you know that good. It is the Truth of our faith and is written from our Lord’s Word, from The Bible. It is not something that was invented later. But when you add something that is not true, then Matthew 5:18 will take over and you or whoever thinks that it isn’t a big deal,

A big deal, of course I think changes to the Creed are big deal! I was responding to specific comment from one poster. If you read all of my posts about the filioque, you will see that I do not see it as so easily reconciled with the primary text of the Nicene-Constantinopolean creed.

Note the use of the conditional word if.

So - yes - if it is a matter of semantics, it’s not a big deal;

I do not actually speak to whether the condition has been met. Certainly I indicate language use should be explored, but I say nothing else about it.

I’m sorry for any confusion that was caused.

God Bless,
R.

 

[chrisb]

In the East,the doctrine was expressed in the creed of the Council of Seleucia,410:

Seriously, we have got to have better scholarship than this…

There is an Aramaic word for “proceeds” which shows up in the Aramaic Peshitta Bible in John 15:26: “npq”, which is pronounced by Chaldeans as: “napeq”

The above word does not show up in the Aramaic Creed of 410. Rather, the Creed simply has this: “dmin”, that is: “who(is) from”.

The Eastern Church has ‘never’ taught that the Holy Spirit has a dual origin. In fact, it has always argued that the West has conflated eternal origin with that of temporal origin.

 

[8eofilos]

Let me ask only this and I want answers only from those who really know.
In what language was the New Testament written first?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Let me ask only this and I want answers only from those who really know.
In what language was the New Testament written first?

Matthew Hebrew/Aramaic. The rest Greek.

 

[Ignatios]

No,there was no such agreement to not include it in order to preserve the orthodox faith. The Church of Rome never doubted the orthodoxy of the filioque doctrine. It was a pastoral decision to not include it. Rome did not include the filioque in the creed because it would have scandalized the Greeks. **( Emphasis mine) **

Around and around she goes where would she stop? NOBODY knows, back to you again and again with the same thing over and over, I Know that I have posted this somehere before for you or someone else, it seems like I got used to you anthony But it doesnt matter I will post it again, read it carefully now anthony and comprehend it as well…

The following text is, to my knowledge, the first complete translation of the Horos of the Eighth Ecumenical Council which appears in both the minutes of the sixth and the seventh acts:26
"Jointly sanctifying and preserving intact the venerable and divine teaching of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, which has been established in the bosom of our mind, with unhesitating resolve and purity of faith, as well as the sacred ordinances and canonical stipulations of his holy disciples and Apostles with an unwavering judgement, and indeed, those Seven holy and ecumenical Synods which were directed by the inspiration of the one and the same Holy Spirit and effected the [Christian] preaching, and jointly guarding with a most honest and unshakeable resolve the canonical institutions invulnerable and unfalsified, we expel those who removed themselves from the Church, and embrace and regard worthy of receiving those of the same faith or teachers of orthodoxy to whom honor and sacred respect is due as they themselves ordered. 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:
And here they recited the Creed without the Filioque.
geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/dragas_eighth.html

So yes there was an agreement between the East and the West.

as for the words that I have mentioned above concerning not to include the Filioque to preserve the Orthodox Faith , those were not my own words but the words of your Pope ( I figured you would have known me better by now anthony, I never speak of my own)>>>…

" Pope Leo III approved the doctrine yet opposed adding “Filioque” to the Creed.[8] He had the Creed in its original form engraved on two silver tables, one in Greek, the other in Latin, and placed them at the tomb of Saint Peter, writing:** “I, Leo, have placed these for love and protection of the orthodox faith”.**9] ^ “Haec Leo posui amore et cautela orthodoxae fidei” (Vita Leonis, Liber Pontificalis (ed. Duchêne, t. II, p. 26); cf. Treatise of Adam Zoernikaff, quoted in William Palmer: A Harmony of Anglican Doctrine with the doctrine of the catholic and apostolic church of the East (Aberdeen 1846)
AAAAAAAAAAANd again anthonyyyyyyy you are wrong, thats ok try again myabe one day you will get lucky.

That’s what you just did. You said that the filioque was not included in the creed in order to preserve the orthodox faith,as if the filioque doctrine was not orthodox.

You are not making sence go back and re-read it then try again.
Or you can just forget about , your choice.

The Catholic Church believes the filioque doctrine is an orthodox belief,so removing it from the creed would not be a restoration of orthodoxy.

The Filioque is an orthodox RCC belief, but by no mean it is an orthodox belief.
As for removing it from the Creed , your late pope did a couple of times by doing so he was paving the road for its rremoval, ( it is coming anthony you like it or not, get ready for it) and this commity (which is RCs dispatched by the Pope ) sees it diffrently then yours, maybe you should get on the phone and give Rome a call about your thoughts.

 

[8eofilos]

Matthew Hebrew/Aramaic. The rest Greek.

Thank you Isa, I always wondered about that because I was sure about John and Luke but not the others.

