The Filioque: Uh...help?

[Pax_et_Caritas]

---

Seems you’ve fallen off the edge.

You mean he proceeded off the edge

 

[Hesychios]

Seems you’ve fallen off the edge.

I think the guy is brilliant.

He gets it.

 

[Hesychios]

But let us again push for honesty. Nothing can be said of God without erring by defect or omission. It is a limitation of language itself and not the intent of the speaker.

Are you saying it is impossible for God to reveal a truth about Himself to us without erring?

Using your logic, how can you be sure there are really three persons in the One God? And if He can reveal to us that truth to us, why can’t He also reveal to us that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son?

It is hubris to think WE can figure it out. When we thirst for detail about things which we cannot comprehend, our imagination hijacks our thinking.

Even with all the facts revealed and laying out before us, it is beyond us to fully comprehend the Divine.

Our purpose (yours and mine) is not to squeeze all we can know about God into that little skull of ours before we die, but to follow Christ.

Put on Christ.

 

[Hesychios]

Neither heresy nor schism nullify the validity or orders or of the sacraments.

Not according to Holy orthodoxy.

If you are not in communion with the church, your orders are irrelevent. Holy Orthodoxy simply does not even theorize over the possibility of a bishop or priest outside of the church.

Consistant with this line of thinking, Holy Orthodoxy does not look outside the church for an indication of the validity of it’s own orders or sacraments, and the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has seen fit to pronounce on the matter is of no real interest. It is not actually welcome news, nor is it considered a valid assessment whichever way the Roman Catholic Church thinks about it. It is actually ignored.

 

[Hesychios]

The term “sister church” may cause them to think that they are somehow part of the one truth Church…

Long before the phrase was ever coined, Holy Orthodoxy knew itself as the church of the Christ, commencing in the upper room at Pentecost.

Orthodoxy does not take cues from figures of speech tossed off by bishops of Rome. It does not need hints from beyond to ascertain it’s own identity and mission.

Don’t be afraid that we might get the wrong idea from something the Pope might say. That is something for Anglicans and other Protestants perhaps, not for Orthodox Catholic Christianity.

Michael

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

In order to be part of the True Church, it is necessary to submit to the Roman Pontiff

• That means in 1056 I would have to submit to the authority of a 12 year old boy who somehow became accepted as Pope Benedict IX. a boy who once he became a little older decided to poison the Pope that the Holy Roman Emperors had chosen to replace him named Clement II.

If the Pope’s authority is able to be controll by politicians and emperors how significant is it? Is it not ridiculous to place so much importance on the Roman Bishops authority as the sole requirement to being a holy catholic apostolic orthodox Christian?

If the Pope is all that really matters why does Western Latin Catholic Churches of today feel so close to protestantism liturgically as opposed to it’s eastern counterparts?

Why do the Churches who come into schism from the Western Catholic Church automatically adopt ideas of the reformation and lose the eucharist, yet the schisms from the Eastern Church have a true eucharist and ignore protestant theology??

 

[ERose]

What is the Catholic view of the Filioque? I understand that Catholics believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but does the Father send the Holy Spirit through the Son, or do the Father and the Son act together in sending forth the Paraclete? As a 15 year old, I’m confused.

Pope Noah,

I think that is pretty obvious that you will not find your answer here. There is too much clutter on this thread. I suggest reading St. Augustine’s treatise On the Trinity to understand what the Catholic dogma is about the Trinity.

But to answer your original question the best way to explain the Catholic understanding of the relationship between the persons is that the Holy Spirit is proceeds from the Father and the Son as our creed claims. Concerning using the verb ‘sent’, Jesus says both. He says the the Father will send the Paraclete and he also says that he will send the Paraclete.

The Holy Spirit is the Perfect and Eternal Love between the Father and the Son. So you can also say that the Father and the Son send their Eternal Love for one another into our hearts and spirits.

Before you say that if the Holy Spirit is Eternal Love then he is not a person, you must also understand that John’s revelation is that God is Love.

Like I said, you will not find a clear answer on this thread due the saturation of so many opinions. So look elsewhere.

God Bless

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

A review of the book “Bad Popes” by Russell Chamberlin.

