The Filioque

[RomanRite]

I would like to have a one on one debate with an Eastern Orthodox Christian on the filioque and why they claim it is heresy, which it isn't . Please let me know if you are willing to debate and we can initiate a nice charitable Christian Jesus centered dialogue.

God Bless!

 

[Megaloskhemos]

I'm not sure about a debate, but I would certainly be willing to ask questions back and forth on the subject.

Could you define the doctrine as you understand it in detail?

 

[Lukaris]

We have never had this understanding of the Trinity & neither do Byzantine Catholics. I do not know how we could partake of the Eucharist with the understanding of the Filioque. This could cause serious disorder within the Orthodox Church.This said, personally, I do not hold any negative opinion toward the RCC in their theology, in their sacraments, & believe millions find Christ within the RCC.

 

[ArmyMatt]

because the ecumenical councils said that you could not add to the Creed, and that all manner and teaching on the Holy Spirit was full and complete. Rome accepted those councils and then added to it. plus the Spirit's origin is in the Father alone.

 

[RomanRite]

because the ecumenical councils said that you could not add to the Creed, and that all manner and teaching on the Holy Spirit was full and complete. Rome accepted those councils and then added to it. plus the Spirit's origin is in the Father alone.

Coming to the conclusion you are the one who wants to debate the doctrine of the filioque, you are aware of the fact that both the East and the Roman Catholic West always had different theology correct? For example, the East focuses on three persons into one God while the West has always focused on One God who is presant in Three Persons. Now due to the fact I have mentioned this we can see that we, as Christians of different theology, will come to the different conclusions on the Creed. Now, the Roman Catholic Church has always accepted that all things come from God the Father alone, this is why in Greece the filioque is not even included in Roman Catholic parishes. However, the Church has always taught from the beginning that Jesus and the Father are equal as he says in John 10:30 that " I and the Father are one". Now because they both are equal and are one, we can come to the conclusion that Jesus plays an important role on descending the Holy Spirit as the Father does. For example we see in John 20:21-23 that Jesus has given the apostles the Holy Spirit, which was the birth of apostolic succession for access to the Sacraments of the Church. Plus, the filioque was added to the Creed of Constantiople because of the fact heretical sects such as the Gnostics and Arians kept trying to misinterpret the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit is just a force and Jesus (who they claimed to not be God, the second person of the trinity) has no role with the Holy Spirit what so ever. The Catholic Spanish was not happy with this and the Church of the West has added the filioque to show that Jesus does, infact, play a important role in descending the Holy Spirit as the Father has. Does this mean the Roman Catholic Church does not agree that everything comes from the Father alone? Ofcorse not, for all things come from the Father.

 

[Shane R]

I will share the incite that made up my mind regarding the filioque. The procession of the Holy Spirit is not about his work - in this matter it is true that both Father and Son have sent him. The procession, according to the creed, is about his essence from whence he derives divinity and this is from the Father. This is true of the Son also.

 

[RomanRite]

I will share the incite that made up my mind regarding the filioque. The procession of the Holy Spirit is not about his work - in this matter it is true that both Father and Son have sent him. The procession, according to the creed, is about his essence from whence he derives divinity and this is from the Father. This is true of the Son also.

Agreed!

 

[truefiction1]

Agreed!

So you agree that the procession of the Holy Spirit is from the Father, and not from the "Father and the Son", as is stated by the filioque. If the Holy Spirit then proceeds from the Father, then He proceeds from the Father, period. The Christ Himself taught it this way and the Church through ecumenical councils affirmed it as such. In these councils, Popes and Patriarchs alike pronounced "anathema" to anyone who would thereafter attempt to change the way in which the Nicene Creed was worded. Western theologians and bishops who came later liked the idea of adding the filioque to the Creed because it helped them in their theological dealings with the Germans (who were Arians), and so they just went ahead and added it, with no regard to the protests of Eastern Christians and no regard to Ecumenical councils because by this time the Western Church leaders had become arrogant and felt they had no need to listen to or answer to anyone, holding themselves to be the center of world Christianity and the supreme authority in any and all Church matters.

A Church that becomes prosperous and powerful in an earthly sense (which occurred to a large degree in the West) may tend to lose its spiritual wealth, and therefore may not be as reliable where spiritual and Theological matters are concerned. A true Theologian is one who prays and has come to know and to love God. Persecution and suffering produces more of these true Theologians than earthly prosperity and comfort. Look at history and you'll probably find that those whose suffering in this world was the greatest did not accept the filioque.

