The Filoque: Why is it important?

[zerocrossing]

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.

I’m not EO. I’m RC. I was EO a long time ago, which is why I know something about them. I’m simply explaining WHAT their position is. You don’t need to shoot the messenger.

However, I will address your question. But please understand that I’m merely explaining their position… not asking you to accept it.

First, the Patriarch of Constantinople does not speak for the entire EO world. Whatever agreement he made with the Pope is not binding on any other patriarchate. And in fact, I don’t know a single GREEK Orthodox person (much less any other EO) who does not disavow lifting excommunication WRT the RC Church over the filioque. The patriarch does not have the power to force the Orthodox faithful to accept any position that Orthodoxy has historically considered heterodox (or heretical). (Eg.: the near-universal anathema of the EO people against Florence in the immediate aftermath of the event). Orthodoxy is not a top-down form of Christianity. And the Patriarch of Constantinople is not their Pope. The notion that he holds some papal type of power in the East is a frequent RC misconception. But it IS a misconception.

As for the effects of lifting the excommunication… NOBODY in the EO world, so far as I know, actually practices allowing RCs to receive EO sacraments (except marriage - with the stipulation that the children be raised EO). It’s an entirely one-way street. They will not receive communion in an RC church. They will not allow us to receive communion in an EO church. They do not believe we have valid sacraments. We believe they do. The more extreme Orthodox - like ROCOR - do not believe that even our baptism is valid.

In addition, EOs regard the Council of Florence as a travesty. They believe that their bishops were, essentially, held captive by duplicitous Rome (again, don’t shoot the messenger) and then starved until they were forced against their will into agreeing to the filioque.

I’m not making this up. You should have heard my Greek godmother talk about it! They really do talk about the Council of Florence as the moral equivalent of kidnapping and torture. And their cultural memory of it is as vivid as if it happened yesterday. To us, it’s a distant, almost academic event. To many of them, it’s almost a recent trauma that they’re still re-living. I’m not stating that their cultural memory is an accurate account of what happened at Florence. I’m simply stating WHAT their cultural memory of Florence is.

So you would do well not to quote the Council of Florence at EOs. It reveals to them that you have little understanding of their history or their perspective of what occurred at Florence.

Again, I’m only a messenger, not an advocate.

 

[tdgesq]

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.

Actually Rome did object, particularly after Constantinople I and Chalcedon. And I believe Rome had no representatives at Constantinople I. We Catholics are told by the Orthodox that it doesn’t matter what Rome thought or whether it was present. And if its legates were there, then there certainly can be no objection. Apparently the same standard doesn’t apply to the east. Interesting that there is a time period now within which a Church can change its mind after attending a council.

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

I don’t think you are correct here. I believe everyone from the east signed except one bishop. As if it would matter. They attended. They agreed. Then they said they couldn’t really agree without an Eastern Synod. Do overs!

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.

Then they are wrong and in conflict with the Catholic Church. I sincerely doubt though that you will find many Melkites on this forum that believe that.

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.

Let’s see the text from the ecumenical councils then. Maybe it’s the “eighth” council of the Orthodox held after Constantinople IV when the Orthodox decided to change their minds again despite the presence of their Patriarchs. Show me that the Melkite Church has declared the filioque heretical. You can’t do it.

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.

No it is not agreed. Cite me some authority from the Fathers that allows the east to send representatives to a council and then after they agree to certain provisions to make approval of an Eastern Synod a condition of acceptance. Embarrassing. So the anathemas against Rome had nothing to do with the filioque? I guess it really wasn’t that important of an issue then.

Some of them were. Remember Nestorius?

This has all been an interesting aside, but how about you demonstrate that the Catholic’s current understanding of the filioque is heretical. Do you even really believe that is?

 

[tdgesq]

I’m not EO. I’m RC. I was EO a long time ago, which is why I know something about them. I’m simply explaining WHAT their position is. You don’t need to shoot the messenger.

I’m sorry. I thought you actually believed the position you set forth. That is my mistake.

First, the Patriarch of Constantinople does not speak for the entire EO world. Whatever agreement he made with the Pope is not binding on any other patriarchate. And in fact, I don’t know a single GREEK Orthodox person (much less any other EO) who does not disavow lifting excommunication WRT the RC Church over the filioque. The patriarch does not have the power to force the Orthodox faithful to accept any position that Orthodoxy has historically considered heterodox (or heretical). (Eg.: the near-universal anathema of the EO people against Florence in the immediate aftermath of the event). Orthodoxy is not a top-down form of Christianity. And the Patriarch of Constantinople is not their Pope. The notion that he holds some papal type of power in the East is a frequent RC misconception. But it IS a misconception.

