The Filioque (and the Son)

[Zacharias]

who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Do you believe the Filioque is a Trinitarian heresy.

[gtsecc]

I leave it off, but I don't think it is Heresy.

[PaladinValer]

First off, I'll be blunt: It is not a heresy, period.

But I do believe it to be "misplaced," both in terms of its wording (as it infers a line from Father -> Son -> Holy Spirit instead of Father => Son / Holy Spirit [note the "bi-line"]) and its inclusion in the Creed. No Ecumenical Council included it (as that would have been what it would take to actually add it), so it has no place in the Creed,

[CSMR]

I have no idea. Sounds like a potentially abstruse argument!

[TomUK]

Surely it depends on our definition of heresy. The Oxford English dictionary defines heresy as a,
theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the ‘catholic’ or orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church, or, by extension, to that of any church, creed, or religious system, considered as orthodox. By extension, [heresy is an] opinion or doctrine in philosophy, politics, science, art, etc., at variance with those generally accepted as authoritative."
The filioque has frequently been regarded as heretical by many within the orthodox faith up until the present day. If we are to regard nestorianism as heresy, protected against by the third ecumenical council, then why can't we regard the 'filioque' creed as heresy, also guarded against by the third ecumenical council?

[Bonifatius]

I don't know if the filioque is a heresy, but have some sympathies for omitting it in regard to our Orthodox brothers and sisters whenever possible.

It definitely was not used when the present ABC was installed.

As far as I know the ecumenical working group of Anglicans and Orthodox representatives in their final report recommended to omit the filioque but then it appeared again in Common Worship. Why this - I know not ...

@Father Rick:
In Germany the OCs omit the filioque - how about your OC church?


Greetings
Tom

[Father Rick]

While I would not go as far as calling it heresy, Old Catholics reject the filioque as it was added extra-council.

It definately affects the 'heirarchy' of the Trinity and ultimately one's pneumatology, and eventually one's ecclesiology as well.

[RobNJ]

I don't think it qualifies as a heresy.
Erroneous- yes
Heretical- no

[Wigglesworth]

Can anyone spell the word filioque phonetically? I have no idea how to pronounce it, and it's been bugging me for months.

:scratch:

[gtsecc]

feel-eh-oh-kwe

[ps139]

I say it like this:

fill-ee-oh-kway

LOL, sounds like the name of some summer camp. Camp Fill-ee-oh-kway. Ancient Indian name ^_^

[Matrona]

I say it like this... FILI-NOT-OKAY.

Sorry, Orthodox humor... :) ;)

[Zacharias]

I say it like this... FILI-NOT-OKAY.

Sorry, Orthodox humor... :) ;)

LOL :D

[gtsecc]

I think it might be a great EYC project to have the children go through and white-out the Filioque from all the prayer books.

[Zacharias]

I think it might be a great EYC project to have the children go through and white-out the Filioque from all the prayer books.

You are a genius! ;)

[ps139]

So does anyone (Anglican) here believe its correct, regardless of the fact that it was not added in an ecumenical council?

[Zacharias]

So does anyone (Anglican) here believe its correct, regardless of the fact that it was not added in an ecumenical council? I heard something somewhere about it not being in the upcoming Book of Common Prayer.

[gtsecc]

I heard something somewhere about it not being in the upcoming Book of Common Prayer.I have also heard this.

[Matrona]

I don't think it qualifies as a heresy.
Erroneous- yes
Heretical- no
How do you differentiate between erroneous and heretical? :scratch:

[Zacharias]

The Filioque is a Trinitarian heresy.

heresy

\Her"e*sy\, n.; pl. Heresies. [OE. heresie, eresie, OF. heresie, iresie, F. h['e]r['e]sie, L. haeresis, Gr. ? a taking, a taking for one's self, choosing, a choice, a sect, a heresy, fr. ? to take, choose.]


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

[Michael the Iconographer]

The filioque controversy was started over Baclava! (Sorry, a little Orthodox humor.)

[TomUK]

:D ....






