Topic: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error

[orthonorm]

ElijahMaria,
Thank you for posting that passage from the council of Florence. It was quite helpful. The more I explore the issue, the more and more it becomes clear that we Latins are not in error at all with regard to the filioque and that Eastern Orthodox are just creating problems over linguistic differences for the sake of continuing the schism.

Maybe my ironemeter is broken today? Do you mean this earnest?

[elijahmaria]

(Sorry for going off topic, but every once in a while you just find yourself in a situation where you say, How much longer will this go on?)

Like suggesting to write off a poster who puts an obviously considerable amount of effort to make her understanding clear and known within what is clearly a tedious dialoge?

And you do realize that ialmisry positions are not the end-all-be-all of EO? And yet I find a lot of profit in his posting and entertainment as well. The latter sometimes being more appreciated than the former.

If someone ain't obviously trolling, why belittle their participation, when it seems informed and in earnest?

There's an axe being ground here, Orthonorm.   I think I know where it originates and choose not to pursue it in any way.  If it's not bothering the other readers on this forum then rest assured it does not bother me.  It won't change my participation in any way.

M.

[Peter J]

There's an axe being ground here, Orthonorm.

I don't know if he has an ax to grind or what exactly, but this is not the first time Orthonorm has taken issue with me. I suspect it won't be the last.

[orthonorm]

There's an axe being ground here, Orthonorm.

I don't know if he has an ax to grind or what exactly, but this is not the first time Orthonorm has taken issue with me. I suspect it won't be the last.

It ain't with you. It's with your comments.

[Peter J]

There's an axe being ground here, Orthonorm.

I don't know if he has an ax to grind or what exactly, but this is not the first time Orthonorm has taken issue with me. I suspect it won't be the last.

It ain't with you. It's with your comments.

Clarification noted.

So you don't have a problem with me as long as I don't post anything?

[Papist]

ElijahMaria,
Thank you for posting that passage from the council of Florence. It was quite helpful. The more I explore the issue, the more and more it becomes clear that we Latins are not in error at all with regard to the filioque and that Eastern Orthodox are just creating problems over linguistic differences for the sake of continuing the schism.

Maybe my ironemeter is broken today? Do you mean this earnest?

Well, I do think that there are people in Eastern Orthodoxy who so dislike the Catholic Church so much that even if we were to reject all of the doctrines that separate us, they still wouldn't want us to be in communion with them. Some would want us to assimilate into the Byzantine Liturgy and lose all that makes us western. I do not think that the majority of Eastern Orthodox think this way, so I should have been more careful in my word choice. However, I think that the anti-Catholics in Eastern Orthodoxy often are the loudest.

[Wyatt]

Well, I do think that there are people in Eastern Orthodoxy who so dislike the Catholic Church so much that even if we were to reject all of the doctrines that separate us, they still wouldn't want us to be in communion with them. Some would want us to assimilate into the Byzantine Liturgy and lose all that makes us western. I do not think that the majority of Eastern Orthodox think this way, so I should have been more careful in my word choice. However, I think that the anti-Catholics in Eastern Orthodoxy often are the loudest.

I wonder if there are EO who are opposed to Western Rite Orthodoxy for this same reason?

[elijahmaria]

Did anyone actually read this article yet?  It really is quite good and maybe we should start a whole new thread to discuss it.  What say?

http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/adameve.html

I had read this article shortly after Hieromonk Alexander published it.  I found it absolutely fun and fascinating to read then and I find it even more so today!!

Enjoy!

Christ is Risen!

Mary

[ialmisry]

Christus resurrexit!

ElijahMaria,
Thank you for posting that passage from the council of Florence. It was quite helpful. The more I explore the issue, the more and more it becomes clear that we Latins are not in error at all with regard to the filioque and that Eastern Orthodox are just creating problems over linguistic differences for the sake of continuing the schism.

LOL. Yes, we have nothing better to do to continue your schism.

At least since the time of the Libri Carolini and the Council of Aachen, your misunderstanding of Trinitarian theology, Christology and pneumatology embodied in the filioque has ceased to be mere "linquistic differences."

[Father H]

Did anyone actually read this article yet?  It really is quite good and maybe we should start a whole new thread to discuss it.  What say? 

http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/adameve.htmlI had read this article shortly after Hieromonk Alexander published it.  I found it absolutely fun and fascinating to read then and I find it even more so today!!Enjoy!Christ is Risen!  Mary

It is a good article.  However, in St. Gregory's example the Spirit proceeds directly from the Father and the Son comes from the Father and the Holy Spirit.   This contradicts your notion that the Orthodox are simply being stubborn about words and are the ones responsible for the continuing breach. 

[Father H]

Maria, I deal frequently with arguments, whether marital, divorcees at odds over children, etc.  The old "the continuation of the problems between us is all his fault (or her fault, as the case may be)" winds up not being conducive to healing a breach, and rarely is it accurate for one person to say so.   

Christus resurrexit!

ElijahMaria,
Thank you for posting that passage from the council of Florence. It was quite helpful. The more I explore the issue, the more and more it becomes clear that we Latins are not in error at all with regard to the filioque and that Eastern Orthodox are just creating problems over linguistic differences for the sake of continuing the schism.

LOL. Yes, we have nothing better to do to continue your schism.

At least since the time of the Libri Carolini and the Council of Aachen, your misunderstanding of Trinitarian theology, Christology and pneumatology embodied in the filioque has ceased to be mere "linquistic differences."

[elijahmaria]

Dear Father,

I agree with you.  I am not at all concerned with finding fault.  I am more concerned with seeking theological truth.

Maria, I deal frequently with arguments, whether marital, divorcees at odds over children, etc.  The old "the continuation of the problems between us is all his fault (or her fault, as the case may be)" winds up not being conducive to healing a breach, and rarely is it accurate for one person to say so.   

Christus resurrexit!

ElijahMaria,
Thank you for posting that passage from the council of Florence. It was quite helpful. The more I explore the issue, the more and more it becomes clear that we Latins are not in error at all with regard to the filioque and that Eastern Orthodox are just creating problems over linguistic differences for the sake of continuing the schism.

LOL. Yes, we have nothing better to do to continue your schism.

At least since the time of the Libri Carolini and the Council of Aachen, your misunderstanding of Trinitarian theology, Christology and pneumatology embodied in the filioque has ceased to be mere "linquistic differences."

[elijahmaria]

Did anyone actually read this article yet?  It really is quite good and maybe we should start a whole new thread to discuss it.  What say? 

http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/adameve.htmlI had read this article shortly after Hieromonk Alexander published it.  I found it absolutely fun and fascinating to read then and I find it even more so today!!Enjoy!Christ is Risen!  Mary

It is a good article.  However, in St. Gregory's example the Spirit proceeds directly from the Father and the Son comes from the Father and the Holy Spirit.   This contradicts your notion that the Orthodox are simply being stubborn about words and are the ones responsible for the continuing breach. 

It really is a good article, Father.  There may be good responses to your good question here but I am still wondering if it should not have a thread of its own to discuss it more fully.  I am pressed for time this morning and today and tomorrow...health issues for me intruding on my fun...   But as soon as I can settle and decide on a subject header I think I will open a new thread based on the article...ok?

Father bless!

M.

