The Filioque is accepted by the 3rd Ecumenical Council

[Nine_Two]

Well said. It is slightly ironic that the recommendations also states thusly:

I think they made that statement for expressly that purpose. Especially in light of another recommendation that essentially says the Western Church should cease using the filioque.

 

[Hesychios]

I think the filioque is just a distractor from what the disagreement is really about, that is, the papacy.

I disagree.

Simply because the objections to the filioque predate objections to the papacy.

In fact, it was the introduction of the filioque in Rome, in the church of the city of Rome, which caused the eastern churches to strike the Popes from the diptychs. This happened in 1014AD.

The fact is, the early church had a synodal form of government in the east and the west. The western church did not just one day adopt the filioque, it was inserted into the creed of the Gothic church (in Spain - this was later to be known to us as the Mozarabic church) in 587AD and no where else!

What makes this significant was that the Spanish-Gothic church was putting this modified Creed into the Mass, inspired in part by the knowledge that the ‘Greeks’ recited the creed in their Mass. None of the western churches seem to have done this before, it was not done under the direction of the Pope and they did not seek his approval.

It took another two hundred years for the Franks to put the creed into their Mass, and they used the Spanish version of the creed. Again, the Pope of Rome was not consulted (although it is said that he disapproved).

But this was beginning to stir up objections in the eastern churches. The Pope could do nothing about it, because he did not control the Spanish and Frankish churches. The Papacy did not have that kind of authority outside of Italy, which is the historical and normal synod for Rome. In fact the Pope was somewhat beholding to the political power of the day …

In 1014AD, the emperor of the Romans came to Rome to be crowned, and he asked why the city did not recite the creed in the Mass. The emperor had them do his coronation Mass with the filioque-creed, and the creed remained after the king had gone. This was when the east removed the bishop of Rome from the diptychs, for he was held to be the Metropolitan of that synod. The filioque had been insinuating itself into parts of the western church over the course of 427 years by this point, and had been a hot button issue between east and west for 200.

Forty years later Cardinals Humbert and Frederic excommunicated the patriarch of Constantinople in 1054, severing the two churches. One of the complaints suggested the Greek refusal of the filioque as one of the reasons.

The modern papacy did not exist yet, it was still being born out of the Gregorian reformation.

 

[Vico]

Hesychos, the issues over which Constantinople removed the Pope from the diptychs since the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 A.D., that I am aware of, have been:

879 Papal jurisdiction (opposed at the Orthodox recognized Fourth Council of Constantinople) (Pope John VIII)

903 anti-pope Christopher used the filioque

1006 Pope John XVIII (1003-9) used the filioque, then the next Pope added it in the creed (Pope Sergius IV 1009-12)

1054 Latin Church replacement of* artos* with azymes and removal of epiclesis (St. Pope Leo IX)

All of these things were not to be done (even in the Latin Church) according to the Patriarchs of Constantinople.

 

[Filii_Dei]

I think they made that statement for expressly that purpose. Especially in light of another recommendation that essentially says the Western Church should cease using the filioque.

Well given the direction that the papacy has taken of late, I believe the issue will slowly improve over time. The Latin Church no longer presses the issue, while Eastern Catholics are no longer bound nor compelled to read it, and even Latin Catholics talk openly about removing it. However, such matters will proceed at a glacial pace, and patience is key as we wait for further progress on the issue.

For all we know, we may eventually convene a council to reword it as “and through the Son” for clarity, though you can probably imagine “likely” it is that Catholics and Orthodox may come together to hold another ecumenical council. Worth praying for, anyhow.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

For all we know, we may eventually convene a council to reword it as “and through the Son” for clarity, though you can probably imagine “likely” it is that Catholics and Orthodox may come together to hold another ecumenical council. Worth praying for, anyhow.

What will the number of that council be? The 8th? The 10th (after the Hesychast one)? The 22th?

 

[Filii_Dei]

What will the number of that council be? The 8th? The 10th (after the Hesychast one)? The 22th?

