Filioque??

[Apotheoun]

For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted. ~ Hebrew 2:18

For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. ~ Hebrews 4:15

Being tempted for forty days by the devil. And in those days He ate nothing, and afterward, when they had ended, He was hungry. ~ Luke 4:2

Yes actually I do believe Jesus of Nazareth was ‘in all points tempted as we are’. In fact, the note in the Orthodox Study Bible for verses 5:8, 9 state, “Christ learned obedience in His human will, which continually and freely submitted to the divine will. In the agony of injustice and in physical pain He submits to the will of the Father. This perfecting of human activity in communion with God shows Christ alone to be the Savior.”

And that ‘good’ was to 'freely submit… to the divine will [of the Father] by your own Orthodox Study Bible.

As I said before, not passive, for it is in the creaturely nature to move toward corruption and nothingness.

And the Child grew and became strong in spirit, filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him. ~ Luke 2:40

And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor [grace] with God and men. ~ Luke 2:52

There is no moral weakness in Christ, and so you are confusing the limitations of human nature (i.e., weariness, hunger, thirst, etc.), which He readily and willingly assumed as the second person of the Holy Trinity made man, with moral weakness. Christ, to use Western terminology, does not suffer from concupiscence, and that is why I have said that He has no gnomic will.

That being said, Christ the Lord is not tempted in the same way that we are because He does not need to deliberate in order to determine the good; instead, He knows and chooses the good that is coordinate to the logos (i.e., the inherent reason) written into His human nature.

Finally, your misreading of scripture is sad, because as far as I can see you are a Nestorian, and I will never follow you into that heresy. The fact that scripture speaks of Christ has being “tempted” does not mean that He is tempted as we are, that is, as beings who do not instantly know the good, and do it. In other words, there is a disconnect between our nature and our personal enactment of our nature, while there is no such disconnect in Christ, and that is why He is without sin.

 

[8eofilos]

Let me ask it this way…:

If I was living in the old days and was Latin and understood the language, would it be possible for me without guidance of a priest to misinterpret the meaning of the Trinity and role of The Holy Spirit by the filioque??? According to the Bible of course!

 

[Apotheoun]

And the Child grew and became strong in spirit, filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him. ~ Luke 2:40

And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor [grace] with God and men. ~ Luke 2:52

You are confusing growth in experiential knowledge with the idea that Christ is in some way ignorant. Christ knows the nature of reality, because He is the eternal Son of God, yet He can grow in acquired knowledge, i.e., knowledge that comes from experience.

From a decree of the Holy Office dated 5 June 1918:

When the question was proposed by the Sacred Congregation on Seminary and University Studies, whether the following propositions can be safely taught:

. . .

(2) Nor can the opinion be called certain which has established that the soul of Christ was ignorant of nothing, but from the beginning knew all things in the Word, past, present, and future, or all things that God knows by the knowledge of vision.

. . .

The Most Eminent and Reverend Cardinals, general Inquisitors in matters of faith and morals, the prayer of the Consultors being held first, decreed that the answer must be: In the negative.

 

[Apotheoun]

And that ‘good’ was to 'freely submit… to the divine will [of the Father] by your own Orthodox Study Bible.

The Orthodox Study Bible isn’t mine, and I don’t even own a copy.

 

[bpbasilphx]

No but what I am trying to ask is that do you believe the person of Jesus of Nazareth could have been tempted.

**The Synoptics all say so:

Matthew 4:1
Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

Mark 1:13
And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

Luke 4:2
Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.

For copyright reasons I’m quoting from the KJV, but you can look up these passages for yourself in your favorite version.**

 

[chrisb]

There is no moral weakness in Christ, and so you are confusing the limitations of human nature (i.e., weariness, hunger, thirst, etc.), which He readily and willingly assumed as the second person of the Holy Trinity made man, with moral weakness. Christ, to use Western terminology, does not suffer from concupiscence, and that is why I have said that He has no gnomic will.

I never said Jesus had any moral defects. I also never said that He suffered concupiscence nor had a gnomic will. All these things you are reading into any attempt at acknowledging the ‘humanity’ of Jesus because you have so overshadowed it with His Divine Nature. Jesus’ humanity was not overcome by His Divine Will… Jesus freely submitted to it. It was in this active submission that Jesus’ Human Will was unified with the Divine Will.