One of the problems Catholicism has always had to battle is the notion that the Pope may appear to be a devil but when he is acting or speaking “ex cathedra” his words and deeds are said to be infallible. This is a story of such popes - those who led armies, who jocked for political position, who tortured, maimed, committed sacrilege so dreadful that it was only a whisper.
Yet, if one is a faithful Catholic, one would say that this is all just appearances - that they were REALLY the representative of Christ on Earth only they didn’t act like it. It seems they never asked that ubiquitous question, “What would Jesus do?” It is hard to select the “worst” one…what is more awful - to massacre your opponent or to commit adultry on the throne? To lead a slaughter of “infidels” or join with Earthly political powers. Urban is a real winner, my candidate for Bad Pope of the Millenium but others are also listed.

This is not, by the way, an anti-Catholic tirade. If anything, the Church can claim to be truly divinely blessed for having survived these creatures.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Within the Trinity, the only distinction truly possible is that of the relationship of persons (hypostasi). Whenever they do something, the act is carried out together: eg:

John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Amen, Amen, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do: because whatever he does, the Son also does likewise.

Anything else spoken of God as Trinity is something of a fiction.
But, Jesus is an exception since on earth it is his Person (hypostasis = rational substance) which became en-fleshed by the action of the whole Trinity. Therefore, Jesus lowered himself and became able to speak of his human nature as less than God, and allowing his acts/experience to be spoken of distinct from those of the Trinity since flesh has separable parts.

The Trinity, and the filioque are really a meditation on the meaning of the titles revealed in scripture.

For the trinity, then, we have three names from Moses and also three in the new testament. In the OT the names are veiled as variations on “being”, and divinity, and action/might,
but in the NT we are given relational names.

Father
Son
Spirit ( Pneuma=breath, and also Paraclete=advocate)

The word Paraclete can be set aside for this discussion,
because that relates to his (Paraclete=masculine) relationship
to us before the Father, and not to the inner life of the Trinity
(AFAICT).

What is AFAICT?

God is beyond male and female, and there is no seperate female principle in God – who is one. We are made in a nearest copy of God having pieces, as male and female – married. (andro-gynus).
So, the words revealing the nature of God have to be looked at
as analogies to what the common image of human being would
say regarding the names given.

The doctrine of the Trinity rests on the relationship of the three words given as the fullest revelation of the persons:
Father, Son, and Spirit (Breath)

Clearly, Father signifies the one who begets the Son – and hence the origin of the Son is the Father. But what about the Spirit (literally the BREATH / PNEUMA ) of God?

The word itself signified life universally to both Hebrews and Greeks, and therefore it belongs to whomever is “alive”.

One can’t say Father and Son are equal if one is alive and the other is not. The filioque, then, boils down to whether or not the emphasis should be on the fact that the Son would have no life if God the Father had not begotten him and therefore the Breath ultimately comes from the Father (Both eastern and Latins accept this), or whether one notices that both the Father and Son are alive (breathe/spirate) and hence the Spirit must exist and therefore come from both of them (But there is only one Spirit).

So the Spirit is the source of the Father and the Son, as He makes Them alive?

… because, whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise – the Breathing of the Father mysteriously implies that the Son breathes the same breath (same act).

Then the Son must beget too, as the Father does that.

The word “through” or “and” is irrelevant,

Actually, very relevant.

really, since there
can only be one Spiration, but somehow the East got to be
really picky about it… and I have never fully understood why except on political grounds.

On Religious grounds: the Fathers at the Ecumenical Council said “proceeds from the Father.” The Frankish kings, picking up the filioque from the creed altered for the Visigoth kings, forced it on Rome.

 

[jimmy]

What is AFAICT?

My guess is that it means ‘As Far As I Can Tell’.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The Orthodox accepted the council of Florent (1438 - 1445) and came back into union with Rome. The following is the teaching of the Dogmatic Council of Forence, which, as was said, the Orthodox accepted.

The Orthodox did NOT accept the council of Florence. The bishops there did not represent all the Orthodox Churches, St. Mark bishop of Ephesus refused to agree and sign, those who signed said they had to meet in synod in the East to approve the decrees, which never happened.

Council of Florence, Bull Cantata Domino: “The sacrosanct Roman Church, founded by the voice of our Lord and Savior, firmly believes, professes, and preaches one true God omnipotent unchangeable, and eternal, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; one in essense, three in persons; Father unborn, Son forn of the Father, Holy Ghost proceeding from Father and Son. … the Holy Ghost alone proceeds at the same time from the Father and Son.… For the fact that the Son is of the Fathers and without beginning, and that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. … Whoever, therefore, have adverse and contrary opinions the Church disapproves and anathematizes and declares to be foreign to the Christian body which is the Church.” (Denz. 703, 704, page 225-226).

