Yes, the Filioque is important.

[GregConstantine]

As in Pope Leo I ?
Wasnt he pope sometime in the fourth or fifth Century?

Well I havent investigated this particular dissagreement in dept, Filioque that is.
As I said it feels mostly political and used as a tool to once and for all suffocating the longlived Arian heresy.

I mean to have read polemics attached to the very same Plaques from Catholic side, but I havent enough knowledge to really go toe to toe over Filioque in here.

If the timeera is of his pontificate was that early on (approx 13 centuries before the Infall dogma and 5-600 years prior to the filioque dogma) his intentions may not have been anything but his own perhaps?
I dont know...

Did he release any Encyklicas or Bulls on the subject as far as you know?

What difference does any of that make? And no, it was not just a political thing, it is a dogmatic issue. Please, try very hard to accept the possibility that there are real dogmatic differences between the Orthodox and RC's and it's not just cultural/political.


Rome agreed not to change the Creed, and she did, and she was wrong to do so, cultural, political, dogmatic or not, it was wrong, period. It's that simple.

 

[GregConstantine]

As in Pope Leo I ?
Wasnt he pope sometime in the fourth or fifth Century?

Well I havent investigated this particular dissagreement in dept, Filioque that is.
As I said it feels mostly political and used as a tool to once and for all suffocating the longlived Arian heresy.

I mean to have read polemics attached to the very same Plaques from Catholic side, but I havent enough knowledge to really go toe to toe over Filioque in here.

If the timeera is of his pontificate was that early on (approx 13 centuries before the Infall dogma and 5-600 years prior to the filioque dogma) his intentions may not have been anything but his own perhaps?
I dont know...

Did he release any Encyklicas or Bulls on the subject as far as you know?

Drop The Filioque .Com - Orthodox Reformed Bridge


"For Roman Catholics the Nicene Creed is under the Pope, not over the Pope. When the Pope inserted the Filioque into the Nicene Creed a major realignment of ecclesial authority took place. The Pope without the assent of the other historic patriarchates: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and without convening an ecumenical council of bishops, unilaterally altered the Nicene Creed. This was done even though the Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus 431, Canon VII) forbade the creation of a new creed. In essence, the Bishop of Rome was claiming a magisterium (teaching authority) equal to or superior to the Ecumenical Councils. In exerting authority over the first three Ecumenical Councils the Pope was claiming authority over all Seven Ecumenical Councils. Simply put, the Bishop of Rome, once first among equals, now claimed supremacy over all Christians, a startling departure from Tradition."

 

[ArmyMatt]

Well, the Trinity is complex so St. Augustine's formulation of the Holy Ghost as a bond of love in the Trinity makes more sense at least to me than you try to dum it down to.

but if the Spirit is the bond between the Father and Son, what is the love between the Son and Spirit? or the Father and the Spirit?

 

[ArmyMatt]

The main point Stabat Mater, is that, the Church (Rome included) agreed not to change the Creed unilaterally. Rome was a staunch supporter of this agreement. Pope Leo went so far as to put two plaques on the walls of St Peters, one in Greek, and one in Latin, of the Creed without the Filioque. Pope Leo was adamant that Rome follows the decrees of the ecumenical councils, and had harsh words for anyone who wanted to change the Creed.

in addition, Rome for almost 200 years agreed to the Photian Council in Constantinople, which anathematized the filioque.

 

[dzheremi]

Well, the Trinity is complex so St. Augustine's formulation of the Holy Ghost as a bond of love in the Trinity makes more sense at least to me than you try to dum it down to.

I'm sorry that this is your impression of my post, and that it should move you to write such a defense. I did not mean to be attacking anything which Roman Catholics hold dear, only to add my voice to that of the poster I was responding to, to show that it is not only ex-Anglicans who have found problems with this, but also ex-Catholics like me. And these problems were not found (at least in my case) out of any desire to "dumb down" anything (at the time I was RC myself, and simply trying to understand things), but to consider what is affirmed in one part of the Creed in light of what is affirmed in another part.

