The Filioque: What does Rome believe?

KnightWolflord

You worry me - really you do

You are so young still and so utterly set in your belief that you are correct and there is no other possible point of view.

Since you are convinced that you know the truth in all these matters and you are so clearly not convincing my Orthodox Christian Brethren that they are wrong , perhaps the time has come to leave them alone - and you should now enter into Communion with the Church that you feel is the One True Church with the deposit of Faith which Christ handed down through His teaching.


I would remind you that you will never win converts by bashing them over the head with a large plank of wood - and nor by deafening them with words - but by your actions and example you will win them over to Christ - in His time - not yours

Knightwolflord said:

The legitamate right of the Roman Patriarch to exercise jurisdiction over his brother bishops? Of course they do.



When I read these Fathers, I no longer wanted to be Catholic. When I read them for the first time, I did so with a burning, aching desire to break all connection with Rome and become an Greek Orthodox Christian.

I read them after asking the Lord God, and St. Peter himself, to guide me to the truth. I read them with the Orthodox understanding as it is presented in the Orthodox authors whose books I read during my discernment process.

I read them within the context of the heretical controversies and jurisdictional problems as they were outlined in the Christian history books.

I didn't just pick them up looking for evidence to prove to myself that Rome was right. In fact, I searched the Holy Fathers expecting to find the Orthodox understanding.

To my immense sadness and dissappointment, I could not escape what the Fathers themselves stated clearly, and they themselves did.



And the Catholic Church has been governed conciliarly, although not in the understanding the Eastern Churches developed after breaking Roman communion, BUT rather in what the Fathers describe as a conciliar Church.



That is because you do not understand what the supremacy of jurisdiction means in the Roman Church my brother. Our understanding of the Pope follows that the of the Fathers, that of a touchstone, an arbiter, and a focal point of doctrinal and sacramental unity....not some monarchial dhespota.



Yes indeed, it had happened MANY times before. The East was more often than not at odds with Rome, mostly because it's Patriarchal sees and bishphorics were infested with heresy.

It is not surprising at all, and indeed it follows logically, that if there was a spilt, the Chalcedonian Greek Churches of the East would break with the Latin West.

For nearly 1000 years the Church of Rome stood as a beacon of Orthodoxy and unity in the Church. In all the crises she was the light that stood fast against heresy. It was the East, sometimes all the four Patriarchates!, that held to heresies.

Please explain to me, dear brother, the logic and historical presidence, that after 1,000 years of doctrinal purity, the West would become heretical and schismatic....explain how after constant, almost incessant, reigns of heresy in the Eastern Churches, they suddenly become Orthodox and remain so. How is that logical?



As do we Catholics, however, we understand the conciliar tradition within the context of what the Fathers so clearly taught about Rome's place as the guide and guardian of the universal Church.



And neither will the Catholic Church brother. The Melkite Greek Catholic Church could have come back into communion with the Antiochian Orthodox Church MANY times in her history, and yet in the face of horrid conditions, she maintained unity with Rome, despite the fact that leaving Rome would have been much easier (to say the least).




So you say, brother. But the Fathers are too numerous and too explicit in their teachings of the role of the Pope of Rome for some mere and vague notion of interpretation differences to stand in the way.

Many Orthodox Christians left communion with Constantinople and embraced communion with Rome, because of the fact that the Fathers' teachings are too explicit to be harmonized into the Orthodox Communion's understanding of Papal Primacy.

I will begin a thread soon in which I will post quotes from these Fathers, hoping that Orthodox Christians can explain to me their "interpretation" of the unequivocally "Catholic" statements of the Fathers.

I invite you to come and show me this vague interpretation that the Orthodox use to parry the clarity of what is contained in Patristic literature concerning the Pope of Rome.

Until that time, the peace of our common Master be with you.

Click to expand...

