Filioque

[WarriorAngel]

Ok, I am going to break out the tough questions now....:wave:

Because I want more discussions and understandings for our sakes.

St Maximus was the Eastern Saint who stood behind the Filioque.

Here's an article. He didn't propose it, but he did defend its inclusion in the Latin creed as orthodox:

Click to link (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a52.htm)

Moreover, Maximus the Confessor defends Pope Martin's teaching on the Filioque and answers the very objections of the Greeks, objections which the Orthodox still hold on to. Maximus's response:
"Those of the Queen of cities (Constantinople) have attacked the synodic letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology (of the Trinity) and, according to them, says: 'The Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis (ekporeuesthai) from the Son'. The other deals with the divine incarnation. "With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause (aitian) of the Spirit - they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by ekporeusis (procession) - but that they have manifested the procession through him (to dia autou proienai) and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence... "They (the Romans) have therefore been accused of precisely those things which it would be wrong to accuse them, whereas the former (the Byzantines) have been accused of those things of which it has been quite correct to accuse them (Monothelitism). They have up till now produced no defence, although they have not yet rejected the things that they have themselves so wrongly introduced. "In accordance with your request, I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them [the 'also from the son'] in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending [the synodic letter] has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to do this. It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot. In any case, having been accused, they will certainly take some care about this."
Maximus, himself, believed that the Spirit proceeded from the Father 'dia mesou tou Logou', (by means of the Logos). The Spirit proceeded, in his view ineffably from the Father and consubstantially through the Son.


I want to break down walls....
And I want more folks to understand that we are NOT as different as proposed.

[Colabomb]

Thank you sister for trying to unify us. Believe it or not we share the same goal.

I personally Say the Filioque because The western Church always has. I probably should give it more of a look.

I never fully understood the Orthodox position on why it should not be included, other than the fact it was added without the consent of an Ecumenical Council.

[WarriorAngel]

I think that was the point, Calabomb...it was not determined by the whole Church, so instead of calling a council to discuss it, I think things went awry.

I do not blame the East for feeling remiss, but I believe now is a time to talk about it in our generation.

[Mary of Bethany]

Because we believe Scripture shows that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, perhaps *through* the Son, but not *from* the Son.

Just as the Son is eternally Begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit eternally Proceeds from the Father. Christ can send the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father. That is the Orthodox understanding.

Mary

[WarriorAngel]

Because we believe Scripture shows that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, perhaps *through* the Son, but not *from* the Son.

Just as the Son is eternally Begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit eternally Proceeds from the Father. Christ can send the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father. That is the Orthodox understanding.

Mary

The Latin Church sees it differently through scriptures, but we do not impose this on the Eastern Churches of the Catholic Church.

Link for the below quote (http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/history/creed.filioque.txt)

However, for the Latin's defense...aside the defense given by St Maximus;
The Scriptures also say (John 20:212f RSV):

+ Jesus said to them again, "Peace be unto you.
+ As the Father has sent me, even so send I you."
+ And when he had said this, HE breathed on them
+ and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit."

We read in Matthew of one angel at the tomb on Easter Day, and this
does not contradict Luke's statement that there were two angels. We
read in Mark 10 and Luke 18 of a blind beggar healed by Jesus on the
outskirts of Jericho, and this does not contradict the statement in
Matthew that there were two blind beggars healed. Similarly, it is
clear that the saying of Jesus, that the Spirit proceeds from the
Father, does not contradict the statement that the Spirit proceeds
also from the Son.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Those heresies which compelled us to include "and the Son" are no longer active in the Church Catholic, I assume. Is there any present reason we have to retain it?

[WarriorAngel]

Those heresies which compelled us to include "and the Son" are no longer active in the Church Catholic, I assume. Is there any present reason we have to retain it?

IS there any reason why the Latin Church cannot obtain it?
It is not false, and has been defended in Tradition.

AS long as it is not imposed on the other Rites, I do not see the necessity of removing it. IMO.
It is based on scriptures and it is not heretical.

It might bring back more heresies if it is removed,,,,saying the Latin Church removed it therefore...Arian 'such and such' is probably correct ...
At this point is more prudent to keep it.

BUT IMO...the whole Church should come to a concensus regarding their own Rites choice not to use it. But opening the discussion first to make that understood.

I know the Latin Rite has never imposed it.

[xristos.anesti]

The ecumenical Creed of the Church should be changed by the body that established it - that body was not the Pope of Rome nor the Western part of the Church - thus, acting in this way (addition of the words into the Holy Creed) is an "acatholic", contracatholic action and was not, is not and will not be accepted.

Catholic - gr. καθολικός (according to the WHOLE).

Many years.

[EmperorConstantine]

There are some Orthodox who see the Filioque as a theologically valid statement.

However, the main issue is that it was added without the approval of an Ecumenical Council. So even the few Orthodox that see it as an okay statement still won't use it because no Council ok'd it.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

IS there any reason why the Latin Church cannot obtain it?
It is not false, and has been defended in Tradition.

