Question for Orthodox brothers and sisters in Christ

[ComeHome2Rome]

Oh, you’re talking about the Creed before the filioque was added.

Fair enough.

Right. I speak of the Creed as it was original written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

If we are to accept the “filioque” addition to the Creed, then we must also accept two things:

1. The Holy Spirit either: A. Got the Process wrong about Himself or B. Failed to reveal the Whole Truth about Himself

AND

1. That it’s acceptable to come & remain under multiple Anathemas

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

The Catholic Church under the guidance of the See of Peter has the authority to develop our understanding of doctrine.

Orthodox disagree with that statement; however, presuming it’s true I ask this question:

Authority to delevop the understanding of doctrine to the point it’s changed so much as to fall under multiple Anathemas? Anathemas that were inspired by the Holy Spirit, no less?

 

[Cider]

Not the Creed that was written by & affirmed by the Ecumenical Councils under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the very Person we’re discussing.

The Creed written by & confirmed by the Ecumenical Councils, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did not include the phrase *“and the Son”. *

How can anyone hundreds of years later begin to believe & teach that the Holy Spirit who Personally inspired the Bishops of those Ecumenical Councils get it wrong - wrong about Himself, no less - which would then require a later correction by persons who presumably claimed to know more about the Holy Spirit than the Holy Spirit knows & revealed about Himself?

I’ve struggled with that exact question for quite awhile now.

 

[dzheremi]

Sigh Who is saying the Holy Spirit is a “feeling”. Do you think the only result of love is feelings? What about the birth of a child, who happens to be a person!

Yes, a child is also a person, not a feeling. The Holy Spirit is not “the love between the Father and the Son”. The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Holy Trinity, the Lord and giver of life, preceding from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. We are not Pnevmatomachoi (sp?).

I want Orthodox opinions on how the Trinitarian Persons relate in eternity, and what they think about the filioque model actually making more sense of this relationship than the Divine Monarche model (Spirit proceeding solely from the Father).

Read the Fathers (plural; not just Augustine and your post-schism Latin fathers) and you’ll see. While the Holy Trinity is a great mystery (as are all the things of God), it is very simple to encapsulate, as the Father is the ultimate origin of both the Son (whom He has begotten) and of the Holy Spirit (who He has sent in the name of Christ). What more relations anyone would need to know are beyond me. At any rate, the filioque is both entirely unnecessary and by some accounts highly problematic in the way that it destroys this relation, particularly if we take it in tandem with your own (via Augustine) speculation of the Holy Spirit being some kind of bond of love between the Father and the Son, rather than a distinct and equal person of the Holy Trinity.

Gary: Thank you kindly for your concern. Please continue to pray for our brothers and sisters in Egypt, Sudan, etc. Lord have mercy.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

Haha I know that, I was just responding to the fellow who called the Catholic Church anathema for adding the filioque.

You were responding to me, but I didn’t personally call the Catholic Church anathema.

The point I had intended to communicate is that the Ecumencial Councils themselves, under the infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit, condemned as anathema anyone who added anything to the original Creed. The Creed did not have the “filioque” in it.

p.s. I’m not a fellow, I’m a gal

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

The Athanasian Creed isn’t the one and only Creed that written under the infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit in an Ecumenical Council.

St. Athanasius was not infallible.

Athanasian Creed

1

Whosoever will be saved,
before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic (universal) faith;

2

Which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled,
without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3

And the catholic (universal) faith is this:

That we worship one God in Trinity,

and Trinity in Unity;

4
Neither confounding the Persons,

nor dividing the Substance.

5
For there is one Person of the Father,

another of the Son,
and another of the Holy Spirit.

6
But the Godhead of the Father,

of the Son,

and of the Holy Spirit,

is all one,
the glory equal,

the majesty coeternal.

7
Such as the Father is,

such is the Son,
and such is the Holy Spirit.

8
The Father uncreate,

the Son uncreate,
and the Holy Spirit uncreate.

9

The Father incomprehensible,

the Son incomprehensible,
and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10
The Father eternal,

the Son eternal,
and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11
And yet they are not three eternals,
but one eternal.

12
As also there are not three uncreated

nor three incomprehensibles,

but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible.

13
So likewise the Father is almighty,

the Son almighty,
and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14
And yet they are not three almighties,
but one almighty.