 

[truthseeker32]

Just thought I would build a bit on what ArmyMatt was saying. The first problem with the Filioque is how it came about. It was canonically established by the unified Church that the creed was not to be altered. The second major problem, from an Orthodox perspective, is that the Roman Catholic Church made a change to the creed it had no authority to make, since only the Orthodox Communion is able to make such declarations, and Rome has separated itself from this communion, from an Orthodox perspective. Thus even if it was determined that the Filioque is technically within the bounds of Orthodox belief, the fact would remain that the Latin Church illicitly declared it doctrinal.

 

[RomanRite]

So you agree that the procession of the Holy Spirit is from the Father, and not from the "Father and the Son", as is stated by the filioque. If the Holy Spirit then proceeds from the Father, then He proceeds from the Father, period. The Christ Himself taught it this way and the Church through ecumenical councils affirmed it as such. In these councils, Popes and Patriarchs alike pronounced "anathema" to anyone who would thereafter attempt to change the way in which the Nicene Creed was worded. Western theologians and bishops who came later liked the idea of adding the filioque to the Creed because it helped them in their theological dealings with the Germans (who were Arians), and so they just went ahead and added it, with no regard to the protests of Eastern Christians and no regard to Ecumenical councils because by this time the Western Church leaders had become arrogant and felt they had no need to listen to or answer to anyone, holding themselves to be the center of world Christianity and the supreme authority in any and all Church matters.

A Church that becomes prosperous and powerful in an earthly sense (which occurred to a large degree in the West) may tend to lose its spiritual wealth, and therefore may not be as reliable where spiritual and Theological matters are concerned. A true Theologian is one who prays and has come to know and to love God. Persecution and suffering produces more of these true Theologians than earthly prosperity and comfort. Look at history and you'll probably find that those whose suffering in this world was the greatest did not accept the filioque.

I apologize, I have misread the reply, thus I do not agree.

Ambrose of Milan

"The Holy Spirit, when he proceeds from the Father and the Son, does not separate himself from the Father and does not separate himself from the Son" (The Holy Spirit[bless and do not curse]1:2:120 [A.D. 381]).

 

[ArmyMatt]

yeah, but even a quote by St Ambrose does not override that the West agreed to the Holy Spirit's eternal procession from the Father alone, as evidenced by the councils that said this. the Church as a whole said no filioque, to include Popes. and then later on the West changed.

 

[RomanRite]

yeah, but even a quote by St Ambrose does not override that the West agreed to the Holy Spirit's eternal procession from the Father alone, as evidenced by the councils that said this. the Church as a whole said no filioque, to include Popes. and then later on the West changed.

Really? Please give me quotes and evidance from the Councils that state this. You are aware that the Church has the authority to bind and loose correct? This can be found in Matthew 16:19-20. This is why we as Christians no longer practice Jewish practices as the early Christians have, such as the fasting rules etc. Plus, Rome was always known as first among equals. The reason the Greek Orthodox Church rejects the filioque is because of the fact that the Emperor of the East elected a heretical man as Patriarch, which lead to iconoclasm, arianism, rejecting the Papacy etc in the East, which is why the Orthodox are still in schism to this day. The Early Church has always understood the role of Jesus descending the Holy Spirit as the Father, whether it be Both the Father and the Son Descending the Holy Spirit, or it be The Father descending the Spirit of God through Jesus.

 

[truefiction1]

Really? Please give me quotes and evidance from the Councils that state this. You are aware that the Church has the authority to bind and loose correct? This can be found in Matthew 16:19-20. This is why we as Christians no longer practice Jewish practices as the early Christians have, such as the fasting rules etc. Plus, Rome was always known as first among equals. The reason the Greek Orthodox Church rejects the filioque is because of the fact that the Emperor of the East elected a heretical man as Patriarch, which lead to iconoclasm, arianism, rejecting the Papacy etc in the East, which is why the Orthodox are still in schism to this day. The Early Church has always understood the role of Jesus descending the Holy Spirit as the Father, whether it be Both the Father and the Son Descending the Holy Spirit, or it be The Father descending the Spirit of God through Jesus.

the descending of the Spirit is not the same as the eternal procession of the Spirit, which is from the Father alone, and not through or by any action of the Word. To say that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son goes against the teachings of Jesus Christ, of His Church, and is heretical. We do understand what you are saying regarding the "oikonomia" workings of the Holy Trinity in unison, but in the Theology of the Church, a distinction has always been maintained by the following definition of oikonomia:

"In theology the term refers first of all to God’s providence as the divinity extends itself beyond the inner life of the Trinity: all that pertains to the created worlds and to the divine actions taken on their behalf and for their salvation."

