J
- Status
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Ryan,
I would invite you, and anyone else, to read through the Acts of the Second, Fourth, and Seventh Ecum. In their references to the Creed of Constantinople, there is no mention of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father as a distinct point of doctrine. Consistently, when the section on the Holy Spirit is explicated by these Councils, it is one point and one point alone that pervades the sources - the fact of the consubstantiality or co-divinity of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son.
Blessings,
Marduk
I would invite you, and anyone else, to read through the Acts of the Second, Fourth, and Seventh Ecum. In their references to the Creed of Constantinople, there is no mention of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father as a distinct point of doctrine. Consistently, when the section on the Holy Spirit is explicated by these Councils, it is one point and one point alone that pervades the sources - the fact of the consubstantiality or co-divinity of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son.
Blessings,
Marduk
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
The Filioque simply reiterates a most common Christian belief in the Holy Trinity, “Three persons, one God, all equal” . My concern with any rejection of the Filioque is that it could be viewed as a rejection of the real meaning of the Holy Trinity and it minimizes Christ Jesus to a “time-line”, were we know as Christians, as the second person in the Trinity, He (Jesus) too is eternal. One need read only the opening verses in the Gospel of John to understand this. We also know as Christians that the Holy Spirit does also proceed from Jesus, as well as from the Father. This too is documented in the Bible. Even Protestants and Born-Again Christians believe this. I’ve always been confused and bothered by any rejection of the Filioque. It’s correct Biblically, Traditionally and approved by the Roman Catholic Church. I like it.
S
Steven_John
Guest
Amen from me.
I don’t like the concept that G-d gives a little hint toward understanding but we are to see it as a mystery.
Muslims accept the Quran as G-ds truth though many chapters open with letters no one understands save G-d.
I guess it boils down to what thing that no people understand should some one believe?
Again a big Amen to what i see as G-ds truth written here by Brethren Fabius consistent with much of the bible books and maybe is a little easier to share with a questioning muslim.
Plain speech is solid ground.
I really thank and praise G-d for so many posts in this thread i have learned much despite having spent much time b4 on this same topic.
Big blessings to you all, pray well and stay well
R
RyanBlack
Guest
And I would invite you to read paragraph 245 of the CCC, which supports my position, which is that the language of procession concens the origin of the Spirit from the Father, while the language concerning the lordship of the Spirit and the fact that he is worshipped, together with actual use of the term consubstantial from various other synods is used to demonstrate consubstantiality and co-divinity. It states:
The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381): “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father.” By this confession, the Church recognizes the Father as “the source and origin of the whole divinity”. But the eternal origin of the Spirit is not unconnected with the Son’s origin: “The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is God, one and equal with the Father and the Son, of the same substance and also of the same nature. . . Yet he is not called the Spirit of the Father alone,. . . but the Spirit of both the Father and the Son.” The Creed of the Church from the Council of Constantinople confesses: “With the Father and the Son, he is worshipped and glorified.”
Also, I would invite you to read the Fifth Theological Oration of St. Gregory of Nazianzus. In this work, he uses the language of procession to distinguish the manner in which the Spirit originates from the Father from the manner in which the Son originates from the Father. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, by the way, led the Second Ecumenical Council.
F
FabiusMaximus
Guest
I understand the Orthodox argument, and I also do not think Church unity will happen in my lifetime, and probably not even before Jesus returns (if that is after my lifetime). However, I do think it would be a reasonable compromise, that does not at all alter the faith and could bring the two sides at least to a more friendly dialogue.
The Creed has been modified before. To say that we cannot touch anything to me sends the signal that the Church is stagnant.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
What this issue points to for me is that the whole of the Church has to agree to these things. All long as the modification was used and no one objected, well and good. But once their were objections, then it needed to be worked out by all the Bishops to come to a conclusion that all were happy with. It could be used with a particular understanding, or better to leave it out after all.
To me, if the West wants to come to an agreement with the East, they need to drop it, and go through the whole process of discussing it like they should have in the first place. Though at this point, it might be better to just drop it, since the relevant issues aren’t really a problem.
