Topic: Creed question

[ialmisry]

"Now since the Son comes forth from the Father, as Scripture declares, and the Spirit proceeds from God and from the side of [the] Father. But just as He is without cause, which is of the Father alone, which cannot be conjoined to the Son and the Spirit, so that is contrary to that [which comes] out of the cause, the very thing which is the very own of the Son and of the Spirit, it does not have the property considered for the Father. But being common to the Son and the Spirit is of not unbegotten, as viewed not in confusion around the underlying, again it is unmingled to find the difference in their own property, as if also to divide the common, and not to confuse what is proper.  Since the only begotten Son of the Father is named by holy Scripture, as far as this word set the specific feature for Him. But the Holy Spirit is also called of the Father, and He is of the Son is further attested, "Since he who does not have the Spirit of Christ," he declares, "he is none of His."  Certainly therefore the Spirit is of the Father, and the Spiirt of God. But the Son being of God, Who is not of the Spirit, which is not said, but not overturn its relevant sequence."

I was getting there, but it takes time to outline things clearly when being drawn off by un-friendly fire [meaning only rejection, nothing more]

so you kept firing this shot?

Do you see the word "property" in the full quote?

Just because its there. I could translate φυσιν as "nature," but I'm afraid that would muddle things further.

The filioque does not deny the property of causality to the Father.

Yes, it does.

What the filioque does is highlight the last TWO lines of the quote.

and twist them.

Again, all the writings of St. Gregory of Nyssa and they picke this discarded cherry from that orchard.

So when the Spirit is of the Son, the Spirit is not bearing the property of causality from the Son, which is only proper to the Father.  When the Spirit comes from the Son, the Spirit bears the property of causality from the Father alone.

Then then He isn't "and of the Son." Btw, if St. Gregory said what is claimed here, he is wrong:ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and was made man.

What the filioque does is clearly establish the relationships and the order of relationships in the Trinity

No, it muddles them.

as noted in this long quote from St. Gregory.

WHich your source and authority abbreviated and edited.

And it is that clarity which the Arian heresy demands.

Odd that the Orthodox killed off Arianism without the filioque.

The Arians called themselves Catholic. Their great apostle Wulfinas, according to his foster son and disciple, and Arian bishop of Milan Auxentius, confessed:

I, Wulfila, Bishop and Confessor, have always believed thus and in this sole and true faith I make my journey to my Lord,
I believe
that there is only one God the Father, alone unbegotten and invisible, and in His only-begotten Son, our Lord and God, creator and maker of all things, not having any like unto Him. Therefore there is one God of all, who is also God of our God, And I believe in one Holy Spirit, an enlightening and sanctifying power. As Christ says after the resurrection to his Apostles: "Behold I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be clothed with power from on high." (Luke 24.49) And again: "And ye shall receive power coming upon you by the Holy Spirit." (Acts 1. Neither God nor Lord, but the faithful minister of Christ; not equal, but subject and obedient in all things to the Son. And I believe the Son to be subject and obedient in all things to God the Father.

http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/texts/auxentius.trans.html
Sounds like the filioque to me. Perhaps why the Arians snuck it in at Toledo.

It has been said, and I believe it to be true, that the filioque risks the heresy of modalism, BUT the insistent denial by the east of filioque then runs the clear risk of subordinationism.   Note that I say "risks" and not ensures.

Filioque ensures subordinationism.

To use filioque in the Latin west was to acknowledge explicitly BOTH the monarchy of the Father AND the particular relationship between the Father and the Son, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

And it missed on both.

You can howl and disavow all you want about it's accuracy, but in theological reality

No howing, just anathematizing.  The pillars of Orthodoxy and the Fathers of Constantinople IV (879) accurately stated the theological reality of the filioque, that it is heresy.

...it is sheer pettiness to do so.

 
Your mantras do not work on the Holy Trinity.

There is no inherent heresy in filioque.

The Fathers demonstrate otherwise. For one thing, it makes the Father a begetter of the Spirit.

[elijahmaria]

I don't see any argument of substance here against the Filioque.  The only ones that may look substantial are really only assertions.   

The east "rid" themselves of Arianism by paying the Arians in real gold to move west, which they did, of course and there is a clear record of that bit of human migratory influence in the west.

The brief explanatory passage from St. Gregory is taken out of St. John Damascene so it did go through a bit of updating but that is relative since both Holy Fathers seem to be agreed.   The complaint about this originating passage being a "throw away" is not sustained since St. John Damascene did not throw it away but used it.

The rest are unsubstantiated assertions, so I won't comment till I see something more than assertion being offered here.

It is still the position of the west that the Father is monarch and the filioque illuminates the relationship between the Father and the Son, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  In my way of thinking they found the best of both worlds to be most illuminating and edifying.

"Now since the Son comes forth from the Father, as Scripture declares, and the Spirit proceeds from God and from the side of [the] Father. But just as He is without cause, which is of the Father alone, which cannot be conjoined to the Son and the Spirit, so that is contrary to that [which comes] out of the cause, the very thing which is the very own of the Son and of the Spirit, it does not have the property considered for the Father. But being common to the Son and the Spirit is of not unbegotten, as viewed not in confusion around the underlying, again it is unmingled to find the difference in their own property, as if also to divide the common, and not to confuse what is proper.  Since the only begotten Son of the Father is named by holy Scripture, as far as this word set the specific feature for Him. But the Holy Spirit is also called of the Father, and He is of the Son is further attested, "Since he who does not have the Spirit of Christ," he declares, "he is none of His."  Certainly therefore the Spirit is of the Father, and the Spiirt of God. But the Son being of God, Who is not of the Spirit, which is not said, but not overturn its relevant sequence."

I was getting there, but it takes time to outline things clearly when being drawn off by un-friendly fire [meaning only rejection, nothing more]

so you kept firing this shot?

Do you see the word "property" in the full quote?

Just because its there. I could translate φυσιν as "nature," but I'm afraid that would muddle things further.

The filioque does not deny the property of causality to the Father.

Yes, it does.

What the filioque does is highlight the last TWO lines of the quote.

and twist them.

Again, all the writings of St. Gregory of Nyssa and they picke this discarded cherry from that orchard.

So when the Spirit is of the Son, the Spirit is not bearing the property of causality from the Son, which is only proper to the Father.  When the Spirit comes from the Son, the Spirit bears the property of causality from the Father alone.

Then then He isn't "and of the Son." Btw, if St. Gregory said what is claimed here, he is wrong:ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and was made man.

