Author Topic: The Filioque  (Read 14658 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,140
  • Truth, Justice, and the American Way!
Re: The Filioque
« Reply #90 on: October 15, 2006, 10:11:41 PM »
Your interpretetation of what the Orthodox are saying.

Lord, Have Mercy,
Panagiotis
Objection #1: The scriptures do not mention it.
Reply: It doesn't matter if they do or not because the Church accepts both scripture and tradition. Furthermore, It seems implicit in some of the statements concerning the Holy Spirit coming from the Son as well.
Objection #2: The Fathers do not mention it.
Reply: Some of them do.
Objection #3: You can't change the creed.
Reply: The creed didn't exist prior to 325 A.D. and was changed at the next council.
etc...etc...etc..
Many blessings in Christ
« Last Edit: October 15, 2006, 10:11:59 PM by Papist »
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline JoeS

  • (aka StMarkEofE)
  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,122
  • Global Warming Enthusiast.
Re: The Filioque
« Reply #91 on: October 15, 2006, 11:53:40 PM »
Does this mean that you do not see God the Son as equal to God the Father because he is begotten of the Father? Do you see as the Holy Spirit as less than the Father because he proceeds from the Father?Well, first of all, for us a council has, Florence. Second, yeah we believe that the Churches in union with Rome can change it. So then, is it a matter of substance to you guys or is it a matter of, we can't accept it just because the West added the filioque without our permission?

Many Blessings in Christ

No, but Rome by adopting the Filioque have lessened the Holy Spirit as I have explained before.   Well you are right on one thing here, and that is, we cant and wont accept it.   

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,140
  • Truth, Justice, and the American Way!
Re: The Filioque
« Reply #92 on: October 15, 2006, 11:54:49 PM »
No, but Rome by adopting the Filioque have lessened the Holy Spirit as I have explained before.   Well you are right on one thing here, and that is, we cant and wont accept it.   
How has that lessened the Holy Spirit? If I follow your logic to its conclusion, the fact that the Son is begotten of the Father would lessen the Son. But neither you nor I believe that.
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline dantxny

  • OC.net Mineshaft gap
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 769
Re: The Filioque
« Reply #93 on: October 16, 2006, 01:20:06 AM »

Objection #1: The scriptures do not mention it.
Reply: It doesn't matter if they do or not because the Church accepts both scripture and tradition. Furthermore, It seems implicit in some ofthe statements concerning the Holy Spirit coming from the Son as well.
I answer that, Yet, these are almost exclusivly western fathers and often fathers that taught other heresies as well.  Further more, many more western and eastern saints have argued against it.  Even many of the popes have argued against it.
Objection #2: The Fathers do not mention it.
Reply: Some of them do.

Objection #3: You can't change the creed.
Reply: The creed didn't exist prior to 325 A.D. and was changed at the next council.
etc...etc...etc..
I answer that: this was done with the consent of the Church.  A few rogue bishops or a pope is not The Church.  Furthermore, the Creed cannot change.  It was added on to, but this was with the consent of the entire Church.  The filoque on the other hand was done by a pope trying to increase his power and done on faulty theology.

"From Spain, the Filioque spread to the Germanic tribe of the Franks (in present-day France). It was embraced by Charlemagne who went so far as to accuse the East of having deliberately omitted it from the ancient Symbol. Pope Leo III (795-816) intervened, and forbade any interpolations or alterations in the Second Ecumenical Synod's Symbol of Faith. He ordered the Symbol — without Filioque — to be engraved in Latin and Greek on two silver plates and mounted on a wall of St. Peter's in Rome. The Franks ignored the pope and continued to use the Filioque. Many historians think Charlemagne used the Filioque in an attempt to justify his claim to be emperor in opposition to the Roman Empire (located in New Rome, also known as Constantinople). The dispute between East and West grew and became the focus of the Synod of Constantinople which met A.D. 879-880. This synod (recognised as the Eighth Ecumenical Synod by Orthodox Christians) reaffirmed the Symbol of A.D. 381 and declared any and all additions to the creed invalid. This synod's teaching was affirmed by the patriarchs of Old Rome (John VIII), New Rome [Constantinople] (Photius), Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria and by Emperor Basil I.