 

[Rohzek]

The fundamental problem with the current Catholic belief in the Filioque is that it doesn't even accord with Augustine's position regarding it. Augustine clearly asserted the monarchy of the Father and did not view the Son and the Father as some sort of single source. He fundamentally said the following:

"And yet it is not to no purpose that in this Trinity the Son and none other is called the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit and none other the Gift of God, and God the Father alone is He from whom the Word is born, and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. And therefore I have added the word principally, because we find that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also." - CHURCH FATHERS: On the Trinity, Book XV (St. Augustine)

Augustine clearly here demarcates the procession of the Father from the procession of the Son. Does he mean then that the procession from the Son is eternal or temporal? We don't know. Either way would be acceptable Orthodox speculation, so long as the principle origin is the Father alone.

It's about time Orthodox stop ceding Latin Fathers and saints to the sole domain of Catholic apologetics. During the first millennium, they were not Catholic, but Orthodox. Don't let Catholics claim Augustine or Bede or whoever as Catholic. They were not. They were Orthodox. We should always start with that assumption unless overwhelming evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

but if the Spirit is the bond between the Father and Son, what is the love between the Son and Spirit? or the Father and the Spirit?

I don't know, I've just always figured that the Spirit is kind of the combined love of the entire trinity of some sort.
I'm fully aware I'm talking with guys knowing a lot more about the Filioque than I do so I'm very humble in this discussion we're having.

I'm sorry that this is your impression of my post, and that it should move you to write such a defense. I did not mean to be attacking anything which Roman Catholics hold dear, only to add my voice to that of the poster I was responding to, to show that it is not only ex-Anglicans who have found problems with this, but also ex-Catholics like me. And these problems were not found (at least in my case) out of any desire to "dumb down" anything (at the time I was RC myself, and simply trying to understand things), but to consider what is affirmed in one part of the Creed in light of what is affirmed in another part.

Don't worry, I wrote worn down with fatigue so I had a temper already as I posted.
Forgive me brother, I know you from past correspondence so I know you have a respectful and meek heart.

The fundamental problem with the current Catholic belief in the Filioque is that it doesn't even accord with Augustine's position regarding it. Augustine clearly asserted the monarchy of the Father and did not view the Son and the Father as some sort of single source. He fundamentally said the following:

"And yet it is not to no purpose that in this Trinity the Son and none other is called the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit and none other the Gift of God, and God the Father alone is He from whom the Word is born, and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. And therefore I have added the word principally, because we find that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also." - CHURCH FATHERS: On the Trinity, Book XV (St. Augustine)

Augustine clearly here demarcates the procession of the Father from the procession of the Son. Does he mean then that the procession from the Son is eternal or temporal? We don't know. Either way would be acceptable Orthodox speculation, so long as the principle origin is the Father alone.

It's about time Orthodox stop ceding Latin Fathers and saints to the sole domain of Catholic apologetics. During the first millennium, they were not Catholic, but Orthodox. Don't let Catholics claim Augustine or Bede or whoever as Catholic. They were not. They were Orthodox. We should always start with that assumption unless overwhelming evidence suggests otherwise.

I think the whole paradigm is different between that east and the west.
You focus on the persons and their individual characteristics whereby we've been more occupied with the unity and its harmony.

I don't consider either to be solemnly wrong. I do agree that it should've remained unaltered if not for anything, but hindering schism.

The whole concept of having discernment regarding the Spirit that leads to schism among brethren is borderline blasphemous against the Holy Spirit.

In Catholic theology we use to teach that the whole trinity was partaking in the creation.
The father created the world by his Word in his wisdom.
Father, Son and HS.

This does imo shed some light on the "one body" kind of perspective on the Trinity.
Does the orthodox share the same interpretation of the creation ?

 

[dzheremi]

The fundamental problem with the current Catholic belief in the Filioque is that it doesn't even accord with Augustine's position regarding it. Augustine clearly asserted the monarchy of the Father and did not view the Son and the Father as some sort of single source. He fundamentally said the following:

"And yet it is not to no purpose that in this Trinity the Son and none other is called the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit and none other the Gift of God, and God the Father alone is He from whom the Word is born, and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. And therefore I have added the word principally, because we find that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also." - CHURCH FATHERS: On the Trinity, Book XV (St. Augustine)

Augustine clearly here demarcates the procession of the Father from the procession of the Son. Does he mean then that the procession from the Son is eternal or temporal? We don't know. Either way would be acceptable Orthodox speculation, so long as the principle origin is the Father alone.