And I must note that your version of Church history is extremely biased, and that would be stating it kindly. A more accurate and truthful assesment of this version of history which you have expoused would quickly find it almost totally devoid of any truth.

If you want the truth, then you should know that the filioque was a compromise that was made by Roman pontiffs for the sake of gaining greater prosperity, as they sought the conversion of certain people who liked the filioque. This is why the Latins insisted upon its addition to the Creed. The remainder of the Christian Church was right to reject it, and still is.

 

[Megaloskhemos]

A couple of things that have been said warrant comment.

… For example, the East focuses on three persons into one God while the West has always focused on One God who is presant in Three Persons. …

This notion of a distinction between the West's "One to Three" focus in Triadology vs. the East's supposed "Three to One" focus is not historically well attested. While it is true that the Latin West has tended toward a "One to Three" approach, and in several cases formalized it as the default approach in particular theological circles, the East doesn't actually have a easily demonstrated record of favoring "Three to One" over "One to Three." If anything, the Cappadocian Fathers with their understanding of the monarchy of the Father and calling the Father alone "autotheos," tend toward a strong "One to Three" approach. I'm not sure you can get more mainstream Greek East concerning Triadology than the Cappadocians.

I've only seen this notion in Roman Catholic sources with the goal of demonstrating a supposed fundamental difference in Eastern and Western approaches between the Roman Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches, which is how you use it here. However, it's a considerable oversimplification that doesn't do justice to the various theological tradition of East or West. I would suggest sidelining such notions in a serious dialogue between the positions of the RCC and the EOC.

… Now, the Roman Catholic Church has always accepted that all things come from God the Father alone. …

This sentence needs a considerable amount of clarification. The Orthodox believe this on its face. However, a perfectly acceptable teaching within the RCC is that the Holy Spirit receives His nature and substance from both the Father and the Son equally as one single principle (this happens to be the position outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which draws from the Council of Florence in 1438). This is contrary to the Orthodox faith.

Do you mean to say that the person of the Holy Spirit, His personhood and existence (hypostasis) and His nature (being God), derive from both the Father and the Son as one principle as I would read your Church's Catechism to imply? Or do you mean something else?

On occasion, the Filioque has been elaborated upon in a way which says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the "Being" of the Father as opposed to His person. Is this what you mean? The Orthodox say that the Son and the Spirit are from the person of the Father, that the personhood of the Father is the fount of the Trinity and the fount of Being. Among other reasons, this terminology is used to avoid any notion some abstract "Godhood" (or perhaps "Godhead," both words mean the exact same thing") preceding the persons of the Trinity, a notion of existence and nature preceding person. Such a God is not the God of the Christians; it's the God of Plotinus. This is why the Orthodox Church has been so careful it Her use of language on these topics.

… Jesus plays an important role on descending the Holy Spirit as the Father does.

Try to keep your terminology consistent. "Proceed from," "descend," "spiriate," etc. all have complex connotations. If you mean here that Jesus Christ sends the Holy Spirit into/to the Cosmos, and particularly to the Church, then you are Orthodox regarding this topic.

The Holy Spirit, when he proceeds from the Father and the Son, does not separate himself from the Father and does not separate himself from the Son"

You have employed this quote incorrectly. It does not deal with spiriation. In context it's concerning the divinity of the Holy Spirit and the fact of the Holy Spirit's unity with the Father and the Son. Saint Ambrose is making the point that if you are baptized into Jesus Christ, God the Son, you are also baptized into the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is God as Christ is God.

A few paragraphs down you will find this passage in Saint Ambrose's work:

"And if you name the Father, you denote equally His Son and the Spirit of His mouth, if, that is, you apprehend it in your heart. And if you speak of the Spirit, you name also God the Father, from Whom the Spirit proceeds, and the Son, inasmuch as He is also the Spirit of the Son."

