OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 01, 2014, 04:40:31 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: First council of Toledo 397 - 400, Filioque  (Read 12311 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« on: June 01, 2011, 05:02:07 PM »

I know that one of the main issues used by the OC is that Filioque is not counciliar. But when I saw that filioque appeared in the first council of Toledo in Spain, it came to my mind a question, how long did the church of Toledo formaly got out of comunion with Constantinople?.  I mean, did the church of Spain was out of communion since 400?

If they were in communion all those years until 1054, it means that for 654 years the church accepted filioque, or at least didn't broke communion with the spanish church, why then did they used such issue to be as grave as to break 654 years after?
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 05:08:36 PM by Inquisitor » Logged
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,959



« Reply #1 on: June 01, 2011, 05:44:00 PM »

The council of Toledo at which the filioque was proclaimed as a way to counter the arguments of the Visigothic Semi-Arians was in the late sixth century, not the fourth.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #2 on: June 01, 2011, 06:06:32 PM »

Additionally, the Filioque wasn't accepted (or included, depending on the argument) in Rome until the early 11th century.
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #3 on: June 01, 2011, 06:08:27 PM »

The council of Toledo at which the filioque was proclaimed as a way to counter the arguments of the Visigothic Semi-Arians was in the late sixth century, not the fourth.

I undertand that since the first council the EXPLICIT CONSTITUTIO CONCILII TOLETANI stated the filioque.

http://www.benedictus.mgh.de/quellen/chga/chga_043t.htm
Logged
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #4 on: June 01, 2011, 06:09:47 PM »

Additionally, the Filioque wasn't accepted (or included, depending on the argument) in Rome until the early 11th century.

The question is if there is a formal document that excomunicated the church of Spain because of the filioque since then.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 01, 2011, 06:55:52 PM »

The council of Toledo at which the filioque was proclaimed as a way to counter the arguments of the Visigothic Semi-Arians was in the late sixth century, not the fourth.

I undertand that since the first council the EXPLICIT CONSTITUTIO CONCILII TOLETANI stated the filioque.

http://www.benedictus.mgh.de/quellen/chga/chga_043t.htm

Which canon? I perused the document, but didn't notice the subject raised.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 01, 2011, 06:59:34 PM »

The council of Toledo at which the filioque was proclaimed as a way to counter the arguments of the Visigothic Semi-Arians was in the late sixth century, not the fourth.

It was indeed the Third Synod of Toledo.
http://www.benedictus.mgh.de/quellen/chga/chga_045t.htm
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 01, 2011, 07:07:08 PM »

The council of Toledo at which the filioque was proclaimed as a way to counter the arguments of the Visigothic Semi-Arians was in the late sixth century, not the fourth.

It was indeed the Third Synod of Toledo.
http://www.benedictus.mgh.de/quellen/chga/chga_045t.htm

Here is the part I saw:
Quote
Id est ut confiteamur esse patrem qui genuerit ex sua substantia filium sibi coequalem et coaeternum. Non tamen ut ipse idem sit natus ingenitus, sed persona alius sit pater qui genuit, alius sit filius qui fuerit generatus, unius tamen uterque substantiae in divinitate subsistat. Pater ex quo sit filius, ipse vero ex nullo sit alio. Filius quia habeat patrem, sed sine initio et sine diminutione, in ea qua patri coęqualis et coaeternus est divinitate subsistat. Spiritusque sanctus confitendus a nobis, et praedicandus est a patre et filio procedere, et cum patre et filio unius esse substantiae. Tertiam vero in trinitate spiritus sancti esse personam, qui tamen communionem habet cum patre et filio in divinitatis essentia. Haec enim sancta trinitas, unus est deus pater, et filius et spiritus sanctus, cuius bonitate hominis licet bona sit condita creatura per adsumptam tamen a filio humani habitus formam, a damnata progenie reformamur, ad beatitudinem pristinam. Sed sicut vere salutis indicium est trinitatem in unitate, et unitatem ||fol. 65ra|| in trinitate sentiri, ita erit consummata iustitia si eadem intra universalem ecclesiam teneamus, et apostolicam unitatem in apostolico positi fundamento servemus.

« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 07:09:02 PM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #8 on: June 01, 2011, 07:17:04 PM »

The council of Toledo at which the filioque was proclaimed as a way to counter the arguments of the Visigothic Semi-Arians was in the late sixth century, not the fourth.

I undertand that since the first council the EXPLICIT CONSTITUTIO CONCILII TOLETANI stated the filioque.

http://www.benedictus.mgh.de/quellen/chga/chga_043t.htm

Which canon? I perused the document, but didn't notice the subject raised.

Go to the quote:

EXPLICIT CONSTITUTIO CONCILII  TOLETANI.


Incipit regula fidei catholicae contra omnes hereses, quam maxime contra priscillianistas, episcopi Terraconenses Carthaginenses, Lusitani et Betici fecerunt, ex praecepto papę Urbis Leonis, et ad Balconium episcopum Galliciae transmiserunt. Ipsi etiam et superscripta viginti canonum capitula statuerunt in concilio Toletano.

Credimus [c] in unum verum deum patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum visibilium et invisibilium factorem, per quem creata sunt omnia in caelo et in terra, unum deum et unam esse divinae substantiae trinitatem. Patrem autem non esse filium ipsum, sed habere filium qui pater non sit. Filium non esse patrem, sed filium dei de patris esse natura. Spiritum quoque esse paraclitum, qui nec pater sit ipse, nec filius, sed a patre filioque procedens. Est ergo ingenitus pater, genitus filius, non genitus paraclitus, sed a patre filioque procedens. Pater est cuius vox haec est audita de caelis: Hic est filius meus dilectus in quo bene complacuit, ipsum audite. Filius est qui ait: Ego a patre exivi, et a deo veni in hunc mundum. Paraclytus spiritus est, de quo filius ait: Nisi ||fol. 63rb|| abiero ego ad patrem, paraclytus non veniet. Hanc trinitatem personis distinctam, substantia unitam virtute et potestate [d] et maiestate indivisibilem indifferentem, preter hanc nullam credimus divinam esse naturam vel angeli vel spiritus vel virtutis alicuius quae deus esse credatur. Hunc igitur filium dei deum natum a patre ante omne omnino principium sanctificasse uterum Marię virginis atque ex ea verum hominem sine virili generatum semine suscepisse duabus dumtaxat naturis, id est deitatis et carnis in unam convenientibus omnino personam, id est dominum nostrum Iesum Christum. Nec imaginarium corpus aut fantasmatis alicuius in eo fuisse, sed solidum atque verum. Hunc et esurisse, et sitisse, et doluisse, et flevisse, et omnis corporis iniurias pertulisse. Postremo a Iudeis crucifixum et sepultum, et tertia die resurrexisse. Conversatum postmodum cum discipulis suis, et quadragesima post resurrectionem die ad caelum ascendisse. Hunc filium hominis etiam dei filium, et filium dei hominis filium appellamus. Resurrectionem vero futuram humanę credimus carnis. Animam autem hominis, non divinae esse substantiae aut dei patris, sed creaturam dei voluntate creatam.


