The Filoque. Help understanding

[JD27076]

I need help understanding the Catholic Churches take on the whole filoque stance.

Why did the Catholic Church break from the other 4 Apostolic Patriarchs? Why did the pope implement a statement into the creed without a council?

What is a defense to the filoque?
Does the Catholic Church continue to see the other 4 patriarchs as valid?

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

I need help understanding the Catholic Churches take on the whole filoque stance.

Why did the Catholic Church break from the other 4 Apostolic Patriarchs? Why did the pope implement a statement into the creed without a council?

What is a defense to the filoque?
Does the Catholic Church continue to see the other 4 patriarchs as valid?

They (obviously) agree with the filioque because they are the originators of the filioque doctrine.

They broke because of disagreements concerning filioque, azymes, universal papal jurisdiction and, according to cardinal Humbert, even beards. I guess he pope didn’t like beards

A defense is that some western fathers, like Sts. Ambrose and Augustine, agreed with the doctrine. In the east it was never accepted.

They see the other patriarchs as having valid apostolic succession.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I need help understanding the Catholic Churches take on the whole filoque stance.

Why did the Catholic Church break from the other 4 Apostolic Patriarchs? Why did the pope implement a statement into the creed without a council?

What is a defense to the filoque?
Does the Catholic Church continue to see the other 4 patriarchs as valid?

They didn’t break from the other 4 Apostolic Patriarchs, the 4 broke with Rome. Because it helped show the relationship between the Father Son and Holy Spirit better. Why would it have needed a council?

It’s in Scripture. Jesus said, “I will send you the Holy Spirit from my Father,” (paraphrase, sorry if it’s not 100% accurate). How could the Holy Spirit be sent from the Son if he only proceeds from the Father? The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one source not two. the Father, as the “principle without principle”, is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that he, as Father of the only Son, is with the Son the single principle from which the Spirit proceeds.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Also, keep in mind that the filioque was only added to the Latin text, not the Greek.

 

[Trebor135]

They didn’t break from the other 4 Apostolic Patriarchs, the 4 broke with Rome. Because it helped show the relationship between the Father Son and Holy Spirit better. Why would it have needed a council?

Because the phrase was added to the creed without the consent of the Church.

It’s in Scripture. Jesus said, “I will send you the Holy Spirit from my Father,” (paraphrase, sorry if it’s not 100% accurate). How could the Holy Spirit be sent from the Son if he only proceeds from the Father? The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one source not two. the Father, as the “principle without principle”, is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that he, as Father of the only Son, is with the Son the single principle from which the Spirit proceeds.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

But the Orthodox would understand that passage to mean that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit temporally–the verse does not state that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son just as from the Father.

 

[JD27076]

They didn’t break from the other 4 Apostolic Patriarchs, the 4 broke with Rome. Because it helped show the relationship between the Father Son and Holy Spirit better. Why would it have needed a council?

It’s in Scripture. Jesus said, “I will send you the Holy Spirit from my Father,” (paraphrase, sorry if it’s not 100% accurate). How could the Holy Spirit be sent from the Son if he only proceeds from the Father? The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one source not two. the Father, as the “principle without principle”, is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that he, as Father of the only Son, is with the Son the single principle from which the Spirit proceeds.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Also, keep in mind that the filioque was only added to the Latin text, not the Greek.

I though the pope of Rome that politically broke away from the others? Didn’t he send a Cardinal to Constantinople to excommunicate the other Patriarchs?

Didn’t it create Lingual issues? The writing itself implis that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well. He only proceeds from the Father, but the is sent by the son. Scripture makes this distinction, but the Filoque does not.

This was done illegally. It was in a small Synod in Spain with only Western bishops who added this without consulting anyone else. In fact, the CC actually resisted it for some time.

This goes again the 8th ecumenical council that does not permit any more revisions or changes to the Nicene-Constantinople Creed.

It was done illegally, unbiblically, and imperfectly. And the CC split way from the Other 4.​

How do we refute these arguments against the RCC?
Help.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

This goes again the 8th ecumenical council that does not permit any more revisions or changes to the Nicene-Constantinople Creed.

After the schism they abrogated the 8th ecumenical council (879) and replaced it with a council held 10 years before the Eight (869). Thus, one could argue that the 879 council is invalid.

However, in 1054 East and West agreed that the 879 council was the valid one and 869 the invalid one.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Whatever the legal issues are, the RCC holds the theologically true understanding between the Son and the Holy Ghost. Denying the Filoque creates great concern with the personal relationship between the Son and the Holy Ghost, what is their relationship if He does not proceed from the Father and Son? Also, it almost makes it out to be that the Holy Ghost is a 2nd Son as if the begotten Son was not perfect. Frank Sheed’s explanation of the Trinity might help you if your debating an orthodox or settle any concerns you may have.

 

[clmowry]

The controversy over the Filoque has always seemed to me much ado about nothing, an argument about language for which I see a distinction without any real difference.

