The Filioque is accepted by the 3rd Ecumenical Council

[dvdjs]

He wrote: The bull of excommunication composed by Humbert shows very clearly how far the mentality of the Roman Church had changed under the influence of the reformers and how little understanding they had of the Eastern Church and its customs. Humbert thought that he discovered in the East the roots of all the great heresies and he accused them of simony while, as a matter of fact, it was only in the West that simony was rampant. He condemned their married clergy, their beards and their long hair, and he accused the Byzantines of having suppressed the Filioque from the Nicene Creed.

Byzantium and the Roman Primacy pg. 134

Thanks.You had said that the Greeks were accused of having "removed’ the filioque. Dvornik talk about their “having suppressed” it.

sup·press
verb /səˈpres/ 
suppressed, past participle; suppressed, past tense; suppresses, 3rd person singular present; suppressing, present participle

Forcibly put an end to
    - the uprising was savagely suppressed
Prevent the development, action, or expression of (a feeling, impulse, idea, etc.); restrain
    - she could not suppress a rising panic
Prevent the dissemination of (information)
    - the report had been suppressed
Prevent or inhibit (a process or reaction)
    - use of the drug suppressed the immune response
Partly or wholly eliminate (electrical interference)
Consciously inhibit (an unpleasant idea or memory) to avoid considering it

The meaning of Dvornik’s remark could be much the same as yours (first definition) or decidedly different (other definitions in which prevention rather than ending a current state of affairs is involved); his words are not necessarily much that same as your words.

I would like to ask if he gives a reference or actually quotes from the Bull?

The usual text that has been used in other discussion here comes from an apparently contemporary summary. It does not mention the filioque at all, but instead says:

like Pneumatomachoi or Theomachoi, they cut off the
procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son; …
acad.carleton.edu/curricular/MARS/Schism.pdf

Even if “cut off” were a debatable translation, there is just no way to get a phrase like “having removed the filioque” out of this text. Frankly, you cannot get Dvornik’s remark out of this text either. So I wonder if he has another text that he is working from or is interpolating a bit too freely.

Similary, from your quote of Dvornik, we have

He condemned … their beards and long hair

But from the reference above, we find that the what was condemned was their excommunication of those who adhere to the Latin discipline:

… and because they grow the hair on their head and beards, they will not receive in communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice (institutio) of the Roman Church.

So again, I am left to wonder if Dvornik is working from another text or another account. The lines that you quote from him do not follow simply from the text that I linked.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Wow!!! I saw this one coming the moment you stop the line of discussion which was before the divide and decided to talk about after the divide. This seem to be the pinacle of your arguement against rome.

One could say the same about you

one could say same about me if i was using history to try and make an arguement against the east.

Then you seem to agree that anyone who wants to be in communion with Rome can be forced.

what use will a communion be if the greeks will continue to accuse the latin of heresy? How good is a full communion where the latins think the greek are rejecting a truth of faith? I support a unity of faith, that is why i think it is time the east and west come to an agreement on the issue. I dont see why you constantly use the word forced.

In the bull Allantae Sunt the Pope was relating what the Orthodox on Crete were subjected to by his predecessors. The church on Crete did not ask to be placed under the authority of the Pope, they were compelled by law and military force.

‘Subjected’? Is there a papal decree that says all citizens of crete must become roman catholic?

Once that force was expelled the people of Crete no longer were under the Pope, and remain overwhelmingly Orthodox to this day.

These were Orthodox people. So much the worse for those who actually wanted to be under the Pope and asked for communion. The stories of abuses are many and disturbing.

Yeah and whenever power is abused that power should cease to exist right?

This tells us that unless the Pope admits that he has no unilateral authority to do any such thing we can not come to agreements.

‘unilateral power’? So the pope has a decree that empowers him to abuse his power? All abuse of power are really unfortunate and i known nothing about the popes right to abuse, can you explain more?

It has been proven that when a Pope makes a promise not to exercise power he thinks he retains, his successors will not feel bound to honor those old promises. This is the core message of Eastern Catholicism, played out here over and over again in one thread of concern and then another.

The system has been tried and found lacking by proofs over hundreds of years continually with the Eastern Catholic experiment. So I repeat, unless the Pope admits that he does not have the unilateral authority to impose upon Eastern Christians (neither in theology nor discipline nor administration), we will not commune with him. His promises, treaties and assurances are not sufficient. He has to admit he has no native authority in these areas and never had.

To impose? You are tough when it come to choosing word. The pope should also surrender his primacy right? Unless you can prove that his primacy has nothing to do with ‘administration’, ‘theology’ and ‘discipline’, if not it would be like telling a man to surrender his legitimate liberty.

