The Filioque and the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople...

  • Thread starter Thread starter StMarina303ad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

StMarina303ad

Guest
Since the Creed was written in both the Orthodox Councils of Nicea and Contstantinople which have the promise of infallibility and guidance of the Holy Spirit…

It was a complete error on the part of the Roman Church to 700 years later add the clause “Filioque” to the Creed because doing so says that the Holy Spirit made an error of omission and that the Holy Spirit failed to properly guide the Church in its Councils and that the Church as a whole is not infallible.

We know that Jesus didn’t lie to the Apostles when He promised them the Holy Spirit would guide them in all Truth. Orthodox is the True Church of Christ. History proves it.
 
Not exactly. The original Nicene Creed omitted the clauses about the Holy Spirit. Those clauses were added at Constantinople I. So one can’t exclude an article of the creed as wrong simply because a council omitted it. It could be subsequently added later justlike a Constantinople I.
 
No, it was not a complete error. It was a complete clarification. The clarification was needed in the West to show that Jesus was God. The clarification was not needed in the East because the same herracy was not confusing the faithful. Furthermore the language does not read it the same way in Greek and Latin. Lastly, the Universal Creed requires, “Proceeds from the Father. With the Father and the Son, He is worshiped and glorified…” It’s the same in the Armenian Apostolic Church. They have an entire clause about the Holy Spirit and the River Jordan, but, it’s not part of the Universal Creed.
 
VARC said:
Not exactly. The original Nicene Creed omitted the clauses about the Holy Spirit. Those clauses were added at Constantinople I. So one can’t exclude an article of the creed as wrong simply because a council omitted it. It could be subsequently added later justlike a Constantinople I.
Click to expand...
I’m talking about the Nicean Constantinoplian Creed. You are correct that it took two councils to complete it - this is because the Holy Spirit through the Church was addressing different heresies at the time.

In Nicea the Holy Spirit through the Council of the Orthodox Church was clarifying the relationship and persons of Father and Son.

In Constantinople the Holy Spirit through the Council of the Orthodox Church was clarifying relationship and person the Holy Spirit. At the end of this Council it was decreed (a decree that was later repeated at other Councils) that if anyone was to add or remove any part of the Creed he or she would be Anathama.

So the Roman Church 700 years later not only Anathamatized themselves by adding the Filioque Clause, they also were saying that the Holy Spirit failed to guide the Church in all Truth during the Council of Constantinople because they said that the Holy Spirit in the Council of Constantinople failed to* fully *clarify the relationship and person of Himself, the Holy Spirit. These are serious errors on part of Rome which must be repented before they can be reunited with the Orthodox Church, the Church the Holy Spirit still leads today. holyfire.org/eng/
 
So do you anathamacize the Orthodox Church in Persia that had the Filioque first or do you omit that part of your history?
 
adstrinity said:
No, it was not a complete error. It was a complete clarification. The clarification was needed in the West to show that Jesus was God. The clarification was not needed in the East because the same herracy was not confusing the faithful. Furthermore the language does not read it the same way in Greek and Latin. Lastly, the Universal Creed requires, “Proceeds from the Father. With the Father and the Son, He is worshiped and glorified…” It’s the same in the Armenian Apostolic Church. They have an entire clause about the Holy Spirit and the River Jordan, but, it’s not part of the Universal Creed.
Click to expand...
The clarification that Jesus was God was given, not only in Sacred Scripture “The Word was with God and the Word was God”, but it was clarified in the first part of the Creed as defined by the Holy Spirit in the Orthodox Church Council of Nicea. The Filioque clause does nothing towards equating Jesus with God, it simply reduces the importance of the Holy Spirit therefore confusing the relationship and persons of the Most Holy Trinity.

Sorry, but God the Holy Spirit was not wrong about Himself in the 2nd part of the Creed written during the Orthodox Council of Constantinople. The Holy Spirit gave the Church the Truth, the Whole Truth and nothing but the Truth in the Councils!
 
ralphinal said:
So do you anathamacize the Orthodox Church in Persia that had the Filioque first or do you omit that part of your history?
Click to expand...
I don’t anathamatize anyone. Anyone who adds or removes from the Creed does it to him or herselves. The Council and latter Councils were clear on this.

