The Filioque

[Alonso_Castillo]

I agree that the Filioque clause was not the cause of the schism. The cause of the schism was papal triumphalism. Forcing the change to the creed was just one symptom of that disease.

The Filioque was not taught by the Bishop of Rome, But from the Western Fathers, and from The Sacred Scripture.

 

[Lukaris]

I am sure the debate erupted into something the Spanish church could not even conceive of. Both sides have egg on their faces, but the east has never accepted this & in 1054, it was attempted to be forced on us. Overall, it seems an unfortunate turn of events that went out of control.



typos corrected.

 

[Knee V]

The Filioque was not taught by the Bishop of Rome, But from the Western Fathers, and from The Sacred Scripture.

It wasn't taught by the bishops of Rome at first (they flat out refused to let it become part of the Creed). But once the Franks hijacked the Papacy and turned it into a frankish vassal, they used the filioque as political leverage.

 

[Knee V]

Chalemagne did not innovate the Filique. I have shown that the Church of Spain has always proclamed the Filioque even since 400 in the Fist Council of Toledo. I also have shown that Filioque was a teaching even from Saint Ambrosius of Milan, Saint Isidore of Seville, saint Leandrus of Seville, and of course Saint Agustin. I have also shown that Saint abrosius speaks of the Apocalipse 22, 1 showing that the Holy Spirit Flows from the Throne of God (the Father) and the Lamb (the Son).

For the time of Charlemagne, The Church of Spain, France, Germany, England, etc, Had already bein used the filioque. as a teaching of the Western Fathers and as revealed by the Sacred Scripture.

Even Saint John Chrysostomos hesitates when explaining John 20:22, in a clear sign that the procesion of the Holy Spirit from the Son was something not fully clear, and he expreses such hesitation by saying "some say", as showing full concience that others in communion also say other things.

Saint John Chrysostom lived from 347 to 407 so he was aware of the Council of Concstantinople I and Toledo I.

He's not saying that Charlemagne innovated it; just that he used it for political gain.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

I am sure the debate erupted into something the Spanish church could not even conceive of. Both sides have egg on their faces, but the east has never accepted this & in 1054, it was attempted to be forced on us. Overlall, it seems an unfotunate turn of events that went out of control.

In 1054 the cause of Excomunication was the leavened bread, which was accepted by the church as an exception, but in the byzantine Empire it was and remains as the rule with total lack of Apostolicity.

But The Church accepted the leavened Bread against those who said that leavened bread was a fake Bread for consecration. The church answered that such afirmation was wrong, and accepted both leavened and unleavened Bread. Yet the leavened Bread would have to be used wherever unleavened bread was not available. But greeks use exclusively leavened Bread excluding unleavened Bread in a total pendulum position. Such actitude is also wrong.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

It wasn't taught by the bishops of Rome at first (they flat out refused to let it become part of the Creed). But once the Franks hijacked the Papacy and turned it into a frankish vassal, they used the filioque as political leverage.

What is the important thing, Filioque in the creed or what filioque implies? well the core of Filioque is what it means, not where it is expressed, as I have shown Filioque was never inserted in the Constantinople creed by the Toledo's Councils, But it was always expresed in a broader expresion of faith very similar to Quicumque.

The teaching is correct, is Revealed in the Sacred Scriptures and explained by the fathers.

 

[ArmyMatt]

He wanted Phosius to settle down, Phosius wanted independence and used filioque as blackmail. Pope John VIII didn't see any problem in accepting some conditions from the east in order to avoid schism, but Phosius and the Church of Constantinople kept on their fight against the supremacy of Rome.
in 870 the Byzantine Empire was very strong and Phosius used the power of the empire to negotiate with he pope:

But for the years of the council of Florence the bizantine Empire was like this:

In the years of Pope John VIII Constantinople almost ruled over Rome. But in the Years of the council of Florence, Otomans were almost ruling over Constantinople. With Focious Greeks were arrogant, but with Ottomans they signed Filioque.

