The Filioque

[Alonso_Castillo]

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.

No señor, You are mistaken, Ecumenical means that it was Universal, mandatory for the Whole Church. and even though the Pope rejected many times false teachings of the Ecumenical Councils, like canon 28 of Chalcedony and many others.

 

[Lukaris]

We reject the Council of Florence:

THE DOCTRINAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE




According to the Orthodox, the Latins were not only wrong in regard to the Filioque and their theology of Grace, but were also wrong in regard to the Eucharist, Papal Primacy, Baptism, Purgatory, etc. Symeon Thessalonikes in his list of Latin errors11 included the withholding of the chalice from the laity, the withholding of Holy Chrismation and Holy Communion from infants, the non-concelebration of the clergy. Symeon was also shocked by Latin religious art, especially by the statues equipped with artificial hair and clothing and painted in life-like fashion. What disturbed him even more was Latin sacred drama and the realism for which it strove.





No real union could have taken place at Florence. A few bishops apostasized, yet most of these repented of their actions.12 In fact, when the Union had been signed and a Mass was held to celebrate the event, not one of the Greek bishops would take part with the Latins even though the Pope desired them to do so;13 and only three of the Orthodox party had anything to do with the service.14









The numbers above are footnote numbers from a section of the article I pasted from within the link.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

We reject the Council of Florence:

THE DOCTRINAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE


According to the Orthodox, the Latins were not only wrong in regard to the Filioque and their theology of Grace, but were also wrong in regard to the Eucharist, Papal Primacy, Baptism, Purgatory, etc. Symeon Thessalonikes in his list of Latin errors11 included the withholding of the chalice from the laity, the withholding of Holy Chrismation and Holy Communion from infants, the non-concelebration of the clergy. Symeon was also shocked by Latin religious art, especially by the statues equipped with artificial hair and clothing and painted in life-like fashion. What disturbed him even more was Latin sacred drama and the realism for which it strove.





No real union could have taken place at Florence. A few bishops apostasized, yet most of these repented of their actions.12 In fact, when the Union had been signed and a Mass was held to celebrate the event, not one of the Greek bishops would take part with the Latins even though the Pope desired them to do so;13 and only three of the Orthodox party had anything to do with the service.14









The numbers above are footnote numbers from a section of the article I pasted from within the link.

And...


....I guess Symeon Thessalonikes is one ft he church Fathers of the 4th and 5th Century, Isn't he?

And about his list of errors, I would say that such list must be reviewed, if you would like, point by point in order to verify if Symeon Thessalonikes is a shisnatic or a real reencarnation of one of the fathers of the church.

 

[GregConstantine]

@ Alonso, we will not use Google Translator because Google Translator translates modern Greek, not the Greek used at the time of the Councils. Also, (and this is from a Byzantine Scholar at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, so I'm not making this up, so please don't dismiss it because it doesn't fit into your personal world view on Church history) The Eastern Romans (yes, Romans, they were the Roman Empire) perceived the Empire as the "universal" civilization and the Church as being the "universal" Truth, anything outside of the Empire and the Church was not civilization and not the Truth. So, in a sense, yes, "Ecumenical" has a component to it that characterises it as "universal", but, "universal" is not a definition of "ecumenical". It comes ultimately from the word "eikos" which means house, eikonominos means the care of the household/empire.

Fact of the matter is, the Councils declared that the Creed shall not be changed, a decision the Bishop of Rome agreed to abide by. However, Rome didn't abide by it, and unilaterally changed it, and then atempted to impose that change on the rest of the Church.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

@ Alonso, we will not use Google Translator because Google Translator translates modern Greek, not the Greek used at the time of the Councils. Also, (and this is from a Byzantine Scholar at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, so I'm not making this up, so please don't dismiss it because it doesn't fit into your personal world view on Church history) The Eastern Romans (yes, Romans, they were the Roman Empire) perceived the Empire as the "universal" civilization and the Church as being the "universal" Truth, anything outside of the Empire and the Church was not civilization and not the Truth. So, in a sense, yes, "Ecumenical" has a component to it that characterises it as "universal", but, "universal" is not a definition of "ecumenical".

