Author Topic: The Councils of Toledo and St. Isidore of Seville on the Filioque.  (Read 646 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Xavier

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 621
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, Pray for US!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
1. The Councils of Toledo were presided over by Bishop St. Leander and his brother Archbishop St. Isidore of Seville, among other universally recognized holy prelates. They produced the greatest fruits, effected the full conversion of Visigothic Spain to Catholic Christianity and crushed the last vestiges of the Arian heresy. King Recarred made a humble profession of faith that Archbishop St. Isidore rightly called the definitive triumph of the Church in Spain. These Councils and the Bishops who presided over them explicitly teach the Filioque doctrine.

E.g. i. Spiritum quoque esse paraclitum, qui nec pater sit ipse, nec filius, sed a patre filioque procedens. Est ergo ingenitus pater, genitus filius, non genitus paraclitus, sed a patre filioque procedens (And the Spirit is the Comforter/Paraclete, Who is not the Father, nor the Son, but proceeds from the Father and the Son. Therefore, the Father is Unbegotten, the Son begotten, the Spirit is not begotten, but proceeds from the Father and the Son.) http://www.benedictus.mgh.de/quellen/chga/chga_043t.htm

ii. Quicumque spiritum sanctum non credit aut non crediderit a patre et filio procedere, eumque non dixerit coaeternum esse patri et filio et coessentialem, anathema sit. (Whoever does not believe in the Holy Spirit or does not believe Him to proceed from the Father and the Son, and says He is not co-eternal with the Father and the Son and consubstantial [with Them], let him be anathema) http://www.benedictus.mgh.de/quellen/chga/chga_045t.htm

2. St. Isidore of Seville mastered all of Latin, Greek and Hebrew in a short time. In glowing terms, the later Councils of Toledo praised his learning and sanctity. "The extraordinary Doctor, the latest ornament of the Catholic Church, the most learned man of the latter ages, always to be named with reverence, Isidore" The Greek Church also venerates him as Saint and Father. Even outside the Councils, St. Isidore taught the Filioque openly and explicitly.

"48. This illustrious Spanish Doctor says in 636 [Etymologies 7:3 in PL 82:268A], "The Holy Spirit is called God because He proceeds from the Father and the Son and has Their essence." The Latin reads "Spiritus sanctus ideo praedicatur Deus, quia ex Patre Filioque procedit, et substantiam eorum habet." The saint adds [PG 82:268C], "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." The Latin reads, "Hoc autem interest inter nascentem Filium et procedentum Spiritum sanctum, quod Filius ex uno nascitur; Spiritus sanctus ex utroque procedit."

49. 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 [Three Books of Sentences 1:15:2 in PL 83:568C]: "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." The Latin reads "Non enim res una et duorum consubstantialis poterit simul ab eis procedere et simul inesse, nisi unum fuerit, a quibus procedit." http://catholicpatristics.blogspot.com/2009/08/filioque.html?m=1

3. Fast forward to the 15th century. Contrary to this clear Tradition, and the decree of the Council of Florence, we have a solitary archbishop in Mark of Ephesus who claims, "If the Greek Church having received it from Christ Himself and the Holy Apostles and Fathers, has said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, but has never said (for she has received this from no one) that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, then what else does this signify than that she affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father? For if He is not from the Son, evidently, He is only from the Father.

Do you know what is said concerning the Generation? ‘Begotten of the Father before all ages.’ Would anyone add here ‘only of the Father?” Yet it is precisely thus and in no other way that we understand it, and, if need be will express it."

Mark of Ephesus here word for word contradicts St. Isidore - St. Isidore said the "difference between generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, [is] that the Son is begotten of One, but the Spirit proceeds from Both." Mark says the Spirit is from Father only, just as the Son is from Father only. So there is no difference, then. It is manifest that both cannot be right.

So who is correct? Why should the Catholic Church believe first millenial saints and doctors recognized by the Greek Church got it wrong? It is much more likely the 15th century erred on the subject than that the 6th century Spanish Church, with many recognized Saints, did so. Thoughts?
"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

Offline platypus

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 84
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: The Councils of Toledo and St. Isidore of Seville on the Filioque.
« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2018, 12:29:33 AM »
So who is correct? Why should the Catholic Church believe first millenial saints and doctors recognized by the Greek Church got it wrong? It is much more likely the 15th century erred on the subject than that the 6th century Spanish Church, with many recognized Saints, did so. Thoughts?