I.

Si quis autem dixerit aut crediderit a deo omnipotente mundum hunc factum non fuisse atque eius omnia instrumenta, anathema sit.


II.

Si quis dixerit atque crediderit deum patrem eundem esse filium vel paraclytum, anathema sit.


III.

Si quis dixerit vel crediderit filium eundem esse patrem vel paraclytum, anathema sit.


IIII.

Si quis dixerit vel crediderit paraclytum vel patrem esse vel filium. Anathema sit.


V.

Si quis dixerit vel crediderit carnem tantum sine anima a filio dei fuisse susceptam, anathema sit.


VI.

Si quis dixerit vel crediderit Christum innascibilem esse anathema sit.


VII.

Si quis dixerit vel crediderit deitatem nascibilem esse, anathema sit.


VIII.

Si quis dixerit vel crediderit deitatem Christi convertibilem fuisse vel passibilem, anathema sit.


VIIII.

Si quis dixerit vel crediderit alterum deum esse priscae legis alterum evangeliorum, anathema sit.


X.

Si quis dixerit vel crediderit ab altero deo mundum factum fuisse, et non ab eodem quo scriptum est: ||fol. 63va|| In principio fecit deus caelum et terram, anathema sit.


XI.

Si quis dixerit vel crediderit corpora humana non resurgere post mortem, anathema sit.


XII.

Si quis dixerit vel crediderit animam humanam dei portionem vel dei esse substantiam, anathema sit.


XIII.

Si quis dixerit vel crediderit, alias scripturas praeter quas ecclesia catholica recipit in auctoritate [e] habendas vel esse venerandas, anathema sit.


XIIII.

Si quis dixerit vel crediderit deitatis et carnis unam in Christo esse naturam, anathema sit.


XV.

Si quis dixerit vel crediderit esse aliquid quod se extra divinam trinitatem possit extendere, anathema sit.


XVI.

Si quis astrologię vel mathesi existimat esse credendum. Anathema sit.


XVII.

Si quis dixerit vel crediderit coniugia hominum quae secundum legem divinam licet habere execrabilia esse, anathema sit.


XVIII.

Si quis dixerit vel crediderit carnes avium seu pecudum quae ad escam dandae sunt, non tantum pro castigatione hominum abstinendas, sed execrandas esse, anathema sit.


XVIIII.

Si quis in his erroribus Priscilliani sectam sequitur vel profitetur, ut aliud in salutari baptismo contra sedem sancti Petri faciat, anathema sit.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stand: 2008-03-02
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 07:19:31 PM by Inquisitor » Logged
Kasatkin fan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Archdiocese of Canada
Posts: 636



« Reply #9 on: June 01, 2011, 07:39:27 PM »

The Council of Toledo was a Local Council, not an Ecumenical Council. Its decisions have no binding authority within the Church.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #10 on: June 01, 2011, 07:51:34 PM »

The council of Toledo at which the filioque was proclaimed as a way to counter the arguments of the Visigothic Semi-Arians was in the late sixth century, not the fourth.

I undertand that since the first council the EXPLICIT CONSTITUTIO CONCILII TOLETANI stated the filioque.

http://www.benedictus.mgh.de/quellen/chga/chga_043t.htm

Which canon? I perused the document, but didn't notice the subject raised.

Go to the quote:

EXPLICIT CONSTITUTIO CONCILII  TOLETANI.


Incipit regula fidei catholicae contra omnes hereses, quam maxime contra priscillianistas, episcopi Terraconenses Carthaginenses, Lusitani et Betici fecerunt, ex praecepto papę Urbis Leonis, et ad Balconium episcopum Galliciae transmiserunt. Ipsi etiam et superscripta viginti canonum capitula statuerunt in concilio Toletano.

Credimus [c] in unum verum deum patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum visibilium et invisibilium factorem, per quem creata sunt omnia in caelo et in terra, unum deum et unam esse divinae substantiae trinitatem. Patrem autem non esse filium ipsum, sed habere filium qui pater non sit. Filium non esse patrem, sed filium dei de patris esse natura. Spiritum quoque esse paraclitum, qui nec pater sit ipse, nec filius, sed a patre filioque procedens. Est ergo ingenitus pater, genitus filius, non genitus paraclitus, sed a patre filioque procedens. Pater est cuius vox haec est audita de caelis: Hic est filius meus dilectus in quo bene complacuit, ipsum audite. Filius est qui ait: Ego a patre exivi, et a deo veni in hunc mundum. Paraclytus spiritus est, de quo filius ait: Nisi ||fol. 63rb|| abiero ego ad patrem, paraclytus non veniet. Hanc trinitatem personis distinctam, substantia unitam virtute et potestate [d] et maiestate indivisibilem indifferentem, preter hanc nullam credimus divinam esse naturam vel angeli vel spiritus vel virtutis alicuius quae deus esse credatur. Hunc igitur filium dei deum natum a patre ante omne omnino principium sanctificasse uterum Marię virginis atque ex ea verum hominem sine virili generatum semine suscepisse duabus dumtaxat naturis, id est deitatis et carnis in unam convenientibus omnino personam, id est dominum nostrum Iesum Christum. Nec imaginarium corpus aut fantasmatis alicuius in eo fuisse, sed solidum atque verum. Hunc et esurisse, et sitisse, et doluisse, et flevisse, et omnis corporis iniurias pertulisse. Postremo a Iudeis crucifixum et sepultum, et tertia die resurrexisse. Conversatum postmodum cum discipulis suis, et quadragesima post resurrectionem die ad caelum ascendisse. Hunc filium hominis etiam dei filium, et filium dei hominis filium appellamus. Resurrectionem vero futuram humanę credimus carnis. Animam autem hominis, non divinae esse substantiae aut dei patris, sed creaturam dei voluntate creatam.

Sho' nuff.

If I recall correctly, one Orthodox theory for the change, the Canons from the Ecumenical councils were written in Greek and Latin (The First Council of Constantinople was in 381, and First Council of Toledo ended in 400). The only place the filioque was transcribed was in the area of Spain. Therefore, one thought, if the photocopy-monk (Probably a Mk II. Those took lots of pee breaks.), when writing saw the line below (who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified) and by accident wrote 'and the son' for the line above, as well.