( :scratch: )

[RobNJ]

The filioque controversy was started over Baclava! (Sorry, a little Orthodox humor.)
wasn't that the phyllo-que controversy? ;)

[Polycarp1]

So does anyone (Anglican) here believe its correct, regardless of the fact that it was not added in an ecumenical council?
I confess to being totally frustrated by the underlying theology. The Orthodox are correct in what they say; the (Roman) Catholics are correct in what they say (at least according to the exegesis of it (from the CCC?) that geocajun reproduced a few months ago); and it appears neither is willing to grant any sense of validity to the valid issues of the other side.

Me, I'd drop the entire procession of the Spirit clause from the Creed completely, and let the theologians work out what truths ought to be taught regarding it and how.

[CSMR]

I am as mystified by some of the jokes in this thread as by the filioque controversy itself!
So does anyone (Anglican) here believe its correct, regardless of the fact that it was not added in an ecumenical council?
Well I say the filioque as part of the creed, so, er, I guess I believe it! :scratch:
The Spirit testifies to us of God the Father, and also of Christ - so in that sense proceeds from the Father and the Son?
But also testifies to us of God the father through Christ, since we know God through Christ in the Spirit. So the Spirit proceeds from the father through Christ as the Orthodox say?
Is God Trinity in Himself or in His relation to us?

[ps139]

How do you differentiate between erroneous and heretical? :scratch:Well erroneous means just wrong, but with heresy there is more of an "I'm wrong and I know it!" connotation implied.
The word is thrown around CF with little regard to the actual meaning.

[PaladinValer]

I have learned that the filioque is indeed being dropped in the next edition of the ECUSA's BoCP, although I have lost my source in the meanwhile.

As soon as I find it again, be assured I will give it post-haste.

[AveMaria]

Glad to hear it!

[CSMR]

We remarked on how many in this forum are Anglo-Catholics a week ago. With the deuterocanon poll and now the filioque have all the Anglo-Catholics converted to Anglo-Orthodox?

[Confessing Lutheran]

Hope you don't mind a Lutheran opinion...

I think that saying the Creed without the Filioque opens up the possibility that the Spirit can descend from the Son, while saying the Filioque completely denies the idea that the Spirit does not descend from the Son. Therefore, not saying the Filioque allows more plurality and more possibility for reconcilliation among the traditions.
I also think that the addition of the Filioque by the Council of Toledo was a less than appropriate means to force the Arians to accept the divinity of Christ. The Orthodox, by stressing the personhood of the Virgin as the Theotokos and not only the Christotokos, I believe found the right way to combat heresy- a way that did not go against the ecumenical decision of the Church and was supported by Scripture without question.

[RobNJ]

How do you differentiate between erroneous and heretical? :scratch:
I agree with ps139 that the word heresy is somewhat overused around here (including by me :eek: )

A significant difference of degree:

Erroneous- I personally have no doubt that those who agree with the filioque, and those who reject the filioque are still brothers & sisters in Christ

Heretical- I consider to be a belief, of beliefs that leads someone from the Body of Christ, to a place where their faith is irreconcilable with the Body of Christ.

[PaladinValer]

CSMR, you need to remember your Anglican history...

After the "official split" between the Anglican and Vatican Church, the Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox sought reunification. Although this never did come to pass, they exchanged ideas and influenced each other. It also left each Church with a more positive view of each other, which is why Anglican-EO relations historically have always been more friendly and warm than Anglican-Vatican relations.

As such, Anglo-Catholics should be termed as Anglo-Catholic-Orthodox. And even many broad church Anglicans have just as many EO traits (if not often even more, as I've noticed) as Vatican traits.

[Colabomb]

who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Do you believe the Filioque is a Trinitarian heresy.
I don't believe it is heresy.

I think it was wrong to add to a conciliar creed by non-conciliar action, but I don't think there is any flawed theology.

I say it or omit it depending on the crowd I am in, out of respect. As I believe that The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, I do not have an issue with either version Theologically.