AS long as it is not imposed on the other Rites, I do not see the necessity of removing it. IMO.
It is based on scriptures and it is not heretical.

It might bring back more heresies if it is removed,,,,saying the Latin Church removed it therefore...Arian 'such and such' is probably correct ...
At this point is more prudent to keep it.

BUT IMO...the whole Church should come to a concensus regarding their own Rites choice not to use it. But opening the discussion first to make that understood.

I know the Latin Rite has never imposed it.
We haven't updated the Nicene Creed to deal with the hundreds of thousands of Protestant heresies, or to rule out those bothersome once-saved-always-savedisms. I don't think removing the filioque would have any substantial impact on the faith of the Church. I would even see it as prudent given our desire for union with the Eastern Churches, but that's just my opinion.

The Orthodox consider the verse you sited earlier in this thread to mean that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father alone through the Son when He breathed on the apostles. I don't think we would claim there is anything erroneous with that interpretation, would we? In that case, I just can't see how relevant the filioque really is, except to cause contention.

[WarriorAngel]

The ecumenical Creed of the Church should be changed (if there is a need to do so) by the body that established it - that body was not Pope of Rome nor the Western part of the Church - thus, acting in this way (addition of the words into the Holy Creed) is an "acatholic", contracatholic action.

Catholic - kataholos from gr. καθολικός(according to the WHOLE).

There are some Orthodox who see the Filioque as a theologically valid statement.

However, the main issue is that it was added without the approval of an Ecumenical Council. So even the few Orthodox that see it as an okay statement still won't use it because no Council ok'd it.

I realise the concern is the Whole Church being a party to this, and I agree.
I feel that a Council now could open up alot of discussion that would help in a reunification.

I also believe that the choice to accept or deny the Filioque according to that Council should be part of it.
But I would want to see it occur....a Council.

I see both sides... and I am under the impression that a Reunification could occur by a Council. I am biased to using it however. Because my understanding of what it is, doesn't contradict the first Council.




We haven't updated the Nicene Creed to deal with the hundreds of thousands of Protestant heresies, or to rule out those bothersome once-saved-always-savedisms. I don't think removing the filioque would have any substantial impact on the faith of the Church. I would even see it as prudent given our desire for union with the Eastern Churches, but that's just my opinion.

The Orthodox consider the verse you sited earlier in this thread to mean that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father alone through the Son when He breathed on the apostles. I don't think we would claim there is anything erroneous with that interpretation, would we? In that case, I just can't see how relevant the filioque really is, except to cause contention.

The verse could be clarified by a New Church Council...

As to why it neither denies the First Council the Creed was hammered out... but how the need arose to clarify the Churches position in placement of it.

Again, the Latin Rite does not impose this on the Eastern Catholics, so it would not impose this on the EO UNLESS they found it fully acceptable to do so, as per their choice.

[NewToLife]

I think there is a catch 22 in the idea of addressing the filioque through a Church council and that is that at present we are not one church with Rome. How can a Church council be held with those who from our point of view are out of communion with the Church?

This means that we would need to resolve our differences before the council, one of those differences is of course the filioque.

On a personal level I agree with St Maximus that the filioque can be interpreted in an acceptable way but I'd still object to the filioque on the basis that it is so poorly worded as to be highly likely to be misread anyway.

[WarriorAngel]

'through the Son'...

[WarriorAngel]

Although...

We believe (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) (I believe (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm)) in one God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), the Father Almighty (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm), maker of heaven (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm) and earth, and of all things visible and invisible (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm). And in one Lord Jesus Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), the only begotten Son of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm), and born of the Father before all ages. (God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm)) light of light, true God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) of true God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm). Begotten not made (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04470a.htm), consubstantial (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07449a.htm) to the Father, by whom all things were made (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04470a.htm). Who for us men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) and for our salvation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm) came down from heaven (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm). And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm) and of the Virgin Mary (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm) and was made man (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm); was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12083c.htm), suffered and was buried (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03071a.htm); and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13635b.htm). And ascended into heaven (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01767a.htm), sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06585a.htm) to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm)) in the Holy Ghost (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm), the Lord and Giver of life (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01148a.htm), who proceeds from the Father (and the Son (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm)), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01151a.htm) and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12477a.htm). And one holy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07386a.htm), catholic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm), and apostolic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01648b.htm) Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm). We confess (I confess) one baptism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) for the remission of sins (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm). And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12792a.htm) and the life of the world to come (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm). Amen (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01407b.htm)." Thinking about it..if it becomes 'through' the Son it eliminates evidence of the Trinity, because even JW's and what not and those cropping up henceforth...admit all things are done through the Son, but deny His Divinity.

'And' the SOn means the Three are One.

Unless anyone can see another term..or maybe lengthen it to say..

'Proceeds from God the Father, Through God the Son...'