Please don't go very far away, Since the Roman Empire of the East fallen, would that mean that Ecumenical councils lost their authority?... ... NO

If your interpretation that the ecumencal Councils were restricted to what you, as byzantine scholar, say was the byzantine "understanding" of what has to be understood as christianity and civilization, as restricted to the empire under the Byzantine emperor, then neither North AMerica nor south america or Australia can fit under the authority of those ecumenical councils because such territories are far away from the jurisdiction of the Byzantine Empire.

It comes ultimately from the word "eikos" which means house, eikonominos means the care of the household/empire.

Please are not you aware that there were conflicts between the pope and the bishop of constantinople for the pretentions of the last to be called Ecumenical Bishop for such tittle means to be The Universal Bishop?

Fact of the matter is, the Councils declared that the Creed shall not be changed, a decision the Bishop of Rome agreed to abide by. However, Rome didn't abide by it, and unilaterally changed it, and then atempted to impose that change on the rest of the Church.

The rest of the church accepted the change in Florence. History tells that the Council of Nicea and the creed of Nicea would be untouchable, until Constantinople changed Nicea Creed. Florence changed Constantinoples Creed with the agreement of the Eastern Orthodox. If they repent after is their problem.

And As I have said before. No arrian Bishop and no Nestoria Bishop and no monophisiite Bishop is recognized as Saint by any of the West or the East Churches, How then Saint Ambrosius, Saint Leandrus, Saint Isidore, etc are recognized by the Eastern Orthodox As saints if they taught filioque and modern Greeks consider filioque a heresy?

That contradiction in the East fathers who did not anathemize western fathers makes EVIDENT that filioque implies no heresy.

 

[GregConstantine]

You either didn't read my post very carefully, or you are reading something into it that I didn't say.

I clearly distinguished between the understanding of the Empire as being the extent of civilization and the Church as being the extent of Truth. I in no way implied they are one and the same things. Big No No, so you are right that the Council's authority extends even to today and to the entire world because it is the Church whose existence is independent of any Empire. I was talking about the Empire only to show you that the understanding of "eikonominos" is not "universal" although it can have a "universal" characteristic in so far as we see the extent of where the Church is, (which is everywhere). Eucumenical does not mean universal. And, the authority of the Eucumenical Patriarch extends only to his jurisdiction, not over the entire world. Even when the Empire was up and running, he didn't have universal jurisdiction, and, Rome didn't either.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

You either didn't read my post very carefully, or you are reading something into it that I didn't say.

I clearly distinguished between the understanding of the Empire as being the extent of civilization and the Church as being the extent of Truth. I in no way implied they are one and the same things. Big No No, so you are right that the Council's authority extends even to today and to the entire world because it is the Church whose existence is independent of any Empire. I was talking about the Empire only to show you that the understanding of "eikonominos" is not "universal" although it can have a "universal" characteristic in so far as we see the extent of where the Church is, (which is everywhere). Eucumenical does not mean universal. And, the authority of the Eucumenical Patriarch extends only to his jurisdiction, not over the entire world. Even when the Empire was up and running, he didn't have universal jurisdiction, and, Rome didn't either.

Ok. I think that as usual we are saying the same with different understandings and with different evidences. You have your evidences and I have my evidences. But we are moving apart from the core theme f the thread, Filioque. And I am awaiting for a Reasonable explanation of the Evident contradiction that implies to anathematize as excommunicating heresy the Filioque and in the other hand proclaiming saints to the Western Fathers who taught it as apostolic. And the thing is, or Filioque was never a heresy and Phosius began making extremist oppositions to it, or modern Eastern Orthodox venerate excommunicable heretics as Saints.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Ok. I think that as usual we are saying the same with different understandings and with different evidences. You have your evidences and I have my evidences. But we are moving apart from the core theme f the thread, Filioque. And I am awaiting for a Reasonable explanation of the Evident contradiction that implies to anathematize as excommunicating heresy the Filioque and in the other hand proclaiming saints to the Western Fathers who taught it as apostolic. And the thing is, or Filioque was never a heresy and Phosius began making extremist oppositions to it, or modern Eastern Orthodox venerate excommunicable heretics as Saints.

that's not how we glorify someone's sanctity. saints in our Church have been theologically wrong from time to time. so no, we don't have to anathematize anyone, and the filioque is still heresy. you cannot deny that the ecumenical councils said you cannot alter the Creed, and that was an alteration of the Creed.