[orthonorm]

Maria, I deal frequently with arguments, whether marital, divorcees at odds over children, etc.  The old "the continuation of the problems between us is all his fault (or her fault, as the case may be)" winds up not being conducive to healing a breach, and rarely is it accurate for one person to say so.   

Christus resurrexit!

ElijahMaria,
Thank you for posting that passage from the council of Florence. It was quite helpful. The more I explore the issue, the more and more it becomes clear that we Latins are not in error at all with regard to the filioque and that Eastern Orthodox are just creating problems over linguistic differences for the sake of continuing the schism.

LOL. Yes, we have nothing better to do to continue your schism.

At least since the time of the Libri Carolini and the Council of Aachen, your misunderstanding of Trinitarian theology, Christology and pneumatology embodied in the filioque has ceased to be mere "linquistic differences."

Father, I think the words you were addressing belong to Papist, not EM.

[Papist]

Maria, I deal frequently with arguments, whether marital, divorcees at odds over children, etc.  The old "the continuation of the problems between us is all his fault (or her fault, as the case may be)" winds up not being conducive to healing a breach, and rarely is it accurate for one person to say so.   

Christus resurrexit!

ElijahMaria,
Thank you for posting that passage from the council of Florence. It was quite helpful. The more I explore the issue, the more and more it becomes clear that we Latins are not in error at all with regard to the filioque and that Eastern Orthodox are just creating problems over linguistic differences for the sake of continuing the schism.

LOL. Yes, we have nothing better to do to continue your schism.

At least since the time of the Libri Carolini and the Council of Aachen, your misunderstanding of Trinitarian theology, Christology and pneumatology embodied in the filioque has ceased to be mere "linquistic differences."

Well, I think we need to realistically understand our situation.

[Peter J]

Maria, I deal frequently with arguments, whether marital, divorcees at odds over children, etc.  The old "the continuation of the problems between us is all his fault (or her fault, as the case may be)" winds up not being conducive to healing a breach, and rarely is it accurate for one person to say so.   

Christus resurrexit!

ElijahMaria,
Thank you for posting that passage from the council of Florence. It was quite helpful. The more I explore the issue, the more and more it becomes clear that we Latins are not in error at all with regard to the filioque and that Eastern Orthodox are just creating problems over linguistic differences for the sake of continuing the schism.

LOL. Yes, we have nothing better to do to continue your schism.

At least since the time of the Libri Carolini and the Council of Aachen, your misunderstanding of Trinitarian theology, Christology and pneumatology embodied in the filioque has ceased to be mere "linquistic differences."

Well, I think we need to realistically understand our situation.

While I think Father is right to say that "rarely is it accurate for one person to say" etc., I think it is also worth noting that many people automatically assume that fault lies equally on both sides, completely dismissing the opinion of anyone who thinks that one side is more to blame than the other. Needless to say, that isn't conducive to healing the breach either.

[xariskai]

Did anyone actually read this article yet?  It really is quite good and maybe we should start a whole new thread to discuss it.  What say?  

http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/adameve.htmlI had read this article shortly after Hieromonk Alexander published it.  I found it absolutely fun and fascinating to read then and I find it even more so today!!Enjoy!Christ is Risen!  Mary

It is a good article.  However, in St. Gregory's example the Spirit proceeds directly from the Father and the Son comes from the Father and the Holy Spirit.   This contradicts your notion that the Orthodox are simply being stubborn about words and are the ones responsible for the continuing breach.  

The attempt at unity on the basis of Orthodox willingness to concede that "through the Son" doesn't *have* to be understood in a heretical manner proved insufficient to stave off the next mushy middle once before (see the quote from Jaraslov Pelikan in the quotebox below).

Attributed to Albert Einstein is the aphorism that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

"At Florence in 1439 therefore, the earlier strictures on any theory of 'two principles' were repeated, but the decree went on to declare "what the holy doctors and fathers say, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son," led to the position that there was only one principle of origin, but that the Son as well  as the Father was this one principle. This made the Son 'joint cause' and, as he was "God from God, light from light' in the creed, so also 'principle of origin from principle of origin.' Supporters of the West contended that if the Eastern tradition contained -and therefore authorized- the phrase, 'through the son,' it was obvious that "there is no difference between saying 'from the Son' and saying 'from the Father through the Son' "for the two phrases were 'identical in force'" That was the very objection that Eastern theologians voiced to the compromise, arguing that 'through the Son' was a Latin device for foisting the heretical Filioque on the Greeks. Like the reunion at Lyons this compromise at Florence proved too little too late politically; and even though 'the debate over the Filioque, an endless labyrinth of arguments and counterarguments, continued for more than eight fruitless months,' it also failed to solve the issue theologically, with both sides eventually returning to their historic positions on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit" (Jaraslov Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 2, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700), p. 277.
________
Column notes from Pelikan op cit:
CFlor (1439) Def. (Mansi 31A:1029-30); Eug IV Ep. 176 (Hofmann I-II:71)
Joh.Argyr.Proc.8 (PG 158:1004)
Joh.Bek.Un.1.20 (PG 141:60-61)
Thdr.Agall.Argyr. (PG 158:1040)

As a Catholic, I can tell you that I will follow the teachings of the Catholic Church before I follow the interpretations of a Lutheran turned Orthodox...when they conflict.  

I've seen how Lutherans interpret Catholic teaching and I haven't been mightily impressed.

M.

While I can respect particular a Roman Catholic's need to affirm Roman Catholic ideas no matter what (though I'm personally not so likely to simply adopt them without at least a second thought when probably *the* major and universally respected church historian of the last century disputes them), it hardly seems self-evident at first blush that "Lutheran bias" is the likely devil afoot in Jaroslav Pelikan's above treatment of the filioque as the work cited was published by University of Chicago Press in 1974 (while Pelikan was still a Lutheran), and last time I checked the Lutheran Book of Concord *contains* the filioque.

(Note: no disrespect intended; I have enjoyed your comments agreeing or disagreeing)

I'm still not clear on what exactly is wrong with the above citations other than a vague appeal to Fr. Gill's work of 1959, which Pelikan also used. Doesn't this forum have a rule about providing specific documentation when it's requested in situations like being told a major church historian of the last century simply doesn't know what he was talking about and ignored the relevant sources? Or is taking the word of some (to the extent of my knowledge) random poster on the internet that Pelikan doesn't know his subject as well as the poster, and that Pelikan allegedly ignored an author he cited in his own work enough by OCnet standards? No disrespect to anyone intended: let's see the evidence!

I was asked if I had read Fr. Gill's work of 1959 on Florence which Pelikan cited in his work; I haven't, but wouldn't mind obtaining it through inter-library loan. In the meantime, what exactly is the problem with the quote from Pelikan, and what exactly does Fr. Gill say that demonstrates this?

Really it's hard for me to imagine what the alleged problem even might be since Pelikan's points seem to have been made by citation rather than interpretation, Lutheran, Orthodox, or whatever.

[elijahmaria]

The attempt at unity on the basis of Orthodox willingness to concede that "through the Son" doesn't *have* to be understood in a heretical manner proved insufficient to stave off the next mushy middle once before (see the quote from Jaraslov Pelikan in the quotebox below).

Let me know when you pick up the Father Gill book.