[Mary of Bethany]

Best to just leave it at "proceeds from the Father" . . .

that says all that needs to be said, imo.



Mary

[zhilan]

A Western council (I am forgetting which one it was but I can find it later) anathamized those who don't say the filioque ...... and those who alter the Creed.

[zhilan]

Again, the Latin Rite does not impose this on the Eastern Catholics, so it would not impose this on the EO UNLESS they found it fully acceptable to do so, as per their choice.

China doesn't impose Communism on Hong Kong, so it will not impose it on Taiwan, UNLESS they want it. Why won't those silly Taiwanese just REALIZE the obvious fact that they are Chinese and just COME HOME TO MOTHER CHINA?!?!?!!?!

[WarriorAngel]

I dont see comparing eggs to crocodiles working...so why bother?

Adding a truth in among truth is not evil.

From the Father.... excludes the Son, when in fact scriptures show us the Spirit came from Jesus when He breathed on them.

So Through the Son is evident...yet leaving it as nothing about the Son, leads to heresies. AS was seen.

Furthermore we are told when we do anything, in giving thanks and in all things, we must do so through the Son.
SO the Spirit would not come from the Father to us if it were not for the Son, Who died for our sins...

That doesnt make the Council erroneous, just that they didnt see the heresies coming.

Once they came, like in all times, they cannot be allowed to spread their errors.

The Church must defend the Truth always.

[InnerPhyre]

At this point, the Filioque is the least of the problems that separate us. We will not add it to the Creed by council simply because there is no reason for us to do so, other than to seek unity with Rome. That's not a valid reason to change the creed. First Rome should remove it, as it is unnecessary, and poorly worded, and was added without a valid council.

[Fish and Bread]

China doesn't impose Communism on Hong Kong, so it will not impose it on Taiwan, UNLESS they want it. Why won't those silly Taiwanese just REALIZE the obvious fact that they are Chinese and just COME HOME TO MOTHER CHINA?!?!?!!?!

There are many in Hong Kong who have concerns about the way the island has been administrated since the handover. It is true that there has granted an unprecedented level of provincial autonomy and personal freedom relative to the rest of China, but it is still less than what is present in some other parts of the world. Many officeholders are unelected (appointed by Beijing) and so forth.

I haven't really researched the extent of what's going on there, but I know there have been a lot of pro-democracy demonstrated prompted by a perceived lack of democracy and personal freedom. On the other hand, the demonstrators were allowed to demonstrate and not thrown in jail or run over by tanks, so one has to give the Chinese government some credit -- the worst fears of democracy and human rights advocates have not been realized. It is freer in Hong Kong than Beijing, at least.

Still, overall, I support Taiwan's continued independence. I wouldn't want to live under the mainland Chinese's government. Remember, too, that Taiwan is the direct successor to the nationalist Chinese government and does not claim to be anything but Chinese. In some senses they claim to be the real China (However odd that might seem given the geography of the situation).

What part of China do you live in? Maybe you can fill us in on how things have been going lately. I can't claim to follow the region nearly as closely as I should.

[EDIT: Oops. *blush*. I just realized the analogy you were making and that your original post was probably mostly sarcasm. I'm sorry, I have Asperger's Syndrome and thus very slow to pick up on sarcasm at times. Better than many with my condition, though! At least I figured it out eventually. :)]

[Mary of Bethany]

:)

Don't feel bad - it was an interesting post. ;)

I think Zhilan is somewhere on the West Coast of the U.S.

Mary

[xristos.anesti]

Ok, I am going to break out the tough questions now....:wave:

Because I want more discussions and understandings for our sakes.

St Maximus was the Eastern Saint who stood behind the Filioque.

Here's an article. He didn't propose it, but he did defend its inclusion in the Latin creed as orthodox:

Click to link (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a52.htm)



I want to break down walls....
And I want more folks to understand that we are NOT as different as proposed.



I can hardly believe that St. Maximus taught the Filioque or at least taught the very same thing that Latins have taught.

As far as the linked text is concerned - we need to understand that:

The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity document, The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity, clearly explains why the Latin-Greek communication was not working. Processio and ekporeusis did not mean the same thing. Processio is a general term in Latin theology, whereas ekporeusis refers to a specific kind of relationship in Greek theology. To people natively fluent in one language but not the other, this would not be readily apparent. St. Maximos understood that problem.

Coming from this - this apologetic page (as per the OP link) is highly biased, unfair and in the extreme - false and bordering on twisting of the facts/lies.

For us to discuss issue - we need to observe it as IT IS.

Filioque is the reaction of the Church of the West to a Western (local) heresy. It is an insert into Ecumenical Creed. It is not a theology of the East... etc.

If the Patriarch of Constantinople inserted into the creed something about iconoclasts - the West would have gone crazy - so, let us be fair and not try to teach the other side how they suddenly believe in things because some Apolonio the Latin Apologist says so.



St. Maximus DID NOT believe into procession of the Holy Spirit OF THE FATHER AND OF THE SON!