If such a council actually occurs, despite all the odds, I think it’s a fair bet that we may probably discuss the list of accepted ecumenical councils during said council too, but who knows? We might even end up placing the Catholic councils 8 to 21 under a separate list of “Roman Councils”, just like how post-schism Orthodox councils are not formally considered ecumenical councils (correct me if I am wrong). I do not purport to know what is to come, nor the events and decisions that will be made. I merely speculate. Nobody but our Lord alone knows what is yet to come. Nonetheless, I pray and have faith that our shepherds may lead us and make the right choices.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Yes, but if the Son and the Father possess some unity that the Spirit does not, then this implies that they are of one essence and that he is of another.

wrong again the son is begotten and the spirit isnt, does that make them unequal? Equality is of essence not dependent on relation.

They are the same thing. The economic manifestation is just the eternal manifestation happening in time.

so what do you mean by an eternal manifestation?

Where did I say that?

check your post.

We reject a certain interpretation of the Western Fathers, not the Western Fathers themselves.

a certain interpretation? What other interpretation can be given to these words ‘‘pater et filius sunt unum principium spiritus sancti’’? This is one among many.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

I disagree.

Simply because the objections to the filioque predate objections to the papacy.

In fact, it was the introduction of the filioque in Rome, in the church of the city of Rome, which caused the eastern churches to strike the Popes from the diptychs. This happened in 1014AD.

The fact is, the early church had a synodal form of government in the east and the west. The western church did not just one day adopt the filioque, it was inserted into the creed of the Gothic church (in Spain - this was later to be known to us as the Mozarabic church) in 587AD and no where else!

What makes this significant was that the Spanish-Gothic church was putting this modified Creed into the Mass, inspired in part by the knowledge that the ‘Greeks’ recited the creed in their Mass. None of the western churches seem to have done this before, it was not done under the direction of the Pope and they did not seek his approval.

his approval wasnt needed, correct me if im wrong but there was the hispanic rite which didnt come from rome right?

It took another two hundred years for the Franks to put the creed into their Mass, and they used the Spanish version of the creed. Again, the Pope of Rome was not consulted (although it is said that he disapproved).

But this was beginning to stir up objections in the eastern churches. The Pope could do nothing about it, because he did not control the Spanish and Frankish churches. The Papacy did not have that kind of authority outside of Italy, which is the historical and normal synod for Rome. In fact the Pope was somewhat beholding to the political power of the day …

you are assuming that the pope didnt have any power over the roman rite used outside rome. This was the time the liturgy was developing and the pope didnt see the need of using his authority.

In 1014AD, the emperor of the Romans came to Rome to be crowned, and he asked why the city did not recite the creed in the Mass. The emperor had them do his coronation Mass with the filioque-creed, and the creed remained after the king had gone. This was when the east removed the bishop of Rome from the diptychs, for he was held to be the Metropolitan of that synod. The filioque had been insinuating itself into parts of the western church over the course of 427 years by this point, and had been a hot button issue between east and west for 200.

they didnt speak against it when it was used before the 11century. Actually they removed the pope from the diptychs when they tagged the filioque as heresy.

Forty years later Cardinals Humbert and Frederic excommunicated the patriarch of Constantinople in 1054, severing the two churches. One of the complaints suggested the Greek refusal of the filioque as one of the reasons.

i read from a source that the greeks had already depose a pope on account of the filioque even before the cardinals excommunicated the patriarch for denying the filioque amongst other things.

The modern papacy did not exist yet, it was still being born out of the Gregorian reformation.

true, it wasnt yet in it definite state.

I can find a creed used by the armenian church and it doesnt even talk about the procession from the father, orthodox havent shot at that creed. It is accepted as a variant. The difference in the creed wasnt a problem till ‘‘and from the son’’ was heresy and a good number of the latin fathers were among those who preached the ‘heresy’.
Ubenedictus

 

[hazcompat]

What are the magic words, My heart I bring into His Light.

peace

 

[Cavaradossi]

wrong again the son is begotten and the spirit isnt, does that make them unequal? Equality is of essence not dependent on relation.

Your example is a non sequitur, because I never said that differing relations of origin cause inequality. Making the Father and Son one principle has nothing to do with the difference between begotten and proceeds, which are relations of origin. Being one principle together, set apart from the Spirit, is not a mere relation of origin, but is either a sharing of hypostatic traits or of essential properties. The former would make the Father homohypostatic with the Son, while the latter makes the Spirit of a different essence.

so what do you mean by an eternal manifestation?