I can only respond to this in sadness. In this one post you besmirch our Church, our hierarchs, clergy, and theologians throughout the centuries. You claim to have seen our side of things and have been shown the light, knowing that personal experience with God and St Peter cannot be readily refuted without difficulty. All of us can tell of our similar experiences, I'm sure. However, since God is not the author of confusion, whom shall the masses believe? You will say you, and we will say us. You say that we do not understand what the Fathers actually teach and that we don't understand your terminology and so forth. Perhaps. You say that papal supremacy is as plain as the nose on our faces in Tradition. But here you fundamentally misunderstand what Orthodox profess Tradition to be. Tradition is living and there is nothing professed today that was not professed from the beginning.

It is also sad that you pose these questions specifically to Orthodox laity, wishing to bypass the clergy, the pastors and overseers of those people of God, and the official position of a unified Orthodox Church. This smacks of poaching and is analogous to the Latin aggression in traditional Orthodox countries. You wish to subvert our holy Tradition. You wish us to turn our backs on the Church. You ask us to commit the sin of Adam. You ask us to turn from the very Life of God Himself, for the Orthodox claim this to be the true nature of the Church: the divine life of God Himself. And you want us to reject this. You want us to presume to believe the claims of a See that has grown in its boldness and error.

Nor are you satisfied with your efforts thus far, seeing the opposition you encounter. You threaten to begin another thread to yet again attempt to poach the weak from the faithful. Proof-texting arguments will indeed sway some, sadly, but you will not receive what you desire. The Church's faithful will remain steadfast. Then, you will, no doubt, return once again to maligning the understanding of our Fathers and Pastors. You will malign our Hierarchs and Saints which you will claim led us into error. But you will not succeed.

I ask my Orthodox brothers and sisters to not be tempted to engage in any future thread, which seeks to refute the Church. Pray for those who persecute you. Be kind to those who wish you to turn your back on the Church. Remember too that the Church is not a series of logical points and counterpoints. It is participation in the life of God. How can one explain that? Better to allow the services and prayers of the Church to give us strength and compassion. And as we pray in the Liturgy, "through us to all Thy people."

Prayers for all,
Dn Kevin

I also ask:

Are you trying to argue that St. Maximos agreed with St. Photios the Great's interpretation of that the source and procession is from the Father alone?!?!

This is a saint who said explicitly that he believed that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father 'dia mesou tou Logou', (by means of the Logos). He clearly states that the Spirit proceeded, in his view ineffably from the Father and consubstantially through the Son.

The inability of St. Photios the Great to understand the filioque on the Latin Church's own terms and instead force his Greek understanding onto it, is precisely the problem.[/quote] I guess St. Maximos agreed since the true teaching is the same. "Not only is the divine Logos prior to the genesis of created beings, but there neither was nor is nor will be a principle superior to the Logos. The Logos is not without intellect or bereft of life; He possesses intellect and life because the Father is the essentially subsistent intellect that begets Him, and the Holy Spirit is His essentially subsistent and coexistent life." (ST. maximos, 1 c var txts, Philokalia vol. 2) If the Holy Spirit is the life of the Logos & He is begotten of the Father how does the Holy Spirit proceed from Him? The Son can send as in John 15:26. How does the filioque apply here? How does it apply to the incarnation (Luke 1:35)? Where is the filioque when Jesus Christ submitted to baptism (Mark 1:10-11)? Again, no condemnation meant, the filioque is totally unnecessary.

KnightWolflord

I am not monastic and therefore do not get addressed by anyone as Sister

You are still carrying a huge amount of baggage from your evangelical days - and it shows.

I came here to probe the Orthodox understanding of the filioque and to witness to what we Latins really believe as opposed to the misunderstandings that are in the Orthodox community.

Click to expand...

Misunderstandings - you state that my brethren misunderstand your beliefs ? Oh no they don't - they understand perfectly well what you believe - and it's a different understanding to their belief.

I am not going to debate with you - frankly I can't be bothered - you would not listen anyway - so why should I waste my time.