I am not under the illusion that the EO regard the EP like the Pope of Rome. Yet they are in a position where I think they need to call him a heretic because of what he has done.

As for the effects of lifting the excommunication… NOBODY in the EO world, so far as I know, actually practices allowing RCs to receive EO sacraments (except marriage - with the stipulation that the children be raised EO). It’s an entirely one-way street. They will not receive communion in an RC church. They will not allow us to receive communion in an EO church. They do not believe we have valid sacraments. We believe they do. The more extreme Orthodox - like ROCOR - do not believe that even our baptism is valid.

I don’t think the ROC does either. The problem with the Cyprianic theory of Apostolic succession.

In addition, EOs regard the Council of Florence as a travesty. They believe that their bishops were, essentially, held captive by duplicitous Rome (again, don’t shoot the messenger) and then starved until they were forced against their will into agreeing to the filioque.

I’ve never heard this one. Interesting.

I’m not making this up. You should have heard my Greek godmother talk about it! They really do talk about the Council of Florence as the moral equivalent of kidnapping and torture. And their cultural memory of it is as vivid as if it happened yesterday. To us, it’s a distant, almost academic event. To many of them, it’s almost a recent trauma that they’re still re-living. I’m not stating that their cultural memory is an accurate account of what happened at Florence. I’m simply stating WHAT their cultural memory of Florence is.

I’ve never heard anything like this either. Are there Orthodox here who’ve had similar experiences? That makes me look at things a little bit differently.

So you would do well not to quote the Council of Florence at EOs. It reveals to them that you have little understanding of their history or their perspective of what occurred at Florence. Again, I’m only a messenger, not an advocate.

I thought the Byzantine Emperor was present at the council. It seems weird to me that the Orthodox would feel that they were held captive. But maybe there is something to what you say.

 

[orthodoxlurker]

We Catholics are told by the Orthodox that it doesn’t matter what Rome thought or whether it was present. And if its legates were there, then there certainly can be no objection. Apparently the same standard doesn’t apply to the east.

Presence of legates at the beggining of a council doesn’t equate to their consent. All autocephalies were present at the Second Ecumenical (Constantinopolis I), but legates of Rome only at the beggining. But Rome did apply the resolusions, didn’t object them, while the Council itself was confirmed Ecumenical at the Third Council (Ephesus). That’s what conciliarity is. You are late to complain for about 17 centuries.

As we saw above, no one agreed in Florence except Rome and some bishops of Constantinopolis. Thus, it can’t be Ecumenical.

Interesting that there is a time period now within which a Church can change its mind after attending a council.

That’s what the Church is - community of all saints, clergy and lay of all times, with the Christ as her beginning and her end. There are other known robber councils, too - Rome did apply the same principle.

I don’t think you are correct here. I believe everyone from the east signed except one bishop. As if it would matter. They attended. They agreed. Then they said they couldn’t really agree without an Eastern Synod.

As we said above not the East, but Constantinopolis. And the one that didn’t sign is St. Mark of Ephesus. But, as we said, other bishops of Constantinopolis didn’t accept it, neither the clergy, nor lay, along with all other sees that either didn’t attend or didn’t sign. So it can’t be Ecumenical - there was the agreement only between Rome and present Constantinopolian bishops save one.

Let’s see the text from the ecumenical councils then. Maybe it’s the “eighth” council of the Orthodox held after Constantinople IV when the Orthodox decided to change their minds again despite the presence of their Patriarchs.

What are you talking about?

Cite me some authority from the Fathers that allows the east to send representatives to a council and then after they agree to certain provisions to make approval of an Eastern Synod a condition of acceptance.

The authority is that the same principle was applied against prior and subsequent robber councils. Rome did apply it, too.

This has all been an interesting aside, but how about you demonstrate that the Catholic’s current understanding of the filioque is heretical. Do you even really believe that is?

I’ve said that. Of coure I believe it. It is under anathemas of:

First and Second Ecumenical - anathema against any alteration of the Creed.
Seventh cannon of Third Ecumenical - to the extent it refers to ethernal double procession - anathema against professing any other Faith.
It’s confirmed by the silver plates engraved with unadultered Creed placed at the graves of Sts Peter and Paul by the Holy Pope Leo III.
It’s confirmed by the council 879-880 and confession of Faith encompanied with that council of the Holy Pope John VIi.