Now we know what to believe: That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. To those who do not believe this doctrine “the Church disapproves and anathematizes and declares to be foreign to the Christian body which is the Church”.

That would include the Fathers of Constantinople who wrote the original Creed.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

So?

The rest of the eastern clergy and layity repudiated Nicaea I, yet we hold that Council to be ecumenical. Just becuase some bishops and laymen reneg doesn’t make the council anyless valid.

Council of Lyons-

You have to agree first to reneg.

Most of the Orthodox never agreed, so they can’t reneg, on Florence.

And Constinople I, who wrote the clause in question, had NO participation from the West, which doesn’t make the Council (and its words, including the ban on tampering with the Creed) anyless valid.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The Orthodox by signing the decrees, canons, and taking oaths did indeed accept this council as ecumenical. It’s only when the Mohhamedans replace the Patriarch of Constantinople with an anti-western patriarch do we see the great repudiation of Florence. Don’t sit here and tell me the Orthodox did not recognize Florence. To say anything else wouuld be egregiously false.

The Orthodox clearly stated that their signatures and oaths were contingent upon approval of a synod of and in the East (and not under the duress of the pope’s control) which did not happen.

The Russains arrested their hiearch who signed, and declared their independence of their Church from Constantinople.

The Patriarchs of Serbia, Bulgaria etc. did not go, did not sign as far as I know. They are still Orthodox.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Those at the council who were the authorized representatives for the Orthodox did accept the Council documents.

Authorized by whom? The emperor? (I thought you guys didn’t believed in caesaropapism).

But what is important about the quote from the council of Florence is not whether or not certain heretics and/or schismatics accepted it, but that it teaches what Catholics are bound to accept. In other words, it clears the matter up for those true Christians who want to know the truth.

That is the great thing about the clear teaching Councils. One may not agree with what they say, but at least they know what is being taught. And for those true Christians (the ones who do want to know the truth), they find such clear and unambiguous teachings to be very refreshing.

If the Orthodox do not accept the doctrine, it has absolutely no effect on the truth. But they need to realize that if they reject it, “the Church disapproves and anathematizes” them, declaring them “to be foreign to the Christian body which is the Church.”

Yes that is the great thing about the clear teaching Councils, such as Constantinople I and Ephesus, whose canons (I and VII) declare that the Creed “shall remain and shall not be set aside” and:

When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.

But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.

So, having set aside the Faith of the Fathers who set the Creed as an everlasting boundary, composed a different faith by writing the filioque and bringing it forward and offering (i.e. imposing) it, attempting to introduce it into all the Churches, the supporters of filioque were deposed and anathematized.

Catholics are bound by the Creed, as the Fathers composed it. What councils certain heretics and/or schismatics have and say does not matter.

So following the words of the Fathers “the curses of the anathematized are blessings, and the blessings of the anathematized are curses.”

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Neither heresy nor schism nullify the validity or orders or of the sacraments.

With respect to the term “sister Church”, you said it is “strange language for people who are ‘foreign to the Christian body’.” This we agree on.

And they said we couldn’t agree on anything.

I think it is a mistake to use that term to refer to a church that is not part of the one True Church. Why do I think it is a mistake? For the same reason I think it was a mistake for John Paul II to repeatedly say that the old Covenant “was never revoked by God”. In my opinion, it is a misleading statement.

How easy is it for a Jew (or a Catholic) to hear that statement and conclude that the old Covenant will save a Jew, contrary to what the Catholic Church infallibly teaches? Likewise, how easy is it for an Orthodox to hear the term “sister church” and conclude that they are not completely separated from the one True Church?

He’s your infallible head, so that’s your problem to explain.

The term “sister church” may cause them to think that they are somehow part of the one truth Church, but that is totally false.

In order to be part of the True Church, it is necessary to submit to the Roman Pontiff and to adhere to the doctrines that have been revealed by God, such as the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff (under limited conditions), and the Primacy of the Roman Pointiff.

That would exclude the first 1870 years of the Church.

And it would also exclude the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, who anathematized Pope Honorius.

And Pope St. Leo, who approved of the Council’s anathema.

Anyone who rejects any dogma that has been revealed by God, or refuses to acknowledge the Pope as the visible head of the Church, immediately becomes a heretics or schismatic and is cut off from the Church.

Mortal sin destroys the life of the soul, but does not cut one off from the Church. On the other hand, heresy and schism, not only destroy the life of grace, but cut a person off from the Church.

