Is the Eastern Orthodox Church correct

[George720]

According to Chalcedon, it was permissible for the Fathers of Constantinople I to include the material on the Holy Spirit in the Creed of Nicaea; they were not adding substance but clarifying what was already there. Yet if this option of making clarifying notations to the creed was permissible for them, it would be permissible for others also. Thus the Council of Florence could add “ filioque ” legitimately as a clarification of the manner of the Spirit’s procession.

Do you understand what is being said here?

Are you saying that an Ecumenical Council of the Churches added the Filioque to the Creed???

Three question marks because that did not happen…

The Orthodox do not recognize the Council of Florence…

In our Ekklesiology, a Council has to be ratified by its acceptance in practice by the whole Church… And that did not happen…

geo

 

[dochawk]

I am interested in your opinion on how Rome came to the conclusion that, since Peter died as the bishop of Rome, we are to hand every succeeding Roman bishop the authority and supremacy of the entire church?

I’m the wrong person to ask; I don’t have much on that.

There was certainly a level of deference to the bishops of Rome, and an acceptance of leadership, even in the first century.

“supremacy” and exercise of direct jurisdiction seems to be a second millennium development, although there also seem to be some assertions in a similar vein from some Church fathers (but other than vetoing a council or two, I couldn’t name an attempt to exercise direct jurisdiction )

After the collapse of the western empire, the church was pretty much the only institution left, and picked up a central secular role. Meanwhile, the east never had this problem.

 

[CathBoy1]

Do you understand what is being said here?

Yes I understand what is being said here, what you don’t seem to understand is that THE FILIOQUE WAS FIRST ADDED IN SPAIN, not by an ecumenical council as you suggest, furthermore seeing as it wasn’t added by a council (at that time) or a pronouncement by the Roman Pontiff, Canon VII (still in effect) of the Council of Ephesus was disobeyed, yes it was affirmed at the Council of Florence later, but it does not change the fact that it was added (not by a council) first in Spain.

Additionally you charge that I never bothered to read over the link that you provided (I did btw), you seem not to have read my earlier reply (in this thread) so let me highlight it for you:

Oh I did open the link to the argument that you provided, it doesn’t seem to hold seeing as the Council Of Ephesus was held after the Council Of Constantinople I, Thereby it would seem that Ephesus confirms Constantinople I rather than condemning it.

And please consider what George720 had to say on the subject, I believe there is wisdom in his words.

That ruling from the Ecumenical Council was made for a reason, and while I am not a student of the ruling, I am fairly confident that everyone and their brother had some choice tidbit of the Faith that they wanted to see included in the Creed… That would turn the Creed into the Catholic Online (and dare I mention searchable?) Catechism, which is the font of all possible Christian questions! OK - Maybe I overstated it!

Yet nevertheless, it was not to be altered on pain of an anathema and a Papal Authority did indeed change it. The fact that his Cardinals were demanding that the Orthodox give a full accounting with names of exactly WHY the Orthodox REMOVED it from the Creed does add a dash of seasoning to this brew! But they were so convinced of their Papal Authority to change the Creed that when they found out that we hadn’t removed it at all, but they had added it against the ruling in discussion, it made no difference to them, because they thought they did indeed HAVE the authority to do whatever they pleased with the Creed, because they ARE the bona fide successors to the Chair of Peter…

That is how authority often works…

So it was a dust-up…

But you are right - The Pope signed off on the ruling against changing the creed by so much as even one word on pain of anathema, and another Pope changed the Creed by adding that one word, and was not anathematized, and the question: “Which one was right?” would seem eminently reasonable…

And if looked at in terms of its fruit - eg The schisming of the Church - All bets are favoring the Pope who endorsed the Conciliar ruling… Adding that one word was a disaster…

geo

Peace brother.

 

[CathBoy1]

After the collapse of the western empire, the church was pretty much the only institution left, and picked up a central secular role. Meanwhile, the east never had this problem.

I found myself nodding my head in agreement whilst reading this statement.

 

[CathBoy1]

Are you saying that an Ecumenical Council of the Churches added the Filioque to the Creed???