He may have taught the procession of the Holy Spirit OF THE FATHER AND THROUGH THE SON.

These two are not the same and further, the second one was always the position of the Eastern Church - so in reality he (St. Maximus) did not teach anything new.



Many years.

[WarriorAngel]

At this point, the Filioque is the least of the problems that separate us. We will not add it to the Creed by council simply because there is no reason for us to do so, other than to seek unity with Rome. That's not a valid reason to change the creed. First Rome should remove it, as it is unnecessary, and poorly worded, and was added without a valid council.

It's a matter of opinion. I find it fulfilling and honest towards the Trinity.

And I believe the East will have it there way, and I do NOT insult them for that.

But let the West have it her way...and don't mind it. :)

[Mysterium_Fidei]

The Orthodox have a completely, and I mean completely different understanding of Apostolic Succession we do. Thats very significant to dialog, I would think. Way more so than the filioque. What do you think?

[WarriorAngel]

I would like to break down each issue and discuss them.

[zhilan]

There are many in Hong Kong who have concerns about the way the island has been administrated since the handover. It is true that there has granted an unprecedented level of provincial autonomy and personal freedom relative to the rest of China, but it is still less than what is present in some other parts of the world. Many officeholders are unelected (appointed by Beijing) and so forth.

I haven't really researched the extent of what's going on there, but I know there have been a lot of pro-democracy demonstrated prompted by a perceived lack of democracy and personal freedom. On the other hand, the demonstrators were allowed to demonstrate and not thrown in jail or run over by tanks, so one has to give the Chinese government some credit -- the worst fears of democracy and human rights advocates have not been realized. It is freer in Hong Kong than Beijing, at least.

Still, overall, I support Taiwan's continued independence. I wouldn't want to live under the mainland Chinese's government. Remember, too, that Taiwan is the direct successor to the nationalist Chinese government and does not claim to be anything but Chinese. In some senses they claim to be the real China (However odd that might seem given the geography of the situation).

What part of China do you live in? Maybe you can fill us in on how things have been going lately. I can't claim to follow the region nearly as closely as I should.

[EDIT: Oops. *blush*. I just realized the analogy you were making and that your original post was probably mostly sarcasm. I'm sorry, I have Asperger's Syndrome and thus very slow to pick up on sarcasm at times. Better than many with my condition, though! At least I figured it out eventually. :)]
Yes, I was being sarcastic and using an analogy (and I certainly don't think Taiwan should come back to China), but don't feel bad. =)

And I live in China for a while, so if you are ever interested in know how things are feel free to PM me and we can talk. =)

[EmperorConstantine]

One thing that would have to happen is Orthodox and Roman Catholics would have to figure out what the other means.

Me personally, I think for reunification to happen, Rome would have to become Orthodox.

[zhilan]

It's a matter of opinion. I find it fulfilling and honest towards the Trinity.

And I believe the East will have it there way, and I do NOT insult them for that.

But let the West have it her way...and don't mind it. :)
I'm surprised to see someone who claims to be a traditional Catholic would say that theology over the nature of Christ is a matter of opinion. Are other Church teaches a matter of opinion as well?

[EmperorConstantine]

What is interesting to note, is that the Filioque did not come from Rome. It came from a council in Toledo where Spanish King Alfonso (I believe it was him) said "We are to teach that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son" and he did this in order to combat Arianism in the area.

Unfortunately, the use spread over to Rome where it was then declared "official" when various papal scholarly and theologian sorts could find enough, dare I say, sufficient evidence.

[InnerPhyre]

It's a matter of opinion. I find it fulfilling and honest towards the Trinity.

And I believe the East will have it there way, and I do NOT insult them for that.

But let the West have it her way...and don't mind it. :)
We can't do that because that would not lead to unity. That would lead to sweeping major issues under the rug so that we can have a false communion together.

[Mary of Bethany]

What is interesting to note, is that the Filioque did not come from Rome. It came from a council in Toledo where Spanish King Alfonso (I believe it was him) said "We are to teach that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son" and he did this in order to combat Arianism in the area.

Unfortunately, the use spread over to Rome where it was then declared "official" when various papal scholarly and theologian sorts could find enough, dare I say, sufficient evidence.

Didn't the Pope at the time the filioque first started spreading, have the Creed *without the filioque* chiseled into something in St. Peter's or the Vatican, to make a point?

Mary

[EmperorConstantine]

I'm not sure. Maybe one of our Roman counterparts could answer.

[Mary of Bethany]

Here we go. From orthodoxwiki:


Charlemagne called for a council at Aix-la-Chapelle in 809 at which Pope Leo III (http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Leo_III_of_Rome&action=edit) forbade the use of the filioque clause and ordered that the original version of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Nicene-Constantinopolitan_Creed) be engraved on silver tablets displayed at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome so that his conclusion would not be overturned in the future.


Mary

[zhilan]

Yes he did to that. It was only after he was greatly pressured by Charlemagne that the Pope allowed the filioque in.