I think the Ecumencial Councils got it right. At 1 Nicaea and 1 Constantinople they wrote the creed, and at the Council of Ephesus they anathemized changes to it:
Quote from: Council of Ephesus
It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy fathers who were gathered together in the holy Spirit at Nicaea.
Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived of their respective charges and if they are laymen they are to be anathematised.
In the same way if any should be discovered, whether bishops, clergy or laity, thinking or teaching the views expressed in his statement by the priest Charisius about the incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God or the disgusting, perverted views of Nestorius, which underlie them, these should be subject to the condemnation of this holy and ecumenical synod. A bishop clearly is to be stripped of his bishopric and deposed, a cleric to be deposed from the clergy, and a lay person is to be anathematised, as was said before.
Source: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum03.htm

The Council of Toledo was just a local council, and it since it altered the creed in violation of the Ecumenical Councils, I think it's safe to disregard it's decrees.

I'm not a theologian, and I can't explain this as well as St. Photios, but I think the filioque is a very serious error. In Orthodox theology the attributes of the persons of the Trinity are either unique to one of them or common to all of them. The filioque gives the Father and the Son a common attribute not shared by the Holy Spirit, and it makes the Holy Spirit seem like a Divine third wheel. I suspect this is why the Holy Spirit was largely forgotten about in Roman Catholic devotion. Many western Christians have noticed this lack of devotion and sought the Holy Spirit in ways that seem somewhat non-traditional, like the charismatic movement.

Of course the current Cathechism of the RCC allows Catholics to believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father, but the Son sends Him to us. Which seems quite reasonable.
"Eternal truth finds no favorable soil where one encounters at every turn the skeptical, sarcastic query 'what is truth,' where life insurance takes the place of eternal hope." -Hieromonk Antonius

Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity. -Ecclesiastes 12:8

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 922
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: The Councils of Toledo and St. Isidore of Seville on the Filioque.
« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2018, 09:37:08 AM »
Smells like a forgery to me, specially the “from one principle”

the objection that filioque doctrine adds another principle comes much later, this is why the latins had to insist that it is one principle not two as they are being accused.

The problem with this escape card however is the spirit can no longer be consubstatial with the father and the son, since the one principle is the godessence and once you define this principle as causing the existance of another person then the spirit is no longer consubstantial since no person proceeds from his essence.

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,325
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Metropolis of Denver
Re: The Councils of Toledo and St. Isidore of Seville on the Filioque.
« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2018, 10:20:12 PM »
Are the original canons, at least of the 4th Council of Toledo presided by the saint, still available or was the Filioque added in scriptoria by pious and obsequious monks centuries later when creating copies?
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline Xavier

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 621
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, Pray for US!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: The Councils of Toledo and St. Isidore of Seville on the Filioque.
« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2018, 08:12:07 AM »
1. Platypus, then why do you recognize St. Isidore as a Saint and Father? Let's consider the doctrinal issue first - St. Isidore clearly explains the difference is that the Son is Begotten of One, but the Spirit proceeds from Both. Mark of Ephesus does not see this, he makes both Son and Spirit proceed from Father only; but if that were so, then the Son and the Spirit would be only one person, and neither would be Second or Third; that the Second Person is from the Father only, the Third Person from the Father and Son Both is the clear doctrine of St. Isidore and St. Leander at Toledo.

The dogma of the Filioque is necessary to reject (1)Arianism, hence the insistence of the Bishops on using it to combat the same. This shows also that the Son is eternal mediator between His Father and His Spirit, and not temporal only; Arians can admit temporal procession, they cannot admit eternal procession from Father and Son without admitting the Son is divine, and (2) Sabellianism, because the canons clearly say the Spirit is not the Son, and distinguished from Him in that He proceeds from Father and Son. "Spirit is the Comforter/Paraclete, Who is not the Father, nor the Son, but proceeds from the Father and the Son."

This also answers the objection of patriarch Photius: The Father is Unbegotten, the Son Begotten, the Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. These are their 3 distinct hypostatic characteristics. The Father is principle without principle, source of both His Son and His Spirit; the Son is mediator between His Father and His Spirit, the Spirit proceeds from Father through Son; 3 distinct properties of the 3 distinct Persons.