In Scripture, the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of the Son, the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of God. Both the Father and the Son are said to send the Spirit.

In the writings of the Church fathers we see the Spirit coming not only from the Father but also either “from” or “through” the son.

I don’t “think” there is any disagreement that the Father is the first cause of all things and that the Son and Holy Spirit are consubstantial with the Father: of one and the same substance.

We have language about Christ being begotten of the Father and of the two being one, which I don’t think anyone disagrees with.

So if the Father and the Son are of the same essence and substance as the Holy Spirit and we know from scripture that the Spirit is FROM both the Father and the Son, and that the Holy Spirit is SENT by both the Father and the Son, then how does it differ or matter if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son or from the Father THROUGH the Son?

It is my understanding that when you get into the Greek and Latin words used in the debate, that this is where the conflict arises. Something to the effect that the Greek word implies that the Son is also the “First Cause” of the Holy Spirit. (But that goes way beyond my skill set.)

If the difference between “AND” and “THROUGH” is the source of the argument, then I don’t see why using “THROUGH” instead of “AND” would matter in the slightest if that were to make our brothers and sisters from the eastern Church happy.

Chuck

 

[sakes]

I guess he popehttp://www.filii.info/g.gif didn’t like beards.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I though the pope of Rome that politically broke away from the others? Didn’t he send a Cardinal to Constantinople to excommunicate the other Patriarchs?

Didn’t it create Lingual issues? The writing itself implis that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well. He only proceeds from the Father, but the is sent by the son. Scripture makes this distinction, but the Filoque does not.

This was done illegally. It was in a small Synod in Spain with only Western bishops who added this without consulting anyone else. In fact, the CC actually resisted it for some time.

This goes again the 8th ecumenical council that does not permit any more revisions or changes to the Nicene-Constantinople Creed.

It was done illegally, unbiblically, and imperfectly. And the CC split way from the Other 4.​

How do we refute these arguments against the RCC?
Help.

I’m not sure about most of the Patriarchs, but I think the Patriarch of Constantinople was excommunicated for desecrating the Holy Eucharist. This is a quote by St. Cyprian that I found from davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/does_the_orthodox_church_predate_the_catholic_church.htm

“With false bishops appointed for themselves, they (Novatian heretics) dare even set sail and carry their letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter* and to the principal church, in which sacerdotal unity (priestly unity) has its source; nor do they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the Apostle, to whom heretical faith cannot have access.” (Cyp. ad. Cornelius).

It was used only in the Latin version of the Creed, not the Greek, so that could’ve confused many people. But it wasn’t changed in the Greek version because if it was it would’ve been heresy. The Holy Spirit comes forth (proceeds) eternally from the Father and the Son, but its ultimate source in the Trinity is the Father.

It wasn’t against the 8th Ecumenical Council. According to fromdeathtolife.org/chistory/councils.html#ec8 the original Council is the one considered Ecumenical by the Catholic Church, while the other later one isn’t because it was convened by Photius.

I recommend reading this: davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/catholic_orthodox_filioque_father_son.htm It’s a very long read but also very informative.

Hope this helps (at least a little).

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

I’m not sure about most of the Patriarchs, but I think the Patriarch of Constantinople was excommunicated for desecrating the Holy Eucharist. This is a quote by St. Cyprian that I found from davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/does_the_orthodox_church_predate_the_catholic_church.htm

It was used only in the Latin version of the Creed, not the Greek, so that could’ve confused many people. But it wasn’t changed in the Greek version because if it was it would’ve been heresy. The Holy Spirit comes forth (proceeds) eternally from the Father and the Son, but its ultimate source in the Trinity is the Father.

It wasn’t against the 8th Ecumenical Council. According to fromdeathtolife.org/chistory/councils.html#ec8 the original Council is the one considered Ecumenical by the Catholic Church, while the other later one isn’t because it was convened by Photius.

I recommend reading this: davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/catholic_orthodox_filioque_father_son.htm It’s a very long read but also very informative.

Hope this helps (at least a little).

From your link:

THE EIGHTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
The Fourth Council of Constantinople, A.D. 879

Place, Date and Participants.
    Place: Constantinople.
    Date: A.D. 879.
    Participants:
    This council was convened by the Patriarch Photius. 

Purpose, Problem and Decisions.
    **Purpose: to annul the council of A.D. 869.**
    Problem:
    Shortly after the death of Ignatius in A.D. 877 Photius was reappointed by Basil to the patriarchal see. Then Photius convened his own Council of Constatinople in A.D. 879.
    Decisions:
    T**his council annulled the council of A.D. 869**, branding it as fraudulent, and readopted the Nicene Creed, omitting *[how can something that was lacking in the first place be omitted? -me]* the Filoque clause, "and from the Son". The council specifically spoke against the Filioque, which phrase was added to the Nicene Creed by the Western church to show the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and from the Son. The council ended by praising the virtues of Photius. 

Results.