I've never heard a good Catholic response as to why, if it is so allowable Pope Leo III took such drastic measures.

[EmperorConstantine]

Yes he did to that. It was only after he was greatly pressured by Charlemagne that the Pope allowed the filioque in.

I've never heard a good Catholic response as to why, if it is so allowable Pope Leo III took such drastic measures.
It was probably part of the Carolingian Reforms as set by Charlemagne. These Reforms did a lot to damage East-West relations.

[Macarius]

I have four difficulties with the filioque.

1) It wasn't part of the Nicene-Constantinoplean creed, yet one of the accusations leveled at the East as part of Rome's reason to anathematize us was that we "removed" it from the creed. Rome, after Florence, stopped trying to impose the doctrine, but for four hundred years we were thought to be heretics because we had removed the filioque - that erroneous accusation needs to be owned up to and corrected. Florence went a long way towards that. Why was it important to word it that way? Because heresy always involved changing doctrine in some way - we couldn't be accused of schism or heresy if we hadn't changed something we were doing / saying.

2) The filioque is a pawn of the larger debate around papal supremacy within the Church. The German Emperor wanted to have the Pope in charge of the Church for the same reasons the Byzantine Emperor wanted Constaninople to have greater authority - to use as pawns for unifying their empire and consolodating power. This corruption not withstanding, there were two occasions when the filioque came up during the power struggles between East and West in the later half of the first millenium: the Photian Schism and the Great Schism. In both cases, the filioque was (abused) used as a bargaining chip - not treated properly as a doctrine but used as a way to display the power of either council or pope. In the case of the Photian schism, council won out, in the case of the Great Schism no council was called and the churches split. The Pope's used the filioque as a battlefield on which to show that they had supreme power because they could, without consulting other bishops, change the central statement of faith for the entire church. That was the real issue - and so I refuse the filioque because I refuse that understanding of the papacy. To allow the filioque would be to allow that belief, and I consider it an innovation. That's a separate topic, but it's among the reasons for my resistance to the filioque.

3) The filioque was declared as wrong by the "8th" ecumenical council of 879 (I believe) that ended the Photian schism. It was part of the deal brokered between East and West to end the schism, as by that time both sides were tired of it. Pope Nichoals I, who had pressed the papal supremacy issue in a way prior popes had not, was dead and his replacement was far more interested in unity than power. The (small) anti-photian council was overturned by a (massive) council of nearly 400 bishops, with legates or bishops from all 5 patriarchates present. This council, along with restoring Photius to communion with Rome and vice versa, also rejected the addition of the filioque (which the anti-photian council had upheld). The anti-photian council (which reaced only 170+ bishops by contrast) is presently considered the 8th ecumenical council by Rome for precisely this reason. Because the second, larger council was far more ecumenical, many Orthodox call it the 8th council, though there has never been a 9th to ratify it.

Because a council rejected the filioque, I reject it.

4) I believe the filioque to be misleading regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit because of how poorly it is worded. To say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is misleading, as it implies a full and complete equality of procession, and I believe this was intended by the original authors of the filioque. Otherwise, saying something like "though the Son" would have made more sense (since many many saints have believed that).

I challenge you to find a church father who actively promoted the idea that the Spirit proceeded equally from Father and Son - let alone enough of a consensus to convince the East to adopt the view.

Now, if we say that, within time, the Son sent the Holy Spirit to the Church by the good will of the Father - that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son in the same way the Son is "begotten" by the Spirit in time within the womb of the Virgin Mary - well that's not heresy.

But that's not what the filioque says. So if that's what is meant, then it needs to be changed. If it isn't changed, then the ambiguity remains. And this is extremely dangerous, as it lowers the Holy Spirit beneath the other two persons, so far that Anselm of Canterbury could describe the Holy Spirit as being that love which passes between the Son and Father -- this completely changes the picture of the Trinity, and if what was true in the early church is true today, I must reject it.

It's not that the image of the Holy Spirit being the love between the Father and Son isn't nice - it's just not the picture painted by the ECF, and just like OSAS (which sounds nice) it must be rejected as dangerous.

Anyhow - I don't mean to disagree with the OP - but I do think that there are significant differences between East and West. The filioque is relatively minor doctrinally and on its own, but it reveals and opens the door to greater differences that, as an Eastern Christian, I must resist. I think we are justified in resisting them.

I agree with the need for dialogue, but if we realize that the filioque was added incorrectly (that is, without council) was rejected by a council that could easily be called ecumenical, was used as a tool to wrongly excommunicate the East, and is worded poorly enough to lead to error, then it must be rejected.

My two cents. Please forgive me if this offends anyone.

In Christ,
Macarius

[Macarius]

The Orthodox have a completely, and I mean completely different understanding of Apostolic Succession we do. Thats very significant to dialog, I would think. Way more so than the filioque. What do you think?