Couldn't a reasonable response to this be that you are correct, but as the Latins did not leave it at the level of speculation only, but dogmatized it by inserting it into the Creed (illegally), it cannot be treated as though it is acceptable? After all, the Latins and the Greek remained in communion for quite some time, albeit uneasily at certain points, after the creation of the filioque at Toledo in 589, but as it gained a wider acceptance in the Latin world, it became more and more a problem, to the point that Pope Leo III (d. 816) famously placed gold and silver plaques on public display in Rome featuring the Creed without the filioque as a rebuke to the Council of Aachen's (809) acceptance of it, which led to renewed calls that it be adopted at Rome.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

The fundamental problem with the current Catholic belief in the Filioque is that it doesn't even accord with Augustine's position regarding it. Augustine clearly asserted the monarchy of the Father and did not view the Son and the Father as some sort of single source. He fundamentally said the following:

"And yet it is not to no purpose that in this Trinity the Son and none other is called the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit and none other the Gift of God, and God the Father alone is He from whom the Word is born, and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. And therefore I have added the word principally, because we find that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also." - CHURCH FATHERS: On the Trinity, Book XV (St. Augustine)

Augustine clearly here demarcates the procession of the Father from the procession of the Son. Does he mean then that the procession from the Son is eternal or temporal? We don't know. Either way would be acceptable Orthodox speculation, so long as the principle origin is the Father alone.

It's about time Orthodox stop ceding Latin Fathers and saints to the sole domain of Catholic apologetics. During the first millennium, they were not Catholic, but Orthodox. Don't let Catholics claim Augustine or Bede or whoever as Catholic. They were not. They were Orthodox. We should always start with that assumption unless overwhelming evidence suggests otherwise.

St Augustine is a doctor of the Catholic Church.
just think about the teaching concerning original sin for example?

 

[dzheremi]

Don't worry, I wrote worn down with fatigue so I had a temper already as I posted.
Forgive me brother, I know you from past correspondence so I know you have a respectful and meek heart.

Thank you for understanding. I likewise wish to apologize to you or anyone else who may have read my post for my use of the term 'mushy-headed', which probably casts reasonable doubt on my claim that I did not intend to attack RCism. I am sorry for having used that term, which is probably pretty offensive and at any rate not all that helpful. What I meant was not that St. Augustine is stupid or anything like that (God forbid; He is a saint in my communion as well), but that this kind of theological speculation, when taken too far as I believe he did in this particular case, leads to a lack of firm teaching concerning the Holy Trinity, which I know is present elsewhere in Augustine's corpus. Here I am reminded of our common father HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic's words to Serapion (letter I) concerning the Holy Trinity:

You who are without sense and in all things reckless, why do you not the rather cease your impertinent inquiries about the holy Trinity, and only believe that it exists? You have the Apostle as your teacher for this, when he says: "It is necessary first to believe on God that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him." (Cf. Heb 11) He did not say, "how he is," but only, "that he is".

+++

I suppose those are some pretty harsh words, too, but they're a good reminder not just for Serapion, or specifically Latin or non-Latin Christians, but for everyone.

 

[Rohzek]

Couldn't a reasonable response to this be that you are correct, but as the Latins did not leave it at the level of speculation only, but dogmatized it by inserting it into the Creed (illegally), it cannot be treated as though it is acceptable? After all, the Latins and the Greek remained in communion for quite some time, albeit uneasily at certain points, after the creation of the filioque at Toledo in 589, but as it gained a wider acceptance in the Latin world, it became more and more a problem, to the point that Pope Leo III (d. 816) famously placed gold and silver plaques on public display in Rome featuring the Creed without the filioque as a rebuke to the Council of Aachen's (809) acceptance of it, which led to renewed calls that it be adopted at Rome.