There are other conciliar resolutions afterwards too, but Rome did fall away before them, so it woudln’t be a reasoning to you.

 

[tdgesq]

Presence of legates at the beggining of a council doesn’t equate to their consent. All autocephalies were present at the Second Ecumenical (Constantinopolis I), but legates of Rome only at the beggining. But Rome did apply the resolusions, didn’t object them, while the Council itself was confirmed Ecumenical at the Third Council (Ephesus). That’s what conciliarity is. You are late to complain for about 17 centuries.

Rome only knew of the first four canons of Constantinople I, and it had problems with the third canon all along. I’m not quite sure what you think it was affirming at Ephesus.

But there is no such ambiguity over canon 28 of Chalcedon. The legates objected and the Pope affirmed the council explicitly rejecting canon 28. We are told by the Orthodox that it doesn’t matter. The legates were there and the rest of the council approved, and that is all that is required.

So you see, it isn’t a matter of Rome complaining 17 centuries later. Everybody agreeing apparently isn’t the standard for an ecumenical council, unless of course it comes down to something the East doesn’t like. Then they can agree, but later change their minds and require the ratification of an eastern synod.

As we saw above, no one agreed in Florence except Rome and some bishops of Constantinopolis. Thus, it can’t be Ecumenical.

I will finish addressing this post, but after that I will no longer engage you in debate on the councils. You previously affirmed that legates from Antioch and Alexandria were there, now you deny it.

As we said above not the East, but Constantinopolis. And the one that didn’t sign is St. Mark of Ephesus. But, as we said, other bishops of Constantinopolis didn’t accept it, neither the clergy, nor lay, along with all other sees that either didn’t attend or didn’t sign. So it can’t be Ecumenical - there was the agreement only between Rome and present Constantinopolian bishops save one.

This contradicts what you’ve previously stated about who was present. The only historical evidence provided was by me, and it affirms that all the bishops agreed, excluding one. Then after they agreed they decided to exercise a previously unknown prerogative of requiring an eastern synod to ratify it. I’ve asked you twice where bishops called to council have the right to act in this way. No answer.

I’ve said that. Of coure I believe it. It is under anathemas of:

First and Second Ecumenical - anathema against any alteration of the Creed.
Seventh cannon of Third Ecumenical - to the extent it refers to ethernal double procession - anathema against professing any other Faith.
It’s confirmed by the silver plates engraved with unadultered Creed placed at the graves of Sts Peter and Paul by the Holy Pope Leo III.
It’s confirmed by the council 879-880 and confession of Faith encompanied with that council of the Holy Pope John VIi.

There are other conciliar resolutions afterwards too, but Rome did fall away before them, so it woudln’t be a reasoning to you.

All of this just proves my point. Let’s assume that the first two councils forbid any change to the creed, even by the Pope. That does not make the filioque heretical. Creeds are a statement of the most important points of our faith. It does not contain all of the truths of Christianity. Is it true that the Eucharist is a sacrament of the Church? Does it no longer become true because I add it to the creed? Neither one of those councils declare the filioque to be heretical.

The same goes for the famous silver plates I always hear about. So what? Because “the Eucharist is a sacrament of the Church” isn’t included I guess it must be heretical too.

Finally, the council of 879-880 is not ecumenical. The council ten years prior that your four Patriarchs attended was ecumenical, even though now the Orthodox deny it. Or maybe you are now going to declare 879-880 the “eighth” Orthodox ecumenical council. I have yet to see any compelling evidence that the Pope agreed with the reinstatement of Photius, much less that he condemned the filioque as heretical.

I stand by my statement. Your problem is with Rome including the filioque in its creed, not that the Catholic understanding of the filioque is heretical. If you’ve got some theological basis that it’s a heresy, then come out with it.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Rome only knew of the first four canons of Constantinople I, and it had problems with the third canon all along. I’m not quite sure what you think it was affirming at Ephesus.

But there is no such ambiguity over canon 28 of Chalcedon. The legates objected and the Pope affirmed the council explicitly rejecting canon 28. We are told by the Orthodox that it doesn’t matter. The legates were there and the rest of the council approved, and that is all that is required.

So you see, it isn’t a matter of Rome complaining 17 centuries later. Everybody agreeing apparently isn’t the standard for an ecumenical council, unless of course it comes down to something the East doesn’t like. Then they can agree, but later change their minds and require the ratification of an eastern synod.

