OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 20, 2014, 06:06:36 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 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Filioque  (Read 3777 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #45 on: March 08, 2014, 03:35:53 AM »

Catholic apologists like to play the "church Fathers" game which proves nothing.None of the early church Fathers are espousing the Latin's filioque, that the Father and Son are the eternal source of the Holy Spirit. They speak of the Orthodox understanding of the Son's role in the temporal procession of the Holy Spirit. St .Hilary of Poitiers is an example: " In the fact that before times eternal your(the Father's) only begotten Son was born of you, when we put an end to every ambiguity of words and difficulty of understanding, there remains only this: he was born. So too, even if I do not gasp it in my understanding, I hold fast in my consciousness to the fact that your Holy Spirit is from Him THROUGH HIM." Maximus the Confessor: 'By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten.

The filioque addition goes against the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. The 3rd Ecumenical Council condemns changes to the Creed. Canon VII. The filioque was added by a local council, Toledo, and even after 400 years after Toledo Rome condemned anyone from adding it due to it not being seen as Orthodox.

"From" and "through" are one and the same as the Catholic Church explicitly teaches or else how do you reconcile what St. Hilary also said here :

Quote
Hilary of Poitiers

"Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources (The Trinity 2:29)

That's what Orthodox believe too, problem is the Latin creed does not say that.

Orthodoxy believes that the Son together with the father is the source of the holy Spirit?
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
vasily
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox church in america
Posts: 189



« Reply #46 on: March 08, 2014, 09:33:32 AM »

You must be kidding. "From" and "through" are far from being the same. "From" something indicates that it originates from that something. "Through" something indicates that it penetrates through that something. St. Hilary or any other early church Father is far from making any claims of support for the filioque. On top of everything else the filioque is not supported in Scriptures. The very fact that the Ecumenical Councils decided on the Creed and that no changes were to be made to it, should end the discussion.
Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #47 on: March 08, 2014, 09:56:44 AM »

You must be kidding. "From" and "through" are far from being the same. "From" something indicates that it originates from that something. "Through" something indicates that it penetrates through that something. St. Hilary or any other early church Father is far from making any claims of support for the filioque. On top of everything else the filioque is not supported in Scriptures. The very fact that the Ecumenical Councils decided on the Creed and that no changes were to be made to it, should end the discussion.

Do you even know what Catholics mean when they say "from"?

Secondly the second quote of St Hilary may be troublesome to assertion that the western fathers don't teach filioque. They actually and explicitly use the phrase filioque. Further any shallow examination of the Latin tradition from the earliest fathers show a strict continuous adherence to the Latin teaching concerning the procession of the Holy Ghost up to present day. The quote from St.Hilary is in total accordance with the decree of Florence and Lyon as well as the modern Catechism of th Catholic Church.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 10:02:55 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,638


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #48 on: March 08, 2014, 01:34:29 PM »

Catholic apologists like to play the "church Fathers" game which proves nothing.None of the early church Fathers are espousing the Latin's filioque, that the Father and Son are the eternal source of the Holy Spirit. They speak of the Orthodox understanding of the Son's role in the temporal procession of the Holy Spirit. St .Hilary of Poitiers is an example: " In the fact that before times eternal your(the Father's) only begotten Son was born of you, when we put an end to every ambiguity of words and difficulty of understanding, there remains only this: he was born. So too, even if I do not gasp it in my understanding, I hold fast in my consciousness to the fact that your Holy Spirit is from Him THROUGH HIM." Maximus the Confessor: 'By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten.

The filioque addition goes against the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. The 3rd Ecumenical Council condemns changes to the Creed. Canon VII. The filioque was added by a local council, Toledo, and even after 400 years after Toledo Rome condemned anyone from adding it due to it not being seen as Orthodox.

"From" and "through" are one and the same as the Catholic Church explicitly teaches or else how do you reconcile what St. Hilary also said here :

Quote
Hilary of Poitiers

"Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources (The Trinity 2:29)

That's what Orthodox believe too,
No, we Orthodox do NOT believe that the Father and the Son are both sources for the Holy Spirit. One who is not yet one of us should not presume to speak for us so boldly when what one says on our behalf is so full of errors.
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,618



« Reply #49 on: March 12, 2014, 04:09:57 PM »

Catholic apologists like to play the "church Fathers" game which proves nothing.None of the early church Fathers are espousing the Latin's filioque, that the Father and Son are the eternal source of the Holy Spirit. They speak of the Orthodox understanding of the Son's role in the temporal procession of the Holy Spirit. St .Hilary of Poitiers is an example: " In the fact that before times eternal your(the Father's) only begotten Son was born of you, when we put an end to every ambiguity of words and difficulty of understanding, there remains only this: he was born. So too, even if I do not gasp it in my understanding, I hold fast in my consciousness to the fact that your Holy Spirit is from Him THROUGH HIM." Maximus the Confessor: 'By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten.

The filioque addition goes against the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. The 3rd Ecumenical Council condemns changes to the Creed. Canon VII. The filioque was added by a local council, Toledo, and even after 400 years after Toledo Rome condemned anyone from adding it due to it not being seen as Orthodox.

"From" and "through" are one and the same as the Catholic Church explicitly teaches or else how do you reconcile what St. Hilary also said here :

Quote
Hilary of Poitiers

"Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources (The Trinity 2:29)

No need to reconcile anything, for St. Hilary wrote in that passage, "qui Patre et Filio auctoribus confitendus est." To read the ablative, "Patre et Filio auctoribus" as being an ablative of separation (which is how the two translations you gave are interpreting it) is questionable grammatically, because to use the ablative in such a manner without some preposition (ab, ex, de, etc.) or verb signalling motion away from or lack or want would be highly unusual. Likewise, to read it as an ablative of origin or descent would also be unusual (also possibly the interpretation of those who made the translations you provided), as there is no verb in the clause which signals origination or birth or any preposition which signals that this is the sense in which the ablative is used. It would be far more reasonable to read it as an ablative of means or of cause (both of which are not preceded by a preposition), such that the Father and the Son are the cause or means by which the Holy Spirit is to be believed, leading to Siecienski's suggested reading of, "we are bound to confess him on the evidence of the Father and the Son."
« Last Edit: March 12, 2014, 04:13:48 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
vasily
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox church in america
Posts: 189



« Reply #50 on: March 13, 2014, 07:52:12 AM »

If the Catholic Church teaches that "from" and "through" are the same, then  they must be more confused that I could imagine. Both words according to Webster have very different definitions.  "To proceed" in the original Greek means to "to be originated" . How can the Holy Spirit have two sources or originate from two sources?
Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #51 on: March 13, 2014, 08:30:14 AM »

If the Catholic Church teaches that "from" and "through" are the same, then  they must be more confused that I could imagine. Both words according to Webster have very different definitions.  "To proceed" in the original Greek means to "to be originated" . How can the Holy Spirit have two sources or originate from two sources?
From the Son" and "through the Son" are different ways to express the true doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit. A few Fathers used the formulae interchangeably (e.g., Bishop St. Hilary of Poitiers and Patriarch St. Cyril I of Alexandria). According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Greek formula directly expresses the order according to which the Father and Son are the one principle of the Holy Spirit, and implies Their equality as principle. The Latin formula directly expresses the equality of the Father and Son as principle, and implies the order. The great Byzantine Fathers had no reservations about being in communion with those great Latin Fathers and Doctors who openly and dogmatically professed Filioque. Therefore the formulae are complementary, not contradictory.


Photios thought that Filioque entails that the Holy Spirit proceeds from two principles, but because the Father and Son are one in everything in which they are not distinguished by the opposition of relation and they are not relatively opposed in their being the principle of the Holy Spirit, they are the one principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds, as St. Thomas Aquinas showed. The term principle of the Holy Spirit is a substantive name, but we do not say there are two principles because even though the Father and the Son are two supposita spirating, they are one form, God. We use principle in an indeterminate sense when we confess that the Father and the Son are the one principle of the Holy Spirit.

