The Filioque

[Sloga]

I'm a little confused about this topic. Can anyone give me a basic summary about the filioque and why/how it further seperated the church?

[drewmeister2]

I don't know all the details, but here is a basic summary.

Filioque is Latin for "and the Son" (you may have known that, but in case not, I added it ).ÂÂ  The ultimate problem was that it was added by one person, the Pope, not by a Council.ÂÂ  The Council of Nicea said not to add anything to the Creed.ÂÂ  Now, obviously that decision could be "overridden", as far as I know, by another Council, but a Council was never called to add it.ÂÂ  It was essentially one of the signs that the Pope was beginning to take on the Supreme Pontiff role, which denies many of the earlier councils where it was decided that the faith could only be "changed" by Councils, not individual bishops.ÂÂ  Thus, this heresy of the Catholic Church had started to take root, and the adding of the Filioque was one sign of it.ÂÂ  

This is my understanding of it; if I am wrong, someone correct me.

[Dismus]

I never got any concrete understanding on this either since I have read both the Orthodox explanations and RCC explanations and they vary widely and leave me unclear on the whole issue. I guess since it is not something that has been a major stumbling block for me I have sort of pushed it aside. But I did find this link for you and am glad you brought it up so I can learn from the posts here on it.

Here is the RCC explanation:http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19901107en.html

Have a good weekend everyone!

[Justin Kissel]

The Orthodox believe that, when speaking of God in His essence, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father but not the Son. The Orthodox do believe/concede that in the workings of God in the created universe, the Holy Spirit comes through the Son. But, again, the Orthodox feel it is important to protect the idea about the Holy Spirit not proceeding through the Son as an eternal relationship. In other words, the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father, and the Son was begotten of the Father, from all eternity (ie. there was never a time when the Holy Spirit was not proceeding from the Father, or when the Son was not begotten by the Father). However, according to EO theology there was a time (if you can use the term "time" to describe a relational state before time actually existed) when the Holy Spirit was not proceeding through the Son, but only proceeding from the Father.

The Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father and the son," or "from the Father and through the son," regardless of whether you are talking about God's essence or God's working within the universe. Or to put it simply, the Catholics think that the Holy Spirit's procession through the Son is eternal, while the Orthodox think that it is merely temporal. The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit by St. Photius goes over a number of reasons why the Orthodox have a problem with the filioque.

[Apotheoun]

I never got any concrete understanding on this either since I have read both the Orthodox explanations and RCC explanations and they vary widely and leave me unclear on the whole issue. I guess since it is not something that has been a major stumbling block for me I have sort of pushed it aside. But I did find this link for you and am glad you brought it up so I can learn from the posts here on it.

Here is the RCC explanation:http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19901107en.html

Have a good weekend everyone!

Dismus,

The following links are to posts I wrote on the theological problems surrounding the filioque.  In the posts I explain the distinction that must be made between the Holy Spirit's hypostatic procession from the Father alone, and His manifestation from the Father through the Son in the divine energy:


Problems with the Vatican's "Clarification on the Filioque":
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=1763606&postcount=248

The distinction between hypostatic procession and energetic manifestation:
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=1763628&postcount=249

St. Maximos the Confessor does not support the filioque as taught by the Council of Florence:
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=1763651&postcount=250

St. John Damascene explicitly rejects the filioque:
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=1763670&postcount=251

The Monarchy of the Father, and the Son's energetic "sending" or "manifestation" of the Spirit:
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=1763761&postcount=254


I hope that these posts help you to understand why the Orthodox reject the filioque.

God bless,
Todd

[Apotheoun]

The link below is to a brief section of a paper that I wrote on the theology of St. Gregory Palamas:

The Filioque Controversy:
http://www.geocities.com/apotheoun/paper17b

[scamandrius]

I've been having this same discussion with Lutherans on the Lutheran-Orthodox dialogue.  It's been very frustrating.