I will finish addressing this post, but after that I will no longer engage you in debate on the councils. You previously affirmed that legates from Antioch and Alexandria were there, now you deny it.

This contradicts what you’ve previously stated about who was present. The only historical evidence provided was by me, and it affirms that all the bishops agreed, excluding one. Then after they agreed they decided to exercise a previously unknown prerogative of requiring an eastern synod to ratify it. I’ve asked you twice where bishops called to council have the right to act in this way. No answer.

All of this just proves my point. Let’s assume that the first two councils forbid any change to the creed, even by the Pope. That does not make the filioque heretical. Creeds are a statement of the most important points of our faith. It does not contain all of the truths of Christianity. Is it true that the Eucharist is a sacrament of the Church? Does it no longer become true because I add it to the creed? Neither one of those councils declare the filioque to be heretical.

The same goes for the famous silver plates I always hear about. So what? Because “the Eucharist is a sacrament of the Church” isn’t included I guess it must be heretical too.

Finally, the council of 879-880 is not ecumenical. The council ten years prior that your four Patriarchs attended was ecumenical, even though now the Orthodox deny it. Or maybe you are now going to declare 879-880 the “eighth” Orthodox ecumenical council. I have yet to see any compelling evidence that the Pope agreed with the reinstatement of Photius, much less that he condemned the filioque as heretical.

I stand by my statement. Your problem is with Rome including the filioque in its creed, not that the Catholic understanding of the filioque is heretical. If you’ve got some theological basis that it’s a heresy, then come out with it.

As I posted (and others) on the “Filioque” thread on the Eastern Christian Forum: if you translate the filioque into the original Creed (i.e. the Greek) it results (because of the meaning of ekporeusomai) in heresy according to present day Latin dogma: that the spirit’s source is in the Son as well as the Father.

Again, if it’s not a big deal like Pope Leo III said, drop it.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by tgdesq:

Creeds are a statement of the most important points of our faith. It does not contain all of the truths of Christianity. Is it true that the Eucharist is a sacrament of the Church? Does it no longer become true because I add it to the creed?

Your analogy breaks down in the second half of this quote. The Eucharist, as well as beliefs such as the Immaculate Conception, the Infallibility of the Pope, etc., are not found in the original Nicene Creed. The procession of the Holy Spirit, however, is found there. The filioque is not only added to the Creed but in being attached to an original profession (I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father), qualifies the meaning of the procession of the Holy Spirit. The filioque is an unjust insertion and not merely an additional belief pasted besides the rest, as a kind of appendum that clarifies previous confessions.

Why might I ask did the Nicene Fathers not insert the filioque? I mean, it certainly would appear to have given them an edge on the Arianism they were combating. Also, don’t you find it a bit odd that, in the original Nicene Creed, immediately after mentioning the single procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, the Fathers write, “Who with the Father and Son is worshiped and glorified”?

The Council Fathers knew of the pairing of the Father and Son, but while mentioning the equal worship and glory due to them, they do not assign this dual relationship to the procession of the Holy Spirit.

As a final note, I notice that in Roman Catholicism Creeds are simply seen as a “summary” of basic beliefs, a public profession of beliefs. Yes, as symbols, they are indeed summary of beliefs. But Creeds, especially conciliar ones, are much more than this. They are eminently theological, each word tightly bound with intended meaning. The Council Fathers did not simply sit down one day and make a list of important beliefs and added them one to the next; they carefully worded the Creeds to protect against heterodoxy.

 

[Madaglan]

An addendum of my own: When I mention Nicene Creed, I am referring to the final form–the one adopted in 381 at Constantinople I. It should be evident that I am not against the additions made in 381 to the 325 Nicene Creed. It’s how the additions are made and their relation to previous confessional creeds that is important.

I made a mistake in my last post, referring to the Nicene Fathers, which should really be the Fathers of Constantinople. To be quite honest, I momentarily forgot (which I should have known better) that the procession clause was not added until Constantinople in 381, although the H.S. clause was there in the beginning.

It is true that Nicaea is the Council that is best known for defending against Arianism. Constantinople, however, continued to address the heresy that had already lasted 60 years. This considered, I still think my point makes sense: the formulators of the Creed were very much aware of the theological import of each word they placed in the Creed, and therefore made sure that everything placed within the Creed was correct and a sufficient guard against the heresies of the day.

When one adopts the Creed affirmed by the Church at a Council, one must not only adopt the language but the underlying theology as well.

 

[zerocrossing]

I’m sorry. I thought you actually believed the position you set forth. That is my mistake.