2. As regards the disciplinary issue, it is clearly mistaken for 3 reasons, Ephesus I was speaking about Arians and Nestorians intruding their own creed in opposition to that of Nicaea; (1) St. Cyril recited only the creed of Nicaea (with only the words "And in the Holy Spirit"),so you would have to maintain Ephesus anathematized the 150 Fathers of Constantinople 1 for adding to the creed of Nicaea; (2) in Nicaea II, the symbol was adapted with the words "The Lord and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father through the Son", by Patriarch St. Tarasius, showing such are legitimate, and (3) Mark of Ephesus himself suggests he may add "only" to the creed if needed.

3 last issues. No scholar denies Toledo taught Filioque, it is referenced in the Greek-Latin study: "In the West, the Filioque was confessed from the fifth century through the Quicumque (or "Athanasianum", DS 75) Symbol, and then by the Councils of Toledo in Visigothic Spain between 589 and 693 (DS 470, 485, 490, 527, 568), to affirm Trinitarian consubstantiality." Likewise, no one denies the texts of St. Isidore cited above are authentic; and one principle language pre-dates St. Isidore, and is found in St. Augustine, whom St. Thomas cites as proof in his Summa Article treating the subject. Thirdly, the Catechism does not say temporal procession is ok, but reiterates eternal spiration from Father and the Son. It only says from Father through the Son is equivalent, as did Florence and also St. Thomas.

Quote
CCC 246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)". The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."75

...Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447,76 even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381.

The footnote is to a well known letter, Quam Laudabiliter, where Pope Leo states the Spirit is He "Who proceeds from Both". In this particular case as well, St. Leo the Great uses Filioque to reject Sabellianism, showing the later opinions of Photius and Mark of Ephesus are untenable, being rejected by St. Leo the Great and Archbishop St. Isidore of Seville respectively.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2018, 08:15:17 AM by Xavier »
"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,216
Re: The Councils of Toledo and St. Isidore of Seville on the Filioque.
« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2018, 12:04:17 PM »
I'll provide citations later. However, the current scholarship holds that the formal creed in the acta of Toledo III did not originally include the Filioque. It was later interpolated into the later manuscripts. Nevertheless, one of the canons and King Reccared in his speech did use the Filioque when speaking of the Holy Spirit. These mentions of the Filioque are entirely original to the acta as I understand it. I also question the necessity of using the Filioque in the creed in order to combat Arianism. The First Council of Nicaea and the Council of Ephesus seemed to have worked well enough without making use of it.

As for St. Isidore, I think it is crucial to understand what he means by the procession of the Holy Spirit. As you well know Xavier from previous threads, we reached a sort of middle ground on this issue pertaining to a distinction between the Father as the sole cause of the Holy Spirit, and yet nevertheless the Holy Spirit still proceeding from both the Father and the Son. I wish that in your future threads on this touchy issue that you would at least start from that carefully crafted middle ground. See here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,72851.0.html
« Last Edit: June 12, 2018, 12:09:53 PM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 922
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: The Councils of Toledo and St. Isidore of Seville on the Filioque.
« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2018, 12:35:34 PM »
Quote
The dogma of the Filioque is necessary to reject (1)Arianism, hence the insistence of the Bishops on using it to combat the same. This shows also that the Son is eternal mediator between His Father and His Spirit, and not temporal only; Arians can admit temporal procession, they cannot admit eternal procession from Father and Son without admitting the Son is divine, and (2) Sabellianism, because the canons clearly say the Spirit is not the Son, and distinguished from Him in that He proceeds from Father and Son. "Spirit is the Comforter/Paraclete, Who is not the Father, nor the Son, but proceeds from the Father and the Son."
Not at all, as a matter of fact the doctrine of the filioque is arian subordinationism applied to the Spirit