Either way, the Council of Ephesus (3rd Ecumenical Council in 431) condemns changes to the creed.
Quote
Canon VII.
When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.
But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.
And in like manner, if any, whether bishops, clergymen, or laymen, should be discovered to hold or teach the doctrines contained in the Exposition introduced by the Presbyter Charisius concerning the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten Son of God, or the abominable and profane doctrines of Nestorius, which are subjoined, they shall be subjected to the sentence of this holy and ecumenical Synod.  So that, if it be a bishop, he shall be removed from his bishopric and degraded; if it be a clergyman, he shall likewise be stricken from the clergy; and if it be a layman, he shall be anathematized, as has been afore said.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xvi.x.html


And more than one Pope condemned it. Including, Pope Leo III (750-816) who scribed lead tablets in in Rome to proclaim the 'true creed' (denouncing the filioque).
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 07:56:00 PM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #11 on: June 01, 2011, 07:54:34 PM »

The Council of Toledo was a Local Council, not an Ecumenical Council. Its decisions have no binding authority within the Church.

Ok I know it, yet, Where is the formal excomunication of the Church of Spain?, which document stated clear that they were out of communion since the year 400?, why did it happened 654 year later?
Logged
Kasatkin fan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Archdiocese of Canada
Posts: 636



« Reply #12 on: June 01, 2011, 07:56:43 PM »

The Council of Toledo was a Local Council, not an Ecumenical Council. Its decisions have no binding authority within the Church.

Ok I know it, yet, Where is the formal excomunication of the Church of Spain?, which document stated clear that they were out of communion since the year 400?, why did it happened 654 year later?
Why would there be such a document?  Huh

Why would anyone be excommunicated over a non-binding council?
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #13 on: June 01, 2011, 07:57:59 PM »

The Council of Toledo was a Local Council, not an Ecumenical Council. Its decisions have no binding authority within the Church.

Ok I know it, yet, Where is the formal excomunication of the Church of Spain?, which document stated clear that they were out of communion since the year 400?, why did it happened 654 year later?

See my response. It was not without recorded denouncement.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #14 on: June 01, 2011, 08:00:27 PM »

The council of Toledo at which the filioque was proclaimed as a way to counter the arguments of the Visigothic Semi-Arians was in the late sixth century, not the fourth.

I undertand that since the first council the EXPLICIT CONSTITUTIO CONCILII TOLETANI stated the filioque.

http://www.benedictus.mgh.de/quellen/chga/chga_043t.htm

Which canon? I perused the document, but didn't notice the subject raised.

Go to the quote:

EXPLICIT CONSTITUTIO CONCILII  TOLETANI.


Incipit regula fidei catholicae contra omnes hereses, quam maxime contra priscillianistas, episcopi Terraconenses Carthaginenses, Lusitani et Betici fecerunt, ex praecepto papę Urbis Leonis, et ad Balconium episcopum Galliciae transmiserunt. Ipsi etiam et superscripta viginti canonum capitula statuerunt in concilio Toletano.

Credimus [c] in unum verum deum patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum visibilium et invisibilium factorem, per quem creata sunt omnia in caelo et in terra, unum deum et unam esse divinae substantiae trinitatem. Patrem autem non esse filium ipsum, sed habere filium qui pater non sit. Filium non esse patrem, sed filium dei de patris esse natura. Spiritum quoque esse paraclitum, qui nec pater sit ipse, nec filius, sed a patre filioque procedens. Est ergo ingenitus pater, genitus filius, non genitus paraclitus, sed a patre filioque procedens. Pater est cuius vox haec est audita de caelis: Hic est filius meus dilectus in quo bene complacuit, ipsum audite. Filius est qui ait: Ego a patre exivi, et a deo veni in hunc mundum. Paraclytus spiritus est, de quo filius ait: Nisi ||fol. 63rb|| abiero ego ad patrem, paraclytus non veniet. Hanc trinitatem personis distinctam, substantia unitam virtute et potestate [d] et maiestate indivisibilem indifferentem, preter hanc nullam credimus divinam esse naturam vel angeli vel spiritus vel virtutis alicuius quae deus esse credatur. Hunc igitur filium dei deum natum a patre ante omne omnino principium sanctificasse uterum Marię virginis atque ex ea verum hominem sine virili generatum semine suscepisse duabus dumtaxat naturis, id est deitatis et carnis in unam convenientibus omnino personam, id est dominum nostrum Iesum Christum. Nec imaginarium corpus aut fantasmatis alicuius in eo fuisse, sed solidum atque verum. Hunc et esurisse, et sitisse, et doluisse, et flevisse, et omnis corporis iniurias pertulisse. Postremo a Iudeis crucifixum et sepultum, et tertia die resurrexisse. Conversatum postmodum cum discipulis suis, et quadragesima post resurrectionem die ad caelum ascendisse. Hunc filium hominis etiam dei filium, et filium dei hominis filium appellamus. Resurrectionem vero futuram humanę credimus carnis. Animam autem hominis, non divinae esse substantiae aut dei patris, sed creaturam dei voluntate creatam.

Sho' nuff.

If I recall correctly, one Orthodox theory for the change, the Canons from the Ecumenical councils were written in Greek and Latin (The First Council of Constantinople was in 381, and First Council of Toledo ended in 400). The only place the filioque was transcribed was in the area of Spain. Therefore, one thought, if the photocopy-monk (Probably a Mk II. Those took lots of pee breaks.), when writing saw the line below (who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified) and by accident wrote 'and the son' for the line above, as well.

Either way, the Council of Ephesus (3rd Ecumenical Council in 431) condemns changes to the creed.
Quote
Canon VII.
When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.
But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.
And in like manner, if any, whether bishops, clergymen, or laymen, should be discovered to hold or teach the doctrines contained in the Exposition introduced by the Presbyter Charisius concerning the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten Son of God, or the abominable and profane doctrines of Nestorius, which are subjoined, they shall be subjected to the sentence of this holy and ecumenical Synod.  So that, if it be a bishop, he shall be removed from his bishopric and degraded; if it be a clergyman, he shall likewise be stricken from the clergy; and if it be a layman, he shall be anathematized, as has been afore said.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xvi.x.html


And more than one Pope condemned it. Including, Pope Leo III (750-816) who scribed lead tablets in in Rome to proclaim the 'true creed' (denouncing the filioque).

Where are the formal excomunications of the church of Spain?
Logged
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #15 on: June 01, 2011, 08:07:16 PM »

There is a saint venerated in both Catholic Church and among Eastern christians, Saint Isidore of Seville. He presided in some councils of Toledo. He presided the church of Spain, Is there any writing of him deposing or rejecting filioque?
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 08:09:57 PM by Inquisitor » Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #16 on: June 01, 2011, 08:14:34 PM »

Where are the formal excomunications of the church of Spain?