Still, the Filioque continued to be used by the Franks and even spread to other Germanic tribes. Eventually, even Rome began to use the Filioque — at the coronation of Henry II in 1014 as emperor of the so-called Holy Roman Empire. Most historians agree the pope (Benedict VIII), due to his dependence on the Holy Roman Empire for military protection, acquiesed to its use. But from that point, Rome continued using the Filioque. In time, belief in the Filioque became dogma in Roman Catholicism"

Saint Cyril of Alexandria, The Twelve Anathemas, Error 9

We must not say that the one Lord Jesus Christ has been glorified by the Spirit, in such a way as to suggest that through the Spirit He made use of a power foreign to Himself, and from the Spirit received the ability to work against unclean spirits, and to perform divine signs among men; but must rather say that the Spirit, through whom He did indeed work His divine signs, is his own.

Saint Gregory of Palamas
On the one hand, the Holy Spirit is, together with the Father and the Son, without beginning, since He is eternal; yet, on the other, He is not without beginning, since He also — by way of procession, not by way of generation — has the Father as foundation, source, and cause. He also [like the Son] came forth from the Father before all ages, without change, impassibly, not by generation, but by procession; He is inseparable from the Father and the Son, since He proceeds from the Father, and reposes in the Son; He possesses union without losing His identity, and division without involving separation. He, also, is God from God; He is not different since He is God, yet He is different since He is the Comforter; as Spirit, He possesses hypostatic existence, proceeds from the Father, and is sent — that is, manifested — through the Son; He also is the cause of all created things, since it is in the Spirit that they are perfected. He is identical and equal with the Father and the Son, with the exception of unbegottenness and generation. He was sent — that is, made known — from the Son to His own disciples. By what other means — the Spirit which is inseparable from the Son — could He have been sent? By what other means could He — Who is everywhere — come to me? Wherefore, He is sent not only from the Son, but from the Father and through the Son, and is manifested through Himself.


Many blessings in Christ
[/quote]
"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.

Offline Αριστοκλής

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,026
Re: The Filioque
« Reply #94 on: October 16, 2006, 07:39:22 AM »
Furthermore, It seems implicit in some of the statements concerning the Holy Spirit coming from the Son as well.
................
Reply: The creed didn't exist prior to 325 A.D. and was changed at the next council.
etc...etc...etc..


Above are two of the weakest arguments I've ever read at OC.net

1) Implicit?
2) So what?
"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,140
  • Truth, Justice, and the American Way!
Re: The Filioque
« Reply #95 on: October 16, 2006, 11:33:09 AM »
Objection #1: The scriptures do not mention it.
Reply: It doesn't matter if they do or not because the Church accepts both scripture and tradition. Furthermore, It seems implicit in some ofthe statements concerning the Holy Spirit coming from the Son as well.
I answer that, Yet, these are almost exclusivly western fathers and often fathers that taught other heresies as well.  Further more, many more western and eastern saints have argued against it.  Even many of the popes have argued against it.
Objection #2: The Fathers do not mention it.
Reply: Some of them do.

Objection #3: You can't change the creed.
Reply: The creed didn't exist prior to 325 A.D. and was changed at the next council.
etc...etc...etc..
I answer that: this was done with the consent of the Church.  A few rogue bishops or a pope is not The Church.  Furthermore, the Creed cannot change.  It was added on to, but this was with the consent of the entire Church.  The filoque on the other hand was done by a pope trying to increase his power and done on faulty theology.

"From Spain, the Filioque spread to the Germanic tribe of the Franks (in present-day France). It was embraced by Charlemagne who went so far as to accuse the East of having deliberately omitted it from the ancient Symbol. Pope Leo III (795-816) intervened, and forbade any interpolations or alterations in the Second Ecumenical Synod's Symbol of Faith. He ordered the Symbol — without Filioque — to be engraved in Latin and Greek on two silver plates and mounted on a wall of St. Peter's in Rome. The Franks ignored the pope and continued to use the Filioque. Many historians think Charlemagne used the Filioque in an attempt to justify his claim to be emperor in opposition to the Roman Empire (located in New Rome, also known as Constantinople). The dispute between East and West grew and became the focus of the Synod of Constantinople which met A.D. 879-880. This synod (recognised as the Eighth Ecumenical Synod by Orthodox Christians) reaffirmed the Symbol of A.D. 381 and declared any and all additions to the creed invalid. This synod's teaching was affirmed by the patriarchs of Old Rome (John VIII), New Rome [Constantinople] (Photius), Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria and by Emperor Basil I.