On the Incarnation of the Word Against the Arians 9 in PG 26:1000A: "David sings in the psalm 35:10, saying:
Quote
with You is the font of Life;'because jointly with the Father the Son is indeed the source of the Holy Spirit."

Moreover, the same Saint says in 362 ,Against the Arians 3:25:24 in PG 26:376A :
Quote
Everything the Spirit has, He has from the Word (para tou Logou)
Whatever the Spirit has includes His existence, i.e., it includes His essence and hypostasis. Ergo St. Athanasios explicitly taught that the Father, through and with the Son, communicates consubstantial divinity and thus gives existence to the Holy Spirit, without prejudice to the μοναρχία of the Father.

Archbishop St. Isidore of Seville in 636 says :
Quote
"The Holy Spirit is called God because He proceeds from the Father and the Son and has Their essence."
 "Spiritus sanctus ideo praedicatur Deus, quia ex Patre Filioque procedit, et substantiam eorum habet"
( 7:3 in PL 82:268A)

The saint adds:
Quote
"There is, however, this difference between generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, that the Son is begotten of One, but the Spirit proceeds from Both."
 "Hoc autem interest inter nascentem Filium et procedentum Spiritum sanctum, quod Filius ex uno nascitur; Spiritus sanctus ex utroque procedit." (PG 82:268C),

This, however, does not imply two principles of the Holy Spirit, according to St. Isidore, who says that the Father and the Son are the one principle of the Holy Spirit, in total conformity with the decree of Florence and the faith if the fathers:
Quote
"One thing which is consubstantial with two could not at once proceed from them and be in them, unless the two from which it proceeds were one."

"Non enim res una et duorum consubstantialis poterit simul ab eis procedere et simul inesse, nisi unum fuerit, a quibus procedit."
(The Books of Sentences 1:15:2 in PL 83:568C)
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 08:56:34 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #52 on: March 13, 2014, 09:20:19 AM »

The great Byzantine Fathers had no reservations about being in communion with those great Latin Fathers and Doctors who openly and dogmatically professed Filioque.
Does an "open" profession equate to a "dogmatic" profession?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
vasily
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox church in america
Posts: 189



« Reply #53 on: March 16, 2014, 08:08:03 AM »

I am not going to get involved into what this or that church Father might have stated, since I do not have the origin texts. The most important facts are that the filioque was not approved by an Ecumenical Council. The addition goes against the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils that decided on the church Creed. The Ecumenical Councils have spoken. Lastly, the filioque is not supported in Scripture.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #54 on: March 21, 2014, 05:28:08 PM »

The Filioque issue must include potentiality relative to apophaticism.

With the Filioque, there is potential for an infinitely-expanding pleroma of hypostases.  If the mutual love between Father and Son spirate the Holy Spirit, there is then the issue of the mutual love beteen the Father/Holy Spirit and Son/Holy Spirit; which could each then produce another hypostasis from each mutuality of love, to yield Hypostasis 4 and 5.

Then the individually-paired mutual love between Father, Son, Holy Spirit and Hypostasis 4 and 5, could all produce Hypostasis 5/6/7/8/9/10; with Hypostasis 11 produced from the mutual love between Hypostasis 4 and 5.

This could be an exponentially-expanding eternal and infinite endless pleroma of divine hypostases.  Smiley
« Last Edit: March 21, 2014, 05:28:40 PM by PneumaPsucheSoma » Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,726


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #55 on: March 21, 2014, 05:30:19 PM »

With the Filioque, there is potential for an infinitely-expanding pleroma of hypostases.  If the mutual love between Father and Son spirate the Holy Spirit, there is then the issue of the mutual love beteen the Father/Holy Spirit and Son/Holy Spirit; which could each then produce another hypostasis from each mutuality of love, to yield Hypostasis 4 and 5.

Then the individually-paired mutual love between Father, Son, Holy Spirit and Hypostasis 4 and 5, could all produce Hypostasis 5/6/7/8/9/10; with Hypostasis 11 produced from the mutual love between Hypostasis 4 and 5.

This could be an exponentially-expanding eternal and infinite endless pleroma of divine hypostases.  Smiley

It's Filioque, not an orgy.  Tongue
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #56 on: March 21, 2014, 05:32:40 PM »

With the Filioque, there is potential for an infinitely-expanding pleroma of hypostases.  If the mutual love between Father and Son spirate the Holy Spirit, there is then the issue of the mutual love beteen the Father/Holy Spirit and Son/Holy Spirit; which could each then produce another hypostasis from each mutuality of love, to yield Hypostasis 4 and 5.

Then the individually-paired mutual love between Father, Son, Holy Spirit and Hypostasis 4 and 5, could all produce Hypostasis 5/6/7/8/9/10; with Hypostasis 11 produced from the mutual love between Hypostasis 4 and 5.

This could be an exponentially-expanding eternal and infinite endless pleroma of divine hypostases.  Smiley

It's Filioque, not an orgy.  Tongue

Smiley  Once it starts...
Logged
LBK
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,129


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #57 on: March 21, 2014, 07:39:39 PM »


It's Filioque, not an orgy.  Tongue

POM nomination!!  laugh laugh laugh
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #58 on: March 21, 2014, 07:46:00 PM »

The great Byzantine Fathers had no reservations about being in communion with those great Latin Fathers and Doctors who openly and dogmatically professed Filioque.
Does an "open" profession equate to a "dogmatic" profession?

The word "and" is sometimes confusing.  It can mean a conjunction of two meanings into one or separate two things while addressing them at the same time.

For instance:

Ice cream is cold and sweet.

I like beer and wine.

Logged
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Anglican (Episcopal Church)
Posts: 132



« Reply #59 on: March 23, 2014, 10:46:22 PM »

If we said "from the Father and the Son indescribably," it wouldn't make a difference right?
No one has answered Hawkeye's question.  I will repeat the question in other words that I posted earlier to another thread:

At a synod held in A.D. 680 at Haethfelth, often identified with Hatfield in Hertfordshire: (http://www.hatfield-herts.co.uk/) the English bishops confessed their faith, stating that they accepted the five ecumenical councils and the first council of the Lateran, and went on to state

Quote
We glorify our Lord Jesus in such sort as [the conciliar fathers] 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 indescribably (glorificantes...Spiritum Sanctum procedentem ex Patre et Filio inenarrabiliter) according as these aforementioned holy apostles and prophets and teachers have proclaimed.
 
This confession was accepted as orthodox by St. Theodore, a Greek-speaking monk from Asia minor who was then serving as Archbishop of Canterbury.

Was St. Theodore wrong to accept their confession?
« Last Edit: March 23, 2014, 10:56:07 PM by Mockingbird » Logged

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
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,618



« Reply #60 on: March 25, 2014, 06:37:12 PM »

If we said "from the Father and the Son indescribably," it wouldn't make a difference right?
No one has answered Hawkeye's question.  I will repeat the question in other words that I posted earlier to another thread:

At a synod held in A.D. 680 at Haethfelth, often identified with Hatfield in Hertfordshire: (http://www.hatfield-herts.co.uk/) the English bishops confessed their faith, stating that they accepted the five ecumenical councils and the first council of the Lateran, and went on to state

Quote
We glorify our Lord Jesus in such sort as [the conciliar fathers] 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 indescribably (glorificantes...Spiritum Sanctum procedentem ex Patre et Filio inenarrabiliter) according as these aforementioned holy apostles and prophets and teachers have proclaimed.
 
This confession was accepted as orthodox by St. Theodore, a Greek-speaking monk from Asia minor who was then serving as Archbishop of Canterbury.

Was St. Theodore wrong to accept their confession?