What the filioque does is clearly establish the relationships and the order of relationships in the Trinity

No, it muddles them.

as noted in this long quote from St. Gregory.

WHich your source and authority abbreviated and edited.

And it is that clarity which the Arian heresy demands.

Odd that the Orthodox killed off Arianism without the filioque.

The Arians called themselves Catholic. Their great apostle Wulfinas, according to his foster son and disciple, and Arian bishop of Milan Auxentius, confessed:

I, Wulfila, Bishop and Confessor, have always believed thus and in this sole and true faith I make my journey to my Lord,
I believe
that there is only one God the Father, alone unbegotten and invisible, and in His only-begotten Son, our Lord and God, creator and maker of all things, not having any like unto Him. Therefore there is one God of all, who is also God of our God, And I believe in one Holy Spirit, an enlightening and sanctifying power. As Christ says after the resurrection to his Apostles: "Behold I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be clothed with power from on high." (Luke 24.49) And again: "And ye shall receive power coming upon you by the Holy Spirit." (Acts 1. Neither God nor Lord, but the faithful minister of Christ; not equal, but subject and obedient in all things to the Son. And I believe the Son to be subject and obedient in all things to God the Father.

http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/texts/auxentius.trans.html
Sounds like the filioque to me. Perhaps why the Arians snuck it in at Toledo.

It has been said, and I believe it to be true, that the filioque risks the heresy of modalism, BUT the insistent denial by the east of filioque then runs the clear risk of subordinationism.   Note that I say "risks" and not ensures.

Filioque ensures subordinationism.

To use filioque in the Latin west was to acknowledge explicitly BOTH the monarchy of the Father AND the particular relationship between the Father and the Son, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

And it missed on both.

You can howl and disavow all you want about it's accuracy, but in theological reality

No howing, just anathematizing.  The pillars of Orthodoxy and the Fathers of Constantinople IV (879) accurately stated the theological reality of the filioque, that it is heresy.

...it is sheer pettiness to do so.

 
Your mantras do not work on the Holy Trinity.

There is no inherent heresy in filioque.

The Fathers demonstrate otherwise. For one thing, it makes the Father a begetter of the Spirit.

[Father H]

ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and was made man.

Very true.  Since this has been brought up:

Matthew 1:18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit."

Matthew 1:20  "But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit."[/quote]

There is no inherent heresy in filioque.

The Fathers demonstrate otherwise. For one thing, it makes the Father a begetter of the Spirit.

  Right.  God the Father is not "dear old grand-dad" to the Spirit. 

[elijahmaria]

ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and was made man.

Very true.  Since this has been brought up:

Matthew 1:18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit."

Matthew 1:20  "But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit."

[/quote]

The Holy Fathers agree that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son, and is all one and the same Holy Spirit.

The Spirit of the Father and the Son acts in the world.  So I am not sure what point you are making here.

[Basil 320]

Eastern Orthodox Christian Church doctrine cannot be changed.  It is promulgated by Ecumenical Synods (Councils), assemblies of the church hierarchy, accepted by the clergy and the faithful, and ratified by subsequent Ecumenical Synods. It thus became the infallible teaching of the Church.

The Creed, the Symbol of Faith, was promulgated by the 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Synods of the Undivided Church.  Its 9th Article, like the basis of other doctrine of Holy Orthodoxy, is primarily based on Holy Scripture:  "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," Gospel of St. John the Theologian, 15: 26.  Thus, the 9th Article of the Symbol of Faith: "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified..."

[elijahmaria]

Eastern Orthodox Christian Church doctrine cannot be changed.  It is promulgated by Ecumenical Synods (Councils), assemblies of the church hierarchy, accepted by the clergy and the faithful, and ratified by subsequent Ecumenical Synods. It thus became the infallible teaching of the Church.

The Creed, the Symbol of Faith, was promulgated by the 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Synods of the Undivided Church.  Its 9th Article, like the basis of other doctrine of Holy Orthodoxy, is primarily based on Holy Scripture:  "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," Gospel of St. John the Theologian, 15: 26.  Thus, the 9th Article of the Symbol of Faith: "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified..."

Between the Council of Nicea and Constantinople the Creed changed.

Between the Council of Nicea and Constantinople was the Council that said the Creed could not change.

Now how is that for breaking your own rules?

I am afraid this particular argument that you offer here carries less weight on account.

[Melodist]

It is still the position of the west that the Father is monarch and the filioque illuminates the relationship between the Father and the Son, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  In my way of thinking they found the best of both worlds to be most illuminating and edifying.

The position of the west is that

The Filioque is, in fact, situated in a theological and linguistic context different from that of the affirmation of the sole Monarchy of the Father, the one origin of the Son and of the Spirit.

...

The Greek ekporeusis signifies only the relationship of origin to the Father alone as the principle without principle of the Trinity. The Latin processio, on the contrary, is a more common term, signifying the communication of the consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father, through and with the Son, to the Holy Spirit.

...

In the Patristic period, an analogous theology had developed in Alexandria, stemming from St. Athanasius. As in the Latin tradition, it was expressed by the more common term of 'procession' (proienai) indicating the communication of the divinity to the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son in their consubstantial communion: "The Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son; clearly, he is of the divine substance, proceeding (proion) substantially (ousiodos) in it and from it" (St. Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus, PG 75, 585 A).4

In the seventh century, the Byzantines were shocked by a confession of faith made by the Pope and including the Filioque with reference to the procession of the Holy Spirit; they translated the procession inaccurately by ekporeusis.

...

According to St. Maximus, echoing Rome, the Filioque does not concern the ekporeusis of the Spirit issued from the Father as source of the Trinity, but manifests his proienai (processio) in the consubstantial communion of the Father and the Son, while excluding any possible subordinationist interpretation of the Father's Monarchy.

The fact that in Latin and Alexandrian theology the Holy Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son in their consubstantial communion does not mean that it is the divine essence or substance that proceed in him, but that it is communicated from the Father and the Son who have it in common."

It's one thing to use the concept of filioque in theological writings where it is understood and acceoted that the context is consubstantial communion within the Trinity, it's another to put into an ecumenical creed that was originally written to describe a different aspect of the Trinity.

Even if I were to say that there may be no real difference in what is actually believed (which I don't think there is a real difference), it still wouldn't change the fact that the context (ekporeusis) in which the creed was originally written does not allow for the filioque.