Three question marks because that did not happen…

The Orthodox do not recognize the Council of Florence…

In our Ekklesiology, a Council has to be ratified by its acceptance in practice by the whole Church… And that did not happen…

Honestly from the RC perspective, Florence was an Ecumenical Council.
It doesn’t change the fact that the creed was first changed by lord knows who in Spain, and that’s part of the problem, we don’t even know exactly just who added the filioque to the creed, but we definitively know who didn’t, neither a pope nor a council (at first anyways).

 

[Kei]

The changed creed was not automatically accepted, and the original tamperers would have been long dead before the change was legitimized via ecumenical council. So, it’s not like they were being rewarded or anything. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were punished or admonished, even if their heart was in the right place (ie ward off Arian heresy).

This’ll be last comment for now, I’ll pray for you (please do for me), peace.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Sent you another PM.

 

[CathBoy1]

I’ll pray for you (please do for me), peace.

Thank you & absolutely, peace be with you as well.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Keep in mind that Antioch, too, remained (or went) Catholic (well at the very least no original line of Bishops of Antioch is in Eastern Orthodox Church). There are many arguments about Papacy but that would likely derail this thread.

Notable things being Pope St. Gregory (Saint also in Orthodox Church) saying he can judge any Bishop and that he can render any Eastern Council null and void. St. George the Hagiorite, Georgian Monk who lived during Schism and is Eastern Orthodox Saint had no relations with West yet when he learned about Great Schism he professed inerrancy (infallibility) of Roman See before Emperor and Patriarch of Constantinople. Maximus the Confessor is also worth reading.

creed was first changed by lord knows who in Spain, and that’s part of the problem, we don’t even know exactly just who added the filioque to the creed, but we definitively know who didn’t, neither a pope nor a council (at first anyways).

Most Ecumenical Councils started as local ones. If they had authority to create and change the Creed, why didn’t Spanish ones? Do you believe only Emperor’s approval can make change to Creed valid? Because there was no other difference. Filioque was professed in the East as “through the Son” as Greek language wouldn’t allow “and the Son”. Copts also professed it and they did so as “and the Son” because their language allows that.

 

[CathBoy1]

Most Ecumenical Councils started as local ones. If they had authority to create and change the Creed, why didn’t Spanish ones? Do you believe only Emperor’s approval can make change to Creed valid? Because there was no other difference. Filioque was professed in the East as “through the Son” as Greek language wouldn’t allow “and the Son”. Copts also professed it and they did so as “and the Son” because their language allows that.

No I do not believe an ecumenical council needs an emperor’s approval, nor do I think my argument calls for it.
Also I was totally unaware that a local council has the authority to change (as you suggest), override or whatever you wish to call it, the pronouncement of an ecumenical council that was approved of by the Roman Pontiff.
It seems to me that if a local Spanish council (as you suggest) changes the creed of it’s own accord, no matter the reason, however well their intentions, is still defying Canon VII of the Council of Ephesus which at that time would’ve been binding, therefore this supposed local Spanish council would have anathemized itself.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Ephesus started as local. This comes down to fact Greeks were allowed to change the Creed but Latins were not. Armenians used different Creed altogether even before Chalcedon and nobody minded. Local Creeds were a thing before Filioque. Changing the Creed was prohibited in such wording it implies changing the faith was prohibited- not just adding words.

Chalcedon, for example, promulgated their own Creed. It is widely held as profession of Council Fathers and rarely used but it is their Creed nevertheless. Chalcedon was after Ephesus.

 

[Genesis315]

The Eastern Orthodox churches used to agree with us on original sin–notice it was never an issue at the reunion Councils, whereas much more minor topics like purgatorial fire were. Their new idea (although it is certainly not universal among EOs) is a novelty that grew from an anti-Latin, anti-Augustine element of the Neo-Palamite movement of the 19th and 20th centuries.