No, because according to St. Maximus in his Letter to Marinus (if we are to take it as genuine), the Latins at that time meant by the filioque to speak of the προϊέναι (the progression) of the Spirit from the Son, but not to teach that the Son is cause of the Holy Spirit. We object to later formulations where the Son is made cause of the Holy Spirit, like at Florence.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,249


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #61 on: March 25, 2014, 08:07:16 PM »

You mean we still disagree on the Filioque?   Wink
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Laird
Not yet able to attend an Orthodox church
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer (Catechumen soon hopefully)
Jurisdiction: Baptist
Posts: 287


Lord, have mercy on me


« Reply #62 on: March 25, 2014, 08:19:09 PM »

The great Byzantine Fathers had no reservations about being in communion with those great Latin Fathers and Doctors who openly and dogmatically professed Filioque.

No Eastern or Western Father "openly" professed the filioque like how it was proclaimed at Lyons and Florence. St. Augustine is the only Father who probably could be taken to profess the Lyonsian and Florencian filioque.
Logged
LBK
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,129


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #63 on: March 25, 2014, 10:46:46 PM »

Quote
Florencian

Florentine.  angel
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #64 on: March 26, 2014, 12:53:57 AM »

You mean we still disagree on the Filioque?   Wink

Imagine that.
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.
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #65 on: April 06, 2014, 12:05:11 AM »

Catholic apologists like to play the "church Fathers" game which proves nothing.None of the early church Fathers are espousing the Latin's filioque, that the Father and Son are the eternal source of the Holy Spirit. They speak of the Orthodox understanding of the Son's role in the temporal procession of the Holy Spirit. St .Hilary of Poitiers is an example: " In the fact that before times eternal your(the Father's) only begotten Son was born of you, when we put an end to every ambiguity of words and difficulty of understanding, there remains only this: he was born. So too, even if I do not gasp it in my understanding, I hold fast in my consciousness to the fact that your Holy Spirit is from Him THROUGH HIM." Maximus the Confessor: 'By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten.

The filioque addition goes against the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. The 3rd Ecumenical Council condemns changes to the Creed. Canon VII. The filioque was added by a local council, Toledo, and even after 400 years after Toledo Rome condemned anyone from adding it due to it not being seen as Orthodox.

How about going to the original source of all theology,  the Holy Scriptures. The Bible only mentions the procession of the Holy Spirit in one passage, St. John 15:26, "But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me;" Thus the correct Biblical teaching is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son. The Greek word translated proceeds is "ἐκπορευόμενον" which means proceeds from its original source. This is the same word that is used in the Creed. The confusion comes with the Latin translation of "ἐκπορευόμενον" as  "procedit" which can mean to proceed through a mediator as through or sent by the Son. Even modern Roman Catholic theologians recognize that the words "and the Son" cannot be added to the original Greek text without committing heresy.
The truth is that after the coronation of Charlemagne in 800 the German rulers sought ways to distance themselves from Constantinople and to show that Constantinople was heretical. They used the filioque for this purpose charging that Eastern Trinitarian theology was heretical because it did not include the filioque. At first the Popes resisted. In  810 Pope Leo III had two silver shields with the original text of the Creed without the filioque hung in St. Peters in Rome to prove his point that the Creed of the Ecumenical Councils could not be changed. However, in 1014, Pope Benedict VIII, who owed his papacy to the intervention of Emperor Henry II of the Holy Roman Empire allowed the chanting of the Creed with the filioque for the first time in Rome.
Although it is possible to express the doctrine of the filioque in an Orthodox way if it means through or sent by the Son, it is not correct to teach that the Holy Spirit has its origin in the Son, because the Father and the Son both come from the Father. In Orthodox theology, we call this the monarchy of the Father. The Son is eternally begotten by the Father and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. This is the ontological Trinity. In time for our salvation, the Son sends the Holy Spirit, but the source of the Holy Spirit is still the Father alone. This the economic Trinity. The filioque mixes up the ontological Trinity with the economic Trinity. 
Thus, I believe that Rome is wrong on the filioque for three reasons. It is clear from St. John 15:26 that the Holy Spirit proceeds, that is has its origin from the Father alone. A translation should  express the intent of the authors, in this case the first two Ecumenical Councils who meant to teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. The words "and the Son" were not in the original text of the Creed as approved by the Ecumenical Councils. Finally, no one, including the Pope has the authority to change the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. Therefore the filioque clause does not belong in the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

« Last Edit: April 06, 2014, 12:09:54 AM by frjohnmorris » Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #66 on: April 07, 2014, 04:55:34 PM »

Catholic apologists like to play the "church Fathers" game which proves nothing.None of the early church Fathers are espousing the Latin's filioque, that the Father and Son are the eternal source of the Holy Spirit. They speak of the Orthodox understanding of the Son's role in the temporal procession of the Holy Spirit. St .Hilary of Poitiers is an example: " In the fact that before times eternal your(the Father's) only begotten Son was born of you, when we put an end to every ambiguity of words and difficulty of understanding, there remains only this: he was born. So too, even if I do not gasp it in my understanding, I hold fast in my consciousness to the fact that your Holy Spirit is from Him THROUGH HIM." Maximus the Confessor: 'By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten.

The filioque addition goes against the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. The 3rd Ecumenical Council condemns changes to the Creed. Canon VII. The filioque was added by a local council, Toledo, and even after 400 years after Toledo Rome condemned anyone from adding it due to it not being seen as Orthodox.

How about going to the original source of all theology,  the Holy Scriptures. The Bible only mentions the procession of the Holy Spirit in one passage, St. John 15:26, "But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me;" Thus the correct Biblical teaching is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son. The Greek word translated proceeds is "ἐκπορευόμενον" which means proceeds from its original source. This is the same word that is used in the Creed. The confusion comes with the Latin translation of "ἐκπορευόμενον" as  "procedit" which can mean to proceed through a mediator as through or sent by the Son. Even modern Roman Catholic theologians recognize that the words "and the Son" cannot be added to the original Greek text without committing heresy.
The truth is that after the coronation of Charlemagne in 800 the German rulers sought ways to distance themselves from Constantinople and to show that Constantinople was heretical. They used the filioque for this purpose charging that Eastern Trinitarian theology was heretical because it did not include the filioque. At first the Popes resisted. In  810 Pope Leo III had two silver shields with the original text of the Creed without the filioque hung in St. Peters in Rome to prove his point that the Creed of the Ecumenical Councils could not be changed. However, in 1014, Pope Benedict VIII, who owed his papacy to the intervention of Emperor Henry II of the Holy Roman Empire allowed the chanting of the Creed with the filioque for the first time in Rome.
Although it is possible to express the doctrine of the filioque in an Orthodox way if it means through or sent by the Son, it is not correct to teach that the Holy Spirit has its origin in the Son, because the Father and the Son both come from the Father. In Orthodox theology, we call this the monarchy of the Father. The Son is eternally begotten by the Father and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. This is the ontological Trinity. In time for our salvation, the Son sends the Holy Spirit, but the source of the Holy Spirit is still the Father alone. This the economic Trinity. The filioque mixes up the ontological Trinity with the economic Trinity. 
Thus, I believe that Rome is wrong on the filioque for three reasons. It is clear from St. John 15:26 that the Holy Spirit proceeds, that is has its origin from the Father alone. A translation should  express the intent of the authors, in this case the first two Ecumenical Councils who meant to teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. The words "and the Son" were not in the original text of the Creed as approved by the Ecumenical Councils. Finally, no one, including the Pope has the authority to change the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. Therefore the filioque clause does not belong in the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris


Poignant.  Cogent.  Concise.  Accurate.  Insightful.  Simple.  And the truth of the one holy faith.
Logged
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #67 on: April 10, 2014, 04:31:47 PM »

Can't we all just get along and say: "...Who proceeds from the Father though the Son"?   Undecided
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 2,016


God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!


