The Filoque: Why is it important?

[Reader_Arsenios]

Perhaps because the filioque is the reason the Orthodox tend to use to justify their schism?

That won’t stick, Teflon… There were 5 Apostolic Sees at the time of the schism, and when it was over, Rome had separated Herself from the other four, who remained united…

So the Schism was Rome’s, from the rest of the Church, which remained united, you see… She separated Herself off from the Church…

That is the Orthodox understanding of the schism…

And Rome did so using the Filioque, and the rise of Papal Power and Authority in the Western See [Rome]… She tried to dogmatize the Filioque in the East, and was rebuffed, even through the Crusades… The East would not bow before the Pope, plain and simple - The only Head of the Church they recognize is Christ Himself…

From the Orthodox perspective, the Filioque is a false doctrine and has no business in the Creed whatsoever… By ADDING it to the Creed, Rome sepazrated herself from the Church and caused the schism… The Church had tolerated this error of the West in hopes that it would self-correct, but then the West tried to impose it upon the east as dogma under the arrogance of Papal Supremacy over the Church, and the Schism was held fast…

And it is a VERY THORNY issue to bring to resolution, because RC’s love their Papal Authority, and the EO love the Authority of Christ…

Arsenios

 

[tdgesq]

The Church had tolerated this error of the West in hopes that it would self-correct, but then the West tried to impose it upon the east as dogma under the arrogance of Papal Supremacy over the Church, and the Schism was held fast…

And it is a VERY THORNY issue to bring to resolution, because RC’s love their Papal Authority, and the EO love the Authority of Christ…

And this sums up the real issue better than I could have described it. It is the authority that the Bishop of Rome claims over the Church that separates the Catholics and the Orthodox.

The filoque in itself cannot separate us anymore. The wounds of centuries past cannot divide the Church today. And since the Latin Church has always held that the Father is the origin of the procession of the Holy Spirit, it should be a non-issue for the Orthodox. Even if they believe that we have recently invented this explanation, it cannot be the basis for separation. It must be something else. It always comes back to papal authority. Of course you can state it in the converse: the Orthodox demand autonomy from the Church.

 

[orthodoxlurker]

The filoque in itself cannot separate us anymore. The wounds of centuries past cannot divide the Church today. And since the Latin Church has always held that the Father is the origin of the procession of the Holy Spirit, it should be a non-issue for the Orthodox.

I’m affraid you are mislead, my friend, into believing that.

If we consequently apply the principles you presented only, we should easily unite with even non-Christians.

Anyway, I thought we should discuss filioque here, not the schism.

 

[bobzills]

Was the EO/Catholic split really about this doctirine?

The Bible says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as does the creed of the Council of Council of Constantinople in 381. John 15:26"When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me.

 

[dcdurel]

The bishops in the east were already allowing divorce and remarriage. This was evidence enough of their rejection of the authority of the Pope, and of apostolic Tradition. That is the only reason that could explain the split. The reason the EO reject papal authority is that they would have to change what they were already allowing, divorce and remarriage.

 Since divorce and remarriage was change in what had always been taught, then they knew there was no way they could reject the Pope's teaching on the subject.  So they looked to a more plausible exuse and it is the Filoque clause.

It is similar to the reason athiests give for their rejection of God. They claim they God does not exist, and they give various reasons for the claim. It is impossible to prove them wrong by refuting the reasons, because they will simply ignore the facts. The reason reason they don’t believe in God is because they don’t like one or more of His teachings. Thus, as the Popes have always taught, athiesm is a moral problem.
In the same way even if the Catholic Church could change her teachings and agree that the EO was right in regards to the filoque clause, the EO still would not unite. Because they would still have the real problem of divorce and remarriage and the authority of the Pope who would force that problem to come to a head.
The only solutions that I see is for the EO to first admit they were wrong about divorce and remarriage. They the could unite. That would take tons of prayer.
Or, they could do as the bishops in this country do and permit marriage tribunals to make up new reasons, which were never approved by the Popes, to declare marriages invalid, and thus have the same result in the end.
But, that is really not a solution, since in a way we are doing exactly doing what the EO are doing, separating ourselves from the Pope, the only true, one representative of Christ on earth.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

Some people say that the Holy Spirit is the breath of God. But this “breath” can’t be taken literally as we know it, because God doesn’t have a mouth.

So, what is the Holy Spirit? Maybe the answer to that question can help answer why the Filioque is (or is not) important.