To my knowledge the only one who has ever done this is Catholics.

There are Orthodox Churches in Persia, I’ve spoke with an Archbishop from the Persian Church in Iraq - and I’ve never heard of their Church changing the Creed before.
 
StMarina303ad said:
I don’t anathamatize anyone. Anyone who adds or removes from the Creed does it to him or herselves. The Council and latter Councils were clear on this.

To my knowledge the only one who has ever done this is Catholics.

There are Orthodox Churches in Persia, I’ve spoke with an Archbishop from the Persian Church in Iraq - and I’ve never heard of their Church changing the Creed before.
Click to expand...
From the wiki site, but supported by others
It is useful to note that a regional council in Persia in 410 introduced one of the earliest forms of the filioque in the Creed; the council specified that the Spirit proceeds from the Father “and from the Son.” Coming from the rich theology of early East Syrian Christianity, this expression in this context is authentically Eastern. Therefore, the filioque cannot be attacked as a solely Western innovation, nor as something created by the Pope.
Click to expand...
So how did Rome err? That was over a century and a half before they used it in Spain.

Now, if you want to say that Rome added it without a council, that is one arguement to discuss. However, it is not heretical and is NOT a Latin or Western invention.
 
StMarina303ad said:
Since the Creed was written in both the Orthodox Councils of Nicea and Contstantinople which have the promise of infallibility and guidance of the Holy Spirit…

It was a complete error on the part of the Roman Church to 700 years later add the clause “Filioque” to the Creed because doing so says that the Holy Spirit made an error of omission and that the Holy Spirit failed to properly guide the Church in its Councils and that the Church as a whole is not infallible.

We know that Jesus didn’t lie to the Apostles when He promised them the Holy Spirit would guide them in all Truth. Orthodox is the True Church of Christ. History proves it.
Click to expand...
And 700 years later the Holy Spirit was leading the Church into more Truth by clarifying the Creed even further.
 
ralphinal said:
Now, if you want to say that Rome added it without a council, that is one arguement to discuss. However, it is not heretical and is NOT a Latin or Western invention.
Click to expand...
This is what I was going to bring up. It is my understanding (and please, Please, PLEASE correct me if I’m wrong) that the Pope, upset with people not understanding God, wrote, “Filioque”, to clarify. He did this w/o a council because councils, like Congress, tend to not move as fast as a Leader, such as a President. When you want to get something done, you don’t call in a group of hundreds.

Alright, then, please explain, StMarina, where was Jesus while the Holy Spirit was proceeding?

And, keep in mind, like I said, the Universal Creed has, “From the Father.”

I’d like to think in the future, we’re going to have to recite, “Who proceeds from the Father explination as to why, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son explination as to why, Who proceeds from the Father through the Son explination as to why. With the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified…” But, you know, that’s in the distant future, after another council or so.

Please, though, where was Jesus/what was He doing (as you/Holy Orthodox understands) when The Holy Spirit was proceeding?

See, in the West, the Filioque clause DID something to establish the relationship of Jesus to the Father: it established that they were both God. People here in the West, as is my understanding (and I wouldn’t know where to begin to look for sources on this), were having misconceptions about The Trinity and Their abilities which is why Filioque was added. I’m sorry if the East was confused by this, but, to the West, this helps out A LOT.
 
StMarina303ad said:
Since the Creed was written in both the Orthodox Councils of Nicea and Contstantinople which have the promise of infallibility and guidance of the Holy Spirit…

It was a complete error on the part of the Roman Church to 700 years later add the clause “Filioque” to the Creed because doing so says that the Holy Spirit made an error of omission and that the Holy Spirit failed to properly guide the Church in its Councils and that the Church as a whole is not infallible.

We know that Jesus didn’t lie to the Apostles when He promised them the Holy Spirit would guide them in all Truth. Orthodox is the True Church of Christ. History proves it.
Click to expand...
Actually, StMarina, if you take a closer look at history, the Popes did oppose the insertion of the filioque for about 200 years (the 9th and 10th centuries). I know you’ll say, “Well then why did Pope Benedict VIII allow it, starting in 1014?” but the thing to keep in mind is by 1014 the filioque was already in use in pretty much all the West except Rome.