[Peter J]

The position of the west is that

The Filioque is, in fact, situated in a theological and linguistic context different from that of the affirmation of the sole Monarchy of the Father, the one origin of the Son and of the Spirit.

...

The Greek ekporeusis signifies only the relationship of origin to the Father alone as the principle without principle of the Trinity. The Latin processio, on the contrary, is a more common term, signifying the communication of the consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father, through and with the Son, to the Holy Spirit.

...

In the Patristic period, an analogous theology had developed in Alexandria, stemming from St. Athanasius. As in the Latin tradition, it was expressed by the more common term of 'procession' (proienai) indicating the communication of the divinity to the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son in their consubstantial communion: "The Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son; clearly, he is of the divine substance, proceeding (proion) substantially (ousiodos) in it and from it" (St. Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus, PG 75, 585 A).4

In the seventh century, the Byzantines were shocked by a confession of faith made by the Pope and including the Filioque with reference to the procession of the Holy Spirit; they translated the procession inaccurately by ekporeusis.

...

According to St. Maximus, echoing Rome, the Filioque does not concern the ekporeusis of the Spirit issued from the Father as source of the Trinity, but manifests his proienai (processio) in the consubstantial communion of the Father and the Son, while excluding any possible subordinationist interpretation of the Father's Monarchy.

The fact that in Latin and Alexandrian theology the Holy Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son in their consubstantial communion does not mean that it is the divine essence or substance that proceed in him, but that it is communicated from the Father and the Son who have it in common."

Good quotation, Melodist. While there's nothing wrong, in principle, with internet-forum posts saying "The Catholic [or Orthodox] position is such-and-such", there is a danger of people treating those posts as if they were authoritative. (In my own personal experience, I can't tell you how many times I heard a Protestant or Orthodox poster say "I heard such-and-such on catholic.com, so that proves that it's the Catholic position.")

[elijahmaria]

This is an excellent contribution to the discussion, from my own personal point of view, and I am pleasantly surprised and grateful to see it.

I think it is also necessary to note that since the Creed is catechized in the west with the
Father-as-Monarch, then the Creed would be reflective of both theologics:  Father as source and Filioque.

Given that reality then I think the addition of filioque, given its longevity and the fact that it is not heretical, should be allowed in the western liturgy by virtue of tradition, which is not a negligible influence on doctrine in both the east and the west.

The history is not a happy one but we should be able to abide in charity in spite of the human weaknesses involved in that history.

Those are my thoughts.

It is still the position of the west that the Father is monarch and the filioque illuminates the relationship between the Father and the Son, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  In my way of thinking they found the best of both worlds to be most illuminating and edifying.

The position of the west is that

The Filioque is, in fact, situated in a theological and linguistic context different from that of the affirmation of the sole Monarchy of the Father, the one origin of the Son and of the Spirit.

...

The Greek ekporeusis signifies only the relationship of origin to the Father alone as the principle without principle of the Trinity. The Latin processio, on the contrary, is a more common term, signifying the communication of the consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father, through and with the Son, to the Holy Spirit.

...

In the Patristic period, an analogous theology had developed in Alexandria, stemming from St. Athanasius. As in the Latin tradition, it was expressed by the more common term of 'procession' (proienai) indicating the communication of the divinity to the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son in their consubstantial communion: "The Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son; clearly, he is of the divine substance, proceeding (proion) substantially (ousiodos) in it and from it" (St. Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus, PG 75, 585 A).4

In the seventh century, the Byzantines were shocked by a confession of faith made by the Pope and including the Filioque with reference to the procession of the Holy Spirit; they translated the procession inaccurately by ekporeusis.

...

According to St. Maximus, echoing Rome, the Filioque does not concern the ekporeusis of the Spirit issued from the Father as source of the Trinity, but manifests his proienai (processio) in the consubstantial communion of the Father and the Son, while excluding any possible subordinationist interpretation of the Father's Monarchy.

The fact that in Latin and Alexandrian theology the Holy Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son in their consubstantial communion does not mean that it is the divine essence or substance that proceed in him, but that it is communicated from the Father and the Son who have it in common."

It's one thing to use the concept of filioque in theological writings where it is understood and acceoted that the context is consubstantial communion within the Trinity, it's another to put into an ecumenical creed that was originally written to describe a different aspect of the Trinity.

Even if I were to say that there may be no real difference in what is actually believed (which I don't think there is a real difference), it still wouldn't change the fact that the context (ekporeusis) in which the creed was originally written does not allow for the filioque.

[Melodist]

The position of the west is that

The Filioque is, in fact, situated in a theological and linguistic context different from that of the affirmation of the sole Monarchy of the Father, the one origin of the Son and of the Spirit.

...

The Greek ekporeusis signifies only the relationship of origin to the Father alone as the principle without principle of the Trinity. The Latin processio, on the contrary, is a more common term, signifying the communication of the consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father, through and with the Son, to the Holy Spirit.

...

In the Patristic period, an analogous theology had developed in Alexandria, stemming from St. Athanasius. As in the Latin tradition, it was expressed by the more common term of 'procession' (proienai) indicating the communication of the divinity to the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son in their consubstantial communion: "The Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son; clearly, he is of the divine substance, proceeding (proion) substantially (ousiodos) in it and from it" (St. Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus, PG 75, 585 A).4

In the seventh century, the Byzantines were shocked by a confession of faith made by the Pope and including the Filioque with reference to the procession of the Holy Spirit; they translated the procession inaccurately by ekporeusis.

...

According to St. Maximus, echoing Rome, the Filioque does not concern the ekporeusis of the Spirit issued from the Father as source of the Trinity, but manifests his proienai (processio) in the consubstantial communion of the Father and the Son, while excluding any possible subordinationist interpretation of the Father's Monarchy.

The fact that in Latin and Alexandrian theology the Holy Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son in their consubstantial communion does not mean that it is the divine essence or substance that proceed in him, but that it is communicated from the Father and the Son who have it in common."

Good quotation, Melodist. While there's nothing wrong, in principle, with internet-forum posts saying "The Catholic [or Orthodox] position is such-and-such", there is a danger of people treating those posts as if they were authoritative. (In my own personal experience, I can't tell you how many times I heard a Protestant or Orthodox poster say "I heard such-and-such on catholic.com, so that proves that it's the Catholic position.")

Well, the site that I linked to does give the author of the document.