"Go in peace to love and serve the Lord "

My Orthodox Friends - and I'm proud to call them that - are not heretics

The 'H' word is bandied about far too freely - I have been called one too - by an RC .

I think you should be careful in your use of terminology .

Frankly I see no point in continuing this 'discussion'

Oh - are you in RCIA yet ?

His Holiness John Paul II of Blessed memory referred to Orthodox Christians as ' our separated Brethren '

Antonius,

I mean this for your own spiritual benefit... Until you are practiced in the art of humility, it would be best for you to avoid these forums. You are a neophyte in your faith, and yet in your zeal, you are trying to instruct others in the faith that you yourself just acquired. That, in and of itself, isn't always bad, although it usually is. However, the way in which you are going about it is filled with quite obvious pride.

Christian theology isn't primarily an academic subject to hold debates and symposiums on. It is primarily an exercise in learning to know the Living God. Theology without humility and the practice of the virtues is the theology of demons. The great monastic saints of the Church, who helped to protect the Church from heresy, were nonetheless very reluctant to enter into doctrinal discussions except when there was a pressing necessity, preferring instead to keep their focus on guarding their hearts.

What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul? What does it profit you to stroke your own theological ego, and yet not work to attain the love of Christ and your brother, without which we are nothing?

This thread seems, very obviously, to be mere theological bating so that you could try to show your knowledge of a given topic. You knew what you were going to find when you came here and posted about this. Why come?

Now, in terms of the original question of the thread, I guess it would all depend on which Roman teaching of the filioque you are talking about. At times, Rome has said that what it means is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, through the Son. If that is the case, well and good, but the language is sloppy at best. At other times, the Catholic Church has said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son "as from one principle," which is a different explanation, and makes the Son the cause of the Holy Spirit together with the Father.

That brings the further theological problem... If the Most-holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle, what is that principle? It can't be the person of the Father, because you say that the Son is also part of that principle. Is it then the divine essence? If that were so, then the Holy Spirit would proceed from Himself, as well, since He is fully God, consubstantial with the Father and the Son.

May our Lord Jesus Christ bless you and keep you and guide you ever towards Himself.

In Christ,
Rd John

Open your Catholic Catechism to section 838 to start
Quote:
838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."


All Christians are brothers in the truest sense of the word. From the Catholic perspective those who are Orthodox have an imperfect membership in the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul the Great stated that the term �schism� was too strong a word to describe the remaining separation.

Knightwolflord said:

Why? Because I deny the notion of ecclesiology propogated in the Orthodox communion? Is this not expected of me brother?

Click to expand...

I do not have any expectations of you.

Of course. My whole point was not to use my personal experience as a puckish "proof" that "I'm right and you're wrong." My point was to relate that your implication made about my experience with the Fathers was wrong.

Click to expand...

I merely stated that you come to reading of the Fathers from a certain lens. We all do. Your lens is Latin in essence. I don't see how this is derogatory or inaccurate.

No, not me. As I have said without fail this entire thread so far: the masses can look to the Fathers. Their statements are clear for all to see, ethereal notions of culturo-theological interpretation have no bearing on the sheer copious number of Fathers and references, nor on their incredible amount of clarity in expressing their ideas.

Click to expand...

The Fathers statements are clear? How is it then that this thread was necessary if this is the case? The Fathers are clear to you from your position. They are clear to us (our more pious members. For myself, I'll trust holier men than I in their interpretation).

My explanation of what Rome actually teaches has been ignored in the ongoing posts of this thread, either intentionally or not.

Click to expand...

Perhaps we see a discrepancy between the text of the modified Creed and the actual teaching of the Roman communion. The text can be confusing to the faithful, and thus is troublesome as evidenced by this thread and others. I understand the desire to fight an outbreak of Arianism which led the council in Toledo to alter the Creed. But the whole Church agreed on what was necessary in the Creed at a universal Council. Toledo cannot trump this. This became one of the main weapons in the brewing war between Rome and the rest of the Church before the split.