The difficulty is that really, it isn’t a problem of Trinitarian theology. It’s a problem of whether the whole Church has to agree to changes like this or whether Rome can decide unilaterally. And since Rome shows no signs of changing it’s mind on that, what is the point?
To me, if the West wants to come to an agreement with the East, they need to drop it, and go through the whole process of discussing it like they should have in the first place. Though at this point, it might be better to just drop it, since the relevant issues aren’t really a problem.
The difficulty is that really, it isn’t a problem of Trinitarian theology. It’s a problem of whether the whole Church has to agree to changes like this or whether Rome can decide unilaterally. And since Rome shows no signs of changing it’s mind on that, what is the point?
F
FabiusMaximus
Guest
Why haven’t the Orthodox objected so strongly against the inclusion of “God of God” which was also an “unauthorized” addition?
The biggest objection I’ve seen against the filioque is that it allegedly “changes” the composition of the Trinity. If the Orthodox regarded the issue as little more than wording then the issue would have been fixed centuries ago.
Rome has been more than willing to allow the East to keep the Creed without the filioque. Why can’t the West simply keep it without an issue if it’s only about “authorization” and “wording”?
P
Paul_theApostle
Guest
What do you Catholics think about this -
home.comcast.net/~t.r.valentine/orthodoxy/filioque/dragas_eighth.html
I know Catholics dont recognise this council anymore ,but ive read at the time it annulled the previous council which Catholics now accepts as Ecumenical,
And at the time of this council it seems the West and the Pope agreed with Photius not to add to the original Creed.
On one website ,it says even after this council of 880 where they agreed on one Creed,
the filioque was used all over the west and Rome didnt seperate or excommunicate these Churches and the East didnt push for excommunication either of the Churches that used Filioque even after the 880 council.
Did the Council of Lyons or Florence bring forth the Filioque issue to the East so it can be accepted?
home.comcast.net/~t.r.valentine/orthodoxy/filioque/dragas_eighth.html
I know Catholics dont recognise this council anymore ,but ive read at the time it annulled the previous council which Catholics now accepts as Ecumenical,
And at the time of this council it seems the West and the Pope agreed with Photius not to add to the original Creed.
On one website ,it says even after this council of 880 where they agreed on one Creed,
the filioque was used all over the west and Rome didnt seperate or excommunicate these Churches and the East didnt push for excommunication either of the Churches that used Filioque even after the 880 council.
Did the Council of Lyons or Florence bring forth the Filioque issue to the East so it can be accepted?
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Ryan,
Here are some relevant quotes from St. Gregory to demonstrate this very point:
For we have learnt to believe in and to teach the Deity of the Son from the great and lofty utterances of the Oracles of God. And what utterances are these? These: God-the Word-He That Was in The Beginning and With The Beginning, and The Beginning…Then [the utterance that] the Son is Only-Begotten…
Third Theological Oration.
He is called Son because He is identical with the Father in Essence…And He is called Only-Begotten because the manner of His Sonship is peculiar to Himself and not shared by bodies.
Fourth Theological Oration
The Son is the Son…inasmuch as we could not in any other way than this point out that He is of God and Consubstantial.
Fifth Theological Oration
Do you not see that the words “Son” and “Begotten” express first and foremost for St. Gregory Nazianzen (and all the other Fathers, mind you) the doctrine of the divinity of the Son? Do you expect it to be any different with regards to his belief in what the notion of Procession is primarily intended to denote with regards to the relationship between the Father and the Holy Spirit?
Perhaps you have taken that saying out of your Gospels for the sake of your Third Testament - Holy Ghost, which proceedeth from the Father - Who, inasmuch as He proceedeth from that Source is no Creature.
The most explicit statements that St. Gregory offers us that “Procession” denotes first and foremost the co-divinity of the Spirit with the Father because they share the same Essence/Substance are Chapters 5 and 6 of his Fifth Theological Oration. Here St. Gregory begins, “What then? Is the Spirit God? Most certainly. Well then, is He Consubstantial? Yes, if He is God…” He goes on to explain - by way of analogy to “lower things” - how creatures who are generated from other creatures share in the essence and nature of their forebears; and how both Seth and Eve shared in the essence/nature of Adam even though they were generated from Adam in different ways. He concludes his argument against the heretics “Will you give up your contention against the Spirit, that He must be either altogether begotten, or else cannot be consubstantial or be God; and admit from human examples the possibility of our position?”