The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity: The Procession of the Holy Spirit in Greek and Latin Traditions
by Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity

and while the text is not posted, it is listed (second from the bottom) on the Vatican's web site. I don't know how authoritative or official you would consider it, but given the source, I would hope that it would be fairly representative of the Roman Catholic faith.

[Peter J]

Melodist, I'm extremely puzzled by your last post. You reacted as though I criticized you for citing that document, rather than praising you for it.

[ialmisry]

Eastern Orthodox Christian Church doctrine cannot be changed.  It is promulgated by Ecumenical Synods (Councils), assemblies of the church hierarchy, accepted by the clergy and the faithful, and ratified by subsequent Ecumenical Synods. It thus became the infallible teaching of the Church.

The Creed, the Symbol of Faith, was promulgated by the 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Synods of the Undivided Church.  Its 9th Article, like the basis of other doctrine of Holy Orthodoxy, is primarily based on Holy Scripture:  "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," Gospel of St. John the Theologian, 15: 26.  Thus, the 9th Article of the Symbol of Faith: "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified..."

Between the Council of Nicea and Constantinople the Creed changed.

Between the Council of Nicea and Constantinople was the Council that said the Creed could not change.

What Council would that be, between the First and Second Ecumenical Councils? The 1 1/2 Ecumenical Council?  You don't even need to know Church history to figure that one out.

The Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople I set their seal on the Orthodox Creed, sealing it with their canon. Now we know that you all think a certain bishop (who wasn't at Nicea and had no representative at all at Constantinople I) by quirks of history and geography can ignore that and unseal it and change it all by himself, and you all have demonstrated that you can't distinguish between an Ecumenical Council and a local council off on the periphery of Christendom with heretical kings, but we're going to persist in recognizing the mandate of the Fathers of the First Two Ecumenical Councils.

Now how is that for breaking your own rule?

Those who set the rules cannot break them.  Those who make it up as they go along are in a different class than the Fathers.

I am afraid this particular argument that you offer here carries less weight on account.

Yes, your argument that a handful of bishops off in the stix can strike a deal with a heretical local king to change the Creed of the whole Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Ecumenical Councils makes soooo much more sense.

[Father H]

Eastern Orthodox Christian Church doctrine cannot be changed.  It is promulgated by Ecumenical Synods (Councils), assemblies of the church hierarchy, accepted by the clergy and the faithful, and ratified by subsequent Ecumenical Synods. It thus became the infallible teaching of the Church.The Creed, the Symbol of Faith, was promulgated by the 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Synods of the Undivided Church.  Its 9th Article, like the basis of other doctrine of Holy Orthodoxy, is primarily based on Holy Scripture:  "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," Gospel of St. John the Theologian, 15: 26.  Thus, the 9th Article of the Symbol of Faith: "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified..."

Between the Council of Nicea and Constantinople the Creed changed.Between the Council of Nicea and Constantinople was the Council that said the Creed could not change.Now how is that for breaking your own rules?

Actually the council that said the faith could not change (Ephesus) was in between Constantinople and Chalcedon, not in between Nicea and Constantinople.    

[Father H]

Not sure what is not clear.  Isa pointed out that one cannot say that "the Son is not of the Spirit," because it is in the creed.  I pointed out that this same example is in Scripture as well.  

ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and was made man.

Very true.  Since this has been brought up:
Matthew 1:18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit."
Matthew 1:20  "But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit."

The Holy Fathers agree that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son, and is all one and the same Holy Spirit.

The Spirit of the Father and the Son acts in the world.  So I am not sure what point you are making here.

[elijahmaria]

Eastern Orthodox Christian Church doctrine cannot be changed.  It is promulgated by Ecumenical Synods (Councils), assemblies of the church hierarchy, accepted by the clergy and the faithful, and ratified by subsequent Ecumenical Synods. It thus became the infallible teaching of the Church.The Creed, the Symbol of Faith, was promulgated by the 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Synods of the Undivided Church.  Its 9th Article, like the basis of other doctrine of Holy Orthodoxy, is primarily based on Holy Scripture:  "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," Gospel of St. John the Theologian, 15: 26.  Thus, the 9th Article of the Symbol of Faith: "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified..."

Between the Council of Nicea and Constantinople the Creed changed.Between the Council of Nicea and Constantinople was the Council that said the Creed could not change.Now how is that for breaking your own rules?

Actually the council that said the faith could not change (Ephesus) was in between Constantinople and Chalcedon, not in between Nicea and Constantinople.    

Yes!!...You are correct but we don't have records of Constantinople is that correct?  I knew I was shortchanging things after I sent my note but I figured you or someone would correct me.  In any event it is pretty clear that the Creed has changed over time in ways other than "filioque"...I am remembering that I read that it changed after Ephesus...I need to go back and look at that history of the councils because I've forgotten too much of it to be shooting from the hip.

[elijahmaria]

Probably need to be careful here or we wind up saying that the virgin is the mother of the Son of God, rather than saying that the virigin is the Mother of God.

Not sure what is not clear.  Isa pointed out that one cannot say that "the Son is not of the Spirit," because it is in the creed.  I pointed out that this same example is in Scripture as well.  

ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and was made man.

Very true.  Since this has been brought up:
Matthew 1:18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit."
Matthew 1:20  "But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit."

The Holy Fathers agree that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son, and is all one and the same Holy Spirit.

The Spirit of the Father and the Son acts in the world.  So I am not sure what point you are making here.

[Father H]

We have records of the council, particularly from the following sources:
The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon
The Ecclesiastical Histories of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret
We have the letter of the fathers of the council to St. Damasus of Rome on the decision of the council, which he in turn responded to by drafting letters on behalf of the synod in Rome to others to solidify its decisions and its pronounced faith.  

Eastern Orthodox Christian Church doctrine cannot be changed.  It is promulgated by Ecumenical Synods (Councils), assemblies of the church hierarchy, accepted by the clergy and the faithful, and ratified by subsequent Ecumenical Synods. It thus became the infallible teaching of the Church.The Creed, the Symbol of Faith, was promulgated by the 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Synods of the Undivided Church.  Its 9th Article, like the basis of other doctrine of Holy Orthodoxy, is primarily based on Holy Scripture:  "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," Gospel of St. John the Theologian, 15: 26.  Thus, the 9th Article of the Symbol of Faith: "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified..."

Between the Council of Nicea and Constantinople the Creed changed.Between the Council of Nicea and Constantinople was the Council that said the Creed could not change.Now how is that for breaking your own rules?