At my Church, they say Filoque, I say Filoque. I visited an Orthodox Church once, and I omitted the Filoque.

[Rising_Suns]

if anyone is interested, here's a short exert from the CCC regarding this....



245 The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381): "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father." 71 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=245&FNoteNum=71) By this confession, the Church recognizes the Father as "the source and origin of the whole divinity". 72 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=245&FNoteNum=72) But the eternal origin of the Spirit is not unconnected with the Son's origin: "The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is God, one and equal with the Father and the Son, of the same substance and also of the same nature. . . Yet he is not called the Spirit of the Father alone,. . . but the Spirit of both the Father and the Son." 73 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=245&FNoteNum=73) The Creed of the Church from the Council of Constantinople confesses: "With the Father and the Son, he is worshipped and glorified." 74 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=245&FNoteNum=74)

246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)". The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration... And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son." 75 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=246&FNoteNum=75)


248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. 77 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=248&FNoteNum=77) The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason", 78 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=248&FNoteNum=78) for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle", 79 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=248&FNoteNum=79) is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. 80 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=248&FNoteNum=80) This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

[Colabomb]

if anyone is interested, here's a short exert from the CCC regarding this....



245 The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381): "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father." 71 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=245&FNoteNum=71) By this confession, the Church recognizes the Father as "the source and origin of the whole divinity". 72 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=245&FNoteNum=72) But the eternal origin of the Spirit is not unconnected with the Son's origin: "The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is God, one and equal with the Father and the Son, of the same substance and also of the same nature. . . Yet he is not called the Spirit of the Father alone,. . . but the Spirit of both the Father and the Son." 73 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=245&FNoteNum=73) The Creed of the Church from the Council of Constantinople confesses: "With the Father and the Son, he is worshipped and glorified." 74 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=245&FNoteNum=74)

246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)". The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration... And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son." 75 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=246&FNoteNum=75)


248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. 77 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=248&FNoteNum=77) The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason", 78 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=248&FNoteNum=78) for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle", 79 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=248&FNoteNum=79) is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. 80 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=248&FNoteNum=80) This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.
Have any of you that say the Filoque, ever ommitted it?

Doesn't it feel like you missed a beat lol?

[Zacharias]

I never say the Filoque. It's:
a taking, a taking for one's self, choosing, a choice, a sect, a heresy.
Whether it's correct or not, it's still a heresy by definition.

[Rising_Suns]

Whether it's correct or not, it's still a heresy by definition.
I found this interesting...

Webster's Dictionary

Main Entry: her·e·sy http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?heresy01.wav=heresy'))
1 a : adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma b : denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church c : an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma
2 a : dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice b : an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards

[Zacharias]

I found this interesting...

Webster's Dictionary

Main Entry: her·e·sy http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?heresy01.wav=heresy'))
1 a : adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma b : denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church c : an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma
2 a : dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice b : an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards

Therefore the Western Church deviated from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice; and adhered to a religious opinion contrary to church. They chose an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards.

[PaladinValer]

Freak, it isn't a heresy. If you want to learn what a heresy is, I suggest getting a theological dictionary instead of using the one you are.

A heresy in Christianity is a belief that is condemned by an Ecumenical Council or has its root based in a judgment of an Ecumenical Council. There has never been an Ecumenical Council about the filioque clause. It is true that adding it without the authorization of an Ecumenical Council did violate canon law, but that doesn't equate it to not having sound theology. It simply means it shouldn't have been added without Council approval.

Rising, although I understand why you are feeling frustrated (no orthodox Christian likes being referred to as a heretic), do understand that this is a congregational forum and that debating the issue is a violation of STR rules.

I will add, however, that I and many other Anglicans and Old Catholics here denounce, due to obvious reason I and others have given, the idea that the filioque clause is heresy. It is truly an overreaction and has no basis in reasonable understanding of theological lingo and, of course, Holy Tradition.

