Orthodox & Catholics: What Still Divides Us?

[Hesychios]

Brother Marduk frames a red herring.

The filioque is not about claiming the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son.

The filioque was introduced in Spain to support the divinity of Christ over against the Arian heretics who dominated that country. The intent was to show that Christ was divine by teaching that He was also a source of origin of the Holy Spirit.

That’s it. The argument was not whether the Holy Spirit was divine, but whether Jesus Christ was. That is why it was inserted into the Creed in Spain.

However the early Fathers of the church chose not to discuss this in the Creed, probably because it is not well worked out and difficult to clearly understand. The formula itself is heretical in Greek and imprecise in Latin, and often misunderstood by those who are expected to believe it. The translation from Latin to English is also imprecise, unnecessarily so! It can be translated in such a way as to remove any ambiguity, but the Catholic church did not do that.

Thus we have many Catholics who do not understand that double-procession is incorrect, in fact a heresy. I used to see these people come visit the eastern Catholic parish I belonged to years ago (they were usually upset that we didn’t take the filioque and feeling argumentative), it was a regular occurance. One can argue that they are poorly catechized but I think not. If they have thought about it at all they are already head and shoulders above many of their coreligionists. The problem is the theology confuses people.

The best possible resolution to this problem I can see is to remove it from the Creed, and return the idea to a theologeumena, a pious opinion. In this way it can be discussed by everyone without anathemas and threats of excommunication being spun around.

What some eastern Catholics try to say is “we are just like the Orthodox, we don’t have to say it” but that is completely meaningless if the church is still insisting on all eastern Catholics believing it in a dogmatic fashion. To do this they have to understand the Latin teaching, which is imprecise and aften misinterpreted by the people who are asked to affirm it.

Thus what the filioque says is that both the Father and the Son are sources of the Holy Spirit. Even though that notion is wrong (and the modern Catholic church admits that) it seems to follow Augustine who described the Holy Spirit as the product of mutual love between the Father and the Son. I think one will find that in de Trinitate. There is a danger here of giving the false impression of subordination of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps this is why the Holy Spirit seems so neglected in the west.

The expression “from the Father and the Son” is not acceptable because it is imprecise. The best possible solution might be to reword the formula so as to say “From the Father through the Son” but then for precision probably it would also be necessary to add that the Son is begotten of the Father through the Holy Spirit. One can see that this is getting lengthy, and the sad part is it all was never really unnecessary in the first place.

Let me quote Saint Gregory of Nazianzus …
“You hear that there is generation? Do not waste your time in seeking after the how. You hear that the Spirit proceeds from the Father? Do not busy yourself about the how” [Orat XX, 2]

"You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, then I will explain to you the physiology of the Son’s generation and the Spirit’s procession and both of us shall be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God" [Orat XXXI, 8]

The filioque doesn’t satisfy. It is a gloss inserted into the Creed which confuses rather than helps people understand. For that reason it is a mistake to call a dogma, it is a mistake to bind people to an imprecise understanding and it is a mistake to add it to the Creed of the universal church.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

At the risk of sounding like a simpleton here, doesn’t John 20 say
***And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. ***

And in Titus 3:6 regarding the Holy Spirit…
whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior

And Romans 8:9 and Galatians 4:6 and Acts 2:33 says

Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear.

I know this isn’t your first rodeo with this topic, Michael. But it seems to me, and this is my meager opinion on this topic mind you, that the Trinity is complicated, and a mystery, something the Orthodox like to meditate upon—mystery. And in this mystery of the Trinity, God is three equal divine persons and yet One. The three parts cannot take away or remove or add to the other. The Father and the Son comingling as One aren’t seperate and Jesus is in a vacuum as the Father unilaterally sends the Advocate. It seems Christ is fully a part of the transmission and the Spirit is Christ’s spirit himself the Scriptures say. Like Augustine said one can count all the sands on the beach before one can understand the Trinity, I think one could discuss this topic into infinity before anyone can be proven right on this as well. If the three divine persons are co-equal and Acts 2:33 says “He (Christ” has poured forth this (the Holy Spirit) but the promise was from God the Father not the actual act alone, and then in Titus 3:6 the H.S. comes “through” the Lord Jesus, and Jesus “breathes” the H.S. to the apostles in John, it seems that the lack of the filioque seems to limit Christ’s majesty and role in this sublime action???

From where I see it, Orthodoxy has a very rigid overly-conservative approach always saying, “this is the way it was said back in ____ AD so it can never be changed, understood anew, or discussed. End of story. If they said it this way, it’s in stone, period.” This isn’t a good approach IMO. The Creed was a statement of belief at Nicaea. Is it a creed that can never ever be added to? Why is it so taboo to even ponder adding such a small thing? Like, for example, if we added to “was born of the Virgin Mary” and let’s say “raised in the houshold of Joseph,” would the Orthodox be aghast just because “this is not the way we’ve been saying it since Nicaea!” but is it necessarily wrong or evil to say that He was raised in the house of Joseph? I’m not advocating that by the way…just an example…

My point is that conservatism can be extreme. “I like things the way they are because that’s the way they were!” isn’t always the best argument and that seems the main one???

