C
chrisb
Guest
Grace and Peace,
You are probability correct… I have a visual depiction of the Trinity from a 1950’s Catholic Teaching Aid which clearly shows the Holy Spirit extending from both the Father and the Son…
- Status
You are probability correct… I have a visual depiction of the Trinity from a 1950’s Catholic Teaching Aid which clearly shows the Holy Spirit extending from both the Father and the Son…
N
Nine_Two
Guest
No you are quite correct. The filioque was only the catalyst for the most visible stage of the schism. It wasn’t even the end of it, even after the incident in 1054 people on both sides continued to commune with each other. I forget who it was, or exactly what he said, but one of the Eastern Emperors, long before the schism made a comment about Latin being a useless language - which is the mindset that led to the drift (and it existed on both sides).
A
Aramis
Guest
The terms used in the greek are talking of origination; the latin of point of emmission.
Both sides agree that the son has the power to send forth the spirit, and that the trinity originates in the father… but due to translation issues and mistranslation…
The greek ekporousis is speaking of origination; the latin procedit can be either origination or emmission, more often emission.
It is kind of like saying, “The Thames proceeds from London to the sea.” We know by context that it originates in the hills of England, but to the sailor it flows forth from London. The sailor doesn’t need to know that it originates in the hills, if his goal is to navigate to London from France, or from London to points un-British.
By the same token, the Spirit flows forth through the Son, and one need not get the spirit directly from the Father, but one do so. Both provide access to the Holy Spirit; the Spirit, however, is part of the trinity by origination in the Father in the same way as the Son is.
D
Diak
Guest
I still think the Union of Brest (the official statement of communion between Rome and the UGCC) offers the most concise and honest resolution of the situation in Article I and is completely consistent with the Cappadocian Fathers:
" 1.—Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another—we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.
" 1.—Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another—we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The history, if one views it as dispassionately as one can, is truly interesting, though I frankly think both sides have things in that history, of which they should not be proud.
As you might know, this can really be an explosive topic; and one that never really gets resolved in discussion or argument. Both sides can point to this misbehavior or that on the part of the other, or the perception of it, and tit for tat can go on endlessly. I think we all know the barriers by now, and those who are truly familiar with them don’t have much choice at this point but to put them into the hands of God.
Yet, (and I risk just a bit here, and don’t want to start the big blowup) there are ways, I think, in which each can bring something to the other. That has to do, in my mind, with certain attributes which one might call cultural, which have had an effect on the spirituality of each. To me, though, it’s more a matter of the spirituality affecting the cultures. Or, at least, I hope that’s so. It could be a blend, of course.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Nine_Two,
That pistin eperan should be understood as “a different Faith” instead of “a different Creed,” is supported by none other than the President of the Third Ecumenical Council, Pope St. Cyril of Alexendria. During the Council sessions of the Third Ecum Council, Pope St. Cyril used his own writings and the writings of other Fathers of the Church as a defense of the Faith. Many Fathers of the Council Fathers actually rebuked St. Cyril for depending on writings other than the actual mere text of the Creed (the Nicene Creed). St. Cyril adamantly and correctly refuted them stating that the Faith of the Church is not contained in or restricted to the Creed alone, but in all the testimony of the orthodox Fathers that went before them.
So the resolution of this issue lies with understanding the meaning of each others’ text, intead of insisting on a close-minded acceptance of mere text. Please see my signature line below for a biblical exhortation on the matter.
Blessings,
Marduk
They were not anathemizing the Fathers of Constantinople if one understands the words pistin eperan as “a different Faith” instead of a “a different creed.” If it is translated as “a different Faith,” then revisions in wording of the creed that do not actually change the Faith are not anathemized. If you interpret pistin eperan to refer to the words of the creed, instead of the belief behind them (i.e., the Faith), then you will have the Third Ecumenical Council anathemizing the Fathers of the Second Ecum Council.
