Poll

Select all of the options that you believe are theologically acceptable (multiple choices allowed)

Monopatrism - HS proceeds from Father alone (Son has no involvement)
29 (32.6%)
Filioque - HS proceeds from Father and Son as ONE principle
2 (2.2%)
Per Filium - HS proceeds from Father through Son (Father is single principle)
39 (43.8%)
Filioque, understood as Father as single principle
12 (13.5%)
ex Patri spirituque - the Son comes forth from the Father and HS
2 (2.2%)
NA
0 (0%)
Other
5 (5.6%)

Total Members Voted: 54

Author Topic: Filioque....(poll)  (Read 2360 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Surnaturel

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 147
Filioque....(poll)
« on: May 30, 2013, 10:13:39 PM »
Some notes for clarification:

Per Filium here is understood in the vein of St. Maximus and St. Gregory of Nyssa: the Son has a  'mediating role' but the Father is the unoriginate and monarchical source, ontogically and hypostatically, of the Son and HS.

Ex Patri spirituque is purported to have a patristic basis by some theologians and has been proposed by at least one RC and EO theologian.

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,671
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2013, 10:23:59 PM »
I selected other, because I disagree with the opposition between 'monopatrism' and through the Son. We can say both that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and also that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, because the former refers to the Spirit having existence from the Father alone, while the latter refers to the Spirit existing from the Father through the Son. They don't really refer to different things at all. I disagree with the other options. The Filioque as traditionally taught, confuses the hypostatic property of the Father with the Son. An attempt to restate the Filioque, such that the Father is a single principle doesn't work, simply because to exclude the Son from being principle is to deny that the Spirit is from the Son. The idea that the Son is begotten from the Father and Spirit confuses economy with theology.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2013, 10:32:33 PM by Cavaradossi »
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Shanghaiski

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,978
  • Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #2 on: May 30, 2013, 10:28:03 PM »
I selected other, because I disagree with the opposition between 'monopatrism' and through the Son. We can say both that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and also that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, because the former refers to the Spirit having existence from the Father alone, while the latter refers to the Spirit existing from the Father through the Son.

Well, the poll was set up by a Latin. Procedit =/= ekporevete.
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.

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,671
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #3 on: May 30, 2013, 10:35:11 PM »
I selected other, because I disagree with the opposition between 'monopatrism' and through the Son. We can say both that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and also that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, because the former refers to the Spirit having existence from the Father alone, while the latter refers to the Spirit existing from the Father through the Son.

Well, the poll was set up by a Latin. Procedit =/= ekporevete.

In both forumlae (from the Father alone, and from the Father through the Son), the verb used is ἐκπορεύεται.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Surnaturel

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 147
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #4 on: May 30, 2013, 10:47:22 PM »
I selected other, because I disagree with the opposition between 'monopatrism' and through the Son. We can say both that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and also that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, because the former refers to the Spirit having existence from the Father alone, while the latter refers to the Spirit existing from the Father through the Son.

Well, the poll was set up by a Latin. Procedit =/= ekporevete.

In both forumlae (from the Father alone, and from the Father through the Son), the verb used is ἐκπορεύεται.
that's why I offered multiple options. The second Filioque option is not necessarily opposed to per filium either. In your case, you could have voted for monopatrism and per filium as two acceptable expressions of the same truth, but they nonetheless are distinguishable by different wording.

Offline Surnaturel

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 147
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #5 on: May 30, 2013, 10:55:33 PM »
Also, the Latin word is incredibly broad and allows for a per Filium interpretation since the HS would be understood as principle from the Father but 'proceeding' through the Son per mediation. In any case, I agree with you that Per Filium is less clumsy and a superior formula. Correlatively, I believe that the Per Filioque is superior to the Photian Monopatrism.

Offline lovesupreme

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,209
  • This is where I choose to tread
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #6 on: May 30, 2013, 11:24:18 PM »
I always thought the Spirit proceeded from the OC.net forums.  ???

Offline Kerdy

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,802
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #7 on: May 31, 2013, 01:04:26 AM »
I didn't select any because I think if the ECF's took years to come up with the right answer, there are no other questions to ask.

Offline Shanghaiski

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,978
  • Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #8 on: May 31, 2013, 08:09:18 AM »
I always thought the Spirit proceeded from the OC.net forums.  ???

Not the Holy Spirit.
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.