Till then and in response to your note above:

http://bekkos.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/st-maximus-on-the-filioque/

Bessarion, in the fifteenth century, argued that, when St. Maximus says here that the Father is the “only cause,” he means “cause” in the sense of προκαταρκτικὴ αἰτία, that is, original, initial cause. By and large, that is Bekkos’s view, too; and I think that Bekkos is justified in seeing St. Maximus as supporting beforehand the position of the Greek unionists. For Bekkos, although Father and Son constitute a single principle of the Holy Spirit’s procession, the Father remains the sole cause, because all the Son’s causality gets referred back to the Father, according to St. Basil (see January 5th’s post, John Bekkos on unity of cause in the Trinity). Moreover, if one reads the minutes of St. Maximus’s final trial in Constantinople, it is very clear that one of the main reasons why the imperial government had St. Maximus’s tongue cut out was that he forthrightly upheld the authority of the Pope over that of the Emperor in deciding religious questions. To depict St. Maximus as anti-Western and anti-papal is to replace historical reality with a crude cartoon. All of that makes me think that the interpretation Bekkos and Bessarion give of this passage is essentially right, and that Mark of Ephesus‘s interpretation is basically wrong. St. Maximus, like John Bekkos, saw the filioque as orthodox.

[xariskai]

Till then and in response to your note above

I'm aware of all this, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with my request above for documentation of a very specifically described nature so as to constitute anything remotely approaching a minimally adequate response.

I agree from the example of St. Maximos that the phrase *can* be understood in an Orthodox manner; what Pelikan demonstrates is that it is false to presume that it *must* be and therefore that the phrase in and of itself is a sufficient guarantor that Orthodoxy will be preserved if it forms the basis of a compromise position. Historically it wasn't before (as documented by Pelikan), hence the relevance of the definition of insanity attributed to Einstein: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Should we begin to suspect that asking for documentation according to the rules of this forum of someone who claims a major church historian doesn't know what he's talking about and allegedly ignored a source which he cited in his own work is also an instance of insanity or are we going to ever see the repeatedly requested documentation?

[elijahmaria]

Till then and in response to your note above

I'm aware of all this, but that has nothing to do with my request above so as to constitute anything remotely approaching a response to what I specifically asked.

I agree from the example of St. Maximos that the phrase *can* be understood in an Orthodox manner; what Pelikan demonstrates is that it is false to presume that it *must* be, since and therefore that the phrase in and of itself is a sufficient guarantor that Orthodoxy will be preserved if it forms the basis of a compromise position. Historically it wasn't before (as documented by Pelikan), hence the relevance of the definition of insanity attributed to Einstein: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Should we begin to suspect that asking for documentation according to the rules of this forum of someone who claims a major church historian doesn't know what he's talking about and allegedly ignored a source which he cited in his own work is also an instance of insanity or are we going to ever see the repeatedly requested documentation?

What demonstration?  There is an assertion that you offer from Pelikan to which I respond with a different assertion...

The discussion by Professor Gilquist indicates that the assertion that Pelikan makes may not be substantiated at all by reality. 

If you want me to type in pages of Joe Gill's book here, you can forget it.  Go get the book.  Read the book and get back to me.

For the time being Professor Gilquist's work should substitute sufficiently to carry the conversation forward.

[xariskai]

Summarize then please. But mere assertions do not constitute evidence, and your assertions, and your claim that you personally know more about Florence than Pelikan, remain undocumented despite repeated requests for documentation of some kind. I won't believe you're undemonstrated assertion that Pelikan doesn't know what he's talking about until and unless you provide evidence.

Besides, Pelikan offers historical citations rather than mere assertions. You haven't addressed that criticism of your claim either.

[elijahmaria]

Summarize then please. But mere assertions do not constitute evidence, and your assertions remain undocumented despite repeated requests for documentation of some kind. I won't believe you're undemonstrated assertion that Pelikan doesn't know what he's talking about until and unless you provide evidence.

Besides, Pelikan offers historical citations rather than mere assertions. You haven't addressed that criticism of your claim either.

I don't need to document a personal opinion ever...anywhere.  If you want my citation it is: Father Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence, 1959.

You don't need to believe me at all.  But I do have the right to express an opinion and I have done that.

Stop trying to derail the discussion with some juridical rule-binding.  Leave all that to the Catholics.

[xariskai]

What demonstration?  There is an assertion that you offer from Pelikan to which I respond with a different assertion...

Um, no. I provided a quote from Pelikan which provided evidence in the form of citations.

You said Pelikan made an assertion and didn't know what he was talking about, and that he ignored a source he cited in his own work. You are the only one in the thread making undocumented assertions. Pelikan provided evidence. You claim Pelikan didn't know what he was talking about. Prove it, or your claim reduces to undocumented assertion with zero evidence.

At least cite the page number from Father Gill if you can do nothing else. I'm beginning to wonder if you're making an objection up out of thin air.

Did anyone actually read this article yet?  It really is quite good and maybe we should start a whole new thread to discuss it.  What say?  

http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/adameve.htmlI had read this article shortly after Hieromonk Alexander published it.  I found it absolutely fun and fascinating to read then and I find it even more so today!!Enjoy!Christ is Risen!  Mary

It is a good article.  However, in St. Gregory's example the Spirit proceeds directly from the Father and the Son comes from the Father and the Holy Spirit.   This contradicts your notion that the Orthodox are simply being stubborn about words and are the ones responsible for the continuing breach.  

The attempt at unity on the basis of Orthodox willingness to concede that "through the Son" doesn't *have* to be understood in a heretical manner proved insufficient to stave off the next mushy middle once before (see the quote from Jaraslov Pelikan in the quotebox below).

Attributed to Albert Einstein is the aphorism that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

"At Florence in 1439 therefore, the earlier strictures on any theory of 'two principles' were repeated, but the decree went on to declare "what the holy doctors and fathers say, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son," led to the position that there was only one principle of origin, but that the Son as well  as the Father was this one principle. This made the Son 'joint cause' and, as he was "God from God, light from light' in the creed, so also 'principle of origin from principle of origin.' Supporters of the West contended that if the Eastern tradition contained -and therefore authorized- the phrase, 'through the son,' it was obvious that "there is no difference between saying 'from the Son' and saying 'from the Father through the Son' "for the two phrases were 'identical in force'" That was the very objection that Eastern theologians voiced to the compromise, arguing that 'through the Son' was a Latin device for foisting the heretical Filioque on the Greeks. Like the reunion at Lyons this compromise at Florence proved too little too late politically; and even though 'the debate over the Filioque, an endless labyrinth of arguments and counterarguments, continued for more than eight fruitless months,' it also failed to solve the issue theologically, with both sides eventually returning to their historic positions on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit" (Jaraslov Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 2, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700), p. 277.
________
Column notes from Pelikan op cit:
CFlor (1439) Def. (Mansi 31A:1029-30); Eug IV Ep. 176 (Hofmann I-II:71)
Joh.Argyr.Proc.8 (PG 158:1004)
Joh.Bek.Un.1.20 (PG 141:60-61)
Thdr.Agall.Argyr. (PG 158:1040)

As a Catholic, I can tell you that I will follow the teachings of the Catholic Church before I follow the interpretations of a Lutheran turned Orthodox...when they conflict.  