I guess they missed the email. However, you'll notice the EC and the Pope telling anyone doing such to 'knock it off'(The filioque wasn't the only instance of a seperate creed. Read the 4th EC dialogue.)

Word of mouth was slow then.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #17 on: June 01, 2011, 08:15:29 PM »

There is a saint venerated in both Catholic Church and among Eastern christians, Saint Isidore of Seville. He presided in some councils of Toledo. He presided the church of Spain, Is there any writing of him deposing or rejecting filioque?

560 – 636

Fourth Council of Toledo. Canonization was by a different process at the time than it is now in the Latin Church.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #18 on: June 01, 2011, 11:41:18 PM »

East and West remained in communion for centuries with much of the west using the filioque, but it was always a point of deep contention. Though to my mind mostly because both sides leveraged it for political gain and because of the mutual cultural antipathy between Greeks and Latins.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 11:41:42 PM by Alcuin » Logged
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #19 on: June 01, 2011, 11:48:25 PM »

East and West remained in communion for centuries with much of the west using the filioque, but it was always a point of deep contention. Though to my mind mostly because both sides leveraged it for political gain and because of the mutual cultural antipathy between Greeks and Latins.

Exactly, that is the real point.  Filioque never was the cause of separation, and it is not. The cause is POLITICAL.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 11:48:53 PM by Inquisitor » Logged
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #20 on: June 01, 2011, 11:53:05 PM »

There is a saint venerated in both Catholic Church and among Eastern christians, Saint Isidore of Seville. He presided in some councils of Toledo. He presided the church of Spain, Is there any writing of him deposing or rejecting filioque?

560 – 636

Fourth Council of Toledo. Canonization was by a different process at the time than it is now in the Latin Church.

Are you saying that Eastern Christians do not held Saint Isidore as canonical saint?, and as I showed you, since the first Toledo's Council, Filioque was introduced, if he presided the fourth, why didn't he dropped Filioque and yet was in communion with the rest of the church, and even he was considered a saint in both west and east? Can you see how the argument held by Eastern christians falls under the weight of historical evidence?

The point again is that filioque was not a matter of excomunication.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 12:00:26 AM by Inquisitor » Logged
Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #21 on: June 02, 2011, 12:47:10 AM »

The historical causes really don't matter much now (They were indeed much more political and cultural than doctrinal, but even then the East did not like the Filioque doctrinally); if the Eastern Orthodox regard the Filioque as heretical they aren't going to want communion with Rome.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #22 on: June 02, 2011, 12:58:15 AM »

The Council of Toledo was a Local Council, not an Ecumenical Council. Its decisions have no binding authority within the Church.

Ok I know it, yet, Where is the formal excomunication of the Church of Spain?, which document stated clear that they were out of communion since the year 400?, why did it happened 654 year later?
Are you asking why the Church in the east did not break communion with the Church in the west over this local council at the time of this council? If so, that would seem odd - breaking communion with PART of a see.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #23 on: June 02, 2011, 01:03:24 AM »

Even in 1054, Cerularius took himself to have excommunicated Humbert and Pope Leo IX personally (that Leo IX was dead was unknown to both, I believe), not the west collectively. Humbert, likewise, took himself to have excommunicated Cerularius personally (because Leo was dead, Humbert didn't even have the canon law authority to be excommunicating Cerularius), not to have excommunicated the east generally. There really is no formal point of excommunication to look to, the schism developed gradually over history. If there are two distinct points, it's probably the Massacre of the Latins in 1182 and the Sack of Constantinople in 1204, neither of which were distinctly ecclesiastical events.

Again, none of this is really that relevant to today. The Churches do not continue in schism because of what happened in 1054, they continue in schism because of continuing doctrinal issues, whether those issues caused schism at the time or not.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 01:09:14 AM by Alcuin » Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #24 on: June 02, 2011, 01:23:01 AM »

This is getting even more confusing.
You ask a specific question and get direct answers. Now you wish to make a speculative generalization?
The filioque was indeed an issue but was not a problem outside of the see of Rome for  well prior to the eighth century, but as long as the Bishop of Rome adhered to orthodox faith the rest of the Church could not really do much about it.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #25 on: June 02, 2011, 01:50:38 AM »

East and West remained in communion for centuries with much of the west using the filioque, but it was always a point of deep contention. Though to my mind mostly because both sides leveraged it for political gain and because of the mutual cultural antipathy between Greeks and Latins.

Exactly, that is the real point.  Filioque never was the cause of separation, and it is not. The cause is POLITICAL.
The filioque is heresy, and issued by the Visigoth king and the Germanic emperor. Is that the politics you are refering to?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #26 on: June 02, 2011, 02:07:31 AM »

This is getting even more confusing.
You ask a specific question and get direct answers. Now you wish to make a speculative generalization?
The filioque was indeed an issue but was not a problem outside of the see of Rome for  well prior to the eighth century, but as long as the Bishop of Rome adhered to orthodox faith the rest of the Church could not really do much about it.

Schism initially occurred over it in AD 863, 463 years after the First Council of Toledo, when Photios excommunicated Pope Nicholas I on the grounds of Nicholas' adherence to the double procession of the Holy Spirit, which was 151 years before the Filioque was included in the creed in Rome.

One might regard the Filioque as heretical, but the issue came to a head when it did because of the politics of Papal-Imperial rivalry, not because the East felt they were powerless to do anything about it until some certain point.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 02:08:05 AM by Alcuin » Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #27 on: June 02, 2011, 06:57:55 AM »

Even in 1054, Cerularius took himself to have excommunicated Humbert and Pope Leo IX personally (that Leo IX was dead was unknown to both, I believe), not the west collectively.

I don't know if you intentionally switched the order (Humbert excommunicated the Patriarch first, and in "grand fashion."), but you've got one detail wrong (at least IIRC) - they did find out that Leo IX was in fact deceased, which is why the Cardinals were eventually denied the usual privileges of a legate once the news reached Constantinople (you can't be a legate for a dead man - they needed to go back to Rome and get their credentials from Leo's successor before they could continue to officially negotiate on behalf of the West) - which was likely the straw that broke the camel's back, so to say.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 06:58:07 AM by Fr. George » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #28 on: June 02, 2011, 07:36:24 AM »

This is getting even more confusing.
You ask a specific question and get direct answers. Now you wish to make a speculative generalization?
The filioque was indeed an issue but was not a problem outside of the see of Rome for  well prior to the eighth century, but as long as the Bishop of Rome adhered to orthodox faith the rest of the Church could not really do much about it.