Brother Ryan. Can you not see that from the perspective of St. Gregory (and all the Fathers, actually), you cannot divorce in any way the concept of origination from the concept of co-divinity or consubstantiality? You claim that there were heretics who were making a point about the Spirit not originating from the Father. But isn’t it true that these heretics were denying said origin precisely because they were intent on denying the divinity of the Holy Spirit?
CONTINUED
I believe you misapprehend what I am saying, and it may be because I am not expressing myself as well as I ought. As repeatedly stated, I am not denying that “ekporeusai from the Father” refers to the concept of origination. What I am saying is that the fact of origination is a dogmatic principle that is (1) not an end in and of itself, and (2) was not added to insist on the arche of the Father (which no one, not even the heretics, denied). The idea of the origination of the 2nd and 3rd Person of the Trinity in the Godhead from the Father denotes primarily the fact that the Son and the Spirit share in the divine Essence of the Father. This is quite explicit from the Fifth Theological Oration.
Here are some relevant quotes from St. Gregory to demonstrate this very point:
For we have learnt to believe in and to teach the Deity of the Son from the great and lofty utterances of the Oracles of God. And what utterances are these? These: God-the Word-He That Was in The Beginning and With The Beginning, and The Beginning…Then [the utterance that] the Son is Only-Begotten…
Third Theological Oration.
He is called Son because He is identical with the Father in Essence…And He is called Only-Begotten because the manner of His Sonship is peculiar to Himself and not shared by bodies.
Fourth Theological Oration
The Son is the Son…inasmuch as we could not in any other way than this point out that He is of God and Consubstantial.
Fifth Theological Oration
Do you not see that the words “Son” and “Begotten” express first and foremost for St. Gregory Nazianzen (and all the other Fathers, mind you) the doctrine of the divinity of the Son? Do you expect it to be any different with regards to his belief in what the notion of Procession is primarily intended to denote with regards to the relationship between the Father and the Holy Spirit?
Perhaps you have taken that saying out of your Gospels for the sake of your Third Testament - Holy Ghost, which proceedeth from the Father - Who, inasmuch as He proceedeth from that Source is no Creature.
The most explicit statements that St. Gregory offers us that “Procession” denotes first and foremost the co-divinity of the Spirit with the Father because they share the same Essence/Substance are Chapters 5 and 6 of his Fifth Theological Oration. Here St. Gregory begins, “What then? Is the Spirit God? Most certainly. Well then, is He Consubstantial? Yes, if He is God…” He goes on to explain - by way of analogy to “lower things” - how creatures who are generated from other creatures share in the essence and nature of their forebears; and how both Seth and Eve shared in the essence/nature of Adam even though they were generated from Adam in different ways. He concludes his argument against the heretics “Will you give up your contention against the Spirit, that He must be either altogether begotten, or else cannot be consubstantial or be God; and admit from human examples the possibility of our position?”
Brother Ryan. Can you not see that from the perspective of St. Gregory (and all the Fathers, actually), you cannot divorce in any way the concept of origination from the concept of co-divinity or consubstantiality? You claim that there were heretics who were making a point about the Spirit not originating from the Father. But isn’t it true that these heretics were denying said origin precisely because they were intent on denying the divinity of the Holy Spirit?
CONTINUED
M
mardukm
Guest
CONTINUED
In effect, the commonality of the divine Essence - which denoted that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were God equally and which is expressed equally by the concept of origination (ekporeusai), on the one hand, and the concept of procession/sharing of Substance (procedit), on the other - was the original intention of the Fathers of the Second Ecum. As long as this was on the mind of all Christians, East, West and Orient, there was peace. But at a certain point in time (after the 7th Ecum, to be sure), the Easterns developed a focus on the concept of origination (ekporeusai) as a defense not of the commonality of divine Essence, but rather as a defense of the arche of the Father. Due to this development in doctrine (fully orthodox, but a development nonetheless), the Greeks no longer shared with the Latins a common purpose for the expression “ekporeusai from the Father.” And I truly believe that is the root cause of the division.