Some Lutherans will admit that the filioque was added "unilaterally" by the West in defiance of the canons set forth both at Nicaea and Constantinople and thus they will agree to confess the creed in its original form.  But they still defend the theology behind it!  typical of Lutherans, wanting both unity and diversity of the faith at the same time! Then the Lutherans have the guts to say that when they confess that teh spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, they mean that the Spirit proceeds from the Father with regards to his hypostasis (or origin) but proceeds from the Son with regards to time (i.e. sending) and that the problem is one of vocabulary because the Latin procedere  is used to two translate two Greek words, one dealing with origin and another dealing withtime. Again, Lutherans wanting it both ways.  Even though Orthodox theologians and the fathers admit that there is economy with regards to the sending of the spirit from the Son, the Spirit's origin is from the Father alone!

Teh West claims that the filioque was needed to reinforce the consubstantiality of the Trinity because it was combatting Arianism.  The East combatted it in 325 (with Arius present at the Council, even!) and did not need the filioque!  Well-intentioned and pious as the local bishops may have been, this intent to "safeguard" the Trinity resulted in heresy!  Attempts to "safeguard" God in essence and hypostases resulted in heresies such as Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monotheletism, Sabellianism, etc.

Another problem is that the West cannot (or will not) speak of the Trinity in terms of perichoresis (indwelling of the individual hypostases in one another).  See John 17.  You would think they would reference that to bolster their Trinitarian concept, but I cannot reference one work of the WEst (either Catholic or Protestant) that deals with the filioque in these terms.

Nevertheless, the Western doctrine of filioque is heretical.  Orthodox should not be afraid to say that as long as it is said with love and humility (very easy, I'm sure  .  It's our faith and the faith of the holy fathers.  It needs not other defense. And all of these talks of union are fruitless unless the filioque is renounced as such by those who desire unity with the Holy Orthodox Church.

In IC XC

Scamandrius

[Sloga]

I have some sort of understanding now from an Orthodox perspective, but what on earth does Rome say to back it up? makes no sense to me...

[scamandrius]

Rome will typically reply that the addition of the filioque was part of the continued revelation of God and the faith to His Church and since a pope adopted it, it's confession in the creed is considered necessary for salvation.  I don't think that Rome has ever said that the Orthodox are in heresy for NOT confessing the filioque but the Orthodox have insisted that to confess the filioqe is a heresy.  Rome will never admit that the real reason Rome adopted it was for political reasons.

The Carolingians had become the dominant military power in the West in the early ninth century, though the empire had fragmented under Charlemagne and about 100 years the EAst Franks (the Germans) reasserted themselves over much of northern Italy.  They used the filioque adopted by the synod of Toledo as leverage to distance the new Roman Empire of the West (the so-called Holy Roman EMpire) from that of the Romans (Byzantines) in the East.  If the Eastern Romans did not use the filioque then they must not be the true Romans as the Carolingians were trying to paint themselves.  Since the papcy was under the military domination of the Franks, it was dangerous to continue to confront them on this issue, so eventually the papacy caved and adopted the filioque.  But, I have never heard Roman Catholics admit that a major point of their theology was due to contemporary politics.  Instead, they insist on continued revelation, which is totally foreign and wrong to the Orthodox.

Scamandrius

[Dismus]

Dismus,

The following links are to posts I wrote on the theological problems surrounding the filioque.ÂÂ  In the posts I explain the distinction that must be made between the Holy Spirit's hypostatic procession from the Father alone, and His manifestation from the Father through the Son in the divine energy:


Problems with the Vatican's "Clarification on the Filioque":
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=1763606&postcount=248

The distinction between hypostatic procession and energetic manifestation:
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=1763628&postcount=249

St. Maximos the Confessor does not support the filioque as taught by the Council of Florence:
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=1763651&postcount=250

St. John Damascene explicitly rejects the filioque:
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=1763670&postcount=251

The Monarchy of the Father, and the Son's energetic "sending" or "manifestation" of the Spirit:
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=1763761&postcount=254


I hope that these posts help you to understand why the Orthodox reject the filioque.