Schism initially occurred over it in AD 863, 463 years after the First Council of Toledo, when Photios excommunicated Pope Nicholas I on the grounds of Nicholas' adherence to the double procession of the Holy Spirit, which was 151 years before the Filioque was included in the creed in Rome.

One might regard the Filioque as heretical, but the issue came to a head when it did because of the politics of Papal-Imperial rivalry, not because the East felt they were powerless to do anything about it until some certain point.
Apparently you are under the misconception that all was hugs and kisses between the so-called Photian schism and 1054. They were not. St. Photios himself, for the sake of unity in the Church, did not press for the Ecumenical Council of 880 (which corrected the false council of 869) to be so named as the Eighth council. Good intentions but lousy result. One may mark the real schism as occurring when east and west designated two different councils as the eighth and 150 years later such ducking of the issue bore its ugly fruit.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #29 on: June 02, 2011, 08:51:31 AM »

The historical causes really don't matter much now (They were indeed much more political and cultural than doctrinal, but even then the East did not like the Filioque doctrinally); if the Eastern Orthodox regard the Filioque as heretical they aren't going to want communion with Rome.

I think that among Eastern Christians there are those who really look for the truth and not political positions, If they are shown that the schism with Rome has no sense with historical evidence, they will think it twice before taking irreductible positions regarding the Catholic Church
Logged
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #30 on: June 02, 2011, 08:54:50 AM »

East and West remained in communion for centuries with much of the west using the filioque, but it was always a point of deep contention. Though to my mind mostly because both sides leveraged it for political gain and because of the mutual cultural antipathy between Greeks and Latins.

Exactly, that is the real point.  Filioque never was the cause of separation, and it is not. The cause is POLITICAL.
The filioque is heresy, and issued by the Visigoth king and the Germanic emperor. Is that the politics you are refering to?

No, it is not heresy, you are mistaken. Just remember that even in the east there where saints that proclame the procedence of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son just as the Latin fathers did,  Go to Saint Epiphanius of Salamis (310 -403) in his Ancoratus he wrote:

"Believe that Christ is fron the Father, God of God: the Holy Spirit is from Christ, or from both, as Christ says: Proceds from the Father and will recibe from me" (Ancoratus LXVII)

« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 09:15:25 AM by Inquisitor » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #31 on: June 02, 2011, 09:06:01 AM »

Christ has ascended!
East and West remained in communion for centuries with much of the west using the filioque, but it was always a point of deep contention. Though to my mind mostly because both sides leveraged it for political gain and because of the mutual cultural antipathy between Greeks and Latins.

Exactly, that is the real point.  Filioque never was the cause of separation, and it is not. The cause is POLITICAL.
The filioque is heresy, and issued by the Visigoth king and the Germanic emperor. Is that the politics you are refering to?

No, it is not heresy, you are mistaken.
Yes, it is heresy. The Church is not mistaken about that.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #32 on: June 02, 2011, 09:16:49 AM »

Christ has ascended!
East and West remained in communion for centuries with much of the west using the filioque, but it was always a point of deep contention. Though to my mind mostly because both sides leveraged it for political gain and because of the mutual cultural antipathy between Greeks and Latins.

Exactly, that is the real point.  Filioque never was the cause of separation, and it is not. The cause is POLITICAL.
The filioque is heresy, and issued by the Visigoth king and the Germanic emperor. Is that the politics you are refering to?

No, it is not heresy, you are mistaken.
Yes, it is heresy. The Church is not mistaken about that.

No heresy, show me the Formal excomunication of the whole church of Spain  since the year 400. and explain us widely why Saint Isidore of Seville is also recognized as saint among Eastern Christinas  when in the fourth council of Toledo he didn't rejected Filioque from the First Council of Toledo.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 09:30:42 AM by Inquisitor » Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #33 on: June 02, 2011, 10:12:39 AM »


No heresy, show me the Formal excomunication of the whole church of Spain  since the year 400. and explain us widely why Saint Isidore of Seville is also recognized as saint among Eastern Christinas  when in the fourth council of Toledo he didn't rejected Filioque from the First Council of Toledo.
This is a nonsensical argument you persist in making. Once again, the "Spanish Church" was in the see of Rome and NOT OUR PROBLEM until the Church of Rome adopted this innovation. It was up to Rome to deal with the error (heresy, by definition) and it did so for a very long time, thereby remaining Orthodox.
As to St. Isidore, we also hold St Augustine to be so blessed, but neither, indeed no man, was/is perfect.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #34 on: June 02, 2011, 10:12:52 AM »

East and West remained in communion for centuries with much of the west using the filioque, but it was always a point of deep contention. Though to my mind mostly because both sides leveraged it for political gain and because of the mutual cultural antipathy between Greeks and Latins.

Exactly, that is the real point.  Filioque never was the cause of separation, and it is not. The cause is POLITICAL.

Dude, you're pushing an agenda here.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #35 on: June 02, 2011, 10:15:30 AM »

There is a saint venerated in both Catholic Church and among Eastern christians, Saint Isidore of Seville. He presided in some councils of Toledo. He presided the church of Spain, Is there any writing of him deposing or rejecting filioque?

560 – 636

Fourth Council of Toledo. Canonization was by a different process at the time than it is now in the Latin Church.

Are you saying that Eastern Christians do not held Saint Isidore as canonical saint?, and as I showed you, since the first Toledo's Council, Filioque was introduced, if he presided the fourth, why didn't he dropped Filioque and yet was in communion with the rest of the church, and even he was considered a saint in both west and east? Can you see how the argument held by Eastern christians falls under the weight of historical evidence?

The point again is that filioque was not a matter of excomunication.

You're pulling a non sequitur. The cause of the schism in the late 11th century was not filioque, but papal supremacy. Filioque was a contributing factor later when Latin theologians started defending it as truth, ignorant of its history and theological error, and blatantly ignoring the ecumenical councils forbidding additions to the Creed. That it was added originally was regrettable and problematic, but excusable given the context.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #36 on: June 02, 2011, 10:17:30 AM »

Even in 1054, Cerularius took himself to have excommunicated Humbert and Pope Leo IX personally (that Leo IX was dead was unknown to both, I believe), not the west collectively. Humbert, likewise, took himself to have excommunicated Cerularius personally (because Leo was dead, Humbert didn't even have the canon law authority to be excommunicating Cerularius), not to have excommunicated the east generally. There really is no formal point of excommunication to look to, the schism developed gradually over history. If there are two distinct points, it's probably the Massacre of the Latins in 1182 and the Sack of Constantinople in 1204, neither of which were distinctly ecclesiastical events.

Again, none of this is really that relevant to today. The Churches do not continue in schism because of what happened in 1054, they continue in schism because of continuing doctrinal issues, whether those issues caused schism at the time or not.