It seems that the filioque is fine to me. But where I agree with you completely is that the Eastern Catholics say to the Orthodox “hey, we Eastern Catholics don’t have to say the filioque” and yet they have to believe in the Roman dogma of it? Not saying it but being forced to believe it is indeed odd to me. I concur with you about that.

Either you buy it and say it or don’t and omit…

Brother Marduk frames a red herring.

The filioque is not about claiming the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son.

The filioque was introduced in Spain to support the divinity of Christ over against the Arian heretics who dominated that country. The intent was to show that Christ was divine by teaching that He was also a source of origin of the Holy Spirit.

[/INDENT]The filioque doesn’t satisfy. It is a gloss inserted into the Creed which confuses rather than helps people understand. For that reason it is a mistake to call a dogma, it is a mistake to bind people to an imprecise understanding and it is a mistake to add it to the Creed of the universal church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Papacy
The Filioque

Anything else? IOW, if there was agreement between the Orthodox and the Catholic Church on those two issues, would anything else prevent re-unification?

Cross out the Filioque. Its only the papacy that divides us. There are many Catholic Churches today that omit the Filioque. In fact, 22 of 23 Catholic Churches do not say the Filioque.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

Brother Marduk frames a red herring.

Not at all, as you will see in the forthcoming explanation. You will see that not only is it not a red herring, but that the EO arguments really amount to nothing more than uniatism in reverse.

The filioque is not about claiming the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son.

The filioque was introduced in Spain to support the divinity of Christ over against the Arian heretics who dominated that country. The intent was to show that Christ was divine by teaching that He was also a source of origin of the Holy Spirit.

That’s it. The argument was not whether the Holy Spirit was divine, but whether Jesus Christ was. That is why it was inserted into the Creed in Spain.

Your explanation is self-refuting, brother. It is true that the divinity of Christ was the focus of the addition of filioque into the clause at issue. But you fail to consider/understand four things:

1. The original intention of the 2nd Ecumenical Council in adding the line “proceeds from the Father” was to stress the CONSUBSTANTIALITY of the Holy Spirit with the Father, not to stress the hypostatic origin (see below for quotations from the Ecumenical Councils).
2. There were many branches of Arianism. The ones in Spain were basically tri-theists. They accepted the divinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but not only did they subordinate the Son and the Holy Spirit to the Father, but they understood them to be three distinct Gods. Though the Creed asserted the consubstantiality of the Son and the Father (by the use of the term homoousious), as well as the consubstantiality of the Spirit and the Father (by the use of the term ekporeusai), this did nothing to combat the peculiar tri-theism of the Arians in Spain.
3. In order to assert the dogma of the unity of the Godhead, it was necessary to assert the equality in substance of the Persons TOGETHER. Hence, filioque was added to the statement on the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father.
4. This statement not only refuted the idea that the Son was not equal to the Father in Substance (or Essence), but also the idea that the substance that the Holy Spirit shared with the Father was different from the substance that the Son shared with the Father (the latter being the basis of their tri-theistic belief).

However the early Fathers of the church chose not to discuss this in the Creed, probably because it is not well worked out and difficult to clearly understand.

The Fathers worked it out pretty well. The CONSUBSTANTIALITY was EXACTLY what they discussed and dogmatized in the Creed.. Please read this: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=549575

It is only 2 pages. I would appreciate a response (from you or anyone else).

The translation from Latin to English is also imprecise, unnecessarily so! It can be translated in such a way as to remove any ambiguity, but the Catholic church did not do that.

The Latin translation to English is not imprecise. The word “proceeds” is etymologically derived from the Latin procedit. When the Latins translated the Latin to English as “proceeds,” it was understood as a reference first and foremost to the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit, exactly as the Ecumenical Councils had explained (i…e, not the hypostatic origination of the Holy Spirit). It is the EO who are imprecise for accepting the Latin translation to begin with. That is the error of your Church, brother. For your Church to impose your own definition on the word proceeds (which is directly derived from the LATIN word) and claim that the Latin Church is the one that made the mistake is a clear act of uniatism. So not only are EO apologists being imprecise, but they are being inconsistent, as well. Only when the EO admit to their own mistakes in this unfortunate misunderstanding will unity be achieved on this issue.

Thus we have many Catholics who do not understand that double-procession is incorrect, in fact a heresy. I used to see these people come visit the eastern Catholic parish I belonged to years ago (they were usually upset that we didn’t take the filioque and feeling argumentative), it was a regular occurance. One can argue that they are poorly catechized but I think not. If they have thought about it at all they are already head and shoulders above many of their coreligionists.

Agreed. Both the Councils of Lyons and Florence anathematized belief in a double procession. The term itself is not contained in any Magisterial document. I don’t know why some Latin Catholics insist on using it, much less defending it.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

The problem is the theology confuses people.