God bless,
Todd

Wow. That was pretty hard to get through and I intend on re-reading it. Your information leads me to believe that once again Rome has set itself with having to come up with all kinds of "reasons" why they make all kinds of asserstions that people tend not to question because they make things so absolutely convoluted with each new "organic" change.
This is far worse than the IC dogma. Ouch.
How do they expect union? On what basis? What unioun can there ever be when they have created so many major stumbling blocks along the way?
Had unity been sought earlier perhaps this would be easier to do, but after all these years of persisting to massage the reality to something else...something that should have not been touched.....
I guess it is fair to call it heresy. What else?
Well, maybe I can hope that the intention was for clarity or a deeper understanding of some sort, but it looks like distortion to me on the surface.
How did this benefit Rome to do this? Grave sin is not something one goes into lightly...
Maybe organized religion is just wrong. I wonder if it all is somehow flawed to a degree or another..Each side carries blame...
Not too sure what it is on the OC side but, if it were correct on every matter, why would there be so many RCC theologians that have not swarmed to the OC?
Thanks for all the information in your posts, impressive. This is a hard pill to swallow.
It is not a "throw away" issue. 

[Apotheoun]

Wow. That was pretty hard to get through and I intend on re-reading it. Your information leads me to believe that once again Rome has set itself with having to come up with all kinds of "reasons" why they make all kinds of asserstions that people tend not to question because they make things so absolutely convoluted with each new "organic" change.
This is far worse than the IC dogma. Ouch.

Yes.ÂÂ  Sadly, Rome has confused two different realities: (1) the procession of the Holy Spirit as hypostasis (person) from the Father alone, and (2) the Spirit's manifestation as divine energy (i.e., as uncreated grace) from the Father through the Son.ÂÂ  In other words, the Holy Spirit proceeds as hypostasis from the Father alone, but He is manifested -- both temporally and eternally -- from the Father through the Son, not as hypostasis, but as divine energy; and this energetic manifestation expresses the consubstantial communion of the three divine hypostaseis within the Godhead.ÂÂ  As a consequence, the Spirit's energetic manifestation through the Son must not be confused with the hypostatic procession of the Spirit from the Father alone, because that would ultimately lead to Sabellian modalism.
 
Now, this distinction between hypostatic procession and energetic manifestation has been taught by the Holy Fathers (e.g., St. Athanasios, the Cappadocian Fathers, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Maximos the Confessor, St. John Damascene, et al.), including St. Gregory Palamas, who said that, "As energy the Holy Spirit is of Him [i.e., the Son] and from Him, being breathed, sent and manifested; as existence and hypostasis, however, He is 'of Him' and not 'from Him,' but from Him [i.e., the Father] who has begotten Him [i.e., the Son]." [St. Gregory Palamas, First Apodictic Treatise, I, 37, 12-15]

For more information on the difference between hypostatic procession and energetic manifestation, you can click the link below in order to read the Tomus of the Blachernae Council of A.D. 1285, which officially rejected the "union" council of Lyons II.


Exposition of the Tomus of Faith against Beccas:
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/tomos1285.html

[Amadeus]

The Filioque issue can be understood more clearly by digesting the official
"Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation" issued after their "recent" meeting at Saint Paul’s College, Washington, DC, on October 25, 2003.

It traces the "history" of the controversy. This should be the normative position of the sides in the divide:

From USCCB:

http://www.usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml

From SCOBA:

http://www.scoba.us/resources/filioque-p01.asp

Amado

[Αριστοκλής]

Oh, yeah...the 'we agree to disagree' statement. My metropolitan did an excellent job.

[chrisb]

Man is this a crazy topic... 

