The Filioque, really correct or not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pathway2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You are adding the word only where there is none, like Luther adding only where there was none.
 
The irrational projection of blame on Rome and utter unwillingness to accept any responsibility whatsoever of your own religion is classic fundamentalism.

We’ve been down this road before @Profete, so I know I won’t get anywhere with you.

The way you see it, Patriarch Cerularius was a literal Saint and Cardinal Humbert was a literal demon.

The truth is Cerularius and Humbert were both deeply flawed, troubled men.

The mutual excommunications of 1054 were rooted in sins of both the East and the West.

We Romans are to blame, this is true.

But the Byzantines share in the blame.

You don’t get to put all the blame on evil Rome and claim Byzantium as some Immaculate bastion of all things holy.

I will fight you on this till my dying breath. I will sacrifice my life blood for Truth and Justice.

Truth and Justice demands that both sides accept responsibility for rending the Body of Christ.

I would vehemently oppose a Roman Catholic doing what you’re doing as well - if they tried saying “oh we Romans were totally innocent! It was 100% the fault of those stubborn Greeks!”

No, that’s not true, and I will not stand idly by while someone tried to whitewash history because of religious fundamentalism.
 
Last edited:
I never understood it really either. Not to the point it should have been one cause for the east west schism. Unless the Orthodox have a different view of the trinity that I don’t understand, wouldn’t anything proceeding from the Father also be from the Son as well? It’s confusing to me.
 
MichaelP3 said:
Just wow. Never even seen this in some way against Protestants on here…
Click to expand...
I had to point it out Michael.

You do understand that in Profetes opinion you’re a heretic who belongs to a demonic organization right?
 
Oddly, I was told that by a “Catholic” the other day. So I can see why you would want to warm people.
 
Fair enough. I didn’t read everything. If that is the case I hope you will defend me as well.

Regards
 
I absolutely will defend you, I would defend anyone from any religious fundamentalist.

Religious fundamentalism is one of the biggest reasons atheism flourishes in the West.

People see hardcore religious fundamentalist groups (al-Quada, ISIS, Westboro Baptist Church, the SSPX) and they think those fundamentalist groups represent the entire religion they claim, and people run from such things which are palpably evil.
 
Spyridon said:
The Holy Spirit has one spiration, proceeding from the Father. As my illustration shows, the Spirit proceeds from the Father in one spiration, but flows through the Son.
Click to expand...
Then why doesn’t the Roman version of the creed read per filium?
 
They’ve accepted it before; I think they will accept it again.
 
Last edited:
dmar198 said:
They’ve accepted it before; they will accept it again.
Click to expand...
Can you give us the name of an Eastern Orthodox bishop who today accepts the filioque and says it in the creed? I don’t see them accepting it in view of the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs:
"The new doctrine, that “the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son,” is contrary to the memorable declaration of our LORD, emphatically made respecting it: which proceedeth from the Father (John xv. 26), and contrary to the universal Confession of the Catholic Church as witnessed by the seven Ecumenical Councils, uttering “which proceedeth from the Father.” (Symbol of Faith).
i. This novel opinion destroys the oneness from the One cause, and the diverse origin of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity, both of which are witnessed to in the Gospel.
ii. Even into the divine Hypostases or Persons of the Trinity, of equal power and equally to be adored, it introduces diverse and unequal relations, with a confusion or commingling of them.
iii. It reproaches as imperfect, dark, and difficult to be understood, the previous Confession of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
iv. It censures the holy Fathers of the first Ecumenical Synod of Nicea and of the second Ecumenical Synod at Constantinople, as imperfectly expressing what relates to the Son and Holy Ghost, as if they had been silent respecting the peculiar property of each Person of the Godhead, when it was necessary that all their divine properties should be expressed against the Arians and Macedonians.
continues at:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx
 
AlNg said:
Can you give us the name of an Eastern Orthodox bishop who today accepts the filioque
Click to expand...
No.
AlNg said:
I don’t see them accepting it in view of the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs
Click to expand...
I think they will someday reject the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs as an innovation and a denial of tradition. The East taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son up to the time of Photius in the 800s, at which time some of them abandoned that doctrine. They all taught it again in the 1200s at the Second Council of Lyon, but some of them abandoned in it again shortly after. They all – except for Mark of Ephesus – taught it again in the 1400s at the Council of Florence, but – once more – some of them abandoned it again. I think they will eventually see that the 1848 Encyclical is a novelty and an innovation, and reaffirm the ancient doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.
 