Still, the Filioque continued to be used by the Franks and even spread to other Germanic tribes. Eventually, even Rome began to use the Filioque — at the coronation of Henry II in 1014 as emperor of the so-called Holy Roman Empire. Most historians agree the pope (Benedict VIII), due to his dependence on the Holy Roman Empire for military protection, acquiesed to its use. But from that point, Rome continued using the Filioque. In time, belief in the Filioque became dogma in Roman Catholicism"

Saint Cyril of Alexandria, The Twelve Anathemas, Error 9

We must not say that the one Lord Jesus Christ has been glorified by the Spirit, in such a way as to suggest that through the Spirit He made use of a power foreign to Himself, and from the Spirit received the ability to work against unclean spirits, and to perform divine signs among men; but must rather say that the Spirit, through whom He did indeed work His divine signs, is his own.

Saint Gregory of Palamas
On the one hand, the Holy Spirit is, together with the Father and the Son, without beginning, since He is eternal; yet, on the other, He is not without beginning, since He also — by way of procession, not by way of generation — has the Father as foundation, source, and cause. He also [like the Son] came forth from the Father before all ages, without change, impassibly, not by generation, but by procession; He is inseparable from the Father and the Son, since He proceeds from the Father, and reposes in the Son; He possesses union without losing His identity, and division without involving separation. He, also, is God from God; He is not different since He is God, yet He is different since He is the Comforter; as Spirit, He possesses hypostatic existence, proceeds from the Father, and is sent — that is, manifested — through the Son; He also is the cause of all created things, since it is in the Spirit that they are perfected. He is identical and equal with the Father and the Son, with the exception of unbegottenness and generation. He was sent — that is, made known — from the Son to His own disciples. By what other means — the Spirit which is inseparable from the Son — could He have been sent? By what other means could He — Who is everywhere — come to me? Wherefore, He is sent not only from the Son, but from the Father and through the Son, and is manifested through Himself.


Many blessings in Christ

Some Fathers and great theologians disagree with what is stated above. As for heresy in the west, the east spent like a quater of its existence in heresy with regard to the incarnation and trinity. Rome, on the other hand, has been a bed-rock of orthodoxy.
Many Blessings in Christ
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline dantxny

  • OC.net Mineshaft gap
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 769
Re: The Filioque
« Reply #96 on: October 16, 2006, 01:13:16 PM »
Then those fathers are incorrect and definitly in the minorty.
Yes, the East has been in heresy in the past; especially, during the Arian crisis and iconoclastic heresy.  However we have repented.  Rome on the other hand has been in heresy for over half its existence and has shown no motive to repent, instead relying on its pride and history of powermongering.  What's your point?
"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,140
  • Truth, Justice, and the American Way!
Re: The Filioque
« Reply #97 on: October 16, 2006, 08:40:23 PM »
Then those fathers are incorrect and definitly in the minorty.
Yes, the East has been in heresy in the past; especially, during the Arian crisis and iconoclastic heresy.  However we have repented.  Rome on the other hand has been in heresy for over half its existence and has shown no motive to repent, instead relying on its pride and history of powermongering.  What's your point?
Well, no Rome is not in heresy. But my point is this, you state that western Fathers have taught heresy. Well I say, sure, but so have eastern Fathers, and in fact I think the east has had more trouble with heresy than the west, when it comes to those who are supposedly in the Church. In any case, this whole, well some western fathers have taught heresy thing does not help to bolster you view.
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline dantxny

  • OC.net Mineshaft gap
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 769
Re: The Filioque
« Reply #98 on: October 16, 2006, 09:01:56 PM »
Sure Rome's in heresy.  I have many Church Father's to back me up, especially against such arguments that you have provided.  You dissagree.  So, once again, what's the point?  We can sit here all day calling each other heretics, that's a waste of one's time.  So, what's your point? 
« Last Edit: October 16, 2006, 09:38:32 PM by dantxny »
"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.

