Research on the "East-West Schism"

[Nine_Two]

Dear brother 5loaves,

This is the one I was thinking of (ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM). Thank you! My own link to the document was invalid, so I couldn’t verify if it was the same as the one put forth by the North American Catholic-Orthodox Committee.

Hopefully, brother Nine-Two (and others) will take the time to read it.

Blessings,
Marduk

I understand this is the modern position of the Church of Rome, however it has not been so historically.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

I understand this is the modern position of the Church of Rome, however it has not been so historically.

What proof do you have otherwise? Citations please.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

What proof do you have otherwise? Citations please.

Blessings,
Marduk

It was the demand of the Papal delegate in 1054. I can search for sources on that if you need, but I had assumed it was common knowledge.

 

[dvdjs]

Since you have decided to speak…

Not knowing what was going on in a single Bishopric is not the same as no knowledge.

Neither does a lack of knowledge (my actual words) constitute “no knowledge” (your straw man).

The entire debate is semantics.

Fine. I am happy to agree with this: no theological substance, and no meaningful breach of canons.

Just what do you think “error” means? One can certainly not be in error and claim orthodoxy.

Clearly there are all sorts of errors that one might adhere to without a loss of orthodoxy. (I am tempted to cite your posts on this thread as an example. ) There are a variety of factors that Pope Leo might have had in mind when counseling against the addition, but the notion that the theology is heretical was not among them.

Yes. Really. Charlamagne was one of the worst things to ever happen to the Western Church.

At issue was your comment “Too bad he didn’t foresee a man like Charlemagne coming around”. Maybe you mean something other than what you wrote, but I am not sure what there was to foresee, given what he directly saw. Do I detect the scent of Fr. Romanides’s Kool-Aid on your breath?

You have not shown that.

Actually, my comments were oblique, but Ghosty’s were direct and did show that.

Why is a roll call relevent? I know that the Roman Metropolia was not there, however Rome did accept the council after the fact.

Ghosty already covered that point.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

It was the demand of the Papal delegate in 1054. I can search for sources on that if you need, but I had assumed it was common knowledge.

Actually, the papal legate (Humberto) was not authorized by the Pope to make such a demand - the only things Humberto was authorized to discuss with the Constantinopolitan See were the issues of (1) the use of leavened or unleavened bread, and (2) the return of lands that were originally in the jurisdiction of the Western See. He was on his own as far as the filioque was concerned.

There is simply no magisterial document that gives credence to your claim that the Church ever taught that there are two Sources of the Holy Spirit.

I can agree that perhaps there were wayward thoughts on the subject from certain individuals (not because of documentary evidence, but simply on the basis that it is possible), but the Latins have never taught as a magisterial teaching of the Latin Church (much less, a magisterial teaching of the Universal Church) that there are two Sources of the Holy Spirit.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. I just posted something in the filioque thread. Please take a look at it.

P.P.S. Since you admit (at least) the “modern position of Rome,” would you personally agree that the issue of filioque has been resolved, regardless of what you think occurred in the past?

 

[jen_fla]

1/1/10 The Circumcision of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ: Now the Lord of all that is doth undergo circumcision, in His goodness cutting off the sins and failings of mortals. He this day doth give salvation unto the whole world; and the hierarch and bright daystar of the Creator now rejoiceth in the highest, Basil the wise and divine initiate of Christ.

Is The Spirit and the Filioque Debate; General Audience November 7, 1990 what you’re thinking of?

Last two paragraphs

Or maybe this from the Pontificial Council for Promoting Christian Unity which begins with the preface:

*The homily referred to that Venerable Pope John Paul II gave in St Peter Basilica on 29 June in the presence of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I

Don’t know if that is what you had in mind. I think they all basically say the same thing. The Filioque is not something that is on the serious list of issues that separate us. Most of the clergy and laity Catholic and Orthodox have no idea about the various agreed statements and haven’t read any of the discussions at the top on the Filioque. Of course we Byzantine Catholics for the most part proclaim “from the Father” in the Creed and as others have said Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have recited the Nicene Creed jointly with Patriarchs Demetrius I and Bartholomew I in the Greek, which has no Filioque clause in the Greek because the Greek word meaning “proceeds” has a more specific meaning etc. etc. and I don’t wish to go there…:yawn:

Benedict XVI and Bartholomew I recite the Creed in Greek I don’t understand most of the Greek but hearing this, amplified by the slide show, immediately brings tears to my eyes, …

thank you 5loaves, for posting that video… it choked me up too! when we really think about the succession of the apostles the Catholics and Orthodox share, well i can’t help but feel so sorry for those that just don’t get how beautiful, intelligent and amazing our faith is.

here’s to love and understanding in 2010.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine_two,

In an earlier post, I am afraid I misled you. I stated this:

Sorry. I don’t have the time right now to look it up. Perhaps others will. And I wouldn’t say St. Maximos defended filioque. IIRC, he was simply asking about the discrepancy, and the Latins simply explained it to his satisfaction.

Upon some research, I was wrong to say that St. Maximos did not defend the Latin use of Filioque. In fact, he explicitly did. Here is what he wrote:

**“Those of the Queen of cities have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope (Martin I), not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to theology, because it says he says that ‘the Holy Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) also from the Son.’

“The other has to do with the divine incarnation, because he has written, ‘The Lord, as man, is without original sin.’

“With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the sacred commentary he composed on the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit — they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession; but [they use this expression] in order to manifest the Spirit’s coming-forth (προϊέναι) through him and, in this way, to make clear the unity and identity of the essence….

“The Romans have therefore been accused of things of which it is wrong to accuse them, whereas of the things of which the Byzantines have quite rightly been accused (viz., Monothelitism), they have, to date, made no self-defense, because neither have they gotten rid of the things introduced by them.

“But, in accordance with your request, I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending (the synodal letters) has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to doing this. One should also keep in mind that they cannot express their meaning in a language and idiom that are foreign to them as precisely as they can in their own mother-tongue, any more than we can do.”**
St. Maximus the Confessor, Ad Domnum Marinum Cypri presbyterum (Letter to the priest Marinus of Cyprus), PG 91, 134D-136C.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

Thank you for bringing this post to my attention, Mardukm, and my apologies for taking the time I have before answering it.

I believe I asked for a source regarding St. Maximos defense of the filioque, and you have provided it. However I can’t help but question its authenticity.

I tried to track down the full context of it, but was unable to find anything outside of some websites that just linked to each other (with the same reference), with the ultimate source being accredited to a site which no longer exists. Additionally I tried looking it up in the library catalogue of the local university and came up with nothing.
Now I don’t claim this means anything, I didn’t do an exhaustive search, and my own Church has a far better library when it comes to Eastern Christianity than the university library (it’s just much harder to search).

I have additional issues with other aspects of its presentation. I notice the source document has a Latin title, yet St. Maximos was a Greek (though he likely knew Latin), but was writting the letter to a priest in Cyprus, who it can be assumed was Greek (I can find no references to him outside of references to that letter), at a time when the use of Latin in the East was pretty close to its lowest ebb. And while it can easily be claimed to have been translated into Latin from Greek and preserved that way, the habit of the West was to preserve original documents in the original language, something for which it should be lauded.
Now I do know that some documents have, from time to time, been preserved with a Latin title even though they themselves are in Greek, however the websites I found mention that it was translated from Latin.
I would feel more comfortable accepting a source such as this if I could be reasonably certain the originating documents were in Greek, as one would expect.

Additionally there is the issue of timing. While it is true that he fought against Monothelite heretics in the East, the problem is ascribing acceptance of the Filioque to the Roman Church. The Filioque first appeared when St. Maximos was 9, and as a learned man he would probably have been aware of it, it most certainly did not catch on throughout the “Roman Church” in his lifetime, especially when we consider the fact that St. Leo III was able to staunchly oppose it 200 years later.

I admit this last point could be explained away as a translation issue, which is why I’m not going to fully dismiss it until I’ve found the Greek, or been given a good argument as to why the original is in Latin, and get to see the Latin (I don’t know the language, but my curiosity is mostly limited to proper nouns.