 

[orthodoxlurker]

So, what is the Holy Spirit?

To know that, we’d first ought to know what is the Father and what is the Son.

And we konw that not by our reason, but by revelation.

Answering your question would be pryint into the mistery of God, and we’d have all gone mad.

St. Gregory the Theologian (of Nazanzius) and St. Gregory of Nyssa had explicitly told us not to do so.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

And this sums up the real issue better than I could have described it. It is the authority that the Bishop of Rome claims over the Church that separates the Catholics and the Orthodox.

The filoque in itself cannot separate us anymore. The wounds of centuries past cannot divide the Church today. And since the Latin Church has always held that the Father is the origin of the procession of the Holy Spirit, it should be a non-issue for the Orthodox. Even if they believe that we have recently invented this explanation, it cannot be the basis for separation. It must be something else. It always comes back to papal authority. Of course you can state it in the converse: the Orthodox demand autonomy from the Church.

How can the Orthodox demand autonomy from the Church? We are the Church.

If the filioque is such a nonissue for you, then drop it.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The bishops in the east were already allowing divorce and remarriage. This was evidence enough of their rejection of the authority of the Pope, and of apostolic Tradition. That is the only reason that could explain the split. The reason the EO reject papal authority is that they would have to change what they were already allowing, divorce and remarriage.

 Since divorce and remarriage was change in what had always been taught, then they knew there was no way they could reject the Pope's teaching on the subject.  So they looked to a more plausible exuse and it is the Filoque clause.

It is similar to the reason athiests give for their rejection of God. They claim they God does not exist, and they give various reasons for the claim. It is impossible to prove them wrong by refuting the reasons, because they will simply ignore the facts. The reason reason they don’t believe in God is because they don’t like one or more of His teachings. Thus, as the Popes have always taught, athiesm is a moral problem.
In the same way even if the Catholic Church could change her teachings and agree that the EO was right in regards to the filoque clause, the EO still would not unite. Because they would still have the real problem of divorce and remarriage and the authority of the Pope who would force that problem to come to a head.
The only solutions that I see is for the EO to first admit they were wrong about divorce and remarriage. They the could unite. That would take tons of prayer.
Or, they could do as the bishops in this country do and permit marriage tribunals to make up new reasons, which were never approved by the Popes, to declare marriages invalid, and thus have the same result in the end.
But, that is really not a solution, since in a way we are doing exactly doing what the EO are doing, separating ourselves from the Pope, the only true, one representative of Christ on earth.

If your take on divorce and remarriage was the REAL reason, you would think it would show up in the historical record, no?

As an example of Rome’s consistency, let’s take Henry VIII for a moment. He claimed an annulment because he had married his brother’s widowed bride, which was against canon. Of course Rome’s problem was that it had granted the dispensation in that. There the question of whether Catherine lied that the marriage to the brother was never consumated, and her nephew Charles V occupied Rome. Sounds like an American tribunal.

 

[tdgesq]

How can the Orthodox demand autonomy from the Church? We are the Church.

I realize that is your view. The Catholic view is what I stated above.

If the filioque is such a nonissue for you, then drop it.

I will if and when the Pope drops it. Like I said, it is the papacy that is the issue. If you could show me that the Catholic understanding of the filioque is heretical, then that would be a different matter. But I don’t think you can. It will come down to whether Rome has the authority to include the filioque in the creed or not.

 

[Teflon93]

That won’t stick, Teflon… There were 5 Apostolic Sees at the time of the schism, and when it was over, Rome had separated Herself from the other four, who remained united…

So the Schism was Rome’s, from the rest of the Church, which remained united, you see… She separated Herself off from the Church…

That is the Orthodox understanding of the schism…

And Rome did so using the Filioque, and the rise of Papal Power and Authority in the Western See [Rome]… She tried to dogmatize the Filioque in the East, and was rebuffed, even through the Crusades… The East would not bow before the Pope, plain and simple - The only Head of the Church they recognize is Christ Himself…

From the Orthodox perspective, the Filioque is a false doctrine and has no business in the Creed whatsoever… By ADDING it to the Creed, Rome sepazrated herself from the Church and caused the schism… The Church had tolerated this error of the West in hopes that it would self-correct, but then the West tried to impose it upon the east as dogma under the arrogance of Papal Supremacy over the Church, and the Schism was held fast…

And it is a VERY THORNY issue to bring to resolution, because RC’s love their Papal Authority, and the EO love the Authority of Christ…

Arsenios

Funny how those other sees had no problem treating Rome as a majority of one when treating various heresies to which they fell prey in turn.