No, it was known that Leo IX was dead and the bull invalid.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #37 on: June 02, 2011, 10:24:03 AM »


No heresy, show me the Formal excomunication of the whole church of Spain  since the year 400. and explain us widely why Saint Isidore of Seville is also recognized as saint among Eastern Christinas  when in the fourth council of Toledo he didn't rejected Filioque from the First Council of Toledo.
This is a nonsensical argument you persist in making. Once again, the "Spanish Church" was in the see of Rome and NOT OUR PROBLEM until the Church of Rome adopted this innovation. It was up to Rome to deal with the error (heresy, by definition) and it did so for a very long time, thereby remaining Orthodox.
As to St. Isidore, we also hold St Augustine to be so blessed, but neither, indeed no man, was/is perfect.

And, indeed, Rome dealt with the problem. St. Leo III had two silver plaques with the creed, sans filioque, written in Greek and Latin. Pope John VIII also championed Orthodoxy. It was not until the coronation of Emperor St. Henry II in 1004, IIRC, that filioque was used liturgically in Rome, at the instigation of the Germans.. The clause then appeared in the pope of Rome's systatic letter, the confession which patriarchs send to each other upon elevation, and the pope's name was struck from the diptychs of Constantinople, but maybe not other patriarchates. There was no schism at Antioch until 1100 when the Greek patriarch was illegally replaced with a Latin bishop, making two competing bishops in one city contrary to the canons.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #38 on: June 02, 2011, 10:29:39 AM »


No heresy, show me the Formal excomunication of the whole church of Spain  since the year 400. and explain us widely why Saint Isidore of Seville is also recognized as saint among Eastern Christinas  when in the fourth council of Toledo he didn't rejected Filioque from the First Council of Toledo.
This is a nonsensical argument you persist in making. Once again, the "Spanish Church" was in the see of Rome and NOT OUR PROBLEM until the Church of Rome adopted this innovation. It was up to Rome to deal with the error (heresy, by definition) and it did so for a very long time, thereby remaining Orthodox.
As to St. Isidore, we also hold St Augustine to be so blessed, but neither, indeed no man, was/is perfect.

I only see contradiction in your statement; you see the church of Spain as part of the Church of Rome, and not as part of the Catholic Church,  and to hold that St. Agustine and St. Isidore where blessed when teaching “heresies” makes no sense at all. The only possible sense is that Filioque was never heresy at all, but a theological dispute not enough to break communion.  Or would you say that those Saints where out of communion with you for teaching Filioque? If so, Why do you hold them as saints, No sense at all.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #39 on: June 02, 2011, 11:22:12 AM »


No heresy, show me the Formal excomunication of the whole church of Spain  since the year 400. and explain us widely why Saint Isidore of Seville is also recognized as saint among Eastern Christinas  when in the fourth council of Toledo he didn't rejected Filioque from the First Council of Toledo.
This is a nonsensical argument you persist in making. Once again, the "Spanish Church" was in the see of Rome and NOT OUR PROBLEM until the Church of Rome adopted this innovation. It was up to Rome to deal with the error (heresy, by definition) and it did so for a very long time, thereby remaining Orthodox.
As to St. Isidore, we also hold St Augustine to be so blessed, but neither, indeed no man, was/is perfect.

I only see contradiction in your statement; you see the church of Spain as part of the Church of Rome, and not as part of the Catholic Church,  and to hold that St. Agustine and St. Isidore where blessed when teaching “heresies” makes no sense at all. The only possible sense is that Filioque was never heresy at all, but a theological dispute not enough to break communion.  Or would you say that those Saints where out of communion with you for teaching Filioque? If so, Why do you hold them as saints, No sense at all.


No contradiction at all. What IS evident is that you cannot either read or comprehend what you read. At no point did I say that the Spanish Church" was not part of the Church Catholic. STOP deliberately misrepresenting my words with this sort of annoying dodge. Ditto that with both SAINTS Augustine and Isidore.
You're not too used to losing Internet arguments, are you? What you persist in demanding - proof that we did not break communion with PART of the Church of Rome is valid. It is an all or nothing thing. Rome was Orthodox, its Spanish bishops not so. Hence we did not break communion with Rome over a part (and a new one at that) of itself in error . How silly.
Further argument is pointless, useless in fact.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #40 on: June 02, 2011, 12:14:33 PM »


No heresy, show me the Formal excomunication of the whole church of Spain  since the year 400. and explain us widely why Saint Isidore of Seville is also recognized as saint among Eastern Christinas  when in the fourth council of Toledo he didn't rejected Filioque from the First Council of Toledo.
This is a nonsensical argument you persist in making. Once again, the "Spanish Church" was in the see of Rome and NOT OUR PROBLEM until the Church of Rome adopted this innovation. It was up to Rome to deal with the error (heresy, by definition) and it did so for a very long time, thereby remaining Orthodox.
As to St. Isidore, we also hold St Augustine to be so blessed, but neither, indeed no man, was/is perfect.

I only see contradiction in your statement; you see the church of Spain as part of the Church of Rome, and not as part of the Catholic Church,  and to hold that St. Agustine and St. Isidore where blessed when teaching “heresies” makes no sense at all. The only possible sense is that Filioque was never heresy at all, but a theological dispute not enough to break communion.  Or would you say that those Saints where out of communion with you for teaching Filioque? If so, Why do you hold them as saints, No sense at all.


No contradiction at all. What IS evident is that you cannot either read or comprehend what you read. At no point did I say that the Spanish Church" was not part of the Church Catholic. STOP deliberately misrepresenting my words with this sort of annoying dodge. Ditto that with both SAINTS Augustine and Isidore.
You're not too used to losing Internet arguments, are you? What you persist in demanding - proof that we did not break communion with PART of the Church of Rome is valid. It is an all or nothing thing. Rome was Orthodox, its Spanish bishops not so. Hence we did not break communion with Rome over a part (and a new one at that) of itself in error . How silly.
Further argument is pointless, useless in fact.


You can state what you want but it is clear that having saints that teached "heresies" is quite contradicotry un less such heresy was not heresy at all.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #41 on: June 02, 2011, 12:19:28 PM »

Christ has ascended!
East and West remained in communion for centuries with much of the west using the filioque, but it was always a point of deep contention. Though to my mind mostly because both sides leveraged it for political gain and because of the mutual cultural antipathy between Greeks and Latins.

Exactly, that is the real point.  Filioque never was the cause of separation, and it is not. The cause is POLITICAL.
The filioque is heresy, and issued by the Visigoth king and the Germanic emperor. Is that the politics you are refering to?

No, it is not heresy, you are mistaken.
Yes, it is heresy. The Church is not mistaken about that.