Read this very carefully:

CCC 246-248

The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)”. The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: “The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”

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, 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.

At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”, for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”, is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed."

Do you dare to accuse St. Pope Leo the Great of being a heretic?
 
Spyridon said:
Do you dare to accuse St. Pope Leo the Great of being a heretic?
Click to expand...
I don’t see why his statement does not allow for per filium which is not the same according to the Orthodox?
You are talking about the following right?
Primo itaque capitulo demonstratur, quam impie sentiant de Trinitate divina, qui et Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti unam atque eandem asserunt esse personas, tamquam idem Deus nunc Pater, nunc Filius, nunc Spiritus Sanctus nominetur; nec alius sit qui genuit, alius qui genitus est, alius qui de utroque processit, sed singularis unitas in tribus quidem vocabulis, sed non in tribus sit accipienda personis. Quod blasphemiae genus de Sabellii opinione sumpserunt, cuius discipuli etiam Patripassiani merito nuncupantur; quia si ipse est Filius qui et Pater, crux Filii Patris est passio; et quidquid in forma servi Filius Patri oboediendo sustinuit, totum in se Pater ipse suscepit. Quod catholicae fidei sine ambiguitate contrarium est, quae Trinitatem deitatis sic homousion confitetur, ut Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum sine confusione indivisos, sine tempore sempiternos, sine differentia credat aequales: quia unitatem in trinitate non eadem persona, sed eadem implet essentia. …

Further, there is another point and that is that St. Pope Leo the Great accepted the canons of Chalcedon (except for canon 28) including its reaffirmation of the Nicene Constantinopolitan creed in its original form, i.e., without the filioque.
 
Last edited:
dmar198 said:
I think they will someday reject the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs as an innovation and a denial of tradition.
Click to expand...
the encyclical was official and signed by:
  • ANTHIMOS, by the Mercy of God, Archbishop of Constantinople, new Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch, a beloved brother in Christ our God, and suppliant.
  • HIEROTHEUS, by the Mercy of God, Patriarch of Alexandria and of all Egypt, a beloved brother in Christ our God, and suppliant.
  • METHODIOS, by the Mercy of God, Patriarch of the great City of God, Antioch, and of all Anatolia, a beloved brother in Christ our God, and suppliant.
  • CYRIL, by the Mercy of God, Patriarch of Jerusalem and of all Palestine, a beloved brother in Christ our God, and suppliant.
The Holy Synod in Constantinople:
  • PAISIUS OF CAESAREA
  • ANTHIMUS OF EPHESUS
  • DIONYSIUS OF HERACLEA
  • JOACHIM OF CYZICUS
  • DIONYSIUS OF NICODEMIA
  • HIEROTHEUS OF CHALCEDON
  • NEOPHYTUS OF DERCI
  • GERASIMUS OF ADRIANOPLE
  • CYRIL OF NEOCAESAREA
  • THEOCLETUS OF BEREA
  • MELETIUS OF PISIDIA
  • ATHANASIUS OF SMYRNA
  • DIONYSIUS OF MELENICUS
  • PAISIUS OF SOPHIA
  • DANIEL OF LEMNOS
  • PANTELEIMON OF DEYINOPOLIS
  • JOSEPH OF ERSECIUM
  • ANTHIMUS OF BODENI
The Holy Synod in Antioch:
  • ZACHARIAS OF ARCADIA
  • METHODIOS OF EMESA
  • JOANNICIUS OF TRIPOLIS
  • ARTEMIUS OF LAODICEA
The Holy Synod in Jerusalem:
  • MELETIUS OF PETRA
  • DIONYSIUS OF BETHLEHEM
  • PHILEMON OF GAZA
  • SAMUEL OF NEAPOLIS
  • THADDEUS OF SEBASTE
  • JOANNICIUS OF PHILADELPHIA
  • HIEROTHEUS OF TABOR
 
Things with more signatures have changed before. All man-made doctrines change eventually. The Orthodox Church cannot maintain their position forever, because it is not of God. Moreover, in the middle ages they went back and forth on it like four times, with more signatures than you find on that document. I think it’s only a matter of time before they change again.
 
Last edited:
dmar198 said:
The Orthodox Church cannot maintain their position forever, because it is not of God.
Click to expand...
Do you say that the canons of Chalcedon including the reaffirmation of the Nicene Constantinopolitan creed in its original form, i.e., without the filioque, is not of God? Why did St. Pope Leo the Great accept these canons ?
 
22 Then the angel[a] showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 through the middle of the street of the city.

Does this vision of the throne of God given to St John describe the Filioque ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top