The latter-day Orthodox notion that the early Church was a democracy is both anachronistic and silly.

Given the relative numbers today of Catholics and Orthodox, should we put it to a vote?

Didn’t think so.

 

[Teflon93]

The bottom line is, and remains, if the filioque issue were resolved in favor of the Orthodox position, they would simply find something else to justify their schism.

It is the pride of the patriarchs, that common characteristic of the Orthodox, which is the issue.

The filioque is the fig leaf which covers it. Remove it, and there will swiftly be another put in place.

It is not through doctrine, but through prayer that such wounds are eventually healed.

 

[zerocrossing]

And this sums up the real issue better than I could have described it. It is the authority that the Bishop of Rome claims over the Church that separates the Catholics and the Orthodox.

The filoque in itself cannot separate us anymore.

Okay, I’m on the RC side of this debate. BUT if you believe that the core issue is not the filioque, then I suggest you do some study in EO theology. Their understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit - and their theologizing on this basis - long predates the schism.

As far as they are concerned, the filioque radically alters the understanding of the Trinity established at Nicea. In other words, they regard the filioque as heretical - and they regarded it as heretical long before the final split. As a result of what they consider to be heresy, they also consider the Patriarchate of Rome (the See of Peter) to be vacant. As far as they are concerned, there IS no valid Pope, much less a Pope to be in unity with.

Let’s try a modern-day analogy: If you were an Episcopalian, would you be on the side of traditional doctrine? Or on the side of unity regardless of traditional doctrine? Most Episcopalian bishops are arguing that unity is more important. The “orthodox” Anglicans are arguing that doctrine is more important than unity.

Adding the clause on the procession of the Holy Spirit to the Creed is as abhorrent to the EOs as the various innovations of the Episcopalian bishops are to the orthodox Anglicans.

Now, IMO, these are two completely different sets of circumstances. The Episcopalian bishops are violating pretty much all branches of historical Christianity with their innovations. But that’s how the EOs regard what the West did with the filioque. What we regard as a clarification, a deeper understanding, they regard as a heretical innovation at the expense of the traditional understanding of the doctrine.

 

[tdgesq]

Okay, I’m on the RC side of this debate. BUT if you believe that the core issue is not the filioque, then I suggest you do some study in EO theology. Their understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit - and their theologizing on this basis - long predates the schism.

Well, I have to respectfully disagree. I admit that prior to the Council of Florence there was misunderstanding between our Churches, and I’m even willing to concede that the confusion was at least partly the fault of the Catholic Church. But today there isn’t any reason for the EO to claim the filioque is heretical:

For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind. Session 6—6 July 1439 ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM#3

The East attended the council, if not by the bishops personally then through representatives. I realize that now the Orthodox claim, for whatever reason, that it wasn’t ecumenical.

As far as they are concerned, the filioque radically alters the understanding of the Trinity established at Nicea. In other words, they regard the filioque as heretical - and they regarded it as heretical long before the final split. As a result of what they consider to be heresy, they also consider the Patriarchate of Rome (the See of Peter) to be vacant. As far as they are concerned, there IS no valid Pope, much less a Pope to be in unity with.

Then they will need to come forward and explain how it is heretical given the definition in Florence and subsequent definitions from the Catholic Church. If what you say is true, that the alleged heresy of filioque is what disqualified the Pope of Rome from his position of authority, then you need to explain how that can still be the case with the Greek Orthodox since the Patriarch of Constantinople lifted the excommunication of Rome with regard to the filioque.

Adding the clause on the procession of the Holy Spirit to the Creed is as abhorrent to the EOs as the various innovations of the Episcopalian bishops are to the orthodox Anglicans.

The question is why it is seen as abhorrent. Is it because the filioque as understood by the RCC is in itself heretical or is it because Rome included it in the creed without the consent of the Eastern Church? If it is the former, then it wouldn’t matter if the RCC dropped the filioque from the creed, because the Church would still believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

Now, IMO, these are two completely different sets of circumstances. The Episcopalian bishops are violating pretty much all branches of historical Christianity with their innovations. But that’s how the EOs regard what the West did with the filioque. What we regard as a clarification, a deeper understanding, they regard as a heretical innovation at the expense of the traditional understanding of the doctrine.

If they regard it as a heretical innovation, then somebody needs to speak up and explain why.