As intimated previously, the only way to solve the problem of filioque, as far as certain Eastern Orthodox are concerned, is for these particular EO to go back to the original source - the Second Ecumenical Council - and rediscover the original purpose of that Council for making its additions to the Nicene Creed.
Blessings,
Marduk
In effect, the commonality of the divine Essence - which denoted that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were God equally and which is expressed equally by the concept of origination (ekporeusai), on the one hand, and the concept of procession/sharing of Substance (procedit), on the other - was the original intention of the Fathers of the Second Ecum. As long as this was on the mind of all Christians, East, West and Orient, there was peace. But at a certain point in time (after the 7th Ecum, to be sure), the Easterns developed a focus on the concept of origination (ekporeusai) as a defense not of the commonality of divine Essence, but rather as a defense of the arche of the Father. Due to this development in doctrine (fully orthodox, but a development nonetheless), the Greeks no longer shared with the Latins a common purpose for the expression “ekporeusai from the Father.” And I truly believe that is the root cause of the division.
As intimated previously, the only way to solve the problem of filioque, as far as certain Eastern Orthodox are concerned, is for these particular EO to go back to the original source - the Second Ecumenical Council - and rediscover the original purpose of that Council for making its additions to the Nicene Creed.
Blessings,
Marduk
B
Bluegoat
Guest
It doesn’t really matter why. In the Church, theological issues are only issues if someone objects. If no one does, then there is no issue - the mind of the Church is satisfied.
As an example - as far as we can tell, in the very earliest years of Christianity adult baptism was the norm. As time went on, the situation changed, and most of the people to be baptized in established Christian communities were infants. And so they baptised infants. There was no objection, everyone recognized this as the logical expresion of Christian belief about baptism.
But if a group had stood up and said “well, we think that is not a good idea” then it would have to have been discussed by all.
This is also why many practices can differ in different areas, but be ok, and local councils can work. A local counsel makes decisions for their area, but the decision can be debated at a higher level if other parts of the Church see it as being a problem. Or, on the other hand, the results of the local counsel could be accepted by everyone and so considered important for the whole Church. That is why historically some local counsels are important for everyone, but others are not.
The reason there is an issue is because the filioque, which became an issue of contention, never was discussed by the whole Church. It doesn’t matter really if the East or West is right, or it’s just a mis-understanding - we can’t say, because the whole Church never came to a decision when the issue was raised. Instead, Rome tried to force the issue with a claim of authority and through political manipulation. That claim of authority was not accepted by the other patriarchs, and the political manipulation was resented.
So, as of yet, there has been no resolution and can be no resolution.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
You incorrectly uphold the EO side of the debate. The CC implimented this to avoid heresy.
The objections are a defense to validate ones own “opinion”. And an appeal to the public to sway thinking in regards to validity, they are a poor acts of deception. As anyone with an open-mind who has educated themself on this issue quickly understands.
The fact is the issue will be corrected when the time actually arrive’s to address the issue, and communion thus becomes close to reality. Until then speculation will continue. We can only hope to correctly direct one to TRUTH. Otherwise its just Clanging Cymbals:shrug:
However the fact that you side with is EO is NOTED! We get that is not a mystery. Now PROVE your point.
The fact there this wasn’t discussed with the entire church has no bearing and carrys no weight. There was no need becaue there was no issue but in other’s Minds. And is also the exact reason why its not being discussed by the entire church not in communion with Rome today.
Peace
The objections are a defense to validate ones own “opinion”. And an appeal to the public to sway thinking in regards to validity, they are a poor acts of deception. As anyone with an open-mind who has educated themself on this issue quickly understands.