No heresy, show me the Formal excomunication of the whole church of Spain  since the year 400.
Formal, as in the formal and material hairsplitting your ecclesiastical communion never tires of, e.g. trying to exonerate the anathematized heretical Pope Honorius? (the Sixth Ecumenical Council issued a rather formal excommunication against him by name, but it didn't stop your Vatican from trying to pass Pastor Aeternus off as Apostolic teaching).  The Second Ecumenical Council-not in communion with Rome at the time, btw-set its seal on the Creed and forbade changing it, something the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus and the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon reitereated.  

Once the rest of the Church (including at the time Rome) got wind of what the Germanic rulers had done, they tried to correct them.  The Church is in the repentance, not damnation, business.  Only when the patriarch of the West adopted it, defended it, and persisted in it, did the first anathema come, in the Pan Orthodox Council of Constantinople IV (879):
Quote
Jointly sanctifying and preserving intact the venerable and divine teaching of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, which has been established in the bosom of our mind, with unhesitating resolve and purity of faith, as well as the sacred ordinances and canonical stipulations of his holy disciples and Apostles with an unwavering judgement, and indeed, those Seven holy and ecumenical Synods which were directed by the inspiration of the one and the same Holy Spirit and effected the [Christian] preaching, and jointly guarding with a most honest and unshakeable resolve the canonical institutions invulnerable and unfalsified, we expel those who removed themselves from the Church, and embrace and regard worthy of receiving those of the same faith or teachers of orthodoxy to whom honor and sacred respect is due as they themselves ordered. Thus, having in mind and declaring all these things, we embrace with mind and tongue (τῇ διανοίᾳ καὶ γλώσσῃ) and declare to all people with a loud voice the Horos (Rule) of the most pure faith of the Christians which has come down to us from above through the Fathers, subtracting nothing, adding nothing, falsifying nothing; for subtraction and addition, when no heresy is stirred up by the ingenious fabrications of the evil one, introduces disapprobation of those who are exempt from blame and inexcusable assault on the Fathers. As for the act of changing with falsified words the Horoi (Rules, Boundaries) of the Fathers is much worse that the previous one. Therefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod embracing whole-heartedly and declaring with divine desire and straightness of mind, and establishing and erecting on it the firm edifice of salvation, thus we think and loudly proclaim this message to all:

"I believe in One God, Father Almighty, ... and in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God... and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord ... who proceeds from the Father... [the whole Creed is cited here]

Thus we think, in this confession of faith we were we baptized, through this one the word of truth proved that every heresy is broken to pieces and canceled out. We enroll as brothers and fathers and coheirs of the heavenly city those who think thus. If anyone, however, dares to rewrite and call Rule of Faith some other exposition besides that of the sacred Symbol which has been spread abroad from above by our blessed and holy Fathers even as far as ourselves, and to snatch the authority of the confession of those divine men and impose on it his own invented phrases (ἰδίαις εὑρεσιολογίαις) and put this forth as a common lesson to the faithful or to those who return from some kind of heresy, and display the audacity to falsify completely (κατακιβδηλεῦσαι ἀποθρασυνθείη) the antiquity of this sacred and venerable Horos (Rule) with illegitimate words, or additions, or subtractions, such a person should, according to the vote of the holy and Ecumenical Synods, which has been already acclaimed before us, be subjected to complete defrocking if he happens to be one of the clergymen, or be sent away with an anathema if he happens to be one of the lay people.
http://home.comcast.net/~t.r.valentine/orthodoxy/filioque/dragas_eighth.html

This was held in response to EP St. Photios the Great's call for it to the Patriarchs:
Quote
Countless have been the evils devised by the cunning devil against the race of men, from the beginning up to the coming of the Lord. But even afterwards, he has not ceased through errors and heresies to beguile and deceive those who listen to him. Before our times, the Church, witnessed variously the godless errors of Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Discorus, and a foul host of others, against which the holy Ecumenical Synods were convened, and against which our holy and God-bearing Fathers battled with the sword of the Holy Spirit. Yet, even after these heresies had been overcome and peace reigned, and from the Imperial Capital the streams of Orthodoxy flowed throughout the world; after some people who had been afflicted by the Monophysite heresy returned to the True Faith because of your holy prayers; and after other barbarian peoples, such as the Bulgarians, had turned from idolatry to the knowledge of God and the Christian Faith: then was the cunning devil stirred up because of his envy.

For the Bulgarians had not been baptised even two years when dishonourable men emerged out of the darkness (that is, the West), and poured down like hail or, better, charged like wild boars upon the newly-planted vineyard of the Lord, destroying it with hoof and tusk, which is to say, by their shameful lives and corrupted dogmas. For the papal missionaries and clergy wanted these Orthodox Christians to depart from the correct and pure dogmas of our irreproachable Faith.

They attempted by their false opinions and distorted words to ruin the holy and sacred Nicene Symbol of Faith — which by both synodal and universal decisions possesses invincible power — by adding to it that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, as the Symbol declares, but from the Son also. Until now, no one has ever heard even a heretic pronounce such a teaching. What Christian can accept the introduction of two sources into the Holy Trinity; that is, that the Father is one source of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and that the Son is another source of the Holy Spirit, thereby transforming the monarchy of the Holy Trinity into a dual divinity?

And why should the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son as well as from the Father? For if His procession from the Father is perfect and complete — and it is perfect because He is perfect God from perfect God — then why is there also a procession from the Son? The Son, moreover, cannot serve as an intermediary between the Father and the Spirit because the Spirit is not a property of the Son. If two principles, two sources, exist in the divinity, then the unity of the divinity would be destroyed. If the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, His procession from the Father alone would of necessity be either perfect or imperfect. If it is imperfect, then procession for two hypostases would be much more contrived and less perfect than procession from one hypostasis alone. If it is not imperfect, then why would it be necessary for the Spirit to also proceed from the Son?

If the Son participates in the quality or property of the Father's own hypostasis, then the Son and the Spirit lose their own personal distinctions. Here one falls into semi-Sabellianism. The proposition that in the divinity there exist two principles, one which is independent and the other which receives its origin from the first, destroys the very root of the Christian conception of God. It would be much more consistent to expound these two principles into three, for this would be more in keeping with the human understanding of the Holy Trinity.

But since the Father is the principle and source, not because of the nature of the divinity, but because of the property of the hypostasis (and the hypostasis of the Father does not include the hypostasis of the Son), the Son cannot be a principle or source. The Filioque actually divides the hypostasis of the Father into two parts, or else the hypostasis of the Son becomes a part of the hypostasis of the Father. By the Filioque teaching, the Holy Spirit is two degrees or steps removed from the Father, and thus has a much lower rank than the Son. If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also, then of the three Divine Hypostases, the Holy Spirit alone has more than one origin or principle.