That pistin eperan should be understood as “a different Faith” instead of “a different Creed,” is supported by none other than the President of the Third Ecumenical Council, Pope St. Cyril of Alexendria. During the Council sessions of the Third Ecum Council, Pope St. Cyril used his own writings and the writings of other Fathers of the Church as a defense of the Faith. Many Fathers of the Council Fathers actually rebuked St. Cyril for depending on writings other than the actual mere text of the Creed (the Nicene Creed). St. Cyril adamantly and correctly refuted them stating that the Faith of the Church is not contained in or restricted to the Creed alone, but in all the testimony of the orthodox Fathers that went before them.
So the resolution of this issue lies with understanding the meaning of each others’ text, intead of insisting on a close-minded acceptance of mere text. Please see my signature line below for a biblical exhortation on the matter.
Blessings,
Marduk
D
dvdjs
Guest
Bingo.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear Europe10,
The issue of Filioque was an accidental matter. It was brought about, unjustifiably, by Cardinal Humbert who, without any authorization from the Pope, included in his personal anathema on the Patriarch of Constantinople an accusation that the Greeks removed filioque from the text of the Creed - which, of course, was not true, since filioque was not in the original Greek Creed.
Blessings,
Marduk
The primary issue in 1054 was not actually Filioque, but the issue of the use of unleavened or leavened bread. The Latins believed the use of either was acceptable, while the Greeks demanded the use of ONLY leavened bread.
The issue of Filioque was an accidental matter. It was brought about, unjustifiably, by Cardinal Humbert who, without any authorization from the Pope, included in his personal anathema on the Patriarch of Constantinople an accusation that the Greeks removed filioque from the text of the Creed - which, of course, was not true, since filioque was not in the original Greek Creed.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Nine_Two,
I think what has happened is that in overreaction to the contentions of the Eastern Orthodox over the years, there have been a few among lay theologians and apologists who have overemphasized the so-called “double procession.” I have not found the term “double-procession” used in any Latin Catholic Magisterial source in the Middle Ages - Lyons and Florence explicitly deny the “double procession,” with Lyons anathemizing anyone who taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from two principles. The first instance I know of that the term “double procession” is used is in the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia. I have strongly argued for the removal of this phrase “double-procession” from the jargon of the Latin Church in the Apologetics forum.
I pray the Official Clarification on Filioque from HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory in the mid-90’s will remind Latin Catholics of the historic rejection by the Latin Church of the idea of a “double procession,” and the danger behind the use of that term.
Blessings,
Marduk
I would argue the exact opposite. The Latin Catholic Church has always believed the Father is the one and sole Arche of the Trinity. This is expressed even by St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas.
I think what has happened is that in overreaction to the contentions of the Eastern Orthodox over the years, there have been a few among lay theologians and apologists who have overemphasized the so-called “double procession.” I have not found the term “double-procession” used in any Latin Catholic Magisterial source in the Middle Ages - Lyons and Florence explicitly deny the “double procession,” with Lyons anathemizing anyone who taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from two principles. The first instance I know of that the term “double procession” is used is in the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia. I have strongly argued for the removal of this phrase “double-procession” from the jargon of the Latin Church in the Apologetics forum.
I pray the Official Clarification on Filioque from HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory in the mid-90’s will remind Latin Catholics of the historic rejection by the Latin Church of the idea of a “double procession,” and the danger behind the use of that term.
Blessings,
Marduk
N
Nine_Two
Guest
The problem with that is that the filioque does change the understanding of the faith, and given the odd habit of the West to define everything, it is quite strange that they would then accept a somewhat more abstract meaning of this one line (it means “through” as well as “origin point”). Additionally the Dual procession which is a corruption of doctrine was accepted, even if the West has ceased to accept it, as shown by the representation of the trinity by an upsidedown triangle. Further even Pope St. Leo, of whom Catholics are adament on reminding us “Peter speaks through Leo” believed the addition to be heresy.