The fact is the issue will be corrected when the time actually arrive’s to address the issue, and communion thus becomes close to reality. Until then speculation will continue. We can only hope to correctly direct one to TRUTH. Otherwise its just Clanging Cymbals:shrug:
However the fact that you side with is EO is NOTED! We get that is not a mystery. Now PROVE your point.
The fact there this wasn’t discussed with the entire church has no bearing and carrys no weight. There was no need becaue there was no issue but in other’s Minds. And is also the exact reason why its not being discussed by the entire church not in communion with Rome today.
Peace
B
Bluegoat
Guest
What I’ve said pretty accurately reflects how controversies were handled in the Church throughout the early period. It’s not a theoretical position, it’s an historical one. If the EO suggest that is how things ought to be done, it is because that is how they were done. And I am being nothing but factual in describing how the issue led to the Schism - Rome claimed authority on the issue, and the East said it didn’t have it.
Aside from that, I don’t know what most of your post means, it is rather obscure.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
“If the EO suggest that is how things ought to be done, it is because that is how they were done”
So what are you saying the EO is correct about everything?..LOL
And ABC ought to give one the first clue your wrong.
This is your opinion. Not a mystery either. Prove it through History.
Peace
So what are you saying the EO is correct about everything?..LOL
And ABC ought to give one the first clue your wrong.
This is your opinion. Not a mystery either. Prove it through History.
Peace
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Filioque #1: One of the original issues that divided the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church was the “Filioque.” Is it still the major point of contention between East and West that it once was?
Concerning the infamous conflict over the Filioque, it doesn’t appear to be the stumbling block that it once was. In 1995 the Holy Father asked the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity to reconsider the issue. At his request, they issued a marvelous document entitled: “The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity - the Procession of the Holy Spirit in Greek and Latin Traditions.”
This document acknowledged the Eastern understanding of the Father as the source of the Trinity as being definitive for the Catholic Church. The Orthodox were concerned that Catholics claimed that the Father and Son BOTH were the source of the Trinity. This document puts that fear to rest.
In fact, this document goes so far as to state that the Creed WITHOUT the Filioque is the normative form of the Creed for the entire Catholic Church. It says:
“The Catholic Church acknowledges the conciliar, ecumenical, normative, and irrevocable value, as expression of the one common faith of the Church and of all Christians, of the Symbol professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the Second Ecumenical Council. No profession of faith peculiar to a particular liturgical tradition can contradict this expression of the faith taught by the undivided Church,”
The Holy Father has warmly embraced this document, and has implemented it himself. Whenever concelebrating with Eastern bishops, or during ecumenical prayer services, the Holy Father always celebrates the Creed minus the Filioque.
Filioque #2: Why don’t Roman Catholics go back to reciting the Creed in its original form? If a western Church like the Anglican returns to using the Creed without Filioque, then it seems to imply that many Western Christians (Protestant and Roman Catholic) are professing the “wrong” Creed.
To say that the version of the Creed with the Filioque is the “wrong” creed would be incorrect. It is a legitimate variation of the same Creed that is particular to the Latin liturgical tradition.
When properly understood, the Filioque clause does not compromise the monarchy of the Father - the notion that the Father is the original source of the Son and the Spirit. Indeed, the Latin theological tradition has tended to emphasis the role of Son in the spiration of the Spirit while maintaining the Father’s monarchy. The Filioque clause expresses this Latin theological tradition, which is part of the heritage of the Latin Church. Many Roman Catholic theologians believe that to remove the Filioque from the Creed of the Latin Church would be to abandon an important part of the Latin theological patrimony.
Filioque #3: Who started the fight over the filioque? Did Charlemagne really add it to the creed?
Concerning your question, it has been established that the Filioque was inserted into the Nicene Creed at the request of Charlemagne, over the vocal objection of the reigning Pope. It had previously been recited in parts of Gaul and Spain, but it achieved widespread use in the West through the efforts of Charlemagne. Numerous Popes opposed this addition, and attempted to maintain the original version of the creed for several centuries. Indeed, not a single Pope recited the Filioque until Pope Benedict VIII (1014-15).
