The Catholic Church vs Orthodoxy. Part 2. Filioque

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jonikster
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jonikster

Guest
Hello.
My name is Constantine.
I was born in Orthodox Christianity. However, over time, I began to gravitate toward other faiths.
I would like to go to the Catholic, but there are things that I do not understand.
I would like to get a theological education, but the choice of denomination to do before.
I ask you to guide me to the right path.
I would like to ask about the 3 topics, but there is a maximum allowable number of characters 3200. That is why I divide it into 3 topics.
2. Filioque.
Nicene Creed introduced by the Second Ecumenical Council in 381, was approved at the IV Ecumenical Council in 451.
In the original version of the Creed filioque did not exist.
Latin Fathers of the Church has traditionally taught on the participation of the Son in the procession of the Spirit, or in progress, this doctrine was later dogmatized alongside local councils and the dogmatic letters papal throne at the turn of the Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.
Tertullian holds a special place in the history of Latin Trinitarian theology, as he entered the Latin formula. una substantia (one substance) and Latin. tres personae (three persons) in the language of Latin theology, and in the text of Tertullian is mentioned about participation of the Son in the procession of the Spirit:
Spirit has no other source other than the Father through the Son.
Hilary of Poitiers, traditionally referred to as the “Athanasius of the West”, commenting on the fragment of the Gospel of John, details the relationship of the Father and the Son in the procession of the Spirit:
If you believe that there is a difference between receiving from the Son and the place (procedere) from the Father, there is no doubt that the taking of the Son and to the Father - the same thing. Your Holy Spirit is, of Thee through Him (the Son), even though the mind does not comprehend, but nevertheless refrained conscience.
Ambrose in his treatise “On the Holy Spirit” (. Ca 381) writes about the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son:
Also, the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father and the Son, does not separate any of the Father or the Son.
in Catholic theology, it was recognized that the Filioque in the Creed is the later insertion of the Latin theologians, which has never existed in the original Creed, drawn up in the Greek language. The addition of the Filioque into the Creed according to the Catholic Church, set out in the Pope bull Eugenius IV of July 6, 1439 at the Council of Florence, the Filioque - this explanatory word (Latin explicationem verborum.), Added to the Latin translation of the Nicene-Constantinople Creed, adopted by the Roman Church in the XI century in the doctrine of the Trinity.
However, despite the recognition of the Catholic Church of the late insertion of the Filioque, they continue to use it in the Creed.
I would add that the actual use of the filioque in the Creed began in the troubled times of 10 early 11th centuries, when the Popes were not elected, but appointed.
Catholics, remember Marozia (domna senatrix).
Emperor Henry II made the Pope Benedict VIII in turn Filioque. With the addition of this Creed was sung in 1014 at the coronation of Henry.
 
Last edited:
You seem to be somewhat confused with regards to the filioque issue. Filioque was not even an invention of the West, but had it’s roots in the pre-Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed East. We first see filioque theology in the East at the Council of Alexandria in 362 and by Pope Damasus in 378 against the Pneumatomachi heresy. This pre-dates even the Nicene-Constinopolitan Creed. At this point, filioque theology was found inf various forms in the local formulas of Faith (what we would now call Creeds). Even when Nicea was first held, the Creed put forth was not what we have today. It was changed by the various local synods until the final result was agreed upon at the Council of Constantinople in 381. Even then, the Creed was not formalized as the only creed to be used. At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, the fathers of the council simply put forth that no further Creeds would ever be formulated and that from that point forward, anyone who further changed the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed would be anathemetized. Usage of previous creeds were never forbidden. As such, when filioque had entered into local usages of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan between 381 and the formalization in 451, its continued usage was not banned. As the localized creeds which contained the filioque were prevalent in Italy, the use of the specific Creed used in Rome was standardized in the West, just as the Byzantine empire standardized liturgical practices in the East before the Islamic invasions. The filioque version of the Creed was sung in 1014 at the coronation of Henry because Pope Benedict VIII wanted to emphasize that Henry was the Holy Roman Emperor and as such, used the Roman liturgy instead of the Frankish ones (which did not use the same local version of the Creed) which had been previously used in the coronations of the Holy Roman Emperor.

