Filioque

[Swiss_Guy]

Hello,

Quick question: How many wills/natures did Christ have?

2 - human and divine.

 

[CopticChristian]

This is what the assembled Patriarchs and bishops of Holy Orthodoxy have said on the subject:
*The new doctrine, that “the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son,” is contrary to the memorable declaration of our LORD, emphatically made respecting it: which proceedeth from the Father (John xv. 26), and contrary to the universal Confession of the Catholic Church as witnessed by the seven Ecumenical Councils, uttering “which proceedeth from the Father.” (Symbol of Faith).

i. This novel opinion destroys the oneness from the One cause, and the diverse origin of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity, both of which are witnessed to in the Gospel.

ii. Even into the divine Hypostases or Persons of the Trinity, of equal power and equally to be adored, it introduces diverse and unequal relations, with a confusion or commingling of them.

iii. It reproaches as imperfect, dark, and difficult to be understood, the previous Confession of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

iv. It censures the holy Fathers of the first Ecumenical Synod of Nice and of the second Ecumenical Synod at Constantinople, as imperfectly expressing what relates to the Son and Holy Ghost, as if they had been silent respecting the peculiar property of each Person of the Godhead, when it was necessary that all their divine properties should be expressed against the Arians and Macedonians.

v. It reproaches the Fathers of the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh Ecumenical Councils, which had published over the world a divine Creed, perfect and complete, and interdicted under dread anathemas and penalties not removed, all addition, or diminution, or alteration, or variation in the smallest particular of it, by themselves or any whomsoever. Yet was this quickly to be corrected and augmented, and consequently the whole theological doctrine of the Catholic Fathers was to be subjected to change, as if, forsooth, a new property even in regard to the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity had been revealed.

vi. It clandestinely found an entrance at first in the Churches of the West, “a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” that is, under the signification not of procession, according to the Greek meaning in the Gospel and the Creed, but under the signification of mission, as Pope Martin explained it to the Confessor Maximus, and as Anastasius the Librarian explained it to John VIII.

vii. It exhibits incomparable boldness, acting without authority, and forcibly puts a false stamp upon the Creed, which is the common inheritance of Christianity.

viii. It has introduced huge disturbances into the peaceful Church of God, and divided the nations.

ix. It was publicly proscribed, at its first promulgation, by two ever-to-be-remembered Popes, Leo III and John VIII, the latter of whom, in his epistle to the blessed Photius, classes with Judas those who first brought the interpolation into the Creed.

xii. As soon as it was introduced into the Churches of the West it brought forth disgraceful fruits, bringing with it, little by little, other novelties, for the most part contrary to the express commands of our Savior in the Gospel—commands which till its entrance into the Churches were closely observed. Among these novelties may be numbered sprinkling instead of baptism, denial of the divine Cup to the Laity, elevation of one and the same bread broken, the use of wafers, unleavened instead of real bread, the disuse of the Benediction in the Liturgies, even of the sacred Invocation of the All-holy and Consecrating Spirit, the abandonment of the old Apostolic Mysteries of the Church, such as not anointing baptized infants, or their not receiving the Eucharist, the exclusion of married men from the Priesthood, the infallibility of the Pope and his claim as Vicar of Christ, and the like. Thus it was that the interpolation led to the setting aside of the old Apostolic pattern of well nigh all the Mysteries and all doctrine, a pattern which the ancient, holy, and orthodox Church of Rome kept, when she was the most honored part of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.*
from the Patriachal Encyclical of 1848

One can guess from this what the Orthodox generally think of the Latin theory of Development of Doctrine.

Yup, I gues there is disagreement. I anticipate that the theologians will hammer out something that the likes of you and I can discuss later.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

I can only speak with any authority of the Protestant church that I was raised in. We believed that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and from the Son.

Having studied a wide variety of protestant religions, I have yet to find any, that believe in the Trinity, that do NOT accept the Filoque. Of course the Unitarians do not, but they do jot believe in the Trinity at all.

 

[lyrikal]

2 - human and divine.

Thank you, Swiss Guy.

I do agree but I’m going to wait for Michael to answer because I have a follow up question. I am certain he will have the same answer as you and me but I’ll wait for his answer before asking my follow up.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Thank you, Swiss Guy.

I do agree but I’m going to wait for Michael to answer because I have a follow up question. I am certain he will have the same answer as you and me but I’ll wait for his answer before asking my follow up.

Any time.

I understand.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Thank you, Swiss Guy.

I do agree but I’m going to wait for Michael to answer because I have a follow up question. I am certain he will have the same answer as you and me but I’ll wait for his answer before asking my follow up.

Excuse my anxiousness, but why not just post the question now, since it’s common knowledge that the Eastern Orthodox hold to the doctrine of Constantinople III, which states that Christ has two wills, human and divine?

 

[rain_bow]

Hey Rain_bow;

I have a tendency to go with Hesychios on his comment. There are some very good Orthodox websites, that I personally know of, that will help you with an explanation on Orthodox side. And I hope Hesychios will approve - as well as the Catholics. The website gives both perspectives on the topic-subject of the thread:

orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/john_zizioulas_single_source.htm

You know that if you have any questions - afterwards, any members here will be more than willing to answer your questions - any of these denominations are very well educated on the subject. Personally, it maybe very controversial but an awesome topic to discuss.