It's true that they inserted it into the Creed unilaterally. But it should also be emphasized that the Latin view of the Filioque during the 9th century was likely very different from the Latin view proclaimed in the 13th century at the Second Council of Lyons. The Latins first brought up the Filioque as an objection to the East in the 790s, when the Frankish Church wrote a long rebuttal of II Nicaea. It should be kept in mind that the Frankish Church for all intents and purposes was independent of the Roman Church, although the former respected the latter. During II Nicaea, Tarasius proclaimed that the "Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son." The Franks objected to this on the grounds that although the statement was Orthodox, it wasn't specific enough. They did not like it because they thought the statement could be construed that the Holy Spirit was a creation and thus not divine, in light of John 1:3 which has "Omnia per ipsum facta sunt" in Latin. Tarasius' proclamation in Latin appears as "Spiritus sanctus ex Patre per Filium procedentem." So the concerns were not that the Son and Father were somehow a single source, but rather a unique concern that was probably peculiar to the workings of the Latin language, just as the Greek equivalent for "procedere" in the Nicene concerns itself with a direct and principle origin, whereas in the Latin, "procedere" has a much wider and more fluid meaning.

All that being said, we can jump on the Latin churches for adding the filioque during X-century, but I don't find that to be particularly helpful. It would be more of a canonical issue during the first millennium than a theological one, I believe. But again, this is only my own assessment. Besides, the Latin churches were using multiple creeds during this time period. Canonically, this was not supposed to happen, but it happened widely. I don't think this alone indicates in any way that the Latin West's theological framework was somehow inferior to the Greek or Syriac one.

 

[Rohzek]

St Augustine is a doctor of the Catholic Church.
just think about the teaching concerning original sin for example?

I don't want to get too off-topic here, so I will try to keep this short. Augustine's doctrine on original sin is clearly erroneous. He professed the absolute depravity of humanity after the Fall to such an extent that even human free will was completely and utterly destroyed. John Cassian's opinions on these matters are more orthodox than Augustine's error here. Even Pelagius' understanding of grace, free will, and salvation (which Augustine purposefully and libelously misrepresented) is preferable to Augustine's framework.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

I don't want to get too off-topic here, so I will try to keep this short. Augustine's doctrine on original sin is clearly erroneous. He professed the absolute depravity of humanity after the Fall to such an extent that even human free will was completely and utterly destroyed. John Cassian's opinions on these matters are more orthodox than Augustine's error here. Even Pelagius' understanding of grace, free will, and salvation (which Augustine purposefully and libelously misrepresented) is preferable to Augustine's framework.

I agree, let's keep this thread on topic.
I like to think however that Augustine is giggling in paradise as we fight to claim ownership of him and his theology

 

[~Anastasia~]

Just wanted to say, welcome to CF, and to TAW!

We are very glad to have you with us. Please let us know if we can help you in navigating the forums, or if you have any questions.

God be with you!

The fundamental problem with the current Catholic belief in the Filioque is that it doesn't even accord with Augustine's position regarding it. Augustine clearly asserted the monarchy of the Father and did not view the Son and the Father as some sort of single source. He fundamentally said the following:

"And yet it is not to no purpose that in this Trinity the Son and none other is called the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit and none other the Gift of God, and God the Father alone is He from whom the Word is born, and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. And therefore I have added the word principally, because we find that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also." - CHURCH FATHERS: On the Trinity, Book XV (St. Augustine)

Augustine clearly here demarcates the procession of the Father from the procession of the Son. Does he mean then that the procession from the Son is eternal or temporal? We don't know. Either way would be acceptable Orthodox speculation, so long as the principle origin is the Father alone.