I've seen how Lutherans interpret Catholic teaching and I haven't been mightily impressed.

M.

While I can respect particular a Roman Catholic's need to affirm Roman Catholic ideas no matter what (though I'm personally not so likely to simply adopt them without at least a second thought when probably *the* major and universally respected church historian of the last century disputes them), it hardly seems self-evident at first blush that "Lutheran bias" is the likely devil afoot in Jaroslav Pelikan's above treatment of the filioque as the work cited was published by University of Chicago Press in 1974 (while Pelikan was still a Lutheran), and last time I checked the Lutheran Book of Concord *contains* the filioque.

(Note: no disrespect intended; I have enjoyed your comments agreeing or disagreeing)

I'm still not clear on what exactly is wrong with the above citations other than a vague appeal to Fr. Gill's work of 1959, which Pelikan also used. Doesn't this forum have a rule about providing specific documentation when it's requested in situations like being told a major church historian of the last century simply doesn't know what he was talking about and ignored the relevant sources? Or is taking the word of some (to the extent of my knowledge) random poster on the internet that Pelikan doesn't know his subject as well as the poster, and that Pelikan allegedly ignored an author he cited in his own work enough by OCnet standards? No disrespect to anyone intended: let's see the evidence!

I was asked if I had read Fr. Gill's work of 1959 on Florence which Pelikan cited in his work; I haven't, but wouldn't mind obtaining it through inter-library loan. In the meantime, what exactly is the problem with the quote from Pelikan, and what exactly does Fr. Gill say that demonstrates this?

Really it's hard for me to imagine what the alleged problem even might be since Pelikan's points seem to have been made by citation rather than interpretation, Lutheran, Orthodox, or whatever.

[elijahmaria]

What demonstration?  There is an assertion that you offer from Pelikan to which I respond with a different assertion...

Um, no. I provided a quote from Pelikan which provided evidence in the form of citations.

You said Pelikan made an assertion and didn't know what he was talking about, and that he ignored a source he cited in his own work. You are the only one in the thread making undocumented assertions. Pelikan provided evidence. You claim Pelikan didn't know what he was talking about. Prove it, or your claim reduces to undocumented assertion with zero evidence.

At least cite the page number from Father Gill if you can do nothing else. I'm beginning to wonder if you're making an objection up out of thin air.

I understand wonder is very good for the soul.  You should have a very healthy soul after all of this.

I am not going to satisfy your demands here.  If you'd like to discuss the Gilquist article, which text we DO have and which text I took time this afternoon to seek out so that we did have something to discuss, in light of the Pelikan assertion, then I'd be happy to do that.

If you don't care to do that then I can only assume that what you are simply doing is trying to "win" some sort of self-appointed argument by discrediting me or my style of participation.  If the latter is the case then I am finished with this phase of things.  If you'd like to discuss Gilquest vis a vis Pelikan, I'll be back.

[xariskai]

So you're saying you have a specific rebuttal showing Pelikan doesn't know what he's talking about in a book by Fr. Gill and don't want to type it out.

Then when you are asked to simply provide the page number that is too much to ask.

[elijahmaria]

So you're saying you have a specific rebuttal showing Pelikan doesn't know what he's talking about in a book by Fr. Gill and don't want to type it out.

Then when you are asked to simply provide the page number that is too much to ask.

That's not what I said at all.  I said that it was obvious to me that Professor Pelikan did not use the substance of the pertinent chapters in Professor Gill's work, or he could not have drawn his conclusions in the way that he has drawn them in the assertive paragraph that you presented where he concludes things that do not match the documentary evidence presented by Professor Gill [across several chapters].  HOWEVER, there is sufficient meat in the article by Professor Gilquist to warrant questioning the conclusions of Professor Pelikan that you presented here.  Since you do not seem to want to do that, I'll retire from this part of the thread. 

[xariskai]

So you're saying you have a specific rebuttal showing Pelikan doesn't know what he's talking about in a book by Fr. Gill and don't want to type it out.

Then when you are asked to simply provide the page number that is too much to ask.

That's not what I said at all.  I said that it was obvious to me that Professor Pelikan did not use the substance of the pertinent chapters in Professor Gill's work, or he could not have drawn his conclusions in the way that he has drawn them in the assertive paragraph that you presented where he concludes things that do not match the documentary evidence presented by Professor Gill [across several chapters].  HOWEVER, there is sufficient meat in the article by Professor Gilquist to warrant questioning the conclusions of Professor Pelikan that you presented here.  Since you do not seem to want to do that, I'll retire from this part of the thread.  

Wow. The Pelikan quote was five citations in four sentences. You have a rebuttal (supposedly) but its stretched out over a whole large work in many chapters and you can't even provide a page citation!

Honestly, I think you have nothing. Certainly there is nothing rebutting Pelikan in the thread that I see.

Also I used the forum search function for posts by you mentioning Gilquist; the only time I can find that you ever mentioned Gilquist at OCnet is your last post. Where is this article by Gilquist you now mention? The only article you referenced in reply to my queries was an article about St. Maximos which I replied to as soon as you posted it, but which was not directly related to the Pelikan quote either, as I explained in my reply to it.

[elijahmaria]

Here's a bit more from Professor Gilquist that highlights the Pelikan bias, recently contested here.  It should be clear from the following that there is a strong indication that Professor Pelikan took the easy and superficial route in his conclusions concerning what happened at the Council of Florence with respect to the Filioque:

http://bekkos.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/st-maximus-on-the-filioque/

(2)

Similarly, you should go and read Alexander Alexakis on the history of the patristic sources used at the Council of Florence. In his article titled “The Greek Patristic Testimonia presented at the Council of Florence (1439) in support of the Filioque reconsidered,” Revue des Études Byzantines 58 (2000), pp. 149-165, Alexakis argues that the patristic florilegium used by the Latins at the Council of Florence, presenting Greek patristic texts favoring the Latin doctrine, originated with St. Maximus and his circle of Greek-speaking exiles at Rome in the seventh century. There are things in Alexakis’s argument that I don’t agree with, but the claim that this patristic florilegium goes back to St. Maximus seems sound. And, if it does, it is evidence that St. Maximus in fact is closer in his thinking on the Trinity to people like Bekkos and Bessarion than to people like Mark of Ephesus. Maximus sees the Latin and Greek doctrines to be compatible; Mark of Ephesus doesn’t.

(3)

I don’t have the book at hand, but I distinctly remember reading in Gill’s The Council of Florence that this letter of St. Maximus to Marinus formed a central part of Bessarion’s argument for union; Bessarion claimed that, if St. Maximus sees the Latins as orthodox, then we should see the Latins as orthodox; if St. Maximus sees the Latins as not viewing the Son as a distinct cause, then we should not see them as doing this, either. This letter seems to have played a fairly large role in Bessarion’s reasoning; to say that “the Latins denied” this letter seems false; they undoubtedly denied the interpretation Mark of Ephesus was putting on it, which was that the Son has no role whatsoever to play in the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit; the Latins could not affirm that without denying all of Latin patristic tradition and most of Greek patristic tradition as well.