I do not doubt that the Latins officially teach the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone as the original Creed teaches. But the text itself is confusing and can cause some to go into error. This is the problem with it.

So the Palamite theology was present in the early Church? So the early Church professed the same theology of St. Gregory Palamas in the beginning? Does it not strike you as odd my brother that the evidence for Palamite theology is scant in the Patristics and the evidence of a Roman jurisdiction in the Fathers so clear and numerous?

Click to expand...

It is the firm affirmation of the Orthodox Church that Palamite theology is an elucidation of what was taught from the beginning, yes. I can only assume by the way you ask this question, that you consider this some sort of development? It does not strike me as odd, no. I believe in the living Tradition of the Church and what we profess her to be. That's good enough for me.

Again, you refer to Roman jurisdictionalism without responding to my suggestion about the canonical tradition of the Church. If you were to read the canons, you would be confronted with the certainty that no bishop had jurisdiction over any other. This is in plain black and white. I imagine, however, that there will be a Roman reading of this as well. Such is the situation we find ourselves in.

First of all my intention was not to "bypass" the clergy. My stated intention was to probe lay Orthodox understanding of this issue. I have wanted to do this because in my time considering Holy Orthodoxy, I found many lay EOs that believe the filioque signified a double procession. I wanted to probe this even further and, if possible, to witness to the true Latin understanding that St. Photios clearly misunderstood.

Click to expand...

Certainly I may have misunderstood your posts. Quite probable as I am no theologian (in the Orthodox understanding of that term). Perhaps you find many Orthodox laity believing Latins teach the double procession because they were told this by Latins. Perhaps your time could be better spent making sure your own laity believe what the filioque really means? Why come here? If, in fact, many Latins have told Orthodox what the filioque means, than surely you would be better served to correct those Latins before coming to us. We would do well to remember that ourselves.

And what is that?

How is one able to know that?

What is the official position of the unified Orthodox Church on:

1. The issues of jurisdiction on Athos

2. The issues of jurisdiction between Constantinople & Moscow

3. whether Catholic converts should be baptized, chrisimated, or merely give a simple profession of faith

4. If artificial birth control is allowed...

5. Divorce and Remarriage

6. Whether the filioque is truly heresy

7. Ecumenism

and so on.........

How does one go about learning what the official teaching is of the unified Orthodox Church?

I am not mocking you here in any way, I seriously want to know! Priest, bishops, metropolitans, and Patriarchs all disagree on one issue or another. The laity clearly have differing opinions as well.

Click to expand...

1&2: Why is it important? Each patriarchate has its own territory. But as the Church is full of sinful people, sometimes we don't live up to what the Church clearly teaches. These issues are set down in the canons of the Church. Though, again, sometimes we lose our way.

3-5, 7: This is left to the bishops as pastoral concerns. There is no "official" position in pastoral matters other than the Canon (rule). However, this is not a list of legal mandates but rather the signification of absolute purity. The bishop is given the task, and responsibility, to apply the canons in pastoral and Christian fashion.
6: You've already criticized St Photios, so there's really nothing more I can add here. I think you will find, whether any of us know what the Roman tradition is, that all Orthodox would agree that the addition itself is incorrect.

And what, dear brother, is the purpose of this litany of charges you bring against me?

Click to expand...

Strange that you use the word, "litany" I make these statements because you want us to believe that those who have responsibility for our souls and have had for many a year, are in error whether it is their understanding of the filioque or of Roman supremacy. In order to accept your claims, we must deny the Church.

When our Orthodox brethren made inaccurate claims about Rome, Western Christianity, and even polemic jabs; did you expect me to keep quiet? The only way that I could have avoided this litany of sins that you find me guilty of would be to ignore the off-topic claims against my faith. I do not expect you to ignore off-topic claims made against what you believe, especially on a debate forum.

Click to expand...