Offline Surnaturel

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 147
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #9 on: May 31, 2013, 09:02:40 AM »
I didn't select any because I think if the ECF's took years to come up with the right answer, there are no other questions to ask.
Which ECFs? Nyssa and Maximus asserted per filium, Augustine Filioque, Photius Monopatrism....Nicaea-Constantinople left open the possibility for all three...

Offline Kerdy

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,802
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #10 on: May 31, 2013, 09:06:09 AM »
I didn't select any because I think if the ECF's took years to come up with the right answer, there are no other questions to ask.
Which ECFs? Nyssa and Maximus asserted per filium, Augustine Filioque, Photius Monopatrism....Nicaea-Constantinople left open the possibility for all three...

Only one was approved and accepted.

Offline Surnaturel

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 147
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #11 on: May 31, 2013, 09:55:00 AM »
I am surprised by the votes. I would have though that Monopatrism would be the majority vote. Personally, as I said, I think that the fullest expression of the Trinitarian truth of Nicaea-Constantinople is per Filium.

Offline JoeS2

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,260
  • St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #12 on: May 31, 2013, 10:05:41 AM »
I didn't select any because I think if the ECF's took years to come up with the right answer, there are no other questions to ask.
Which ECFs? Nyssa and Maximus asserted per filium, Augustine Filioque, Photius Monopatrism....Nicaea-Constantinople left open the possibility for all three...

Only one was approved and accepted.

Bump!

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,394
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #13 on: May 31, 2013, 10:28:55 AM »
Why would we express theology in Latin phrases?
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

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • The Fourteenth Apostle and Judge of the Interwebs
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,036
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #14 on: May 31, 2013, 10:58:39 AM »
Why would we express theology in Latin phrases?

This is an important point.  While the argument has been made that the Latin terms are broader in meaning on this question than the Greek, there's no reason why the Eastern Churches would define theology in Latin.  Regarding procession, none of the languages in the East differ significantly from the Greek as far as I am aware, so we're happy sticking with the uninterpolated Creed, and so was Rome once upon a time.  Even if different local traditions may also use other phrases in their expansions on this theology, like the Syriac "takes from the Son" (for the sake of which I included "per Filium" in my vote), it need not be imposed on everyone else as was attempted with Filioque.     

 
"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Mor no longer posts on OCNet.  He follows threads, posts his responses daily, occasionally starts threads, and responds to private messages when and as he wants.  But he really isn't around anymore.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,650
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #15 on: May 31, 2013, 12:53:58 PM »
Why would we express theology in Latin phrases?
You don't want any Latin Orthodox?
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline J Michael

  • Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,395
  • Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #16 on: May 31, 2013, 01:31:33 PM »
I voted "Other", as in "Don't know--above my pay grade."
"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,650
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #17 on: May 31, 2013, 03:19:10 PM »
I voted "Other", as in "Don't know--above my pay grade."
I like that.
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline Surnaturel

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 147
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #18 on: May 31, 2013, 08:41:35 PM »
Why would we express theology in Latin phrases?
I don't think you should. What gave you that impression?

Per Filium is from St. GREGORY of Nyssa, an Eastern Father, I just read it today in Book I and II of his 'Against Eunomius' and in his treatise on the Trinity. Same is true with St. Maximus the Confessor.

Moreover, I merely asked what formula(s) people found agreeable and theologically tenable.

Offline Surnaturel

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 147
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #19 on: May 31, 2013, 08:44:34 PM »
Why would we express theology in Latin phrases?

This is an important point.  While the argument has been made that the Latin terms are broader in meaning on this question than the Greek, there's no reason why the Eastern Churches would define theology in Latin.  Regarding procession, none of the languages in the East differ significantly from the Greek as far as I am aware, so we're happy sticking with the uninterpolated Creed, and so was Rome once upon a time.  Even if different local traditions may also use other phrases in their expansions on this theology, like the Syriac "takes from the Son" (for the sake of which I included "per Filium" in my vote), it need not be imposed on everyone else as was attempted with Filioque.      

  
I can look for it if you're interested, but St Gregory of Nyssa used the phrase 'takes from the Son' at least once time in one of his works.

