Sure I do. We had a thread on it a little while ago.
I could just as easily come up with analogies that do speak to matters directly addressed in the Nicene Creed. Truths about God’s attributes, about baptism, about the Church, about apostolic succession, etc. Would adding them to the creed make them untrue?
Rhetorical questions about why the Fathers didn’t do something are notoriously weak arguments. Why didn’t the Fathers put the word “only” in front of “proceeds from the Father”? Probably because it would seem quite strange to them to do so considering that Jesus breathed upon the apostles and told them to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
So then there is no relationship between the Son and the Spirit. Your argument proves too much. On the other hand, if you admit to a relationship, then you also have to admit that it is not explicated in the creed.
Your observations are wrong. We believe the same thing. However, none of this let’s us know if the filioque is a heresy.
Yes, you have a little bit of a problem in that regard.
This is why I contend that the issue with the filioque is not necessarily that it was added, but how it was added. I really think all this has to do with the authority or lack thereof of Rome.If the Holy Spirit was mentioned in Nicaea, how in the world can there be any later additions? I think that you’ve just refuted your own position.
Or I suppose it could just as easily be seen as supporting the addition that was made after that by Rome to deal with Arianism.
Not really. The authority of the Bishop of Rome is going to be a problem no matter whether we are talking about the filioque or some other doctrine. By deeming the filioque a heretical doctrine, you are adding heresy on top of schism.
Why? What they profess is true - that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Again, I find it sad that you exclude from communion Catholics on the basis of the filioque when the Orthodox here have been unable to explain what is heretical about it. If it isn’t heretical and you are excluding us for it, how sad is that?
Please give us definition of heresy acceptable to you.
And you’re assuming that the Fathers left the matter of the procession of the Spirit open-ended for the future.
The Fathers were drawing directly from Scripture. Plus, the notion of the Father as sole first principle was commonly accepted. It was subordination of the Son that was the danger of the time, and the Fathers were demonstrating that the Son was one in essence with the Father, rather than simply of like essence, or worse yet.
Yes, I admit the mistake that the procession clause did not come until 381. The Holy Spirit is simply mentioned in the original Creed, without the clause of procession.
We believe the same thing, eh?
What are you talking about?
From an RCC perspective, the fact that the Creed of 381 added phrases to the Creed of 325 to clarify matters and guard against heterodox views is seen as a demonstration of the legitimacy of the filioque added for a similar purpose, yes.
This is an incredible thing for you to state.
WE do…you don’t listen.
But it most definitely is heretical. Plus the RCC has been piling up on the new doctrines since it ran off the rails with the filioque, and the fringe elements are multiplying beyond control! All of this under supervision of the bishop of Rome and his own appointed curial officials and bishops.
It might be difficult for a Catholic to understand this idea that the Orthodox Faith is 99 and 44/100% pure. For example, what happened to the remaining 56/100%?
I don’t assume that because I don’t need to. You presented the argument that since procession is mentioned in the creed nothing can be added to that understanding. In rebuttal I pointed out, among many other things, that the Holy Spirit was mentioned in Nicaea I. Then at Constantinople I or sometime thereafter the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is included. If your hermeneutic is correct - that once the Fathers speak in council to an issue nothing further can be added - then we wouldn’t expect the creed to state anything new about the Holy Spirit at a later time either. But it does. And why wouldn’t we expect that? The creed does not set forth all the truths of Christianity even on points that it directly discusses. That is why I find the argument wanting that since procession was addressed in the creed there isn’t anything more to it.
And thank God for that. I disagree that Scripture and the Fathers do not attest to the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son as from a single principle through a single spiration. I can give you many ECF’s who support that proposition as well as Scriptural testimony.
Like I said, it proves to much. Under your hermeneutic the only relationship between the Son and Spirit is that the Son by the power of the Holy Spirit became man. Is this really the only thing the Orthodox know and believe in terms of the relationship between those two Persons?
We believe the same thing with respect to the role of the creed, which is the only thing you wrote about in the paragraph I addressed.We believe the same thing, eh?
This is what I’m talking about: On the one hand you claim that nothing more can be said about the procession of the Holy Spirit, on the other hand you claim that more can be said and was said about the Holy Spirit after Nicaea I already addressed the Holy Spirit. Shouldn’t what was decided at Nicaea I about the Spirit be all that can ever be said? If the answer is no, then why a different standard for procession? That is why I said it looks like you’ve refuted your own standard.