« Reply #68 on: April 10, 2014, 04:42:18 PM »

Can't we all just get along and say: "...Who proceeds from the Father though the Son"?   Undecided

We can say that but not in the Creed in Church.  To say it in the Creed in Church requires approval of an Ecumenical Council.  Only an Ecumenical Council can amend the creed, theoretically.  A mere pope, being only a bishop albeit one with some measure of primacy, has no power to do so. 
Logged
ilyazhito
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 916



« Reply #69 on: April 10, 2014, 06:28:26 PM »

If even the Patriarch of Constantinople, who is primus inter paribus cannot change the Creed without the approval of an Ecumenical Council (which he probably cannot get) then how did whoever was Pope in the 10th century dare to change the creed?
Logged
Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 2,016


God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!


« Reply #70 on: April 10, 2014, 06:30:43 PM »

If even the Patriarch of Constantinople, who is primus inter paribus cannot change the Creed without the approval of an Ecumenical Council (which he probably cannot get) then how did whoever was Pope in the 10th century dare to change the creed?

Because he thought he was above all councils as the successor of St. Peter.  He had also created a rival Roman Empire under the Franks in an attempt to supplant the original one which was still functioning in the east.  By the 11th century, however, the Popes were tame compared to how they acted in the 10th.  
« Last Edit: April 10, 2014, 06:31:04 PM by Yurysprudentsiya » Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #71 on: April 10, 2014, 09:26:33 PM »

Can't we all just get along and say: "...Who proceeds from the Father though the Son"?   Undecided

We can get along, but we Eastern Orthodox cannot compromise the Faith of the Church. You can be perfectly Orthodox and teach that the Father proceeds through the Son, many Eastern Fathers have written that. However, when we are dealing with the Creed of the Church, no one has the authority to change the words approved by the 7 Ecumenical Councils which are the infallible voice of the ancient undivided Church. The beliefs and practices of the ancient Church of the Holy Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils is the standard in Eastern Orthodoxy, from which we will not deviate.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #72 on: April 10, 2014, 10:07:15 PM »

Can't we all just get along and say: "...Who proceeds from the Father though the Son"?   Undecided

Remember that the purpose for the addition to the Creed by Constantinople I was against the extreme Pneumatomachians and their "graded Triad."  They are the first to utilize "from the Son" referring to the Holy Spirit.  It is for this reason even St. Damasus of Rome wrote that the Spirit in His existence as a person originates from the Father, while elsewhere acknowledging that the Spirit is sent in time by the Father through the Son.  Of course, in the West, Arianism for centuries continued to be a problem, while Pneumatomachianism died out after Constantinople I.   The mission of the Spirit then became evidence that the Son was Divine. 
Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,134


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #73 on: April 11, 2014, 10:40:26 AM »

I am not going to get involved into what this or that church Father might have stated, since I do not have the origin texts. The most important facts are that the filioque was not approved by an Ecumenical Council. The addition goes against the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils that decided on the church Creed. The Ecumenical Councils have spoken. Lastly, the filioque is not supported in Scripture.

I think that the Ecumenical Fathers were very explicit when they said that any changes, additions or omissions to the approved Creed was anathema. .........Period.
No amount of gymnastics , jumping through hoops, by trying to convince us that a NON Ecumenical approved term should be acceptable.  Even IF the RCC is correct, which we know they aren't, it would still require the acceptance of the church.  We understand the origin of the "and the Son" and why it was done to combat Arianism in Spain.  But, my question is: when this Heresy abated why did not the western church then revert back to its original Ecumenical approved Creed? 

It really not any more simple than that.....The Western church before Toledo was reciting the original text of the creed, and now they don't.
Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #74 on: April 11, 2014, 01:47:03 PM »

I am not going to get involved into what this or that church Father might have stated, since I do not have the origin texts. The most important facts are that the filioque was not approved by an Ecumenical Council. The addition goes against the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils that decided on the church Creed. The Ecumenical Councils have spoken. Lastly, the filioque is not supported in Scripture.

I think that the Ecumenical Fathers were very explicit when they said that any changes, additions or omissions to the approved Creed was anathema. .........Period.
No amount of gymnastics , jumping through hoops, by trying to convince us that a NON Ecumenical approved term should be acceptable.  Even IF the RCC is correct, which we know they aren't, it would still require the acceptance of the church.  We understand the origin of the "and the Son" and why it was done to combat Arianism in Spain.  But, my question is: when this Heresy abated why did not the western church then revert back to its original Ecumenical approved Creed?  

It really not any more simple than that.....The Western church before Toledo was reciting the original text of the creed, and now they don't.

The Council banned changes to the faith of the creed, not the words of the creed itself. Then again I could be wrong (I'm working off memory here sorry)

Further The Council of Ephesus made this ban in reference to the creed of Nicaea, not of Constantinople.
So by your own logic, you orthodox are anathematized  Undecided

Ephesus's prohibition of making a new creed in addition to the Nicene prompted questions about the status of the material added by Constantinople I. How this material was to be regarded was settled at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon which stated:


Quote
Therefore this sacred and great and universal synod . . . decrees that the creed of the 318 fathers is, above all else, to remain inviolate. And because of those who oppose the Holy Spirit, it ratifies the teaching about the being of the Holy Spirit handed down by the 150 saintly fathers who met some time later in the imperial city--the teaching they made known to all, not introducing anything left out by their predecessors, but clarifying their ideas about the Holy Spirit. (Definition of the Faith).

According to Chalcedon, it was permissible for the Fathers of Constantinople I to include the material on the Holy Spirit in the Creed of Nicaea. They were not adding substance but clarifying what was already there. Yet if this option of making clarifying notations to the creed was permissible for them, it would be permissible for others also. Nevermind that the ecumenical (in catholic eyes) Council of Florence added "filioque" legitimately as a clarification of the manner of the Spirit's procession.

Also according to your logic, the council fathers at Constantinople were at least anathematized for a period of time as the council of Constantinople was initially a local council ,just like Toledo, that added to the creed and only gained ecumenical status years later
« Last Edit: April 11, 2014, 02:09:23 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #75 on: April 11, 2014, 03:31:36 PM »

I am not going to get involved into what this or that church Father might have stated, since I do not have the origin texts. The most important facts are that the filioque was not approved by an Ecumenical Council. The addition goes against the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils that decided on the church Creed. The Ecumenical Councils have spoken. Lastly, the filioque is not supported in Scripture.

I think that the Ecumenical Fathers were very explicit when they said that any changes, additions or omissions to the approved Creed was anathema. .........Period.
No amount of gymnastics , jumping through hoops, by trying to convince us that a NON Ecumenical approved term should be acceptable.  Even IF the RCC is correct, which we know they aren't, it would still require the acceptance of the church.  We understand the origin of the "and the Son" and why it was done to combat Arianism in Spain.  But, my question is: when this Heresy abated why did not the western church then revert back to its original Ecumenical approved Creed? 

It really not any more simple than that.....The Western church before Toledo was reciting the original text of the creed, and now they don't.

The Council banned changes to the faith of the creed, not the words of the creed itself. Then again I could be wrong (I'm working off memory here sorry)

Further The Council of Ephesus made this ban in reference to the creed of Nicaea, not of Constantinople.
So by your own logic, you orthodox are anathematized  Undecided

Ephesus's prohibition of making a new creed in addition to the Nicene prompted questions about the status of the material added by Constantinople I. How this material was to be regarded was settled at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon which stated:


Quote
Therefore this sacred and great and universal synod . . . decrees that the creed of the 318 fathers is, above all else, to remain inviolate. And because of those who oppose the Holy Spirit, it ratifies the teaching about the being of the Holy Spirit handed down by the 150 saintly fathers who met some time later in the imperial city--the teaching they made known to all, not introducing anything left out by their predecessors, but clarifying their ideas about the Holy Spirit. (Definition of the Faith).

According to Chalcedon, it was permissible for the Fathers of Constantinople I to include the material on the Holy Spirit in the Creed of Nicaea. They were not adding substance but clarifying what was already there. Yet if this option of making clarifying notations to the creed was permissible for them, it would be permissible for others also. Nevermind that the ecumenical (in catholic eyes) Council of Florence added "filioque" legitimately as a clarification of the manner of the Spirit's procession.