[Seraph]

Since the Synod of Toledo took place before the East-West schism, and because others of the pre-schism Western fathers seem to use the Filioque at least in their teaching, how does Orthodoxy view the Synod of Toledo and such Western fathers?

[Justin Kissel]

Seraph,

Though I don't think that anyone would claim that this ended the discussion, here is how St. Photius dealt with that issue:

You bring forth Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome as well as certain other men as witnesses against the dogma of the Church, because you say they hold the opinion that the Spirit proceeds from the Son... If they slipped and fell into error, therefore, by some negligence or oversight — for such is the human condition — when they were corrected, they neither contradicted nor were they obstinately disobedient. For they were not, even in the slightest degree, participants in those things in which you abound. Though they were admirable by reason of many other qualities that manifest virtue and piety, they professed your teaching either through ignorance or negligence. But if they in no way shared the benefit of your advantages [of being corrected], why do your introduce their human fault as a mandate for your blasphemous belief?

...But I do not admit that what you assert was so plainly taught by those blessed men. Even so, if any among them has fallen into something unseemly — for they were all men and human, and no one composed of dust and ephemeral nature can avoid some trace of defilement — I would then imitate the sons of Noah and cover my father's shame with silence and gratitude instead of a garment. I would not have followed Ham as you do. Indeed, you follow him with even more shamelessness and impudence than he himself, because you publish abroad the shame of those whom you call your Fathers. Ham is cursed, not because he uncovered his father, but because he failed to cover him. You, however, both uncover your Fathers and brag about your audacity. Ham exposes the secret to his brothers; you tell yours not to one or two brothers, but in your rash and reckless abandon, proclaim the shame of your Fathers to the whole world, as if it were your theatre. You behave lewdly towards the shame of their nakedness and seek other revellers with whom to make more conspicuous festival, rejoicing when you expose their nakedness to the light!

...perhaps they spoke out of necessity in attacking [pagan] Greek madness, or whilst refuting heresy, or through some condescension to the weakness of their listeners, or due to the necessity of any one of the many things presented by daily life. If, by chance, such a statement escaped their lips because of one or more of the above reasons, then why do you still dismiss their testimony, and take as a necessary dogma what they did not mean as a dogma? - Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, 68-72

So, basically most Orthodox accept them as Fathers, but consider them to have made an error if they affirmed that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son eternally.

On a side note, I just so happen to be selling my (hardback) copy of this book by St. Photius, which also includes a short piece by St. Justin Popovich, for anyone interested in getting ahold of it for a lot cheaper than the Amazon.com price (which is nearly $100 now, though there is also a different paperback translation available).

[scamandrius]

Since the Synod of Toledo took place before the East-West schism, and because others of the pre-schism Western fathers seem to use the Filioque at least in their teaching, how does Orthodoxy view the Synod of Toledo and such Western fathers?

The  Synod of Toledo in 589 which spawned the heresy of the filioque has not, to my knowledge, been anathematized nor the participants.  The bishops who took part in this--Ugnas of Barcelona, Ubiligisclus of Valencia, Murila of Palencia, Sunnila of Viseo, Gardingus of Tuy, Bechila of Lugo, Argiovitus of Oporto, and Froisclus of Tortosa--I do not believe are regarded as heresiarchs but I cannot find anything to say that they are among the fathers of the Church either.

Of course, we must always remember that Orthodoxy has always maintained and taught that all saints, no matter how godly or holy they seem, are all fallible.  This is why Augustine, no matter how wrong he was on theological matters such as grace and free will and despite how much he was distorted and twisted by the Medieval church, is still one of our great fathers among the saints!

Scamandrius

[Dismus]

Man is this a crazy topic...ÂÂ  

I agree and fail to see how this has blown into the mountian it is. It is a molehill.

[Αριστοκλής]

Hardly a molehill. It's a key issue the Orthodox have with the RCC and by extension - all western churches. The topic has been treated thoroughly here many times before which may explain why so few Orthodox are participating in this particular thread.

