If many Eastern Orthodox didn’t constantly talk about the filioque as if it was heresy, this would be the reasonable course of action. Unfortunately the orthodoxy of the teaching must be settled because it’s not going away even if it is dropped from the Creed. If it was accepted as orthodox, I would be the first to suggest simply removing it from all Liturgical Creeds.One major problem for the Orthodox Church concerning the filioque clause is the way it was added to the Nicene creed. The original creed is binding on all Orthodox Catholic Christians. Since it was formulated in an ecumenical council, it can only be changed in an ecumenical council. At the end of the formulation in the council, an anathema is placed on anyone who changes the creed. Pope Leo III agreed with this when confronted with the filioque clause in the 8th-9th century. He refused to accept or use it. To emphasize how adamant he was about his position, he had the original creed inscribed on silver plates and fixed to the doors of the then existing cathedral in Rome ( I am not against calling it the Vatican; I just do not what the cathedral church building in Rome was called in 800 A.D.) . After the creed, he also placed an anathema on any one who would try to change the creed in any way. The filioque clause did not become a normal part of the creed or the divine liturgy in Rome for another 200 years.
More recently, I read back in the 1990’s in the “Our Sunday Visitor” Roman Catholic Church weekly magazine a quote from then Cardinal Ratzinger. Cardinal Ratzinger stated that the Nicene Creed, without the filioque clause, is the norm for the Church.
It seems to me that before get carried away with trying to create an explanation of the filioque clause that will sit well with the Orthodox Church, we should decided whether the filioque clause should have ever been allowed in the creed in the first place. Seems to me,
two Popes would say no.
Grace and Peace,If many Eastern Orthodox didn’t constantly talk about the filioque as if it was heresy, this would be the reasonable course of action. Unfortunately the orthodoxy of the teaching must be settled because it’s not going away even if it is dropped from the Creed. If it was accepted as orthodox, I would be the first to suggest simply removing it from all Liturgical Creeds.
Peace and God bless!
Then by your definition of heresy and additions to the Words of God, one of the giants, St. Gregory of Nyssa, is guilty:As we see and learn from the history of the Filioque, starting from its addition to the Creed to its early definitions and later definition, It was unorthodox to add it, and its theology as it is defined by the Roman CC leads to an error, and it is NOT in-line with the Teaching of the Cappadocian Fathers whom the explanation of what had been revealed to us concerning the understanding of the Holy Trinity† fell on their shoulders and they alone stood as giants in this matter in particular S.Basil the Great and S. Gregory the Theologian, also when the line in the Creed (the Original one that is) where it speaks about the Procession of the Holy Spirit that “HE Proceed from the Father” was taking from the Holy Gospel of the Beloved Saint John the Apostle where he repeated what our LORD and Saviour the CHRIST JESUS had said and was quoted in the Creed, so addition for this line in the Creed is an addition to the Words of the LORD JESUS CHRIST according to the Gospel of saint John, is rejected right of the bit without going into anything else, and if this is NOT a heresy ( heresy= wrong teaching) I don’t know what is,
Simple and clear, No addition to the Words of GOD in the Bible is acceptable, whether it is in the Bible or copied from the Bible, such as the Creed, anything would change or lead to the changing of the Words of our LORD JESUS CHRIST is simply unorthodox.
Finally, I think that the RCC now is going about this Filioque issue the right way by starting to drop it from the Creed slowly but surely and they are also looking now to modify the CCC in several issues one of them is the Filioque, May GOD be with them and bless their orthodox moves, we know a 1000 year issue is not going to be solved as soon as we would like it to, but our prayers are with them.
GOD bless you all†††
You are certain of this?I must say again that no one accused Hilary of Poitiers, Didymus the Blind, Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria, Ambrose, or Pope Leo of heresy, and they explicitly taught the filioque.
Sure of what? That they taught the filioque, or that they were not accused of heresy. They certainly did teach the filioque, but I don’t know if they were accused of heresy for it in their time. Some, like St. Cyril of Alexandria, even went so far as to say that the relationship the Son has to the Father, the Holy Spirit has to the Son.You are certain of this?
False.…and they explicitly taught the filioque.
Hilary of PoitiersFalse.
We’ve been on that topic on this very thread posts #74 - #110.…
All these seem pretty explicit to me, though I am nobody.