15
So the Father is God,

the Son is God,
and the Holy Spirit is God;

16
And yet they are not three Gods,
but one God.

17
So likewise the Father is Lord,

the Son Lord,
and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18
And yet not three Lords,
but one Lord.

19
For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity

to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20
so we are forbidden by the catholic (universal) religion to say,

there are three Gods, or three Lords.

21
The Father is made of none,
neither created, nor begotten.

22
The Son is of the Father alone;
not made, nor created, but begotten.

23
The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son;
neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24
So there is one Father, not three Fathers;

one Son, not three Sons;
one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25
And in this Trinity none is afore, or after another;

none is greater, or less than another.

26
But the whole three Persons are coeternal and coequal.

27

So that in all things, as aforesaid,
the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28
He therefore that will be saved
must thus think of the Trinity.

29
Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation
that he also believe rightly the incarnation of

our Lord Jesus Christ.

30

For the right faith is that we believe and confess

that our Lord Jesus Christ,

the Son of God,

is God and man.

31
God, of the substance of the Father,

begotten before the worlds;
and man, of the substance of His mother,

born in the world.

32
Perfect God and perfect Man,
of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33
Equal to the Father, as touching His Godhead,
and inferior to the Father, as touching His Manhood.

34
Who, although He is God and Man,
yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35
One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh,
but by taking of that manhood into God.

36

One altogether,

not by confusion of substance,
but by unity of Person.

37
For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man,
so God and man is one Christ;

38
Who suffered for our salvation,

descended into hell, *
rose again the third day from the dead;

39
He ascended into heaven,

He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

40
from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

41
At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42
and shall give account of their own works.

43
And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting
and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44
This is the catholic (universal) faith,

which except a man believe faithfully
he cannot be saved.

We dont not have a clearer understanding of the Trinity. Are we saying Athanasius is wrong?

23
The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son;
neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

I’ve struggled with that exact question for quite awhile now.

Cider, I sincerely hope you are able to receive an answer that ends your struggle and gives you peace.

 

[dzheremi]

There is also the fact that the so-called “Athanasian Creed” is not from St. Athanasius the Apostolic at all. It does not exist in Greek (the language St. Athanasius wrote in), nor in Coptic (almost certainly his native language). It originates in probably late 5th-early 6th century (at least 100 years after the saint’s death). It was not originally attributed to St. Athanasius, either. That is a much later development.

It has nothing at all to do with St. Athanasius but that some later Latins wanted to put their words into his mouth.

 

[R_C]

Not the Creed that was written by & affirmed by the Ecumenical Councils under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the very Person we’re discussing.

The Creed written by & confirmed by the Ecumenical Councils, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did not include the phrase *“and the Son”. *

How can anyone hundreds of years later begin to believe & teach that the Holy Spirit who Personally inspired the Bishops of those Ecumenical Councils get it wrong - wrong about Himself, no less - which would then require a later correction by persons who presumably claimed to know more about the Holy Spirit than the Holy Spirit knows & revealed about Himself?

Not including the phrase “and the Son” did not exclude that he proceeds from the Son. It just didn’t state it. Just like when Christ said:

Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.

Was the Lord excluding the Holy Spirit, as in “I and the Father will abide in you, but not the Holy Spirit”? Surely not! Then it is obvious that here like in the Creed, not mentioning someone is not equivalent to excluding someone.

The Councils had decided to place a special emphasis on the Father, not in an exclusive way, though, because that would openly contradict Scripture as well as apostolic tradition.

The same Holy Spirit that illuminated the Councils illuminated the other Councils and the Church to better define the origin of the Holy Spirit as from the Father and the Son.

Now, some say the addition of the “Filioque” go against canon VII of the Council of Ephesus, which forbade setting up a different creed. Then how come it was the creed of the second ecumenical council (of Costantinople) that was adopted liturgically in the East?

When we compare the Creeds from the First Council of Nicea (325) and from the First Council of Constantinople (381), we do find quite a few additions, showing how the Spirit grants greater light as time goes.

Surely the creed that the West adopted had two additions: “God from God” (Deum de Deo) and “and the Son” (Filioque). But did you notice just how many additions did the Creed of Constantinople have over the Creed of Nicaea? Nobody says that there was anything wrong in this, but then some say the Western Church committed heresy in adding “Filioque” - a teaching, this, that, as we have seen, was already present and consistent with both Scriptures and in the apostolic tradition.