 

[ArmyMatt]

from Chalcedon:

Since we have formulated these things with all possible accuracy and attention, the sacred and universal synod decreed that no one is permitted to produce, or even to write down or compose, any other creed or to think or teach otherwise. As for those who dare either to compose another creed or even to promulgate or teach or hand down another creed for those who wish to convert to a recognition of the truth from Hellenism or from Judaism, or from any kind of heresy at all: if they be bishops or clerics, the bishops are to be deposed from the episcopacy and the clerics from the clergy; if they be monks or layfolk, they are to be anathematized.

Second 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.
We gathered from these authorities that nothing which has been written by anyone ought to be accepted unless it has been shown conclusively that it is in accord with the true faith of the holy fathers. Therefore we broke off from our deliberations so as to reiterate in a formal declaration the definition of faith which was promulgated by the holy council of Chalcedon. We compared what was written in the letter with this official statement. When this comparison was made, it was quite apparent that the contents of the letter were quite contradictory to those of the definition of faith. The definition was in accord with the unique, permanent faith set out by the 318 holy fathers, and by the 150, and by those who gathered for the first council at Ephesus.

from 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

then they say the Creed

The holy and universal synod said:
This pious and orthodox creed of the divine favour was enough for a complete knowledge of the orthodox faith and a complete assurance therein.

 

[GregConstantine]

@Alonso,
we are not saying the same things with different understandings. We are saying different things with different understandings.

Remember:
Orthodox-Roman Catholicism=Not The Same Thing

 

[prodromos]

Please are not you aware that there were conflicts between the pope and the bishop of constantinople for the pretentions of the last to be called Ecumenical Bishop for such tittle means to be The Universal Bishop?

The pope was responding to a poor translation of the term into Latin. Unfortunately this would always be an issue due to the fact that Latin has only one quarter the vocabulary of Greek, and Latin clergy no longer studied Greek as they once had.

Pope St Gregory the Great (540-604)
“I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others”​

What is really ironic about this is that the papacy would later claim for itself the role of "Universal Bishop".

I really shouldn't be getting into this discussion.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

The pope was responding to a poor translation of the term into Latin. Unfortunately this would always be an issue due to the fact that Latin has only one quarter the vocabulary of Greek, and Latin clergy no longer studied Greek as they once had.

Pope St Gregory the Great (540-604)
“I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others”
​

What is really ironic about this is that the papacy would later claim for itself the role of "Universal Bishop".

I really shouldn't be getting into this discussion.

Can you show to us in the Catechism of the catholic Church where can we find that the Pope is the Universal Bishop? And it has to be clearly stated. Otherwise, the lack of piety from you is also salted with lies.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

that's not how we glorify someone's sanctity. saints in our Church have been theologically wrong from time to time. so no, we don't have to anathematize anyone, and the filioque is still heresy. you cannot deny that the ecumenical councils said you cannot alter the Creed, and that was an alteration of the Creed.

Please stop holding contradictions, Either the Fathers of the West are as heretics as to be excomunicated as the whole catholics remain for schismatic churches, or The Filioque is the Schismatic excuse to remain separated far from the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome as successor of Saint Peter and head of the Apostles successors, the bishops.

You cannot deny that every time a heresy emerged there was a council. I have shown that Even Saint John Chrysostom doubted about the interpretation of John 20,22. I also have shown that For 654 year since the first council of Toledo no one called for a council to expel Spain from communion because of filioque.

I also have shown that Nicene creed was made to not be touched but Constantinople I, changed it. I also remembered that the council of Florence was validated by the orthodox and accepted the change in the creed. If they repent after is not our business, For us they fall away from communion of the council that they had just signed.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

from Chalcedon:

Since we have formulated these things with all possible accuracy and attention, the sacred and universal synod decreed that no one is permitted to produce, or even to write down or compose, any other creed or to think or teach otherwise. As for those who dare either to compose another creed or even to promulgate or teach or hand down another creed for those who wish to convert to a recognition of the truth from Hellenism or from Judaism, or from any kind of heresy at all: if they be bishops or clerics, the bishops are to be deposed from the episcopacy and the clerics from the clergy; if they be monks or layfolk, they are to be anathematized.

