Saint Mark of Ephesus and Eastern Catholicism

[BVMFatima]

Saint Mark of Ephesus of the Eastern Orthodox Church states

" The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics… we did not separate from them for any other reason other than the fact that they are heretics. This is precisely why we must not unite with them unless they dismiss the addition from the Creedfilioqueand confess the Creed as we do."

What do Eastern Catholics think of this quote?

 

[George_G]

I’m a Latin Catholic, so obviously I think he was wrong to call us heretics. But, I think someone can have wrong opinions and still be a saint.

 

[BVMFatima]

I’m a Latin Catholic, so obviously I think he was wrong to call us heretics. But, I think someone can have wrong opinions and still be a saint.

He isn’t accepted as a saint by the Catholic Church, so I don’t know if he is considered a saint or not?

 

[Lester_S]

he’s a saint in the eyes of Eastern Orthodox, because of his defense of Orthodox teaching on the procession of the holy spirit. I’m a little mixed, because I’m going through the process of ultimately making a formal switch from West, to East, canonically. I can see why, during that time, he made that statement. For the times, as of right now, it’s a little tricky.

 

[IrishRush]

Saint Mark of Ephesus of the Eastern Orthodox Church states

" The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics… we did not separate from them for any other reason other than the fact that they are heretics. This is precisely why we must not unite with them unless they dismiss the addition from the Creedfilioqueand confess the Creed as we do."

What do Eastern Catholics think of this quote?

I’d like to ask a question that will take us just a little off course here.
Why is the filioque so contested? It says in the bible that Jesus breathed on the apostles and they received the Holy Spirit. Does that not very clearly show that the Holy Spirit DOES, in fact, proceed from the Father AND the Son? I don’t understand how this division came to be.

 

[Lester_S]

I’d like to ask a question that will take us just a little off course here.
Why is the filioque so contested? It says in the bible that Jesus breathed on the apostles and they received the Holy Spirit. Does that not very clearly show that the Holy Spirit DOES, in fact, proceed from the Father AND the Son? I don’t understand how this division came to be.

transmission wise, yes. But, in terms of origination, John’s gospel clearly spells out the spirit proceeds (originates) from the Father. It’d be more proper, if you wanted to say the creed w/ the clause, in English > proceeds from the father, resting in, or through the son.

 

[Schism_hater]

I’d like to ask a question that will take us just a little off course here.
Why is the filioque so contested? It says in the bible that Jesus breathed on the apostles and they received the Holy Spirit. Does that not very clearly show that the Holy Spirit DOES, in fact, proceed from the Father AND the Son? I don’t understand how this division came to be.

You are making the mistake which is invariably made whenver this topic comes up on this board, which is confusing the economic mission of the Spirit from th Father and the Son with the eternal origin of the Spirit from the Father alone. The latter is taught by Christ clealry in John 15:26.

By the reasoning you (and many RCs) use, we could just as easily say “Christ was conceived when the Holy Spirit came upon Mary, and was confirmed in his mission when the Spirit descended upon Him at his baptism. Does that not very clearly show that the Son does, in fact, proceed from the Father AND the Spirit?” It is false reasoning, of course.

 

[BVMFatima]

You are making the mistake which is invariably made whenver this topic comes up on this board, which is confusing the economic mission of the Spirit from th Father and the Son with the eternal origin of the Spirit from the Father alone. The latter is taught by Christ clealry in John 15:26.

By the reasoning you (and many RCs) use, we could just as easily say “Christ was conceived when the Holy Spirit came upon Mary, and was confirmed in his mission when the Spirit descended upon Him at his baptism. Does that not very clearly show that the Son does, in fact, proceed from the Father AND the Spirit?” It is false reasoning, of course.

Well the Filioque is only present in the Latin Church, and this has been Church teaching in the West since the beginning. Ambrose of Milan, who was a Latin Church father states

“The Holy Spirit, when he proceeds from the Father and the Son, does not separate himself from the Father and does not separate himself from the Son” (The Holy Spirit*1:2:120 [A.D. 381]).

 

[Rawb]

Well the Filioque is only present in the Latin Church

And that doesn’t give you pause? That’s a problem.

and this has been Church teaching in the West since the beginning. Ambrose of Milan, who was a Latin Church father states

“The Holy Spirit, when he proceeds from the Father and the Son, does not separate himself from the Father and does not separate himself from the Son” (The Holy Spirit*1:2:120 [A.D. 381]).

If it’s been present from the beginning then it’s been wrong since the beginning, no matter who said it (and we venerate St. Ambrose as well).

 

[Zekariya]

Well the Filioque is only present in the Latin Church, and this has been Church teaching in the West since the beginning.

It wasn’t present in the Eastern Creed but, it was present in the Eastern Church:

“For even if the Spirit exists in his own hupostasis [sic], and moreover is considered by himself insofar as he is the Spirit and not the Son, yet he is not therefore alien from the Son, for he is called the Spirit of truth and Christ is the truth, and the Spirit proceeds from him, just as undoubtedly he also proceeds from God the Father.” - St Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 17:17 (Third Letter to Nestorius)

“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…" - St Maximus the Confessor, Letter to the priest Marinus of Cyprus

 

[Lester_S]

It wasn’t present in the Eastern Creed but, it was present in the Eastern Church:

“For even if the Spirit exists in his own hupostasis [sic], and moreover is considered by himself insofar as he is the Spirit and not the Son, yet he is not therefore alien from the Son, for he is called the Spirit of truth and Christ is the truth, and the Spirit proceeds from him, just as undoubtedly he also proceeds from God the Father.” - St Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 17:17 (Third Letter to Nestorius)

“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…" - St Maximus the Confessor, Letter to the priest Marinus of Cyprus

Thank you for this, brother. But, it is interesting to note the creed in both latin, and greek were posted on the wall, of one of the Roman cathedrals do demonstrate a unity of profession, and a way to combat the filioque, in the first place, before it became problematic.