Your argument about St. Maximus is based on the myth of the non-Augustinian West, the West that avoided the Augustinian defilement and remained Orthodox in a Photian sense. There are others who push this myth; Jean-Claude Larchet is probably the most educated of the ones that I’ve read, but it’s still nonsense. When I compare St. Maximus’s irenicism and good sense with the bombast coming from Mark of Ephesus, of which you recently gave a choice sample on your blog, I think one would have to be embarrassed to equate the one with the other. I would agree that Maximus strives to balance the Western point of view with an Eastern perspective. But the view that Maximus is anti-Augustinian, a defender of the pure East against Western defilement, is, as I have stated above, an an-historical cartoon.

The simple fact remains that, in this, one of the earliest witnesses to a dispute between East and West over the filioque, St. Maximus defends the Western teaching as orthodox.

One last point. St. Maximus, in his Question 63 to Thalassius (PG 90, 672), writes, “For just as the Holy Spirit exists, by nature, according to substance, as belonging to the Father, so also does he, according to substance, belong to the Son, in that, in an ineffable way, he proceeds substantially from the Father through the begotten Son.” That might be a better statement of the point St. Maximus is making in the letter to Marinus. The “from” properly belongs to the Spirit’s relation to the Father; the Father is the Spirit’s originating cause. But the “through” of the Spirit’s relation to the Son is not negotiable; it is not just something accidental to the Spirit’s being. It belongs to the Spirit’s existence that he exist from the Father, through the Son. The Latins, St. Maximus says, because of their difference of language, express this in terms of the Holy Spirit’s being from the Father and the Son. He says that this is orthodox. You evidently think otherwise.

[Justin Kissel]

there is a strong indication that Professor Pelikan took the easy and superficial

I can think of a few terms to describe Pelikan's work... dry, unOrthodox, well-read... but superficial doesn't seem to fit. A popularizer to some extent, yes, but superficial? Nah...

[xariskai]

Here's a bit more from Professor Gilquist that highlights the Pelikan bias, recently contested here.  It should be clear from the following that there is a strong indication that Professor Pelikan took the easy and superficial route in his conclusions concerning what happened at the Council of Florence with respect to the Filioque:

http://bekkos.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/st-maximus-on-the-filioque/

(2)

Similarly, you should go and read Alexander Alexakis on the history of the patristic sources used at the Council of Florence. In his article titled “The Greek Patristic Testimonia presented at the Council of Florence (1439) in support of the Filioque reconsidered,” Revue des Études Byzantines 58 (2000), pp. 149-165, Alexakis argues that the patristic florilegium used by the Latins at the Council of Florence, presenting Greek patristic texts favoring the Latin doctrine, originated with St. Maximus and his circle of Greek-speaking exiles at Rome in the seventh century. There are things in Alexakis’s argument that I don’t agree with, but the claim that this patristic florilegium goes back to St. Maximus seems sound. And, if it does, it is evidence that St. Maximus in fact is closer in his thinking on the Trinity to people like Bekkos and Bessarion than to people like Mark of Ephesus. Maximus sees the Latin and Greek doctrines to be compatible; Mark of Ephesus doesn’t.

(3)

I don’t have the book at hand, but I distinctly remember reading in Gill’s The Council of Florence that this letter of St. Maximus to Marinus formed a central part of Bessarion’s argument for union; Bessarion claimed that, if St. Maximus sees the Latins as orthodox, then we should see the Latins as orthodox; if St. Maximus sees the Latins as not viewing the Son as a distinct cause, then we should not see them as doing this, either. This letter seems to have played a fairly large role in Bessarion’s reasoning; to say that “the Latins denied” this letter seems false; they undoubtedly denied the interpretation Mark of Ephesus was putting on it, which was that the Son has no role whatsoever to play in the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit; the Latins could not affirm that without denying all of Latin patristic tradition and most of Greek patristic tradition as well.

Your argument about St. Maximus is based on the myth of the non-Augustinian West, the West that avoided the Augustinian defilement and remained Orthodox in a Photian sense. There are others who push this myth; Jean-Claude Larchet is probably the most educated of the ones that I’ve read, but it’s still nonsense. When I compare St. Maximus’s irenicism and good sense with the bombast coming from Mark of Ephesus, of which you recently gave a choice sample on your blog, I think one would have to be embarrassed to equate the one with the other. I would agree that Maximus strives to balance the Western point of view with an Eastern perspective. But the view that Maximus is anti-Augustinian, a defender of the pure East against Western defilement, is, as I have stated above, an an-historical cartoon.

The simple fact remains that, in this, one of the earliest witnesses to a dispute between East and West over the filioque, St. Maximus defends the Western teaching as orthodox.

One last point. St. Maximus, in his Question 63 to Thalassius (PG 90, 672), writes, “For just as the Holy Spirit exists, by nature, according to substance, as belonging to the Father, so also does he, according to substance, belong to the Son, in that, in an ineffable way, he proceeds substantially from the Father through the begotten Son.” That might be a better statement of the point St. Maximus is making in the letter to Marinus. The “from” properly belongs to the Spirit’s relation to the Father; the Father is the Spirit’s originating cause. But the “through” of the Spirit’s relation to the Son is not negotiable; it is not just something accidental to the Spirit’s being. It belongs to the Spirit’s existence that he exist from the Father, through the Son. The Latins, St. Maximus says, because of their difference of language, express this in terms of the Holy Spirit’s being from the Father and the Son. He says that this is orthodox. You evidently think otherwise.

Then it was the article I already read and replied to already. Another smokescreen for your continual refusal to provide documentation for your remark that Pelikan doesn't know what he's talking about in a short quote of five citations and four sentences? You haven't even addressed the content of the thing yet. Apparently you are confused enough to suppose the above has anything directly to do with Pelikan's remarks?

As I said per the above already, I agree from the example of St. Maximos that the phrase *can* be understood in an Orthodox manner; what Pelikan demonstrates is that it is false to presume that it *must* be and therefore that the phrase in and of itself is a sufficient guarantor that Orthodoxy will be preserved if it forms the basis of a compromise position. Historically it wasn't before (as documented by Pelikan), hence the relevance of the definition of insanity attributed to Einstein: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

You still haven't presented anything that challenges any of the citations Pelikan presented in the quote. If so, how so? Here they are again so the reader can compare:

Did anyone actually read this article yet?  It really is quite good and maybe we should start a whole new thread to discuss it.  What say?  

http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/adameve.htmlI had read this article shortly after Hieromonk Alexander published it.  I found it absolutely fun and fascinating to read then and I find it even more so today!!Enjoy!Christ is Risen!  Mary

It is a good article.  However, in St. Gregory's example the Spirit proceeds directly from the Father and the Son comes from the Father and the Holy Spirit.   This contradicts your notion that the Orthodox are simply being stubborn about words and are the ones responsible for the continuing breach.  

The attempt at unity on the basis of Orthodox willingness to concede that "through the Son" doesn't *have* to be understood in a heretical manner proved insufficient to stave off the next mushy middle once before (see the quote from Jaraslov Pelikan in the quotebox below).