It was politics, Besides, for the years of Focio, The first council of Toledo had already passed almost 500 years.

By the way the Church of Constantinople rules over 5000 christians in Turkey, and even though that is called a Patriarchate. According to Wikipedia there are 15,000 Catholics in Istambul. almos 3 times the number of Orthodox.

All around the world Constantinople has 1'500,000 members. Even the church of my city has far more members, in Guadalajara. Something is just very wrong.

Even the Spanish church in the worst years of Muslim oppression was able to reject Muslims. Even with filioque, but since Phosius Constantinople was constantly falling.

so which local council do you follow? the one that follows the ecumenical ones, or the one that doesn't?

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

so which local council do you follow? the one that follows the ecumenical ones, or the one that doesn't?

I guess that nobody doubts on Constantinople I teachings, but Florence Council is also a valid Council it doesn´t matter if Eastern Bishops never applied it, It doesn't matter if Palamas rejected it and all the others followed, the Council of Florence is valid. and Filioque was accepted in the Western understanding and in the eastern understanding.

Besides, I need you to show me what Ecumenical Council of those which East Orthodoxy accepts has rejected Toledo's teachings since the First Council of Toledo, naming Toledos Councils by heretic and by name and also proclaiming that Saint Leandrus and Saint Isidore were heretics and that they are in hell by believing in filioque. I need one Ecumenical Council that aserts so.

Because I do I have the Council of Florence asertions about Filioque and they are signed by Eastern Bishops.

 

[Knee V]

I guess that nobody doubts on Constantinople I teachings, but Florence Council is also a valid Council it doesn´t matter if Eastern Bishops never applied it, It doesn't matter if Palamas rejected it and all the others followed, the Council of Florence is valid. and Filioque was accepted in the Western understanding and in the eastern understanding.

Besides, I need you to show me what Ecumenical Council of those which East Orthodoxy accepts has rejected Toledo's teachings since the First Council of Toledo.

"Ecumenical" councils are called such because of their applcability to the life of the Roman Empire. After western Europe was no longer part of the Empire, a local error thar had no bearing on the rest of the church in the Empire would not need to be addressed. Until the filioque affected the stability of the Empire, it did not need to be addressed at an ecumenical council. But once it began to affect the Empire and the church in the Empire, it began to be scrutinized more intensely by the East.

 

[ArmyMatt]

no, there is no council that does that, but every council that is ecumenical, actually ecumenical, says that one cannot alter the Creed. period. you seem to think that you can pick and chose what local councils are "valid" and which ones are not. so since Toledo agrees with you now, you say it is a valid council. the ecumencial councils say no. Popes have said no.

and no, Florence for us is NOT a valid council. the Orthodox Church as a whole has rejected it. bishops can be wrong. the Church as a whole is not.

 

[Knee V]

I guess that nobody doubts on Constantinople I teachings, but Florence Council is also a valid Council it doesn´t matter if Eastern Bishops never applied it, It doesn't matter if Palamas rejected it and all the others followed, the Council of Florence is valid. and Filioque was accepted in the Western understanding and in the eastern understanding.

Besides, I need you to show me what Ecumenical Council of those which East Orthodoxy accepts has rejected Toledo's teachings since the First Council of Toledo, naming Toledos Councils by heretic and by name and also proclaiming that Saint Leandrus and Saint Isidore were heretics and that they are in hell by believing in filioque. I need one Ecumenical Council that aserts so.

Because I do I have the Council of Florence asertions about Filioque and they are signed by Eastern Bishops.

Signatures mean nothing. Those bishops repented of their error and the council was rejected.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Signatures mean nothing. Those bishops repented of their error and the council was rejected.