I think the issues are related. It is good to talk about the filioque on its own terms - perhaps we should talk about the theology of it irrespective of it's historical importance...

IE) Ignoring how it was inserted into the Western Creed and it's role in the Great Schism, is the filioque an acceptable theological opinion or a heresy?

Warrior - is that the debate you're looking for? If so, then I'm all for it. I think it would be fascinating.

Cheers,
Macarius

[WarriorAngel]

I can hardly believe that St. Maximus taught the Filioque or at least taught the very same thing that Latins have taught.

As far as the linked text is concerned - we need to understand that:

The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity document, The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity, clearly explains why the Latin-Greek communication was not working. Processio and ekporeusis did not mean the same thing. Processio is a general term in Latin theology, whereas ekporeusis refers to a specific kind of relationship in Greek theology. To people natively fluent in one language but not the other, this would not be readily apparent. St. Maximos understood that problem.

Coming from this - this apologetic page (as per the OP link) is highly biased, unfair and in the extreme - false and bordering on twisting of the facts/lies.

For us to discuss issue - we need to observe it as IT IS.

Filioque is the reaction of the Church of the West to a Western (local) heresy. It is an insert into Ecumenical Creed. It is not a theology of the East... etc.

If the Patriarch of Constantinople inserted into the creed something about iconoclasts - the West would have gone crazy - so, let us be fair and not try to teach the other side how they suddenly believe in things because some Apolonio the Latin Apologist says so.



St. Maximus DID NOT believe into procession of the Holy Spirit OF THE FATHER AND OF THE SON!

He may have taught the procession of the Holy Spirit OF THE FATHER AND THROUGH THE SON.

These two are not the same and further, the second one was always the position of the Eastern Church - so in reality he (St. Maximus) did not teach anything new.



Many years.





Regardless of the author of the site...St Maximus was pretty clear in his own words...I repeat them.

"Those of the Queen of cities (Constantinople) have attacked the synodic letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology (of the Trinity) and, according to them, says: 'The Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis (ekporeuesthai) from the Son'. The other deals with the divine incarnation. "With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause (aitian) of the Spirit - they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by ekporeusis (procession) - but that they have manifested the procession through him (to dia autou proienai) and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence... "They (the Romans) have therefore been accused of precisely those things which it would be wrong to accuse them, whereas the former (the Byzantines) have been accused of those things of which it has been quite correct to accuse them (Monothelitism). They have up till now produced no defence, although they have not yet rejected the things that they have themselves so wrongly introduced. "In accordance with your request, I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them [the 'also from the son'] in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending [the synodic letter] has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to do this. It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot. In any case, having been accused, they will certainly take some care about this."

[WarriorAngel]

I think the issues are related. It is good to talk about the filioque on its own terms - perhaps we should talk about the theology of it irrespective of it's historical importance...

IE) Ignoring how it was inserted into the Western Creed and it's role in the Great Schism, is the filioque an acceptable theological opinion or a heresy?

Warrior - is that the debate you're looking for? If so, then I'm all for it. I think it would be fascinating.

Cheers,
Macarius

Actually, I read about the great schism, and I would not want to portray any arrogance whatsoever.

So it is a difficult position, being Catholic.

Since most are going to accuse me [being Catholic] of arrogance or bias.

Which is not my intent.

I could produce some history, and of course it would be considered bias..
SO its like a locked subject as much as I would like to present it.
Because I am not trying to be biased, since I would really love to see a reunification..


I can accept criticism of my Church, have been doing that my whole life.

But how do the Eastern brothers accept history that is difficult to accept?:help:

[WarriorAngel]

It was probably part of the Carolingian Reforms as set by Charlemagne. These Reforms did a lot to damage East-West relations.

ALOT of things did damage...
Unfortunately.

But alot of negativity derived from two men in a Bishphoric.
JUST as I honestly would never stand behind a Pope who was not doing his duty [we did have stinkers, thank goodness they didnt speak ex cathedra] :crossrc:

What about PHOTIUS AND CAERULARIUS...??


Here we go. From orthodoxwiki:



Mary

809 AD...
Yet why did the Church tear apart in 1054 AD ?

I honestly believe the filioque was a red herring at that time.
It had nothing to do with the years surrounding the actual schism.

Because a council rejected the filioque, I reject it.


How so did they reject it?
I never heard they discussed it.:scratch:

[zhilan]

Actually, I read about the great schism, and I would not want to portray any arrogance whatsoever.

So it is a difficult position, being Catholic.

Since most are going to accuse me [being Catholic] of arrogance or bias.

Which is not my intent.

I could produce some history, and of course it would be considered bias..
SO its like a locked subject as much as I would like to present it.
Because I am not trying to be biased, since I would really love to see a reunification..


I can accept criticism of my Church, have been doing that my whole life.