 Actually the council that said the faith could not change (Ephesus) was in between Constantinople and Chalcedon, not in between Nicea and Constantinople.  

 Yes!!...You are correct but we don't have records of Constantinople is that correct?  I knew I was shortchanging things after I sent my note but I figured you or someone would correct me.  In any event it is pretty clear that the Creed has changed over time in ways other than "filioque"...I am remembering that I read that it changed after Ephesus...I need to go back and look at that history of the councils because I've forgotten too much of it to be shooting from the hip.

[Father H]

That is not in any way a logically correlative response to what was said.   

Probably need to be careful here or we wind up saying that the virgin is the mother of the Son of God, rather than saying that the virigin is the Mother of God.

Not sure what is not clear.  Isa pointed out that one cannot say that "the Son is not of the Spirit," because it is in the creed.  I pointed out that this same example is in Scripture as well.  

ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and was made man.

Very true.  Since this has been brought up:
Matthew 1:18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit."
Matthew 1:20  "But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit."

The Holy Fathers agree that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son, and is all one and the same Holy Spirit.

The Spirit of the Father and the Son acts in the world.  So I am not sure what point you are making here.

[elijahmaria]

We have records of the council, particularly from the following sources:
The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon
The Ecclesiastical Histories of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret
We have the letter of the fathers of the council to St. Damasus of Rome on the decision of the council, which he in turn responded to by drafting letters on behalf of the synod in Rome to others to solidify its decisions and its pronounced faith.  

Thank you...

[elijahmaria]

Then I've missed your original point.  Sorry to have led off on a rabbit trail.

That is not in any way a logically correlative response to what was said.   

Probably need to be careful here or we wind up saying that the virgin is the mother of the Son of God, rather than saying that the virigin is the Mother of God.

Not sure what is not clear.  Isa pointed out that one cannot say that "the Son is not of the Spirit," because it is in the creed.  I pointed out that this same example is in Scripture as well.  

ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and was made man.

Very true.  Since this has been brought up:
Matthew 1:18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit."
Matthew 1:20  "But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit."

The Holy Fathers agree that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son, and is all one and the same Holy Spirit.

The Spirit of the Father and the Son acts in the world.  So I am not sure what point you are making here.

[ialmisry]

I don't see any argument of substance here against the Filioque.  The only ones that may look substantial are really only assertions.

   
Your commission report is one long assertion, but yet you quote it, at least its footnotes.

The east "rid" themselves of Arianism by paying the Arians in real gold to move west, which they did, of course and there is a clear record of that bit of human migratory influence in the west.

The Goths were paid as barbarians, not Arians, and they were settled in Thrace.  The East later rid the entire West of the Arians (which were persecuting the Orthodox of the Catholic Church), except in Spain where the Arians were paid off by corrupting the Nicene Creed.

The brief explanatory passage from St. Gregory is taken out of St. John Damascene so it did go through a bit of updating but that is relative since both Holy Fathers seem to be agreed.

with each other but not with your council of Toledo, your supreme pontiff Leo IX, nor the Vatican. Your quote doesn't have even claim St. John did any "updating" which is particularly unlikely as he explicitely denies the meaning your are trying to read into it:

Further, it should be understood that we do not speak of the Father as derived from any one, but we speak of Him as the Father of the Son. And we do not speak of the Son as Cause [Text, αἴτιον: variant, ἀναίτιον causeless] or Father, but we speak of Him both as from the Father, and as the Son of the Father. And we speak likewise of the Holy Spirit as from the Father, and call Him the Spirit of the Father. And we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son [cf. St. Maximus Epistle to Marin; ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ δὲ τὸ Πνεῦμα οὐ λέγομεν. See also ch. xii., καὶ Υἱοῦ Πνεῦμα οὐχ ὡς ἐξ αὐτοῦ, and at the close of the Epist. ad Jordan, Πνεῦμα Υἱοῦ μὴ ἐξ Υἱοῦ "The Spirit of the Son not of/from the Son"] but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son. For if any one hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His [Rom. viii. 9., saith the divine apostle\. And we confess that He is manifested and imparted to us through the Son. For He breathed upon His Disciples, says he, and said, Receive ye the Holy Spirit [St. John xx. 29]. It is just the same as in the case of the sun from which come both the ray and the radiance (for the sun itself is the source of both the ray and the radiance), and it is through the ray that the radiance is imparted to us, and it is the radiance itself by which we are lightened and in which we participate. Further we do not speak of the Son of the Spirit, or of the Son as derived from the Spirit,

   
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.iv.i.viii.html
So it would be odd if St. John plucked a citation from obscurity to contradict his own views.

The complaint about this originating passage being a "throw away" is not sustained since St. John Damascene did not throw it away but used it.

Did he?  I am becoming a little suspicious about that: your document elsewhere cites the Kotter edition of the complete works of St. John, but not here.  Your footnote (which you did not continue to quote) ends with a quote of St. Maximos the Confessor which Migne (the "substantiation" of the St. Gregory/St. John quote) even labels "questionable and dubious."

The rest are unsubstantiated assertions, so I won't comment till I see something more than assertion being offered here.[/quote]
Unlike your Vatican's commission, from which your footnote is taken
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM
http://books.google.com/books?id=qQoWBB6gqQQC&pg=PA90&dq=Gregory+Nyssa+John+Damascene+PG+46.+1109+BC&hl=en&ei=yLObTb7vDauO0QGq-tDNAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Gregory%20Nyssa%20John%20Damascene%20PG%2046.%201109%20BC&f=false
I gave you the entire quote-or what is left of it.  St. Gregory wrote thousands of lines on the Trinity, the Son, and the Spirit, and yet the Vatican rummages down in the bowels of Migne to pull out this reputed fragment.  Since many of those lines explicitely contradict the filioque  (and St. Gregory is said to have drafted the wording in 381) like St. John, that should-though I understand why it doesn't-cause you to wonder why pull up this buried cherry.  That's if it is even authentic.

It is still the position of the west that the Father is monarch and the filioque illuminates the relationship between the Father and the Son, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

That is the position only of the heretical West, not the Orthodox one. Not the position, for instance, of the OCA, the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America, the WRO vicarates, the Orthodox Episcopal Conference of Italy and Malta, the Romanian Episcopate of Italy, including the bishop at Rome, etc..  Nor, IIRC any longer of some Episcopalians, Altkatholisch, PNCC, etc.

In my way of thinking they found the best of both worlds to be most illuminating and edifying.