[Fr. George]

Past threads on the Filioque
==========================================================

Filioque a Dogma
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=2052.0

The Nicene Creed and the Filioque
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=2308.0

Agreed Statement on Filioque
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=2092.0

The Eastern Fathers' Trinitarian Grounds for Repudiating the Filioque
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=3293.0

St. John 15 : 26 & The Filioque
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=818.0

Filioque Clause
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=1807.0

The fathers of the church on the filioque clause
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=7841.0

History of the Filioque Controversy
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=4214.0

Filioque Question
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=7517.0

[Dismus]

[quote author=Αριστοκλής link=topic=9580.msg131168#msg131168 date=1155316097]
Hardly a molehill. It's a key issue the Orthodox have with the RCC and by extension - all western churches. The topic has been treated thoroughly here many times before which may explain why so few Orthodox are participating in this particular thread.
[/quote]

I should not have been so flip. I know it is signifigant , but it just gets so hard for me to see why this seems to be such an unresolved issue with both RCC and OC. It is sad. It seems so clear cut. I guess I am sticking my head in the sand when I say it is a molehill since I wish it would just get resolved already.
sorry. It is a molehill to me since I think the Orthodox are right and the RCC needs to get over their arrogance and admit it already.

[Steve Dennehy]

I'm a little confused about this topic. Can anyone give me a basic summary about the filioque and why/how it further seperated the church?

There are 2 issues involved in the Filioque controversy.

The teaching that God the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son as their mutual love was taught by some Fathers as early as c.400 (including John Chrysostom and Augustine of Hippo). TheÂÂ  regional Council of Toldeo in Spain in 575, dealing with the Arian Visigoths in Spain, defined this teaching and included it in the creed for Spain.ÂÂ  Gradually other parts of the Roman Church included it.ÂÂ  Rome itself included the phrase "and the Son" in the Nicene Creed in 1013 though this was never offically done by the Pope of Rome.ÂÂ  The problem obviously is that you cannot have part of the Church unilaterally adding to the Creed. This has to be done byÂÂ  the whole Church in an Ecumenical Council.

The doctrine itself is a different issue.
 
The Roman Catholic view:
The Father is eternally giving birth to the Son as His Self-Expression (Word), His Self-ReflectionÂÂ  (Image).ÂÂ  The Father and the Son eternally, perfectly love each other; this Love eternally gives birth to Holy Spirit.

The Orthodox view:
The Father is eternally giving birth to the Son as His Self-Expression (Word), His Self-Reflection (Image).ÂÂ  The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from Father.

I think this needs deep prayer and reflection by all of us.

Glory be to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, One in essence and undivided.

Steve

[francis-christopher]

There are 2 issues involved in the Filioque controversy.

The teaching that God the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son as their mutual love was taught by some Fathers as early as c.400 (including John Chrysostom and Augustine of Hippo). The  regional Council of Toldeo in Spain in 575, dealing with the Arian Visigoths in Spain, defined this teaching and included it in the creed for Spain.  Gradually other parts of the Roman Church included it.  Rome itself included the phrase "and the Son" in the Nicene Creed in 1013 though this was never offically done by the Pope of Rome.  The problem obviously is that you cannot have part of the Church unilaterally adding to the Creed. This has to be done by  the whole Church in an Ecumenical Council.

The doctrine itself is a different issue.
 
The Roman Catholic view:
The Father is eternally giving birth to the Son as His Self-Expression (Word), His Self-Reflection  (Image).  The Father and the Son eternally, perfectly love each other; this Love eternally gives birth to Holy Spirit.

The Orthodox view:
The Father is eternally giving birth to the Son as His Self-Expression (Word), His Self-Reflection (Image).  The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from Father.

I think this needs deep prayer and reflection by all of us.

Glory be to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, One in essence and undivided.