Well, I will not defend either my own or others' less than charitable behavior. If I've behaved so, I do readily ask forgiveness. However, you came into an Orthodox forum, and asked what these folks believe. It would perhaps been better all way round if you'd said, "ok, here's my understanding of it," and left it at that. I hate to say you asked for it, but considering your own self-professed penchant for debate, well...you did. And yes, you should've left well enough alone.

My desire is to have my Orthodox brethren explain to me why they do not accept what they claim is my "Roman interpretation" in the writings of the Fathers which I contend are too numerous and explicit to be mere interpretive errors.

Click to expand...

But we could ask the same of you. Why do you not accept our Orthodox interpretation which we too believe refute your claim. You might be tempted to say, "well, you're wrong." Precisely what we would say to you.

Indeed this is what you have claimed is it not? Why not then teach me my error?

Instead you see it as a "threat", "poaching", "proof-texting", etc.

Tell me: where is your reason behind those charges?

Click to expand...

There are numerous posts which put forth the Orthodox point of view in regards to the filioque, yet here we are.

It has been the practice of your popes to poach people in traditional Orthodox countries. Indeed, your Fatimah revelations call into question the Christianity of Russia, which had been Christian for almost a 1000 years at that point. Now, the Roman pope wants to set up a patriarchate in Ukraine, a traditional Orthodox country.

Throughout this thread I have made my desires and intentions lucidly explicit. From the tone of this post, I think it is probably safe to say that you think my desire is contrary to what I explicitly stated that it is. Therefore, the only conclusion I can validly come to is that you are saying that I am decieving the readers of my posts.

Click to expand...

Again, if I've misread your intentions, I apologize. At some point, however, you must realize that the continual arguing of the validity of the Roman position and the invalidity of the Orthodox position as regards the role of the papacy will be seen as inconsistent with your stated goals.

For what its worth, I don't think you're willfully attempting to deceive. I don't believe I've ascribed any sort of nefarious intent on your part. I do believe, however, that you are trying to argue Orthodox into becoming Roman. Whatever your desires, this amounts to proselytization.

Easy to say, but soon I will give all of the Orthodox here an oppurtunity to explain how the Eastern Fathers' statements are warped by my "maligning understanding" of them.

I invite you humbly to respond to that forum rather than simply making accusatory remarks.

Click to expand...

I will not participate in that thread. Forgive me, but it will be as useless as this one.

I never expected this to reach this point. I was warned sternly by former Orthodox Christians that this would be the fruit of my desire for a dialogue. I should have heeded them, maybe I should have ignored the off-topic jabs at the Roman Church. Youthful optimism...maybe.

I did not expect that my failure to quietly ignore what I saw as misunderstandings and even downright attacks on the Catholic Church would result in an ad hominem attack that ultimately boils down to this:

"We are not you and you don't understand us because you're Western.

Click to expand...

Ad hominem attacks are no way to argue, to be sure. I don't believe I've advanced any. But I think you are missing a point here. Arguments in and of themselves are not the best way to go about these things. The Church is lived experientially rather than simply grasped intellectually. Those of us who are Orthodox live something that you have told us is in error. If we were to come to your local parish and laugh at the various forms the mass has taken, it would be unkindly received, no? The same here. There is great contention in many corners. If you'd asked a question, had it answered, and went about your business, everything might've been alright. I urge you to keep this in mind in any future threads you create.

At some point you'll have to realize you're preaching to a brick wall. It does your soul no good to continue in these pseudo-discussions. You won't listen to us, and we won't listen to you by virtue of the fact that we each consider the other wrong and can back it up by mounds and mounds of writing. Go to a local Orthodox church and dialogue with people face to face.

The filioque added by the Roman Catholic Church means what it says, i.e., that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. This idea was not in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, but was inserted later by the Western Church (the origin is unclear -- I've read that it might have been a copyist's error, because the words "and from the Son" appear in the next line of the original Creed) and later affirmed by the Roman Pope.