Offline drewmeister2

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 415
  • Christmas at St Markella's Cathedral, Astoria, NY
Re: The Filioque
« Reply #99 on: October 16, 2006, 09:57:47 PM »
Some Fathers and great theologians disagree with what is stated above. As for heresy in the west, the east spent like a quater of its existence in heresy with regard to the incarnation and trinity. Rome, on the other hand, has been a bed-rock of orthodoxy.
Many Blessings in Christ

Orthodox teach heresy according to Catholicism?  Since when?  At least not since Vatican II.  Now your Pope considers the Orthodox to be schismatic at worst, in reality not even that.  If you are going to be under the Pope you might as well believe the same thing he does, otherwise you should seperate from him, if you believe he is wrong.
Orthodoxia i Thanatos

IC    XC      ...and in ONE HOLY CATHOLIC
    +                   and APOSTOLIC CHURCH...
NI    KA

www.hotca.org | www.YouTube.com/GreekOrthodoxTV

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,140
  • Truth, Justice, and the American Way!
Re: The Filioque
« Reply #100 on: October 17, 2006, 12:21:55 AM »
Sure Rome's in heresy.  I have many Church Father's to back me up, especially against such arguments that you have provided.  You dissagree.  So, once again, what's the point?  We can sit here all day calling each other heretics, that's a waste of one's time.  So, what's your point? 
My point was that your claim that the west is in heresy does not add support to your argument because, objectively speaking, Rome is not in heresy. But you are correct, calling eachother heretics will not get us anywhere.
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,140
  • Truth, Justice, and the American Way!
Re: The Filioque
« Reply #101 on: October 17, 2006, 12:22:26 AM »
Orthodox teach heresy according to Catholicism?  Since when?  At least not since Vatican II.  Now your Pope considers the Orthodox to be schismatic at worst, in reality not even that.  If you are going to be under the Pope you might as well believe the same thing he does, otherwise you should seperate from him, if you believe he is wrong.
Catholics are not required to believe everything the Pope says.
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline dantxny

  • OC.net Mineshaft gap
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 769
Re: The Filioque
« Reply #102 on: October 17, 2006, 12:58:34 AM »
My point was that your claim that the west is in heresy does not add support to your argument because, objectively speaking, Rome is not in heresy. But you are correct, calling eachother heretics will not get us anywhere.

So, I guess we're two objectivests arguing subjectivly in an unobjective argument . . . objectivly ;)  unless you wish to analyze it with uncritical partiallity.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2006, 01:18:36 AM by dantxny »
"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,140
  • Truth, Justice, and the American Way!
Re: The Filioque
« Reply #103 on: October 17, 2006, 01:04:29 AM »
So, I guess we're two objectivest arguing subjectivly in an unobjective argument . . . objectivly ;)  unless you wish to analyze it with uncritical partiallity.
;D ;) ;D LOL
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,318
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: The Filioque
« Reply #104 on: October 17, 2006, 09:11:02 AM »
Hi all. Hope you don't mind my coming late to the discussion.

I'd like to start by saying that as a Catholic, I am simply appalled by the Catholic point of view has been presented by my fellow Catholics on this thread. If anyone wants to do justice to the Catholic position and Catholic arguments, I would strongly suggest that you read something like the Vatican's Clarification On the Filioque, rather than a bunch of hear-say from individual Catholics. (Of course, then, I'm an individual Catholic too :) )
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,318
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: The Filioque
« Reply #105 on: October 17, 2006, 09:16:01 AM »
Now concerning the filioque being used to "counter Islam and/or Arianism in Spain", the first point to keep in mind is that western Christians didn't believe the filioque because of Arianism; the belief in the filioque was there already, it simply became emphasized more because of Arianism.