Steve

In nomine Ieus I offer you peace Steve,

With all due respect to both parties I have never dwelt on the mystery of the Trinity and concluded exactly what eternally proceeds from the Father ultimately ment as opposed to eternally proceeds from the Father through the Son as taught by my own Tradition. Both appear to express clarity which I have personally been unable to confirm through direct experience. Personally I understand the rationale for the addition of 'filioque' but I also recognize the real danger in attempting to express depth to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity which we are frankly not privy.

[JoeS]

The Father and the Son eternally, perfectly love each other; this Love eternally gives birth to Holy Spirit.

I think you will get a strongly differing of opinion of the  "Love eternally gives birth to the Holy Spirity" from many corners of Roman Catholicism.

[Papist]

I think you will get a strongly differing of opinion of the  "Love eternally gives birth to the Holy Spirity" from many corners of Roman Catholicism.

We would not say "gives birth to"  because the Holy Spirit is not born. We would rather say that the Holy Spirit is the Love between the Father and the Son and that the Holy Spirit is eternally spirated in this manner. I would also like to point out that the since God the Son is begotten from the Father, when the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, it is really an indirect procession from the Father. Thus the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father directly and from the Father indirectly by proceeding from the Son ("through the Son") who is begotten of the Father. Both modes of procession are ultimately from the Father as if by a single spiration.

[Panagiotis]

The Nicene Creed
The Council declared the text of the "Creed" decreed at the First and Second Ecumenical Councils to be complete and forbade any change (addition or deletion).

found at goarch.org
I believe this rests and therefore, since it was forbidden to do so, we can pretty much assume who is in error, according to the Apostle's successors and Jesus Christ's Church. If we are to support any claims in defense of this act, we defy Christ and His Church, the Apostles and their successors.

Christ is in our midst,
Panagiotis

[Papist]

found at goarch.org
I believe this rests and therefore, since it was forbidden to do so, we can pretty much assume who is in error, according to the Apostle's successors and Jesus Christ's Church. If we are to support any claims in defense of this act, we defy Christ and His Church, the Apostles and their successors.

Christ is in our midst,
Panagiotis

Not so quick my friend, if the first ecumenical council declared that creed was completed and not to be added to, then how was there an addition made at the second ecumenical council to declare the divinity of the Holy Spirit, Hmmmmm? 
Many blessings in Christ.

[JoeS]

Not so quick my friend, if the first ecumenical council declared that creed was completed and not to be added to, then how was there an addition made at the second ecumenical council to declare the divinity of the Holy Spirit, Hmmmmm? 
Many blessings in Christ.

The 1st Ecumenical Synod: established the first seven articles of the Creed.
 
The 2nd Ecumenical Synod: The Creed was completed and sealed by the famous Cappadocians (Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus).

Please note that the Creed was "Sealed" at this Synod and cannot be added to or divided unless it is appproved by another Synod of the Whole church.

[Panagiotis]

Then where was the council for the Filioque change, which represented all the Church in union, together discussing the change?
I am not talking about a council of Five or more/less bihops in one little region, I am talking about the whole, Catholic and Orthodox Church, in council?

Christ is in our midst,
Panagiotis

[Papist]

Then where was the council for the Filioque change, which represented all the Church in union, together discussing the change?
I am not talking about a council of Five or more/less bihops in one little region, I am talking about the whole, Catholic and Orthodox Church, in council?

Christ is in our midst,
Panagiotis

Well, since the Catholic Church and not the Eastern Orthodox Church is the true Church , I'd say Florence.

[JoeS]

Well, since the Catholic Church and not the Eastern Orthodox Church is the true Church , I'd say Florence.

Well, you'll definitely get a bodacious NO from Orthodoxy on your point here.   

Florence was flawed from the start and just got worse as it progressed.

St.MarkEofE Rules.

[Panagiotis]

Well, since the Catholic Church and not the Eastern Orthodox Church is the true Church , I'd say Florence.