[Zacharias]

Check this out: http://www.stjohndc.org/stjohndc/English/OrthHtrdx/P05.htm

As we remarked at the beginning, Christianity is the religion of the Holy Trinity. And faith in the Holy Trinity has a most immediate bearing on all aspects of our spiritual life. For Christians, the dogma of the Holy Trinity is not only a doctrinal formula, but a living and uninterruptedly developing Christian experience. Every addition or change to the teaching on the Holy Trinity violates the correctness of this cornerstone dogma and changes our faith.

"Such are some of the reasons why Orthodox regard filioque as dangerous and heretical. Filioquism confuses the persons, and destroys the proper balance between unity and diversity in the Godhead. The oneness of the deity is emphasized at the expense of His threeness; God is regarded too much in terms of abstract essence and too little in terms of concrete personality" (The Orthodox Church, page 222).

In the Western Church consciousness, the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Son of God. It is sufficient to leaf through Western theological texts in order to be convinced as to what an insignificant place Catholic theologians allocate to the activity of the Holy Spirit in the world, in the Church and in the life of individual men.

The Filioque places the Holy Spirit in a state of subordination to the Father and the Son, and it distorted the teaching on the Church in the West (of this, we shall speak separately). Every false teaching about the Holy Spirit is a blow against the dogma about the Church. Because the place of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church and in God's plan concerning man was ignored in Western theological thought, the Church gradually began to be accepted as an earthly institution, organized and administered according to the principles of worldly authority and juridical law.

[PaladinValer]

Freak, you need to do some better, wider research. As a holder of a BA in History, I can with expertise tell you that relying on just one source can prove to be disasterous.

And this time, it has.

Strike One: The Eastern Orthodox Church, in a near reunion with the Vatican Catholic Church, agreed to accept the filioque if they (the VC's) dropped the idea of "papacy." The VCs never budged, and the would-have-been Eighth Ecumenical Council never took place.

Why would they do this? Are EOs so stupid and disrespectful to Holy Tradition as to "bargain orthodoxy?" Of course not! So what then of the clause?

Strike Two: In the historical defintione of the words of the filioque clause, it really means "From the Father, through the Sun," which is something that the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn't deny

This is the reason to Strike One. You need to do some major research in linguistics if you want to fully understand and appreciate the Nicene Creed, debate over one clause notwithstanding.

Strike Three: The Vatican Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, etc, Churches "of the West" do not deny a "triangular" view of the Blessed Trinity with the Father on top and the Son and Advocate on the bottom. It is not linar, despite the modern misunderstanding of the literal wording of the clause.

You are out.

[Zacharias]

In the Bible it's always one of the Trinity doing something or three of the Trinity doing something, never two of the Trinity.

[Zacharias]

The 4th Lateran Council, 1215
A definition against the Albigenses and other heretics
The Father is from no one; the Son is from the Father only; and the Holy Spirit is from both the Father and the Son equally.

The 2nd Council of Lyons, 1274
Constitution on the Procession of the Holy Spirit
...we confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one; not by two spirations but by one.

The Council of Florence, 1438-45
Decree for the Jacobites
The Father is not begotten; the Son is begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

The Roman Catechism
(The offical Roman Catholic catechism, 1566-1994)
I.8.6. With regard to the words immediately succeeding: "who proceeds from the Father and the Son," the faithful are to be taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds, by eternal procession, from the Father and the Son as from one principle. This is a truth taught to us by the rule of the Church from which the least departure is unwarrantable on the part of Christians.

First Vatican Council, 1869-1870
Dogmatic Constitution on the Principal Mysteries of the Faith
For from all eternity the Father generates the Son, not in producing by emanation another essence equal to his own, but in communicating his own simple essence. And in like manner, the Holy Spirit proceeds, not by a multiplication of the essence, but he proceeds by a communication of the same singular essence by one eternal spiration from the Father and the Son as from one principle.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
(The offical Roman Catholic catechism since 1994)
246. The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)." The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration . . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."
248. At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father," it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque).