For example, at the pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalem in 1672, the EO patriarchates agreed to the following justification of infant baptism, founded on the understanding of original sin they held in common with the Roman Church (even citing St. Augustine approvingly):

And since infants are men, and as such need salvation, needing salvation they need also Baptism. And those that are not regenerated, since they have not received the remission of hereditary sin, are, of necessity, subject to eternal punishment, and consequently cannot without Baptism be saved. So that even infants should, of necessity, be baptized. Moreover, infants are saved, as is said in Matthew; {Matthew 19:12} but he that is not baptized is not saved. And consequently even infants must of necessity be baptized. And in the Acts {Acts 8:12; 16:33} it is said that the whole houses were baptized, and consequently the infants. To this the ancient Fathers also witness explicitly, and among them Dionysius in his Treatise concerning the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy; and Justin in his fifty-sixth Question, who says expressly, “And they are guaranteed the benefits of Baptism by the faith of those that bring them to Baptism.” And Augustine says that it is an Apostolic tradition, that children are saved through Baptism; and in another place, “The Church gives to babes the feet of others, that they may come; and the hearts of others, that they may believe; and the tongues of others, that they may promise;” and in another place, “Our mother, the Church, furnishes them with a particular heart.”

Now the matter of Baptism is pure water, and no other liquid. And it is performed by the Priest only, or in a case of unavoidable necessity, by another man, provided he is Orthodox, and has the proper intention to Divine Baptism. And the effects of Baptism are, to speak concisely, firstly, the remission of the hereditary transgression, and of any sins of any kind that the baptized may have committed. Secondly, it delivers him from the eternal punishment, to which he was liable, as well for original sin and for mortal sins he may have individually committed. Thirdly, it gives to the person immortality; for in justifying them from past sins, it makes them temples of God.
The Confession of Dositheus (Eastern Orthodox)

 

[Isearch]

Some of their bishops still believe in that though. One of the prominent EO youtube channels once complained about one of their bishops having the Augustinian view on the destination of unbaptized infants.

 

[George720]

Honestly from the RC perspective, Florence was an Ecumenical Council.

Perhaps that is part of the problem…
From the Orthodox pov, it was extortion and a betrayal of the Faith by all those who submitted to it, and when they brought home the “agreement” Constantinople was scandalized and spat it out… From the pov of the authoritarian Church, our authorities met with your authorities and hammered out an agreement and that settled the matter… Not so from the Orthodox pov… Virtually all save one, I believe, repudiated their signing of the document, and Mark of Ephesus, who did not sign it, and who had to flee overland to avoid being burned at the stake for it, was welcomed home as the hero of the extortion… And is now commemorated as St. Mark of Ephesus for his intransigence in the Faith… It is reported that when the Pope heard that Mark had refused to sign after every other man had signed, he said: “Then we have lost…”

Had the Council been held in Constantinople, there would have been no such outcome… Yet Constantinople was the beggar, with the Turks at the Gates, and soon came under the Turkish yoke without help from the Latin Papal Blessing of troops… And in my latter years, I see this as the just outcome of God because of the massacre in Constantinople of the Latins living there and the failure of the Emperor to defend them from their Orthodox persecutors who by this time had fallen far from the Faith of Christ… They came back to that Faith under the persecutions of the Turks…

geo

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

@CathBoy1

Yes I understand what is being said here, what you don’t seem to understand is that THE FILIOQUE WAS FIRST ADDED IN SPAIN, not by an ecumenical council as you suggest, furthermore seeing as it wasn’t added by a council (at that time) or a pronouncement by the Roman Pontiff, Canon VII (still in effect) of the Council of Ephesus was disobeyed, yes it was affirmed at the Council of Florence later, but it does not change the fact that it was added (not by a council) first in Spain.

The filioque was added to the Creed by the 2nd Canon of the Third Council of Toledo held in 589 to bring the Arian Goths into the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Here is the wikipedia link:

Third Council of Toledo - Wikipedia

 

[CathBoy1]

Ephesus started as local.

Also can you please provide a source for your suggested local Spanish council?, or perhaps a name for said council? The problem being is that, Ephesus very well may have started as local council and been declared as an ecumenical council only later, whereas there is no such council known of, where the filioque originated, only that a later Council was established to confirm the practice.

Point again being that it spread out from Spain from Lord only knows who (who would’ve technically anathematized themselves)?, only to be much later confirmed by a council, what I don’t understand is when the council convened why they didn’t pronounce them (whoever in Spain) anathema, I mean it would seem the prudent decision in light of the fact that they(whoever in Spain) disobeyed Canon VII of Ephesus, a Canon ratified by the Papacy itself.