Also according to your logic, the council fathers at Constantinople were at least anathematized for a period of time as the council of Constantinople was initially a local council ,just like Toledo, that added to the creed and only gained ecumenical status years later

Only an Ecumenical Council has the authority to change or add words to  the Creed adopted by the First Ecumenical Council, Nicaea I in 325. Therefore as an Ecumenical Council, Constantinople I in 381 had full authority to add the final clause to the Creed adopted at Nicaea I in 325. After Constantinople I, the other 5 Ecumenical Councils ruled that no further changes could be made in the Creed. The West had no right to tamper with the Creed of the Church. The West should have translated the Creed exactly as it was approved with no further additions. It is clear from reading the records of the Ecumenical Councils, that Rome was subject to,  not above the Ecumenical Councils.
The Council of Florence was not an Ecumenical Council and was officially repudiated by the Council of Constantinople in 1484. Therefore, an appeal to Florence falls on deaf ears when made to Eastern Orthodox Christians.
This goes to the heart of the dispute between East and West. The Bishop of Rome had no more authority than any other Patriarch. Rome had only a primacy of honor and no more in the age of the ancient undivided Church.  The Pope did not have universal jurisdiction, had no right to interfere in the internal affairs of the other Patriarchs, and had to obey the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. The claims of the modern papacy cannot be supported by a study of the history of the Church before the Western Schism.

Fr. John W. Morris
« Last Edit: April 11, 2014, 03:40:33 PM by frjohnmorris » Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,134


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #76 on: April 12, 2014, 09:19:05 AM »

The Filioque only caused more questions with regards to the Eastern Christian church.  And as you say, if we were anathemized, it was the Church that was anathemized ie East and West before Constantinople, which I certainly doubt. 
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #77 on: April 12, 2014, 01:48:10 PM »

I am not going to get involved into what this or that church Father might have stated, since I do not have the origin texts. The most important facts are that the filioque was not approved by an Ecumenical Council. The addition goes against the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils that decided on the church Creed. The Ecumenical Councils have spoken. Lastly, the filioque is not supported in Scripture.

I think that the Ecumenical Fathers were very explicit when they said that any changes, additions or omissions to the approved Creed was anathema. .........Period.
No amount of gymnastics , jumping through hoops, by trying to convince us that a NON Ecumenical approved term should be acceptable.  Even IF the RCC is correct, which we know they aren't, it would still require the acceptance of the church.  We understand the origin of the "and the Son" and why it was done to combat Arianism in Spain.  But, my question is: when this Heresy abated why did not the western church then revert back to its original Ecumenical approved Creed? 

It really not any more simple than that.....The Western church before Toledo was reciting the original text of the creed, and now they don't.

The Council banned changes to the faith of the creed, not the words of the creed itself. Then again I could be wrong (I'm working off memory here sorry)

Further The Council of Ephesus made this ban in reference to the creed of Nicaea, not of Constantinople.
So by your own logic, you orthodox are anathematized  Undecided

Ephesus's prohibition of making a new creed in addition to the Nicene prompted questions about the status of the material added by Constantinople I. How this material was to be regarded was settled at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon which stated:


Quote
Therefore this sacred and great and universal synod . . . decrees that the creed of the 318 fathers is, above all else, to remain inviolate. And because of those who oppose the Holy Spirit, it ratifies the teaching about the being of the Holy Spirit handed down by the 150 saintly fathers who met some time later in the imperial city--the teaching they made known to all, not introducing anything left out by their predecessors, but clarifying their ideas about the Holy Spirit. (Definition of the Faith).

According to Chalcedon, it was permissible for the Fathers of Constantinople I to include the material on the Holy Spirit in the Creed of Nicaea. They were not adding substance but clarifying what was already there. Yet if this option of making clarifying notations to the creed was permissible for them, it would be permissible for others also. Nevermind that the ecumenical (in catholic eyes) Council of Florence added "filioque" legitimately as a clarification of the manner of the Spirit's procession.

Also according to your logic, the council fathers at Constantinople were at least anathematized for a period of time as the council of Constantinople was initially a local council ,just like Toledo, that added to the creed and only gained ecumenical status years later

Only an Ecumenical Council has the authority to change or add words to  the Creed adopted by the First Ecumenical Council, Nicaea I in 325. Therefore as an Ecumenical Council, Constantinople I in 381 had full authority to add the final clause to the Creed adopted at Nicaea I in 325. After Constantinople I, the other 5 Ecumenical Councils ruled that no further changes could be made in the Creed. The West had no right to tamper with the Creed of the Church. The West should have translated the Creed exactly as it was approved with no further additions. It is clear from reading the records of the Ecumenical Councils, that Rome was subject to,  not above the Ecumenical Councils.
The Council of Florence was not an Ecumenical Council and was officially repudiated by the Council of Constantinople in 1484. Therefore, an appeal to Florence falls on deaf ears when made to Eastern Orthodox Christians.
This goes to the heart of the dispute between East and West. The Bishop of Rome had no more authority than any other Patriarch. Rome had only a primacy of honor and no more in the age of the ancient undivided Church.  The Pope did not have universal jurisdiction, had no right to interfere in the internal affairs of the other Patriarchs, and had to obey the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. The claims of the modern papacy cannot be supported by a study of the history of the Church before the Western Schism.

Fr. John W. Morris

A thousand thousand amens.
Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #78 on: April 15, 2014, 01:33:08 AM »

The Filioque only caused more questions with regards to the Eastern Christian church.  And as you say, if we were anathemized, it was the Church that was anathemized ie East and West before Constantinople, which I certainly doubt. 

Nope just the eastern bishops at Constantinople as it was local council for many years before it gained ecumenical status. So did these bishops have the authority to do so?
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #79 on: April 15, 2014, 01:35:11 AM »

I am not going to get involved into what this or that church Father might have stated, since I do not have the origin texts. The most important facts are that the filioque was not approved by an Ecumenical Council. The addition goes against the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils that decided on the church Creed. The Ecumenical Councils have spoken. Lastly, the filioque is not supported in Scripture.

I think that the Ecumenical Fathers were very explicit when they said that any changes, additions or omissions to the approved Creed was anathema. .........Period.
No amount of gymnastics , jumping through hoops, by trying to convince us that a NON Ecumenical approved term should be acceptable.  Even IF the RCC is correct, which we know they aren't, it would still require the acceptance of the church.  We understand the origin of the "and the Son" and why it was done to combat Arianism in Spain.  But, my question is: when this Heresy abated why did not the western church then revert back to its original Ecumenical approved Creed? 

It really not any more simple than that.....The Western church before Toledo was reciting the original text of the creed, and now they don't.

The Council banned changes to the faith of the creed, not the words of the creed itself. Then again I could be wrong (I'm working off memory here sorry)

Further The Council of Ephesus made this ban in reference to the creed of Nicaea, not of Constantinople.
So by your own logic, you orthodox are anathematized  Undecided

Ephesus's prohibition of making a new creed in addition to the Nicene prompted questions about the status of the material added by Constantinople I. How this material was to be regarded was settled at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon which stated:


Quote
Therefore this sacred and great and universal synod . . . decrees that the creed of the 318 fathers is, above all else, to remain inviolate. And because of those who oppose the Holy Spirit, it ratifies the teaching about the being of the Holy Spirit handed down by the 150 saintly fathers who met some time later in the imperial city--the teaching they made known to all, not introducing anything left out by their predecessors, but clarifying their ideas about the Holy Spirit. (Definition of the Faith).

According to Chalcedon, it was permissible for the Fathers of Constantinople I to include the material on the Holy Spirit in the Creed of Nicaea. They were not adding substance but clarifying what was already there. Yet if this option of making clarifying notations to the creed was permissible for them, it would be permissible for others also. Nevermind that the ecumenical (in catholic eyes) Council of Florence added "filioque" legitimately as a clarification of the manner of the Spirit's procession.