Also, to correct your historical account, Pope Benedict VIII was not appointed by Henry II. He was elected by the clergy of Rome in 1012 but was forced to flee when a layman (antipope Gregory VI) was “installed” by local noble families as “pope” in an attempt to stop political rivals from electing a pope. Gregory went to Henry II for support but the Emperor had his clergy research canon law and determined that he in no way held any legitimate right to the papacy. After this, Henry removed those noble families who were preventing Benedict VIII from returning and allowed the Pope to regain control of his diocese.
 
Last edited:
Jonikster said:
…
However, despite the recognition of the Catholic Church of the late insertion of the Filioque, they continue to use it in the Creed.
…
Click to expand...
The Byzantine Catholic church does not use it (and others).

It was used in the west way before the date you posted. Note that the west was using the Nicene Creed from 325 and Constantinople changed that original Nicene Creed in a local council of 381 without the involvement of the Rome. Called the Symbol of 381 below. Rome first received it about 70 years later in 451.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447, [76] even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The Eighth Ecumenical Council (which Pope John VIII sent legates to and accepted) made it an anathema to add any single word to the Creed.
 
Last edited:
Modern Rome, and much of Orthodoxy, no longer recognizes this council as ecumenical.
 
The evidence that this was actually an Ecumenical Council is slim to none. The first evidence that it was Ecumenical is from Mark of Ephesus five hundred and fifty years later when he was using it to try to justify his opposition to the attempts at reunification during the Council of Florence. He didn’t want to accept reunification, so he created an Ecumenical Council out of a local Synod. Just because the Pope sends a delegate to a Council held in the East doesn’t mean it is Ecumenical. There were dozens of Synods and Councils held in the West where the Patriarch of Constantinople or Emperor sent a representative and these aren’t considered Ecumenical.

If you actually look at the history, the Papal legate wasn’t even there for the purpose of attending the synod. He was simply there to officially approve of Photius reclaiming the Patriarchate if he acknowledged the West’s usage of filioque and made an apology. Photius refused and thus the legate’s official powers ended. The synod convened and made their declarations. After the synod, Pope John VIII only approved of Photius as Patriarch in return for the return of Romania to Roman jurisdiction, not the actual synod itself. The first ruling on the actual synod wasn’t until the 11th century, primarily because the legate wasn’t present for most of the sessions and the full version of the canons did not make it to Rome until 200 years later.
 
Last edited:
I thought most Orthodox jurisdictions only recognized the first 7 ecumenical councils…

Either way, the issue of additions to the creed aside, Catholics simply reject the notion that there is a difference of faith here. Byzantine Catholics hold to the Orthodox understanding and we don’t see a conflict. The official Greek version of the creed used by the Catholic Church does not include the flilioque which is strictly part of the Latin translation.

There are Orthodox theologians who see no conflict as long as the monarchy of the Father is respected. It depends who you ask.
 
