I'm no longer a Calvinist.

[Secundulus]

Filioque clause - New World Encyclopedia
Recent discussions and statements

In the recent past, many Catholic theologians have written on the filioque with an ecumenical intention. Yves Congar, for example, has argued that the varying formulations regarding the Holy Spirit may be viewed not contradictory but as complementary. Irenee Dalmais likewise points out that East and West have different, yet complementary, theologies of the Holy Spirit. Avery Dulles traces the history of the filioque controversy and weighs pros and cons of several possibilities for reconciliation.

Several Orthodox theologians have also considered the filioque anew, with a view to reconciliation of East and West. Theodore Stylianopoulos, for one, provides an extensive, scholarly overview of the contemporary discussion. Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia says that he now considers the filioque dispute to be primarily semantic rather than substantive. Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople has said that all that is necessary for complete reconciliation is resolution of what he calls the "Uniate" problem, the issue of Eastern Rite Catholic Churches in the former Soviet countries. For many Orthodox Christians, the filioque, while still a matter of needing discussion, no longer impedes full communion between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

An official Roman Catholic document published on August 6, 2000, and written by the future Pope Benedict XVI when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger—titled Dominus Iesus, and subtitled On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church—quietly leaves out the filioque clause from the Creed without notice or comment. In liturgical celebrations together with bishops from the East, the pope has recited the Nicene Creed without the filioque.


The filioque clause was the main subject discussed at the meeting of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, which met at the Hellenic College/Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Brookline from June 3 through June 5, 2002. These discussions characterized the filioque issue as what the Greeks call a theologoumenon, a theological idea which is open to discussion and is not deemed heretical. Further progress along these lines was made on October 25, 2003, in a document titled The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue? which provides an extensive review of Scripture, history, and theology of the filioque question. Among its conclusion were:

• That, in the future, Orthodox and Catholics should refrain from labeling as heretical each other's traditions on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit.
• That the Catholic Church should declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those "who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son" is no longer applicable.

In the judgment of the consultation, the question of the filioque is no longer a "Church-dividing" issue.

 

[Tzaousios]

No, I wanted to use dates you trust because you asserted that the Catholic Church does not consider "fair game" anything of Augustine's after 395. I would ask you to avoid making that statement in the future. The following post-395 writings of Augustine are referenced in the Catechism:

They may have been "referenced" in the Catechism, but there are passages in those works, some which constitute a majority of the work, which the modern RCC would not agree with and would even label as heresy. Just because it references the work does not mean it accepts it in its entirety. Also, I am sure you are well aware, the modern RCC and its scholars like to put a great deal more emphasis on the import of his works before 395 than those after. My statement is not incorrect when one considers these things.

For example, why would the RCC repudiate The City of God, one of the bastions of Christian literature, even though it contains very explicit statements on election, predestination, and divine grace with which the Church has disagreed and been opposed to elsewhere?

He also presided over the 3rd Council of Carthage in 397, after writing the Simplicianus letter. No one challenged him for heresy. He was in good standing, and of great standing at that.

Yes, but given the deplorable state of communications in North Africa at the time (it was experiencing violence from the Circumcellions and the initial wave of immigration of Vandals), it is likely that these later works had not been widely circulated. Also, Augustine was notorious for not finishing things and working on them bit by bit as he dealt with problems as bishop of Hippo. Many of these were still in the process of being written. The Confessions and City of God are case and point.

What we can see, about a century or so later, at the local council of Orange, the Western Church backed off from an enthusiastic acceptance of Augustine's work against the Pelagians and on election/predestination and adopted a watered-down version of his very stringent position. Subsequently, it endorsed the position of John Cassian and his monastic establishment and pretty much gave Augustine a back seat for centuries concerning these theological issues.

There is a lot on Augustine's treatment on Predestination and Grace in my Faith of the Early Fathers, volume 3 book. I have read through most of those excerpts this evening. Only 2 things appeared incompatible with Catholicism. The first is the suggestion that infants who die "without Baptism" are damned (from De dono perseverantiae 9, 23, ca 429). Although the Church today does not state for sure their fate as Augustine suggested, the Church has said She trusts these children to the mercy of God, and hopes that God embraces them.