Second 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.
We gathered from these authorities that nothing which has been written by anyone ought to be accepted unless it has been shown conclusively that it is in accord with the true faith of the holy fathers. Therefore we broke off from our deliberations so as to reiterate in a formal declaration the definition of faith which was promulgated by the holy council of Chalcedon. We compared what was written in the letter with this official statement. When this comparison was made, it was quite apparent that the contents of the letter were quite contradictory to those of the definition of faith. The definition was in accord with the unique, permanent faith set out by the 318 holy fathers, and by the 150, and by those who gathered for the first council at Ephesus.

from 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

then they say the Creed

The holy and universal synod said:
This pious and orthodox creed of the divine favour was enough for a complete knowledge of the orthodox faith and a complete assurance therein.

Ok, Where can we read about Toledos debunking?????

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

@Alonso,
we are not saying the same things with different understandings. We are saying different things with different understandings.

Remember:
Orthodox-Roman Catholicism=Not The Same Thing

Yes, Orthodox are fallen from communion with the church of the Apostles who never celebrated Eucharist exclusively with leavened bread.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Please stop holding contradictions, Either the Fathers of the West are as heretics as to be excomunicated as the whole catholics remain for schismatic churches, or The Filioque is the Schismatic excuse to remain separated far from the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome as successor of Saint Peter and head of the Apostles successors, the bishops.

that's not contradiction, our Church is conciliar. so we accept those who have theological errors. if the totality of their life is Orthodox, and they were in communion with the Orthodox Church, then the saints are saints (ie St Augustine of Hippo)

I also have shown that Nicene creed was made to not be touched but Constantinople I, changed it. I also remembered that the council of Florence was validated by the orthodox and accepted the change in the creed. If they repent after is not our business, For us they fall away from communion of the council that they had just signed.

it was officially proclaimed unalterable after Constantinople. after that, they said no alterations. Florence just shows how you don't understand how our Church works. yeah, bishops signed it, but the Church as a whole rejected it. so it was never a council.

Ok, Where can we read about Toledos debunking?????

each one of those speaks of not altering what was given at Nicaea and Constantinople. Toledo is not mentioned by name, but what happened at Toledo is, because the Creed was altered there.

Yes, Orthodox are fallen from communion with the church of the Apostles who never celebrated Eucharist exclusively with leavened bread.

cheap shot, and theologically inaccurate. Orthodox, and I saw this on EWTN a ton of times, can commune in the RC Church from Rome's point of view.

 

[Lukaris]

Many Eastern Catholics say the creed without the filioque.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Many Eastern Catholics say the creed without the filioque.

Even the pope recites the Creed in Greek without Filioque, Does that mean that he denies it or that he proclaims it as heretic? NO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1wkQ37KvWM

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

that's not contradiction, our Church is conciliar. so we accept those who have theological errors. if the totality of their life is Orthodox, and they were in communion with the Orthodox Church, then the saints are saints (ie St Augustine of Hippo)



it was officially proclaimed unalterable after Constantinople. after that, they said no alterations. Florence just shows how you don't understand how our Church works. yeah, bishops signed it, but the Church as a whole rejected it. so it was never a council.



each one of those speaks of not altering what was given at Nicaea and Constantinople. Toledo is not mentioned by name, but what happened at Toledo is, because the Creed was altered there.



cheap shot, and theologically inaccurate. Orthodox, and I saw this on EWTN a ton of times, can commune in the RC Church from Rome's point of view.

I have seen no rational explanetion at all. If such theological erros did not exclude The West Father from Heaven, then why does Eastern Orthodoxy exclude Catholics from Communion and Concelebration?

 

[Knee V]

I have seen no rational explanetion at all. If such theological erros did not exclude The West Father from Heaven, then why does Eastern Orthodoxy exclude Catholics from Communion and Concelebration?

Because individual errors by individual people is not the problem. There were eastern fathers with errors as well. The problem that caused Rome to go into schism was her arrogance and lust for power, lording herself over more and more churches, and dragging them into her error. There could be no reconcilliation so long as Rome refused to repent of exalting herself over the entire church.

Papism - not the filioque or purgatory or indulgences or bread - is what caused Rome's schism.