Filioque

[Lost4words]

Do people actually believe that God will judge people on it? I dont.

 

[Philip_B]

The Filioque is not heretical.​

“But when the Helper comes, Whom I Shall Send To You from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me."

- John 15:26

You should also consider John 14:16.

 

[jas3]

“But when the Helper comes, Whom I Shall Send To You from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me."

- John 15:26

Temporal sending is not the same as eternal procession.

 

[jas3]

Do people actually believe that God will judge people on it? I dont.

Didn't Lyons II and Florence anathematize anyone who denies the filioque? I have hope that God will have mercy for us in our theological errors which we hold in good faith, but at the same time I would not go as far as saying that orthodoxy on the christological controversies or trinitarian theology doesn't matter, especially for Christians in first-world countries with the internet and multitudes of books at our disposal. In the same way, I think we ought to treat pneumatology with appropriate gravity.

 

[Lost4words]

Didn't Lyons II and Florence anathematize anyone who denies the filioque? I have hope that God will have mercy for us in our theological errors which we hold in good faith, but at the same time I would not go as far as saying that orthodoxy on the christological controversies or trinitarian theology doesn't matter, especially for Christians in first-world countries with the internet and multitudes of books at our disposal. In the same way, I think we ought to treat pneumatology with appropriate gravity.

What comes from the heart is more important. This is what God sees.

 

[The Liturgist]

Do people actually believe that God will judge people on it? I dont.

My concern isn’t that God would judge doctrinally orthodox Catholics over this issue, but rather that the wording of the filioque could be related to or even be a contributing factor to the fairly widespread crypto-pneumatomacchianism* that we see in the Western church. So many Western Christians, not so much Catholics (indeed on Sardinia in Italy there is a particular devotion to the Holy Spirit) tend to regard the Holy Spirit as an attribute of God or an action of God rather than as one of the three divine persons, even though they will if asked say the Trinity consists of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but these words have become meaning.wss.

*Pneumatomacchianism, is the denial of the deity and/or personhood of the Holy Spirit, the word is taken from Pneumatos, meaning breath or spirit, and Macchos, meaning fighter of, thus, fighters of the Spirit.

This heresy (Pneumatomacchianism)is also sometimes called Macedonianism after the fourth century heretic Macedonius, but this title is obviously problematic since it would offend Greek and Slavic Macedonians, and Macedonianism is also arguably anachronistic since really it would properly refer only to the followers of his particular fourth century sect. Bur it was Macedonius and his heresy that resulted in the confession of the Holy Spirit in the Nicene Creed being beefed-up to include “the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and who with the Father and Son is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.”

The Creed was then amended in Spain in the 6th century with the filioque, which violates Canon VII of the Council of Ephesus, which one assumes those who violated it were probably unfamiliar with, probably due to lack of easy access to documentation resulting from the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. It is because of this that I do not regard that Roman Catholics or other pious Western Christians to be in danger because of the Filioque, but I do regard it as a problematic legacy of the Dark Ages in Western Europe.

But I think if your church clarified that the filioque referred not to eternal procession but to the temporal sending of the Holy Spirit by Jesus Christ, since St. Maximus the Confessor was comfortable with it on those terms, that would be enough to render it a non-issue for most Orthodox Christians in terms of ecumenical reconciliation. For that matter if the Anglicans or Lutherans did that, it would also ease our reunion with them. And it would prevent the need for modifying, for example, various musical settings of the Creed such as by JS Bach.

 

[Philip_B]

The Creed was then amended in Spain in the 6th century with the filioque, which violates Canon VII of the Council of Ephesus, which one assumes those who violated it were probably unfamiliar with, probably due to lack of easy access to documentation resulting from the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. It is because of this that I do not regard that Roman Catholics or other pious Western Christians to be in danger because of the Filioque, but I do regard it as a problematic legacy of the Dark Ages in Western Europe.

Whilst that is the accepted wisdom, I don't accept it. The canons of the 3rd Council of Toledo can be found online. The Creed (without the filioque) appears twice in the record, firstly as the faith of the council, and secondly as part of Recared's confession. This Council was also very clear about the anathemas of Ephesus. As the primary purpose of this Council was to receive Recared from out of Arianism into the Catholic Faith it makes no sense to suggest that this would be the time to change it.

Synodus Toletana tertia​

The first round of struggles for the Filioque came from Charlemagne, as somehow it had crept into the Fancian liturgies and their music settings. The pope did not assent and the French carried on as the French are inclined to do (apologies for the generalisation). The Photian schism followed and was repaired, and successively the Popes resisted the push.