In your denial of Temptation you have conflated “Provocation” and the “Momentary Disturbance” which aren’t a moral defect but simply an emotional response to a stimuli with actual active participation with error… “Communion” (i.e. coupling), “Assent” “Prepossesion” and “Passion”. Jesus, the God-Man, faced ‘real’ trials which appealed to His humanity. These were not simply the pains of mortality (tiredness, hunger, thirst, etc) but emotional (the lose of a loved one, the security of worldly power and the suffering of those who loved Him). By resuming that Jesus was beyond ‘real’ trials you have stripped the God-Man of that which He shares most with us by taking on our flesh. You think this divides Him when in fact it completes Him as the God-Man.

For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. ~ Hebrews 4:15

He was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. You seem to think that if Jesus was provoked by a real trial to a momentary disturbance that such is sinful and beyond Jesus’ dignity. He was not *passion-less *but He was dispassionate. Big difference.

That being said, Christ the Lord is not tempted in the same way that we are because He does not need to deliberate in order to determine the good; instead, He knows and chooses the good that is coordinate to the logos (i.e., the inherent reason) written into His human nature.

This is going to take us into a discussion of Christian Anthropology but I feel like we could spend more time discussing ‘temptation’ and how it operates to reach a greater understanding of the humanity of Jesus.

Finally, your misreading of scripture is sad, because as far as I can see you are a Nestorian, and I will never follow you into that heresy. The fact that scripture speaks of Christ has being “tempted” does not mean that He is tempted as we are, that is, as beings who do not instantly know the good, and do it. In other words, there is a disconnect between our nature and our personal enactment of our nature, while there is no such disconnect in Christ, and that is why He is without sin.

I haven’t misread anything because I have not given my own opinion but only that which I find within the Orthodox Study Bible. You have repeatedly accussed me of being a heretic simply because you haven’t liked my questions. You have agreed with others who pointed out your own Orthodox Traditions ascribe to the submission of the human will of Jesus to that of the divine will yet your pride has not allowed you to agree with me whom asserted the exact same thing even after I pointed it out within the Orthodox Study Bible Notes.

I believe Jesus’ humanity was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin. The Sacred Text say this plainly. The Orthodox Study Notes say this plainly. Our humanity is ‘wounded’ not ‘depraved’. Jesus was the Hypostasis of God and Man. Of course, His humanity was not ‘wounded’ but it still possessed ‘Free Will’. Jesus’ humanity had a choice to made without coercion to cooperate with the Divine Will and clearly He did without sin but this is a far cry from saying every trial in His life was a meaningless activity for Him. When He sweated blood in the garden, Jesus was frightened, He was ‘really’ tested and He passed. But that was a ‘real’ trial for Our Lord, in His Humanity to accept the Father’s Will. It was a real “Provocation” and it definitely aroused a “Momentary Disturbance” as He chose to submit to the Will of the Father. You can call me a heretic and you can ignore Sacred Text if you like but I would encourage you to see what the early Church Fathers thought of this ‘temptation in the Garden’.

 

[Apotheoun]

I never said Jesus had any moral defects. I also never said that He suffered concupiscence nor had a gnomic will. All these things you are reading into any attempt at acknowledging the ‘humanity’ of Jesus because you have so overshadowed it with His Divine Nature. Jesus’ humanity was not overcome by His Divine Will… Jesus freely submitted to it. It was in this active submission that Jesus’ Human Will was unified with the Divine Will.

Based on your posts I believe you have a defective understanding of the humanity of Christ, because: (1) you constantly refer to the human nature of Christ as if it were a subject of action (i.e., a human hypostasis); and (2) you appear to have an incorrect understanding of the nature of Christ’s assumption of our weaknesses.

Now in order to determine whether your Christological views are orthodox or not it would be helpful if you would describe – as you understand it – how Christ is “tempted,” i.e., how it is either like temptation in relation to us or how it is different, because then I can tell if your views line up with the teaching of the ecumenical councils and the Church Fathers.

Finally, as far as your views of Christ’s human nature being a subject of action are concerned, as I see it you stand condemned by the Church’s Magisterium, since you ascribe ignorance and growth to Christ in an imprecise manner, rather than restricting the “growth” in understanding in His human life to empirical experience alone. This error on your part is – in my opinion – related to your Nestorian views in connection with the incarnation, which ultimately have the effect of making Christ’s human nature into a distinct human hypostasis (i.e., a subject of action) separate from the divine and uncreated hypostasis of the eternal Logos.

 

[Apotheoun]

I believe Jesus’ humanity was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin. The Sacred Text say this plainly. The Orthodox Study Notes say this plainly. Our humanity is ‘wounded’ not ‘depraved’. Jesus was the Hypostasis of God and Man. Of course, His humanity was not ‘wounded’ but it still possessed ‘Free Will’. Jesus’ humanity had a choice to made without coercion to cooperate with the Divine Will and clearly He did without sin but this is a far cry from saying every trial in His life was a meaningless activity for Him.