As for the position of the Orthodox Church…have we forgotten that at the Second Council of Lyon (1274) the Greek participants, including Patriarch Joseph I of Constantinople, sang the Creed three times with the Filioque addition? What happened then? There was a refusal to accept the agreement made at Lyon, and Patriarch John XI, convinced that the teaching of the Greek Fathers was compatible with that of the Latins, was forced to resign on these grounds.

And what about the Council of Florence (1439)? The argument prevailed among the Greeks themselves that, though the Greek and the Latin saints expressed their faith differently, they were in agreement substantially, since saints cannot err in faith; and by 8 June the Greeks accepted the Latin statement of doctrine, and a statement on the Filioque question was included in the Laetentur Caeli decree of union, which was signed on 5 July 1439 and promulgated the next day. What happened, then? Well, Patriarch Joseph II died, and the Eastern Church refused to consider the agreement reached at Florence binding.

So, in all honesty, I think the Holy Spirit has expressed and has been expressing Himself very clearly on this matter.

 

[Cider]

they were in agreement substantially, since saints cannot err in faith

So now Saints automatically carry the charism of infallibility too?

I haven’t heard that one before. Can you cite the Catholic source for this teaching?

I thought the Catholic definition of Saint was the person was confirmed by the Church as being in heaven?

 

[Cider]

Cider, I sincerely hope you are able to receive an answer that ends your struggle and gives you peace.

Thank you

 

[GaryTaylor]

You realize how long it took for understanding to develop with the Trinity. This never stopped. Hundreds of years later and today this is still a mystery. Then came at the end Florence, and everyone agreed but, Saint Mark of Ephesus, that argument is above with Bessarion who agreed at Florence from the East. You have to weigh in the factor the Orthodox have a tendency to be stubborn. Could be the best understanding is yet to come. Personally I believe we ought to admit we don’t have all the answers and go back. Don’t throw anything away though.

 

[R_C]

So now Saints automatically carry the charism of infallibility too?

That is not what I said. I am quoting a statement that was brought forth in the council, as described in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (article on the Council of Florence). Here is the excerpt:

On 10 Jan. 1439 the Council was transferred to Florence, the city having agreed, against future repayment, to finance it. From 2 to 24 Mar. in eight sessions it debated the Filioque clause as doctrine—whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, acc. to the Greeks, or from the Father and the Son, acc. to the Latins—without agreement. Public sessions having thus failed, various expedients were tried to lead to union, in the course of which Bessarion addressed to the Greek synod his ‘Oratio Dogmatica’, urging that the Double Procession was taught more or less explicitly by both Greek and Latin Fathers. The Latins gave the Greeks a precisely worded statement of doctrine, which the Greeks modified, and then would not clarify the resulting ambiguities. In the prevailing atmosphere of defeat, as a last resort, on 27 May the Pope addressed the Greeks. Thereupon the unionists among the Greeks urged with renewed energy what to all Greeks was axiomatic, that saints cannot err in faith, so that, though Latin saints and Greek saints expressed their faith differently, substantially they were in agreement. The argument prevailed

Furthermore, from the translation of Session 6:

Let the heavens be glad and let the earth rejoice. For, the wall that divided the western and the eastern church has been removed, peace and harmony have returned, since the corner-stone, Christ, who made both one, has joined both sides with a very strong bond of love and peace …] Let mother church also rejoice. For she now beholds her sons hitherto in disagreement returned to unity and peace, and she who hitherto wept at their separation now gives thanks to God with inexpressible joy at their truly marvellous harmony. Let all the faithful throughout the world, and those who go by the name of Christian, be glad with mother catholic church. For behold, western and eastern fathers after a very long period of disagreement and discord, submitting themselves to the perils of sea and land and having endured labours of all kinds, came together in this holy ecumenical council, joyful and eager in their desire for this most holy union and to restore intact the ancient love. In no way have they been frustrated in their intent. After a long and very toilsome investigation, at last by the clemency of the holy Spirit they have achieved this greatly desired and most holy union. …]

For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.

In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

We define also that the explanation of those words “and from the Son” was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need.

…] Also, renewing the order of the other patriarchs which has been handed down in the canons, the patriarch of Constantinople should be second after the most holy Roman pontiff, third should be the patriarch of Alexandria, fourth the patriarch of Antioch, and fifth the patriarch of Jerusalem, without prejudice to all their privileges and rights.