Why was that? Well, my understanding is that those countering Arianism sought to emphasize any similarities they could between the Father and the Son. Now the relationship of the Spirit to the Father (ekporeusis) and the relationship of the Spirit to the Son (proienai) are/were both described in Latin by the verb procedere. So, in a certain sense, this is a similarity between the Father and the Son (notwithstanding the fact that procedere has a slightly different meaning in each case -- which I don't think they were too keenly aware of anyway) and hence this is one of the things they emphasized.

Was this line of reasoning short-sighted? In a way yes: after all, obviously there no divine person proceeding from the Holy Spirit, yet the Holy Spirit is equal to the Father and to the Son. But the bottom line is, when we are talking about the filioque in 6th century Spain, we are, at worse, talking about Christians believing the right thing for the wrong reason. (Which isn't all that uncommon. For example, I've actually heard Catholics say that Mary must have been without Original Sin, because if she had it she would have passed it on to Jesus. This reasoning is not only wrong but downright absurd -- it would immediately follow that Mary's mother must have been without Original Sin as well -- but I would say that the conclusion that Mary was without Original Sin is true nonetheless.)
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,318
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: The Filioque
« Reply #106 on: October 17, 2006, 09:19:37 AM »
ozgeorge, you asked -- leaving the question of why the filioque was believed in to begin with -- why was it added to the creed? First I’d like to quote a couple passages from The Filioque : A Church-Dividing Issue? (An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, Saint Paul’s College, Washington, DC, October 25, 2003)

---------------------------------
The earliest use of Filioque language in a credal context is in the profession of faith formulated for the Visigoth King Reccared at the local Council of Toledo in 589. This regional council anathematized those who did not accept the decrees of the first four Ecumenical Councils (canon 11), as well as those who did not profess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (canon 3). It appears that the Spanish bishops and King Reccared believed at that time that the Greek equivalent of Filioque was part of the original creed of Constantinople, and apparently understood that its purpose was to oppose Arianism by affirming the intimate relationship of the Father and Son. On Reccared’s orders, the Creed began to be recited during the Eucharist, in imitation of the Eastern practice. From Spain, the use of the Creed with the Filioque spread throughout Gaul.

... Charlemagne convened a council in Aachen in 809-810 to affirm the doctrine of the Spirit’s proceeding from the Father and the Son, which had been questioned by Greek theologians. Following this council, Charlemagne sought Pope Leo’s approval of the use of the creed with the Filioque (Mansi 14.23-76). A meeting between the Pope and a delegation from Charlemagne’s council took place in Rome in 810. While Leo III affirmed the orthodoxy of the term Filioque , and approved its use in catechesis and personal professions of faith, he explicitly disapproved its inclusion in the text of the Creed of 381, since the Fathers of that Council - who were, he observes, no less inspired by the Holy Spirit than the bishops who had gathered at Aachen - had chosen not to include it. Pope Leo stipulated that the use of the Creed in the celebration of the Eucharist was permissible, but not required, and urged that in the interest of preventing scandal it would be better if the Carolingian court refrained from including it in the liturgy. Around this time, according to the Liber Pontificalis , the Pope had two heavy silver shields made and displayed in St. Peter’s, containing the original text of the Creed of 381 in both Greek and Latin. Despite his directives and this symbolic action, however, the Carolingians continued to use the Creed with the Filioque during the Eucharist in their own dioceses.
---------------------------------

So from the Catholic point of view, the use of the filioque in the creed went through three phases:
(1) used illegally but innocently (i.e. out of ignorance)
(2) used illegally and in deliberate defiance of instructions from the pope (and other patriarchs)
(3) used legally, having received papal permission (although I would like to add that, even from a Catholic pov, the use of the filioque was still unfortunate , even once it became legal)

Some remarks:

- Of course, I speaking of a Catholic pov, not a general western pov. From a Protestant pov, insertion of the filioque into the universal creed was never illegal. Indeed, I suspect that the very concept of a "universal creed" would be impossible for most Protestants.

- I'm not sure how much we care about assigning dates to the three phases I mentioned; but for what it's worth I reckon that phase (1) began in 589, phase (2) began in 810 or slightly earlier, phase (3) might be said to begin in 1014 (that was the year that the "creed with the filioque" was first recited in Rome -- although I can think of arguments for dating it earlier, and other arguments for dating it later).