Which wouldn’t be the Catholic or Orthodox Palamite position on the matter. It has to be an eternal procession, not a temporal one. So it has to be occurring constantly, not after the Ascension.It’s interesting that the Holy Spirit couldn’t proceed untill Jesus ascended to the Father and then not without Jesus’ intermediation. I think I understand through Scriptures the filiioque made visible throughout Salvation history and especially in the sequence of these passages
Eternity entered timeWhich wouldn’t be the Catholic or Orthodox Palamite position on the matter. It has to be an eternal procession, not a temporal one. So it has to be occurring constantly, not after the Ascension.
** Benadam**
the filiioque made visible throughout Salvation history and especially in the sequence of these passages
In your quote above of saint Gregory of Nyssa, I see nothing of the Filioque as defined by the RCC, all there is, is that S.Gregory of Nyssa making a clear distinction between the PERSONS of the Holy Trinity, here is a couple lines from the above where he is making a clear distinction of the PERSONS and also the Order of the PERSONS:Then by your definition of heresy and additions to the Words of God, one of the giants, St. Gregory of Nyssa, is guilty:
If, however, any one cavils at our argument, on the ground that by not admitting the difference of nature it leads to a mixture and confusion of the Persons, we shall make to such a charge this answer—that while we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another—by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another by that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the interposition of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father.
-*On “Not Three Gods” *
I must say again that no one accused Hilary of Poitiers, Didymus the Blind, Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria, Ambrose, or Pope Leo of heresy, and they explicitly taught the filioque.
Ok I think I understand now. Thank you Formosus. I didn’t mean to deny the eternal procession but to recognize the opening of a place His procession was closed to untill the ascension. Thank you again for bringing that distinction to light. PeaceWhich wouldn’t be the Catholic or Orthodox Palamite position on the matter. It has to be an eternal procession, not a temporal one. So it has to be occurring constantly, not after the Ascension.
I’m sorry, Ignatios, but this analysis is nonsense. St. Gregory clearly says that the Son is interposed between the Father and the Holy Spirit. He also says that the Holy Spirit is “from that which is directly from the Cause”, which means from the Son as he defines “directly from the Cause” as being the Son.All the above is about the distinction and the Order of the PERSONS of the Holy TRINITY and NOT about the Procession of the Holy Spirit, here is another line from the above:
“…by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction…”
distinction is not Procession,
Now, 1)the Cause=the FATHER=the First PERSON of the MOST HOLY TRINITY, this was ONE, not two/double as your Filioque definition suggest,
now here is the Next distinction or another distinction/Not the first or with the first but ANOTHER,2) of the Cause=the SON=the Second PERSON,
3) and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction=the Third PERSON=the Holy Spirit, Note carefully to what he said, he said “OF the Cause we recognize another distinction” he didn’t say “FROM= ekporeuesthai” the Cause and “of the Cause” another distinction Proceed.
Yes but the question isn’t whether a temporal procession occurred or not. All Orthodox and Catholics agree that the Holy Spirit proceeds temporally through the Son. The dispute is over it occurring eternally so when someone says its a temporal procession as the Catholic position,then its necessary to point out that.Eternity entered time
Formosus I appreciate your attention and willingness to educate me about this. My view of how the temporal and eternal states relate may be at fault.Yes but the question isn’t whether a temporal procession occurred or not. All Orthodox and Catholics agree that the Holy Spirit proceeds temporally through the Son. The dispute is over it occurring eternally so when someone says its a temporal procession as the Catholic position,then its necessary to point out that.
Actually, the Romans have always stated that the Holy Spirit ἐκπορεύεσθαι from the Father, and προϊέναι from the Father and the Son, the former indicating procession from an origin, the latter merely indicating procession.On the other hand, where in the Scriptures do you find that the Holy Spirit Proceed= ekporeuesthai, from the FATHER and the SON as defined by the RCC???
“And from the Son” and “through the Son” are different ways to express the true doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit. A few Fathers used the formulae interchangeably (e.g., Bishop St. Hilary of Poitiers and Patriarch St. Cyril I of Alexandria).the above is a strictly eastern Formula " Proceeding from the FATHER through the Son/receiving from the SON" where the Filioque is Proceeding from the FATHER and the SON.