That is correct, and is what was stated at Florence.
Peace Hesychios. I did not mean to imply that there hasn’t been Orthodox theology addressing the filioque. I just haven’t seen any here. What I have seen are arguments that we should interpret the early councils to mean that the filioque is per se heretical. Those arguments do not hold up. I’ve seen arguments that a fallible non-ecumenical council held in the East condemning the filioque as heretical does it. I maintain that the EO did not understand how the West really understood the filioque when that happened. And I admit that Rome had no small part to play in this confusion. In retrospect it was unwise for Rome not to seek the counsel of the East when it included the filioque in its creed.
Firstly, I think the two confessions, namely confession of belief in the Holy Spirit and confession of belief in the Holy Spirit, need to be distinguished. They are certainly related, but to confess that one believes in the Holy Spirit is different from confessing that one believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. They are two separate, although compatible, beliefs.
Well, that seems a little bit arbitrary on your part. They both deal with the Holy Spirit.
I agree with this.
I think I agree with this if I’m understanding you correctly. The later addition of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father does not change the meaning of the previous declaration that we are to believe in the Holy Spirit. But neither does procession from the Son change the meaning of procession from the Father, unless you presuppose that the council meant that the Spirit proceeds solely from the Father. But the council doesn’t state that.
Definitely Tertullian, and I would also argue St. Basil.
The first two I won’t address because although they bear on whether what Rome did was a legitimate exercise of authority, they do not let us know if the filioque is heretical per se. Theological error and inconsistency with revelation and the Fathers are certainly relevant.
As for the first question, I believe that at least some of the Eastern Fathers did reach the same theological conclusions. Some explicitly, and some as a necessary consequence of what they taught. The way in which they reached those conclusions is not always identical with the way in which the RCC reached them. The second question: To the extent theology as a discipline has developed, and it obviously has, the Fathers, whether from East or West, did not have that understanding. They did of course live near to the time of the apostles, which is why we give such great weight to their dogmatic conclusions.
The quote above is a little bit ambiguous. I guess I’d need to see it in context. I don’t really have an answer for what you are calling a common attitude amongst ECs. I am assured over and over again by the Orthodox here that this is their view, but have only had one or two ECs express any problem with the filioque. Even then it’s gone along the lines that it isn’t part of their tradition, not that they believe it’s heretical. That’s all I can tell you.
Headcoverings and organ music? These are not doctrinal. Our doctrine has not changed.
Hello Michael:Hello Bob,
Headcoverings and organ music? These are not doctrinal. Our doctrine has not changed.
Perhaps it would be helpful to look at the RC explanation that there is a difference between discipline and dogma. We don’t normally refer to those terms but it could apply.
What you are describing is a reflection of Economia. No slippery slope here!
Likewise for the issue of contraception.
We have always taught that abortion is murder, and any means which will cause the death of a zygote is killing, whether chemically or mechanically. These are not means to prevent pregnancy but to terminate it. Some pills could have such an effect, and would be forbidden.
Other methods are not necessarily ruled out, it becomes a pastoral matter while the motivation of the couple (and the spiritual state of each) is taken into consideration. An important point is that the pastor is usually involved in the process of discernment, and the faithful do not have a sense of abandonment or alienation from the church over the subject. Good counsel is provided and the family remains plugged-in to the spiritual life.
BTW, NFP (the rhythm method) is often the method of first choice, but barrier methods are not thereby automatically excluded. And Orthodox have an enormous number of standard days per year of fasting AND abstinence, which includes refraining from sexual encounters (I think this is generally unknown in the RC).
Holy Orthodoxy is rightly reknown for it’s natural stubborn conservatism. So this is not a matter of liberals undermining church teaching, it is well thought out. There is no conflict between traditional church attitude and teaching and the small measures of economia shown.
This might be contrasted with the large numbers of young RC who willfully reject their churches teaching, receive no spiritual counsel and often (even usually) fall into the trap of using an abortifactant method! This may be because the only real advice they receive comes from MD’s and friends, who are more interested in the material wellbeing of the couple than their spiritual wellbeing. Some couples eventually develop feelings of alienation from the church and stay away. Others must deal with the anxiety and hypocrisy of being “cafeteria Catholics” if they choose to continue attending and taking communion. All of these results can be extremely damaging to the faith community in the long run.
Michael