Also according to your logic, the council fathers at Constantinople were at least anathematized for a period of time as the council of Constantinople was initially a local council ,just like Toledo, that added to the creed and only gained ecumenical status years later

Only an Ecumenical Council has the authority to change or add words to  the Creed adopted by the First Ecumenical Council, Nicaea I in 325. Therefore as an Ecumenical Council, Constantinople I in 381 had full authority to add the final clause to the Creed adopted at Nicaea I in 325. After Constantinople I, the other 5 Ecumenical Councils ruled that no further changes could be made in the Creed. The West had no right to tamper with the Creed of the Church. The West should have translated the Creed exactly as it was approved with no further additions. It is clear from reading the records of the Ecumenical Councils, that Rome was subject to,  not above the Ecumenical Councils.
The Council of Florence was not an Ecumenical Council and was officially repudiated by the Council of Constantinople in 1484. Therefore, an appeal to Florence falls on deaf ears when made to Eastern Orthodox Christians.
This goes to the heart of the dispute between East and West. The Bishop of Rome had no more authority than any other Patriarch. Rome had only a primacy of honor and no more in the age of the ancient undivided Church.  The Pope did not have universal jurisdiction, had no right to interfere in the internal affairs of the other Patriarchs, and had to obey the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. The claims of the modern papacy cannot be supported by a study of the history of the Church before the Western Schism.

Fr. John W. Morris

Florence was ecumenical. But obviously you won't agree. Do you at least admit Constantinople I was local for many years before it achieved ecumenical status/
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,134


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #80 on: April 15, 2014, 07:35:41 AM »

I am not going to get involved into what this or that church Father might have stated, since I do not have the origin texts. The most important facts are that the filioque was not approved by an Ecumenical Council. The addition goes against the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils that decided on the church Creed. The Ecumenical Councils have spoken. Lastly, the filioque is not supported in Scripture.

I think that the Ecumenical Fathers were very explicit when they said that any changes, additions or omissions to the approved Creed was anathema. .........Period.
No amount of gymnastics , jumping through hoops, by trying to convince us that a NON Ecumenical approved term should be acceptable.  Even IF the RCC is correct, which we know they aren't, it would still require the acceptance of the church.  We understand the origin of the "and the Son" and why it was done to combat Arianism in Spain.  But, my question is: when this Heresy abated why did not the western church then revert back to its original Ecumenical approved Creed? 

It really not any more simple than that.....The Western church before Toledo was reciting the original text of the creed, and now they don't.

The Council banned changes to the faith of the creed, not the words of the creed itself. Then again I could be wrong (I'm working off memory here sorry)

Further The Council of Ephesus made this ban in reference to the creed of Nicaea, not of Constantinople.
So by your own logic, you orthodox are anathematized  Undecided

Ephesus's prohibition of making a new creed in addition to the Nicene prompted questions about the status of the material added by Constantinople I. How this material was to be regarded was settled at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon which stated:


Quote
Therefore this sacred and great and universal synod . . . decrees that the creed of the 318 fathers is, above all else, to remain inviolate. And because of those who oppose the Holy Spirit, it ratifies the teaching about the being of the Holy Spirit handed down by the 150 saintly fathers who met some time later in the imperial city--the teaching they made known to all, not introducing anything left out by their predecessors, but clarifying their ideas about the Holy Spirit. (Definition of the Faith).

According to Chalcedon, it was permissible for the Fathers of Constantinople I to include the material on the Holy Spirit in the Creed of Nicaea. They were not adding substance but clarifying what was already there. Yet if this option of making clarifying notations to the creed was permissible for them, it would be permissible for others also. Nevermind that the ecumenical (in catholic eyes) Council of Florence added "filioque" legitimately as a clarification of the manner of the Spirit's procession.

Also according to your logic, the council fathers at Constantinople were at least anathematized for a period of time as the council of Constantinople was initially a local council ,just like Toledo, that added to the creed and only gained ecumenical status years later

Only an Ecumenical Council has the authority to change or add words to  the Creed adopted by the First Ecumenical Council, Nicaea I in 325. Therefore as an Ecumenical Council, Constantinople I in 381 had full authority to add the final clause to the Creed adopted at Nicaea I in 325. After Constantinople I, the other 5 Ecumenical Councils ruled that no further changes could be made in the Creed. The West had no right to tamper with the Creed of the Church. The West should have translated the Creed exactly as it was approved with no further additions. It is clear from reading the records of the Ecumenical Councils, that Rome was subject to,  not above the Ecumenical Councils.
The Council of Florence was not an Ecumenical Council and was officially repudiated by the Council of Constantinople in 1484. Therefore, an appeal to Florence falls on deaf ears when made to Eastern Orthodox Christians.
This goes to the heart of the dispute between East and West. The Bishop of Rome had no more authority than any other Patriarch. Rome had only a primacy of honor and no more in the age of the ancient undivided Church.  The Pope did not have universal jurisdiction, had no right to interfere in the internal affairs of the other Patriarchs, and had to obey the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. The claims of the modern papacy cannot be supported by a study of the history of the Church before the Western Schism.

Fr. John W. Morris

Florence was ecumenical. But obviously you won't agree. Do you at least admit Constantinople I was local for many years before it achieved ecumenical status/

The Orthodox Church only recognizes 7 Councils to be Ecumenical.....I think you know that already.  I don't know of any council that started off by being Ecumenical.  They gain that status later on....
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #81 on: April 15, 2014, 09:18:24 AM »

The Filioque only caused more questions with regards to the Eastern Christian church.  And as you say, if we were anathemized, it was the Church that was anathemized ie East and West before Constantinople, which I certainly doubt. 

Nope just the eastern bishops at Constantinople as it was local council for many years before it gained ecumenical status. So did these bishops have the authority to do so?

A council only becomes ecumenical after it is recognized by the Church as an Ecumenical Council, the whole Church, not just Rome. Regardless of who was at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, it was recognized by the Church and the remaining 5 Ecumenical Councils as an Ecumenical Council.  The other 5 Ecumenical Councils also ruled that there could be no changes in the Creed as adopted at Nicaea I and amended by I Constantinople. The West had no authority to change or add words to the Creed ratified by the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Even the Popes before 1014 agreed that the filioque could no legitimately be added to the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #82 on: April 17, 2014, 02:53:39 AM »

The Filioque only caused more questions with regards to the Eastern Christian church.  And as you say, if we were anathemized, it was the Church that was anathemized ie East and West before Constantinople, which I certainly doubt. 

Nope just the eastern bishops at Constantinople as it was local council for many years before it gained ecumenical status. So did these bishops have the authority to do so?

A council only becomes ecumenical after it is recognized by the Church as an Ecumenical Council, the whole Church, not just Rome. Regardless of who was at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, it was recognized by the Church and the remaining 5 Ecumenical Councils as an Ecumenical Council.  The other 5 Ecumenical Councils also ruled that there could be no changes in the Creed as adopted at Nicaea I and amended by I Constantinople. The West had no authority to change or add words to the Creed ratified by the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Even the Popes before 1014 agreed that the filioque could no legitimately be added to the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

Amen and amen.  And it's an issue of ontological procession rather than the Filioque's economic procession.  The hypostases all underlie the singular ousia, with the Father as the only uncaused cause.

Maybe you could elaborate further on that relative to the Latins.
Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #83 on: April 20, 2014, 12:32:19 PM »

The Filioque only caused more questions with regards to the Eastern Christian church.  And as you say, if we were anathemized, it was the Church that was anathemized ie East and West before Constantinople, which I certainly doubt.  

Nope just the eastern bishops at Constantinople as it was local council for many years before it gained ecumenical status. So did these bishops have the authority to do so?

A council only becomes ecumenical after it is recognized by the Church as an Ecumenical Council, the whole Church, not just Rome.