How does Jesus’ human nature have a choice? Natures cannot act, i.e., they cannot choose anything, only persons can choose and act, and Christ is one divine person. You continue to speak in a manner that implies that Christ’s human nature is a human hypostasis, which is the same error made by Nestorius.

“Jesus’ humanity had a choice to ma[k]e without coercion to cooperate with the Divine Will . . .”

You are confusing the enactment of the will (i.e., the personal ability to choose a specific course of action) with the agent of action (i.e., the person - the one who makes the choice) and in the process you are making Christ’s human nature (and His human will) into a human person. Your comments are Nestorian, whether you want to admit it or not.

 

[East_and_West]

ChrisB,
Just to get a background on this discussion, I was wondering, are you Roman Catholic, Byzantine Catholic, Oriental Catholic, Chaldean Catholic, Eastern orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anient Assyrian?

 

[chrisb]

Based on your posts I believe you have a defective understanding of the humanity of Christ, because: (1) you constantly refer to the human nature of Christ as if it were a subject of action (i.e., a human hypostasis); and (2) you appear to have an incorrect understanding of the nature of Christ’s assumption of our weaknesses.

No, I constantly point to the fact that Our Lord had ‘two’ Wills… One Human and One Divine just as He had ‘two’ Natures… One Human and One Divine. I fear you have an incorrect understanding of the ‘humanity’ of Jesus because you don’t seem to attribute ‘any’ to the God-Man.

Now in order to determine whether your Christological views are orthodox or not it would be helpful if you would describe – as you understand it – how Christ is “tempted,” i.e., how it is either like temptation in relation to us or how it is different, because then I can tell if your views line up with the teaching of the ecumenical councils and the Church Fathers.

Haven’t I already done that with my example of the Garden?

Finally, as far as your views of Christ’s human nature being a subject of action are concerned, as I see it you stand condemned by the Church’s Magisterium, since you ascribe ignorance and growth to Christ in an imprecise manner, rather than restricting the “growth” in understanding in His human life to empirical experience alone. This error on your part is – in my opinion – related to your Nestorian views in connection with the incarnation, which ultimately have the effect of making Christ’s human nature into a distinct human hypostasis (i.e., a subject of action) separate from the divine and uncreated hypostasis of the eternal Logos.

I never attributed Jesus’ human nature as being a subject of action but I have pointed to the fact that His Human Will is one. You keep dodging that with this straw-man of suggesting I’m giving this to His human nature when I am simply recognizing it is from His human nature that His human Will stems. The fact that He has ‘two’ Will recognizes the fact that His ‘two’ Natures play an ‘active’ role in the Personhood of Jesus of Nazareth as the God-Man. It has been you who have been ‘conflating’ wills into ‘one’ divine will as active. I have merely stated, from the beginning, that Jesus’ Human Will had to actively ‘submit’ for this to happen freely. This makes Jesus’ sacrifice effectual because He was truly ‘human’ and not simply God playing dress up in front of us.

 

[chrisb]

ChrisB,
Just to get a background on this discussion, I was wondering, are you Roman Catholic, Byzantine Catholic, Oriental Catholic, Chaldean Catholic, Eastern orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anient Assyrian?

I fail to see how sporting a ‘team shirt’ would change the substance of my posts?

 

[East_and_West]

I fail to see how sporting a ‘team shirt’ would change the substance of my posts?

I am not asking so that we can all choose sides. I just want to understand what your theological background is so that I can understand from what premises you are arguing. It would give me a greater grasp of your point of view.

 

[bpbasilphx]

**
Originally Posted by East and West View Post
ChrisB,
Just to get a background on this discussion, I was wondering, are you Roman Catholic, Byzantine Catholic, Oriental Catholic, Chaldean Catholic, Eastern orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anient Assyrian?
I fail to see how sporting a ‘team shirt’ would change the substance of my posts?**

Considering chrisb’s signature line, I’m guessing he’s a “traditionalist” of some kind.

 

[JohnVIII]

John,

I am totally confused as to how this is an argument against the filioque. It could be used against any of the eternal trinitarian relationships with God the Son.

I could just as easily say that God the Son being eternally begotten of God the Father destroys the unity of the two natures of Jesus because it occurred “before” the incarnation. Since the eternally begotten Son did not include the human nature of Jesus, wouldn’t you have to say that the eternal relationship between God the Father and God the Son destroys the unity of the two natures of Jesus?