The next round came following a dark period in the Papacy (the obscuring of holiness) with Benedict VIII who following the liberation of the Papal States by Henry II (German) was installed as Holy Roman Emporer on the 14th of February 1014. This I believe was the 1st time the Filioque was used in Rome.

 

[concretecamper]

Bishop of Rome who to his credit was responsible for the Vetus Latina Bible and the translation of the liturgy from Greek into Latin, was reproached by St. Irenaeus of Lyons for overstepping his authority when he sought to unilaterally impose the Paschalion on certain churches in the East that were far outside of his jurisdiction.

You can also ask why Victor thought he had the authority to do so. And why Clement chastised the Corinthians in his letter. It is evident to me that at least Rome thought they had the authority, regardless of those who may objected. And that authority Rome displayed, whether or not accepted by some, was clearly there.l from the beginning.

 

[The Liturgist]

Whilst that is the accepted wisdom, I don't accept it. The canons of the 3rd Council of Toledo can be found online. The Creed (without the filioque) appears twice in the record, firstly as the faith of the council, and secondly as part of Recared's confession. This Council was also very clear about the anathemas of Ephesus. As the primary purpose of this Council was to receive Recared from out of Arianism into the Catholic Faith it makes no sense to suggest that this would be the time to change it.

​

That’s interesting to note.

 

[Always in His Presence]

My concern isn’t that God would judge doctrinally orthodox Catholics over this issue, but rather that the wording of the filioque could be related to or even be a contributing factor to the fairly widespread crypto-pneumatomacchianism* that we see in the Western church.

What does that mean in plain English -

I googled it and it could not find a definition.

I ran it through AI and it came up with this:

Can you link the definition please - or is it a made up word?

 

[The Liturgist]

You can also ask why Victor thought he had the authority to do so.

Why should I speculate as to that? The fact is he lacked the authority, and was rebuked by St. Irenaeus of Lyons for even trying to assert it.

And why Clement chastised the Corinthians in his letter. It is evident to me that at least Rome thought they had the authority, regardless of those who may objected. And that authority Rome displayed, whether or not accepted by some, was clearly there.l from the beginning.

It is not inappropriate, nor does it represent an exercise of authority, for one bishop to rebuke another in an epistle, for misconduct. We see St. Paul, for example, having rebuked St. Peter, at one point. Likewise, St. Epiphanius of Salamis, having been provided false information that St. John Chrysostom had received Origenist monks by some of St. Chrysostom’s enemies, set out to Constantinople to personally reproach the Patriarch of New Rome for this conduct, but en route he learned the accusation was false, and began the return journey to Salamis, but as he was by this time quite elderly, sadly he reposed before reaching his diocese.

What St. Clement did not do was to command an action from Corinth or assert a positive jurisdictional control over that diocese, nor summon the Corinthian hierarchy to Rome, which would have happened after the emergence of Papal Supremacy in the Western church in the 11th century.

Also it is important to note that Pope St. Gregory the Dialogist, who is much venerated in the Orthodox Church (we still use his Presanctified Liturgy, which in the Roman Rite was completely changed and rewritten by Pius XII in 1955) was personally horrified at the prospect of any bishop claiming universal jurisdiction, which he believed was inferred by the use of the title “Ecumenical Patriarch” which began under the reign of John the Faster, and he objected to this in very strong terms, and these objections are I think valid (and there are some elements in the EP such as the current Archbishop of North America who believe that the EP has the authority to grant and to rescind autocephaly, which is chilling, and a violation of Orthodox ecclesiology).

 

[The Liturgist]

What does that mean in plain English -

I googled it and it could not find a definition.

I ran it through AI and it came up with this:

View attachment 356509

Can you link the definition please - or is it a made up word?

This was already addressed in my post by a footnote, and no, it is not a neologism.

*Pneumatomacchianism, is the denial of the deity and/or personhood of the Holy Spirit, the word is taken from Pneumatos, meaning breath or spirit, and Macchos, meaning fighter of, thus, fighters of the Spirit.

This heresy (Pneumatomacchianism)is also sometimes called Macedonianism after the fourth century heretic Macedonius, but this title is obviously problematic since it would offend Greek and Slavic Macedonians, and Macedonianism is also arguably anachronistic since really it would properly refer only to the followers of his particular fourth century sect. Bur it was Macedonius and his heresy that resulted in the confession of the Holy Spirit in the Nicene Creed being beefed-up to include “the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and who with the Father and Son is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.”