- Getting back to ozgeorge's question of "why was it added to the creed?" ... while I hope that what I have said sheds some light, it definitely leaves some unanswered questions: why did Pope Benedict VIII give in to the Carolingians, when his predecessors had been resisting them for hundreds of years? More importantly, perhaps, why did all of his successors follow in his footsteps, rather than trying to return to the policy of Leo III et al? I might have more to say about these questions in a later post, but I'm not going to try to tackle them right now.

God bless.
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,383
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: The Filioque
« Reply #107 on: October 17, 2006, 10:23:05 AM »
Thank you for taking the time to put these posts together.
My question was actually more about the reasoning for the Filioque. You say:
Well, my understanding is that those countering Arianism sought to emphasize any similarities they could between the Father and the Son.
But my question of over 14 months ago on this thread remains unanswered:
And can someone please explain to me why the Creed was inadequate to fight Arianism when it already said that Christ is:
"The Only Son of God, Eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, Begotten not made, of one Essence with the Father, through Whom all things were made...."
How was adding the filioque supposed to confirm that Christ is God?
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline francis-christopher

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 366
  • St. Francis pray for us!
Re: The Filioque
« Reply #108 on: October 17, 2006, 11:11:20 AM »
Quote
And can someone please explain to me why the Creed was inadequate to fight Arianism when it already said that Christ is:
"The Only Son of God, Eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, Begotten not made, of one Essence with the Father, through Whom all things were made...."

In nomine Iesu I offer you continued peace ozgeorge,

I've attempt to point out a few times that 'begotten' and 'unbegotten' as modes of 'origination' appear to create a position which Arians 'can and have' argued points to an inequality between the Father and the Son.

To every Muslim I have every dialogued on this issue 'Eternally begotten' is considered a logical contradiction. The earliest Church Fathers couched this in terms of begotteness 'before time' which again is considered a logical contradiction. This has made arguing the equality of the Father and the Son difficult to argue with Muslims and I would conclude Arians.

I am cautious to continue this discussion after being rebuked by my Catholic Brother PJ but I will contend that I have offered, to the best of my knowledge, my understanding of the filioque.

I am ever open to learn more.

Pax

Francisce-Christophorus

Sancte Francisce, athleta Christi, ora pro nobis. Amen.

Offline drewmeister2

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 415
  • Christmas at St Markella's Cathedral, Astoria, NY
Re: The Filioque
« Reply #109 on: October 17, 2006, 11:11:36 AM »
Catholics are not required to believe everything the Pope says.

Yes, but if you see the Roman "Catholic" church as officially saying that the Orthodox are in heresy according to his church, and the Pope is saying otherwise, then the Pope is essentially preaching heresy himself by denying the Orthodox are heretics, and thus he is wrong and you would need to seperate from him (Note to Orthodox members here: this is from a Catholic perspective, not an Orthodox perspective.  Of course I believe that Catholicism is the heresy and not Orthodoxy).  
Orthodoxia i Thanatos

IC    XC      ...and in ONE HOLY CATHOLIC
    +                   and APOSTOLIC CHURCH...
NI    KA

www.hotca.org | www.YouTube.com/GreekOrthodoxTV

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,383
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: The Filioque
« Reply #110 on: October 17, 2006, 11:22:13 AM »
To every Muslim I have every dialogued on this issue 'Eternally begotten' is considered a logical contradiction.
You've skipped the rest of the quote: "God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, Begotten not made".
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline francis-christopher

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 366
  • St. Francis pray for us!
Re: The Filioque
« Reply #111 on: October 17, 2006, 11:47:03 AM »
You've skipped the rest of the quote: "God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, Begotten not made".

In nomine Iesu I offer you continued peace ozgeorge,

Yes I understand that but I'm just telling you that all of this comes across as a logical contradiction. Begotten still speaks of 'origination' and origination speaks of a beginning whither we are are suggesting that the Son is 'not made' we appear to contradict ourselves and suggest that the only part of the Trinity which does not originate in some fashion 'inside or outside of time' is the Father alone. This falls right in the lap of a Muslim's or Arian's argument against the Son being equal to the Father. How can something Begotten be 'equal' to something Unbegotten? How can something unoriginate be 'equal' with something 'originate'?