This comes down to fact Greeks were allowed to change the Creed but Latins were not. Armenians used different Creed altogether even before Chalcedon and nobody minded. Local Creeds were a thing before Filioque. Changing the Creed was prohibited in such wording it implies changing the faith was prohibited- not just adding words.

Chalcedon, for example, promulgated their own Creed. It is widely held as profession of Council Fathers and rarely used but it is their Creed nevertheless. Chalcedon was after Ephesus.

Furthermore your charge that the Greeks were allowed to change the creed whereas the Latins were not, I would argue the Greeks were not allowed to either, so the point is moot, the major difference being is that the Greeks repented from this error and continue to use the creed from Constantinople I, whereas the Latin’s continue to use the filioque.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The problem being is that, Ephesus very well may have started as local council and been declared as an ecumenical council only later, whereas there is no such council known of, where the filioque originated, only that a later Council was established to confirm the practice.

That is even better then. Lex Orandi Lex Credendi- we believe as we pray. Church is infallible, so is her faith.

(who would’ve technically anathematized themselves)

Technically they wouldn’t unless they knew they were breaking the rule. No one warned them afterwards for centuries. But that’s just technicality.

what I don’t understand is when the council convened why they didn’t pronounce them (whoever in Spain) anathema, I mean it would seem the prudent decision in light of the fact that they(whoever in Spain) disobeyed Canon VII of Ephesus, a Canon ratified by the Papacy itself.

Maybe Papacy understood canon to be changing the meaning behind Creed. Popes were all supporters of Filioque as doctrine, but they were split on whether it does or does not belong to the Creed. No one denied it’s validity in theology up until Patriarch Photius.

Furthermore your charge that the Greeks were allowed to change the creed whereas the Latins were not, I would argue the Greeks were not allowed to either, so the point is moot, the major difference being is that the Greeks repented from this error and continue to use the creed from Constantinople I, whereas the Latin’s continue to use the filioque.

This still leaves Armenians who were never rebuked for using different Creed. There were many Creeds in Catholic Church even Pre-Schism, post-Nicea and nobody minded (so that means we are misinterpreting Ephesus in what it meant, or perhaps Church just ignored said canon en-masse?). I think what Spanish did wrong was calling it “Creed of Nicea” despite it being changed. Would they simply call it "Creed of ", there wouldn’t be a problem.

 

[CathBoy1]

The filioque was added to the Creed by the 2nd Canon of the Third Council of Toledo held in 589 to bring the Arian Goths into the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Here is the wikipedia link:

en.wikipedia.org

Third Council of Toledo​

The Third Council of Toledo (589) marks the entry of Visigothic Spain into the Catholic Church, and known for codifying the filioque clause into Western Christianity. The council also enacted restrictions on Jews, and the conversion of the country to Catholic Christianity led to repeated conflict with the Jews. In the 4th century, the bishop Wulfila (c 310 – 383) invented a script for the Gothic language, translated the Bible into Gothic, and converted the Goths to Arian Christianity. When the V…

Thanks for pointing out which local council introduced the filioque, But it still does not change the fact that a local council attempts to override the pronouncement of an ecumenical council, with the pain of anathema as a consequence (no matter how well their intentions).

 

[CathBoy1]

or perhaps a name for said council? The problem being is that, Ephesus very well may have started as local council and been declared as an ecumenical council only later, whereas there is no such council known of,

I admit my ignorance here, as has been pointed out it was The third council of Toledo, nevertheless my argument stands as it was a local council (at that time) changing the creed of their own accord against the pronouncement of an ecumenical council.

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

Thanks for pointing out which local council introduced the filioque, But it still does not change the fact that a local council attempts to override the pronouncement of an ecumenical council, with the pain of anathema as a consequence (no matter how well their intentions).

This is going to go way over my pay grade so maybe someone who knows canon law can answer better, but from what little I know about the canons, in the contemporary Catholic Church there are canons that are automatically active upon infraction, but in the Orthodox Church those who transgress the canons have to be accused, tried, and sentenced/acquitted by ecclesiastical authority. A historical question would be how did the canons function in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church during the time that Toledo III was held?