In fact I would have more comfort with this argument if the Eastern Catholic Churches didn’t have a specific article put into the Council of Florence specifically allowing them to not use it in the statement of faith, afterall if they believe in the Supremacy of the Pope, should they not be following in his practice, especially on such a central issue?
The second issue is that the Nicene Creed is The statement of faith. Therefore alterations to it are somewhat different than alterations to other creeds or even coining other creeds. That they brought up Nicea specifically, even though that was not the first creed ever written indicates this viewpoint. Simply put it is unalterable because it is the central pillar of the faith.
Again that the Catholic Church (I believe in the Council of Florence) later went back and issued a statement retroactively making the edition by “eccumenical council” serves to demonstrate that at one point even the Catholic Church recognized this.
The problem with applying that on a grand scale is that if I want to change “I believe in one God” to “I believe in one duck” then you must accept it.
The theological implications are massive, as they are with the filioque (although slightly less so).
P
pepin1980
Guest
I agree completely!! Here’s an excellent article on the Filioque:It was actually the Creed of Nicaea that wasn’t supposed to be altered, not the Creed of Constantinople. They’re actually different in some significant ways.
For example the Creed of Nicaea says that the Father and Son are of one Essence, but the Creed of Constantinople does not. The Creed of Nicaea also has a whole different “last paragraph” insisting on these two being one essence, and the Son being eternal, but again the Creed of Constantinople does not. The Creed of Constantinople not only added parts, but also dropped an equal amount; historically they were completely different Creeds, and Ephesus was referring to the Creed of Nicaea specifically. It wasn’t until later that the Creed of Constantinople became the “normative Creed”, and it was well after the prohibitions against altering or accepting a different Creed from Nicaea.
Peace and God bless!
What was Rome thinking when it added the Filioque?
As is explained in detail in the above article, the Canon mention in a previous post refers to the Nicene creed, NOT the creed from Constantinople!
Blessings!!
M
mardukm
Guest
Procedit is to be taken in the same sense as proienai, not ekporeusai. I don’t see any proof that the West ever accepted it in any other way. St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas both taught that the Father is the one and only source of the entire Trinity. Both the Councils of Lyons and Florence were also explicit on the matter. Filioque can be used with the Latin procedit or the Greek proienai, but not the Greek ekporeusai. Which is why the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches don’t utilize filioque.
Again, your discomfort may just be due to the fact that you interpret pistin eperan to mean “different Creed,” focusing on the text instead of the meaning being the text (i.e., the Faith). I personally don’t see why the Latin Catholics can’t use a slightly different wording that is still wholly orthodox in meaning. The Armenian Apostolic Church (an OO Church) profess a Creed with different text than that professed by the other OO Churches, but we know they are still professing the same FAITH.
Again, the argument I propose is that what must remain unalterable is the Faith behind the text, not the text per se.
Can you clarify this, please?
There is no patristic basis for you to change “I believe in one God” to “I believe in one duck.” But the Latin Church had an ancient and solid LOCAL tradition to utilize filioque in their LOCAL Creed.
Blessings,
Marduk
N
Nine_Two
Guest
St. Augustine is from before the time of the filioque, I would be surprised if he was anything but Orthodox in that matter.
As for the rest of your post, I deleted it from this reply without thinking, planning on doing further research and seeing what I could find, when it doesn’t really matter. You express the Error of the filioque in your post.
That the church had to bring the issue of belief of dual-procession up at councils and twice anathematize it shows all that is wrong with it. The Creed as Statement of Faith should be easy to understand with very little interpretation needed, look through it line by line (ignoring the filioque), nothing in there needs more than the smallest bit of explanation, and yet here we have thread upon thread dedicated to that one (or three) little word(s). If, as you acknowledge, the filioque has led people into error than it was certainly not given to the church by the Holy Spirit, after all belief in dual-procession is not a heresy that appears in the East.