EO apologists and polemicists are just as much to blame. Instead of admitting their own mistakes, and simply telling misinformed Catholics, “that is not what your Church actually teaches,” people from your Church go around claiming that the Latin Catholic teaching is wrong altogether.

The best possible resolution to this problem I can see is to remove it from the Creed

The best solution is to promote understanding between the Churches and for apologists from both Churches to admit the mistakes of their own Churches in initiating and perpetuating the unfortunate misunderstanding.

and return the idea to a theologeumena, a pious opinion.

Now you are proposing heresy. To claim that the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son is a mere theologoumenon, something that Christians are free to accept or reject without danger to their souls, is just as bad as the heresy of double procession.

What some eastern Catholics try to say is “we are just like the Orthodox, we don’t have to say it” but that is completely meaningless if the church is still insisting on all eastern Catholics believing it in a dogmatic fashion. To do this they have to understand the Latin teaching, which is imprecise and aften misinterpreted by the people who are asked to affirm it.

So the solution is better catechesis. To remove it without understanding will be to promote a heresy (i.e., that the Holy Spirit is not consubstantial with the Father and the Son).

Thus what the filioque says is that both the Father and the Son are sources of the Holy Spirit.

According to your polemicists, but not according to the official teaching of the Catholic Church. Even the Council of Florence explicitly affirmed that only the Father is the Source of the Son and the Holy Spirit. The solution is better catechesis, not the EO uniatism that pervades your Church.

Even though that notion is wrong (and the modern Catholic church admits that)

.
The Catholic Church has ALWAYS taught that it is wrong. It is your Church that changed the emphasis of the term ekporeusai from consubstantiality to origination. The Latin Church has always maintained what the Ecumenical Councils affirmed - that the term ekporeusai is used in the Creed in reference to its connotation of consubstantiality first and foremost.

One can see that this is getting lengthy, and the sad part is it all was never really unnecessary in the first place.

These debates will always be necessary, as long as there are EO who continue to misrepresent the Latin Catholic teaching on the matter, and misrepresent Church history.

Let me quote Saint Gregory of Nazianzus …
“You hear that there is generation? Do not waste your time in seeking after the how. You hear that the Spirit proceeds from the Father? Do not busy yourself about the how” [Orat XX, 2]

"You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, then I will explain to you the physiology of the Son’s generation and the Spirit’s procession and both of us shall be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God" [Orat XXXI, 8]

’
This is, of course, the same Gregory Nazianzen who asserted: “If ever there was a time when the Father was not, then there was a time when the Son was not, If ever there was a time when the Son was not, then there was a time when the Spirit was not.”

[/INDENT]The filioque doesn’t satisfy. It is a gloss inserted into the Creed which confuses rather than helps people understand. For that reason it is a mistake to call a dogma, it is a mistake to bind people to an imprecise understanding and it is a mistake to add it to the Creed of the universal church.

If you really believed in this principle, you won’t mind throwing out all the dogmatic decrees of the first 5 Ecumenical Councils, since they were all imprecise, and never fully settled the issues they were intended to address in the immediate timeframe of each individual Council.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Marduk, your last two posts are positively brilliant. I marvel at your theological IQ and acumen. You’re absolutely brilliant with theology brother. Hats off, geez…amazing scholarship in your viewpoints…

 

[twf]

Hesychios:
Aside from a few issues, such as your example of justification, how can you honestly suggest that Catholicism shares more in common with Protestantism than it does with Orthodoxy? “High church” Anglicans and Lutherans may share much with Latin Catholicism, but contemporary evangelicalism and pentecostalism…? Most of my family are evangelicals, and I can speak from personal experience that the terminology, mindset, and approach in EVERY area of theology and spirituality are WORLDS apart…as a Latin Catholic I see far more in common with the Orthodox. Even allowing your example (justification), I am not convinced that Catholics and Protestants mean the same thing when they use the word…it just so happens that Protestants inherited some of our theological terminology via the Reformation. The following are key, fundamental beliefs that, at least in my opinion, Orthodoxy and Catholicism share - even if expressed in somewhat different ways:

1. Veneration of Mary and the saints - completely alien to evangelical protestantism
2. Belief in a single, visible Church established by Christ - completely alien to evangelical protestantism
3. Grace and true spiritual change affected by the sacraments as an extension of the incarnation - I.e. the sacraments/mysteries are not simply symbols of internal realities - completely alien to evangelical protestantism (I remember sitting on the floor in a circle as an evangelical passing around Ritz crackers and grape juice…)
4. Ordained priesthood - completely alien to evangelical protestantism
5. Liturgical worship - very rare and inconsistent at best among evangelicals
6. Salvation as an ongoing dynamic process as opposed to a single event in time - varies/widely among Protestants
7. Deification/Theosis - clearly part of Latin theology regardless of what I’ve seen some EO claim - I could literally point to thousands of references within the Latin liturgy alone (divine office, EF mass, OF mass…its everywhere) and have heard more than one Latin homily on the subject - for evangelicals, there is a notion of becoming “Christ-like” as adopted sons of God, but it is rarely articulated or understood to the same extent as it is in Catholic/Orthodox circles, and certainly the terminology of deification/divinization is alien
8. Salvation through faith and works, not faith alone
9. Scripture and Tradition, not sola scriptura
10. Perpetual nature of the sacrifice of Christ (centrality of the eucharistic sacrifice) - completely foreign to evangelical protestantism
11. Value of celibacy/monastic life (as an evangelical, I repeatedly heard how contrary the monastic lifestyle was to the Gospel…and how useless cutting oneself from the world would be when Christ commanded us to go forth and evangelize…celibacy sometimes given lip service if a pastor is forced to comment on 1 Cor 7 but never encountered in practice…ever…in fact single men need not apply at most evangelical churches)
12. Sinless, all-holy nature of the Mother of God - categorically and passionately rejected by all evangelicals across the board
13. Perpetual virginity of the Mother of God - not even on the typical evangelical’s radar…I wasn’t even aware that anyone would think for a second that Mary didn’t have other children…it was a given that she did, and I’ve never met an evangelical who thought otherwise
14. Mary’s motherhood and relationship to us - for evangelicals, Mary plays virtually zero role in the spiritual life, besides for a brief mention or two at Christmas
15. Penance - even if understood differently beetween Catholics and Orthodox, at least we both agree that its necessary - for evangelicals, Christ has already “paid the price”, so what’s the need?
16. Prayers for the dead - would never even cross an evangelical’s mind…our loved ones are in heaven and eternal glory the second they die, end of story
17. Ecclesiastical authority - Catholics and Orthodox differ, but at least we both agree that communion with and obedience to a bishop, in apostolic succession, is absolutely essential - evangelical congregations elect and fire their leadership at will, and ministers exercise no particular authority other than that delegated by the congregation. (As an aside - my grandmother was particularly attached a pastor at her evangelical church…after a number of yeras, the majority of the congregation decided to fire him…so he went across town, signed-up with another denomination, founded a new church, and brought a good chunk of his previous ‘flock’, including my grandmother, with him…this is equally alien to both Catholics and the Orthodox)
    I could go on and on…

 

[JohnVIII]

and return the idea to a theologeumena, a pious opinion.

Please Brother Marduk, You are among probably less then 1% of Catholics that know of the Roman Churches “official” understanding of this is from the councils of the Church. Everyone knows “Who proceeds from the Father and the Son”, but very few know that this is equivalent to “the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son”! If consubstantiality was all that this addition hoped to convey, then why didn’t the addition use the same wording as was used earlier in the Creed to show the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son? Instead of “Who proceeds from the Father and the Son” it could have been changed to read, “Who is one in essence with the Father and the Son”. Or it could have used the word “consubstantiality” which WOULD NOT HAVE CAUSED A SCHISM!

Did you know that the 2nd Ecumenical Council (which was held ONLY by Eastern Bishops, no one from the West) said that…

“As concerning the Tome of the Westerners, we have accepted also those in Antioch who confess a single divinity of Father and of Son and of Holy Spirit.” (Canon 5)

Hesychios was not suggesting that consubstantiality be demoted a mere theologoumenon, but rather that if you want to leave such a poorly worded phrase, that can and has been understood many different ways, that it would do LESS HARM TO THE CHURCH if that poorly worded phrase be a mere theologoumenon!

It is not reasonable to think that there can be enough education to continue to clear this issue up generation after generation so that even more that 50% understand it as we are told we are supposed to! The addition to the Creed indirectly causes more heresy then it ever hoped to cure, and it has also proven to be a cause of schism in the Church; and schism, as I’m sure you know, is worse than heresy. And all this is a very unbecoming thing, this Church dis-unity, proceeding from the Rock of St Peter in Rome.

 

[JohnVIII]

I was hoping to keep the focus on issues other than the filioque, but I must say that I am glad you didn’t because your post was right on and well said. I haven’t heard the Orthodox position concerning the filioque expressed so clearly and to the point as you just have!

The filioque is not about claiming the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son.

The filioque was introduced in Spain to support the divinity of Christ over against the Arian heretics who dominated that country. The intent was to show that Christ was divine by teaching that He was also a source of origin of the Holy Spirit.

That’s it. The argument was not whether the Holy Spirit was divine, but whether Jesus Christ was. That is why it was inserted into the Creed in Spain.

However the early Fathers of the church chose not to discuss this in the Creed, probably because it is not well worked out and difficult to clearly understand. The formula itself is heretical in Greek and imprecise in Latin, and often misunderstood by those who are expected to believe it. The translation from Latin to English is also imprecise, unnecessarily so! It can be translated in such a way as to remove any ambiguity, but the Catholic church did not do that.

Thus we have many Catholics who do not understand that double-procession is incorrect, in fact a heresy. I used to see these people come visit the eastern Catholic parish I belonged to years ago (they were usually upset that we didn’t take the filioque and feeling argumentative), it was a regular occurance. One can argue that they are poorly catechized but I think not. If they have thought about it at all they are already head and shoulders above many of their coreligionists. The problem is the theology confuses people.