 

[Cider]

None of that answered my question which was about the statement I quoted from your post.

Where does this concept of infallibility of saints come from?

 

[dzheremi]

It is certainly not Orthodox, that’s for sure. We have in the Coptic Church saints like St. Moses the Ethiopian (a former bandit and murderer turned monk) and St. Mary of Egypt (a former prostitute and compulsive fornicator) which show that such a conception of the saints is really at odds with reality. I didn’t think/don’t think it’s the Roman Catholic position, either, at least not so far as I can remember it. I know that Islam has that sort of general view, wherein they cannot say that any prophet (they don’t really have saints, I guess; maybe only the Shia do, and even then I don’t know if it’s really the same thing, or if all Shia have them) has ever sinned, and hence create really whitewashed, unbelievable, two-dimensional figures out of Muhammad, John the Baptist, and the other people they have fashioned as prophets of their religion. But I don’t see how that’s compatible with Christianity, and it’s kind of shocking to read it coming from a self-professed Catholic.

 

[R_C]

None of that answered my question which was about the statement I quoted from your post. Where does this concept of infallibility of saints come from?

Too bad I cannot ask this question to the Greek Orthodox conciliar fathers of Florence, who brought forth this argument according to the account I quote - an argument described as “what to all Greeks was axiomatic”.

Regardless, Session 6 makes a very solid argument about the reached agreement, which does not ultimately rely on this concept.

 

[Cider]

Too bad I cannot ask this question to the Greek Orthodox conciliar fathers of Florence, who brought forth this argument according to the account I quote - an argument described as “what to all Greeks was axiomatic”.

Regardless, Session 6 makes a very solid argument about the reached agreement, which does not ultimately rely on this concept.

Even your post says “unionists” amongst the Greeks. The Orthodox Church does not recognize the Council of Florence so I don’t see how you can lay this concept at the feet of the Orthodox Church. It appears that some dissident Greeks may have professed it? I don’t know, all I have is the limited info that was provided from your quotes which is why I asked for sources and more information on the concept of saintly infallibility. I’ll have to look into it further when I have the time to do my own research, I guess.

 

[R_C]

It is certainly not Orthodox, that’s for sure. …] But I don’t see how that’s compatible with Christianity, and it’s kind of shocking to read it coming from a self-professed Catholic.

Like I said, I am quoting a respectable account of the events, and this position appears to have been brought forth in the council by some Greek Orthodox conciliar fathers.

Obviously we don’t know quite what they meant by “saints cannot err in faith”. Perhaps they meant that on both sides those who brought forth the arguments were not heretics, but well-esteemed saints of solid, orthodox Christian doctrine, and thus the truth had to be somewhere in between both, rather than on one side alone. Which makes perfect sense.

Speaking about shocking things, last time I checked, the fact that someone is a sinner (ex. a bandit, mudered, etc.) has nothing to do with his faith.

The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you—but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice.

No doubt, the Lord stated that those who were seated on the chair of Moses could not err in faith. That did not imply that they were doing what the faith required them to do.

 

[R_C]

The Orthodox Church does not recognize the Council of Florence

Why?

You don’t reject a council where a solid agreement had been reached on solid foundations (forget the saintly infallibility, which is not mentioned as far as I can tell in the official acts of the council) unless you have excellent theological reasons to do so.

And I have the feeling that something odd happened after Florence. I really wish I could find the official Orthodox explanation for not recognizing the Council.

 

[Cider]

It is certainly not Orthodox, that’s for sure. We have in the Coptic Church saints like St. Moses the Ethiopian (a former bandit and murderer turned monk) and St. Mary of Egypt (a former prostitute and compulsive fornicator) which show that such a conception of the saints is really at odds with reality. I didn’t think/don’t think it’s the Roman Catholic position, either, at least not so far as I can remember it. I know that Islam has that sort of general view, wherein they cannot say that any prophet (they don’t really have saints, I guess; maybe only the Shia do, and even then I don’t know if it’s really the same thing, or if all Shia have them) has ever sinned, and hence create really whitewashed, unbelievable, two-dimensional figures out of Muhammad, John the Baptist, and the other people they have fashioned as prophets of their religion. But I don’t see how that’s compatible with Christianity, and it’s kind of shocking to read it coming from a self-professed Catholic.

I’ve never heard of this concept either, which is why I asked for citations of the source.