Or to look at it another way, Westerners had been using the filioque for 2 centuries in defiance of the Pope; but how “defiant” were they by this time? Doesn’t it seem likely that they were just carrying on the “tradition” (note the small “t”) that previous generations had passed on to them, without even realizing that it was technically illicit?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying “Pope Benedict VIII’s decision was the absolute best thing he could have done” – on the contrary I think a good case could be made that it would have been better if he had stuck to his guns even in 1014 – but you have to admit that there is at least a certain sensibility and reasonableness in his decision to authorize something that was already so widespread and ingrained.
 
Peter_J said:
Actually, StMarina, if you take a closer look at history, the Popes did oppose the insertion of the filioque for about 200 years (the 9th and 10th centuries). I know you’ll say, “Well then why did Pope Benedict VIII allow it, starting in 1014?” but the thing to keep in mind is by 1014 the filioque was already in use in pretty much all the West except Rome.

Or to look at it another way, Westerners had been using the filioque for 2 centuries in defiance of the Pope; but how “defiant” were they by this time? Doesn’t it seem likely that they were just carrying on the “tradition” (note the small “t”) that previous generations had passed on to them, without even realizing that it was technically illicit?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying “Pope Benedict VIII’s decision was the absolute best thing he could have done” – on the contrary I think a good case could be made that it would have been better if he had stuck to his guns even in 1014 – but you have to admit that there is at least a certain sensibility and reasonableness in his decision to authorize something that was already so widespread and ingrained.
Click to expand...
And it was not something that was heretical inherently nor was it something opposed to the faith. It was not like making Jesus one of a set of twins.
 
StMarina303ad said:
Since the Creed was written in both the Orthodox Councils of Nicea and Contstantinople which have the promise of infallibility and guidance of the Holy Spirit…

It was a complete error on the part of the Roman Church to 700 years later add the clause “Filioque” to the Creed because doing so says that the Holy Spirit made an error of omission and that the Holy Spirit failed to properly guide the Church in its Councils and that the Church as a whole is not infallible.

We know that Jesus didn’t lie to the Apostles when He promised them the Holy Spirit would guide them in all Truth. Orthodox is the True Church of Christ. History proves it.
Click to expand...
I’ve yet to learn the entire history that surrounds this issue. What I am sure of is that the Filioque is true and correct doctrine. It was used in the West to combat the heresy of Arianism. The phrase itself was used by all Latin Fathers and so it can’t be said to be a later innovation.

Jesus was well aware of the splits that would occur in the future. If we include the protestant churches we’re left with tens of thousands of denominations. However we can discover the true Church by recognizing the prophecy of Christ: His Church will be built on Peter. There is only one Church that can truly claim to be built on the faith and person of Peter, and that is the Catholic Church.

My personal gripe with Constantinople is that it’s honor is unjustified. The original Sees are four and in the following order: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Constantinople didn’t exist until Constantine moved the Capital, and even it’s claimed foundation on St Andrew isn’t historically supported. The City began to strive for power and honor and eventually it wedged itself in between Rome and Alexandria in the council of 381, offending both Sees by this action. Rome rejected Constantinople’s self proclaimed honor because the Pope didn’t ratify the council and because the Greeks suggested that Rome’s primacy is based on the grandeur of the city and not its Apostolic succession. The Alexandrians rejected it because their see was always held as second after Rome. It is no surprise that the Alexandrians were the first to fall into schism when they had a theological dispute with Constantinople. Likewise, it is no surprise that in time Constaninople excommunicated the Pope. I personally believe if Constantinople had not wedged itself in between Rome and Alexandria, that perhaps the schisms would have never occurred.

Hopefully we will all be able to reunite and celebrate as one Church again.

God bless,
Tomasz
 
TomaszA said:
Likewise, it is no surprise that in time Constaninople excommunicated the Pope.
Click to expand...
You should say, rather, that it’s no surprise that in time Constantinople was excommunicated (by Cardinal Humbert in 1054 – although the validity of that excommunication is questionable).
 
The Filioque was ratified at the Ecumenical Council of Lyons in 1274.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top