By the teaching of the procession from the Son also, the Father and the Son are made closer to each other than the Father and the Spirit, since the Son possesses not only the Father's nature but also the property of His Person. The procession of the Spirit from the Son is either the same as that from the Father, or else it is different, in which case there exists an opposition in the Holy Trinity. A dual procession cannot be reconciled with the principle that what is not common to the three hypostases belongs exclusively to only one of the three hypostases. If the Spirit proceeds also from the Son, why then would something not proceed from the Spirit, so that the balance between the Divine Hypostases would therefore be maintained?

By the teaching that the Spirit also proceeds from the Son, the Father appears partial towards the Son. The Father is either a greater source of the Spirit than the Son, or a lesser source. If greater, the dignity of the Son is offended; if lesser, the dignity of the Father is offended. The Latins make the Son greater than the Spirit, for they consider Him a principle, irreverently placing Him closer to the Father. By introducing a dual principle into the Holy Trinity as they do, the Latins offend the Son, for by making Him a source of that which already has a source, they thus render Him unnecessary as a source. They also divide the Holy Spirit into two parts: one part from the Father and one part from the Son. In the Holy Trinity, which is united in an indivisible unity, all three hypostases are inviolable. But if the Son contributes to the procession of the Spirit, Sonship is then injured, and the hypostatic property damaged.

If, by the begetting of the Son, the power was thereby given to the Son that the Holy Spirit would proceed from Him, then how would His Sonship itself not be destroyed when He, Who Himself has a source, became a source of Another Who is equal to Him and is of the same nature as He? According to the Filioque teaching, it is impossible to see why the Holy Spirit could not be called a granson! If the Father is the source of the Son, who is the second source of the Spirit, then the Father is both immediate and the mediated source of the Holy Spirit! A dual source in the divinity inescapably concludes in a dual result; therefore, the hypostasis of the Spirit must be dual. Therefore, the teaching of the Filioque introduces into the divinity two principles, a dyarchy, which destroys the unity of the divinity, the monarchy of the Father.

Having here explained the Latin understanding only briefly, I will leave its detailed presentation and refutation until we are assembled together in council. These so-called bishops thus introduced this foul teaching, together with other impermissible innovations, among the simple and newly-baptised Bulgarian people. This news cut us to the heart. How can we not grieve when we see before our eyes the fruit of our womb, the child to whom we gave birth through the Gospel of Christ, being rent asunder by beasts? He who by his sweat and suffering raised them and perfected them in the Faith, suffers the greatest pain and sorrow upon the destruction of his children. Therefore, we mourn for our spiritual children, and we will not cease from mourning. For we will not give sleep to our eyes until, to the extent that lies in our power, we return them to the House of the Lord.

Which was reiterated by the Pan Orthodox Council of Constantinople V
http://home.comcast.net/~t.r.valentine/orthodoxy/filioque/tomos1285.html

and explain us widely why Saint Isidore of Seville is also recognized as saint among Eastern Christinas  when in the fourth council of Toledo he didn't rejected Filioque from the First Council of Toledo.
It's from the third council of Toledo, and he seems ignorant of it an addition.

Quote
The historical appearance of Frankish theology coincides with the beginnings of the Filioque controversy. Since the Roman Fathers of the Church took a strong position on this issue, as they did on the question of Icons (also condemned initially by the Franks), the Franks automatically terminated the patristic period of theology with Saint John of Damascus in the East (after they accepted the Seventh Ecumenical Synod) and Isidore of Seville in the West. After this, the Roman Empire no longer can produce Fathers of the Church because the Romans rejected the Frankish Filioque. In doing so, the Romans withdrew themselves from the central trunk of Christianity (as the Franks understood things) which now becomes identical with Frankish Christianity, especially after the East Franks expelled the Romans from the Papacy and took it over themselves.
http://reocities.com/heartland/5654/orthodox/romanides_filioque.html
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #42 on: June 02, 2011, 01:11:20 PM »

Photios is a schismatic, no authority at all. If not clear refference to Spain on the matter, then no Excomunication.  where is the excomunication of St Agustine?,  why do you hold  him as a Saint if teaching "heresies"?.

Since the first council of Toledo filioque appears, just few year after the council of Constantinople, I brought the refference you can read it.  and Saint Isidore never rejected it even presiding the fourth council of Toledo. yet he remains being a Saint among of eastern christian. What about Saint Epiphanius of Salamis (310 -403) in his Ancoratus he wrote:

"Believe that Christ is fron the Father, God of God: the Holy Spirit is from Christ, or from both, as Christ says: Proceds from the Father and will recibe from me" (Ancoratus LXVII)

He lived during the Council of Constantinople time, yet he teached that the the Holy Spirit also proceds from the Son. and he is not a Western Father but an East One. 
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 01:12:06 PM by Inquisitor » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #43 on: June 02, 2011, 01:46:07 PM »

Christ is ascended!
Photios is a schismatic, no authority at all.

Only to hertics and schismatics, but the blessings of heretics are curses and the curses of heretics are blessings.

God has glorified EP St. Photios the Great, Pillar of Orthodoxy.
If not clear refference to Spain on the matter, then no Excomunication.
 
I doubt that the Patriarchs, in the centers of civilization, knew what was going on in that backwater in that forgotten fringe of the empire, or its part in the creation of the filioque heresy.  Rome's antics had come to their attention, and hence they were dealig with them.

where is the excomunication of St Agustine?,  why do you hold  him as a Saint if teaching "heresies"?.

Because he admitted he was only attempting to understand, and frankly admitted his ignorance of Greek but stating his Faith that in the Greek Fathers having dogmatized correctly.

Since the first council of Toledo filioque appears, just few year after the council of Constantinople,
No, Toledo III, a century later.

I brought the refference you can read it.  and Saint Isidore never rejected it even presiding the fourth council of Toledo.


yet he remains being a Saint among of eastern christian.
St. Photios the Great more so, but that means nothing to you, so why should we care for your heretical opinions about Isodore?

What about Saint Epiphanius of Salamis (310 -403) in his Ancoratus he wrote:

"Believe that Christ is fron the Father, God of God: the Holy Spirit is from Christ, or from both, as Christ says: Proceds from the Father and will recibe from me" (Ancoratus LXVII)
He also, later in his Panarion, replicates the Creed without filioque.  He was corrected, and he accepted correction.

He lived during the Council of Constantinople time, yet he teached that the the Holy Spirit also proceds from the Son. and he is not a Western Father but an East One. 
First provide where St. Epiphanios says He proceeds from the Son.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #44 on: June 02, 2011, 02:01:06 PM »

Photios is a schismatic, no authority at all.

You mean Saint Photios?
Logged
Tags: filioque 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.178 seconds with 72 queries.