But how do the Eastern brothers accept history that is difficult to accept?:help:

WA, we can accept history that is difficult to accept because we do not have the same view as the Catholic Church. You keep giving us a quote of St. Maximus, perhaps as proof we are wrong. But Orthodox does not work that way. There is no authoritative voice outside the councils. We are united in Truth not under man. I've explained this several times before. For the Catholic a corrupt pope poses problems. A Pope who declares something theologically incorrect would destroy Catholicism, correct?

There is no such equivalent in Orthodoxy. History is just that. A history of sinful men.

[xristos.anesti]

Regardless of the author of the site...St Maximus was pretty clear in his own words...I repeat them.

"Those of the Queen of cities (Constantinople) have attacked the synodic letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology (of the Trinity) and, according to them, says: 'The Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis (ekporeuesthai) from the Son'. The other deals with the divine incarnation. "With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause (aitian) of the Spirit - they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by ekporeusis (procession) - but that they have manifested the procession through him (to dia autou proienai) and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence... "They (the Romans) have therefore been accused of precisely those things which it would be wrong to accuse them, whereas the former (the Byzantines) have been accused of those things of which it has been quite correct to accuse them (Monothelitism). They have up till now produced no defence, although they have not yet rejected the things that they have themselves so wrongly introduced. "In accordance with your request, I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them [the 'also from the son'] in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending [the synodic letter] has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to do this. It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot. In any case, having been accused, they will certainly take some care about this."

Many years, and after this colourful little post I will post AGAIN what the The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (which is a Roman Catholic - Latin, Papal, Western... office released in their) document:

The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity,

clearly explains why the Latin-Greek communication was not working.

Processio and ekporeusis did not mean the same thing.

Processio is a general term in Latin theology, whereas ekporeusis refers to a specific kind of relationship in Greek theology. To people natively fluent in one language but not the other, this would not be readily apparent. St. Maximos understood that problem.


I can play the with the colours too. ^_^

God helps.

[WarriorAngel]

WA, we can accept history that is difficult to accept because we do not have the same view as the Catholic Church. You keep giving us a quote of St. Maximus, perhaps as proof we are wrong. But Orthodox does not work that way. There is no authoritative voice outside the councils. We are united in Truth not under man. I've explained this several times before. For the Catholic a corrupt pope poses problems. A Pope who declares something theologically incorrect would destroy Catholicism, correct?

There is no such equivalent in Orthodoxy. History is just that. A history of sinful men.

That's interesting....
So, do you think all of the members in CF who are EO would agree?

The ECF's and Saints are an integral part of Tradition, to dismiss them is to dismiss Tradition and that is something a protestant does.

They know they spoke, but they don't see the significance. As per your post you lean towards dismissing the whole Tradition.

Not everything was taught or spoken of in the councils...just like NOT everything was taught or spoken of by the Apostles...and according to St John...neither of Jesus.

SO are you saying you are to follow ONLY the councils?
I find that interesting.

Not usually what I have come across from other members...but interesting and telling of your perspective.

Sinful men?

So are you, as the protestants, under the impression that the Holy Spirit cannot be on duty 24/7?

Do you think that once the Holy Spirit would fail to keep the Traditions as He wants?

Neverthrless........ NOT one corrupt Pope ever spoke on doctrines, morality and theology. IE, the Holy Spirit suppressed them.

24/7 protection services.

[zhilan]

That's interesting....
So, do you think all of the members in CF who are EO would agree?

The ECF's and Saints are an integral part of Tradition, to dismiss them is to dismiss Tradition and that is something a protestant does.

They know they spoke, but they don't see the significance. As per your post you lean towards dismissing the whole Tradition.

Not everything was taught or spoken of in the councils...just like NOT everything was taught or spoken of by the Apostles...and according to St John...neither of Jesus.

SO are you saying you are to follow ONLY the councils?
I find that interesting.

Not usually what I have come across from other members...but interesting and telling of your perspective.

Sinful men?

So are you, as the protestants, under the impression that the Holy Spirit cannot be on duty 24/7?

Do you think that once the Holy Spirit would fail to keep the Traditions as He wants?

Neverthrless........ NOT one corrupt Pope ever spoke on doctrines, morality and theology. IE, the Holy Spirit suppressed them.

24/7 protection services.
All Orthodox would agree that we are a church full of sinners, yes. Orthodoxy is defined by adherence to Orthodoxy. Men sin. Look at the Counsel of Florence. The men sent there were weak. They sinned. But it did not matter because when the faithful compared what they said with what is the tradition of Orthodoxy that has been passed down from Christ they rejected it.

I don't see where I dismissed any Saints or Holy Fathers. If you took what I said to be doing that, then I'm sorry, I must not have been clear. I in NO WAY whatsoever would EVER dismiss tradition and I don't believe I did that in my post. What I was trying to say is that whereas if the Pope says something then that defines it whereas in Orthodoxy is much more complex because everything must be weighed against Orthodoxy.