I decided to find it whether you're interested or not lol. It's on the first page of his 'On the Holy Spirit' and the literal Greek, according to the translator, is 'proceeding from the Father receiving from the Son.'
« Last Edit: May 31, 2013, 08:52:18 PM by Surnaturel »

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • The Fourteenth Apostle and Judge of the Interwebs
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,036
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #20 on: May 31, 2013, 09:45:29 PM »
I decided to find it whether you're interested or not lol. It's on the first page of his 'On the Holy Spirit' and the literal Greek, according to the translator, is 'proceeding from the Father receiving from the Son.'

Thanks for indulging my laziness.  :P
"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Mor no longer posts on OCNet.  He follows threads, posts his responses daily, occasionally starts threads, and responds to private messages when and as he wants.  But he really isn't around anymore.

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,395
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #21 on: June 01, 2013, 11:54:20 PM »
The correct answer, of course, is the one which the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church professes.  :angel:

Offline TheMathematician

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,781
  • Formerly known as Montalo
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Serbian Diocese of Eastern America
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #22 on: June 02, 2013, 12:14:25 AM »
The correct answer, of course, is the one which the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church professes.  :angel:

I quite agree with you, and how it is professes now, that is, Who proceeds from the Father, with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified.

 ;D

Offline JamesR

  • Virginal Chicano Blood
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,323
  • St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!
  • Faith: Misotheistic Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #23 on: June 02, 2013, 12:25:37 AM »
I think the bigger issue in regards to the Filioque was not whether or not it was doctrinally true--it has the potential to be understood in both a proper and heretical way--but the fact that it symbolized Papal Supremacy. The West was already using the Filioque since the 6th century, but it didn't become a problem until the West tried to force it on us.
...Or it's just possible he's a mouthy young man on an internet forum.
In the infinite wisdom of God, James can be all three.

Offline J Michael

  • Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,395
  • Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #24 on: June 02, 2013, 06:46:43 PM »
I think the bigger issue in regards to the Filioque was not whether or not it was doctrinally true--it has the potential to be understood in both a proper and heretical way--but the fact that it symbolized Papal Supremacy. The West was already using the Filioque since the 6th century, but it didn't become a problem until the West tried to force it on us.

Who is this "us"--The Church of the Confused  8)?
"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,395
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #25 on: June 02, 2013, 10:59:31 PM »
The correct answer, of course, is the one which the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church professes.  :angel:

I quite agree with you, and how it is professes now, that is, Who proceeds from the Father, with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified.

 ;D
Yep...that is a fully orthodox way to say the Creed. After all, this is what the Eastern Catholics say. :p

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,809
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #26 on: June 03, 2013, 02:59:03 AM »
The correct answer, of course, is the one which the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church professes.  :angel:

I quite agree with you, and how it is professes now, that is, Who proceeds from the Father, with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified.

 ;D
Yep...that is a fully orthodox way to say the Creed. After all, this is what the Eastern Catholics say. :p
There is a small problem though. The Catholic Church is supposed to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. If we focus on the mark "ONE", wouldn't this imply that there should be one creed, which everyone agrees on? If the East says that the HS proceeds from the Father, while the Romans say that the HS proceeds from the Father and from the Son, is this indicative of "ONE" belief? Some in the East say no, especially in consideration of the some of the harsher  declarations at Western Councils and in spite of a recent document which attempted to soften the harsher implication of filioque.  I know that Romans today say that both creeds effectively  mean the same thing, but this is not agreeable to the East, and  a further question is whether this was this what the Romans have always said or was it taught previously, that there is a serious difference between putting the filioque in the creed and leaving it out?

Offline JoeS2

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,260
  • St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #27 on: June 03, 2013, 07:25:45 AM »
The correct answer, of course, is the one which the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church professes.  :angel:

I quite agree with you, and how it is professes now, that is, Who proceeds from the Father, with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified.

 ;D
Yep...that is a fully orthodox way to say the Creed. After all, this is what the Eastern Catholics say. :p
There is a small problem though. The Catholic Church is supposed to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. If we focus on the mark "ONE", wouldn't this imply that there should be one creed, which everyone agrees on? If the East says that the HS proceeds from the Father, while the Romans say that the HS proceeds from the Father and from the Son, is this indicative of "ONE" belief? Some in the East say no, especially in consideration of the some of the harsher  declarations at Western Councils and in spite of a recent document which attempted to soften the harsher implication of filioque.  I know that Romans today say that both creeds effectively  mean the same thing, but this is not agreeable to the East, and  a further question is whether this was this what the Romans have always said or was it taught previously, that there is a serious difference between putting the filioque in the creed and leaving it out?