Unfortunately, because of the Latin understanding of the infallibility of the Church, the Vatican is bound by these past statements and cannot now teach otherwise. It probably went as far as it could towards clarifying the Latin teaching when, it issued the extraordinary essay The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Holy Spirit in L'Osservatore Romano (English translation published in English edition of 20 September 1995). This essay admitted the Orthodox understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit was correct, that its interpretation of John 15:26 was correct, and attempted to justify the Filioque in light of these admissions.

What do you have to say about this?

[Zacharias]

John 15:26 "But when the helper comes, whom I shall send from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of me."

However, to be sent is not the same as proceeding from.

[Zacharias]

Strike One: The Eastern Orthodox Church, in a near reunion with the Vatican Catholic Church, agreed to accept the filioque if they (the VC's) dropped the idea of "papacy." The VCs never budged, and the would-have-been Eighth Ecumenical Council never took place.

What year was this?


Strike Two: In the historical defintione of the words of the filioque clause, it really means "From the Father, through the Sun," which is something that the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn't deny

You are wrong about ther Filioque's meaning.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason",78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle",79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

Strike Three: The Vatican Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, etc, Churches "of the West" do not deny a "triangular" view of the Blessed Trinity with the Father on top and the Son and Advocate on the bottom. It is not linar, despite the modern misunderstanding of the literal wording of the clause.

I only said that the Filioque is a heresy.

[ps139]

Strike One: The Eastern Orthodox Church, in a near reunion with the Vatican Catholic Church, agreed to accept the filioque if they (the VC's) dropped the idea of "papacy." The VCs never budged, and the would-have-been Eighth Ecumenical Council never took place. LOL! Sorry as a Catholic this just made me bust out laughing. :D

[RobNJ]

LOL! Sorry as a Catholic this just made me bust out laughing. :D


no apologies necessary! ;)

[PaladinValer]

Freak, you've chosen to ignore the bolded part under "2." Please reread it.

And as for when the would-have-been-reunification, please pick up a book on the religious history of Europe. I'm certain any scholarly book would devote a small part of it to this would-have-been miracle.

[Zacharias]

This is the reason to Strike One. You need to do some major research in linguistics if you want to fully understand and appreciate the Nicene Creed, debate over one clause notwithstanding.


I have, mind you.

[Zacharias]

Freak, you've chosen to ignore the bolded part under "2." Please reread it.

And as for when the would-have-been-reunification, please pick up a book on the religious history of Europe. I'm certain any scholarly book would devote a small part of it to this would-have-been miracle.
Give me the date! An internet link! Something! Maybe refer a book to me!

[Zacharias]

Give me some doctrine. I gave you doctrine. You gave me your own words. I gave you the Vatican Catholic words.


Catechism of the Catholic Church
248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason",78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle",79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.


The 4th Lateran Council, 1215
A definition against the Albigenses and other heretics
The Father is from no one; the Son is from the Father only; and the Holy Spirit is from both the Father and the Son equally.

The 2nd Council of Lyons, 1274
Constitution on the Procession of the Holy Spirit
...we confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one; not by two spirations but by one.

The Council of Florence, 1438-45
Decree for the Jacobites
The Father is not begotten; the Son is begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

The Roman Catechism
(The offical Roman Catholic catechism, 1566-1994)
I.8.6. With regard to the words immediately succeeding: "who proceeds from the Father and the Son," the faithful are to be taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds, by eternal procession, from the Father and the Son as from one principle. This is a truth taught to us by the rule of the Church from which the least departure is unwarrantable on the part of Christians.

First Vatican Council, 1869-1870
Dogmatic Constitution on the Principal Mysteries of the Faith
For from all eternity the Father generates the Son, not in producing by emanation another essence equal to his own, but in communicating his own simple essence. And in like manner, the Holy Spirit proceeds, not by a multiplication of the essence, but he proceeds by a communication of the same singular essence by one eternal spiration from the Father and the Son as from one principle.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
(The offical Roman Catholic catechism since 1994)
246. The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)." The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration . . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."
248. At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father," it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque).