KWL, let me say, first of all, that Orthodox views on Catholicism vary - but that we all largely agree on what has been said on doctrine here. Some, having had to distance themselves from it in order to accept Orthodoxy, may be more antagonistic. Others, who moved closer to the RCC in accepting Orthodoxy, like me, really appreciate what we do have in common (relative to what we both call Protestant). IOW, I (personally) have a great deal of respect for Catholicism - although it certainly falls short of Orthodoxy.

I am a fully Initiated Roman Catholic and have been for some months now.

Click to expand...

The other thing is this: I appreciate your lack of fear in admitting your age (many hide it and pretend to be much older than they are) and the limited time you have had to be exposed to huge questions. But you must begin to acknowledge that they are huge and that the differences are more complex than you have hitherto laid out. You cannot, in the space of a few months, begin to embrace them all. I am more than twice your age, and I can see that my lifetime is not enough to fully grasp everything.
But it is very difficult, when a young person who admittedly has studied these issues for less than a year comes to much older people who have spent a great deal of time (multiple years, some - decades) taking these questions in, to take their fervor seriously, and it looks very much like you are patronizing us with your superior wisdom. (That's why I gave the example of a ten-year-old coming to you and telling you how wrong you are.) It's good that you think the issues are important. It's good that you care. But you still have much to learn.

Please forgive me - no offence is intended!

Michael the Iconographer said:

Not exactly! The Orthodox churches who apostasized and reunited with Rome after the False Unions of Uzhorod and Brest-Litovsk did so because of Jesuit prostelytization in the Ukraine.

Click to expand...

And the current Pope is doing the same in Greece. In May he appointed a Uniate bishop for the non-existent Uniates in Greece. I too have been through this in my parish in SA where the priest decided to become a Uniate and wanted to take the whole parish along with him (There are no Uniates in SA so he needed a parish!) Orthodoxy triumphed, the priest left.

rusmeister said:

The other thing is this: I appreciate your lack of fear in admitting your age (many hide it and pretend to be much older than they are) and the limited time you have had to be exposed to huge questions. But you must begin to acknowledge that they are huge and that the differences are more complex than you have hitherto laid out. You cannot, in the space of a few months, begin to embrace them all. I am more than twice your age, and I can see that my lifetime is not enough to fully grasp everything.
But it is very difficult, when a young person who admittedly has studied these issues for less than a year comes to much older people who have spent a great deal of time (multiple years, some - decades) taking these questions in, to take their fervor seriously, and it looks very much like you are patronizing us with your superior wisdom. (That's why I gave the example of a ten-year-old coming to you and telling you how wrong you are.) It's good that you think the issues are important. It's good that you care. But you still have much to learn.

Please forgive me - no offence is intended!

Click to expand...

KW has convertitis, that is for certain!

KW, I highly suggest you read the histories of the False Unions of Uzhorod and Brest-Litovsk before you go preaching to me about Orthodox who willingly reunited with Rome.

Knightwolflord said:

He can't! If the Holy Spirit is the life of the Logos and He is begotten of the Father, then the Son cannot share in the origin of the procession of the Holy Spirit.

However, St. Maximos explains that the Son plays a role in the actual procession which only comes from the Father:

"By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten (Questions to Thalassium 63 [A.D. 254]).

Is St. Maximos wrong? If so, why?

Click to expand...

Knight, your research has been very good overall in stating your points as you see them. On this matter though, did you see my question in a previous post re "The Rock" article from Catholic Answers in that the date they have next to the quote attributed to St. Maximos is several centuries off (A.D.254) & is accurate for the time period of Origen who is quoted afterwards. Since the data is muddled there, I cannot verify if the quote is actually of St. Maximos or Origen; the quote is allegdly addressed to St. Thallasios. I later quoted another Trinatarian definition by the same St. Thallasios that excluded the filioque directly from the Philokalia & mentioned that he and St.Maximos were personally acquainted brethren, how could their teachings diverge? I also stated that someone should inform Catholic Answers that there is a data error (clearly by accident) of info supporting a Roman Catholic theology and that someone should tell them of it.God bless.