The mind of the Church and the phronema of the Fathers found it damnable in this world and the next, most corrupting and destructive.

[Melodist]

Melodist, I'm extremely puzzled by your last post. You reacted as though I criticized you for citing that document, rather than praising you for it.

I misunderstood. Sorry.

[elijahmaria]

I don't see any argument of substance here against the Filioque.  The only ones that may look substantial are really only assertions.

 
Your commission report is one long assertion, but yet you quote it, at least its footnotes.

I posted the notes to indicate the provenance of the teaching.  All you are doing is asserting your personal opinion and drawing in extraneous material that does nothing to advance the theological discussion.

[ialmisry]

I don't see any argument of substance here against the Filioque.  The only ones that may look substantial are really only assertions.

 
Your commission report is one long assertion, but yet you quote it, at least its footnotes.

I posted the notes to indicate the provenance of the teaching.

It is not the provenance of the teaching. The Latins mistranslated, and then compounded their error with scholastic speculation on it. When confronted with their mistake, instead of correcting it, they dug in their heals and proceeded "aduce" proofs of it.  When it had been obvious to all that it is an interpolation, they desperately scoured anything, ANYTHING that could be remotely misconstrued into teaching filioque. Hence why they ignored all the writings of St. Gregory and most of St. John in favor of this dubia. What they have down is taped the poison apple of the filiquo unto a branch of the Fathers, and claimed it is their fruit.

All you are doing is asserting your personal opinion

I'm just parroting the pillars of Orthodoxy, and the Fathers of the Ecumenical and Pan-Orthodox Councils.

and drawing in extraneous material

Yeah, context is a pain.  Giving the full quote, the first half of which undermines the misinterpretation being proferred, and mentioning the rest of the footnote's citations, which show that your authorities are not above appeal to apocrypha, I see could give apologists for the Vatican heartburn.

that does nothing to advance the theological discussion.

I make no apology to impeding sophistry and jesuitry from sneaking the filioque in.

[elijahmaria]

I don't see any argument of substance here against the Filioque.  The only ones that may look substantial are really only assertions.

 
Your commission report is one long assertion, but yet you quote it, at least its footnotes.

I posted the notes to indicate the provenance of the teaching.

It is not the provenance of the teaching. The Latins mistranslated, and then compounded their error with scholastic speculation on it.

Lots of folks don't think so, including Orthodox theologians and scholars over the centuries, as well as more than a few of the Holy Fathers. 

You are just clinging to the Photian schism and blowing smoke.

Have fun...

[NicholasMyra]

Elijahmaria,

Let's take this in a slightly different direction.

Even IF the filioque were technically correct, would you agree that the filioque has contributed to many western Christians "writing off" the Trinity as an unrelatable abstraction? Would you agree that it contributed to the horrendous "shield of the trinity" concept that deposes the Father as the source of the Godhead and leads to modalism (note, I said "leads to")?

That is my main problem with the filioque. I know that if you really want to be a pharisee you can come up with several ways to re-interpret the filioque in a technically Orthodox manner. But won't it simply do more unnecessary damage to our understanding to God and our ability to relate to Him personally to accept it, or to allow the Westerns to keep using it if unification were to occur?

[Shanghaiski]

Has anyone mentioned yet that, by the decision of ecumenical councils, the Creed cannot be changed?

[Saint Iaint]

Has anyone mentioned yet that, by the decision of ecumenical councils, the Creed cannot be changed?

Hear, hear.

†IC XC†
†NI KA†

[Father H]

Has anyone mentioned yet that, by the decision of ecumenical councils, the Creed cannot be changed?

Yes.  There are two threads on this going but it has been mentioned

[ignatius]

I honestly do not understand the problem with the filioque. We know that all Persons of the Trinity are equal and eternal. We know that the Son possesses everything which the Father does, and that Father and Son are one. Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. It emphasizes the oneness of the Holy Trinity.

I thought that the Son possesses everything 'except' what makes them persons... ?

[Melodist]

Has anyone mentioned yet that, by the decision of ecumenical councils, the Creed cannot be changed?

It could in the event of another council, which is not the case with the filioque. It was a "change in the creed" at the second ecumenical council that inserted the the clause about the procession of the Holy Spirit. If another controversy came up that required a little more clarification, the Church (as a whole) can (and has) change the creed to reflect an expression of the faith as it is needed.

[elijahmaria]

Has anyone mentioned yet that, by the decision of ecumenical councils, the Creed cannot be changed?

Yes.  It has and I responded without going back and looking at the actual history, but there is a book by Jaroslav Pelikan called Credo which is an excellent historical survey of the various creeds in history and how they have been used over time, and how they have changed.

I am not convinced by this argument of the Orthodox who use it against Filioque.  

It falls in the same category of arguments, from my perspective, as the assertion that the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom remains unchanged.

[elijahmaria]

Elijahmaria,

Let's take this in a slightly different direction.

Even IF the filioque were technically correct, would you agree that the filioque has contributed to many western Christians "writing off" the Trinity as an unrelatable abstraction? Would you agree that it contributed to the horrendous "shield of the trinity" concept that deposes the Father as the source of the Godhead and leads to modalism (note, I said "leads to")?

That is my main problem with the filioque. I know that if you really want to be a pharisee you can come up with several ways to re-interpret the filioque in a technically Orthodox manner. But won't it simply do more unnecessary damage to our understanding to God and our ability to relate to Him personally to accept it, or to allow the Westerns to keep using it if unification were to occur?

Dear Nicholas,

Is seeking the truth really Pharisaical?  I don't think that it is.

Also if filioque is not heretical but is a theological truth, and it has been a credal tradition in the west for as many generations as it has been, then we are obliged, literally in good faith,  to catechize it and retain it in the Roman tradition, while explaining why it is necessarily not part of the eastern tradition.

M.

[Peter J]

Melodist, I'm extremely puzzled by your last post. You reacted as though I criticized you for citing that document, rather than praising you for it.

I misunderstood. Sorry.

Oh that's alright. Actually, it was nice to get a response. I get the impression that some of the Orthodox around here are only interested in what elijahmaria has to say.

[Justin Kissel]

Oh that's alright. Actually, it was nice to get a response. I get the impression that some of the Orthodox around here are only interested in what elijahmaria has to say.

If I were a Catholic, I'm not sure that I would want the attention of some of the Orthodox around here...

[Peter J]

Oh that's alright. Actually, it was nice to get a response. I get the impression that some of the Orthodox around here are only interested in what elijahmaria has to say.

