the Filioque..

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monica4316
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Monica4316

Guest
I read in another thread that the Popes rejected the Filioque as heretical before accepting it into the Creed. My understanding is that it was inserted in order to fight a local heresy, and that the Filioque is not heretical sounding in Latin, but in Greek it is (that is why the Greeks reacted so strongly against it perhaps). There are also some quotes by Early Church Fathers that are similar to the Filioque, and they were never condemned. Does anyone have more information about this? Why did the Popes reject the Filioque, and what is the evidence for this?

thank you 🙂
 
I don’t know of any Pope that ever claimed Filioque was heresy (and I’d like to see that cited), though I do know that some popes were against including it in the Creed because they thought it would cheese off the Greeks and threaten Church unity.

Those guys were right.
 
I am also interested if there are any quotes saying the Popes condemned it as heresy… anyone know?
 
Monica4316 said:
what to think?
Click to expand...
I think the print is too small.

Besides that, it does not even mention the Filioque. This small, provincial council is pretty adamant that nothing be added to the Creed, and one of the reasons they felt that way was because it could allow some sneaky heresy to be introduced. But they did not name any specific heresy.
 
that makes sense, but what to do about the part about the Church accepting the one of the “4th” Councils of Constantinople and then rejecting it and accepting the other one? 😦 I do get confused easily though… but I’m just looking for answers. Maybe we don’t know the whole story.
 
Okay I think I kind of found the possible Catholic answer… in the last post of the OP in this thread: angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=53887&sid=d056276963d5ec2eda19331a1cd0409b I guess it’s all very complicated… I’m also searching for the truth.
I would recommend you to read Francis Dvornik “The Photian Schism - History and LEgend”. Dvornik himself is Roman Catholic and therefore has no reason to discredit Roman Catholicism. Dvornik shows in his book - by sorting the historical sources through - that a second Photian schism never happened and that Photius wasn’t the eager anti-Papist he still seems to be suspected to be. Anyway, the article on newadvent.org is wrong or at least misleading on several points.
Click to expand...
BUT I have to completely withdraw my claim that the Filioque was condemned. As you cannot trust Roman Catholic internet-pages(like newadvent.org), you also cannot trust Orthodox pages - or at least the one that I recommended you to read.
(Well, this is, however, what I rwally hate: everyone defends blindly his own ideology, his own confession, without looking at Christ at all, who said to us: I am the TRUTH!)
Click to expand...
Well, Dvornik gives the sources. The decisions of the Photian council - in which every addition to the Credo was condemned - were brought to Rome by the legates. John, as a matter of fact, didn’t excommunicate Photius. But he also didn’t approve of the synod as such. In his letter to Photius, he writes: "“We also approve what has been mercifully done in Constantinople by the synodal decree of your reinstatement…” And in those to the Emporor Basil, he writes again: "“We also approve what has been mercifully done in Constantinople by the synodal decree of the very reverend Patriarch Photius’ reinstatement…”
Click to expand...
John hasn’t approved of the whole of the synod, but just the decree that reinstated Photius. He also hasn#t anulled the anti-Photian synod(counted by Roman Catholics as Eight Generel Council), but has abrogated the disciplinary measures that were taken in this council against Photius - or, to say it better, he has, in his own words, “mercifully” dsipensed Photius of this penalties and approved of him as Patriarch. But, in fact, he has only approved of this very decree of the Photian synod, because he goes own in the letters both to Photius and Basil: ""If perchance at the same synod our legates have acted against apostolic instructions, neither do we approve their action nor do we attribute any value to it. "
Of course, he hasn’t conferred to his legates the mission of conmdamning any addition to the Creed!
Click to expand...
Above, I quoted that John has condemnded the Eight General Council. However, Dvornik shows that Photius and the legates changed the original words of the Popes letter to the Phoitan Synod. It’s probable, or even sure, that John only abrogated the Eight Council insofar as it was set out to condamn Photius - but the other canons remained intact.
Click to expand...
 
Monica4316 said:
Okay I think I kind of found the possible Catholic answer… in the last post of the OP in this thread: angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=53887&sid=d056276963d5ec2eda19331a1cd0409b I guess it’s all very complicated… I’m also searching for the truth.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a complicated subject. As the OP of thread you cited acknowledged, the evidence for his position is weak.

But he does not acknowledge the ACTUAL truth - the Catholic Church (as led by the successor of Peter) is the BOSS.

I submit that this is the ONLY doctrine which REALLY separates East from West. It is the question of AUTHORITY. Which. BTW, is the same question that separates the Catholic Church from the various protestant sects.
 
Thanks, that really helps!! 🙂

it seems that the argument over the Filioque was all a big misunderstanding 😦
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top