Well, if the RCC is willing to accept the "through" rather than the "and" term there may be a chance here, but I still am confused somewhat in the RCC believing that "and" means "through" and visa versa.  In English, this is not so. But what do I know.  Anyway, whatever change would have to be a published change ie Sunday Missals, Catechism, etc. to confirm it. In what language does "and" allowed to be used in the place of "through"?

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,395
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #28 on: June 03, 2013, 01:45:14 PM »
The correct answer, of course, is the one which the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church professes.  :angel:

I quite agree with you, and how it is professes now, that is, Who proceeds from the Father, with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified.

 ;D
Yep...that is a fully orthodox way to say the Creed. After all, this is what the Eastern Catholics say. :p
There is a small problem though. The Catholic Church is supposed to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. If we focus on the mark "ONE", wouldn't this imply that there should be one creed, which everyone agrees on? If the East says that the HS proceeds from the Father, while the Romans say that the HS proceeds from the Father and from the Son, is this indicative of "ONE" belief? Some in the East say no, especially in consideration of the some of the harsher  declarations at Western Councils and in spite of a recent document which attempted to soften the harsher implication of filioque.  I know that Romans today say that both creeds effectively  mean the same thing, but this is not agreeable to the East, and  a further question is whether this was this what the Romans have always said or was it taught previously, that there is a serious difference between putting the filioque in the creed and leaving it out?
The Church, East and West, said the Creed without the filioque for quite some time, so it is a perfectly orthodox expression of the faith. Since filioque is a clarification and not a change of doctrine, and since the absence of the filioque does not necessarily imply "Father alone," I see nothing wrong with it not being said by the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Offline JoeS2

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,260
  • St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #29 on: June 03, 2013, 06:18:24 PM »
The correct answer, of course, is the one which the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church professes.  :angel:

I quite agree with you, and how it is professes now, that is, Who proceeds from the Father, with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified.

 ;D
Yep...that is a fully orthodox way to say the Creed. After all, this is what the Eastern Catholics say. :p
There is a small problem though. The Catholic Church is supposed to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. If we focus on the mark "ONE", wouldn't this imply that there should be one creed, which everyone agrees on? If the East says that the HS proceeds from the Father, while the Romans say that the HS proceeds from the Father and from the Son, is this indicative of "ONE" belief? Some in the East say no, especially in consideration of the some of the harsher  declarations at Western Councils and in spite of a recent document which attempted to soften the harsher implication of filioque.  I know that Romans today say that both creeds effectively  mean the same thing, but this is not agreeable to the East, and  a further question is whether this was this what the Romans have always said or was it taught previously, that there is a serious difference between putting the filioque in the creed and leaving it out?
The Church, East and West, said the Creed without the filioque for quite some time, so it is a perfectly orthodox expression of the faith. Since filioque is a clarification and not a change of doctrine, and since the absence of the filioque does not necessarily imply "Father alone," I see nothing wrong with it not being said by the Eastern Catholic Churches.

I beg to differ here, the Filioque is a change of doctrine.  It was also adopted without conciliatory approval from a unified Church.  
« Last Edit: June 03, 2013, 06:18:45 PM by JoeS2 »

Offline Melodist

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,523
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #30 on: June 03, 2013, 07:24:01 PM »
filioque is a clarification

But not a clarification of the Creed was written to express.
And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God

Offline Mockingbird

  • Mimus polyglottos
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Episcopal Church
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #31 on: June 03, 2013, 08:38:50 PM »
The point of the filioque was to short-circuit possible Arian interpretations of the article on the procession of the Holy Ghost.  If the Son is a divine cul-de-sac, off to one side of the main action, having no connection whatever to the Holy Ghost except for a few crumbs of knowledge given by the Father, then the Arians are right that the Son does not fully know his Father, for he does not share his Father's full knowledge of the Holy Ghost.