John 15:26 "But when the helper comes, whom I shall send from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of me."


You give me doctrinal proof that the Filioque is correct!

[julian the apostate]

freak, so you are saying that your own communion is in apostacy?

so only the orthodox are not in apostacy?

oh my

from your communions website:
The ICCEC has provisionally adopted the Book of Common Prayer (1979) as our standard of worship for capturing and retaining these ancient patterns enjoyed by the Church universal both in heaven and on earth.

that would include the creed you consider heresy
please inform your priest

[Zacharias]

And as for when the would-have-been-reunification, please pick up a book on the religious history of Europe. I'm certain any scholarly book would devote a small part of it to this would-have-been miracle.

Could be refering to this?

There were two rounds of pseudo-councils in the 13th (at Lyons) and 15th (at Florence) centuries. Both occurred after extensive weakening of Byzantium, both from the destruction and desecration of the fourth crusade and the increasing incursion of the Seljuk Turks. Concessions were made by some Orthodox leaders, but these were flatly rejected by the Orthodox laity and the prelates who refused to budge like St. Mark of Ephesus (one of the three latter pillars of Orthodoxy).

[Zacharias]

freak, so you are saying that your own communion is in apostacy?

so only the orthodox are not in apostacy?

oh my

from your communions website:
The ICCEC has provisionally adopted the Book of Common Prayer (1979) as our standard of worship for capturing and retaining these ancient patterns enjoyed by the Church universal both in heaven and on earth.

that would include the creed you consider heresy
please inform your priest

My priest says that we don't have to say the Filioque if we don't want to. In the upcoming Book of Common Prayer the Filioque is omitted.

P.S. We are in the process of writing our own Book of Common Prayer.

[Zacharias]

We will start with number two first: In Greek, the word "proceed" is ekporefetai. In Latin, the word is procedere. While the Latin word simply means "to go forth, to yield forth," the Greek word refers to a very specific procession from within a well-defined, enclosed area. Thus, the word ekporefetai can be used to refer to troops marching out from within their fortified walls, but not to troops simply marching forward. The Latin word is more vague, and could be used for both. The confusion, therefore, is this: The Patristic consensus is that the Spirit is completely, hypostatically derived (that is, His Person is produced) from the Father alone. This can be found in the Western Fathers as well, when their expressions are carefully studied. However, the Spirit is called in the Scriptures and in the Fathers the Spirit "of the Father and of the Son." Also, there is a unanimous Western Patristic consensus that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. I will demonstrate that the Western Father mean the Filioque in exactly the same sense as the Eastern Fathers say the Spirit proceeds "through" the Son.

Basically, the Western Fathers do give a procession of the Spirit from the Son - but not an hypostatically derivative procession (that is, the Spirit does not derive His "person," or hypostasis, from the Son, but from the Father alone). Rather, they teach that the Son breathes forth the Spirit because He has inherited from the Father all that He is by nature of being begotten as His Son. Thus, the Son breathes forth the Spirit because He inherits this from His being begotten by the Father, Who breathes forth the Spirit. However, even the Western Fathers confess two things: that the Father breathes forth the Spirit, already complete and hypostatically derived, from Himself without reference to the Son, AND that the Spirit proceeds "principally" from the Father, and only "secondarily" from the Son.

As taken from: http://www.livejournal.com/users/celticorthodox/3648.html

[PaladinValer]

Freak, you don't seem to understand.

The reason why the filioque is debated isn't because so much theology but because it wasn't agreed or even disagreed upon within an Ecumenical Council.

That's the main jist of it.