That's not the point. Nicaea was ecumenical from the get go. Constantinople was not... It was local synod of 150 eastern bishops who changed the creed of nicaea. It only later became ecumenical. The issue is why would a bunch of bishops convening local council dare to change the creed? It is immaterial that it became ecumenical later. It would only be material if it was ecumenical from the beginning, but it was not. It was local, just like Toledo and did th exact same thing Toledo did.

Quote
Regardless of who was at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, it was recognized by the Church and the remaining 5 Ecumenical Councils as an Ecumenical Council.  The other 5 Ecumenical Councils also ruled that there could be no changes in the Creed as adopted at Nicaea I and amended by I Constantinople. The West had no authority to change or add words to the Creed ratified by the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Even the Popes before 1014 agreed that the filioque could no legitimately be added to the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

I only know of the ban on the creed of Nicaea, not on the Constantinople-nicaea creed.

Popes like Leo III banned the filioque inclusion (Not its theology) because they knew it would upset Greeks and church unity.

Its funny that if the unanimous understanding was that no word may be added to the creed then why were so many in the west comfortable with adding the filioque clause? Why were the Armenians so comfortable with having other additions in the creed despite recognizing the Council of Ephesus?
« Last Edit: April 20, 2014, 12:39:48 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,134


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #84 on: April 20, 2014, 12:41:21 PM »

The Filioque only caused more questions with regards to the Eastern Christian church.  And as you say, if we were anathemized, it was the Church that was anathemized ie East and West before Constantinople, which I certainly doubt.  

Nope just the eastern bishops at Constantinople as it was local council for many years before it gained ecumenical status. So did these bishops have the authority to do so?

A council only becomes ecumenical after it is recognized by the Church as an Ecumenical Council, the whole Church, not just Rome.

That's not the point. Nicaea was ecumenical from the get go. Constantinople was not... It was local synod of 150 eastern bishops who changed the creed of nicaea. It only later became ecumenical. The issue is why would a bunch of bishops convening local council dare to change the creed? It is immaterial that it became ecumenical later. It would only be material if it was ecumenical from the beginning, but it was not. It was local, just like Toledo and did th exact same thing Toledo did.

Quote
Regardless of who was at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, it was recognized by the Church and the remaining 5 Ecumenical Councils as an Ecumenical Council.  The other 5 Ecumenical Councils also ruled that there could be no changes in the Creed as adopted at Nicaea I and amended by I Constantinople. The West had no authority to change or add words to the Creed ratified by the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Even the Popes before 1014 agreed that the filioque could no legitimately be added to the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

I only know of the ban on the creed of Nicaea, not on the Constantinople-nicaea creed.

Popes like Leo III banned the filioque inclusion (Not its theology) because they knee it would upset Greeks and church unity. Its funny that if the unanimous understanding was that no word may be added to the creed then why were so many in the west comfortable with adding the filioque clause? Why were the Armenians so comfortable with having other additions in the creed despite recognizing the Council of Ephesus?

I personally don't see why we are even arguing the point here.  Given what we know as Orthodox any argument to the contrary isn't going to fly anywhere.  So all you arguments are more for convincing yourselves and not us.   East is East, and West is West, and........ so the saying goes.  I'm fine , your fine. I guess we can leave it at that.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #85 on: April 20, 2014, 01:02:15 PM »

The Filioque only caused more questions with regards to the Eastern Christian church.  And as you say, if we were anathemized, it was the Church that was anathemized ie East and West before Constantinople, which I certainly doubt.  

Nope just the eastern bishops at Constantinople as it was local council for many years before it gained ecumenical status. So did these bishops have the authority to do so?

A council only becomes ecumenical after it is recognized by the Church as an Ecumenical Council, the whole Church, not just Rome.

That's not the point. Nicaea was ecumenical from the get go. Constantinople was not... It was local synod of 150 eastern bishops who changed the creed of nicaea. It only later became ecumenical. The issue is why would a bunch of bishops convening local council dare to change the creed? It is immaterial that it became ecumenical later. It would only be material if it was ecumenical from the beginning, but it was not. It was local, just like Toledo and did th exact same thing Toledo did.

Quote
Regardless of who was at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, it was recognized by the Church and the remaining 5 Ecumenical Councils as an Ecumenical Council.  The other 5 Ecumenical Councils also ruled that there could be no changes in the Creed as adopted at Nicaea I and amended by I Constantinople. The West had no authority to change or add words to the Creed ratified by the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Even the Popes before 1014 agreed that the filioque could no legitimately be added to the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

I only know of the ban on the creed of Nicaea, not on the Constantinople-nicaea creed.

Popes like Leo III banned the filioque inclusion (Not its theology) because they knee it would upset Greeks and church unity. Its funny that if the unanimous understanding was that no word may be added to the creed then why were so many in the west comfortable with adding the filioque clause? Why were the Armenians so comfortable with having other additions in the creed despite recognizing the Council of Ephesus?

I personally don't see why we are even arguing the point here.  Given what we know as Orthodox any argument to the contrary isn't going to fly anywhere.  So all you arguments are more for convincing yourselves and not us.   East is East, and West is West, and........ so the saying goes.  I'm fine , your fine. I guess we can leave it at that.

Then I guess the Protestants are all fine, too.  There aren't two Orthodoxies, and there certainly can't be thousands.

There's a difference between ontological and economic procession, and whether such was singular or dual.  It's not merely semantics, as Miaphysitism could potentially be considered in Christology.

No matter how small someone attempts to make the difference, ontology and economy are distinct relative to procession.  And all should be speaking the same thing, whatever that same thing is.
Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,134


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #86 on: April 20, 2014, 01:53:29 PM »

The Filioque only caused more questions with regards to the Eastern Christian church.  And as you say, if we were anathemized, it was the Church that was anathemized ie East and West before Constantinople, which I certainly doubt.  

Nope just the eastern bishops at Constantinople as it was local council for many years before it gained ecumenical status. So did these bishops have the authority to do so?

A council only becomes ecumenical after it is recognized by the Church as an Ecumenical Council, the whole Church, not just Rome.

That's not the point. Nicaea was ecumenical from the get go. Constantinople was not... It was local synod of 150 eastern bishops who changed the creed of nicaea. It only later became ecumenical. The issue is why would a bunch of bishops convening local council dare to change the creed? It is immaterial that it became ecumenical later. It would only be material if it was ecumenical from the beginning, but it was not. It was local, just like Toledo and did th exact same thing Toledo did.

Quote
Regardless of who was at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, it was recognized by the Church and the remaining 5 Ecumenical Councils as an Ecumenical Council.  The other 5 Ecumenical Councils also ruled that there could be no changes in the Creed as adopted at Nicaea I and amended by I Constantinople. The West had no authority to change or add words to the Creed ratified by the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Even the Popes before 1014 agreed that the filioque could no legitimately be added to the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

I only know of the ban on the creed of Nicaea, not on the Constantinople-nicaea creed.

Popes like Leo III banned the filioque inclusion (Not its theology) because they knee it would upset Greeks and church unity. Its funny that if the unanimous understanding was that no word may be added to the creed then why were so many in the west comfortable with adding the filioque clause? Why were the Armenians so comfortable with having other additions in the creed despite recognizing the Council of Ephesus?

I personally don't see why we are even arguing the point here.  Given what we know as Orthodox any argument to the contrary isn't going to fly anywhere.  So all you arguments are more for convincing yourselves and not us.   East is East, and West is West, and........ so the saying goes.  I'm fine , your fine. I guess we can leave it at that.

Then I guess the Protestants are all fine, too.  There aren't two Orthodoxies, and there certainly can't be thousands.

There's a difference between ontological and economic procession, and whether such was singular or dual.  It's not merely semantics, as Miaphysitism could potentially be considered in Christology.

No matter how small someone attempts to make the difference, ontology and economy are distinct relative to procession.  And all should be speaking the same thing, whatever that same thing is.