Your argument goes too far as it would apply to all of the eternal relationships with the second person of the trinity. They would all somehow be deficient because the incarnation hadn’t happened yet.

There is one reason that my arguments do not go too far. One person can argue endlessly why the Filioque is wrong, and another can argue endlessly that the Filioque can be made right, if understood right; but no one is able to argue that it a simple teaching. And simplicity must be a prerequisite for it to be added to the Creed. If this were not so, then only men with PHD’s in theology could be saved! And it is also a reason why no less than eight popes in Rome said that it could never be added to the Creed! Here is a quote from one of these popes:

Pope John VIII (872-882) in a letter to St. Photius Patriarch of Constantinople said:

We not only do not assert this idea that the Spirit proceedeth from the Son, but we judge those who first had the hardihood in their own madness to do so to be transgressors of the divine words and refashioners of the theology of the Lord Jesus Christ and of the Fathers, who, assembled together in council, imparted the Holy Creed, or Symbol of Faith, and we class them with Judas.

 

[Ghosty]

Pope John VIII (872-882) in a letter to St. Photius Patriarch of Constantinople said:

Source?

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

One person can argue endlessly why the Filioque is wrong, and another can argue endlessly that the Filioque can be made right, if understood right; but no one is able to argue that it a simple teaching. And simplicity must be a prerequisite for it to be added to the Creed. If this were not so, then only men with PHD’s in theology could be saved!

I don’t think this is a valid argument. Nothing in the Creed is simple, though it can be spoken simply. The one portion “and became man” took centuries to iron out, with hundreds of books and treatises and councils (with a few Ecumenical ones) being called to settle it. Today, very few people could give a theologically accurate understanding of “and became man”, and even if they did you’d have half a dozen others giving another way of explaining it.

The same can be said for “begotten of the Father”, or “of one substance with the Father” (neither of which settled the Arian controversy like they were supposed to precisely because they are not simple concepts, incidentally), or anything else that is spoken of in the Creed. I think it’s a very big mistake to insist on “simplicity of doctrine” when referring to anything in Apostolic Christianity!

When compared with such things as the Incarnation, or the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity, terms like “from the Son” or “through the Son” are relatively easy, IMO.

Peace and God bless!

 

[JohnVIII]

Source?

The letter itself is the source. The translation to English that I quote from is given by Apostolos Makrakis in his Editor’s Foreword as he is the editor and translator of the most commonly used English version used today of the Rudder, which is the Canons of the Holy Orthodox Church.

With regard to Pope John VIII , I know that there are many contradictory things said about him. But in support of the claim that he in fact did send this letter to Saint Photius Patriarch of Constantinople; I submit to you that after the Church Council held in Constantinople in 879, which calls itself the “Eighth Ecumenical Council”, communion between Rome and Constantinople was restored and remain so until the death of Pope John VIII . Patriarch Photius would never have agreed to restore communion with Rome without assurances from Pope John VIII that Rome did not advocate the filioque. The same Pope John VIII is said to have erected a silver plaque in Rome whereupon the Nicene Creed, inscribed in Latin, was written without the filioque. The silver plaque was removed by Pope John VIII’s successor Marinus I; whom, I might add, was elected pope on the very same day as the death of Pope John VIII (12/16/882). Since Pope Marinus I, full canonical communion between Rome and the Churches of the East has never been fully restored. (And this, by the way, is a good argument for the split between East and West to have actually occurred as early as 882, rather than 1054.)

 

[Ghosty]

I’ve never seen that quote brought up before, not even in the many articles by Eastern Orthodox against the filioque, so I do doubt its authenticity. There’s certainly no record of it in the West.

As for the Silver Tablets, those weren’t put up by John VII, but by a previous Pope Leo III. The tablets were also never taken down, so far as I know, at least certainly not by Pope John’s immediate successor; the filioque wasn’t added to the Creed at Rome until over a century later in 1014 by Pope Benedict VIII. I’m very curious about where you’re getting your information.

As for the split occurring in 882, that’s just plainly untenable. If the split had occurred that early then there never would have been the dispute of 1054, and the Patriarch of Antioch at the time wouldn’t have written to the Patriarch of Constantinople exhorting him to return to Communion with Rome as it had been decades earlier when the Antiochian Patriarch had visited Constantinople; the Patriarch of Antioch literally asked “has so much changed in that time that Communion must be broken”? (I’ll go through my boxes from moving to find the exact quote from the letter).

Peace and God bless!