Seriously. Who has the right, after it was commisioned that no one add or subtract from the Nicene Creed, to change it?

I have heard the excuses that since it was adopted by the Pope due to Papal Primacy that he is the voice of God, therefore it was his right to change it without council, from the seat of Peter.

Blessings,
Panagiotis

[Papist]

Seriously. Who has the right, after it was commisioned that no one add or subtract from the Nicene Creed, to change it?

I have heard the excuses that since it was adopted by the Pope due to Papal Primacy that he is the voice of God, therefore it was his right to change it without council, from the seat of Peter.

Blessings,
Panagiotis

Seriously dude, the Church does.

[Papist]

Well, you'll definitely get a bodacious NO from Orthodoxy on your point here.   

Florence was flawed from the start and just got worse as it progressed.

St.MarkEofE Rules.

Being right means being flawed in your lexicon? You are funny. (Btw, I am just playing, this conversation is getting bogged down).

[Αριστοκλής]

Seriously dude, the Church does.

I agree; the Church does and the Church did not make any changes.

[prodromos]

Well, since the Catholic Church and not the Eastern Orthodox Church is the true Church , I'd say Florence.

This is kind of the equivalent of a guest urinating on the host's carpet is it not

[francis-christopher]

In nomine Ieus I offer you all peace,

With all due respect I don't see this as big an issue as you all appear to be making it. Our Blessed St. Maximus the Confessor didn't appear to look at it this way and I'm inclined to take his stand on it.

Pax

[ozgeorge]

Our Blessed St. Maximus the Confessor didn't appear to look at it this way and I'm inclined to take his stand on it.

What? Urinating on people's carpets?
And why on earth would anyone "stand on it"?

[francis-christopher]

What? Urinating on people's carpets?
And why on earth would anyone "stand on it"?

In nomine Ieus I offer you continued peace ozgeorge,

Please note in my post a 'general greeting'. I am not replying to prodromos' analogy.

Pax

[Papist]

[quote author=Αριστοκλής link=topic=9580.msg133723#msg133723 date=1156853768]
I agree; the Church does and the Church did not make any changes.
[/quote]
Yeah it did. At florence.

[Papist]

This is kind of the equivalent of a guest urinating on the host's carpet is it not

I don't think so. I would expect that because I am Catholic, you would know that it is my view point that Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and that I could articulate that view point in the Orhtodox-Catholic section of the OC.net forums.

[francis-christopher]

I don't think so. I would expect that because I am Catholic, you would know that it is my view point that Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and that I could articulate that view point in the Orhtodox-Catholic section of the OC.net forums.

But we, as Catholics, should be respectful in 'another's house'.

Triumphalism is ugly no matter who does it.

Pax

[Papist]

But we, as Catholics, should be respectful in 'another's house'.

Triumphalism is ugly no matter who does it.

Pax

It is not triumphalism. I was just stating that I believe that Church did add the filioque to the creed because the Catholic Church is the Church. It has nothing to do with triumphalism. In fact, my Jab at the Eastern Orthodox Church was done in jest. I was trying to be light hearted avout it. notic the smilie face after my comment.

[ozgeorge]

Yeah it did. At florence.

Yes it did, thanks to this Atlas of Orthodoxy who carried the entire Church on his shoulders:

[dantxny]

Troparion of St Mark of Ephesus Tone 3
Holy Mark, in thee the Church has found a zealot/ by thy confession of the sacred Faith;/ for thou didst champion the Fathers' doctrine/ and cast down the pride of boastful darkness./ Pray to Christ our God for those who honour thee,/ that we may be granted the forgiveness of sins.

Kontakion of St Mark of Ephesus Tone 3
As one clad in invincible armour,/ thou didst cast down the pride of the Western rebellion;/ thou didst become an instrument of the Comforter/ and shine forth as Orthodoxy's defender./ Therefore we cry to thee: Rejoice, O Mark, boast of the Orthodox.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: The Filioque