Not a problem.

I
I am not under the illusion that the EO regard the EP like the Pope of Rome. Yet they are in a position where I think they need to call him a heretic because of what he has done.

I was looking at this in a little more detail today. If I understand this correctly, he did not lift the excommunication, but the anathemas. I’m not sure what the difference is. Maybe it just meant a willingness to talk. But lifting the anathemas did not have the effect of restoring communion between East and West.

I’ve never heard this one. Interesting. I’ve never heard anything like this either. Are there Orthodox here who’ve had similar experiences? That makes me look at things a little bit differently. I thought the Byzantine Emperor was present at the council. It seems weird to me that the Orthodox would feel that they were held captive. But maybe there is something to what you say.

You may need to know Greek Orthodox people up close and personal to get this perspective. I’ve been looking for it today in English language written sources. I didn’t find it. It may be an oral history. Or it may be a written history that has not been translated. Or both. I know that I heard it from Greeks - and I mean Greeks from the old country, not Greek-Americans. It was still a very sore point for them.

 

[zerocrossing]

If you’ve got some theological basis that it’s a heresy, then come out with it.

Okay, I think I might be able to point you in a direction or two that will flesh in some detail on EO theological grounds for considering the filioque heretical.

On p. 210-218 of The Orthodox Church (“New Edition”) by Timothy Ware (later Bishop KALLISTOS of Diocletia), the author delineates two modern stances among the Orthodox WRT the filioque: that of the “hawks” and that of the “doves.” The arguments of the “hawks” address the theological grounds on which these EOs consider the filioque heretical. As for “doves,” I have never personally met any, though I would count the author in their number.

Also, the Filioque article in the OrthodoxWiki has some useful information on this topic from the EO perspective… though I’m not sure that it offers any perspectives that have not already been offered in this thread.

I strongly encourage any RC who wants to engage in discussion with EOs to read the Ware book. He’s not anti-Catholic, he’s very knowledgeable in Orthodoxy, and he’s a very good communicator. He can explain how *they *understand the issues that divide us. Most RC authors don’t have much knowledge of how EOs understand the issues, which is why Ware is such a valuable source. My guess is that many of our EO friends would regard him as way too conciliatory.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by zerocrossing:

In addition, EOs regard the Council of Florence as a travesty. They believe that their bishops were, essentially, held captive by duplicitous Rome (again, don’t shoot the messenger) and then starved until they were forced against their will into agreeing to the filioque.

If my memory serves me well, things were bad from the very start, when the Pope demanded that the Orthodox bishops(the Patriarch of Constantinople in particular) kiss his feet. It was a custom that developed in the West but which was entirely appalling to the Eastern bishops, who saw no Apostolic precedent for this ceremony.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by zerocrossing:

Okay, I think I might be able to point you in a direction or two that will flesh in some detail on EO theological grounds for considering the filioque heretical.

On p. 210-218 of The Orthodox Church (“New Edition”) by Timothy Ware (later Bishop KALLISTOS of Diocletia), the author delineates two modern stances among the Orthodox WRT the filioque: that of the “hawks” and that of the “doves.” The arguments of the “hawks” address the theological grounds on which these EOs consider the filioque heretical. As for “doves,” I have never personally met any, though I would count the author in their number.

Of course, you also have to distinguish between the different ways the filioque can be understood. Most Orthodox would reject (I would hope) the notion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as though from a single principle. Fewer Orthodox would reject the notion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (the single principle) and through the Son. Unless I am mistaken, the Council of Florence affirmed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as though from a single principle.

I admittedly haven’t read much on the filioque. I do remember Vladimir Lossky’s work, Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, goes into some explanation as to why the filioque (as understood by most Western Catholics) is wrong. He even suggests that the filioque insertion has an effect on Western ecclesiology and on how the Holy Spirit has more or less been forgotten until recently in Western theology–especially in ecclesiology.

An excellent book that I have not finished but which covers the foundational differences between Eastern and Western ways of thinking and doing theology: Phillip Sherard’s Latin West and Byzantine East. (I’ll double-check to make sure I spelled all of that right). It’s well-written, easy to follow, academic, and the author shows significant understanding of the Thomistic thought that he challenges.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

If my memory serves me well, things were bad from the very start, when the Pope demanded that the Orthodox bishops(the Patriarch of Constantinople in particular) kiss his feet. It was a custom that developed in the West but which was entirely appalling to the Eastern bishops, who saw no Apostolic precedent for this ceremony.