A disagreement on the efficacy of the sacrament of baptism for infants would appear to be a serious one to me.

In 1, 1 and 9, 21 of De dono perseverantiae, he suggests there are other gifts of grace, perhaps even of "calling" that differ from the grace of "perseverance to the end." That sounds Thomistic regarding predestination, and is acceptable for a Catholic to believe. He also suggests there is no assurance of salvation (1, 1; 16, 39) even for those who have the gift of "perseverance to the end," and to assume one has it is to advance the sin of "presumption." I believe this is contrary to Calvin's teaching on assurance - correct me if I'm wrong.

Indeed, in that particular work it does sound Thomistic. See his letter to Simplician for a much fuller exegesis and commentary on grace and the calling, with reference to Romans 7-9. As for "assurance," I think he takes a different position than that in the letter and in The City of God. I will have to look up the relevant citations.

The other potentially conflicting statement by Augustine with Catholic teaching is in De praedestinatione sanctorum (ca 429) in 8, 16 he says that to some the gift of faith "is not given." However, it is difficult to ascertain throughout this work if he means they didn't get faith because they did not accept some degree of grace given them or that God withheld grace from them altogether making it impossible for them to have been given faith (which is what Calvin taught). His theme in De praedestinatione sanctorum and De dono perseverantiae keeps coming back to the fact that grace is not given to us because of "our merits" apart from God's help as Pelagius taught heretically. That is perfectly aligned with Catholic teaching. If you can find something else on which he conflicted with Catholic doctrine, please share. The evidence seems quaint so far.

Once again, he goes into greater detail with biblical exposition in the letter to Simplicianus. There are other important passages which expand upon the idea that faith is given and not given in different instances. He does talk about an active witholding of grace by God. I will get my paper out and look up the citations for posting here.

But even if we were to say that Augustine strayed from Catholic teaching on these two specific points of theology within two paragraphs of two of his latest works, is it not still peculiar that Luther or Calvin would have for those reasons considered themselves "Augustinian?" If the sample from one's work on which we should embrace someone's name is to be that small, then you can call yourself a MrPoloan, because there are no doubt at least 2 theological issues on which you would agree with me.

Yes, but nevertheless, you are using two points from a couple passages from a colossal corpus of writing that changed very much from when Augustine was struggling with the remnants of Manichaeanism after he converted to the battle-hardened theologian that he became after the work he did against the Pelagians and Donatists.

Thus, it does not appear peculiar that Luther or Calvin would identify with Augustine's later work on grace and election and predestination and to consider themselves "Augustinian" in that regard. At that point, they were not beholden to Catholic ecclesiology or doctrinal uniformity, so there was no point in them being lock-step with RCC. Now, for a Roman Catholic of the time, it would be important to do this, as one can see in the position that Erasmus takes against Luther on the topic of the freedom of the will.

 

[MrPolo]

They may have been "referenced" in the Catechism, but there are passages in those works, some which constitute a majority of the work, which the modern RCC would not agree with and would even label as heresy. Just because it references the work does not mean it accepts it in its entirety. Also, I am sure you are well aware, the modern RCC and its scholars like to put a great deal more emphasis on the import of his works before 395 than those after. My statement is not incorrect when one considers these things.

For example, why would the RCC repudiate The City of God, one of the bastions of Christian literature, even though it contains very explicit statements on election, predestination, and divine grace with which the Church has disagreed and been opposed to elsewhere?



Yes, but given the deplorable state of communications in North Africa at the time (it was experiencing violence from the Circumcellions and the initial wave of immigration of Vandals), it is likely that these later works had not been widely circulated. Also, Augustine was notorious for not finishing things and working on them bit by bit as he dealt with problems as bishop of Hippo. Many of these were still in the process of being written. The Confessions and City of God are case and point.

What we can see, about a century or so later, at the local council of Orange, the Western Church backed off from an enthusiastic acceptance of Augustine's work against the Pelagians and on election/predestination and adopted a watered-down version of his very stringent position. Subsequently, it endorsed the position of John Cassian and his monastic establishment and pretty much gave Augustine a back seat for centuries concerning these theological issues.