In short, if it leads people into error, than it most certainly is counter-productive to the very purpose of the creed, and by that virtue alone should be renounced.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Given that the Creed was originally written in Greek and then translated, does it not follow that the interpretation of the Creed should follow the Greek where possible? It’s like what a lot of Protestants do, they look at a word in the bible and interprete it entirely within an English framework (for example the word “until” which they use to prove the Theotokos had other children) wheras that just happens to be the closest word to the Greek and doesn’t convey the totality of the meaning.
The difference is of course in the Armenian Creed the differences seem to be flushing out some of the theology, changing nothing further. Nothing in the Armenian Creed can be even interpreted to be unorthodox.
The problem is that words convey meaning across time, so while altering the words does not cause you to change your faith, someone two generations down the road may well interprete it differently if they do not receive proper direction, and the problem is, most don’t. In fact as (I believe you mentioned), the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the double procession is proper belief, and goes so far as to say it is one of the “principle errors of the Greek Church”
There is now, there wasn’t when the objections started. All tradition has a starting point, and something which began as tradition a little over 1,000 years ago in a 2,000 year old organization is innovation.
G
Ghosty
Guest
Nine_Two: As others have pointed out, Ephesus only anathemizes Constantinople if you take an overly rigid view of the Faith and the Creed. If one does take a rigid view, as you seem to, then the only reasonable conclusion is that Constantinople is indeed anathemized and is a “robber Synod”. The Council of Chalcedon affirmed the Creed of Nicaea, and states that the Council of Constantinople affirmed the same, but the actual texts show that the Creed of Constantinople was not the same Creed at all. Chalcedon clearly accepted that what was affirmed was the same belief, not the same text.
You show that you don’t understand the Latin language very well when you ask how the Latins could accept a “more ambiguous” Creed; they accepted it then, and accept it today, because that is the ONLY way it can be rendered in Latin (the languages that the Latin is translated into vary significantly, of course). The Latins have always, since the very beginning, been working from a different understanding from the Greeks because the two languages don’t precisely translate on this point. So unless you want to disregard the Latins simply because they use Latin, you should accept that there is going to be a certain amount of “fuzziness” on this matter whenever it is translated from Greek into other languages (and I suppose you should also advocate the adoption of a “Greek only” stance for all theological discussion to boot
).
Furthermore, your statement that the Creed must be clear without much interpretation must be examined more deeply. The Latin is quite easy to understand, if you know Latin, and since the term “procedit” is used it clearly does not interfere with the monarchy of the Father. Greek-speakers didn’t understand this, due to translation issues, but the Latins clearly understood it since all major Latin theologians and Magisterial documents made the monarchy of the Father quite explicit. Latins clearly understood the (Latin) text, but Greeks could not understand the Latin.
For what it’s worth, the Latins for centuries couldn’t understand why the Greeks were bothered, since the Greek term was always translated as “procedit” when they worked through translators at the Councils.
Peace and God bless!
You show that you don’t understand the Latin language very well when you ask how the Latins could accept a “more ambiguous” Creed; they accepted it then, and accept it today, because that is the ONLY way it can be rendered in Latin (the languages that the Latin is translated into vary significantly, of course). The Latins have always, since the very beginning, been working from a different understanding from the Greeks because the two languages don’t precisely translate on this point. So unless you want to disregard the Latins simply because they use Latin, you should accept that there is going to be a certain amount of “fuzziness” on this matter whenever it is translated from Greek into other languages (and I suppose you should also advocate the adoption of a “Greek only” stance for all theological discussion to boot
).Furthermore, your statement that the Creed must be clear without much interpretation must be examined more deeply. The Latin is quite easy to understand, if you know Latin, and since the term “procedit” is used it clearly does not interfere with the monarchy of the Father. Greek-speakers didn’t understand this, due to translation issues, but the Latins clearly understood it since all major Latin theologians and Magisterial documents made the monarchy of the Father quite explicit. Latins clearly understood the (Latin) text, but Greeks could not understand the Latin.
For what it’s worth, the Latins for centuries couldn’t understand why the Greeks were bothered, since the Greek term was always translated as “procedit” when they worked through translators at the Councils.