Once that happens we can recognize one another as truly equal Sui Iuris churches, and we can mutually agree to commune as brothers in Christ.

SUI IURIS CHURCHes without primacy that is what we would have a thing that didnt exist among the apostles.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Wow!!! I saw this one coming the moment you stop the line of discussion which was before the divide and decided to talk about after the divide. This seem to be the pinacle of your arguement against rome. one could say same about me if i was using history to try and make an arguement against the east.
what use will a communion be if the greeks will continue to accuse the latin of heresy? How good is a full communion where the latins think the greek are rejecting a truth of faith? I support a unity of faith, that is why i think it is time the east and west come to an agreement on the issue. I dont see why you constantly use the word forced.
‘Subjected’? Is there a papal decree that says all citizens of crete must become roman catholic?
Yeah and whenever power is abused that power should cease to exist right?
‘unilateral power’? So the pope has a decree that empowers him to abuse his power? All abuse of power are really unfortunate and i known nothing about the popes right to abuse, can you explain more?

To impose? You are tough when it come to choosing word. The pope should also surrender his primacy right? Unless you can prove that his primacy has nothing to do with ‘administration’, ‘theology’ and ‘discipline’, if not it would be like telling a man to surrender his legitimate liberty.
SUI IURIS CHURCHes without primacy that is what we would have a thing that didnt exist among the apostles.

Primacy does not equal unilateral authority.

 

[Hesychios]

… what use will a communion be if the greeks will continue to accuse the latin of heresy?

If the Latin Catholics proclaim what is seen as a heresy, there will be no communion. The heresy would have to go.

If, after all doubts were satisfied and communion was established, another heresy arose as formal teaching communion would necesarily cease.

So the question " what use will a communion be … " does not apply.

 

[Ubenedictus]

My biggest criticism would be that they are falling back on the justification that the Holy Spirit must proceed substantially through the Son, because of the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son.

I dont think the article above is bringing that idea, i think he is taking it from the church fathers, that is why he quote them.

But why then is the Son not begotten through the Holy Spirit?

because it is not necessary.

If they deny this (and they do deny this), then they imply some sort of priority of the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son over the consubstantiality of the three persons, that is to say that the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, is lesser than the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father.

no they donot claim one consubstantiality is greater than the other equality is of essence not property.

But how can that priority come to be unless there is some shared attribute between the Father and Son, in which the Holy Spirit does not participate?

yeah and no. I’ll say no till you define attribute and yeah if by attribute you mean relation. The spirit is not begotten he proceeds and he is different from the son according to the fathers because of his relation to the son.

They say they don’t subordinate the Spirit, but they certainly seem to do so regardless.

to be equal to father and son the spirit doesnt need to have the same relation as father and son all he needs is the divine essence. And in that essence we donot have a superior essence and a subordinate essence.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

Now i feel like asking, are we talking about the same thing?

If the Latin Catholics proclaim what is seen as a heresy, there will be no communion.

that is my point. That is the reason the encyclical mention acceptance of some doctrines. Because a communion would be ‘hard’ where there is no unity of faith.

The heresy would have to go.[/qoute] if heresy was present in the first place.

If, after all doubts were satisfied and communion was established, another heresy arose as formal teaching communion would necesarily cease.

true

So the question " what use will a communion be … " does not apply.

well it does because if it didnt rome wouldnt be interested in asking those who wish to be in communion to accept certain teaching.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

If the Latin Catholics proclaim what is seen as a heresy, there will be no communion. The heresy would have to go.

If, after all doubts were satisfied and communion was established, another heresy arose as formal teaching communion would necesarily cease.

So the question " what use will a communion be … " does not apply.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Only in the way understood by Gregory Palamas and Gregory of Cyprus, who allow for an eternal manifestation of the Spirit through the Son.

you mentioned earlier that you believe only in the economic procession of the spirit thru the son, now checking again im seeing a eternal manifestation thru the son. The economic manifestation isnt eternal it is in time, so what do you mean by ‘eternal’ manifestation thru the son?
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

Possibly. The two similar solutions of Gregory Palamas and Gregory of Cyprus would involve a rejection of the unguarded language used at Lyons, but would not involve a rejection of the Latin Fathers who understood some sort of eternal relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit.

i just flaged your post that talked about ‘eternal’ manifestation, now im seeing another post cutting away any sort of eternal relationship. Please clarify.