Thus, when St. Photius protested the recitation of the Filioque in the Creed, he believed himself to be following in the footsteps of the numerous Popes who also opposed this addition.
I should also mention that some historians believe that Charlemagne added the Filioque to the Creed precisely in order to have an excuse for accusing the Byzantine Emperor of heresy. Since the Byzantine Emperor refused to recite the Filioque, he could be accused of heresy and therefore was not to be regarded as a legitimate Emperor by Charlemagne. This meant that Charlemagne alone was the sole true Emperor of the Christian world. Of course, since the Pope at this time also refused to recite the Filioque, this would also mean that he was a heretic by Charlemagne’s standards, wouldn’t it? Thus, Charlemagne painted himself into a sticky theological corner.
In any case, this issue appears to have been largely resolved in recent years. I will be very thankful when this fight is finally consigned to the dustbin of history.
Filioque #4: Do Eastern Catholics have to believe in the filioque?
Rome does not ask Eastern Catholics to abandon our unique theological tradition. In fact, Vatican II has asked us to preserve our theological traditions, which are part of the wealth of the entire Catholic Church. Therefore, Eastern Catholics are to maintain their traditional Eastern theology of the Trinity, which emphasizes the monarchy of the Father.
The filioque is part of the Latin theological tradition. Since we are in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Catholics believe that the filioque is a legitimate understanding of the Trinity, particular to the Latin tradition. In other words, it is a true understanding of the Trinity, equal and complementary with the Eastern understanding. While we do not express our understanding of the Trinity in this way, it is perfectly legitimate for the Latin Church to do so. The Eastern and Western understandings of the Trinity are different but complementary. So when push comes to shove, we believe that the filioque is true, but it is not how we express the mystery.
In all of its dealings with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Roman Catholic Church has never asked the Orthodox to embrace the filioque as their understanding of the faith. On the contrary, Rome has only asked the Orthodox to acknowledge that it is not heretical. Unfortunately, for many centuries the Orthodox were unwilling to concede this. Some Orthodox still remain so.
Dr. Anthony Dragani
Concerning the infamous conflict over the Filioque, it doesn’t appear to be the stumbling block that it once was. In 1995 the Holy Father asked the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity to reconsider the issue. At his request, they issued a marvelous document entitled: “The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity - the Procession of the Holy Spirit in Greek and Latin Traditions.”
This document acknowledged the Eastern understanding of the Father as the source of the Trinity as being definitive for the Catholic Church. The Orthodox were concerned that Catholics claimed that the Father and Son BOTH were the source of the Trinity. This document puts that fear to rest.
In fact, this document goes so far as to state that the Creed WITHOUT the Filioque is the normative form of the Creed for the entire Catholic Church. It says:
“The Catholic Church acknowledges the conciliar, ecumenical, normative, and irrevocable value, as expression of the one common faith of the Church and of all Christians, of the Symbol professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the Second Ecumenical Council. No profession of faith peculiar to a particular liturgical tradition can contradict this expression of the faith taught by the undivided Church,”
The Holy Father has warmly embraced this document, and has implemented it himself. Whenever concelebrating with Eastern bishops, or during ecumenical prayer services, the Holy Father always celebrates the Creed minus the Filioque.
Filioque #2: Why don’t Roman Catholics go back to reciting the Creed in its original form? If a western Church like the Anglican returns to using the Creed without Filioque, then it seems to imply that many Western Christians (Protestant and Roman Catholic) are professing the “wrong” Creed.
To say that the version of the Creed with the Filioque is the “wrong” creed would be incorrect. It is a legitimate variation of the same Creed that is particular to the Latin liturgical tradition.
When properly understood, the Filioque clause does not compromise the monarchy of the Father - the notion that the Father is the original source of the Son and the Spirit. Indeed, the Latin theological tradition has tended to emphasis the role of Son in the spiration of the Spirit while maintaining the Father’s monarchy. The Filioque clause expresses this Latin theological tradition, which is part of the heritage of the Latin Church. Many Roman Catholic theologians believe that to remove the Filioque from the Creed of the Latin Church would be to abandon an important part of the Latin theological patrimony.