The synod of Hatfield, in 679, in its statement of "the right and orthodox faith", stated that "we glorify our Lord Jesus in such sort as [the apostles, the fathers, and the general councils] have glorified him; adding or diminishing nothing: ... glorifying God the Father without beginning, and his only-begotten Son begotten of the Father before the worlds, and the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son in a way that cannot be described (et Spiritum Sanctum procedentem ex Patre et Filio inenarrabiliter)."  This confession was accepted as orthodox by St. Theodore, a Greek-speaking monk from Asia Minor, who taught his students in the Canterbury school from the writings of the Greek fathers.
Forþon we sealon efestan þas Easterlican þing to asmeagenne and to gehealdanne, þaet we magon cuman to þam Easterlican daege, þe aa byð, mid fullum glaedscipe and wynsumnysse and ecere blisse.--Byrhtferth of Ramsey

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,194
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #32 on: June 03, 2013, 09:46:36 PM »
I think the bigger issue in regards to the Filioque was not whether or not it was doctrinally true--it has the potential to be understood in both a proper and heretical way--but the fact that it symbolized Papal Supremacy. The West was already using the Filioque since the 6th century, but it didn't become a problem until the West tried to force it on us.

What about the EP's actions in 1014?
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,194
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #33 on: June 03, 2013, 09:47:41 PM »
The correct answer, of course, is the one which the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church professes.  :angel:

I quite agree with you, and how it is professes now, that is, Who proceeds from the Father, with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified.

 ;D
Yep...that is a fully orthodox way to say the Creed. After all, this is what the Eastern Catholics say. :p

I'd like to also mention Dominus Jesus.
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,194
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #34 on: June 03, 2013, 09:51:33 PM »
The correct answer, of course, is the one which the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church professes.  :angel:

I quite agree with you, and how it is professes now, that is, Who proceeds from the Father, with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified.

 ;D
Yep...that is a fully orthodox way to say the Creed. After all, this is what the Eastern Catholics say. :p
There is a small problem though. The Catholic Church is supposed to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. If we focus on the mark "ONE", wouldn't this imply that there should be one creed, which everyone agrees on? If the East says that the HS proceeds from the Father, while the Romans say that the HS proceeds from the Father and from the Son, is this indicative of "ONE" belief? Some in the East say no, especially in consideration of the some of the harsher  declarations at Western Councils and in spite of a recent document which attempted to soften the harsher implication of filioque.  I know that Romans today say that both creeds effectively  mean the same thing, but this is not agreeable to the East, and  a further question is whether this was this what the Romans have always said or was it taught previously, that there is a serious difference between putting the filioque in the creed and leaving it out?
The Church, East and West, said the Creed without the filioque for quite some time, so it is a perfectly orthodox expression of the faith. Since filioque is a clarification and not a change of doctrine, and since the absence of the filioque does not necessarily imply "Father alone," I see nothing wrong with it not being said by the Eastern Catholic Churches.

I beg to differ here, the Filioque is a change of doctrine.  It was also adopted without conciliatory approval from a unified Church.  

I assume you that in the sense the Florence's statement represented a change of teaching? I think most Orthodox agree that the filioque in-and-of-itself can be orthodox. (All the more so in English, since we say "who proceeds from the Father and the Son", not "who proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son".)
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Apotheoun

  • "Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,421
  • St. John Maximovitch
    • The Taboric Light
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #35 on: June 04, 2013, 03:51:17 PM »
I chose the "monopatrism" option, because the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed concerns the origination of the Spirit's existence, and that comes from the Father alone.
"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,650
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #36 on: June 04, 2013, 05:15:11 PM »
The correct answer, of course, is the one which the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church professes.  :angel:

I quite agree with you, and how it is professes now, that is, Who proceeds from the Father, with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified.

 ;D
Yep...that is a fully orthodox way to say the Creed. After all, this is what the Eastern Catholics say. :p
There is a small problem though. The Catholic Church is supposed to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. If we focus on the mark "ONE", wouldn't this imply that there should be one creed, which everyone agrees on? If the East says that the HS proceeds from the Father, while the Romans say that the HS proceeds from the Father and from the Son, is this indicative of "ONE" belief? Some in the East say no, especially in consideration of the some of the harsher  declarations at Western Councils and in spite of a recent document which attempted to soften the harsher implication of filioque.  I know that Romans today say that both creeds effectively  mean the same thing, but this is not agreeable to the East, and  a further question is whether this was this what the Romans have always said or was it taught previously, that there is a serious difference between putting the filioque in the creed and leaving it out?
The Church, East and West, said the Creed without the filioque for quite some time, so it is a perfectly orthodox expression of the faith. Since filioque is a clarification and not a change of doctrine, and since the absence of the filioque does not necessarily imply "Father alone," I see nothing wrong with it not being said by the Eastern Catholic Churches.
Agreed. In addition to this, some parts of the Church recited the filioque while other did not, and the and East and West were still in communion with one another.
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline Shanghaiski

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,978
  • Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #37 on: June 04, 2013, 11:08:52 PM »
Why would we express theology in Latin phrases?