I would like to point out before you respond that my reason for asking was more curiosity at the idea that he would defend it. What St. Maximos writes certainly gives one pause to think, but it does not change my beliefs regarding the filioque. He was an infallible, though holy, man, and we must keep in mind that we are dealing with something which was an innovation of his day. He could not be expected to foresee what would come out of it.

 

[Ghosty]

Additionally there is the issue of timing. While it is true that he fought against Monothelite heretics in the East, the problem is ascribing acceptance of the Filioque to the Roman Church. The Filioque first appeared when St. Maximos was 9, and as a learned man he would probably have been aware of it, it most certainly did not catch on throughout the “Roman Church” in his lifetime, especially when we consider the fact that St. Leo III was able to staunchly oppose it 200 years later.

The filioque was in use LONG before the sixth century, as can be seen with the “Athanasian” Creed (St. Ambrose certainly taught it, for example). What St. Leo opposed was its inclusion in the Nicene-Constinopolitan Creed, not its use altogether. This often confuses people who seem to think that the opposition to including the term in the Creed is the same as opposing it theologically.

Nothing in St. Maximos’ writing indicates that he’s referring to the Nicene-Constinopolitan, but simply to the filioque being mentioned in some profession of Faith from Rome, which would not have been unlikely at all given the common use of things like the “Athanasian” Creed as a Baptismal profession.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Nine_Two]

The filioque was in use LONG before the sixth century, as can be seen with the “Athanasian” Creed (St. Ambrose certainly taught it, for example). What St. Leo opposed was its inclusion in the Nicene-Constinopolitan Creed, not its use altogether. This often confuses people who seem to think that the opposition to including the term in the Creed is the same as opposing it theologically.

Nothing in St. Maximos’ writing indicates that he’s referring to the Nicene-Constinopolitan, but simply to the filioque being mentioned in some profession of Faith from Rome, which would not have been unlikely at all given the common use of things like the “Athanasian” Creed as a Baptismal profession.

Peace and God bless!

If, as you say, St. Maximos was not defending the filioque in the context of the Nicene Creed, then it becomes irrelevent to a discussion regarding its use in the Nicene Creed.

 

[Ghosty]

If, as you say, St. Maximos was not defending the filioque in the context of the Nicene Creed, then it becomes irrelevent to a discussion regarding its use in the Nicene Creed.

It remains highly relevant because many Orthodox (yourself included, in this very thread) continue to insist that it is an erroneous teaching. There is a HUGE difference between opposing the filioque on non-addition grounds, and opposing it on theological grounds. It was you yourself who raised the issue of it being a change in Faith, and therefore called into question the orthodoxy of the teaching, so there’s no point in backtracking on that now.

If you question the orthodoxy of the filioque, you must confront St. Maximos’ (and numerous other Fathers) support of it. This support is only irrelevant if you restrain your argument to a question of its proper place in the Creed, which you yourself have not done. If you only want to deal with the very valid question of its place in the Creed, then simply admit that the orthodoxy of the filioque is not an issue. You’d even have the support of many Catholics (myself included) if you and other Orthodox worked that angle instead of the heresy one.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

I have read of EO questioning the authenticity of the document, but noone ever give a reason why.

I have additional issues with other aspects of its presentation. I notice the source document has a Latin title, yet St. Maximos was a Greek (though he likely knew Latin), but was writting the letter to a priest in Cyprus, who it can be assumed was Greek (I can find no references to him outside of references to that letter), at a time when the use of Latin in the East was pretty close to its lowest ebb. And while it can easily be claimed to have been translated into Latin from Greek and preserved that way, the habit of the West was to preserve original documents in the original language, something for which it should be lauded.
Now I do know that some documents have, from time to time, been preserved with a Latin title even though they themselves are in Greek, however the websites I found mention that it was translated from Latin.
I would feel more comfortable accepting a source such as this if I could be reasonably certain the originating documents were in Greek, as one would expect.

I admit this last point could be explained away as a translation issue, which is why I’m not going to fully dismiss it until I’ve found the Greek, or been given a good argument as to why the original is in Latin, and get to see the Latin (I don’t know the language, but my curiosity is mostly limited to proper nouns.