 

[orthodoxlurker]

Several wrong assumptions by tdgesq.

Session 6—6 July 1439
…
The East attended the council, if not by the bishops personally then through representatives. I realize that now the Orthodox claim, for whatever reason, that it wasn’t ecumenical.

“The East” didn’t attend the council. It was only Constantinopolis present there, as well as two legates from Antioch and Alexandria (I think Jerusalem was not present at all, I’m not sure).

Patriarch of Constantinopolis died before the Council ended. Some bishops did sign, but under the condition of ratification of the council of Florence by their own council. Such ratification never happened.

Anyway, majority of bishops, priests and flock of Patriarchate of Constantinopolis rejected it. Russia imprisoned its Metropoliten subscribing Florence and ceased communion with Constantinopolis upon hearing about their stance in Florence. Cyprus, Georgia, Serbia and Bulgaria didn’t attend.

Then they will need to come forward and explain how it is heretical given the definition in Florence and subsequent definitions from the Catholic Church.

It would be also nice to hear from RCC how denying double procession is proclaimed heretical in Lyons 1274, while Eastern Catholic Churches are now allowed not to profess filioque - some of them outrightly teaching it being heretical, while remaining in communion with Rome.

It seems Rome had already changed his stance about it.

If they regard it as a heretical innovation, then somebody needs to speak up and explain why.

We do, but there is no one to listen. See the posts #4, 9, 11, 14, 15…

 

[Paisius]

It is the pride of the patriarchs, that common characteristic of the Orthodox, which is the issue.

So it’s pride that stops us from reuniting with the Pope, the supreme infallible ruler of the universal Church, Vicar of Christ on Earth, dispenser of all graces and the one person with the power to set up and depose kings.

Your right…it’s definitely Orthodox pride that’s the problem.

 

[Paisius]

Okay, I’m on the RC side of this debate. BUT if you believe that the core issue is not the filioque, then I suggest you do some study in EO theology. Their understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit - and their theologizing on this basis - long predates the schism.

As far as they are concerned, the filioque radically alters the understanding of the Trinity established at Nicea. In other words, they regard the filioque as heretical - and they regarded it as heretical long before the final split. As a result of what they consider to be heresy, they also consider the Patriarchate of Rome (the See of Peter) to be vacant. As far as they are concerned, there IS no valid Pope, much less a Pope to be in unity with.

Let’s try a modern-day analogy: If you were an Episcopalian, would you be on the side of traditional doctrine? Or on the side of unity regardless of traditional doctrine? Most Episcopalian bishops are arguing that unity is more important. The “orthodox” Anglicans are arguing that doctrine is more important than unity.

Adding the clause on the procession of the Holy Spirit to the Creed is as abhorrent to the EOs as the various innovations of the Episcopalian bishops are to the orthodox Anglicans.

Now, IMO, these are two completely different sets of circumstances. The Episcopalian bishops are violating pretty much all branches of historical Christianity with their innovations. But that’s how the EOs regard what the West did with the filioque. What we regard as a clarification, a deeper understanding, they regard as a heretical innovation at the expense of the traditional understanding of the doctrine.

A very good explanation although I have to disagree on one point. I would say that most Orthodox do not believe that the See of Peter is vacant, only that the current office (note I said office not occupant) of the papacy is flawed.

 

[Teflon93]

So it’s pride that stops us from reuniting with the Pope, the supreme infallible ruler of the universal Church, Vicar of Christ on Earth, dispenser of all graces and the one person with the power to set up and depose kings.

Your right…it’s definitely Orthodox pride that’s the problem.

Well, admitting it’s the first step to correcting it.

If you want to go incrementally, feel free to pick one of the other patriarchs and follow him.

Unless there’s some sort of pride problem still, that is.

 

[tdgesq]

Several wrong assumptions by tdgesq.

We shall see.

“The East” didn’t attend the council. It was only Constantinopolis present there, as well as two legates from Antioch and Alexandria (I think Jerusalem was not present at all, I’m not sure).

The Patriarch of Jerusalem was represented during a portion of the council, but I do not know either if it was during the particular sessions where the filioque was discussed. But what does it matter? The Orthodox repeatedly claim that the presence of Rome was unnecessary for the first seven councils to be ecumenical and binding. Perhaps Catholics would take objections like this more seriously if we knew what the Orthodox criteria was for an ecumenical council.

Patriarch of Constantinopolis died before the Council ended. Some bishops did sign, but under the condition of ratification of the council of Florence by their own council. Such ratification never happened.