 

[BVMFatima]

And that doesn’t give you pause? That’s a problem.

If it’s been present from the beginning then it’s been wrong since the beginning, no matter who said it (and we venerate St. Ambrose as well).

No it doesn’t give me a pause because the filioque is Church teaching, no matter what the Orthodox Churches say, who left the Catholic Church due to Eastern Heresies such as Iconoclasm etc.

Fulgence of Ruspe

“Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the same Holy Spirit who is Spirit of the Father and of the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son” (The Rule of Faith*54 [A.D. 524]).

 

[BVMFatima]

Hilary of Poitiers

“Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources” (The Trinity*2:29 [A.D. 357]).

 

[Lester_S]

No it doesn’t give me a pause because the filioque is Church teaching, no matter what the Orthodox Churches say, who left the Catholic Church due to Eastern Heresies such as Iconoclasm etc.

Fulgence of Ruspe

“Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the same Holy Spirit who is Spirit of the Father and of the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son” (The Rule of Faith*54 [A.D. 524]).

What? Left the Catholic Church due to heresies such as iconoclasm? Huh? Please, be careful about such statements. Iconclasm dealt with a previous mandate, which felt icons were problematic; and attempted to rid the churches of Holy Icons (doors to heaven). The seventh ecumenical council denounced iconoclasm; and is revered as the victory of Orthodoxy, for both East, and West.

 

[TarkanAttila]

What? Left the Catholic Church due to heresies such as iconoclasm? Huh? Please, be careful about such statements. Iconclasm dealt with a previous mandate, which felt icons were problematic; and attempted to rid the churches of Holy Icons (doors to heaven). The seventh ecumenical council denounced iconoclasm; and is revered as the victory of Orthodoxy, for both East, and West.

^ This.

I don’t know, though, if it’s a willful misunderstanding on the part of individual Orthodox bishops - or heresy, willful or otherwise on the part of individual Catholics - or if it’s simply a convenient cover for bigger problems like overhauling Churches whose doctrines are 1000 years less developed, or whatever. But this filioque issue should be water under the bridge. It’s clear the official Latin Church doesn’t believe in a double procession and anyone who says otherwise is taking the positions of heretical groups, or God alone knows what their problem is. But it’s NOT ours!

 

[Rawb]

It’s clear the official Latin Church doesn’t believe in a double procession and anyone who says otherwise is taking the positions of heretical groups, or God alone knows what their problem is. But it’s NOT ours!

Here’s the problem, in plain, blank words:

The Roman Church taught a double procession. This is evidenced in your Councils which teach it blatantly, and in the hymnography of your church which also professes it (even in one of your most traditional hymns). I will quote these here:

Second Council of Lyons:
“We, in our desire to close the way to errors of this kind, with the approval of the Sacred Council, condemn and reject those who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son…”

Council of Florence:
“We define that this truth of Faith be believed and accepted by all Christians, and that all likewise profess that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son and has His essence and His subsistent being both from the Father and the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and one spiration”

“Down in Adoration Falling” (From the older, Tantum Ergo)
“To the everlasting Father,
And the Son Who reigns on high
With the Holy Spirit proceeding
Forth from each eternally”

So the issue for the Orthodox is this: Either you were wrong then, or wrong now, about your interpretation of “Proceeds from the Father and the Son.” To accept that you were wrong then, to accept that the progression is temporal and really means “From the Father through the Son” (which Orthodox find acceptable) you have to admit the infallible church was wrong once. To claim your church is infallible you have to accept that your church teaches a double progression of the Holy Spirit, which is unacceptable to the Orthodox.

It’s one or the other. This is the problem the Orthodox have.

 

[Peter_J]

Saint Mark of Ephesus of the Eastern Orthodox Church states

" The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics… we did not separate from them for any other reason other than the fact that they are heretics. This is precisely why we must not unite with them unless they dismiss the addition from the Creedfilioqueand confess the Creed as we do."

What do Eastern Catholics think of this quote?

Why do you ask? (Although I’m not it matters now: at this point I’d say this thread is 97% about the filioque and 3% about the above question.)

 

[BVMFatima]

Why do you ask? (Although I’m not it matters now: at this point I’d say this thread is 97% about the filioque and 3% about the above question.)

I was curious on the Eastern Catholic (not the Orthodox) point of view on the quote of this saint of the Orthodox Churches.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

transmission wise, yes. But, in terms of origination, John’s gospel clearly spells out the spirit proceeds (originates) from the Father. It’d be more proper, if you wanted to say the creed w/ the clause, in English > proceeds from the father, resting in, or through the son.

St. John also wrote: “And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb” (Rev 22.1).

Catholic Dude wrote a good blog post on this verse and the Filioque.

catholicnick.blogspot.com/2011/12/filioque-proved-in-revelation-221.html

 

[Schism_hater]

Well the Filioque is only present in the Latin Church, and this has been Church teaching in the West since the beginning.

It is simply untrue that it was the teaching in the West “from the beginning”. The very earliest it started to be taught anywhere would have been (possibly) with Tertullian, and he was very controversial. Certainly the Nicean Fathers knew nothing of it.