The quote I gave provides the citation to the Patrologia Graeca (or perhaps you did not notice that?), not the Patrologia Latina. Since your Church has a good library, perhaps you can look it up through the PG citation that was provided.

Additionally there is the issue of timing. While it is true that he fought against Monothelite heretics in the East, the problem is ascribing acceptance of the Filioque to the Roman Church. The Filioque first appeared when St. Maximos was 9, and as a learned man he would probably have been aware of it, it most certainly did not catch on throughout the “Roman Church” in his lifetime, especially when we consider the fact that St. Leo III was able to staunchly oppose it 200 years later.

I don’t understand why acceptance of the whole Latin Church is relevant. IIRC, the original issue was that Pope St. Martin used the phrase in an encyclical to the Greeks. The Greeks then turned to St. Maximos to clarify the issue for them.

we must keep in mind that we are dealing with something which was an innovation of his day. He could not be expected to foresee what would come out of it.

It seems St. Maximos addressed the very heart of the issue - whether or not the Latins were demeaning the arche of the Father by its phrase “proceeds from the Father and the Son.” St. Maximos also seems to have addressed the issue of language (the difference between procedit and ekporeusai). What other issue are you referring to that St. Maximos could not have foreseen?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

I have read of EO questioning the authenticity of the document, but noone ever give a reason why.

I gave reasons, however I also said that I was ready to be corrected.

The quote I gave provides the citation to the Patrologia Graeca (or perhaps you did not notice that?), not the Patrologia Latina. Since your Church has a good library, perhaps you can look it up through the PG citation that was provided.

PG could mean almost anything, and none of my searches found a definitive answer. I’ll look into this.

I don’t understand why acceptance of the whole Latin Church is relevant. IIRC, the original issue was that Pope St. Martin used the phrase in an encyclical to the Greeks. The Greeks then turned to St. Maximos to clarify the issue for them.

It wouldn’t be, the issue is the language of the translation implies it was.

It seems St. Maximos addressed the very heart of the issue - whether or not the Latins were demeaning the arche of the Father by its phrase “proceeds from the Father and the Son.” St. Maximos also seems to have addressed the issue of language (the difference between procedit and ekporeusai). What other issue are you referring to that St. Maximos could not have foreseen?

The idea that it can, and in fact has led to misunderstandings, which is the ultimate basis of my opposition to the addition. As I said, I don’t find the argument particularly convincing regarding the modern day. If, as Ghosty comments, it was being argued outside the context of the Creed.

 

[Nine_Two]

It remains highly relevant because many Orthodox (yourself included, in this very thread) continue to insist that it is an erroneous teaching. There is a HUGE difference between opposing the filioque on non-addition grounds, and opposing it on theological grounds. It was you yourself who raised the issue of it being a change in Faith, and therefore called into question the orthodoxy of the teaching, so there’s no point in backtracking on that now.

Yes, if you want to put words in my mouth, that is correct.

I have argued that

1. It is a violation of the Council of Ephesus. - We went over that ad nauseum and got nowhere
2. The addition of new words should take into account the original intent of the writters, and not simply the language it is added in. The Filioque, as admitted by Catholics here is heretical when applied to the Greek - Again we went over this ad nauseum, with Catholics insisting the Latin be able to stand on its own, at this point it is mostly opinion so we must agree to disagree
3. The Latin Church did in fact try to force the filioque on the East (which as agreed would be heretical). - On this there was never any real answer.
4. The filioque leads (not is) to error. I’ve seen the filioque used to prove everything from Arienism to Modelism on this forum. Additionally you have cases like the Catholic Encyclopedia which declares that “Greeks” are heretics for refusing to accept it.

If you question the orthodoxy of the filioque, you must confront St. Maximos’ (and numerous other Fathers) support of it. This support is only irrelevant if you restrain your argument to a question of its proper place in the Creed, which you yourself have not done. If you only want to deal with the very valid question of its place in the Creed, then simply admit that the orthodoxy of the filioque is not an issue. You’d even have the support of many Catholics (myself included) if you and other Orthodox worked that angle instead of the heresy one.