Attributed to Albert Einstein is the aphorism that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

"At Florence in 1439 therefore, the earlier strictures on any theory of 'two principles' were repeated, but the decree went on to declare "what the holy doctors and fathers say, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son," led to the position that there was only one principle of origin, but that the Son as well  as the Father was this one principle. This made the Son 'joint cause' and, as he was "God from God, light from light' in the creed, so also 'principle of origin from principle of origin.' Supporters of the West contended that if the Eastern tradition contained -and therefore authorized- the phrase, 'through the son,' it was obvious that "there is no difference between saying 'from the Son' and saying 'from the Father through the Son' "for the two phrases were 'identical in force'" That was the very objection that Eastern theologians voiced to the compromise, arguing that 'through the Son' was a Latin device for foisting the heretical Filioque on the Greeks. Like the reunion at Lyons this compromise at Florence proved too little too late politically; and even though 'the debate over the Filioque, an endless labyrinth of arguments and counterarguments, continued for more than eight fruitless months,' it also failed to solve the issue theologically, with both sides eventually returning to their historic positions on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit" (Jaraslov Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 2, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700), p. 277.
________
Column notes from Pelikan op cit:
CFlor (1439) Def. (Mansi 31A:1029-30); Eug IV Ep. 176 (Hofmann I-II:71)
Joh.Argyr.Proc.8 (PG 158:1004)
Joh.Bek.Un.1.20 (PG 141:60-61)
Thdr.Agall.Argyr. (PG 158:1040)

As a Catholic, I can tell you that I will follow the teachings of the Catholic Church before I follow the interpretations of a Lutheran turned Orthodox...when they conflict.  

I've seen how Lutherans interpret Catholic teaching and I haven't been mightily impressed.

M.

While I can respect particular a Roman Catholic's need to affirm Roman Catholic ideas no matter what (though I'm personally not so likely to simply adopt them without at least a second thought when probably *the* major and universally respected church historian of the last century disputes them), it hardly seems self-evident at first blush that "Lutheran bias" is the likely devil afoot in Jaroslav Pelikan's above treatment of the filioque as the work cited was published by University of Chicago Press in 1974 (while Pelikan was still a Lutheran), and last time I checked the Lutheran Book of Concord *contains* the filioque.

(Note: no disrespect intended; I have enjoyed your comments agreeing or disagreeing)

I'm still not clear on what exactly is wrong with the above citations other than a vague appeal to Fr. Gill's work of 1959, which Pelikan also used. Doesn't this forum have a rule about providing specific documentation when it's requested in situations like being told a major church historian of the last century simply doesn't know what he was talking about and ignored the relevant sources? Or is taking the word of some (to the extent of my knowledge) random poster on the internet that Pelikan doesn't know his subject as well as the poster, and that Pelikan allegedly ignored an author he cited in his own work enough by OCnet standards? No disrespect to anyone intended: let's see the evidence!

I was asked if I had read Fr. Gill's work of 1959 on Florence which Pelikan cited in his work; I haven't, but wouldn't mind obtaining it through inter-library loan. In the meantime, what exactly is the problem with the quote from Pelikan, and what exactly does Fr. Gill say that demonstrates this?

Really it's hard for me to imagine what the alleged problem even might be since Pelikan's points seem to have been made by citation rather than interpretation, Lutheran, Orthodox, or whatever.

[elijahmaria]

there is a strong indication that Professor Pelikan took the easy and superficial

I can think of a few terms to describe Pelikan's work... dry, unOrthodox, well-read... but superficial doesn't seem to fit. A popularizer to some extent, yes, but superficial? Nah...

A few notes back there is a brief concluding paragraph by Professor Pelikan where he sums up the Council of Florence in a few words.  IF you read Father Professor Joe Gill's documentary history of the Council and also Professor Gilquists comments that I posted here, you too might be able to see what I mean when I say those few lines of summation are superficial and quite misleading.

How you come to make my comment a general or overarching critique of the sum total of Professor Pelikan's work, or style, what have you...I haven't the foggiest.   It does make dialogue difficult when contributors clearly aren't tracking very closely.

M.

[xariskai]

there is a strong indication that Professor Pelikan took the easy and superficial

I can think of a few terms to describe Pelikan's work... dry, unOrthodox, well-read... but superficial doesn't seem to fit. A popularizer to some extent, yes, but superficial? Nah...

A few notes back there is a brief concluding paragraph by Professor Pelikan where he sums up the Council of Florence in a few words.  IF you read Father Professor Joe Gill's documentary history of the Council and also Professor Gilquists comments that I posted here, you too might be able to see what I mean when I say those few lines of summation are superficial and quite misleading

Your comments are superficial and misleading until and unless you document your vague claim.

First you tell us Pelikan's conclusions are biased because he was Lutheran then. Problem: Lutherans affirm the same position as Roman Catholics by including the filioque. Oops.

Then you tell us you can't accept Pelikan's conclusions because they are too Orthodox. Problem: hardly a convincing reply in an Orthodox forum.

Then you tell us you can't accept his statements because they conflict with your Roman Catholicism. Problem: nothing more than a circular appeal to your personal religious preference. Fine as far as it goes, but not too convincing from an academic point of view.

Then you tell us Pelikan ignored Father Gill. Problem: he cited Fr. Gill Oops.

Then you say Pelikan ingored the gist of Gill. You were asked to be specific. Problem: you never provided a specific reply.

Then you are requested to provide the evidence from Gill. Problem: you don't want to type the pages.

Then you claim you're just making an assertion, Pelikan just made assertions too. Problem: Pelikan provided citations -evidence; you made an assertion that Pelikan didn't know what he was talking about but refuse to provide documentation after repeated request.

Then you are requested to just provide page numbers from Gill where you claim there is a specific rebuttal to Pelikan's quote since you don't want to type out whole pages of Gill. Problem: See next line.

Then you claim the rebuttal isn't just a matter of pages, but it is found plastered all across many chapters of Gill. Problem: credibility of supposing you saw a rebuttal to a small paragraph plastered across many chapters for which you can't provide any single example whatsoever by page reference.

Then you appeal to an article by Gilquist you posted. Problem: it's about St. Maximos, and we can agree with the quote (see my explanation posted above) but see nothing contra Pelikan's citations.

[pasadi97]

MariahElijah, time to renounce denial and become Eastern orthodox. Unless you want to gamble with your eternaal life in light of Vatican II. For God is no mystery which Church is right since God does not send Holy light to Catholics, protestants, Islam, Budhist, Hindus for 2000 years but only to Eastern Orthodox Christians.
Here is an article about Holy light: http://www.holyfire.org/eng/
Here is a movie about Holy Light: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99xvNIydfvQ

Do you know better than God? If nopt why don't ask God?

Dear God, please force me to salvation and please show me the truth about all religions.


Would be these movies an indication of Romano Catholics loosing their Church in one Council Vatican II?

Puppet Mass:
http://www.facebook.com/l/6172bSYUWtcq1CqSnwNtUGX5j3A;www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh_nqtp3VrU
Clown led Masses
http://www.facebook.com/l/6172bJTv6tRuPLvVwxv_V-przjw;www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ6KWt49wIA&feature=related
http://www.facebook.com/l/6172b5EEpuEyQqlgMW6pYo8d9yQ;www.youtube.com/watch?v=WadbbxPoBlk&feature=related
My understanding is that Vatican II made these Masses legal in the eyes of NEW Catholicism. Wondering if Union will make these Masses Legal somewhere else.
Explanation of what some people believe that happened there:
http://www.facebook.com/l/6172bTEpKyFw9DzG2N3hmnkYwlQ;www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc8lODfpxFo&NR=1
http://www.facebook.com/l/6172b7kBOqy-Vnx-elSuINefNIA;www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm2Oekpqrfw&feature=related
http://www.facebook.com/l/6172bV_AvDluBQkcAt1CjXdhDXA;www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPRsuFDdTzo&feature=related
http://www.facebook.com/l/6172bDLMqxIFAucMUIbIsj2Ee6A;www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzdcJmf8_Us&feature=related
http://www.facebook.com/l/6172bUEG8MA9IIohvmDuGZ9Oo_w;www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUELWCzmMaQ&feature=related

[biro]

That 'Puppet Mass' was from a conference called Women Church Call to Action. It is not a Roman Catholic Church or conference. Read Donna Steichen's "Ungodly Rage"- these things are usually held at Episcopal Churches.