Filioque #3: Who started the fight over the filioque? Did Charlemagne really add it to the creed?
Concerning your question, it has been established that the Filioque was inserted into the Nicene Creed at the request of Charlemagne, over the vocal objection of the reigning Pope. It had previously been recited in parts of Gaul and Spain, but it achieved widespread use in the West through the efforts of Charlemagne. Numerous Popes opposed this addition, and attempted to maintain the original version of the creed for several centuries. Indeed, not a single Pope recited the Filioque until Pope Benedict VIII (1014-15).
Thus, when St. Photius protested the recitation of the Filioque in the Creed, he believed himself to be following in the footsteps of the numerous Popes who also opposed this addition.
I should also mention that some historians believe that Charlemagne added the Filioque to the Creed precisely in order to have an excuse for accusing the Byzantine Emperor of heresy. Since the Byzantine Emperor refused to recite the Filioque, he could be accused of heresy and therefore was not to be regarded as a legitimate Emperor by Charlemagne. This meant that Charlemagne alone was the sole true Emperor of the Christian world. Of course, since the Pope at this time also refused to recite the Filioque, this would also mean that he was a heretic by Charlemagne’s standards, wouldn’t it? Thus, Charlemagne painted himself into a sticky theological corner.
In any case, this issue appears to have been largely resolved in recent years. I will be very thankful when this fight is finally consigned to the dustbin of history.
Filioque #4: Do Eastern Catholics have to believe in the filioque?
Rome does not ask Eastern Catholics to abandon our unique theological tradition. In fact, Vatican II has asked us to preserve our theological traditions, which are part of the wealth of the entire Catholic Church. Therefore, Eastern Catholics are to maintain their traditional Eastern theology of the Trinity, which emphasizes the monarchy of the Father.
The filioque is part of the Latin theological tradition. Since we are in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Catholics believe that the filioque is a legitimate understanding of the Trinity, particular to the Latin tradition. In other words, it is a true understanding of the Trinity, equal and complementary with the Eastern understanding. While we do not express our understanding of the Trinity in this way, it is perfectly legitimate for the Latin Church to do so. The Eastern and Western understandings of the Trinity are different but complementary. So when push comes to shove, we believe that the filioque is true, but it is not how we express the mystery.
In all of its dealings with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Roman Catholic Church has never asked the Orthodox to embrace the filioque as their understanding of the faith. On the contrary, Rome has only asked the Orthodox to acknowledge that it is not heretical. Unfortunately, for many centuries the Orthodox were unwilling to concede this. Some Orthodox still remain so.
Dr. Anthony Dragani
B
Bluegoat
Guest
About everything? That seems to go well beyond what I said. To be frank, the only place I actually hear Catholics try to argue that the Church always accepted the Catholic medieval and later understanding of the role of the papacy is from amateur apologists on the internet.“If the EO suggest that is how things ought to be done, it is because that is how they were done”
So what are you saying the EO is correct about everything?..LOL
And ABC ought to give one the first clue your wrong.
This is your opinion. Not a mystery either. Prove it through History.
Peace
I don’t see how birth control relates to how the Church understood it’s structure and enacted that in its first thousand years. I can think of several things you might be trying to imply, but they are all fallacious ways of arguing, so I can’t say they move me.
There have been dozens, if not more, threads that you’ve participated in where people have shown by example how decisions were made in the Church. I don’t see much need to rehash them again.
If you want to give mean example before the schism of the Pope imposing an idea that some part of the Church disagreed with, and they then accepted it on that basis, feel free. You can also show me where he appoints and deposes other bishops and patriarchs for good measure.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
I agree that the concept of the origination of co-divinity/consubstantiality cannot be separated from the concept of origination. Also, after reading your last response to me, I think that we do not disagree to the degree that I thought. However, I think in some of your posts, you have minimized the extent to which the purpose of the language concerning the begetting of the Son by the Father and the procession of the Spirit from the Father serve the purpose of explaining the relationships among the three divine hypostases and the manner in which the Son and the Spirit originate from the Father.