Until now I have always thought you had a pretty good decent theological understanding, and a good grasp of argumentation, but the use of this fallacy is beneath you.
Appealing to Authority is not a valid argument. I do not, and have never professed that every single last thing every single Church Father says is correct - they must always be looked at in the larger context of the church. The filioque is most certainly a heterodox doctrine - and as you know the East accepts that one can accept heterodox doctrine and not be considered a heretic.
As well my arguments have all been based on the Filioque within the Creed. It never occured to me that it existed elsewhere.

Once again - it is heterodox, but can, and has, led to heresy and thus would be best off unused.

 

[mardukm]

PG could mean almost anything, and none of my searches found a definitive answer. I’ll look into this.

Here’s an online index of the Patrologia Graeca:
ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/fathers/migne-patrologia-graeca.asp?pg=8

If your Church has a copy of the PG, that would be the easiest way to see if there was a Greek original of the letter.

It wouldn’t be, the issue is the language of the translation implies it was.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying the issue of the language of the translation implies it was a general belief of the Latin Church?

The idea that it can, and in fact has led to misunderstandings, which is the ultimate basis of my opposition to the addition. As I said, I don’t find the argument particularly convincing regarding the modern day. If, as Ghosty comments, it was being argued outside the context of the Creed.

The misunderstanding today seems to be based on the notion that the Latins are demeaning the arche of the Father. But this was already settled by St. Maximos. What I am asking from you is what other misunderstanding are you proposing exists?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

Here’s an online index of the Patrologia Graeca:
ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/fathers/migne-patrologia-graeca.asp?pg=8

I found that. It doesn’t seem to have the particularly relevent bit online, and I’m having trouble with the download links. I’ll play with it later.

If your Church has a copy of the PG, that would be the easiest way to see if there was a Greek original of the letter.

The more I see the more I doubt it does, given that it is essentially the Catholic version of the Philokalia, and not something the Orthodox Church has ever had much to do with.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying the issue of the language of the translation implies it was a general belief of the Latin Church?

It uses the term “Romans” in a general sense, however this was before the filioque had time to catch on to the point it could be used in a general sense. While Ghosty made the claim he was meaning outside the context of the Creed, that would make it a completely different argument.

The misunderstanding today seems to be based on the notion that the Latins are demeaning the arche of the Father. But this was already settled by St. Maximos. What I am asking from you is what other misunderstanding are you proposing exists?

As I said, Catholics who believe that the Holy Spirit has Christ as an origin point, Catholics who have suggested that it is evidence that all are the same and just different aspects of the same God (modelism), Those who suggest the Holy Spirit is not co-equal with the Father and the Son but rather on a lower level, and finally the idea that anyone who doesn’t use it is a heretic.
All of these I’ve heard on this forum. Take it away and it is impossible to misunderstand.

 

[Ghosty]

Yes, if you want to put words in my mouth, that is correct.

Excuse me? You said:

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.

If you want to clarify what you meant, then by all means do so, but don’t accuse me of putting words in your mouth when you said the filioque changed the understanding of the Faith.

1. The Latin Church did in fact try to force the filioque on the East (which as agreed would be heretical). - On this there was never any real answer.

This is false, and you’ve provided nothing to back up your assertion. Cardinal Humbert was not “the Latin Church” (his bull wasn’t even binding), and his anathemazations were never applied. Unless you’re thinking of some other case, you’re simply mistaken on this point.

Until now I have always thought you had a pretty good decent theological understanding, and a good grasp of argumentation, but the use of this fallacy is beneath you.
Appealing to Authority is not a valid argument. I do not, and have never professed that every single last thing every single Church Father says is correct - they must always be looked at in the larger context of the church.