 

[8eofilos]

Matthew Hebrew/Aramaic. The rest Greek.

I was just reading some biography of Matthew and says that he himself translated it to Greek, is that true to you? It also says that Judi ans added and prostituted his Hebrew-Aramaic Gospel, true or False?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I was just reading some biography of Matthew and says that he himself translated it to Greek, is that true to you?

It matches what I’ve read on the subject. That would make sense, as the Greek is seen as original, which would make sense if the author translated it.

It also says that Judi ans added and prostituted his Hebrew-Aramaic Gospel, true or False?

You mean Judaeans? There were a number of Jewish Christian sects, including the Ebionites, who only used a modified version of Matthew, called the Gospel of the Hebrews (like an opposite of the Marcionites, who only used a modified version of Luke, since they believed the God of the OT was not the God of the NT), took St. James as their hero (in name, he did not preach their doctrine, not does it seem the 14 patriarchs of Jerusalem, all Hebrews, who succeeded him), and although believed Jesus was the Messiah did not confess his divinity.
They rejected the Council of Jerusalem. It seems they were the ones insisting that the Gentiles convert to Judaism.
There were Orthodox Hebrew Christians, Nasoreans. They survive in the Knanay Syrian Orthodox (and Malankar) of India, and in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, where their practices were adopted by the whole nation of which they were at the core (how the Ethiopian eunuch was in Jerusalem).

 

[8eofilos]

It matches what I’ve read on the subject. That would make sense, as the Greek is seen as original, which would make sense if the author translated it.

You mean Judaeans? There were a number of Jewish Christian sects, including the Ebionites, who only used a modified version of Matthew, called the Gospel of the Hebrews (like an opposite of the Marcionites, who only used a modified version of Luke, since they believed the God of the OT was not the God of the NT), took St. James as their hero (in name, he did not preach their doctrine, not does it seem the 14 patriarchs of Jerusalem, all Hebrews, who succeeded him), and although believed Jesus was the Messiah did not confess his divinity.
They rejected the Council of Jerusalem. It seems they were the ones insisting that the Gentiles convert to Judaism.
There were Orthodox Hebrew Christians, Nasoreans. They survive in the Knanay Syrian Orthodox (and Malankar) of India, and in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, where their practices were adopted by the whole nation of which they were at the core (how the Ethiopian eunuch was in Jerusalem).

thanx once again Isa…

 

[Claudius]

No, the filioque came up during the so called Photian schism.

And Photian accepted it before he died.

I’ve already corrected you once on this:

I was right then as I am now. The truth does not change.

The original word means both. Which is the point.

The point is that in Greek Grammar you can’t say Filioque, it would be grammatically wrong but in Latin it is grammatical and makes perfect sense. Beside, it is true.

In Latin we have no word that means both originate and proceed. We have to use different verbs. The Greek verb has the ordinary meaning of originate with a secondary meaning of proceed, but even then it can’t take the kind of grammatical construction that exist in Latin. Greek does not posses the case or grammatical construction.

How do you say “from the Father THROUGH the Son” in Latin. The way the Latin Church decided to say that was to use an Ablative (which Greek does not have) and use a means construction (which Greek does not have). A litteral translation of Ex Patre Filioque into English should be “From the Father and by means of the Son.”

If the Latins had intened a simple “From the Father and the Son” they would have used Ex Patre et Filio.

Besides, even if they had done this, it would have been a bad translation but at the same time would still be correct when the functionality and grammar of the Latin verb is considered.

Are you including “Eastern Catholics” among the Easterners.

Nope.

Is there a point somewhere in there?

Read it again and the point becomes obvious. How many times have ‘orthodox’ people just wanted to win an agruement and throw hate at me I can not count. I sometime get the impression that they will agrue with me about anything and everything. If I were to walk up to them and say exactly what they had said the day before they would take the opposite possition just to be in agruement with me.

The Truth is your dates are off: for one thing, the Crusaders sacked Constantinople 1204 and set up a Latin patriarch for each of the Orthodox patriarchates and imposed unleavened bread before the Muslims took Constantinople in 1453.

You need to take another look at history. Catholics and ‘orthodox’ were in communion with each other after the sack of Constantinople. That communion came to its final end when the muslim took the city and force you to proclaim a non christian as the head of your church and break communion.

It was a Crusader’s sword. I leave it to you to decide how non Christian and infidel they were.

You should leave it to God to decide. I will say this, for as much as you complain about it, we Catholics agree with you. It was a very wrong thing that happened. The Catholic church denounced it then as we do to this day. Oh, but you don’t care. I know. You hate me for an event that My Church denounces. You hate me personally for an event that I was not party to, nor anyone in my family, nor anyone in my race.

How about those who want to hold on to the Truth?

Want the Truth, then believe in the teachings that Christ gave us. Those teachings are found in the Catholic Church, complete and unaltered. We are not the ones allowing divorce.

Yes, we’ve had this conversation before. Florence for one.

Yes and we should thank God for the reunions he made possible through his grace at Florence.