There is a great degree of scholarly agreement that St. Gregory of Nazianzus and St. Gregory of Nyssa were pivotal in the workings of the Second Ecumenical Council, and through their presence, so was St. Basil the Great, who had died prior to the Council. There is also a great deal of scholarly agreement that the three Cappadocian Fathers used the language of the procession of the Spirit from the Father exactly for the purpose of distinguishing the manner in which the Spirit originates from the Father from the manner in which the Son originates from the Father. This is why I continue to insist that the primary purpose of the language of the procession of the Spirit from the Father is to show the manner in which the Spirit originates from the Father.
The consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit had, as I believe you are aware, been taught by multiple local synods prior to the Second Ecumenical Council. Also, it had been defended in writings of numerous Church Fathers, both Latin and Greek. In some sense, the issue was likely already settled in the minds of the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council (it certainly was in the minds of the Cappadocian Fathers). It is my contention that the consubstantiality of the Spirit was demonstrated primarily by the language of “the Lord, the Giver of life” and “who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified,” as well as by various authoritative writings leading up to the Second Ecumenical Council that actually used the term “consubstantial.” I further contend that the consubstantiality of the Spirit is demonstrated secondarily by the language concerning the origination of the Spirit from the Father, insofar as the (eternal) origination of the Holy Spirit from the divine life of the Father implies his consubstantiality with the Father. On the other hand, I contend, on the basis of the writings of the Cappadocian Fathers themselves, the language of the CCC, and the work of scholars, that the language of procession primarily concerns the origination of the Holy Spirit from the Father and how it differs from that of the Son, while it secondarily demonstrates the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father (and the Son).
So, I do not disagree with you that the origination of the Son and the Spirit from the Father is inextricably linked to their consubstantiality with the Father; otherwise, one could not maintain the monarchia and/or arche of the Father. In other words, if, as the Gospel of John teaches, the Father is in some sense “greater” than the Son (and the Spirit), but Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are consubstantial, then it must be the case that the Son and the Spirit originate from the Father (ontologically, though not temporally, since they are co-eternal with the Father).
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Apparently you do, since you are the one who made the below statement.
ABC is a quick indicator of just how incorrect your statement is. However its not the point of discussion. The Filioque is.
“If the EO suggest that is how things ought to be done, it is because that is how they were done”
What I stated is evident in Post #2 and #56. And without reverting to the heresy which implimented the actual change, since that can be found through the search engine here. What you stated is evident in the above quotation. Neither are wrong. And that is the truth in History. Apparently its not what you believe or want to hear.
And as we see by the Eastern Rite Catholics its not even an issue but in the minds of those who chose to divide.
Peace
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Sounds good except the “greater” part. Are you greater than your son? You may be wiser, accomplished more, been around longer. However one is the same.
Your referring to John 14:28 which is Christ speaking in the present Biblically.
Jesus Christ stated this to John, not because He is not God, but because He became man. When He become man He was in a state lower than the Angels. For the Angels came and ministered to Him. Jesus did not deny He was God in John, He simply acknowledged He was Flesh and man.
So in this sense we would need to revert to other Bible verse.
Hebrews 2:9, “But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.”
So we see in this verse Jesus is lower than the Angels. We do not state the Angels are greater than Christ after His death.
Colossians 2:9, “For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily”
Here we see that one in not greater than the other but the same.
And of course it goes on and on Biblically.
Of course the real question is how the Holy Spirit proceeds for we also know and see the HS proceed from God the Father at the Annunciation, Burning Bush. We know what all the scholars have stated, early church fathers etc. However this is still much of a mystery Biblically speaking.
The only questionable evidence we have to date is the Seer of Fatima who seen the Trinity together. Here one is left with the distinct impression that all three are one as stated in the Doctrine of the Trinity.
Of course we can go on and on and try to resolve the mystery of Christ re-appearing to the apostles. Which brings another point up. Without a doubt its complex.
Interesting though without a doubt. Whats most clear is John…In the beginning was the Word and the Word became Flesh. So we see the Son of God existing before Flesh.
Peace
- Status