So sorry That is your problem. That council is valid.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

"Ecumenical" councils are called such because of their applcability to the life of the Roman Empire. After western Europe was no longer part of the Empire, a local error thar had no bearing on the rest of the church in the Empire would not need to be addressed. Until the filioque affected the stability of the Empire, it did not need to be addressed at an ecumenical council. But once it began to affect the Empire and the church in the Empire, it began to be scrutinized more intensely by the East.

Ecumenica = Universal, Please don't bring cesaropapism here.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

no, there is no council that does that, but every council that is ecumenical, actually ecumenical, says that one cannot alter the Creed. period. you seem to think that you can pick and chose what local councils are "valid" and which ones are not. so since Toledo agrees with you now, you say it is a valid council. the ecumencial councils say no. Popes have said no.

and no, Florence for us is NOT a valid council. the Orthodox Church as a whole has rejected it. bishops can be wrong. the Church as a whole is not.

Please you only have to bring the one Council that rejects Toledo's teachings by naming Toledo. Councils were hold even to correct heresies of fake councils like the one of Arrians. And even against Nestorian heresies. For sure if Filioque was a heresy there MUST be a council condemning all the participants of Toledos's Councils, There even should be a decree anathemizing Saint Leandrus and Saint Isidore and Saint Ambrose, and all the western fathers who taught "heresy". And such condemnation shuld be estated by name of each one of those "heretics".

If you don't have such contundent proves please abstain from speeding around in circles.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Please you only have to bring the one Council that rejects Toledo's teachings by naming Toledo. Councils were hold even to correct heresies of fake councils like the one of Arrians. And even against Nestorian heresies. For sure if Filioque was a heresy there MUST be a council condemning all the participants of Toledos's Councils, There even should be a decree anathemizing Saint Leandrus and Saint Isidore and Saint Ambrose, and all the western fathers who taught "heresy". And such condemnation shuld be estated by name of each one of those "heretics".

If you don't have such contundent proves please abstain from speeding around in circles.

no you don't. every council says you cannot alter the Creed. the filioque is an alteration. that is something you cannot just ignore. they also say all manner and teaching on the Holy Spirit is full and complete. the filioque would mean that it was not full and complete. so either the ecumenical councils are wrong, or Toledo and the saints who supported it were wrong.

 

[Knee V]

Ecumenica = Universal, Please don't bring cesaropapism here.

Ecumenical does not mean "universal". It means "pertaining to the life of the empire". It is for that same reason that the Patriarch of Constantinople has been called the "Ecumenical Patriarch", because he was the patriarch of the imperial capital.

 

[Knee V]

It is not caesaropapism. A council being ecumenical only means that it became part of imperial law. Ecumenical councils were not the only valid councils, and being ecumenical didn't make them "more valid". They just happened to be legally recognized in the Roman Empire.

 

[Knee V]

And in terms of Florence being "valid" or not, the Kingdom of God is not a matter of legal technicalities. Florence was rejected by the East, even if most of her bishops initially signed off on it under duress.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Ecumenical does not mean "universal". It means "pertaining to the life of the empire". It is for that same reason that the Patriarch of Constantinople has been called the "Ecumenical Patriarch", because he was the patriarch of the imperial capital.

Pleas at least use Google Traslator:

search for the translation Greek - English of the word

οἰκουμενικ

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

no you don't. every council says you cannot alter the Creed. the filioque is an alteration. that is something you cannot just ignore. they also say all manner and teaching on the Holy Spirit is full and complete. the filioque would mean that it was not full and complete. so either the ecumenical councils are wrong, or Toledo and the saints who supported it were wrong.

Please, Where in the Revelation can we read about that lack of fullnes that the Holy Spirit may have due to filioque? Where is the connection of your claim and the revelation explained By saint Ambrose, Saint Agustin, Saint Isidore, saint Leandrus, etc. etc?


And please bring those Councils I requested you to verify that filioque "heresy" was rejected in formal way since the beggining, in the early 400's, and it has to have written the word Toledo as rejecting such "heretic" councils. At least give us one.