Give the Orthodox thread - a try! You’ll find some very good souls!
Mary

ok Mary thank you . I will read this link soon.

Peace .

 

[rain_bow]

Actually, most are gone from here, sadly.

Oh ok!!

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Why Roman Catholics believe in the filioque is something one can learn here at CAF. One should expect to receive good and accurate information about Roman Catholic beliefs here, free of distortion.

For questions about Orthodox theology I suggest going to an Orthodox website, where there are plenty of people who can address your questions accurately.

From my experience, asking Roman Catholics to explain Holy Orthodoxy is a waste of time, and asking Orthodox Catholics to explain Roman Catholicism is also a waste of time. Asking either of them to compare one another’s beliefs is very often a disaster.

Don’t you think it’s a little unfair to say that Roman Catholics can’t explain Orthodoxy?

To me, personally, it seems like both sides have generally good arguments with regards to the filioque. Me, I tend to side with the Roman Catholics on the filioque, but I appreciate the Orthodox position.

 

[Hesychios]

Don’t you think it’s a little unfair to say that Roman Catholics can’t explain Orthodoxy?

I don’t insist upon it, but usually there is a lot of accusations of misrepresentation and then follows recrimination. This goes both ways, of course, but here we have a few dozen Roman Catholics claiming to have all the answers for Holy Orthodoxy in their biases, while we have maybe three Orthodox left here who are able to post (possibly less).

Would you expect that a question about Roman Catholicism on an Orthodox website would get a fair and unbiased report from the many Orthodox posters there? If they are Orthodox Christians hanging around an Orthodox website they have made up their own minds about a lot of things, and I would not expect the description of Roman Catholicism to be altogether flattering. [And usually these people are pretty good at making an argument in their own words, they don’t just throw up a few links and let some distant author do their reasoning and explaining for them.]

The same problem exists here in reverse. For all I know Cavaradossi and I are actually the only Orthodox Catholic Christians left posting here, there may be one other, I don’t see anybody else! I and numerous others have done these topics to death in the last six years and the archives should have plenty of material. Anyone sincerely interested can do a search and come up with boatloads of posts.

But to answer your question, yes, even a Buddhist or an atheist should be able to explain Holy Orthodoxy if they are knowledgable and sincerely unbiased. I don’t think there is anyone like that hanging around here. Honestly.

I still think my advice is the best: if you want to know about someone else’s beliefs, go ask them directly. If you want to compare them to another belief, ask the others what they believe and figure it out.

 

[Hesychios]

Excuse my anxiousness, but why not just post the question now, since it’s common knowledge that the Eastern Orthodox hold to the doctrine of Constantinople III, which states that Christ has two wills, human and divine?

Apologetics 101

Wait until after the BIG BUILDUP.

 

[lyrikal]

Apologetics 101

Wait until after the BIG BUILDUP.

Hi Hesychios,

This isn’t an attempt to “stump” you, it is more an attempt to understand where the Orthodox Faith is coming from in terms of what I am about to ask.

My question is, where can we find Christ having two wills in Scripture/Patristic writings? What was the earliest mention of this? The Council of Constantinople III that defined the doctrine happened in the late 7th century. How is this different than the Catholic understanding of “development of Doctrine” which I believe is better put as “Development of a clearer understanding of a Doctrine.”

I would also ask the same thing with regards to the Assumption of Mary. It’s clear that the earliest Patristic writings don’t explicitly mention this. When I read the Patristic writings, I see a rather dim understanding of Doctrines such as the Trinity, Canon of Scripture, Marian Doctrines, etc. Those doctrines seem to be more clear in later centuries. Some of those doctrines are not even mentioned in the earliest centuries. They are mentioned when there are disputes/questions with regards to the Faith.

How is that different than the Catholic understanding of the development of Doctrine?

Again, I would just like to understand your side of it.

Grace and peace.

 

[lyrikal]

I don’t insist upon it, but usually there is a lot of accusations of misrepresentation and then follows recrimination. This goes both ways, of course, but here we have a few dozen Roman Catholics claiming to have all the answers for Holy Orthodoxy in their biases, while we have maybe three Orthodox left here who are able to post (possibly less).

This is very unfortunate. As an Eastern Catholic, I have a great love for the Orthodox Faith. I know you probably think the differences are many, but I still love the OF. Although we have many differences, we still have many similarities.

 

[lyrikal]

Excuse my anxiousness, but why not just post the question now, since it’s common knowledge that the Eastern Orthodox hold to the doctrine of Constantinople III, which states that Christ has two wills, human and divine?

My apologies, Cavaradossi.

 

[MorningSong51]

ok Mary thank you . I will read this link soon.

Peace .

:juggle:

I’m thinking that most of it has already been posted, but to quote out of the article that I listed (and its not much different than from another article that was listed on this thread), this is a very big issue along with another one.