A disagreement on the efficacy of the sacrament of baptism for infants would appear to be a serious one to me.



Indeed, in that particular work it does sound Thomistic. See his letter to Simplician for a much fuller exegesis and commentary on grace and the calling, with reference to Romans 7-9. As for "assurance," I think he takes a different position than that in the letter and in The City of God. I will have to look up the relevant citations.



Once again, he goes into greater detail with biblical exposition in the letter to Simplicianus. There are other important passages which expand upon the idea that faith is given and not given in different instances. He does talk about an active witholding of grace by God. I will get my paper out and look up the citations for posting here.



Yes, but nevertheless, you are using two points from a couple passages from a colossal corpus of writing that changed very much from when Augustine was struggling with the remnants of Manichaeanism after he converted to the battle-hardened theologian that he became after the work he did against the Pelagians and Donatists.

Thus, it does not appear peculiar that Luther or Calvin would identify with Augustine's later work on grace and election and predestination and to consider themselves "Augustinian" in that regard. At that point, they were not beholden to Catholic ecclesiology or doctrinal uniformity, so there was no point in them being lock-step with RCC. Now, for a Roman Catholic of the time, it would be important to do this, as one can see in the position that Erasmus takes against Luther on the topic of the freedom of the will.

You're going to have to provide samples of where Augustine disagrees with Catholic teaching. It seems to me that you believe the Catholic Church to teach something on Predestination or grace which She does not. If that's correct, well, Luther had the same problem. If you put Augustine's teaching side by side the pertinent Catholic document, then we have something to work with.

And to correct you, the Church doesn't disagree with Augustine's position on the efficacy of baptism.

 

[chestertonrules]

Anyhow, Chester, according to your citation by Augustine and your own assertions, we know that since he based what he believed and taught about Scripture on what the "authority" of the Church of his time taught, we know that the church taught this:

"In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind....In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself." - Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5)

"For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,--to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages." - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 2:9)
​

Sounds perfectly Catholic to me. I'm not sure what point you are making.

 

[RibI]

I'm no longer a Calvinist.
I'm an Augustinian.

I'm of Paul, I'm of Apollos, I'm of Billy Sunday......ect. ect.

 

[racer]

Sounds perfectly Catholic to me. I'm not sure what point you are making.

Really? So, the RCC teaches the sufficiency of Scripture?

Does the RCC teach that the authority of Scripture is a supreme authority to all other sources?

Cause, if that's what you are saying, it's the first time a Catholic said that.

Haven't you argued yourself into enough corners yet. Your silly "clueless" answers aren't even funny anymore.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Really? So, the RCC teaches the sufficiency of Scripture?

Does the RCC teach that the authority of Scripture is a supreme authority to all other sources?

Cause, if that's what you are saying, it's the first time a Catholic said that.

Haven't you argued yourself into enough corners yet. Your silly "clueless" answers aren't even funny anymore.

The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind

Sounds about right to me.

 

[chestertonrules]

Really? So, the RCC teaches the sufficiency of Scripture? .

The Catholic Church teaches that the bible is the word of God.

In order to understand it properly you need a proper interpretation, however, which is why Jesus gave us a Church to follow.

Augustine did not say scripture was superior to the Church.

 

[racer]

Sounds about right to me.

Of course your focus is not the topic being discussed in this citation.

 

[racer]

The Catholic Church teaches that the bible is the word of God.

Which has nothing to do with what I asked. Besides, the RCC according to most discussions I've had, teaches that the Bible is "part" of the word of God.

In order to understand it properly you need a proper interpretation, however, which is why Jesus gave us a Church to follow.

Not what Scripture says. So, when it comes between what Jesus said, which is recorded in the Bible--that's how we know what He said--and what the RC says He said, I follow what He said.

Augustine did not say scripture was superior to the Church.

He not only said that the authority contained therein was "supreme" to all other authorities. Do I need to define "supreme" for you?

 

[racer]

Sounds about right to me.