+1
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.

Offline Shanghaiski

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,978
  • Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #38 on: June 04, 2013, 11:10:32 PM »
Why would we express theology in Latin phrases?
You don't want any Latin Orthodox?

We have many Latin Orthodox, but the best of them were at least a bit conversant in Greek or knew the Greek Fathers. The ones who didn't got into trouble and the best of them acknowledged such.
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.

Offline Shanghaiski

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,978
  • Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #39 on: June 04, 2013, 11:11:53 PM »
I think the bigger issue in regards to the Filioque was not whether or not it was doctrinally true--it has the potential to be understood in both a proper and heretical way--but the fact that it symbolized Papal Supremacy. The West was already using the Filioque since the 6th century, but it didn't become a problem until the West tried to force it on us.

Bazinga
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.

Offline JoeS2

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,260
  • St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #40 on: June 05, 2013, 12:37:29 AM »

Agreed. In addition to this, some parts of the Church recited the filioque while other did not, and the and East and West were still in communion with one another.

Yes, we were in communion but heck, lets face it, they didn't have Google or the Internet otherwise we may have been split up well before the accepted 1054 date.  And for another, the eastern faithful would not have gone along with it anyway if they knew what was going on.  But, they Woke up after Ravenna and Florence in a big way as we all know.

Offline paedenfield

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • St. Ephrem, the Harp of the Holy Spirit
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #41 on: June 05, 2013, 02:19:46 AM »
Ex Patri spirituque is purported to have a patristic basis by some theologians and has been proposed by at least one RC and EO theologian.

I have always felt on the safest theological ground with "Monopatrism - HS proceeds from Father alone (Son has no involvement)."  I worshiped for years as an Episcopalian and later as a Methodist, and for some reason I always had a gut reaction against saying the Filioque clause when using the Nicene Creed ... I should've known something was up with that!  :)

At the same time, I am interested in learning more about the small minority view of "ex Patri spirituque - the Son comes forth from the Father and HS."  Surnaturel, would you please share with us the patristic and later sources for this understanding of the Trinity?  My guess is that it ultimately has a Semitic (early Syriac and/or Jewish-Christian) origin, where the Holy Spirit was understood in maternal terms.  Thanks.

  -- Paul
If you are able to bear the whole yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect.  But if you are not able, then do what you can. - Didache 6:2

Offline JoeS2

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,260
  • St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #42 on: June 05, 2013, 08:44:59 AM »


I assume you that in the sense the Florence's statement represented a change of teaching? I think most Orthodox agree that the filioque in-and-of-itself can be orthodox. (All the more so in English, since we say "who proceeds from the Father and the Son", not "who proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son".)

No No NO.  The Nicean Creed is explicit in it's content.  No changes no additions are allowed without universal consent by a unified church council.  Any changes have been condemned as heretical.  Now if a future unified church chose to include this term, so be it.  But as of now, its a No NO.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2013, 08:45:25 AM by JoeS2 »

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,650
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #43 on: June 05, 2013, 02:38:01 PM »

Agreed. In addition to this, some parts of the Church recited the filioque while other did not, and the and East and West were still in communion with one another.

Yes, we were in communion but heck, lets face it, they didn't have Google or the Internet otherwise we may have been split up well before the accepted 1054 date.  And for another, the eastern faithful would not have gone along with it anyway if they knew what was going on.  But, they Woke up after Ravenna and Florence in a big way as we all know.
You think the Eastern Catholics would have demanded schism from Spanish Catholics when the Spanish started reciting the filioque?
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,650
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: Filioque....(poll)
« Reply #44 on: June 05, 2013, 02:38:01 PM »


I assume you that in the sense the Florence's statement represented a change of teaching? I think most Orthodox agree that the filioque in-and-of-itself can be orthodox. (All the more so in English, since we say "who proceeds from the Father and the Son", not "who proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son".)

No No NO.  The Nicean Creed is explicit in it's content.  No changes no additions are allowed without universal consent by a unified church council.  Any changes have been condemned as heretical.  Now if a future unified church chose to include this term, so be it.  But as of now, its a No NO.
It was changed after Nicea.
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.