Pope Pius XII: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.” (Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943)

Council of Florence, Cantate Domino: “Therefore the Holy Roman Church condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the Body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views.”

We don’t hear this clearly taught anymore, but it is true none-the-less; and using terms of affection to refer to various groups does not change the truth. And what is the truth? In the same document quoted earlier from the Council of Florence, Contate Domino, we are told what the truth is with respect to those who are outside of the Roman Catholic Church:

Council of Florence, Contate Domino: "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

In my opinion, it is no act of charity to use affectionate terms that mislead people. Charity is speaking the truth with kindness, considering the other person; not avoiding the truth and misleading people for fear of offending someone, or for the sake of a false unity.

How could anyone who believes what the Council of Florence teaches with respect to salvation, be so uncharitable as to mislead heretics, schismatics, Jews, etc, into believing that they will attain ever lasting life? Such a person either lacks faith in what the Church teaches, or they lack of charity for others.

Hmmm. How indeed? Seems similar to what Ephesus says:

But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

What is AFAICT?

Jimmy is correct, “As far as I can tell.”

So the Spirit is the source of the Father and the Son, as He makes Them alive?

What do you mean?

Eccle 11:5 As thou know not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so you know not the works of God who makes all.

How does the spirit enter into a body which is at first without breath – but alive? However, once the lungs are formed – breath proceeds from the body.

The image itself was created by God and then used by God to reveal himself to us – a physical image which is bears a similarity (not identy) to God. What do you see about physical breath that suggests moving air sources a physical body?

Then the Son must beget too, as the Father does that.

That’s purposely perverted. The son and father do the begetting together – in the sense that a single act is shared by both of them. The father is the source of the act – the son is the destination. Can the Father beget without a son being begotten? There is no time in God so that the son is begotten at some time, even PAST TENSE. Yet if the verbs are timeless – whatever the Father is doing is happening NOW – when the son already has existed forever.

The ONLY thing that can be said about them is the relationship.

Actually, very relevant.

elucidate.

On Religious grounds: the Fathers at the Ecumenical Council said “proceeds from the Father.” The Frankish kings, picking up the filioque from the creed altered for the Visigoth kings, forced it on Rome.

Perhaps I’m too tired to get the historical praxis argument being expressed here? I am not arguing on that ground but from the image itself and scripture, which predate any later historical development / argument. I find the Latin position to be consistent with scripture, and the image given to us describing the trinity.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.

That is strange, what is the whole sentence in Greek?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Isa Almisry:

Yes that is the great thing about the clear teaching Councils, such as Constantinople I and Ephesus, whose canons (I and VII) declare that the Creed “shall remain and shall not be set aside” and:

“When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.

But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized”.

The Creed of Constantinople was directed against the error of Macedonius who denied that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father. Therefore, to counter this error, the Creed specifically stated that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father. The Creed did not say the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son, only that it proceeded from the Father. It is not preaching a new faith to add that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, especially given the fact that this was a common teaching during the time the Constantinople Creed was written.

And the filioque was not only a common teaching in the West, but in the East as well. For example, Epiphanius Bishop of Salamis wrote “The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son” (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).

Cyril of Alexandria, an Eastern doctor of the Church, wrote the following: “Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it” (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).

Probably the most authoritative teaching is found in The Athanasian Creed, which reads:

Athanasian Creed: “[W]e venerate one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in oneness. . . . The Father was not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding” (Athanasian Creed [A.D. 400]).

In fact, I know of no one from East or West who denied that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and the Son until much later, which is why the filioque was added to the Creed at a later date - to refute the new heresy that arose.

Now, I produced several quotes from Eastern Fathers of the Church showing that they all believed that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and Son, which shows that it was the common teaching - even in the East - at the time the Constantinople Creed was written. If you have any evidence that shows someone denying that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, please produce it… but make sure it is from the time of the Council of Constantinople as my quotes were, and not from centuries later when the error began to emerge.

 

[bobzills]

The Catholic teaching, defined at the 4th Lateran Council (among others), is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son. This was declared to oppose to the error that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son.

This appears to be a serious change in Catholic teaching, because it was stated in an earlier creed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

 

[ClaireS]

What exactly does “proceeds” mean in this case? In normal language it would indicate that something happened in time; one thing existed then another came to exist because of the first thing. But God is eternal so all three persons of the trinity always existed. Do the Orthodox feel that saying the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is dissing the Father? I guess this is two questions.