I never appealed to authority, I merely pointed out that you must address the fact that so many Orthodox Saints (prior to Photius) explicitely supported the filioque. I never said “it’s true because so and so said so”, I said that you must somehow deal with the fact that this teaching was so widely held and taught, in various forms, in both the East and West, and not merely wave this fact off by saying “not everything the Saints teach is correct”. If it was one or two isolated instances, you might get away with such an approach, but given the sheer weight of testimony (shown especially on other, linked threads) this discrepency in Orthodox tradition must be accounted for. This is not an appeal to authority, but merely pulling the rug out from the “concensus of the Church” argument that is so often raised on the Orthodox side; there is no concensus of the Church on this matter, but the weight of testimony is certainly on the side of the filioque and not against it. If you’re going to stand against so many cases of filioque-support, you have to show precisely how and why it falls outside of orthodoxy.

Once again - it is heterodox, but can, and has, led to heresy and thus would be best off unused.

Name one theological Truth that hasn’t led to some heresy or another. The entire first millenium of the Church was nothing but correcting heresies spun off from theological Truth. If imprecision is the litmus test of heterodoxy, then the first several Councils at least must be utterly disregarded, since each of them established a new heresy that had to be countered by the next (and so on). Obviously total clarity and precision can’t be the litmus test for orthodoxy for two reasons:

1. Our words will always fall short in explaining God, and will always say too much or too little.
2. The Councils which are our basis for orthodoxy are themselves, of themselves, unclear and prone to supporting outright heresy (the Nestorians viewed Chalcedon as a total vindication of their beliefs, because the language adopted by Chalcedon was precisely the language of their theologians; this was one reason that the Copts so vehemently rejected the Council).

If it is heterodox, show that it is, don’t just claim it. This is why I say you must answer the Orthodox Saints who unequivocally support the filioque: if it is indeed outside of orthodoxy, then you have plenty of noble examples to use in demonstrating this fact.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Nine_Two]

Part 1

If you want to clarify what you meant, then by all means do so, but don’t accuse me of putting words in your mouth when you said the filioque changed the understanding of the Faith.

A change in the faith and a change in the understanding of the faith are two different things. The Filioque has led to a change in an understanding of the faith, and I pointed out where. On its own you’re correct, the filioque is nothing.

This is false, and you’ve provided nothing to back up your assertion. Cardinal Humbert was not “the Latin Church” (his bull wasn’t even binding), and his anathemazations were never applied. Unless you’re thinking of some other case, you’re simply mistaken on this point.

And why wasn’t the Bull valid? Because the Pope died while he was on his way to The City. The Catholic Church doesn’t get free on a technicality.

I never appealed to authority, I merely pointed out that you must address the fact that so many Orthodox Saints (prior to Photius) explicitely supported the filioque. I never said “it’s true because so and so said so”, I said that you must somehow deal with the fact that this teaching was so widely held and taught, in various forms, in both the East and West, and not merely wave this fact off by saying “not everything the Saints teach is correct”. If it was one or two isolated instances, you might get away with such an approach, but given the sheer weight of testimony (shown especially on other, linked threads) this discrepency in Orthodox tradition must be accounted for. This is not an appeal to authority, but merely pulling the rug out from the “concensus of the Church” argument that is so often raised on the Orthodox side; there is no concensus of the Church on this matter, but the weight of testimony is certainly on the side of the filioque and not against it. If you’re going to stand against so many cases of filioque-support, you have to show precisely how and why it falls outside of orthodoxy.

So far three saints have been named, St. Maximos, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine. Of those the first two predate the use of the term “filioque” in the context of the creed which is what this entire thread has been about. The later you have argued was similar, although it is possible he was also arguing in the context of the creed. Even if all three of these were speaking in the context of the creed it was still not their main teaching, or the teaching for which they are remembered as a saint, and they do not make up the whole of Holy Tradition. Yes, it is possible for three saints to be wrong on the same issue. If you want to argue a patristics approach that it wasn’t seen as a bad thing, you’re going to need the writings of many more.
As it is, if there was such a thing as speaking Ex Cathedra, I’m pretty sure Pope St. Leo III was doing so when he condemned the addition - given the major expense he went to to drive home his point.

Name one theological Truth that hasn’t led to some heresy or another. The entire first millenium of the Church was nothing but correcting heresies spun off from theological Truth. If imprecision is the litmus test of heterodoxy, then the first several Councils at least must be utterly disregarded, since each of them established a new heresy that had to be countered by the next (and so on). Obviously total clarity and precision can’t be the litmus test for orthodoxy for two reasons:

So what you’re saying is that adding words that don’t add anything to the faith is ok, because anything can lead to heresy?