The ill feeling between East and West was augmented, which was to lead, in A.D. 1054, to the complete separation of the two churches.
**The legates of Pope John VIII in the synod of A.D. 879-880 acknowledged Photius and reversed the earlier condemnations. **

 

[Swiss_Guy]

From your link:

THE EIGHTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
The Fourth Council of Constantinople, A.D. 879

Place, Date and Participants.
    Place: Constantinople.
    Date: A.D. 879.
    Participants:
    This council was convened by the Patriarch Photius. 

Purpose, Problem and Decisions.
    **Purpose: to annul the council of A.D. 869.**
    Problem:
    Shortly after the death of Ignatius in A.D. 877 Photius was reappointed by Basil to the patriarchal see. Then Photius convened his own Council of Constatinople in A.D. 879.
    Decisions:
    T**his council annulled the council of A.D. 869**, branding it as fraudulent, and readopted the Nicene Creed, omitting *[how can something that was lacking in the first place be omitted? -me]* the Filoque clause, "and from the Son". The council specifically spoke against the Filioque, which phrase was added to the Nicene Creed by the Western church to show the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and from the Son. The council ended by praising the virtues of Photius. 

Results.

The ill feeling between East and West was augmented, which was to lead, in A.D. 1054, to the complete separation of the two churches.
**The legates of Pope John VIII in the synod of A.D. 879-880 acknowledged Photius and reversed the earlier condemnations. **

Also from the link:

THE EIGHTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

The Fourth Council of Constantinople, A.D. 869-870

The Latin West recognizes this council as The Eighth Ecumenical Council. The Eastern Church usually recognizes only seven ecumenical councils, but sometimes they do recognize an eighth ecumenical council as that which took place in A.D. 879 under the leadership of Patriarch Photius of Constantinople.

Anyway, basically the 1st 4th Council of Constantinople is the one accepted by Catholics, and the 2nd by Orthodox. It probably wasn’t a really good link I had. Sorry about that.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Also from the link:

Anyway, basically the 1st 4th Council of Constantinople is the one accepted by Catholics, and the 2nd by Orthodox. It probably wasn’t a really good link I had. Sorry about that.

True, but one could argue that the Pope accepted 869 first, then accepted 879 and annuled 869 and reverted back 200 years later to 869 because he didn´t like the results. Does this mean the Pope can annul Chalcedon today and recognize Ephesus II as being the Fourth Ecumenical Council if he so wishes? Can the Pope do something similiar today? Just wondering.

 

[mardukm]

True, but one could argue that the Pope accepted 869 first, then accepted 879 and annuled 869 and reverted back 200 years later to 869 because he didn´t like the results. Does this mean the Pope can annul Chalcedon today and recognize Ephesus II as being the Fourth Ecumenical Council if he so wishes? Can the Pope do something similiar today? Just wondering.

Actually, Catholic apologists point out that Pope John VIII revoked his approval of the Council of 879, apparently after it was discovered that the papal rescripts sent to Constantinople were revised. Pope Marinus, the successor of Pope John VIII also refused to recognize the 879 Council.

I’m not sure what is the source or support for the claim that the 879 Council was rejected by Rome only 200 years later.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I need help understanding the Catholic Churches take on the whole filoque stance.

There is a LOT to talk about here, and tons of books and posts have been written on it.

Why did the Catholic Church break from the other 4 Apostolic Patriarchs?

This needs rephrasing. The Pope was never a Patriarch, according to the First Council of Nicaea the Pope was supreme head of the Church.

About 350 years after Christ, the Emperor Constantine set up a new Imperial City called Constantinople, and established a brand new Patriarchate there (no Apostle founded it). It was a purely political invention, and as politics usually include power, the Patriarch of Constantinople quickly sought to subjugate Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch to its wishes. So when people say the “4 Apostolic Patriarchs” broke away, that’s inaccurate for Constantinople and Jerusalem were not Apostolic, and with Constantinople subjecting the others to its rule, what it commanded in terms of breaking from Rome, it carried the others with him. So really it’s to be seen as the Apostolic See of Rome vs the Political See of Constantinople.

Why did the pope implement a statement into the creed without a council?

He didn’t.

What is a defense to the filoque?

The Catholic defense contains various arguments: (a) the Filioque is Biblical (e.g. see this article on Revelation 22:1); (b) one of the greatest Eastern Orthodox (and Catholic) saints is Maximus the Confessor, and he admitted there was proof in the Latin Fathers and even some big name Eastern Fathers (e.g. Cyril of Alexandria); (c) two Ecumenical Councils (one in the 1200s and a second in the 1400s) both came to heal the schism and concluded the Filioque was true.

The Eastern Orthodox defense is as follows: (a) John 15:26 says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, just as Paul says we’re justified by faith, so they conclude it must be the Father “alone”; (b) they say every Latin Father writing is a forgery.

Does the Catholic Church continue to see the other 4 patriarchs as valid?

Valid but not equal (to eachother nor to Rome).