Last edited:
Jonikster said:
Hello.
My name is Constantine.
I was born in Orthodox Christianity. However, over time, I began to gravitate toward other faiths.
I would like to go to the Catholic, but there are things that I do not understand.
I would like to get a theological education, but the choice of denomination to do before.
I ask you to guide me to the right path.
I would like to ask about the 3 topics, but there is a maximum allowable number of characters 3200. That is why I divide it into 3 topics.
2. Filioque.
Nicene Creed introduced by the Second Ecumenical Council in 381, was approved at the IV Ecumenical Council in 451.
In the original version of the Creed filioque did not exist.
Latin Fathers of the Church has traditionally taught on the participation of the Son in the procession of the Spirit, or in progress, this doctrine was later dogmatized alongside local councils and the dogmatic letters papal throne at the turn of the Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.
Tertullian holds a special place in the history of Latin Trinitarian theology, as he entered the Latin formula. una substantia (one substance) and Latin. tres personae (three persons) in the language of Latin theology, and in the text of Tertullian is mentioned about participation of the Son in the procession of the Spirit:
Spirit has no other source other than the Father through the Son.
Hilary of Poitiers, traditionally referred to as the “Athanasius of the West”, commenting on the fragment of the Gospel of John, details the relationship of the Father and the Son in the procession of the Spirit:
If you believe that there is a difference between receiving from the Son and the place (procedere) from the Father, there is no doubt that the taking of the Son and to the Father - the same thing. Your Holy Spirit is, of Thee through Him (the Son), even though the mind does not comprehend, but nevertheless refrained conscience.
Ambrose in his treatise “On the Holy Spirit” (. Ca 381) writes about the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son:
Also, the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father and the Son, does not separate any of the Father or the Son.
in Catholic theology, it was recognized that the Filioque in the Creed is the later insertion of the Latin theologians, which has never existed in the original Creed, drawn up in the Greek language.

[snip for space]
Click to expand...
Maybe something simple will help.

Re: Filioque

✓ Dual procession is orthodox, dual source is heretical.

✓ Dual procession ≠ dual source

What is agreed on HERE
 
Last edited:
These verses can help (from the NABRE):

The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name—he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you. (John 14:26)

“When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me. (John 15:26)

The Father sends the Spirit but Jesus is involved.

When we pray the “Our Father” or “Lord’s Prayer”, do we not pray for all Christians (Catholic, Orthodox and otherwise)?
 
Then we have Romans 8:9 RSVCE. 9 But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God really dwells in you. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.

The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit sure do belong together. 😅
 
The main problem is the EO leaders have traditionally given the Filioque a heretical meaning we Catholics don’t.

We have clarified our understanding of it many, many times–we do not understand it in the way the EO Chuches understand it to be heretical (and which we agree with them that it would be!): that is, two principles or two spirations. The problem is, the EO dogma basically became Rome is wrong no matter what.

Giorgios Scholarios, an EO Patriarch who was more open than most to Western thought, said the following about our explanations:
for as long as they profess the Filioque in the Creed, even though they deny ten thousand times the Dyarchy (alt. trans; the two principles of Godhead) and Sabellian-like teaching, and other such things, or even should they renounce or state their intent of renouncing their teachings at some point, but still retain the Filioque, they still remain what they are.
Click to expand...
It also doesn’t help that many of them just plainly reject many of the Latin Fathers who enunciated this doctrine in the same way. For example, their saint, Mark of Ephesus, said “The words of the western fathers and doctors, which attribute to the Son the cause of the Spirit, I never recognize.”

Sadly, there’s no reasoning with that kind of attitude. Thankfully, it is no longer universal among EO leaders.
 
Last edited:
As I understand the Eastern Orthodox, they regard this to be heretical:

· the Father and the Son share one relation, spiration, and the Holy Ghost has the relation of being spirated.

The Eastern Orthodox may confess that the Holy Ghost is “eternally manifested” by the Son. So in the Eastern Orthodox belief ( “>” refers to logical succession, not chronological succession):

The Father begets the Son and Spirates the Holy Ghost > the Holy Ghost then eternally rests in the Son > then the Son eternally manifests the Spirit
 
ReaderT said:
Pope St. Leo hated the filioque
Click to expand...
He opposed it’s addition to the Creed but said it is “orthodox” and hence true.

Athanasius of Alexandria also endorsed Filioque in his works, so did many other non-Latin Fathers. Changing the Creed was anathemized even before it was actually changed by pre-Schism Church and such we must understand such anathema in sense where it anathemizes those who come forward with different faith and Creed for such faith, not just different Creed.

Also, I recommend you to check “per Filio” agreement between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. It seems Filioque in it’s “per Filio” meaning does sound orthodox to EOC.