Have you given any serious thought to anything I posted in this thread? I’m almost positive that I explained that in this very thread.

check your post.

Since you cannot show where I wrote what you said I wrote, I can only draw the conclusion that I never wrote it.

a certain interpretation? What other interpretation can be given to these words ‘‘pater et filius sunt unum principium spiritus sancti’’? This is one among many.
Ubenedictus

I never said that the Palamite solution can interpret Lyons in an Orthodox manner. However, we can understand Augustine’s statement that the Spirit proceeds from the Father principaliter in an orthodox manner.

 

[Ubenedictus]

I do not care much for the analogical approach of the mirror. How can we say the the eternal uncreated is the same as the created?

nobody say the eternav is same as the created, instead the created mirrors the eternal, the crucifixion show the love of God.

It is certainly a different approach used in the Latin (Tertullian, Ambrose, Augustine, Hilary, Victorinus.) vs. the Greek theology. For example, the scripture describes the mission of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. John 4:7, Acts 8:20, Romans 5:5 are quoted by Augustine in this regard. This is clearly that the Holy Spirit is a gift. So based upon this Augustine mirrors, in the eternal, the economy of the gift of the Holy Spirit coming from the “Giver” of the Father and the Son. The Spirit is common to both the Father and the Son. Augustine wrote:“For the Father is not possessed as Father by the Son and the Holy Spirit in common; because He is not the Father of Both. And the Son is not possessed as Son by the Father and the Holy Spirit in common; because He is not the Son of Both. But the Holy Spirit is possessed as the Spirit by the Father and the Son in common, because He is the One Spirit of Both.” – Sermon XXI, 33.
newadvent.org/fathers/160321.htm

But there is not one hypostasis called the Holy Gift Giver. (Therefore there must be spiration as if from one). Photius gave his critique, in that the Holy Spirit is from the Father alone (a patre solo) and from the Son in mission.

another difference between our theology. The catholic church says the father can spirate the spirit thru the son.

The eastern view is typically that the modes of origin differentiate the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by attributes: causality, unbegotteness, and procession.

“…all that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality; and all that is the Son’s belongs also to the Spirit, except His Sonship,…”
– On the Arrival of the Egyptians, X, St. Gregory Nazianzus

“…in Three Greatest, namely, the Cause, the Creator, and the Perfecter; I mean the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, who are neither so separated from one another as to be divided in nature, nor so contracted as to be circumscribed by a single person.”
– On the Arrival of the Egyptians, VIII, St. Gregory Nazianzus

ww.newadvent.org/fathers/310234.htm

But in the east there were also different opinions such as that of St. John of Damascus and Saint Maximus the Confessor. That the Father projects the Spirit through the Son is the view of St. John of Damascus. But also various positions were taken as to the meaning of “through” and I believe the following is correct.

Filioque: Through = From
Byzantine: Through = Economy
Gregory II of Cyprus: Spirit exists from the Father and has existence through the Son.

he said has his existence thru the son, that doesnt sound like economy.

See: Crisis in Byzantium: The Filioque Controversy in the Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus (1283-1289)
books.google.com/books/about/Crisis_in_Byzantium.html?id=TUBllg0JpgUC

peace

 

[Shiranui117]

nobody say the eternav is same as the created, instead the created mirrors the eternal, the crucifixion show the love of God.

another difference between our theology. The catholic church says the father can spirate the spirit thru the son.

he said has his existence thru the son, that doesnt sound like economy.

peace

If the Holy Spirit is just a “gift” sent to us from Father and Son, then that means we have a Binitarian God of Father and Son. And there are denominations who have taken this position, namely the “Church of God.” You should consider the implications of taking the Filioque to its logical conclusion.

 

[Vico]

nobody say the eternav is same as the created, instead the created mirrors the eternal, the crucifixion show the love of God.

another difference between our theology. The catholic church says the father can spirate the spirit thru the son.

he said has his existence thru the son, that doesnt sound like economy.

peace

I will correct my statement.

I do not care much for the analogical approach of the mirror. How can we know that the eternal uncreated is a mirror of the created?