Quote
3 last issues. No scholar denies Toledo taught Filioque, it is referenced in the Greek-Latin study: "In the West, the Filioque was confessed from the fifth century through the Quicumque (or "Athanasianum", DS 75) Symbol, and then by the Councils of Toledo in Visigothic Spain between 589 and 693 (DS 470, 485, 490, 527, 568), to affirm Trinitarian consubstantiality." Likewise, no one denies the texts of St. Isidore cited above are authentic; and one principle language pre-dates St. Isidore, and is found in St. Augustine, whom St. Thomas cites as proof in his Summa Article treating the subject. Thirdly, the Catechism does not say temporal procession is ok, but reiterates eternal spiration from Father and the Son. It only says from Father through the Son is equivalent, as did Florence and also St. Thomas.
Some scams are so good that they remain unrevealed till the day of judgement, in this sense you do not need to be a historian to find it out, just a simple person who ask himself simple questions, like why orthodoxy looks the same today, 500 years ago, 1000 years ago, 1500 years ago and why roman catholicism look inconsistent and is like a tool for globalism and the new world order.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2018, 12:36:35 PM by Vanhyo »

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,325
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Metropolis of Denver
Re: The Councils of Toledo and St. Isidore of Seville on the Filioque.
« Reply #7 on: June 12, 2018, 06:53:47 PM »
3 last issues. No scholar denies Toledo taught Filioque, it is referenced in the Greek-Latin study: "In the West, the Filioque was confessed from the fifth century through the Quicumque (or "Athanasianum", DS 75) Symbol, and then by the Councils of Toledo in Visigothic Spain between 589 and 693 (DS 470, 485, 490, 527, 568), to affirm Trinitarian consubstantiality." Likewise, no one denies the texts of St. Isidore cited above are authentic; and one principle language pre-dates St. Isidore, and is found in St. Augustine, whom St. Thomas cites as proof in his Summa Article treating the subject. Thirdly, the Catechism does not say temporal procession is ok, but reiterates eternal spiration from Father and the Son. It only says from Father through the Son is equivalent, as did Florence and also St. Thomas.

...Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447,76 even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381.
I'm convinced then that Rome has been teaching a belief that had not been held always and everywhere for a long time then.
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline platypus

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 84
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: The Councils of Toledo and St. Isidore of Seville on the Filioque.
« Reply #8 on: June 12, 2018, 07:26:57 PM »
1. Platypus, then why do you recognize St. Isidore as a Saint and Father? Let's consider the doctrinal issue first - St. Isidore clearly explains the difference is that the Son is Begotten of One, but the Spirit proceeds from Both. Mark of Ephesus does not see this, he makes both Son and Spirit proceed from Father only; but if that were so, then the Son and the Spirit would be only one person, and neither would be Second or Third; that the Second Person is from the Father only, the Third Person from the Father and Son Both is the clear doctrine of St. Isidore and St. Leander at Toledo.

I don't know much about St. Isidore. But I assume we recognize him as a Saint and Father because of his holy life. We also accept St. Augustine as a Saint, even though we reject predestination and hereditary guilt.

The Roman Church recognizes St. Gregory of Narek as a Doctor of the Church, right? If a non-Catholic can become a Doctor of your church I don't think you have room to say we shouldn't accept a saint who may have been wrong about one issue.

The dogma of the Filioque is necessary to reject (1)Arianism, hence the insistence of the Bishops on using it to combat the same. This shows also that the Son is eternal mediator between His Father and His Spirit, and not temporal only; Arians can admit temporal procession, they cannot admit eternal procession from Father and Son without admitting the Son is divine, and (2) Sabellianism, because the canons clearly say the Spirit is not the Son, and distinguished from Him in that He proceeds from Father and Son. "Spirit is the Comforter/Paraclete, Who is not the Father, nor the Son, but proceeds from the Father and the Son."

This has not been our experience. The Church isn't hasn't accepted sabellianism, arianism, or filioquism. We find it possible to believe in the divinity of Christ and the unity of the Trinity without believing that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Son.

This also answers the objection of patriarch Photius: The Father is Unbegotten, the Son Begotten, the Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. These are their 3 distinct hypostatic characteristics. The Father is principle without principle, source of both His Son and His Spirit; the Son is mediator between His Father and His Spirit, the Spirit proceeds from Father through Son; 3 distinct properties of the 3 distinct Persons.

Here's where it gets interesting. From my understanding of your Catechism, St. Photios' explanation is perfectly acceptable to your church.
Quote from: CCC 248
At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason",78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle",79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

This seems to say that Photios' orthodox understanding is legitimate as long as it is not “rigid”, although I'm not quite sure what "rigid" means in this entry.