It's about time Orthodox stop ceding Latin Fathers and saints to the sole domain of Catholic apologetics. During the first millennium, they were not Catholic, but Orthodox. Don't let Catholics claim Augustine or Bede or whoever as Catholic. They were not. They were Orthodox. We should always start with that assumption unless overwhelming evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[dzheremi]

It's true that they inserted it into the Creed unilaterally. But it should also be emphasized that the Latin view of the Filioque during the 9th century was likely very different from the Latin view proclaimed in the 13th century at the Second Council of Lyons. The Latins first brought up the Filioque as an objection to the East in the 790s, when the Frankish Church wrote a long rebuttal of II Nicaea. It should be kept in mind that the Frankish Church for all intents and purposes was independent of the Roman Church, although the former respected the latter. During II Nicaea, Tarasius proclaimed that the "Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son." The Franks objected to this on the grounds that although the statement was Orthodox, it wasn't specific enough. They did not like it because they thought the statement could be construed that the Holy Spirit was a creation and thus not divine, in light of John 1:3 which has "Omnia per ipsum facta sunt" in Latin. Tarasius' proclamation in Latin appears as "Spiritus sanctus ex Patre per Filium procedentem." So the concerns were not that the Son and Father were somehow a single source, but rather a unique concern that was probably peculiar to the workings of the Latin language, just as the Greek equivalent for "procedere" in the Nicene concerns itself with a direct and principle origin, whereas in the Latin, "procedere" has a much wider and more fluid meaning.

All that being said, we can jump on the Latin churches for adding the filioque during X-century, but I don't find that to be particularly helpful. It would be more of a canonical issue during the first millennium than a theological one, I believe. But again, this is only my own assessment. Besides, the Latin churches were using multiple creeds during this time period. Canonically, this was not supposed to happen, but it happened widely. I don't think this alone indicates in any way that the Latin West's theological framework was somehow inferior to the Greek or Syriac one.

Okay. I'm not sure what to say to that beyond stating the obvious that we aren't in the first millennium anymore, which is really just a restatement of my previous reply in a slightly different context. If Rome still had the understanding that you say it had in the 9th century, then conceivably you guys could figure out a way deal with the canonical problem that the insertion of the filioque presented without severing communion with one another. As you might imagine, this is still far too late for me to be personally invested in it, but I do see what you mean, in that the actions of Pope Leo III and others show a different understanding of the matter than the RCC would subsequently officially embrace. Unfortunately for all involved, as its own separate church now with much separating it from what it did and professed even much more recently than the 9th century, I am not sure that appeals to a common faith can be really all that convincing to those who are not already doubting the historical development of the RCC, which presumably do not include any who may be in the position to actually do something about the situation as it is right now, in our day...unless of course Pope Francis reads this message board.

Who knows? He calls random nuns and families on the phone to say hello sometimes.

Hmmm...

En nombre del Padre, y el Hijo, y el Espiritu Santo, Un solo Dios, Amen. +

Hola, Papa Francisco. Por favor deja la clausa Filioque en el pasado, porque ya ha causado demasiado daño a la proclamacion de la fe ortodoxa en Roma y el oeste general en que la misma fe fue confirmada antes de la ruptura. Asi puedes seguir los pasos de nuestros padres comunes de los concilios de Nicea y Constantinopla.

...

And now we wait.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

What's with using my name in the open forum? LOL. Easy, bro. Easy!

I never said the "main problem" was the filioque. It was a major problem, and honestly the icing on the cake. You are correct that East and West had been growing apart for centuries. While the East maintained the holy traditions of keeping leavened bread (it is the only theologically-correct approach) for the Eucharist, the West started Judaizing and went into the use of unleavened wafers. While the East maintained the venerable tradition of married parish priests, the Catholics went into a celibacy movement. These were irritating to Orthodoxy, and definitely give one pause, but they weren't deal-breakers completely. Frankly the papal claims and interference were the "biggie" in all this. Not only did you have Popes and the Franks infringing on Orthodox territories and missionary routes, you had massive papal interference with the Nicholatian Schism (the West terms it the "Photian Schism.") Honestly the Nicholatian Schism was the first real heavy signs of estrangement to come and it was plain that the East and West saw polity so differently! Catholics usually just say, "well, the East spoke Greek, the West spoke Latin, the East stayed Roman, the West fell to barbarians, that's really all that broke it down." I think that's a gross overstatement of what really happened, though that is true.

If you throw in the fact that we see grace differently, councils differently, heaven and hell differently, God's energies differently, confession differently, polity differently, Atonement in a different way, and legalism in different lights, this schism was bound to happen.