So you asked how we deal with dark parts of our history and I answered you that we are a Church of sinners in need of a Savior. It doesn't matter if you have a quote from St. Maxiums. There is only one sinless man and that is Christ. We also hold St. Augustine as a saint, but we certainly do not agree with everything he said.

[zhilan]

And as to your question, I understand the position of the Catholic understanding about infallibility. I think we would point to the infallible decision to declare infallibility an instance where the Pope spoke infallibly and was in error.

But of course there is no where an argument on that could go. =)

[WarriorAngel]

I have a question of interest Zhilan....

Where did the Tradition stem from, that Peter and his successors are first among equals?

No one is arguing if men are sinless or not...the Holy Spirit superceeds & trajnscends the faults of men, as shown by the Apostles.

The Holy Spirit led them, was given to them, and the fact Christ said He would be with them for all times...means what Christ said is truth.

The gates of hell shall not prevail.

Therefore, I am under the impression that regardless of the degree of sinfulness inside a man, the Holy Spirit is the Guide, the One at the helm, Who ensures the truth.

The ship cannot sink, nor can it become lost.

I really am curious where 'First among equals' has stemmed from, because I looked through the site NewAdvent and cannot find that early Tradition.

:help:

[zhilan]

I have a question of interest Zhilan....

Where did the Tradition stem from, that Peter and his successors are first among equals?

No one is arguing if men are sinless or not...the Holy Spirit superceeds & trajnscends the faults of men, as shown by the Apostles.

The Holy Spirit led them, was given to them, and the fact Christ said He would be with them for all times...means what Christ said is truth.

The gates of hell shall not prevail.

Therefore, I am under the impression that regardless of the degree of sinfulness inside a man, the Holy Spirit is the Guide, the One at the helm, Who ensures the truth.

The ship cannot sink, nor can it become lost.

I really am curious where 'First among equals' has stemmed from, because I looked through the site NewAdvent and cannot find that early Tradition.

:help:
Perhaps that is because Newadvent is a Catholic site so they of course will only present that view.

I'll answer your question tomorrow. I have to finish hw now.

[WarriorAngel]

Ok. Thanks. :)
I am anxious because I have heard it many times here, just wondered where it came from.

[zhilan]

Ok. Thanks. :)
I am anxious because I have heard it many times here, just wondered where it came from.
Ack sorry, I'm behind again today on my hw. Hopefully tomorrow. You'll have to excuse me I'm taking an intensive language course that has at least around 8 hours of hw per night so I don't have the free time I normally have. Hopefully tomorrow I'll have time to make a proper response.

[jckstraw72]

it is my understanding that a later Ecumenical Council referred to the Creed as perfect and complete, saying it must not be changed.

also, it is my understanding that the filioque was added to combat Spanish Arianism -- that is, to prove that Jesus is God. so how does adding that the Spirit was sent through Jesus prove that He is God? The Spirit worked through many prophets in the OT. since it was added to prove that Jesus is God (although the Creed alreayd clearly stated this) this necessitates that the filioque means that the Son is also the origin of the Spirit, which is heresy.

[WarriorAngel]

it is my understanding that a later Ecumenical Council referred to the Creed as perfect and complete, saying it must not be changed.

also, it is my understanding that the filioque was added to combat Spanish Arianism -- that is, to prove that Jesus is God. so how does adding that the Spirit was sent through Jesus prove that He is God? The Spirit worked through many prophets in the OT. since it was added to prove that Jesus is God (although the Creed alreayd clearly stated this) this necessitates that the filioque means that the Son is also the origin of the Spirit, which is heresy.

The three are One, One God. SO their essenses are united as One.

What is interesting is that I doubt very much the original Creed was deferring Christ from the Trinity...
Or that Christ could not send them the Spirit since that would be against scriptures.

John 20 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=20&l=22&f=s#x)
22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.

So how is it heresy to complete the Creed, rather than change it...?

The early Church knew Christ sent them the Spirit when He breathed on them.
Just because they may not have choosen to put that in the Creed but left it to be understood...doesnt mean that later heresies would not make for the necessity to complete the Creed.

I say complete...because it was not changed.
Changed would mean they never intended that Christ could send the Spirit.

Did John say Christ breathed on them, and they received the Spirit...? Thus the Church ~ the ONLY Church fully understood that, which is probable why it was not put there in the first place.

Yet He did this through the Father, but He is the Son, and it was still done done by His Person as a Person of the Trinity.

[jckstraw72]

yes but a temporal sending of the Spirit does not disprove Arianism -- only if the Son is the eternal co-source of the Spirit does the filioque take a stab at Arianism. and the Council, I believe Chalcedon, said the Creed is perfect and complete. i think it is doctrinally incorrect in the way it was originally meant, and at the very least the Creed was amended, against the statement of Chalcedon, and in an incorrect manner ie not through an Ecumenical Council.

[zhilan]

Ok. Thanks. :)
I am anxious because I have heard it many times here, just wondered where it came from.
WA, just letting you know, since you started a thread on this topic I'll talk with you there instead of derailing this thread.