The best possible resolution to this problem I can see is to remove it from the Creed, and return the idea to a theologeumena, a pious opinion. In this way it can be discussed by everyone without anathemas and threats of excommunication being spun around.

What some eastern Catholics try to say is “we are just like the Orthodox, we don’t have to say it” but that is completely meaningless if the church is still insisting on all eastern Catholics believing it in a dogmatic fashion. To do this they have to understand the Latin teaching, which is imprecise and aften misinterpreted by the people who are asked to affirm it.

Thus what the filioque says is that both the Father and the Son are sources of the Holy Spirit. Even though that notion is wrong (and the modern Catholic church admits that) it seems to follow Augustine who described the Holy Spirit as the product of mutual love between the Father and the Son. I think one will find that in de Trinitate. There is a danger here of giving the false impression of subordination of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps this is why the Holy Spirit seems so neglected in the west.

The expression “from the Father and the Son” is not acceptable because it is imprecise. The best possible solution might be to reword the formula so as to say “From the Father through the Son” but then for precision probably it would also be necessary to add that the Son is begotten of the Father through the Holy Spirit. One can see that this is getting lengthy, and the sad part is it all was never really unnecessary in the first place.

Let me quote Saint Gregory of Nazianzus …
“You hear that there is generation? Do not waste your time in seeking after the how. You hear that the Spirit proceeds from the Father? Do not busy yourself about the how” [Orat XX, 2]

"You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, then I will explain to you the physiology of the Son’s generation and the Spirit’s procession and both of us shall be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God" [Orat XXXI, 8]

The filioque doesn’t satisfy. It is a gloss inserted into the Creed which confuses rather than helps people understand. For that reason it is a mistake to call a dogma, it is a mistake to bind people to an imprecise understanding and it is a mistake to add it to the Creed of the universal church.

I agree 100%! :aok:

 

[GaryTaylor]

CONTINUED

EO apologists and polemicists are just as much to blame. Instead of admitting their own mistakes, and simply telling misinformed Catholics, “that is not what your Church actually teaches,” people from your Church go around claiming that the Latin Catholic teaching is wrong altogether.

The best solution is to promote understanding between the Churches and for apologists from both Churches to admit the mistakes of their own Churches in initiating and perpetuating the unfortunate misunderstanding.

Now you are proposing heresy. To claim that the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son is a mere theologoumenon, something that Christians are free to accept or reject without danger to their souls, is just as bad as the heresy of double procession.

So the solution is better catechesis. To remove it without understanding will be to promote a heresy (i.e., that the Holy Spirit is not consubstantial with the Father and the Son).

According to your polemicists, but not according to the official teaching of the Catholic Church. Even the Council of Florence explicitly affirmed that only the Father is the Source of the Son and the Holy Spirit. The solution is better catechesis, not the EO uniatism that pervades your Church.

.
The Catholic Church has ALWAYS taught that it is wrong. It is your Church that changed the emphasis of the term ekporeusai from consubstantiality to origination. The Latin Church has always maintained what the Ecumenical Councils affirmed - that the term ekporeusai is used in the Creed in reference to its connotation of consubstantiality first and foremost.

These debates will always be necessary, as long as there are EO who continue to misrepresent the Latin Catholic teaching on the matter, and misrepresent Church history.

’
If you really believed in this principle, you won’t mind throwing out all the dogmatic decrees of the first 5 Ecumenical Councils, since they were all imprecise, and never fully settled the issues they were intended to address in the immediate timeframe of each individual Council.

Blessings,
Marduk

Nice post Mardukm, did you glance through the link I posted? I don’t care for the analogy used but the context other than that is pretty good. It really should be read not by you but those with no clue whats being talked about here. And its not hard to see that would be Catholics and Orthodox. So the formal education in this is lacking of “both” sides. So again let us not point fingers at only the Catholics lack of understanding. BTW I’m not referring this post to you Mardukm but the first sentence.

Catechism today is not teaching the History of the Catholic/Orthodox church, its teaching the Catholic Faith in its understanding of the “Catholic Faith” and how its applied today. Which is complicated enough for grammer school children who are not in Catholic School. And also a solid reason why CAF is here.

Here we seem to be alluding constantly to the idea no communion is possible and the Catholic Church is wrong period, this is totally incorrect.

Nonetheless if such a unity could exist between the ancient fathers of the East and those of the West (who unquestionably professed Filioque), why can’t it exist among their spiritual children today? The Eastern Orthodox need to address this issue and account for it. There was NO-ISSUE before the 8th Century. And when the issue did surface it was for a specific agenda which was not charitable, but political and motivated by fear.

And again I suggest while Mardukms post is spot on, I would read this link I posted by “Mark Bonacore, The Catholic Legate” who wrote the “The Orthodox Church” some twenty years ago. And read the actual history of the issue of Filioque which is a constant, and is constantly misinterpreted, misrepresented, and promoted to acheive a agenda which does absobluty nothing to promote unity, love or communion.