John XI of Constantinople in history and Metropolitan Kallistos Ware (who is looked upon as defender of Orthodoxy in current time) both state that Filioque is issue of semantics. John XI went as far as to prove Filioque using historical Alexandrian literature (St. Athanasius for example) and Kallistos Ware at first wrote book against Filioque but later said he was wrong and it is an issue of semantics. I suggest OP to listen to Metropolitan of Orthodox Church more about this issue than to random folks on the internet. Bishops are consecrated to have authority to interpret faith and guard it, and even according to Orthodoxy Metropolitan Kallistos Ware does that pretty successfully- and that’s enough to award him prominent place in many debates concerning Orthodox Church as well as never being condemned by any Prelate. If anyone suggests Kallistos Ware is heretical according to Orthodoxy, he is explicitly going against authority of Bishops and Church in Orthodox sense. Guy is just too famous to get away with what is heresy in eyes of his own Church.

While not being a reliable source in itself, Wikipedia’s article about Filioque seems to be good enough and have arguments from both sides, as well as joint statements of Prelates of both Churches.
 
Last edited:
Call it what you want, but I think changing the Sacred Creed for the entire Christian Church is more than just “purely disciplinary action”

We are not divided, and I know you know that - I (an American Orthodox Christian) can go to any Orthodox church and commune, whether Texan or Romanian or Japanese or whatever.
 
It was his response to request of inclusion Filioque in the Creed. He said it is orthodox doctrine but refused to include it in the Creed. Wikipedia states this and has 3 citations next to that sentence, so I do take it as pretty believable. Catholic Encyclopedia also seems to hold this to be true.
ReaderT said:
but I think
Click to expand...
and Protestants think, and Arians thought… yeah… exact wording of canons implies not that “if any dare come to you with another Creed” but “different Creed”- and even word “Creed” is disputed as in greek original word is more accurately described as “faith”. Hence “different faith” =/= another Creed. Wording can be changed according to Chalcedon, so can Creed if substance of faith is unharmed. Would you argue that translation of Creed to Slavic or any other vernacular would be violation of this principle, as it would practically change words in the Creed? You either hold to that and anathemize your communion, or you have to admit Filioque can be added if substance of faith stays the same (which, again, according to many pre-Schism Fathers- Athanasius of Alexandria being prime example, does).
ReaderT said:
We are not divided, and I know you know that - I (an American Orthodox Christian) can go to any Orthodox church and commune, whether Texan or Romanian or Japanese or whatever.
Click to expand...
That’s cute. Many Protestants can go to commune at many other Protestant Churches, are they united?
Coptic Orthodox can commune in Alexandrian EOC, are they united?
Catholics can commune in some Orthodox (EOC or OOC and Assyrian Church) jurisdictions and vice-versa, are they united?
On the contrary, Orthodoxy is divided upon basic issues such as re-baptizing Catholic converts (Russia does it, others don’t), canonical status of hierarchy of some autocephalous Churches (Ukraine being prime but not only example and also Antioch-Jerusalem jurisdiction dispute is still there. Churches anathemize each other and break communion, how can you call that unity? Perhaps it does not concern you but EOC as a whole, right now, is not united.
 
Last edited:
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Protestants can go to commune at any other Protestant Church, are they united?
Click to expand...
As a former Protestant, I feel the need to qualify this: no, not necessarily. You may not, for example, receive communion at an LCMS church and deny the Real Presence (in fact the LCMS and WELS practice closed communion like Catholicism). You may not receive communion at an Episcopal church while being un-baptized (granted I’m not sure about belief in the Real Presence, but I couldn’t when I used to attend due to my un-baptized state despite being Protestant).
 
Last edited:
Oh, I see, I based this on assumption that Protestants in my area tend to practice “open communion”. Though, then again, my point stands- simply acknowledging real Presence or having Baptism can make someone commune at certain Church without being in absolute unity of faith with them , correct? I am mostly using this to prove that simply being able to commune in some Churches does not signify full communion with said Churches.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top