All im saying is that this Filioque thingy is getting old on Orthodox forums, and my opinion is that the RC's are trying to sway the fence straddlers into thinking that 'we all worship the same God'.  We complain about the RC's dissecting and getting legalistic in their arguments, and they we go and do the same thing to justify our arguments.  I say fine, you guys go your way, and we will go ours.   There is only one and only Holy Orthodoxy, am im part of it.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #87 on: April 20, 2014, 02:27:02 PM »

The Filioque only caused more questions with regards to the Eastern Christian church.  And as you say, if we were anathemized, it was the Church that was anathemized ie East and West before Constantinople, which I certainly doubt.  

Nope just the eastern bishops at Constantinople as it was local council for many years before it gained ecumenical status. So did these bishops have the authority to do so?

A council only becomes ecumenical after it is recognized by the Church as an Ecumenical Council, the whole Church, not just Rome.

That's not the point. Nicaea was ecumenical from the get go. Constantinople was not... It was local synod of 150 eastern bishops who changed the creed of nicaea. It only later became ecumenical. The issue is why would a bunch of bishops convening local council dare to change the creed? It is immaterial that it became ecumenical later. It would only be material if it was ecumenical from the beginning, but it was not. It was local, just like Toledo and did th exact same thing Toledo did.

Quote
Regardless of who was at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, it was recognized by the Church and the remaining 5 Ecumenical Councils as an Ecumenical Council.  The other 5 Ecumenical Councils also ruled that there could be no changes in the Creed as adopted at Nicaea I and amended by I Constantinople. The West had no authority to change or add words to the Creed ratified by the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Even the Popes before 1014 agreed that the filioque could no legitimately be added to the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

I only know of the ban on the creed of Nicaea, not on the Constantinople-nicaea creed.

Popes like Leo III banned the filioque inclusion (Not its theology) because they knee it would upset Greeks and church unity. Its funny that if the unanimous understanding was that no word may be added to the creed then why were so many in the west comfortable with adding the filioque clause? Why were the Armenians so comfortable with having other additions in the creed despite recognizing the Council of Ephesus?

I personally don't see why we are even arguing the point here.  Given what we know as Orthodox any argument to the contrary isn't going to fly anywhere.  So all you arguments are more for convincing yourselves and not us.   East is East, and West is West, and........ so the saying goes.  I'm fine , your fine. I guess we can leave it at that.

Then I guess the Protestants are all fine, too.  There aren't two Orthodoxies, and there certainly can't be thousands.

There's a difference between ontological and economic procession, and whether such was singular or dual.  It's not merely semantics, as Miaphysitism could potentially be considered in Christology.

No matter how small someone attempts to make the difference, ontology and economy are distinct relative to procession.  And all should be speaking the same thing, whatever that same thing is.

All im saying is that this Filioque thingy is getting old on Orthodox forums, and my opinion is that the RC's are trying to sway the fence straddlers into thinking that 'we all worship the same God'.  We complain about the RC's dissecting and getting legalistic in their arguments, and they we go and do the same thing to justify our arguments.  I say fine, you guys go your way, and we will go ours.   There is only one and only Holy Orthodoxy, am im part of it.

Ah, thank you.  I suppose I had misunderstood your point.  Smiley
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #88 on: April 20, 2014, 02:31:46 PM »

The Filioque only caused more questions with regards to the Eastern Christian church.  And as you say, if we were anathemized, it was the Church that was anathemized ie East and West before Constantinople, which I certainly doubt. 

Nope just the eastern bishops at Constantinople as it was local council for many years before it gained ecumenical status. So did these bishops have the authority to do so?

A council only becomes ecumenical after it is recognized by the Church as an Ecumenical Council, the whole Church, not just Rome.

That's not the point. Nicaea was ecumenical from the get go. Constantinople was not... It was local synod of 150 eastern bishops who changed the creed of nicaea. It only later became ecumenical. The issue is why would a bunch of bishops convening local council dare to change the creed? It is immaterial that it became ecumenical later. It would only be material if it was ecumenical from the beginning, but it was not. It was local, just like Toledo and did th exact same thing Toledo did.

Quote
Regardless of who was at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, it was recognized by the Church and the remaining 5 Ecumenical Councils as an Ecumenical Council.  The other 5 Ecumenical Councils also ruled that there could be no changes in the Creed as adopted at Nicaea I and amended by I Constantinople. The West had no authority to change or add words to the Creed ratified by the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Even the Popes before 1014 agreed that the filioque could no legitimately be added to the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

I only know of the ban on the creed of Nicaea, not on the Constantinople-nicaea creed.

Popes like Leo III banned the filioque inclusion (Not its theology) because they knew it would upset Greeks and church unity.

Its funny that if the unanimous understanding was that no word may be added to the creed then why were so many in the west comfortable with adding the filioque clause? Why were the Armenians so comfortable with having other additions in the creed despite recognizing the Council of Ephesus?

No Council is ecumenical until it is recognized by the Church, or as you put it from the get go. The Council of Toledo was not recognized as an Ecumenical Council, Constantinople I was. Ephesus and the rest of the 7 Ecumenical Councils made it clear that no further changes or additions would be made to the Creed as written by Nicaea I and Constantinople I. My answer is that the West was arrogant and wrong to unilaterally change the Creed of the Church, especially after St. Photius had made it clear that the East strongly objected to the Western changes in the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris
« Last Edit: April 20, 2014, 02:35:44 PM by frjohnmorris » Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #89 on: April 20, 2014, 02:41:18 PM »

The Filioque only caused more questions with regards to the Eastern Christian church.  And as you say, if we were anathemized, it was the Church that was anathemized ie East and West before Constantinople, which I certainly doubt.  

Nope just the eastern bishops at Constantinople as it was local council for many years before it gained ecumenical status. So did these bishops have the authority to do so?

A council only becomes ecumenical after it is recognized by the Church as an Ecumenical Council, the whole Church, not just Rome.

That's not the point. Nicaea was ecumenical from the get go. Constantinople was not... It was local synod of 150 eastern bishops who changed the creed of nicaea. It only later became ecumenical. The issue is why would a bunch of bishops convening local council dare to change the creed? It is immaterial that it became ecumenical later. It would only be material if it was ecumenical from the beginning, but it was not. It was local, just like Toledo and did th exact same thing Toledo did.

Quote
Regardless of who was at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, it was recognized by the Church and the remaining 5 Ecumenical Councils as an Ecumenical Council.  The other 5 Ecumenical Councils also ruled that there could be no changes in the Creed as adopted at Nicaea I and amended by I Constantinople. The West had no authority to change or add words to the Creed ratified by the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Even the Popes before 1014 agreed that the filioque could no legitimately be added to the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

I only know of the ban on the creed of Nicaea, not on the Constantinople-nicaea creed.

Popes like Leo III banned the filioque inclusion (Not its theology) because they knew it would upset Greeks and church unity.

Its funny that if the unanimous understanding was that no word may be added to the creed then why were so many in the west comfortable with adding the filioque clause? Why were the Armenians so comfortable with having other additions in the creed despite recognizing the Council of Ephesus?

No Council is ecumenical until it is recognized by the Church, or as you put it from the get go. The Council of Toledo was not recognized as an Ecumenical Council, Constantinople I was. Ephesus and the rest of the 7 Ecumenical Councils made it clear that no further changes or additions would be made to the Creed as written by Nicaea I and Constantinople I. My answer is that the West was arrogant and wrong to unilaterally change the Creed of the Church, especially after St. Photius had made it clear that the East strongly objected to the Western changes in the Creed.

Fr. John W. Morris

So your argument is an opinion. Fair enough I guess. But what about the additions of the Armenians? Were arrogant also?

What is a fact is Nicaea was ecumenical from the start. It was convened as such and was held as such. From its inception its findings were binding on the whole church as its purpose was to define a unified doctrine of the church AMD any who did not adhere were anathematized from the church.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2014, 02:44:33 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  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 0.204 seconds with 71 queries.