The Creed was then amended in Spain in the 6th century with the filioque, which violates Canon VII of the Council of Ephesus, which one assumes those who violated it were probably unfamiliar with, probably due to lack of easy access to documentation resulting from the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. It is because of this that I do not regard that Roman Catholics or other pious Western Christians to be in danger because of the Filioque, but I do regard it as a problematic legacy of the Dark Ages in Western Europe.

I should also note, as something of a postscript, Ithat i never make use of neologisms in any of my posts even in jest as I outgrew amusement at them on a conceptual level around the same time i stopped actively reading Dr. Seuss. Although I will readily admit that I do regard Oh the Places You’ll Go as a superb work of juvenile literature, with its beautiful illustrations and moving message.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Why not speak plainly? what is a neologism?

Could this be why young people and 20 somethings leave the church? The vernacular is so foreign it prevents understanding.

 

[Lukaris]

I have heard that St. Augustine ( of Hippo) had a Filioque expression in his work: On the Trinity which is from around 412 AD but in his later ( around 420 AD) Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, & Love there is no filioque expression.

From Chapter 9:

“He is the Trinity- to wit, the Father, and the Son begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the same Father, but one and the same Spirit of Father and Son.”


From Chapter 38:


“Our Lord Jesus Christ, who of God is God, and as man was born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, having both substances, the divine and human, is the only Son of God the Father Almighty, from whom proceedeth the Holy Spirit.”

A note in my edition says that in Chapter 38, St. Augustine is quoting from a more ancient form of the Apostles Creed now lost. He was also countering a heresy that said that Jesus Christ was Son of the Holy Spirit as well as the Father. The Enchiridion is a compact and substantive writing by St. Augustine understandable to us average lay folks. There are almost as many chapters as there are about 140 printed pages of the work.


From the Gateway edition of 1961.
isbn: 0-89526-938-4

 

[concretecamper]

Why should I speculate as to that? The fact is he lacked the authority, and was rebuked by St. Irenaeus of Lyons for even trying to assert it.

Or perhaps he had the authority and Irenaeus objected.

It is not inappropriate, nor does it represent an exercise of authority, for one bishop to rebuke another in an epistle, for misconduct.

Ok, what other Bishop rebuked the Corinthians?

 

[The Liturgist]

Why not speak plainly?

Firstly, the definition of neologism can be found here: Definition of NEOLOGISM

I do speak plainly and without obfuscation. However, this thread deals with highly academic subject matter, namely the history, causes, and ramifications of the doctrine of the filioque as it pertains to Roman Catholic-Eastern Orthodox and East-West ecumenical dialogue. This is not a subject that even an undergraduate theology or BIble studies program would likely touch upon.

To put it as simply as possible: this is a complex, multidisciplinary issue that involves several different branches of theological, historical and even archeological study. It lies at the intersection of Late Classical and Medieval European history, Byzantine history, and several branches of theology including liturgical theology, dogmatic theology, heresiology, pneumatology, and ecclesiology, and the related fields of church history and ecumenical relations.

I endeavor to make these fields as easy as possible to understand, but some Googling will still inevitably be required if one wants to get into a serious discussion of this issue, as opposed to the most superficial, surface-level treatment of the subject matter.

Could this be why young people and 20 somethings leave the church?

Considering that I don’t go around visiting every church in the world that happens to be losing members in that demographic and force young people to listen to me lecture about advanced graduate-level theological subjects (which to be absolutely clear, the issue of the filioque controversy is) and the history of the Creed to the point where they would want to change religion.

At any rate, let us return to the subject matter at hand, which is not my speech but the issue of the Filioque controversy.

 

[The Liturgist]

Or perhaps he had the authority and Irenaeus objected.

He lacked the authority, the matter was dropped, and no further action was taken on the issue until the Council of Nicaea, by which time circumstances had changed so that there was no longer any acceptable reason for not using the Paschalion (namely, the change in the Jewish calendar had become pervasive and as a result celebrating the Pascha on the Fourteenth of Nisan could not be done in historical continuity with the first century, something which was still possible in the second century, which is why some second century saints followed that practice, but by the end of the fourth century St. Epiphanius of Salamis defined Quartodecimianism as a heresy.

 

[concretecamper]

He lacked the authority

I wouldn't expect you to think any different. But the fact still remains, Victor acted as he did have the authority.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

Temporal sending is not the same as eternal procession.

Uh, The Lord Jesus Christ Is Literally God Almighty.

 

[jas3]

This was already addressed in my post by a footnote, and no, it is not a neologism.

Not to distract too much from the subject of the thread, but part of what may have confused the AI is that the word is usually (at least from what I've read and what comes up in search results) spelled with one "c" instead of two, since the "ch" is an English transcription of χ.