Also, those abnormal types of Masses are not 'legal' at all: they have been the subject of crackdowns by the bishops. I might add that these began around the time Steichen wrote her book- in 1989.

The tendency by some people to continue to flog these inflated misconceptions as the 'typical' RCC practice is long past tiresome. No one should have to do your fact-checking for you.

[pasadi97]

Well, time to ask God as I did when I wanted to become Protestant:

Dear God, please force me to salvation and please show me the truth of all religions, and please show me the real religion in your eyes.


Why Catholics do not pray for their Church to be free from errors?

God knows about every religion, about every hair in everybody's head and will explain to everybody asking through prayer which religion is right and everything else, like the truth bout all religions. I know because I did it.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35988.0.html

[biro]

As if you would know what Roman Catholics do or don't do.

 

[Melodist]

Dear God, please force me to salvation and please show me the truth of all religions, and please show me the real religion in your eyes.

Mormon missionaries say the same thing. They claim their church was founded by Joseph Smith saying this prayer.

I'm not saying that prayer should not be used in searching for the truth, only that scripture, tradition, and history should all be looked at in "testing the spirits".

[pasadi97]

The fight Romano Catholicism, against Protestantism against Islam against Orthodoxy is stupid, since in heaven there is Orthodox Church, there is nobody in Heaven able to infiltrate errors.


You know what Romano Catholics do, but there are things you don't know or discern. Saying I know you base on yourself, saying God please show me, is basing on God. If you're not infailible, then God is and in hard stuff you need God.

5 This is what the LORD says: "Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who depends on flesh for his strength and whose heart turns away from the LORD.


6 He will be like a bush in the wastelands; he will not see prosperity when it comes. He will dwell in the parched places of the desert, in a salt land where no one lives.


7 "But blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD, whose confidence is in him.


8 He will be like a tree planted by the water that sends out its roots by the stream. It does not fear when heat comes; its leaves are always green. It has no worries in a year of drought and never fails to bear fruit."

~ Jeremiah 17


I don't know what Jeremiah means here but I know what Romano Catolics do, does not sound right ..... I don't see God mentioned in I do knmow what Romano Catholics do.

[Wyatt]

We need to hold another council to state the following: whoever should say that the filioque is heretical, let him be anathema. 

[biro]

The fight Romano Catholicism, against Protestantism against Islam against Orthodoxy is stupid, since in heaven there is Orthodox Church, there is nobody in Heaven able to infiltrate errors.


You know what Romano Catholics do, but there are things you don't know or discern. Saying I know you base on yourself, saying God please show me, is basing on God. If you're not infailible, then God is and in hard stuff you need God.

Cursed is the one basing on man, sounds from OT..... Putting your hope on God on such important question, helps you avoid the curse.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. 

[pasadi97]

Now this is above and beyond everything, to anatemize first 1000 years of Early Church  including a pope. You really want the truth, history is for you to read and you can ask God.

Like this question.

Dear God, why the treASURY of Roman Catholic Church is not LEAD BY A Christian. Does it mean the Romano Catholic cHURCH IS NOT FREE?


WELL SEARCH GOOGLE FOR "VATICAN TREASURY GUARDIAN".

We need to hold another council to state the following: whoever should say that the filioque is heretical, let him be anathema. 

[Wyatt]

Now this is above and beyond everything, to anatemize first 1000 years of Early Church  including a pope.

Not at all. The only way it would be "above and beyond" is if the Creed specified that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father alone." It says no such thing (nor has it ever) and we know, of course, that not everything that is believed is included in the Creed. Taking all these things into consideration it is evident to me as well as to countless numbers of western Christians that filioque is a clarification, not a heresy. The fact that schism is perpetuated in the East over it is beyond absurd.

[elijahmaria]

The reason that Professor Gilquist's article is directly relevant to Professor Pelikan's summation is the fact that Professor Pelikan's summation only reflects one possible understanding of the Latin teaching of Filioque.  Essentially it is the position of Bishop Mark at the Council.  Professor Gilquist says that Bishop Mark was wrong about St. Maximos's understanding of the Latin west and demonstrates why he thinks so based upon data that he includes in the passages that I have posted here.  It is also clear in Father Joe Gill's book that there's much more to what was said by the Latins in the Council to Bishop Mark than Professor Pelikan's summation allows.  Professor Gilquist also notes that in Gill's book it is clear that Bessarion has a much better grasp of the situation vis a vis Maximos than does Bishop Mark.  So it is clear that Professor Pelikan's summation does not in any way reflect those conflicting views among the Greeks at the Council.  Therefore it is inadequate as a summation.

Here's a bit more from Professor Gilquist that highlights the Pelikan bias, recently contested here.  It should be clear from the following that there is a strong indication that Professor Pelikan took the easy and superficial route in his conclusions concerning what happened at the Council of Florence with respect to the Filioque:

http://bekkos.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/st-maximus-on-the-filioque/

(2)

Similarly, you should go and read Alexander Alexakis on the history of the patristic sources used at the Council of Florence. In his article titled “The Greek Patristic Testimonia presented at the Council of Florence (1439) in support of the Filioque reconsidered,” Revue des Études Byzantines 58 (2000), pp. 149-165, Alexakis argues that the patristic florilegium used by the Latins at the Council of Florence, presenting Greek patristic texts favoring the Latin doctrine, originated with St. Maximus and his circle of Greek-speaking exiles at Rome in the seventh century. There are things in Alexakis’s argument that I don’t agree with, but the claim that this patristic florilegium goes back to St. Maximus seems sound. And, if it does, it is evidence that St. Maximus in fact is closer in his thinking on the Trinity to people like Bekkos and Bessarion than to people like Mark of Ephesus. Maximus sees the Latin and Greek doctrines to be compatible; Mark of Ephesus doesn’t.

(3)

I don’t have the book at hand, but I distinctly remember reading in Gill’s The Council of Florence that this letter of St. Maximus to Marinus formed a central part of Bessarion’s argument for union; Bessarion claimed that, if St. Maximus sees the Latins as orthodox, then we should see the Latins as orthodox; if St. Maximus sees the Latins as not viewing the Son as a distinct cause, then we should not see them as doing this, either. This letter seems to have played a fairly large role in Bessarion’s reasoning; to say that “the Latins denied” this letter seems false; they undoubtedly denied the interpretation Mark of Ephesus was putting on it, which was that the Son has no role whatsoever to play in the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit; the Latins could not affirm that without denying all of Latin patristic tradition and most of Greek patristic tradition as well.