The only aspect lacking in this article is the analogy which Mark uses, other than that the article is very informative and will help those with a limited understanding and quickly I might add.

davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/catholic_orthodox_filioque_father_son.htm

Further on past Mardukms post is the idea of Protestant correlation with the Catholic Church. There is no need for that, not only is completely wrong and arrogant, it does nothing to promote unity. By reading these Catholic/Orthodox threads it becomes more and more apparent the only ones seeking unity are Catholics. I can’t conclude anything but that. But for a rare few all I see is the Orthodox Church promoted as some shining beacon of shining light while a constant demotion of the CC is preached and promoted.

The second issue of the Bishop or Rome was clearly defined in The Council Nicaea that the Bishop of Rome is the “proto” this is not denied by the EO church. And its a historical fact and a known.

Anyway have a happy Easter all, I hate to keep preaching world problems and the future but you all know as well as I, we have no more time for this. We need to unite the real church, and gather all the Protestants capable of raising to the level of full communion to deal with the coming storm of evil. “WE” need to finish the conversion process in the USA and West which the Protestant church is dragging further into the abyss these days. When I say WE that is the EO and Catholics and Protestants who are very close to Communion. WE have a serious problem.

God Bless, Gary

 

[RyanBlack]

Now you are proposing heresy. To claim that the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son is a mere theologoumenon, something that Christians are free to accept or reject without danger to their souls, is just as bad as the heresy of double procession.

This is a grossly unfair charge which you should retract, and for which you should apologize. The filioque, understood in its historical context, is NOT about the consubstanitiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son. That issue was settled once and for all at the Council of Constantinople. The creed sans filioque clearly shows that the Holy Spirit, like the Father and Son, is God. That was clearly established by the wording of the article on the Holy Spirit. “The Lord the giver of life” established his divinity, as does “who proceeds from the Father”, as does “who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified.” If you are going to chargey Michael with denying the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, you’re going to have to do better than using his rejection of the filioque, which has nothing to do with the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, but rather, with upholding the belief in the divinity of the Son against the ongoing Arian heresy.

 

[JohnVIII]

The CONSUBSTANTIALITY was EXACTLY what they discussed and dogmatized in the Creed… Please read this: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=549575

It is only 2 pages. I would appreciate a response (from you or anyone else).

I made a response, on that thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7794838&postcount=28

Now, getting back to non-filioque issues that divide us…

It seems to me that some of you think that simply educating each other will bring about unity. Marduk & GaryTaylor, if I read you correctly, you seem to say this.

Human intellect is one of the areas that has been greatly effected by the fall of Adam. These intellectual discussions are good, but can only go so far. Even if all of us were made into scholars, we would not achieve unity without the help of God, the Holy Spirit. I submit to you that it was God’s will that we be temporarily divided so that He could teach us something we needed to learn. Once we have learned what He has intended for us to learn, He will re-unite us.

Another thing worth discussion, I think, is what is our understanding of “unity” anyway? I think EO & RC have a different view. I believe RC’s think there is no true 100% unity unless the Eastern Churches are somehow UNDER the authority of the Pope. But for the EO unity would be when there is full canonical communion between the EO Churches and the Church of Rome. I believe the type of unity the EO have will soon happen fully 100% with Rome, but type of unity where a church is actually under the authority of Rome will happen only in part, but never all the way.

The jurisdictions of Orthodoxy that are in full communion with each other are also “autocephalous”, which is a word that means “self-headed”. Once Rome joins this communion most Eastern Churches will still be self-headed. One example of what this would mean is that if there were an issue in some jurisdiction (other than Rome) and a dissatisfied person tried to appeal this matter, over the head of his own jurisdiction, to Rome, he would be excommunicated by his jurisdiction, and all other jurisdictions in full canonical communion with that jurisdiction (including Rome) would be canonically obligated to respect the authority of that excommunication.

I am very confident that the Eastern type of unity is very near. I am also very confident that Russia will actually try to join Rome in the RC version of unity, that is, UNDER the authority of Rome, but Rome will not agree with Russia in this regard but will respect Russia as it’s own self-headed Church and be in full canonical communion with her as with all the other Churches. Because, you see what I have called the “RC version of unity”, will soon prove to not really be the Pope’s new vision of catholic unity.

What has happened in the past will repeat itself, only different by degree. Rome was meant by God for the unity of the Churches of God. But excessive power from Rome has the opposite effect. But excessive power from Rome never started with Rome. When the Eastern Churches wanted to make Pope Leo the “Universal Bishop” at the 4th Ecumenical, this is where the seed of excessive power leading to disunity began. Pope Leo rejected this title, thank God! But my point is that the pattern of reunion will be the same. Today Russia will see the Pope in effect as the universal bishop and submit to Rome. But like Pope Leo of old our pope today will reject this offer by Russia. But this will nevertheless start the process for real catholic union world wide.

I desired to speak these words today because today is Pascha! Today is Easter! This is one of those years that we are celebrating the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ both on the same day. A good day to pray for unity in Christ and in His Church. Some of what I have posted here is also my prayer to God.