It was a combination of bad timing, the Catholics messing with a Creed they should've never tampered with, Frankish politicking, and especially popes putting themselves on a pedestal and role they'd never truly had in the past, and voila----you have schism.

I disagree with you that there was a "need" to make the filioque addition. There was no need. There still isn't. Heresies can be squashed without credal alterations. And the fact that the West cared so little about provoking schism as to persist in making the change despite Eastern objections showed their understanding of the conciliar nature of the Church had collapsed.

So if I understand you correct the main problem as it appears to you is that its a willed provokation and it lead to a "two-creed Church" ?
I see the akwardness that follows the fact that we cannot recite the Creedo without having to supress one of us beliefs.

Isnt it obvious Scott that this is the culumination of something far larger and deeper divide than a little addition to the Creed?
The need to make that addition despite havoc in the East says alot about the need to provoke Constantinopel and this was a the final provokation the East could handle.

We know historically just how different Our two churches had grown in hundreds of years already so this was a spark.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I don't know, I've just always figured that the Spirit is kind of the combined love of the entire trinity of some sort.
I'm fully aware I'm talking with guys knowing a lot more about the Filioque than I do so I'm very humble in this discussion we're having.

that's the problem. love is between persons, not a person itself. this also does not make sense since the Spirit is also a Person of the Trinity, so is the Holy Spirit the love between the Spirit and the Father? and is the Spirit the love between the Spirit and the Son?

 

[Rohzek]

Just wanted to say, welcome to CF, and to TAW!

We are very glad to have you with us. Please let us know if we can help you in navigating the forums, or if you have any questions.

God be with you!

Many thanks for the warm greetings.

Okay. I'm not sure what to say to that beyond stating the obvious that we aren't in the first millennium anymore, which is really just a restatement of my previous reply in a slightly different context. If Rome still had the understanding that you say it had in the 9th century, then conceivably you guys could figure out a way deal with the canonical problem that the insertion of the filioque presented without severing communion with one another. As you might imagine, this is still far too late for me to be personally invested in it, but I do see what you mean, in that the actions of Pope Leo III and others show a different understanding of the matter than the RCC would subsequently officially embrace. Unfortunately for all involved, as its own separate church now with much separating it from what it did and professed even much more recently than the 9th century, I am not sure that appeals to a common faith can be really all that convincing to those who are not already doubting the historical development of the RCC, which presumably do not include any who may be in the position to actually do something about the situation as it is right now, in our day...unless of course Pope Francis reads this message board.

I understand that. But there is a major difference between telling someone they've been wrong on something for 700 years (Second Lyons) versus they've been wrong since Augustine or 800 AD. The former comes across more as a theological argument, while the other comes across as a cultural assault on someone's own heritage and identity. This is why I think it is really important that Orthodox engage with Latin writers prior to 1000-1204 more.

I never said the "main problem" was the filioque. It was a major problem, and honestly the icing on the cake. You are correct that East and West had been growing apart for centuries. While the East maintained the holy traditions of keeping leavened bread (it is the only theologically-correct approach) for the Eucharist, the West started Judaizing and went into the use of unleavened wafers.

Yes, because the same God who spoke through the apostle Paul concerning dietary laws would also flip out over whether the communion bread has yeast in it or not.

 

[dzheremi]

I understand that. But there is a major difference between telling someone they've been wrong on something for 700 years (Second Lyons) versus they've been wrong since Augustine or 800 AD. The former comes across more as a theological argument, while the other comes across as a cultural assault on someone's own heritage and identity

I'm not really sure why that is (it seems to me that if they're wrong in this or that respect then they're wrong regardless of the calendar year, and appeals to cultural heritage do not in themselves correct errant theology), but okay. I certainly couldn't imagine that the EO really have anything to lose from reading Latin fathers claimed by the RCC from after 1054, as presumably any who would do so would be firm enough in their own faith to spot deviations from it wherever they may be.

 

[prodromos]

Just wanted to note that Toledo did not actually profess the creed with the "filioque". Read through the council and you will see they profess the Nicean creed without addition.