This is echoing the same sentiment, however, here Ambrose is using a more formulaic understanding of the Holy Spirit's relationship to the Father and Son. Here he is completely in line with the Greek Fathers and the Councils of Constantinople, both the Ecumenical Council in 431, and the Pan-Orthodox Council in 879.


That Council of Constantinople in 879 is likely the one ArmyMatt alluded to when he said "Church as a whole said no filioque, to include Popes. and then later on the West changed." Most historians seem to agree that this Council (which explicitly condemned adding the Filioque to the Creed) was ratified by Pope John VIII. A fair amount of Roman Catholic historians dispute this, though some do agree that the Pope accepted this Council. All Orthodox historians I have read posit that it was in fact accepted. Regardless if it was accepted (a view that I agree with), it certainly wasn't promulgated for very long in the Western Patriarchate

The reason the Greek Orthodox Church rejects the filioque is because of the fact that the Emperor of the East elected a heretical man as Patriarch, which lead to iconoclasm, arianism, rejecting the Papacy etc in the East, which is why the Orthodox are still in schism to this day.

Well, no. I'm not sure who you are referring to. If you've been reading older Roman Catholic sources, I'm going to take a stab and say you're alluding to St. Photius of Constantinople. He was long after Arianism, iconoclasm was dead in the water during his life and preceded his time by about 150 years, and the Papacy is a completely different historical discussion unless you are trying to make an argument concerning the legitimacy of the addition of "Filioque" to the Creed rather than the theological accuracy of it. I would advise starting with clearly defining the concept, demonstrating that it's a valid concept, then showing where it can be found in the Tradition of the Church. Once that's done, you can try to show that the Canons of the Second Ecumenical Council are inapplicable to the historical circumstances (from the Synod of Toledo to Pope Nicholas I of Rome) of the addition of the Filioque to the Creed.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Really? Please give me quotes and evidance from the Councils that state this. You are aware that the Church has the authority to bind and loose correct? This can be found in Matthew 16:19-20. This is why we as Christians no longer practice Jewish practices as the early Christians have, such as the fasting rules etc. Plus, Rome was always known as first among equals. The reason the Greek Orthodox Church rejects the filioque is because of the fact that the Emperor of the East elected a heretical man as Patriarch, which lead to iconoclasm, arianism, rejecting the Papacy etc in the East, which is why the Orthodox are still in schism to this day. The Early Church has always understood the role of Jesus descending the Holy Spirit as the Father, whether it be Both the Father and the Son Descending the Holy Spirit, or it be The Father descending the Spirit of God through Jesus.

council of Chalcedon: This wise and saving creed, the gift of divine grace, was sufficient for a perfect understanding and establishment of religion. For its teaching about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is complete, and it sets out the Lord’s becoming human to those who faithfully accept it.

second council of Constantinople: We confessed that we believe, protect and preach to the holy churches that confession of faith which was set out at greater length by the 318 holy fathers who met in council at Nicaea and handed down the holy doctrine or creed. The 150 who met in council at Constantinople also set out the same faith and made a confession of it and explained it. The 200 holy fathers who met in the first council of Ephesus agreed to the same faith. We follow also the definitions of the 630 who met in council at Chalcedon, regarding the same faith which they both followed and preached.

Third Constantinople: Reaffirming the divine tenets of piety in all respects unaltered, and banishing the profane teachings of impiety, this holy and universal synod of ours has also, in its turn, under God’s inspiration, set its seal on the creed which was made out by the 318 fathers and confirmed again with godly prudence by the 150 and which the other holy synods too accepted gladly and ratified for the elimination of all soul-corrupting heresy

We believe in one God …(the Creed without the filioque)

This pious and orthodox creed of the divine favour was enough for a complete knowledge of the orthodox faith and a complete assurance therein.

accepted by Rome and the East

 

[RomanRite]

I asked for a one on one debate, but because it doesn't seem like it is possible at the moment please do not expect me to reply to every argument because then it would cause confusion due to there being more than one topic at a time.

However, your guys do have good arguments even though I here'd these arguments a thousand of times from Orthodox apologetics websites and so forth. Because this is a dialogue I would like to keep this as charitable as possible and I, a Catholic, respect all opinions and beliefs. If I do not reply right away it is because I am busy, so please do not take it personal. Besides that, I will love to keep this conversation going God Bless!