2. As regards the disciplinary issue, it is clearly mistaken for 3 reasons, Ephesus I was speaking about Arians and Nestorians intruding their own creed in opposition to that of Nicaea; (1) St. Cyril recited only the creed of Nicaea (with only the words "And in the Holy Spirit"),so you would have to maintain Ephesus anathematized the 150 Fathers of Constantinople 1 for adding to the creed of Nicaea; (2) in Nicaea II, the symbol was adapted with the words "The Lord and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father through the Son", by Patriarch St. Tarasius, showing such are legitimate, and (3) Mark of Ephesus himself suggests he may add "only" to the creed if needed.

That's exactly the point. The creed is determined by the Ecumenical Councils. Ephesus didn't mean that the creed could never be clarified or added to, but that not just anyone could do it. At least that is my understanding. A local council cannot just write a new creed; it has to be examined by the Church to determine it's orthodoxy.

This means that, yes, St. Mark of Ephesus may have been a bit overzealous if he offered to add a word to the creed. Also, St. Mark of Ephesus is normally referred to with the honorific “Saint” in front of his name.

Two questions for you, Xavier:
1) When you say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son do you mean He  “proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration” (CCC 246) or do you mean he “comes from the Father through the Son” (CCC 248)?
2) Do you think the filioque is the cause of the decline in devotion to the Holy Spirit in Roman Catholicism, as I suggested in my previous post? If not, what do you think is?

"Eternal truth finds no favorable soil where one encounters at every turn the skeptical, sarcastic query 'what is truth,' where life insurance takes the place of eternal hope." -Hieromonk Antonius

Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity. -Ecclesiastes 12:8

Offline Xavier

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 621
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, Pray for US!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: The Councils of Toledo and St. Isidore of Seville on the Filioque.
« Reply #9 on: June 21, 2018, 11:06:40 AM »
Quote from: Rohzek
As for St. Isidore, I think it is crucial to understand what he means by the procession of the Holy Spirit. As you well know Xavier from previous threads, we reached a sort of middle ground on this issue pertaining to a distinction between the Father as the sole cause of the Holy Spirit, and yet nevertheless the Holy Spirit still proceeding from both the Father and the Son.

Dear Rohzek, yes, we agreed on that; hence I said above, "These are their 3 distinct hypostatic characteristics. The Father is principle without principle, source of both His Son and His Spirit; the Son is mediator between His Father and His Spirit, the Spirit proceeds from Father through Son; 3 distinct properties of the 3 distinct Persons." Do you agree with that?

The Greek Church signed this formula with the Catholic Church, "The Father only generates the Son by breathing (proballein in Greek) through him the Holy Spirit and the Son is only begotten by the Father insofar as the spiration (probolh in Greek) passes through him. The Father is Father of the One Son only by being for him and through him the origin of the Holy Spirit.8

The Spirit does not precede the Son, since the Son characterizes as Father the Father from whom the Spirit takes his origin, according to the Trinitarian order.9 But the spiration of the Spirit from the Father takes place by and through (the two senses of dia in Greek) the generation of the Son, to which it gives its Trinitarian character."

If the Greek Church really and firmly believes this, there is no reason they should not enter into a happy reunion with the Catholic Church tomorrow. Question for you, Rohzek: Is the generation of the Son temporal or eternal? Of course you will say, it is eternal. Therefore, the spiration of the Spirit through the Son, given the above, must be co-eternal with it.

But if you draw a distinction between the eternal spiration of the Spirit through the Son and His eternal ekporeumemon from the Father through the Son (St. Tarasius' formula), as some members of the Greek Churches do, you are trying to distinguish two things that do not really differ. Hence, the impasse.

Platypus, to your 2 questions

1. We mean both. Counter question to you: why does Scripture never say that the Son sends the Father, or that the Spirit sends the Father and the Son? God reveals to us the hypostatic relation when He makes known to us the temporal mission also. That is why He says, the Spirit shall not come to you, unless I go to the Father - that you may understand the Spirit eternally proceeds from Father through Son, and is now sent in time in that same order, from Father through Son; thus also the Father is not said anywhere to be sent, because He does not proceed.