It also would not involve a rejection of Photius, whose primary concern was that having the Spirit take its existence from both the Father and Son constitutes a confusion of hypostatic properties with essential properties. That is why I especially like Palamas’ solution, because it is most consistent with all of the fathers.

including the western father? You just said they would be rejected.
Ubenedictus

 

[Cavaradossi]

I dont think the article above is bringing that idea, i think he is taking it from the church fathers, that is why he quote them.

But just repeating what the church fathers said is not enough, they need to be interpreted. Just as one can interpret St. Cyril’s one-nature formula in an orthodox manner or in an heretical manner, like Eutyches, or one can interpret the pre-Nicene Fathers in an heretical manner (subordinationism) or in an orthodox manner, so too must the Fathers be interpreted when it comes to the procession of the Holy Spirit. I am criticizing their particular interpretation, which at times seems very confused, claiming on one hand that it respects the monarchy of the Father but on the other hand violating the same principle.

because it is not necessary.

The idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son as one principle is not necessary either. The problem is that if consubstantiality is the justification for the Spirit’s procession from both as a single principle, why is the Son not begotten in the same fashion from the Father and the Spirit? They are consubstantial, so then saying that the Son is begotten of the Father and the Spirit should logically reflect upon the same consubstantiality that saying the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son does. Yet the former is not allowed, while the latter is, which leads me to my next point.

no they donot claim one consubstantiality is greater than the other equality is of essence not property.

They don’t make that claim, but that is the logical implication of what they are teaching. If the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as one principle, then this means that there is a priority of the unity of the Father and Son over the unity of the three persons. For this priority not to exist, the Spirit would either also have to be involved in causing its own procession or be somehow less consubstantial. The operation is no longer 3=1, reflecting upon the antinomy of having three personal existences which are truly one because of their common origin and personal co-penetration (perichoresis), but 2=1 repeated twice, so that two personal existences are made one and then another personal existence is made one with that non-personal unity.

yeah and no. I’ll say no till you define attribute and yeah if by attribute you mean relation. The spirit is not begotten he proceeds and he is different from the son according to the fathers because of his relation to the son.

That is not necessarily true. By virtue of their different manners of existence (tropos hyparxeos), the trinitarian persons are already not the same. They do not need any relationships of opposition to be different. Thus, the Holy Spirit is not the Son not by virtue of any relationship he has with him, but rather by virtue of the fact that his manner of existence is proceeding from the Father, while the Son’s is being begotten of the Father.

to be equal to father and son the spirit doesnt need to have the same relation as father and son all he needs is the divine essence. And in that essence we donot have a superior essence and a subordinate essence.
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.

you mentioned earlier that you believe only in the economic procession of the spirit thru the son, now checking again im seeing a eternal manifestation thru the son. The economic manifestation isnt eternal it is in time, so what do you mean by ‘eternal’ manifestation thru the son?
Ubenedictus

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

i just flaged your post that talked about ‘eternal’ manifestation, now im seeing another post cutting away any sort of eternal relationship. Please clarify. including the western father? You just said they would be rejected.
Ubenedictus

Where did I say that? We reject a certain interpretation of the Western Fathers, not the Western Fathers themselves.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Primacy does not equal unilateral authority.

what does it equal? I read the pope talked about other ways of excercising his primacy but i would like to asked, what type of authority does your patriarch have on his brother bishops?. Lastly some church fathers seem to think that the primacy of peter in the apostolic times was more than honor. What do you say?
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

But just repeating what the church fathers said is not enough, they need to be interpreted.

very true and as we can see an interpretation was given. It says the west and east fathers agrees when they say ‘the spirit proceed(procedit proion) from the father thru/and the son’.

I am criticizing their particular interpretation, which at times seems very confused, claiming on one hand that it respects the monarchy of the Father but on the other hand violating the same principle.

how is the principle violated?

The idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son as one principle is not necessary either.

when the eternal relationship between the father and spirit is know and non between the son and spirit then we will have a hard time telling the different between spirit and son then we will be having semi sebellianism.

The problem is that if consubstantiality is the justification for the Spirit’s procession from both as a single principle, why is the Son not begotten in the same fashion from the Father and the Spirit?

is it the only justification? The consubstantiality, the order, the relationship are among the reason. The son is not from the spirit because he is not, that would confuse the order of the trinity.

They are consubstantial, so then saying that the Son is begotten of the Father and the Spirit should logically reflect upon the same consubstantiality that saying the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son does. Yet the former is not allowed, while the latter is, which leads me to my next point.

you are after a mirage.