 

[RomanRite]

council of Chalcedon: This wise and saving creed, the gift of divine grace, was sufficient for a perfect understanding and establishment of religion. For its teaching about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is complete, and it sets out the Lord’s becoming human to those who faithfully accept it.

second council of Constantinople: We confessed that we believe, protect and preach to the holy churches that confession of faith which was set out at greater length by the 318 holy fathers who met in council at Nicaea and handed down the holy doctrine or creed. The 150 who met in council at Constantinople also set out the same faith and made a confession of it and explained it. The 200 holy fathers who met in the first council of Ephesus agreed to the same faith. We follow also the definitions of the 630 who met in council at Chalcedon, regarding the same faith which they both followed and preached.

Third Constantinople: Reaffirming the divine tenets of piety in all respects unaltered, and banishing the profane teachings of impiety, this holy and universal synod of ours has also, in its turn, under God’s inspiration, set its seal on the creed which was made out by the 318 fathers and confirmed again with godly prudence by the 150 and which the other holy synods too accepted gladly and ratified for the elimination of all soul-corrupting heresy

We believe in one God …(the Creed without the filioque)

This pious and orthodox creed of the divine favour was enough for a complete knowledge of the orthodox faith and a complete assurance therein.

accepted by Rome and the East

I don't agree with this argument and here is why,

The Constantinopolitan Creed (the "Creed of the 150 Fathers") was not immediately agreed upon by the whole Church, and both Creeds existed side-by-side, this is why Saint Ambrose believed in the filioque himself, who the Orthodox believe to be a Saint. (Funny because if he was to be alive this day and be canonized by the Church here in 2013 he would be considered a heretic since Saint Mark of Ephesus of the Orthodox Churches claims the Latins are heretics).

It was not untill the Council of Chalcedon where the Creed of the Church was agreed upon as the official Creed of the church, but wait we are not done yet, and this is because the Fathers were not in agreement with eachother on how the creed should be interpretated, which is the birth of the disagreement with Rome and the East, who came to different conclusions, especially when Gnostics misinterpreted the Creed we can see what cayous this caused in the Early Church.


Now, due to Jesus being part of the trinity as the Father and the Holy Spirit, we can see all of them play an important role with one another, for the Holy Spirit is the Bond of Jesus and the Father.

The Holy Spirit is[bless and do not curse]"the bond of the Trinity."[bless and do not curse]- St. Epiphanius of Salamis,Ancoratus, 7 (PG 43:23B).

Because of the Holy Spirit being the bond of the Father and the Son, we can see why the Holy Spirit also concieved Jesus in his Mother's Womb. Thus, why would Jesus not be able to return the favor by proceeding the Holy Spirit upon the faithful?

The Spirit of the Word is like a love of the Father for the mysteriously begotten Word, and it is the same love that the beloved Word and Son of the Father has for the one who begot him. That love comes from the Father at the same time as it is with the Son and it naturally rests on the Son.[bless and do not curse]- St. Gregory Palamas,[bless and do not curse]Chapters, 36 (PG 150:1144D-1145A).

(Note that the Love is the Holy Spirit).


Commenting on St. Andrei Rublev's Icon of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit"is in the middle of the Father and the Son. He is the one who brings about the communion between the two. He is the communion, the love between the Father and the Son. That is clearly shown by the remarkable fact that the movement comes from him. It is in his breath that the Father moves into the Son, that the Son receives his Father and that the word resounds."[bless and do not curse]- Paul Evdokimov, "L'icone",[bless and do not curse]La vie spirituelle, 82 (1956), pp. 24ff.


God Bless

 

[GregConstantine]

none of your quotes have anything to do with nor supports the doctrine of the filioque as taught by the Roman Catholic Church.

The fact of the matter is, the Church has never and does not currently teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The evidence is in favor of that and not in favor of the filioque as being an apostolic doctrine.

Then againg, Roman Catholics believe in the development of doctrine, which is in my opinion a easy way to get around un apostolic doctrines that Rome has added to the original apostolic faith.

 

[GregConstantine]

sorry for the typos, my caffeine hasn't kicked in yet!

 

[Lukaris]

I just wanted to say I overlooked the "one on one" understanding of your original post & my comment was intended to be one among those of others. Sorry for any misunderstanding.