Your argument about St. Maximus is based on the myth of the non-Augustinian West, the West that avoided the Augustinian defilement and remained Orthodox in a Photian sense. There are others who push this myth; Jean-Claude Larchet is probably the most educated of the ones that I’ve read, but it’s still nonsense. When I compare St. Maximus’s irenicism and good sense with the bombast coming from Mark of Ephesus, of which you recently gave a choice sample on your blog, I think one would have to be embarrassed to equate the one with the other. I would agree that Maximus strives to balance the Western point of view with an Eastern perspective. But the view that Maximus is anti-Augustinian, a defender of the pure East against Western defilement, is, as I have stated above, an an-historical cartoon.

The simple fact remains that, in this, one of the earliest witnesses to a dispute between East and West over the filioque, St. Maximus defends the Western teaching as orthodox.

One last point. St. Maximus, in his Question 63 to Thalassius (PG 90, 672), writes, “For just as the Holy Spirit exists, by nature, according to substance, as belonging to the Father, so also does he, according to substance, belong to the Son, in that, in an ineffable way, he proceeds substantially from the Father through the begotten Son.” That might be a better statement of the point St. Maximus is making in the letter to Marinus. The “from” properly belongs to the Spirit’s relation to the Father; the Father is the Spirit’s originating cause. But the “through” of the Spirit’s relation to the Son is not negotiable; it is not just something accidental to the Spirit’s being. It belongs to the Spirit’s existence that he exist from the Father, through the Son. The Latins, St. Maximus says, because of their difference of language, express this in terms of the Holy Spirit’s being from the Father and the Son. He says that this is orthodox. You evidently think otherwise.

Then it was the article I already read and replied to already. Another smokescreen for your continual refusal to provide documentation for your remark that Pelikan doesn't know what he's talking about in a short quote of five citations and four sentences? You haven't even addressed the content of the thing yet. Apparently you are confused enough to suppose the above has anything directly to do with Pelikan's remarks?

As I said per the above already, I agree from the example of St. Maximos that the phrase *can* be understood in an Orthodox manner; what Pelikan demonstrates is that it is false to presume that it *must* be and therefore that the phrase in and of itself is a sufficient guarantor that Orthodoxy will be preserved if it forms the basis of a compromise position. Historically it wasn't before (as documented by Pelikan), hence the relevance of the definition of insanity attributed to Einstein: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

You still haven't presented anything that challenges any of the citations Pelikan presented in the quote. If so, how so? Here they are again so the reader can compare:

Did anyone actually read this article yet?  It really is quite good and maybe we should start a whole new thread to discuss it.  What say?  

http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/adameve.htmlI had read this article shortly after Hieromonk Alexander published it.  I found it absolutely fun and fascinating to read then and I find it even more so today!!Enjoy!Christ is Risen!  Mary

It is a good article.  However, in St. Gregory's example the Spirit proceeds directly from the Father and the Son comes from the Father and the Holy Spirit.   This contradicts your notion that the Orthodox are simply being stubborn about words and are the ones responsible for the continuing breach.  

The attempt at unity on the basis of Orthodox willingness to concede that "through the Son" doesn't *have* to be understood in a heretical manner proved insufficient to stave off the next mushy middle once before (see the quote from Jaraslov Pelikan in the quotebox below).

Attributed to Albert Einstein is the aphorism that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

"At Florence in 1439 therefore, the earlier strictures on any theory of 'two principles' were repeated, but the decree went on to declare "what the holy doctors and fathers say, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son," led to the position that there was only one principle of origin, but that the Son as well  as the Father was this one principle. This made the Son 'joint cause' and, as he was "God from God, light from light' in the creed, so also 'principle of origin from principle of origin.' Supporters of the West contended that if the Eastern tradition contained -and therefore authorized- the phrase, 'through the son,' it was obvious that "there is no difference between saying 'from the Son' and saying 'from the Father through the Son' "for the two phrases were 'identical in force'" That was the very objection that Eastern theologians voiced to the compromise, arguing that 'through the Son' was a Latin device for foisting the heretical Filioque on the Greeks. Like the reunion at Lyons this compromise at Florence proved too little too late politically; and even though 'the debate over the Filioque, an endless labyrinth of arguments and counterarguments, continued for more than eight fruitless months,' it also failed to solve the issue theologically, with both sides eventually returning to their historic positions on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit" (Jaraslov Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 2, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700), p. 277.
________
Column notes from Pelikan op cit:
CFlor (1439) Def. (Mansi 31A:1029-30); Eug IV Ep. 176 (Hofmann I-II:71)
Joh.Argyr.Proc.8 (PG 158:1004)
Joh.Bek.Un.1.20 (PG 141:60-61)
Thdr.Agall.Argyr. (PG 158:1040)

As a Catholic, I can tell you that I will follow the teachings of the Catholic Church before I follow the interpretations of a Lutheran turned Orthodox...when they conflict.  

I've seen how Lutherans interpret Catholic teaching and I haven't been mightily impressed.

M.

While I can respect particular a Roman Catholic's need to affirm Roman Catholic ideas no matter what (though I'm personally not so likely to simply adopt them without at least a second thought when probably *the* major and universally respected church historian of the last century disputes them), it hardly seems self-evident at first blush that "Lutheran bias" is the likely devil afoot in Jaroslav Pelikan's above treatment of the filioque as the work cited was published by University of Chicago Press in 1974 (while Pelikan was still a Lutheran), and last time I checked the Lutheran Book of Concord *contains* the filioque.

(Note: no disrespect intended; I have enjoyed your comments agreeing or disagreeing)

I'm still not clear on what exactly is wrong with the above citations other than a vague appeal to Fr. Gill's work of 1959, which Pelikan also used. Doesn't this forum have a rule about providing specific documentation when it's requested in situations like being told a major church historian of the last century simply doesn't know what he was talking about and ignored the relevant sources? Or is taking the word of some (to the extent of my knowledge) random poster on the internet that Pelikan doesn't know his subject as well as the poster, and that Pelikan allegedly ignored an author he cited in his own work enough by OCnet standards? No disrespect to anyone intended: let's see the evidence!

I was asked if I had read Fr. Gill's work of 1959 on Florence which Pelikan cited in his work; I haven't, but wouldn't mind obtaining it through inter-library loan. In the meantime, what exactly is the problem with the quote from Pelikan, and what exactly does Fr. Gill say that demonstrates this?

Really it's hard for me to imagine what the alleged problem even might be since Pelikan's points seem to have been made by citation rather than interpretation, Lutheran, Orthodox, or whatever.

[Peter J]

Well, time to ask God as I did when I wanted to become Protestant:

Dear God, please force me to salvation and please show me the truth of all religions, and please show me the real religion in your eyes.


Why Catholics do not pray for their Church to be free from errors?

God knows about every religion, about every hair in everybody's head and will explain to everybody asking through prayer which religion is right and everything else, like the truth bout all religions. I know because I did it.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35988.0.html

I guess we Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, etc. just never thought of praying. 

P.S. I was going to bring up Joseph Smith, but I see Melodist has beaten me to it.

[Peter J]

We need to hold another council to state the following: whoever should say that the filioque is heretical, let him be anathema. 

That would give people the impression that we have lifted the anathemas (e.g. from the Council of Florence) against anyone who denies the filioque.