I've been in so many of these discussions with Muslims and I ultimately have to acknowledge that one can and some do misunderstand the Credo even with the help of the filioque but I must conceed that the 'filioque' does help. Perhaps not in the sense that Orthodox hold criticism toward Catholics for belittling the Holy Spirit but it does help to affirm equality between the Father and the Son.

The Orthodox position as holding the Credo sans filioque is 'not' heresy unless they posit an inequality between the Father and the Son. I don't think the Orthodox do this but neither do the Catholics.

Frankly the filioque is not something that I would allow to bar unity if it was my decision.

Pax
Francisce-Christophorus

Sancte Francisce, athleta Christi, ora pro nobis. Amen.

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,318
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: The Filioque
« Reply #112 on: October 18, 2006, 03:15:20 PM »
I'd like to start by saying that as a Catholic, I am simply appalled by the Catholic point of view has been presented by my fellow Catholics on this thread.

Oops, sorry, that was supposed to be "by the way the Catholic point of view has been presented".
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,318
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: The Filioque
« Reply #113 on: October 18, 2006, 03:19:01 PM »
Quote from: drewmeister2 on October 16, 2006, 09:57:47 PM
Orthodox teach heresy according to Catholicism?  Since when?  At least not since Vatican II.  Now your Pope considers the Orthodox to be schismatic at worst, in reality not even that.  If you are going to be under the Pope you might as well believe the same thing he does, otherwise you should seperate from him, if you believe he is wrong.
---------------------------------

Catholics are not required to believe everything the Pope says.

Dear Papist,

So if understand this exchange correctly, basically the Pope and the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs are all agreeing that such-and-such belief is orthodox, and you are responding "Not so fast. I say that it's heretical."

If that's the case, then it seems to me that you've really missed your calling. You ought to be this century's Martin Luther.

God bless,
Peter.
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,318
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: The Filioque
« Reply #114 on: October 18, 2006, 03:31:58 PM »
Thank you for taking the time to put these posts together.

But my question of over 14 months ago on this thread remains unanswered:
And can someone please explain to me why the Creed was inadequate to fight Arianism when it already said that Christ is:
"The Only Son of God, Eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, Begotten not made, of one Essence with the Father, through Whom all things were made...."
How was adding the filioque supposed to confirm that Christ is God?

I actually wouldn't describe the Creed of 381 as being "inadequate".

And I'm pretty sure the pope wouldn't describe it that way, either. In fact, the 1995 Vatican clarification affirmed the “conciliar, ecumenical, normative and irrevocable value” of the original Greek version of the creed.

God bless,
Peter.

P.S. I'm a little pressed for time today, but I'll try to post more tomorrow or Friday and give you a more complete answer.
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline FrChris

  • The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
  • Site Supporter
  • Taxiarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,252
  • Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!
Re: The Filioque
« Reply #115 on: October 18, 2006, 03:43:01 PM »
I actually wouldn't describe the Creed of 381 as being "inadequate".

And I'm pretty sure the pope wouldn't describe it that way, either. In fact, the 1995 Vatican clarification affirmed the “conciliar, ecumenical, normative and irrevocable value” of the original Greek version of the creed.


PJ,

Just to head off a potential misconception---

Ozgeorge's statement was that the Creed was fully adequate to fight off Arianism, and so the filioque was never needed in the first place.

It sounded as if perhaps you were about to take this very point. Please accept my apologies if I misinterpreted your introduction.
"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus

Offline Νεκτάριος

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,437
Re: The Filioque
« Reply #116 on: October 19, 2006, 12:52:24 AM »
Quote
Ozgeorge's statement was that the Creed was fully adequate to fight off Arianism, and so the filioque was never needed in the first place.