 

[tdgesq]

There is one reason that my arguments do not go too far.

Perhaps, but not for the reason that eternal procession through the Son somehow breaks the unity of the Incarnation.

One person can argue endlessly why the Filioque is wrong, and another can argue endlessly that the Filioque can be made right, if understood right; but no one is able to argue that it a simple teaching. And simplicity must be a prerequisite for it to be added to the Creed. If this were not so, then only men with PHD’s in theology could be saved!

Ghosty already replied to this, but can you really explain how the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father? I assume most of us believe it because the apostolic fathers believed it, not necessarily because we perfectly understand it.

Pope John VIII (872-882) in a letter to St. Photius Patriarch of Constantinople said:

To the Greek acts was afterwards added a (pretended) letter of Pope John VIII. to Photius, declaring the Filioque to be an addition which is rejected by the church of Rome, and a blasphemy which must be abolished calmly and by, degrees.
. . .
The Roman Catholic historians regard this letter as a Greek fraud. “Ich kann nicht glauben,” says Hefele (IV. 482), “dass je ein Papst seine Stellung so sehr vergessen habe, wie es Johann VIII. gethan haben müsste, wenn dieser Brief ächt wäre. Es ist in demselben auch keine Spur des Papalbewusstseins, vielmehr ist die Superiorität des Photius fast ausdrücklich anerkannt.” ccel.org/s/schaff/history/4_ch05.htm#_edn7

 

[Ignatios]

I don’t think this is a valid argument. Nothing in the Creed is simple, though it can be spoken simply. The one portion “and became man” took centuries to iron out, with hundreds of books and treatises and councils (with a few Ecumenical ones) being called to settle it. Today, very few people could give a theologically accurate understanding of “and became man”, and even if they did you’d have half a dozen others giving another way of explaining it.

The main Purpose of the Creed is that everyone in the Church would adhere and beleive in what it says, and not to go interpreting it as they wish and please.

If you read the history you will find that the Creed was put together by the Fathers of the Church in whom they were under strict orders from Saint Constatine to “extract” ( IAW to make it simple to follow) from the Holy scriptures ( and not according to anyones Idea,IAW, it is not what you think but it is what the scriptures says) all the things that the Faithfull needs so they can be saved, And that is to have faith and to follow what the Creed says so they dont fall in heresy or wonder off with their thoughts and ideas.

Now if someone desire to learn it Theologicaly then they must go further in their search and study according to and by the Church.
that is the purpose of the Seminaries and the Bible study.

It took a long time and many treatise and many Fathers, true, and thats why now it is simple enough for us to read and to follow the creed without falling into a heresy if we do not understand it theologically.

Now, thanks to the Fathers whom compiled the Creed we know what it says and we can also follow it safely without falling into a heresy, and it is what it says wether we understand it or not, but to follow what it says and not knowing that it means diffrent than what it says (RCC definition of filioque) then we can fall into a heresy and the theologian would be the ones who would be saved since they follow what it means and not what it says.

The same can be said for “begotten of the Father”, or “of one substance with the Father” (neither of which settled the Arian controversy like they were supposed to precisely because they are not simple concepts, incidentally),

The Creed, again, is not to teach the faithfull theology.The Fathers did not put it together so everyone would become a theologian this clear from the Fathers who compiled it if you read the history, If you dont understand it theologically then that does not give you the right to go and tamper with its content unless you desire to be outside the Church.The Creed is a dogmatical statement, and NOT theological lesson, like, if you dont understand it you go to Hell.when it says that “I beleive in one GOD” then you cannot beleive that there is 2 gods or more, and when it says “…The FATHER Almighty…” it is the FATHER whom is the ONE GOD that we beleive in here HE is the Creator of all and then when it says that “…the HOLY SPIRIT whom proceed from the FATHER…” then It is from the FATHER whom the HOLY SPIRIT proceed, Period.

I don’t think this is a valid argument. Nothing in the Creed is simple …(emphasis mine)

And then you say:

I think it’s a very big mistake to insist on “simplicity of doctrine” when referring to anything in Apostolic Christianity! (emphasis mine)

And also you said the following:

When compared with such things as the Incarnation, or the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity, terms like “from the Son” or “through the Son” are relatively easy, IMO. (emphasis mine)

Are the mentioned above NOT in the Creed? or they are?

Now compare all of them together.

Is there a …well, dont want to sound “rude” let me use the word, contradictions?
You started your post by “nothing in the Creed is easy” and you ended up with “relatively easy” when it came to Filioque.?

GOD bless all †††