Filioque

  • Thread starter Thread starter rain_bow
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rain_bow

Guest
Let me know about this, why it is added by Catholic Church and why orthodox Christians refuse it? What about protestants?Do they accept or refuse it?

PS. My intention is not to start debate,but I just want some authentic information and fruitful discussion.So please Christian friends participate here and let me know the root of this “Filioque” controversy.
 
Let me know about this, why it is added by Catholic Church and why orthodox Christians refuse it? What about protestants?Do they accept or refuse it?

PS. My intention is not to start debate,but I just want some authentic information and fruitful discussion.So please Christian friends participate here and let me know the root of this “Filioque” controversy.
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.
 
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.
I was asking about the Filioque not about the Orthodoxy. However here I saw many orthodox, so I thought that it might be a good idea to read from both, not only from Catholics alone.So question regarding filioque can be ask in any website, like I asked the same question to protestants and they informed me that if you want to add or not,does not matter,so I posted here because it is one of the largest online religious forum.And I also have no time to waste, thank you.
 
Well I have read these links.So I got some information about Catholic point of view about adding the Filioque and that was helpful. I would like to wait for few responses from orthodox or protestants, to compare all of them. Thanks for your post.
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
 
Most, but certainly not all, protestants accept it. (I honestly have NEVER had it come up in a conversation with a protestant or in a sermon I attended. All I know about it is what i have seen personally and on the web.)

Anglican /Episcopals have it included in current Book of Common Prayer but some committee (I forget which) recommended they take it out, but it hasn’t been removed I don’t think.

Lutherans: I saw this link angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.filioque.html no idea if its accurate or not ??

Baptists: afaik they don’t like creeds in general so I’d be surprised to see them take a stand on the topic other than to say that it is a man-made creed therefore, prone to error anyhow. (there is more than one type of baptist so I don’t know if both agree on this)

non-denominational: Most that I know would say “The what?” 😦 but I think that most that are ok with creeds include it too.

Any Protestants who want to correct me go for it, I’m fuzzy on any specifics.:o
 
I’ll only speak as a (former) Presbyterian. When we used to say the creed it was almost verbatim to the English used by Catholics in the US. Just pulling the Book of Common Prayer from the PCUSA site it is still included:
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified
My guess is that most mainline protestant denominations that use the creed would include the filioque because they split from Rome long after 8th century when it was becoming common in the Latin Rite. That being said I doubt most protestants would recognize it by that name. From a theological standpoint I don’t remember it coming up much. Heck I wasn’t even aware of it until I had to write a college paper on Photios I and how he was connected to the Great Schism of 1054.
 
Accepted among Lutherans. But I often wonder if your typical Protestant will even know what the Trinity is now days, much less the procession of the Holy Spirit. 😦
 
Accepted among Lutherans. But I often wonder if your typical Protestant will even know what the Trinity is now days, much less the procession of the Holy Spirit. 😦
True, Swiss. Though there are amongst those who question the authority (ironic, ain’t) of the CC to add to the creed in this way without a general council. I fall into that camp.
Equally ironic is that Lutherans accept it considering what the confessions say on the matter of the power and primacy of the pope.
Jon
 
True, Swiss. Though there are amongst those who question the authority (ironic, ain’t) of the CC to add to the creed in this way without a general council. I fall into that camp.
Equally ironic is that Lutherans accept it considering what the confessions say on the matter of the power and primacy of the pope.
Jon
Jon, you are easily the most “Catholic” Protestant that I have ever encountered. I am tempted to call you a Pratholic. 😃
 
Us Melkites, since we are basically Orthodox in communion with Rome, are allowed to not say the filioque, to use leavened bread, and to basically keep most of our orthodox beliefs-----as long as we accept that the Pope is the FIRST AMONG EQUALS and that we are part of the CATHOLIC (not Roman) Church. If the hoped-for (faintly, I admit) “reunification” of the “Two Lungs” were to occur, I very much doubt that the Pope would insist that the Orthodox would give up most of their beliefs. Most of the Eastern catholics have kept their beliefs about the filioque AND are still in communion with Rome.
Many Orthodox forget that.
 
I very much doubt that the Pope would insist that the Orthodox would give up most of their beliefs.
It seems, because of the nuances of the Latin and Greek, as well as the context, if the Mass/DL is in Greek, he prays without the Filioque and if in Latin (such as Credo III), he prays with the Filioque. I wouldn’t know about all the translated liturgies. One would have to have the proper understanding of “procedit” for that particular translation inter alia, I would think.
 
…, I very much doubt that the Pope would insist that the Orthodox would give up most of their beliefs.
He would not even be given the chance to think it is within his power to make Orthodox change their beliefs.

It would be over before it began.
Most of the Eastern catholics have kept their beliefs about the filioque AND are still in communion with Rome.
Many Orthodox forget that.
No, that is not correctly put.

Many Eastern Catholics are allowed to not recite the filioque in the Creed.

That is not the same as keeping a separate set of beliefs.

For one thing, an Eastern Catholic is not allowed to not agree with the filioque, it is de Fide, you know. It must be believed whether it is recited or not. Many Eastern Catholics forget that.

The whole idea of the Supreme Pontiff allowing Eastern Catholics is completely missing the point. The bishop of Rome does not have the right to either allow or disallow, and the idea that Orthodox should come under the Pope and he will allow the Orthodox anything is really going too far.
 
Let me know about this, why it is added by Catholic Church and why orthodox Christians refuse it? What about protestants?Do they accept or refuse it?

PS. My intention is not to start debate,but I just want some authentic information and fruitful discussion.So please Christian friends participate here and let me know the root of this “Filioque” controversy.
My understanding is that the Greek was translated into Latin and the Latin into English and that caused all the problems. This is a theological issue being hammered out by the Orthodox/Catholic dialogue and I anticipate that there will be some sort of understanding issued that is agreed upon. This would be called the Development of Doctrine.
 
My understanding is that the Greek was translated into Latin and the Latin into English and that caused all the problems. This is a theological issue being hammered out by the Orthodox/Catholic dialogue and I anticipate that there will be some sort of understanding issued that is agreed upon. This would be called the Development of Doctrine.
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.
 
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.
Hello,

Quick question: How many wills/natures did Christ have?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top