Peace and God bless!
D
dvdjs
Guest
A wise suggestion for you to take, as many of the comments you are making have dealt with on these prior threads.A wise suggestion to make.
In addition you might take a look at these essays by an Orthodox patristic scholar:
bekkos.wordpress.com/filioque-introduction/
bekkos.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/st-maximus-on-the-filioque/
I think it is clear that your (first) interpretation of canon VII of Ephesus is wrong.
To accept the filioque as normative in a universal symbol of faith would require acceptance at an ecumenical council. That acceptance actually occurred at Florence, and was only repudiated in Constantinople when the Ottoman Sultan began to appoint the Ecumenical Patriarch. As to the merits of the theology, the Catholic teaching has been clearly stated by Ghosty in the earlier threads; objections made by Orthodox posters on the theology typically, involve mis-statements of the Catholic teaching. Statements from joint theological commssions find essential agreement.
Now you shift to “plowman” theology arguments: the Creed should be simple and not subject to misinterpretation. I think this argument is without merit and at odds with history; Orthodox Trinitarian theology is not of the plowman variety.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
It was very much the same Creed, Constantinople simply went more in depth.
As I already said, I want to discount the Latin in the same way I discount the English, it’s all fine and well but doctrine should always be based on the original text in the original language, or are you suggesting that as long as one speaks English, it is alright to believe Mary had more children (the “until” example which I gave. I most certainly don’t advocate “Greek only” what I do advocate is looking at the meaning of the text in the original language, synonyms in one language are not synonyms in other languages, so the original language should always be the one considered correct.You show that you don’t understand the Latin language very well when you ask how the Latins could accept a “more ambiguous” Creed; they accepted it then, and accept it today, because that is the ONLY way it can be rendered in Latin (the languages that the Latin is translated into vary significantly, of course). The Latins have always, since the very beginning, been working from a different understanding from the Greeks because the two languages don’t precisely translate on this point. So unless you want to disregard the Latins simply because they use Latin, you should accept that there is going to be a certain amount of “fuzziness” on this matter whenever it is translated from Greek into other languages (and I suppose you should also advocate the adoption of a “Greek only” stance for all theological discussion to boot
If it is so explicit, why does the Catholic Encyclopedia, to name a source, teach Double procession? Why did the idea need to be anathematized, as Marduk mentioned?
As I said, a text which originates in Greek must have its nuances judged according to the original language.
So you mention for a third time, and as I say again, it clearly was not so easily understood.For what it’s worth, the Latins for centuries couldn’t understand why the Greeks were bothered, since the Greek term was always translated as “procedit” when they worked through translators at the Councils.
Peace and God bless!
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Then refute them.
I’ll read when I have a moment, thanks, although the source already makes me question how much you’re playing up credintials (without me having clicked on them yet, I’m not saying anything yet).
Florence was never accepted by the Church. It was accepted by a majority of the Bishops, however that is not what makes a Council Ecumenical in the Orthodox World, as you should know.
And yet sources which I see quoted by other Catholics (like Catholic Encyclopedia) disagree and say you’re a heretic for your belief in a single procession. While Catholic teaching may state it, “clearly” is not how I’d describe it, especially since I’ve seen plenty of Catholics on this forum mention a belief in double procession.
Actually I’ve never renounced my original arguments, in fact I have little doubt that those who coined it believed in double procession, after all they added it for the explicit purpose of arguing against Arians, people who believe the second person was a created being, thus the filioque pronounced Christ equal in Godhood (which is correct) at the expense of the Holy Spirit (which is incorrect). Teaching the line with the single procession interpretation would have done nothing to counter Arianism. Only a double procession interpretation created a new argument.
There is a difference between what is believed by those who coin a term, those who teach a term, and those who are taught a term. If any of those groups accept double procession my argument is correct.
Fallacious attacks at my arguments don’t help your argument.