1. Our words will always fall short in explaining God, and will always say too much or too little.

Agreed, although I would add it is best to say too little.

1. The Councils which are our basis for orthodoxy are themselves, of themselves, unclear and prone to supporting outright heresy (the Nestorians viewed Chalcedon as a total vindication of their beliefs, because the language adopted by Chalcedon was precisely the language of their theologians; this was one reason that the Copts so vehemently rejected the Council).

That is not a property of the councils, all media is like that (and I use media in the broadest sense, not the modern news reporter sense), the indefinite nature of semiotics does not mean that people who read language into something have a valid opinion. With the Copts the issue was around translation. The way in which the Chalcedonean Creed is translated into Coptic is heretical. The wording indicates the divine and the human nature to be completely distinct. The Greek does not.

 

[Nine_Two]

Part 2:

If it is heterodox, show that it is, don’t just claim it. This is why I say you must answer the Orthodox Saints who unequivocally support the filioque: if it is indeed outside of orthodoxy, then you have plenty of noble examples to use in demonstrating this fact.

Peace and God bless!

Once again I am a bit shocked by this, you should know that heterodox refers to those doctrines which have not been ruled on by the church itself. While there was a local council which declared it to be heresy, this council is not granted ecumenical status so its conclussions carry the same weight as any other individual.
Regardless you are taking this off topic, as I have always made clear I am arguing in the context of the Creed, and the only Orthodox saint to support it in that context, you yourself have defeated and said was not. Provide these Orthodox Saints who argued in favour of the Filioque in the context of the Creed. In fact St. Maximos doesn’t argue in its favour, he simply argues that it isn’t heretical - and even suggests that Rome should “translate what is peculiar to them in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided.”

With that said, I never intended to resume an argument about the filioque, and I do not believe that this is a profitable use of time during Great Lent. While I would be willing to resume this dialogue after the Feast, for now I believe it best that this discussion lay dormant. If you respond to this I will read it, but I won’t answer it until after Pascha.

In Peace.

 

[Ghosty]

I don’t have enough time to respond to everything right now, but I’ll address a few quick matters:

And why wasn’t the Bull valid? Because the Pope died while he was on his way to The City. The Catholic Church doesn’t get free on a technicality.

It wasn’t a Papal Bull, but just a Bull issued by a Cardinal representing the Pope, and there was no Pope at the time. The Bull was never put into effect regardless (the Bull also said that unshaven priests were heretical ), so it’s pointless to bring up as an example of “forcing the filioque” on the East.

So far three saints have been named, St. Maximos, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine. Of those the first two predate the use of the term “filioque” in the context of the creed which is what this entire thread has been about. The later you have argued was similar, although it is possible he was also arguing in the context of the creed.

Read the other threads that have been linked. There are many, many more Saints that support the filioque. Just one example is St. Gregory of Nyssa:

If, however, any one cavils at our argument, on the ground that by not admitting the difference of nature it leads to a mixture and confusion of the Persons, we shall make to such a charge this answer—that while we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another—by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another by that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the interposition of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father.

I have no interest in rehashing all the citations that have been made over the years on this forum on this topic, but they are available in the links.

As for the whole “context of the Creed” issue, you can’t have it both ways. If it’s just about the inclusion of the filioque in the Creed, then don’t claim that the teaching is heterodox. When you claim that it is heterodox you open yourself up to having to defend such an assertion. Given that the filioque is supported by the majority of Church Fathers who spoke on the matter, and that it hasn’t be definitively ruled out as heresy, you have an uphill battle ahead of you if you wish to claim that the teaching is heterodox; it’s very hard to claim that a teaching is “outside the norm” when it was in fact the norm among Church Fathers.

I recommend that if you don’t wish to defend the assertion that the filioque is heterodox, then simply drop it from your claims against it.

I hope you have a blessed Lent and Pascha, if I don’t talk to you until then.

Peace and God bless!