The first chapter of St. John's Gospel was all that was needed.  Since Arianism lasted for some time in the West, despite the presence of the Creed - perhaps a different approach was needed. 
« Last Edit: October 19, 2006, 12:56:30 AM by Νεκτάριος »

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,318
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: The Filioque
« Reply #117 on: October 19, 2006, 08:59:12 AM »
PJ,

Just to head off a potential misconception---

Ozgeorge's statement was that the Creed was fully adequate to fight off Arianism, and so the filioque was never needed in the first place.

I don't have any problem with that statement.
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,318
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: The Filioque
« Reply #118 on: October 19, 2006, 09:11:51 AM »
I am cautious to continue this discussion after being rebuked by my Catholic Brother PJ but I will contend that I have offered, to the best of my knowledge, my understanding of the filioque.

I am ever open to learn more.

Pax

Always happy to help.  ;)

BTW, you might understand my feelings better if you contrast, for example, Papist’s question “If the Credo was so 'perfectly set forth' why was it repeatedly amended by the Ecumenical Councils?” with the Vatican’s statement (already alluded to) of the “conciliar, ecumenical, normative and irrevocable value” of the original version of the creed.

God bless.
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,318
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: The Filioque
« Reply #119 on: October 19, 2006, 03:13:41 PM »
Ozgeorge, Chris, and everyone,

I’m not saying that adding the filioque to the creed is necessary, but simply that it is permissible. What’s more, I don’t see Catholics’ ability to use “the creed with the filioque in it” as an unqualified right; rather, I think Catholics can do so as long as they have the pope’s permission. (That’s as regards Latin-rite Catholics. If we’re talking about, say, Maronite Catholics, they can do so because they have permission from the Maronite Patriarch and synod.)

For example, in the time of Leo III, the filioque was permitted for catechesis and personal professions of faith, but not permitted to be inserted in the creed for the liturgy – cf. my earlier post about the “three phases”. On the other hand, the current pope has (thus far, anyways) permitted “the creed with the filioque” to be recited in the public liturgy – as have all the popes for about a millennium.
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,318
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: The Filioque
« Reply #120 on: October 20, 2006, 09:53:43 AM »
In fact, the 1995 Vatican clarification affirmed the “conciliar, ecumenical, normative and irrevocable value” of the original Greek version of the creed.

This is the passage to which I was referring:

Quote
The Catholic Church acknowledges the conciliar, ecumenical, normative, and irrevocable value, as expression of the one common faith of the church and of all Christians, of the Symbol professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the Second Ecumenical Council. No profession of faith peculiar to a particular liturgical tradition can contradict this expression of the faith taught and professed by the undivided Church.

On the basis of Jn 15: 26, this Symbol confesses the Spirit "to ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon" ("who takes his origin from the Father"). The Father alone is the principle without principle (arche anarchos) of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source (peghe) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, therefore, takes his origin from the Father alone (ek monou tou Patros) in a principal, proper, and immediate manner. [1]

(The Clarification can be found at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8410/filioque.html . As I've said before, if you want to do justice to the Catholic position and arguments -- and I think it is reasonable to assume that people on this board do -- I would recommend reading that document.)

Thus, Catholics and Orthodox both agree that the ekporeusis of the Holy Spirit is from the Father alone. When Catholics say that the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Father and the Son, the verb we are using is not ekporeuomenon but proeisi (in Latin, procedentum).
« Last Edit: October 20, 2006, 09:59:48 AM by PJ »
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,383
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: The Filioque
« Reply #121 on: October 21, 2006, 07:18:48 AM »
I’m not saying that adding the filioque to the creed is necessary, but simply that it is permissible.
"Permissable" according to whom? What authority is there above the Third Oecumenical Council (which strictly forbad alterations to the Creed in it's 7th Canon) other than a sunsequent Oecumenical Council? "Permissible" presumes that the primacy of the authority of the Pope of Old Rome was a reality, rather than the primacy of honour.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Αριστοκλής

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,026
Re: The Filioque
« Reply #122 on: October 21, 2006, 08:30:45 AM »
Couldn't have said it better myself.

They don't have an answer.
"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,383
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: The Filioque
« Reply #123 on: October 21, 2006, 09:01:07 AM »
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Well, I could have said it better by spelling "subsequent" correctly. ;)
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.