[Zacharias]

Finally, the last part: the West originally, obviously, held to this Orthodox interpretation of the Filioque. The Filioque was first added to the Creed by the Council of Toledo in 675 (adding ANYTHING to the Creed was forbidden by all the Ecumenical Councils - so, they did wrong to add this to the Creed, even though they interpreted it correctly). The Filioque is expressed in the Athanasian Creed as well, without incident. Yet this doctrine would be "developed" in the Carolingian school of theologians, especially by Alcuin of York. Pope St. Leo III, who crowned Charlemagne, took issue with the innovations of Charlemagne's court, and discouraged their addition of the Filioque to the Nicene creed and also disputed their novel interpretation. Charlemagne's theology and policies, however, made their way into Germanic theological schools, and from thence into the Papacy (when German Emperor Otto III emerged victorious over the Italian powers and reserved the right to install the Pope himself). The novel, heterodox Western interpretation of the Filioque was fully articulated at the Council of Florence, in which an attempt at reunion was made between between East and West. The Roman Catholic teaching is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son "as from one principle." That is, the Holy Spirit cannot be said to proceed from One without reference to the Other, but can only be conceived of as proceeding from them both simultaneously as from one principle in one spiration. For the Orthodox Fathers of both East and West, this teaching would be unacceptable. I think that the confusion comes from not clearly distinguishing between "ontological" simultaneity and "temporal" simultaneity. Just because there is no time in the Godhead, that does not mean that the procession of the Spirit from Father and Son is from both as from one principle in terms of Ontology. Indeed, the very fact that the Son is Ontologically dependent upon the Father reveals this. It also contradicts the Western Fathers who said that the Spirit proceeds PRINCIPALLY from the Father and SECONDARILY from the Son. Obviously, He does not proceed from them as from One Source and in One Spiration from One Principle. He proceeds principally from the Father, already hypostatically complete, and secondarily proceeds from the Son through the gift of the Father. To say that the Son is in the Father does not mean that one can say the procession of the Spirit is from them both as from one principle; indeed, the subjection of the SOn to the Father and His reception of the spiration of the SPirit from the Father necessitates two sources/principles, not one. Once again - distinguish between temporal and ontological precedence. Because the later, Western Christians introduced this novel teaching, the East cannot have communion with them.

As taken from: http://www.livejournal.com/users/ce...hodox/3648.html

[Zacharias]

Words in red I added.

Strike One: The Eastern Orthodox Church, in a near reunion with the Vatican Catholic Church, agreed to accept the ekporefetai if they (the VC's) dropped the idea of "papacy." The VCs never budged, and the would-have-been Eighth Ecumenical Council never took place.
I'm not sure, but this might have some truth in it.

Strike Two: In the historical defintione of the words of the ekporefetai clause, it really means "From the Father, through the Sun," which is something that the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn't deny.
I think that this is correct.

However the Filioque is heresy.

[Brian Augustyn]

We are in the process of writing our own Book of Common Prayer.

Seriously?

Wouldn't a customized version of the prayer book be rather against the idea of the idea of the COMMON prayer that unifies us?

Wouldn't that make your church a communion of one?

Brian

[Zacharias]

Seriously?

Wouldn't a customized version of the prayer book be rather against the idea of the idea of the COMMON prayer that unifies us?

Wouldn't that make your church a communion of one?

Brian

We have CEC collects that need to be added. One in particular is the CEC Foundation Day collect. Maybe have Rite One made into modern day English.

[Colabomb]

We have CEC collects that need to be added. One in particular is the CEC Foundation Day collect. Maybe have Rite One made into modern day English.Think of it this way.

If the Son, is sending the Holy Spirit from the Father, than The Holy Spirit is still proceeding from the Son in a way. Christ says, "I will send you" (not exact quote) whether or not it is in the same way as the Father, The Holy Spirit does proceed from the Son.

I agree, the Filioque should not have been added without conciliar action. But in reality, when it comes down to it, how does this effect the Gospel of Christ?

The Holy Spirit still comes, the Holy Spirit still indwells Christians. We are still washed clean by the Blood of Christ, We are still a new Creation.

Whether He proceeds from the Father alone, or from the Father and the Son, I don't see how this effects anything.

The Bible says that The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and it doesn't say that He doesn't proceed from the Son. Should this be as divisive as some make it?

[Zacharias]

Think of it this way.