2. I reject the question as much as you would, "But when did you last stop beating your wife?" No Church is as devoted to the Holy Ghost as is the Catholic Church Have you read the Holy Ghost Novena and prayers to Him for His 7 Gifts? I might post excerpts from that later.

Counter question: is Eucharistic adoration as strong in the East as in the west? Father and Son are One in the Unity of the Holy Spirit, also in the Holy Eucharist. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus and those truly devoted to Him adore Him there without ceasing. Read Adoro Te Devote by St. Thomas, a very devout hymn where the Catholic Doctor praises the Holy Trinity and the Holy Eucharist.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2018, 11:13:36 AM by Xavier »
"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,343
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to FOCOF
Re: The Councils of Toledo and St. Isidore of Seville on the Filioque.
« Reply #10 on: June 21, 2018, 01:46:19 PM »
Nice sig: locutions validated by the one receiving them are of course totally legitimate and worthy of belief.

Offline Orthodox_Slav

  • A sinful servant of God.
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 779
  • Christ Enthroned
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Moscow Patriarchate
Re: The Councils of Toledo and St. Isidore of Seville on the Filioque.
« Reply #11 on: June 21, 2018, 02:38:23 PM »
down with the Filioque!!!  >:(
"Two Romes fell, a third stands, and there will not be a fourth one."—Philotheus of Pskov

Offline platypus

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 84
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: The Councils of Toledo and St. Isidore of Seville on the Filioque.
« Reply #12 on: June 22, 2018, 12:16:48 AM »
1. We mean both. Counter question to you: why does Scripture never say that the Son sends the Father, or that the Spirit sends the Father and the Son? God reveals to us the hypostatic relation when He makes known to us the temporal mission also. That is why He says, the Spirit shall not come to you, unless I go to the Father - that you may understand the Spirit eternally proceeds from Father through Son, and is now sent in time in that same order, from Father through Son; thus also the Father is not said anywhere to be sent, because He does not proceed.

I've never heard before that the Son sends the Father, or that the Spirit sends the Father and the Son. This understanding might be a part of our tradition, but if so I am unfamiliar with it.

I suppose as long as neither of the catechism's options are used rigidly, you can mean them both.

2. I reject the question as much as you would, "But when did you last stop beating your wife?" No Church is as devoted to the Holy Ghost as is the Catholic Church Have you read the Holy Ghost Novena and prayers to Him for His 7 Gifts? I might post excerpts from that later.

Xavier, how many times have you been to Divine Liturgy? My experiences of Catholicism and Orthodoxy must be radically different from yours. In eighteen years of growing up Catholic, taking my catechism classes, learning Latin, attending Mass several times per week, and doing pretty much any church activities I could, I prayed to the Holy Spirit once. At a retreat where the speaker complained about the lack of devotion to the Holy Spirit, then taught us a prayer to Him. The only people I knew who gave much attention to the Holy Spirit much were the charismatic Catholics. And I suspect it was not the Holy Spirit they were encountering at their services.

I thought He was a Divine third wheel, an idea reinforced by the filioque explained as the Holy Spirit being "the Love between the Father and the Son" personified. I've never heard of the Holy Ghost Novena. Our rule of prayer was the rosary plus occasional other prayers, none of them directed to the Holy Spirit. The same goes for the other devout Catholics I knew.

As an Orthodox Christian, I still haven't been to a prayer service where we didn't pray to the Holy Spirit. And the daily prayers said by almost anyone include prayers to him. It's a whole different type of spirituality than what I learned in Catholicism.


Counter question: is Eucharistic adoration as strong in the East as in the west? Father and Son are One in the Unity of the Holy Spirit, also in the Holy Eucharist. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus and those truly devoted to Him adore Him there without ceasing. Read Adoro Te Devote by St. Thomas, a very devout hymn where the Catholic Doctor praises the Holy Trinity and the Holy Eucharist.

I've never been East, so I'm not sure. My experience with any churches, whether Orthodox or Roman Catholic, is mostly limited to the United States.

In the Orthodox parishes I have attended we adore Christ in the Eucharist. It's not uncommon for people to prostrate themselves during the words of consecration. It's a bit different for us than for Catholics, though, as the Orthodox adore the Eucharist in the context of the Divine Liturgy; not as a seperate event where you put it into a monstrance.