G
Ghosty
Guest
The same is said of the Latin Creed with the filioque. You’ll have to do much better than this if you want to establish any reasonable basis for using the Creed of Constantinople above any other of the historical Creeds.
All I’m saying is that the language must be understood before you can criticize the beliefs of those who use it. You don’t understand Latin, so you have no basis for criticizing the ancient Latin understanding of the filioque. You are doing the exact opposite of looking at the meaning of the text in the original language; in this case you refuse to look at the meaning of the filioque in the context of the language in which it originated. Instead you insist on taking a Latin term and applying its translation to the original Greek text, something that the Catholic Church rejects (as pointed out earlier, the filioque is not allowed even in the Latin Church when the Creed is recited in Greek).
The bottom line is this: the filioque originated in Latin, not Greek, and it must be understood in the context of Latin, not in the context of Greek. If you refuse to understand the Latin, you have absolutely no grounds to even comment on the filioque. In saying this I stand with St. Maximos the Confessor, who defended the Latins and their filioque against the Greeks of his day.
The Catholic Encyclopedia doesn’t actually teach “double procession” as the Eastern Orthodox define it, but rather it uses the expression “double procession” to defend the definition of Florence. This is a poor choice of words, which is not at all suprising given the general sloppiness of the Old Catholic Encyclopedia (especially regarding matters concerning the East-West divide), but it’s not a case of one Latin source contradicting another.
As for why the idea needed to be anathemized, it’s because the Greeks kept bringing it up at the Council of Florence as their reason for rejecting the filioque. The anathemization was not done to correct any Latins, because the error was not taught by any Latins, but to emphasize to the Greek delegation that such an idea was utterly anathema to the Latins who were expressing the filioque.
Yes, I agree, and so does the Catholic Church. That is why the filioque is forbidden in the original language of Greek. You are insisting on judging something that originated in Latin (the filioque) by an entirely different language, and that is where you’re tripping up. To understand the filioque, you must understand Latin, and to understand ekporousis you must understand Greek; the Catholic Church has accepted this fact, and adjusted accordingly.
Obviously the Greek wasn’t so easily understood, since the Latins translated “ekporousis” as “procedit”. Perhaps the error lies in the Greek, being overly nuanced and given to twisted translations, rather than the Latin which is quite clear in its use of ambiguous terms to mean ambiguous things.
On a final note, to address something you said to another poster:
Since you opened this can of worms, please tell us what makes a Council Ecumenical. I think you’ll find that, unless you twist the facts, there hasn’t been an Ecumenical Council since the Council of Constantinople.
Peace and God bless!
N
Nine_Two
Guest
And if Constantinople had come after Ephesus and been made unilaterally I might be in agreement with you. I do believe I stated in my first post that it was the unilateral way in which it was implimented which was of major concern to me, however the theological implications can not be forgotten.
Filioque may originate in Latin but the rest of the sentence originates in Greek, so that’s the measure by which additions should be judged.
Unfortunetly it is marketted as a teaching resource, so my point still stands.
Then why do I run into Latins who believe in the double procession?
I insist that the Creed itself, and in its totality must be judged by the Greek. If you wish to add a few words to it they may be judged in their original language, but the words around them must be judged in Greek.
This could be a fun debate, which language has more utterly infuriating standard usage.Obviously the Greek wasn’t so easily understood, since the Latins translated “ekporousis” as “procedit”. Perhaps the error lies in the Greek, being overly nuanced and given to twisted translations, rather than the Latin which is quite clear in its use of ambiguous terms to mean ambiguous things.
An Ecumenical Council is a Council of the Church which has its teachings recognised as such after the fact by the Clergy and the People, and stands in contrast to plain Councils which are also included in Holy Tradition in that the latter aren’t necessarily recognised as infallible.Since you opened this can of worms, please tell us what makes a Council Ecumenical. I think you’ll find that, unless you twist the facts, there hasn’t been an Ecumenical Council since the Council of Constantinople.
Peace and God bless!
- Status