If the Son, is sending the Holy Spirit from the Father, than The Holy Spirit is still proceeding from the Son in a way. Christ says, "I will send you" (not exact quote) whether or not it is in the same way as the Father, The Holy Spirit does proceed from the Son.

I agree, the Filioque should not have been added without conciliar action. But in reality, when it comes down to it, how does this effect the Gospel of Christ?

The Holy Spirit still comes, the Holy Spirit still indwells Christians. We are still washed clean by the Blood of Christ, We are still a new Creation.

Whether He proceeds from the Father alone, or from the Father and the Son, I don't see how this effects anything.

The Bible says that The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and it doesn't say that He doesn't proceed from the Son. Should this be as divisive as some make it?

Filioque: The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Father and the Son are sending the Holy Spirit. That is not correct.
Ekporefetai: The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. This is correct. The Father sent the Holy Spirit through the Son. The Holy Spirit doesn't proceed from the both of them.

The Roman Catholic teaching is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son "as from one principle." That is, the Holy Spirit cannot be said to proceed from One without reference to the Other, but can only be conceived of as proceeding from them both simultaneously as from one principle in one spiration.

The Holy Spirit still comes, the Holy Spirit still indwells Christians. We are still washed clean by the Blood of Christ, We are still a new Creation.

:amen:

[Zacharias]

P.S. Proceed and Sent are two different words. God sent lots of prophets, however they didn't proceed from God.

[Colabomb]

P.S. Proceed and Sent are two different words. God sent lots of prophets, however they didn't proceed from God.
Is anyone prideful enough to say that they fully understand the nature of God?

Paul said we see things through a dark glass, dimly.

(A side note, there are sayings of Church fathers that point to "and the Son" long before filioque was added.)

Remember, we are trying to discuss infinite things, with a finite mind and language.

No one can understand God, at least on this earth.

[Zacharias]

Is anyone prideful enough to say that they fully understand the nature of God?

That's why we shouldn't say the Filioque. We shouldn't say that we believe something that we aren't sure of it's meaniing.

[Zacharias]

Ekporefetai is something that sayings of Church fathers that point to, not Filioque.

[Zacharias]

The Orthodox Church
by Timothy Ware

ISBN 0-14-014656-3


It was not until 850 that the Greeks paid much attention to the Filioque, but once the did so, their reaction was sharply critical. The Orthodox objected (and still object) to this addition to the Creed, for two reasons.

First, the Creed is common possesion of the whole Church, and if any change is to be made in it, this can only be done by an Ecumenical Council. The west, in altering the Creed without consulting the east, is guilty (as Khomiakov put it) of moral fratricide, of a sin against the unity of the Church.

In the second place, most Orthodox believe the Filioque to be theologically untrue. They hold that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and consider it a heresy to say that He proceeds from the Son as well.

Page 51

[Zacharias]

Strike One: The Eastern Orthodox Church, in a near reunion with the Vatican Catholic Church, agreed to accept the filioque if they (the VC's) dropped the idea of "papacy." The VCs never budged, and the would-have-been Eighth Ecumenical Council never took place.

Why would they do this? Are EOs so stupid and disrespectful to Holy Tradition as to "bargain orthodoxy?" Of course not! So what then of the clause?
Here's the truth:

The Orthodox Church
by Timothy Ware

ISBN 0-14-014656-3


The moving spirit behind the first attempt was Michael VIII (reigned 1259-82), the Emperor who recovered Constantinople. While doubtless sincerely desiring Christian unity on religious grounds, his motive was political: threatened by attacks from Charles of Anjou, sovereign of Sicily, He desperately needed support and protection of the Papacy, which could be secured through a union of the Churches. A reunion council was held at Lyons 1274. The Orthodox delegates who attended agreed to reconize Papal claims to recite the Creed with the Filioque. But the union proved no more than an agreement on paper, since it was fiercely rejected by the overwhelming majority of clergy and laity in the Byzantine Church, as well as well as by Bulgaria and other Orthodox countries.

Page 61-62