How apropos.

 

[zerocrossing]

I do remember Vladimir Lossky’s work, Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, goes into some explanation as to why the filioque (as understood by most Western Catholics) is wrong. He even suggests that the filioque insertion has an effect on Western ecclesiology and on how the Holy Spirit has more or less been forgotten until recently in Western theology–especially in ecclesiology.

Yes, Lossky does argue a relationship between ecclesiology and the filioque - to the detriment of the filioque and Catholic ecclesiology.

I just found the essay I’ve been looking for on the relationship between the filioque, ecclesiology and papal prerogatives: It’s John Romanides’ Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine. The essay is highly inflammatory, very anti-Catholic, but it certainly gives some insight into the perspective of some of the EO filioque “hawks.” It’s available online at romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.03.htm#s17.

I’m recommending it not because it’s anti-Catholic but because it can offer some insight into the issues at hand - from the more extreme EO stance.

BTW, Romanides uses the term “East Roman.” For those who have never encountered this terminology before, this refers to citizens of the Eastern part of the Roman Empire - i.e. the Byzantines. The Orthodox think of the Roman Empire as falling 1000 years later than Westerners do - i.e., with the Fall of Constantinople. The Byzantine Emperor was considered Emperor of the continuing (i.e. Eastern part of the) Roman Empire. This is an important point in understanding the EO mindset.

An excellent book that I have not finished but which covers the foundational differences between Eastern and Western ways of thinking and doing theology: Phillip Sherard’s Latin West and Byzantine East.

Oh, Sherard has an excellent reputation. But I have not read his work.

 

[tdgesq]

As I posted (and others) on the “Filioque” thread on the Eastern Christian Forum: if you translate the filioque into the original Creed (i.e. the Greek) it results (because of the meaning of ekporeusomai) in heresy according to present day Latin dogma: that the spirit’s source is in the Son as well as the Father.

Again, if it’s not a big deal like Pope Leo III said, drop it.

Yes. I believe that’s true, which is why the Latin Church does not allow that translation to the Greek. It doesn’t believe that the source of the Spirit is the Son.

And again, the Catholic Church dropping it does not solve the problem if the Orthodox really believe that the filioque in itself is heretical. Why? Because it will still be a doctrine of the Catholic Church whether it’s in the creed or not.

 

[Hesychios]

It will come down to whether Rome has the authority to include the filioque in the creed or not.

This is pretty sad…

 

[Hesychios]

…the Catholic Church dropping it does not solve the problem if the Orthodox really believe that the filioque in itself is heretical. Why? Because it will still be a doctrine of the Catholic Church whether it’s in the creed or not.

Doubly sad.

But thanks for admitting something many Roman Catholics have been loathe to admit elsewhere in CAF.

This is why we cannot commune with Roman Catholics, and partly why Eastern Catholics are banned from communion in Orthodox churches: they MUST believe the filioque to remain in their church, even though they are often permitted to recite the Creed without it as some sort of minor concession.

Of course the whole practice is fraudulent, and keeps many Eastern Catholics in a church where they would not wish to be if they understood how this works as well as you do.

 

[Hesychios]

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.

You don’t know this, you are simply kidding yourself.

Try a little more studying from reputable sources.
*
Michael*

 

[Hesychios]

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

I find it amazing that Roman Catholics so often accuse Orthodox of pride.

Simply, simply amazing…

“O strange Orthodox Church, so poor and weak, with neither the organization nor the culture of the West, staying afloat as if by a miracle in the face of so many trials, tribulations and struggles; a Church of contrasts, both so traditional and so free, so archaic and so alive, so ritualist and so personally involved, a Church where the priceless pearl of the Gospel is assiduously preserved, sometimes under a layer of dust; a Church which in shadows and silence maintains above all the eternal values of purity, poverty, asceticism, humility and forgiveness; a Church which has often not known how to act, but which can sing of the joy of Pascha like no other.”
Lev Gillet, p. 129

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Yes. I believe that’s true, which is why the Latin Church does not allow that translation to the Greek. It doesn’t believe that the source of the Spirit is the Son.

And again, the Catholic Church dropping it does not solve the problem if the Orthodox really believe that the filioque in itself is heretical. Why? Because it will still be a doctrine of the Catholic Church whether it’s in the creed or not.

I forgot I’m wasn’t speaking in an Orthodox forum: among the Orthodox, lex orandi crendi, dropping it would also mean dropping the dogma, which is why we find the uniates not using the filioque dishonest.