Christ is Risen!!!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Adrian,

Please Brother Marduk, You are among probably less then 1% of Catholics that know of the Roman Churches “official” understanding of this is from the councils of the Church. Everyone knows “Who proceeds from the Father and the Son”, but very few know that this is equivalent to “the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son”! If consubstantiality was all that this addition hoped to convey, then why didn’t the addition use the same wording as was used earlier in the Creed to show the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son? Instead of “Who proceeds from the Father and the Son” it could have been changed to read, “Who is one in essence with the Father and the Son”. Or it could have used the word “consubstantiality” which WOULD NOT HAVE CAUSED A SCHISM!

That was my whole point - that when the Ecumenical Councils added the phrase “who ekporeusai from the Father,” it was intended by them to mean “who is one in Essence with the Father,” not “who originates from the Father,” though the latter is certainly also accomodated by the term ekporeusai. That is why the Seventh Ecumenical Council in its own profession of Faith replaced the clause “ekporeusai from the Father” with the statement, “CONSUBSTANTIAL AND COETERNAL WITH THE SAME FATHER AND WITH THE SON…” If one understands ekporeusai first and foremost as an expression of consubstantiality (as the Ecumenical Councils did), then adding “and the Son” to the phrase represented the SAME FAITH, and should not have caused schism.

So what really caused the schism? It seems to me it was because the Easterns at a certain point after the Seventh Ecum began to emphasize origination as the primary intention of the 2nd Ecumenical Council in using the term ekporeusai, instead of what prior Ecumenical Councils affirmed - that ekporeusai was used to emphasize consubstantiality. Because of this shift in emphasis, it was becoming increasingly difficult for them to understand that filioque was in fact not heretical in the context of consubstantiality (though it could certainly be seen as heretical in the context of origination).

I need to go right now, but I will return tonight and respond to the rest of your post, as well as the other great responses to my post.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[hazcompat]

JESUS CHRIST IS OUR FATHERS SIMPLE PLAN FOR SALVATION SINCE BEFORE TIME BEGAN!

COME HOLY SPIRIT!

Saint Seraphim of Sarov, pray for us.

peace

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ryan,

This is a grossly unfair charge which you should retract, and for which you should apologize.

I don’t think I charged brother Michael with being a heretic, but if my statement is interpreted that way, I do apologize.

The filioque, understood in its historical context, is NOT about the consubstanitiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son. That issue was settled once and for all at the Council of Constantinople. The creed sans filioque clearly shows that the Holy Spirit, like the Father and Son, is God. That was clearly established by the wording of the article on the Holy Spirit. “The Lord the giver of life” established his divinity, as does “who proceeds from the Father”, as does “who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified.” If you are going to chargey Michael with denying the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, you’re going to have to do better than using his rejection of the filioque, which has nothing to do with the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, but rather, with upholding the belief in the divinity of the Son against the ongoing Arian heresy.

Before you say that the filioque has nothing to do with the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, please respond to the quotes from the Ecumenical Councils that I gave in the thread to which I gave a link.

Btw, as explained in my previous post, some Arians were basically Tri-theists. They did not deny the divinity of the Holy Spirit, nor the divinity of the Son. Their heresy was their Tri-theism, and their belief that the Son and Holy Spirit, as divine beings, were subordinated to the Father. So none of the points you bring up were sufficient to combat that peculiar heresy that existed in the West.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[hazcompat]

Today is Pascha! Today is Easter

“But how,” I asked Father Seraphim, “can I know that I am in the grace of the Holy Spirit?”

“It is very simple, your Godliness,” he replied. “That is why the Lord says: ‘All things are simple to those who find knowledge’ (Prov. 8:9, Septuagint). The trouble is that we do not seek this divine knowledge which does not puff up, for it is not of this world. This knowledge which is full of love for God and for our neighbour builds up every man for his salvation. Of this knowledge the Lord said that God wills all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth (I Tim. 2:4). And of the lack of this knowledge He said to His Apostles: Are you also yet without understanding (Mat. 15:16)? Concerning this understanding [15], it is said in the Gospel of the Apostles: Then opened He their understanding (Lk. 24:45), and the Apostles always perceived whether the Spirit of God was dwelling in them or not; and being filled with understanding, they saw the presence of the Holy Spirit with them and declared positively that their work was holy and entirely pleasing to the Lord God. That explains why in their Epistles they wrote: It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us (Acts 15:28). Only on these grounds did they offer their Epistles as immutable truth for the benefit of all the faithful. Thus the holy Apostles were consciously aware of the presence in themselves of the Spirit of God. And so you see, your Godliness, how simple it is!”

orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/wonderful.aspx

peace

 

[mardukm]

To everyone celebrating Eastern today, HAPPY EASTER!!! Our Lord has Risen!!!