"1. It is with deep satisfaction that I read in the document the emphatic assertion that no confession of faith belonging to a particular liturgical tradition can contradict the expression of faith of the Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople 381) which has been taught and professed by the undivided Church. This is a very good basis for discussion.

1. It is extremely important, in my judgment, to clarify the point concerning the “source” (πηγή) or “principle” or “cause” (αιτία) in the Holy Trinity. This is crucial perhaps decisive. The document of the Vatican sees no difference between the monarchia of the Father, i.e. the idea that the Father is the sole “principle” in God’s Trinitarian being, an idea strongly promoted by the Greek Fathers, and St. Augustine’s expression that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “principaliter”. However, before we can come to the conclusion that the two traditions, Eastern and Western, understand this matter in the same way, we must raise the following questions:

a) Does the expression “principaliter” necessarily preclude making the Son a kind of secondary cause in the ontological emergence of the Spirit? The Filioque seems to suggest two sources of the Spirit’s personal existence, one of which (the Father) may be called the first and original cause (principaliter), while the other one (the Son) may be regarded as a secondary (not principaliter) cause, but still a “cause” albeit not “principaliter”."

From the back page subscription, “The Word Among Us” - The title says “Pray with Pope Benedict XVI” and here’s the prayer: (January 2008, edition) - read also, new date set for World Religion: This year we mark the 25th anniversary of this extraordinary gathering. Pope Benedict XVI will follow in Blessed John Paul II’s footsteps with a pilgrimage to Assisi on October 27, 2011. He has invited the world’s religious leaders to renew our late Holy Father’s call for peace.

Dear Lord,

During this month when we pray for Christian unity, we ask you to strengthen the church’s commitment to full visible unity. Let your people, your church, manifest ever more clearly her nature as a genuine community of love. Let us truly reflect the communion of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Jesus,we also pray that the church in Africa, which is preparing to celebrate the second Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for Africa, may continue to be a sign and channel of reconciliation and justice in a continent still suffering from war, exploitation, and poverty. Lord, bless all of your people in Africa."

The article listed in this subscription is an excellent read, “They Are Our Brethren” John XXIII and Christian Unity. I will quote part of this article for you:

"Pope John also welcomed the heads of many churches to the Vatican. For instance, not since the fourteenth century had an Archbishop of Canterbury set foot inside the Vatican - until Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher’s visit in 1960. The pope reminded those separated from the Catholic Church of the words of St Augustine: “Whether they wish it or not, they are our brethren. They cease to be our brethren only when the stop say, “Our Father.””

When once asked about the possibility of Christian unity, Pope John replied, “I realize that it will take a long time. Neither you nor I will be there to celebrate the great feast of reconciliation. Neither will my immediate successors. But someone must begin to clear away the obstacles that stand in the way.”

Again, a very good article - as it gives only a brief back history, “In December. 1965, Pope Paul VI joined Patriarch Athenagoras I in lifting the mutual excommunications between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches that had been in place since 1054. In 1995, Pope John Paul II dedicated an entire encyclical to ecumenism (That They May Be One), and throughout his pontificate went out of his way to meet with leaders of other Christian denominations. And Pope Benedict XVI has continued along this path, urging Catholics to pray and work for unity”

 

[MorningSong51]

ok Mary thank you . I will read this link soon.

Peace .

…read before it expires on Oct 21, 2011 - kpeople: aaaaaaaaaanother end of day prediction.

 

[lyrikal]

Hi Hesychios,

This isn’t an attempt to “stump” you, it is more an attempt to understand where the Orthodox Faith is coming from in terms of what I am about to ask.

My question is, where can we find Christ having two wills in Scripture/Patristic writings? What was the earliest mention of this? The Council of Constantinople III that defined the doctrine happened in the late 7th century. How is this different than the Catholic understanding of “development of Doctrine” which I believe is better put as “Development of a clearer understanding of a Doctrine.”

I would also ask the same thing with regards to the Assumption of Mary. It’s clear that the earliest Patristic writings don’t explicitly mention this. When I read the Patristic writings, I see a rather dim understanding of Doctrines such as the Trinity, Canon of Scripture, Marian Doctrines, etc. Those doctrines seem to be more clear in later centuries. Some of those doctrines are not even mentioned in the earliest centuries. They are mentioned when there are disputes/questions with regards to the Faith.

How is that different than the Catholic understanding of the development of Doctrine?

Again, I would just like to understand your side of it.

Grace and peace.

Bump

 

[MorningSong51]

Bump

and who are we bumping today? lol…

 

[lyrikal]

and who are we bumping today? lol…

I posed a question for Hesychios and Cavaradossi was also anxious to see the question. I have yet to receive an answer. Since the thread got buried down, I figured I’d bump it in case the two posters didn’t get a chance to read the question(s).

 

[MorningSong51]

I posed a question for Hesychios and Cavaradossi was also anxious to see the question. I have yet to receive an answer. Since the thread got buried down, I figured I’d bump it in case the two posters didn’t get a chance to read the question(s).

…maybe they didn’t hear the question and you have to repeat back, you think?