Adoro Te Devote was beautiful. Thanks for sharing that with me.
"Eternal truth finds no favorable soil where one encounters at every turn the skeptical, sarcastic query 'what is truth,' where life insurance takes the place of eternal hope." -Hieromonk Antonius

Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity. -Ecclesiastes 12:8

Offline Xavier

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 621
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, Pray for US!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: The Councils of Toledo and St. Isidore of Seville on the Filioque.
« Reply #13 on: July 07, 2018, 07:59:08 PM »
Dear Platypus. Ok. Thanks for sharing your experience. I've attended Syrian Catholic Churches that use the Syro Malabar rite. I love that rite. I also love the liturgy of St. James, Bishop of Jerusalem, used in many Orthodox Churches to this day. But the Roman liturgy that comes down to us from Ss. Peter and Paul is (Fr. Mueller's The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is an excellent book on the subject and its history) my personal favorite, especially in its traditional form. While we're on that subject, there is an interesting expression used in some ancient liturgies, both Eastern (was it St. Mark's? I forget the reference, will get back if asked) and also the Roman one: in speaking of the Holy Trinity, it says Father and Son are One "in the Unity of the Holy Spirit"; do you believe that is a good and legitimate formulation of true Faith, and a glorification of the Triune God, and each Person in particular.

To us, this shows how important a Person is the Holy Ghost, both in the Holy Trinity eternally, as well as subsequently in time in the effects He produces in His operation in us. As He unites Father and Son in eternity, He makes us share in the love of God, and makes us sons of God; in Scripture and Catholic Tradition, the work of sanctification is especially predicated of the Holy Ghost. Thus, in the Holy Ghost Novena and similar prayers, we specially pray to Him for His 7 Gifts and His 12 fruits.

2 sample prayers: e.g. on Day 4 of the Novena, after a brief meditation, we pray for fortitude: "The Gift of Fortitude

1. Thou in toil art comfort sweet, Pleasant coolness in the heat, solace in the midst of woe.

By the gift of Fortitude, the soul is strengthened against natural fear and supported to the end in the performance of duty. Fortitude imparts to the will an impulse and energy which move it to undertake without hesitancy the most arduous tasks, to face dangers, to trample underfoot human respect, and to endure without complaint the slow martyrdom of even lifelong tribulation. "He that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved." Prayer: "Come, O Blessed Spirit of Fortitude, uphold my soul in time of trouble and adversity, sustain my efforts after holiness, strengthen my weakness, give me courage against all the assaults of my enemies, that I may never be overcome and separated from Thee, my God and greatest Good. Amen."

2. And "Holy Spirit, eternal Love of the Father and the Son, kindly bestow on us the fruit of charity, that we may be united to You by divine Love; the fruit of joy, that we may be fulfilled with holy consolation; the fruit of peace, that we may enjoy tranquility of soul; and the fruit of patience, that we may endure humbly everything that may be opposed to our own desires. Divine Spirit, be pleased to infuse in us the fruit of benignity, that we may willingly relieve our neighbors’ necessities; the fruit of goodness, that we may be benevolent towards all; the fruit of longanimity, that we may not be discouraged by delay but may persevere in prayer; and the fruit of mildness, that we may subdue every rising of ill temper, stifle every murmur, and repress the susceptibilities of our nature in all our dealings with our neighbor. Creator Spirit, graciously impart to us the fruit of fidelity, that we may rely with assured confidence on the word of God; the fruit of modesty, that we may act becomingly; and the fruits of continence and chastity, that we may keep our bodies in such holiness as befits Your temple, so that having by Your assistance preserved our hearts pure on earth, we may merit in Jesus Christ, according to the words of the Gospel, to see God eternally in the glory of His Kingdom. Amen."

What you say is true and has happened to others, namely that many Catholics don't know the Holy Spirit, or love Him. But I think they would if they pray the prayers to Him approved by the Church.
"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Done
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,607
  • Intercede for my wretched soul, Saint Alban.
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: Lost for now.
Re: The Councils of Toledo and St. Isidore of Seville on the Filioque.
« Reply #14 on: July 07, 2018, 08:23:17 PM »
forget this post, which I've edited to say nothing.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2018, 08:24:39 PM by LivenotoneviL »
I'm done.