This is highly misleading.

Almost simultaneously with these measures the Patriarch of Constantinople died, 10 June; not, however, before he had drawn up and signed a declaration in which he admitted the Filioque, purgatory, and the papal primacy.
. . .

The Greek representatives insisted that their aforesaid declarations were only their personal opinions; and as they stated that it was still necessary to obtain the assent of the Greek Church in synod assembled, seemingly insuperable difficulties threatened to annihilate all that had so far been achieved. (emphasis added). newadvent.org/cathen/06111a.htm

Again:

On 8 June 1439 an agreement was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, Mark of Ephesus, who held that Rome continued in both heresy and schism. Apparently, the Great Schism was over. However, after Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople died only two days later, the Greeks insisted that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved only by the agreement of an Eastern synod. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence#Council_transferred_to_Florence_and_the_near_East-West_union

Since when has ratification by an Eastern Synod been required to make a council ecumenical where the bishops are already represented and have actually already agreed to a declaration? The Orthodox reject similar claims of the necessity of ratification made by Rome with respect to canons of Constantinople I and Chalcedon.

Anyway, majority of bishops, priests and flock of Patriarchate of Constantinopolis rejected it. Russia imprisoned its Metropoliten subscribing Florence and ceased communion with Constantinopolis upon hearing about their stance in Florence. Cyprus, Georgia, Serbia and Bulgaria didn’t attend.

I think this correct.

It would be also nice to hear from RCC how denying double procession is proclaimed heretical in Lyons 1274, while Eastern Catholic Churches are now allowed not to profess filioque - some of them outrightly teaching it being heretical, while remaining in communion with Rome.

Those within the Eastern Catholic Churches who claim this are in error. There is no canon that I know of that requires them to profess the filioque within their creeds.

It seems Rome had already changed his stance about it.

Even if it were true that Rome changed its stance, that doesn’t address the claim that the filioque in itself today cannot be the basis for separation.

We do, but there is no one to listen. See the posts #4, 9, 11, 14, 15…

I reviewed the posts, and watched with some interest some of the threads you linked to as they were played out on the EC forum. Vague assertions that it confuses the roles of the three Persons of the Trinity doesn’t do it. Show me that the Catholic understanding of the filioque is heretical. Also, answer my question about the Patriarch of Constantinople lifting the excommunication and his predecessor at Florence signing the resolution on the filioque. Is the Ecumenical Patriarch a heretic?

 

[orthodoxlurker]

The Orthodox repeatedly claim that the presence of Rome was unnecessary for the first seven councils to be ecumenical and binding. Perhaps Catholics would take objections like this more seriously if we knew what the Orthodox criteria was for an ecumenical council.
…
Since when has ratification by an Eastern Synod been required to make a council ecumenical where the bishops are already represented and have actually already agreed to a declaration?

Rome sent representatives to (I believe) all seven councils, but not every time they were present at the closing. However, Rome was notified about the decisions and didn’t object them, than applied them. So, you are a bit late to deny it for about…thirtheen to seventeen centuries.

Since the signatures were presented under the condition of ratificatoin by a council, that’s what counts for Constantinopolis regarding Florence. Nobody else signed.

Those within the Eastern Catholic Churches who claim this are in error. There is no canon that I know of that requires them to profess the filioque within their creeds.

In some of the discussions you visited from the links I’ve posted, you’ll find a link and quotation about Melkites professing filioque is a herecy.

Vague assertions that it confuses the roles of the three Persons of the Trinity doesn’t do it. Show me that the Catholic understanding of the filioque is heretical.

What vague assertations? It’s shown already in those threads many times. Suffice is to say it’s under the anathemas of two ecumenical council and one joint council that Rome subscribed. So it’s up to you to prove you are not under anathemas of three binding councils of your own. Along with the anathema from your Lyons II for being in communion with Eastern Catholics who profess that filioque is heretical.

Also, answer my question about the Patriarch of Constantinople lifting the excommunication and his predecessor at Florence signing the resolution on the filioque.

Florence is signed under the condition that was not fulfilled, as we already agreed. It wouldn’t be ecumenical even if Constantinopoli had ratified it - other Sees didn’t. Lifting of anathemas of 1054 in 1965 does have nothing with filioque - read the Bull of Excommunicaton by Humbert da Silva Candida, I’ve posted a link to it.

Is the Ecumenical Patriarch a heretic?

Some of them were. Remember Nestorius?