Notice he says "handed down through?" the Church The Church is merely one vessel through which the Gospel is preserved and passed on.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Notice he says "handed down through?" the Church is merely one of many means of preserving and passing on the Gospel.

Yes, and? That's not all Augustine said. The quotes that show his full beliefs on this subject have already been shown. I don't know what you're trying to accomplish here.

 

[racer]

Yes, and? That's not all Augustine said. The quotes that show his full beliefs on this subject have already been shown. I don't know what you're trying to accomplish here.

Are you implying that he states differently in other writings? If that is so, and he contradicts himself, how do you determine which of his points-of-view are what he really believed?

 

[chestertonrules]

He not only said that the authority contained therein was "supreme" to all other authorities. Do I need to define "supreme" for you?

As Dark Lite pointed out, it seems you are ignoring this crucial point:

The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church.

This is pefectly consistent with his other statements:

"I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so."
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.

"I believe that this practice comes from apostolic tradition, just as so many other practices not found in their writings nor in the councils of their successors, but which, because they are kept by the whole Church everywhere, are believed to have been commended and handed down by the Apostles themselves."
Baptism 1,12,20, 400 A.D.

"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary Councils, the authority of which is quite vital to the Church."
Letter to Januarius 54,1,1, 400 A.D.

"Adam sleeps that Eve may be formed; Christ dies that the Church may be formed. Eve is formed from the side of the sleeping Adam; the side of the dead Christ is pierced by the lance, so that the Sacraments may flow out, of which the Church is formed."
Homilies on the Gospel of John, 9,10, 416 A.D.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Are you implying that he states differently in other writings? If that is so, and he contradicts himself, how do you determine which of his points-of-view are what he really believed?

Nope, I'm saying that you are focusing too much on the word "through," when the context (of that paragraph, and his other statements) indicating that you should be focusing on "authority." It refers to the authority of the Scriptures being the same as the authority of the bishops. Or perhaps, it refers to the bishops having the authority to pass down such authoritative things like scripture. It doesn't at all imply that the Church is merely a means through which the Scriptures were preserved.

 

[racer]

As Dark Lite pointed out, it seems you are ignoring this crucial point:

The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church.

This is pefectly consistent with his other statements:

Not ignoring it at all. Nobody's denies the church is an intrument used by God to deliver, teach and preserve His teachings. You seem to keep arguing points I never made. A complete waste of time.

"I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so."

And you fail to see the enormity of what that statement proves. If Augustine based what he believe about Scripture on what the Church taught. Then we know the Church taught Sola Scriptura. Discussion over.

 

[chestertonrules]

[/color]

[/size]
And you fail to see the enormity of what that statement proves. If Augustine based what he believe about Scripture on what the Church taught. Then we know the Church taught Sola Scriptura. Discussion over.

I suppose it is if you say so.

 

[MrPolo]

Nope, I'm saying that you are focusing too much on the word "through," when the context (of that paragraph, and his other statements) indicating that you should be focusing on "authority." It refers to the authority of the Scriptures being the same as the authority of the bishops. Or perhaps, it refers to the bishops having the authority to pass down such authoritative things like scripture. It doesn't at all imply that the Church is merely a means through which the Scriptures were preserved.

If he meant that quote as sola scriptura, he would have acted like it. He didn't. He professed Church authority often and even presided over councils. His own behavior debunks a "sola scriptura" interpretation.

 

[racer]

Nope, I'm saying that you are focusing too much on the word "through,"

In that statement, the word "through" is the only word that applies to the church. The church is listed--not even first, as one of many modes of the transmission of truth.

 

[racer]

If he meant that quote as sola scriptura, he would have acted like it. He didn't. He professed Church authority often and even presided over councils. His own behavior debunks a "sola scriptura" interpretation.

He, also, clearly said that "councils" were subject to being corrected by other councils. The only source he considered infallible is Scripture. He clearly taught that the chuch was bound by Scripture.

He may have referred some level of church authority, but clearly he considered Scripture the ULTIMATE authority. There is absolutely no getting around that.

Nowhere does he imply that Church has superior authority or even equal authority. What you guys are intentionally ignoring is that he explicit states that Scripture authority is the supreme authority.