Re: filioque

I notice that some of my Eastern brethren believe that the teaching of the divinity of the Holy Spirit is absolutely identical to the teaching on the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son. I cannot stress this enough - IT IS NOT. We take this for granted today, but that was not the case in the early Church. It should be noted that though an affirmation of consubstantiality naturally implies divinity, an affirmation of divinity did not naturally imply consubstantiality.

The fact is, the Arians and the Pneumatomachi had no problem with affirming the divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Their heresy (among other things) was their belief that the Son and the Holy Spirit were LESSER divine beings than the Father, and thus proposed a peculiar sort of tri-theism. The only thing that could combat this peculiar facet of their heresy was not a mere statement of belief on the divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit, but, rather, the EQUALITY OF THE DIVINE SUBSTANCE/ESSENCE, of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

With regards to the Holy Spirit, calling the Holy Spirit “Lord” and affirming that He is worshipped (i.e., proclaiming His divinity), were insufficient to combat this peculiar facet of the Pneumatomachian heresy. What was needed was an affirmation of the CONSUBSTANTIALITY of the Spirit with the other Persons of the Godhead. This is what the phrase “ekporeusai from the Father” affirmed, in the minds of the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils. That is why the Fourth Ecumenical Council described the purpose of the Second Ecum as settling matters on the SUBSTANCE of the Holy Spirit, and why the profession of Faith of the Seventh Ecumenical Council rendered “ekporeusai with the Father” with the words “CONSUBSTANTIAL AND COETERNAL WITH THE SAME FATHER AND WITH THE SON.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[RyanBlack]

I have both a Master of Divinty and a Master of Theology. I have taken multiple Church History courses. I have taken a course on the Trinity (with a theologian who is very highly respected in both Catholic and Orthodox circles). I have taken two Christology courses, and a pneumatology course. I have taken a course on the First Seven Ecumenical Councils. This thread is the first time I’ve ever heard the idea that the purpose of the filioque was primarily to show the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, rather than to combat the Arianism of the Goths in Spain. Furthermore, it is the first time I’ve heard the idea that the phrase in the Creed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father is primarily about consubstantiality, rather than origin. If you read the Theological Orations of St. Gregory of Nazianzus (who presided at the Council of Constantinople), you will see that the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, which comes from the Gospel of John, is properly understood as referring to the way in which the Holy Spirit originates from the Father, just as the begetting of the Son from the Father refers to the way in which the Son originates from the Father. Also, it’s the first time I’ve heard the idea that the Arians and the Pneumatomachoi had no problems affirming the divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, but that they were essential tritheists. Actually, I’m almost laughing over that claim. The Arians most certainly denied the divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and the so-called Semi-Arians and the Pneumatomachoi most certainly denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. I mean no offense to Marduk, or to any other posters on this thread, but I’ll continue to believe my professors and the written sources I’ve read from scholars, rather than what I’m reading in this thread.

 

[RyanBlack]

I would add that I think it is clear that the Fathers of the Council of Constantinople were concerned about affirming the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son. After all, the Council had two main concerns: the denial of the divinity of the Holy Spirit by the Macedonians/Pneumatomachoi and the denial of the full humanity of Christ by Apollinaris of Laodicea. It seems to me that their insertion of the biblical language of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father (which clearly-atleast to me-refers to his divine origin from the Father, just as the language about the Father’s begetting of the Son refers to the Son’s divine origin from the Father) and the language “the Lord, the Giver of life, who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified” (who but God is Lord, Giver of Life, and worshipped and glorified?), was sufficient to establish the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father, when viewed against the background of the Christian teaching that there is only God and that of the writings of St. Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers (who played very important roles at the Council, though St. Basil actually died before the Council) affirming the divinity of the Holy Spirit against the Macedonians/Pneumatochoi/Semi-Arians. If fact, around the time of the Council, there was some reluctance about applying the language of homoousion or consubstantial to the Father because of the lack of an explicit Biblical basis and perhaps also because of ongoing anxiety about the term itself, since it actually had been used in a heterodox manner (I believe by Paul of Samasota) prior to its orthodox use by St. Athanasius. That the Fathers of subsequent Councils saw the need to make explicit that the language about the procession of the Holy Spirit affirms the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father suggests to me that they saw a need to refute ongoing denials of the full divinity of the Holy Spirit, rather than to state that the meaning is about consubstantiality, rather than origin from the Father.

 

[RyanBlack]

I would add that my assertion that the language about the Holy Spirit being worshipped and glorified together with the Father and the Son implies consubstantiality is affirmed by J. Patout Burns, S.J. and Gerald M. Fagin, S.J., in their book The Holy Spirit, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1984, p. 225. They also affirm my assertion that the language of procession concerns the origin of the Holy Spirit within the Godhead (pp. 227-228) Of course, being the good Catholics they are (I do not mean this sarcastically, by the way), their discussion about the origin of the Holy Spirit lends itself to a defense of the truth of the filioque. However, it is not my purpose in this thread to refute or deny the filioque (a teaching about which I am “agnostic”). Rather, it is my purpose to point out my disagreements with some of the assertions being made in this thread concerning the filioque-assertions I believe simply are not upheld by the historical facts as I understand them.