They don’t make that claim, but that is the logical implication of what they are teaching. If the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as one principle, then this means that there is a priority of the unity of the Father and Son over the unity of the three persons.

again i am reminding you that equality is of essence not relations nor properties. It doesnt show priority it shows the right order in the trinity the father, the son and the spirit

For this priority not to exist, the Spirit would either also have to be involved in causing its own procession or be somehow less consubstantial.

where did you get this? Consubstantial show that he has the same ousia, the very same substance it doesnt include relation. The metropolitan zizioulas believes the spirit derives ousia from the father as person and from the son as (ousiwdws). Does that makes the substance of the spirit different or less than that of the son?

 

[Vico]

what do u say about that arguement?
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?

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.

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.

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

 

[Cavaradossi]

very true and as we can see an interpretation was given. It says the west and east fathers agrees when they say ‘the spirit proceed(procedit proion) from the father thru/and the son’.

That phrase does not mean what the article makes if out to mean.

how is the principle violated?

I already explained that. They introduce another causative agent into the Trinity other than the Father.

when the eternal relationship between the father and spirit is know and non between the son and spirit then we will have a hard time telling the different between spirit and son then we will be having semi sebellianism.

No, we will not, because as St. John of Damascus points out, the Son is not the Spirit, because their modes of origin from the Father differ, not because their origin itself differs (Gregory the Theologian also says the same). And [the Son is called] ‘Only-begotten’ because he alone was begotten alone of the Father alone. For no other generation is like to the generation of the Son of God, since no other is the Son of God. For though the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, yet this is not generative in character but processional. This is a different mode of existence, alike incomprehensible and unknown, just as is the generation of the Son.

Exact Exposition on the Orthodox Faith 1.8

is it the only justification? The consubstantiality, the order, the relationship are among the reason. The son is not from the spirit because he is not, that would confuse the order of the trinity.

It is the only justification they consistently use. They do not use the argument you just did, because they realize thad Trinitarian taxis is only reflective of the operation of God, not of the personal existences. To do so would be to confuse economy with the origin of the trinitarian persons.

you are after a mirage.

That is not a valid argument.

again i am reminding you that equality is of essence not relations nor properties. It doesnt show priority it shows the right order in the trinity the father, the son and the spirit

Interesting assertion there. Equality in essence automatically presupposes equality in energies. If the three of them are consubstantial and perfect, as we assume, then an attribute must belong to one person or to all three. This is basic trinitarian theology. If the Father and Son have one attribute in common that the Holy Spirit has not, then the Spirit is somehow less consubstantial or the Father and the Son are sabellian modes of one hypostasis.

where did you get this? Consubstantial show that he has the same ousia, the very same substance it doesnt include relation. The metropolitan zizioulas believes the spirit derives ousia from the father as person and from the son as (ousiwdws). Does that makes the substance of the spirit different or less than that of the son?

Yes, and if he is consubstantial, then any action performed by two persons must necessarily involve the third, or else the trinity is given into disunity. So if we ascribe the procession of the Spirit to the Father and the Son, then it logically follows that the Holy Spirit proceeds from himself as well, that the Father and the Son are homohypostatic, or that the Father and the Son have a non-personal unity in which the Spirit does not participate, subordinating the Spirit.

The Zizioulas quote is impossible to interpret without more context (why did you provide no citation?) especially if it is taken from his Being as Communion, because that book was written as a response to Heideggerian philosophy, meaning that some of his meanings for terms will at times be non-standard. In the traditional understanding, however, to proceed ‘essentially’ means to be manifested energetically, because that which proceeds from essence is energy.

 

[dvdjs]

Time out.
scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/2003filioque.html

 

[Cavaradossi]

Time out.
scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/2003filioque.html

Good statement. It basically says what several scholars on the Filioque have been saying.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

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

 

[Nine_Two]

Time out.
scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/2003filioque.html

I absolutely agree with the recommendations at the end of that document. If we all followed them I think the importance of this issue would be greatly diminished to the point of being a historical footnote.

 

[Nine_Two]

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

I think the filioque disagreement is a symptom of that greater disagreement about the papacy, rather than just a distraction. If either side completely relented on the issue, it would be much the same as saying the other side was right on the issue of the papacy, which is why I don’t think those recommendations will ever be implemented.

 

[Filii_Dei]

I think the filioque disagreement is a symptom of that greater disagreement about the papacy, rather than just a distraction. If either side completely relented on the issue, it would be much the same as saying the other side was right on the issue of the papacy, which is why I don’t think those recommendations will ever be implemented.

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

that those engaged in dialogue on this issue distinguish, as far as possible, the theological issues of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the ecclesiological issues of primacy and doctrinal authority in the Church, even as we pursue both questions seriously together;