If I were a Catholic, I'm not sure that I would want the attention of some of the Orthodox around here...

Chuckle. Yeah, I imagine a lot of Catholics feel that way -- but then, most of them don't post here at all.

[Apotheoun]

I honestly do not understand the problem with the filioque. We know that all Persons of the Trinity are equal and eternal. We know that the Son possesses everything which the Father does, and that Father and Son are one. Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. It emphasizes the oneness of the Holy Trinity.

I thought that the Son possesses everything 'except' what makes them persons... ?

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share in common all that is proper to the divine essence, while they are distinct in the properties that are unique to their hypostaseis.  That said, the Father - as person - is the sole cause of the Son by generation, and He alone is the cause of the Spirit by ekporeusis (see St. Maximos' letter to Marinus), and so if one were to posit the idea that either the ability to generate the Son or to process the Spirit was somehow common to one or both of the other two persons within the Trinity it follows that the other person within the Trinity would possess a hypostatic property of the Father, and would also be the Father.  That is why - for Eastern Christians - the filioque is often referred to as a type of Sabellian Modalism, because it attempts to give the Father's unique hypostatic ability to process (ekporeusis) the Spirit - as sole cause within the Godhead - to the Son as a common property of the Father and the Son, which involves a confusion of the hypostaseis of the Father and the Son.  Moreover, this attempt to give a hypostatic property that is unique to the Father to the Son has the added difficult of dividing the persons of the Father and the Son from the Holy Spirit, who is not given this new common property, which is why Eastern Orthodox Christians often see the Western theory of the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son - as from one principle - as the promotion of a type of ditheism.

The only viable solution to the present impasse is for the West to return to its original understanding of the filioque as described and defended in the 7th century Letter of Maximos to Marinus, then - and only then - would Orthodox objections to the Western theory of Trinitarian relations be overcome, but so far the Latin Church has been unwilling to do that, and has instead continued to defend the late medieval understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit, which ultimately makes the Son with the Father - as the Council of Florence says - the cause (atia) of the Spirit's subsistence.

[NicholasMyra]

Elijahmaria,

Let's take this in a slightly different direction.

Even IF the filioque were technically correct, would you agree that the filioque has contributed to many western Christians "writing off" the Trinity as an unrelatable abstraction? Would you agree that it contributed to the horrendous "shield of the trinity" concept that deposes the Father as the source of the Godhead and leads to modalism (note, I said "leads to")?

That is my main problem with the filioque. I know that if you really want to be a pharisee you can come up with several ways to re-interpret the filioque in a technically Orthodox manner. But won't it simply do more unnecessary damage to our understanding to God and our ability to relate to Him personally to accept it, or to allow the Westerns to keep using it if unification were to occur?

Dear Nicholas,

Is seeking the truth really Pharisaical?  I don't think that it is.

Also if filioque is not heretical but is a theological truth, and it has been a credal tradition in the west for as many generations as it has been, then we are obliged, literally in good faith,  to catechize it and retain it in the Roman tradition, while explaining why it is necessarily not part of the eastern tradition.

M.

You seem to have avoided my question; if the *expression of truth* you use (assuming the filioque were true) is an expression that happens to lead people into error because of the way it presents itself, why keep it? If the east is "saying the same thing" and their expression of this same truth does not lead people into that error, why not adopt it?

[elijahmaria]

Elijahmaria,

Let's take this in a slightly different direction.

Even IF the filioque were technically correct, would you agree that the filioque has contributed to many western Christians "writing off" the Trinity as an unrelatable abstraction? Would you agree that it contributed to the horrendous "shield of the trinity" concept that deposes the Father as the source of the Godhead and leads to modalism (note, I said "leads to")?

That is my main problem with the filioque. I know that if you really want to be a pharisee you can come up with several ways to re-interpret the filioque in a technically Orthodox manner. But won't it simply do more unnecessary damage to our understanding to God and our ability to relate to Him personally to accept it, or to allow the Westerns to keep using it if unification were to occur?

Dear Nicholas,

Is seeking the truth really Pharisaical?  I don't think that it is.

Also if filioque is not heretical but is a theological truth, and it has been a credal tradition in the west for as many generations as it has been, then we are obliged, literally in good faith,  to catechize it and retain it in the Roman tradition, while explaining why it is necessarily not part of the eastern tradition.

M.

You seem to have avoided my question; if the *expression of truth* you use (assuming the filioque were true) is an expression that happens to lead people into error because of the way it presents itself, why keep it? If the east is "saying the same thing" and their expression of this same truth does not lead people into that error, why not adopt it?

You are the one asserting that it leads people into error.  The fact of the matter is that it does not.  It does not express the same thing as the eastern Creed.  It expresses what the eastern Creed expresses and adds a component that explains the relationship between the Father and the Son, and the Father and the Spirit and the Son and the Spirit.  It does more than the eastern Creed.  That is true but it does not negate the eastern Creed and it leads no one into any inherent error as the Orthodox claim.  Any error caused by Filioque is a matter of poor understanding and false interpretation.  That can happen with ANY truth of the Faith.  We all need to be well catechized or we are susceptible to error.

So there's not need to remove it.

You are saying that it leads to error but there is no evidence in a properly catechized Catholic phronema that filioque leads to error and you have not demonstrated anything to the contrary.

[NicholasMyra]

You are saying that it leads to error but there is no evidence in a properly catechized Catholic phronema that filioque leads to error and you have not demonstrated anything to the contrary.

You can use a No True Scotsman argument to posit a mythical group of "properly catechized" that fit your criteria. But that's really pointless.

[elijahmaria]

You are saying that it leads to error but there is no evidence in a properly catechized Catholic phronema that filioque leads to error and you have not demonstrated anything to the contrary.

You can use a No True Scotsman argument to posit a mythical group of "properly catechized" that fit your criteria. But that's really pointless.

Catholics with an orthodox Catholic phronema are hardly beside the point.  They are the point.

[ialmisry]

Has anyone mentioned yet that, by the decision of ecumenical councils, the Creed cannot be changed?

Yes.  It has and I responded without going back and looking at the actual history,

Yes, we have.

but there is a book by Jaroslav Pelikan called Credo which is an excellent historical survey of the various creeds in history and how they have been used over time, and how they have changed.

We are not talking about "various Creed." We are talking what is called in Greek the "Symbol of Faith," and in Arabic "The Canon/Law of Faith" or "The Constitution of the Faith." Just a tad different.

I am not convinced by this argument of the Orthodox who use it against Filioque.

 \
Invincible ignorance.

It falls in the same category of arguments, from my perspective, as the assertion that the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom remains unchanged.

You will have to be more specific by what you mean by "change": puberty or gender reassignment.

[ialmisry]

Elijahmaria,

Let's take this in a slightly different direction.

Even IF the filioque were technically correct, would you agree that the filioque has contributed to many western Christians "writing off" the Trinity as an unrelatable abstraction? Would you agree that it contributed to the horrendous "shield of the trinity" concept that deposes the Father as the source of the Godhead and leads to modalism (note, I said "leads to")?

That is my main problem with the filioque. I know that if you really want to be a pharisee you can come up with several ways to re-interpret the filioque in a technically Orthodox manner. But won't it simply do more unnecessary damage to our understanding to God and our ability to relate to Him personally to accept it, or to allow the Westerns to keep using it if unification were to occur?

Dear Nicholas,

Is seeking the truth really Pharisaical?  I don't think that it is.

Also if filioque is not heretical but is a theological truth, and it has been a credal tradition in the west for as many generations as it has been, then we are obliged, literally in good faith,  to catechize it and retain it in the Roman tradition, while explaining why it is necessarily not part of the eastern tradition.

Or, like the WRO, condemn it with the Fathers of the Ecumenical and Pan-Orthodox Councils, and root it out.

The Holy Spirit, the Lord the Giver of Life, does not change and has lived longer than the filioque.

[ialmisry]

I honestly do not understand the problem with the filioque. We know that all Persons of the Trinity are equal and eternal. We know that the Son possesses everything which the Father does, and that Father and Son are one. Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. It emphasizes the oneness of the Holy Trinity.

I thought that the Son possesses everything 'except' what makes them persons... ?

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share in common all that is proper to the divine essence, while they are distinct in the properties that are unique to their hypostaseis.  That said, the Father - as person - is the sole cause of the Son by generation, and He alone is the cause of the Spirit by ekporeusis (see St. Maximos' letter to Marinus), and so if one were to posit the idea that either the ability to generate the Son or to process the Spirit was somehow common to one or both of the other two persons within the Trinity it follows that the other person within the Trinity would possess a hypostatic property of the Father, and would also be the Father.  That is why - for Eastern Christians - the filioque is often referred to as a type of Sabellian Modalism, because it attempts to give the Father's unique hypostatic ability to process (ekporeusis) the Spirit - as sole cause within the Godhead - to the Son as a common property of the Father and the Son, which involves a confusion of the hypostaseis of the Father and the Son.  Moreover, this attempt to give a hypostatic property that is unique to the Father to the Son has the added difficult of dividing the persons of the Father and the Son from the Holy Spirit, who is not given this new common property, which is why Eastern Orthodox Christians often see the Western theory of the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son - as from one principle - as the promotion of a type of ditheism.

The only viable solution to the present impasse is for the West to return to its original understanding of the filioque as described and defended in the 7th century Letter of Maximos to Marinus, then - and only then - would Orthodox objections to the Western theory of Trinitarian relations be overcome, but so far the Latin Church has been unwilling to do that, and has instead continued to defend the late medieval understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit, which ultimately makes the Son with the Father - as the Council of Florence says - the cause (atia) of the Spirit's subsistence.

Yes, they are now defending the defense of the mistranslation.

[ialmisry]

Elijahmaria,

Let's take this in a slightly different direction.

Even IF the filioque were technically correct, would you agree that the filioque has contributed to many western Christians "writing off" the Trinity as an unrelatable abstraction? Would you agree that it contributed to the horrendous "shield of the trinity" concept that deposes the Father as the source of the Godhead and leads to modalism (note, I said "leads to")?

That is my main problem with the filioque. I know that if you really want to be a pharisee you can come up with several ways to re-interpret the filioque in a technically Orthodox manner. But won't it simply do more unnecessary damage to our understanding to God and our ability to relate to Him personally to accept it, or to allow the Westerns to keep using it if unification were to occur?

Dear Nicholas,

Is seeking the truth really Pharisaical?  I don't think that it is.

Also if filioque is not heretical but is a theological truth, and it has been a credal tradition in the west for as many generations as it has been, then we are obliged, literally in good faith,  to catechize it and retain it in the Roman tradition, while explaining why it is necessarily not part of the eastern tradition.

M.

You seem to have avoided my question; if the *expression of truth* you use (assuming the filioque were true) is an expression that happens to lead people into error because of the way it presents itself, why keep it? If the east is "saying the same thing" and their expression of this same truth does not lead people into that error, why not adopt it?

You are the one asserting that it leads people into error.  The fact of the matter is that it does not.

As Apotheum points out, Florence shows otherwise.

It does not express the same thing as the eastern Creed.

Constantinople was an ECUMENICAL Council. That means UNIVERSAL-East, West; North, South; Southeast, Northeast; Southwest, Northwest; Up, Down, Diagonal, Sideways and any other direction you can think of. That includes, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th dimensions...

It expresses what the eastern Universal Creed expresses and adds a component that explains  conflates the relationship between the Father and the Son, and the Father and the Spirit and the Son and the Spirit.

Fixed that for you.

It does more than the eastern Creed.

It teaches heresy rather the Universal Creed.

That is true but it does not negate the eastern Creed

Of course the Creed founded on the Fathers of the Ecumenical Council cannot be negeated.

and it leads no one into any inherent error as the Orthodox claim.

The centuries the Vatican has spent digging itself further into heresy by its defense proves otherwise.

Any error caused by Filioque is a matter of poor understanding and false interpretation.

Can a poor understanding be poorly understood? Can a false interpretation be falsely interpreted?

That can happen with ANY truth of the Faith.

 
That's true. But since filioque is not a trugh of the Orhtodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, what is your point?

We all need to be well catechized or we are susceptible to error.

Indeed.

So there's not need to remove it.

that you fight so furciferously for it proves otherwise.

You are saying that it leads to error but there is no evidence in a properly catechized Catholic phronema

You are saying that your supreme pontiffs Benedcit VIII, Leo IX, Stephen IX, Eugene V and Card. Humbert of Mourmoutiers, father of the College of Cardinals were not properly catechized?

that filioque leads to error and you have not demonstrated anything to the contrary.

That you defend the error, or rather, to call it by its proper name, heresy, demonstrates otherwise.