The Filioque

[truthseeker32]

My words will be in bold blue

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,

You are assuming he believed in the filioque, but given the context of the passage this has been far from established

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).

This is off topic, and I am sure you are smart enough to realize that St. Mark surely did not mean all Latins of all times and places are heretics, just like if I was to say "the Utah Jazz really suck" it would not mean I think that the Utah Jazz have always sucked.

 

[RomanRite]

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.

Really? Is that because of the fact that you do not agree with them or is it because you did not read my other posts? What really made you come to this conclusion? So far I have not be convinced by any of the arguments of the Orthodox Churches against the filioque, and I have not been convinced one bit by the arguments of the Orthodox that try proving Rome has not always accepted it, as it has.

 

[GregConstantine]

"Really? Is that because of the fact that you do not agree with them or is it because you did not read my other posts? What really made you come to this conclusion?"

No, its not because I disagree with them, nor is it because I did not read your posts, its because the Church never has nor taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. The historical record does not support the Filioque being an original Apostolic doctrine.

I looked at, read, and studied the history of the Church and I do not find strong support for the claims of Rome.
Besides, recently, Rome has been saying she'll be willing to go back to not having the filioque if that means the Orthodox will accept her re-union. That begs the question, doesn't it?

 

[Megaloskhemos]

Just a quick thing.

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.

This is patently incorrect and/or misleading. In Rublev's icon the angel in the center of the composition is representative of the Son, of Jesus Christ. He's clothed in blood red under blue and behind him is a tree representative of the Cross. The Holy Spirit is represented by the angel on the right, dressed in green which is symbolic of the Holy Spirit as the giver of life.

That said, the icon intends to imply all the angels seated equally spaced around the table (that is not what is depicted due to perspective). In such a case any one of the angels is directly between the other two.

There may be newer versions of this icon that are arranged in a way that agrees with what you present as Evdokimov's analysis, but they are not following Rublev's prototype in its entirety.

 

[truthseeker32]

Since the OP requested only one opponent, I nominate Megaloskhemos to take up the gauntlet of this debate, if he is willing, of course

 

[RomanRite]

"Really? Is that because of the fact that you do not agree with them or is it because you did not read my other posts? What really made you come to this conclusion?"

No, its not because I disagree with them, nor is it because I did not read your posts, its because the Church never has nor taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. The historical record does not support the Filioque being an original Apostolic doctrine.

I looked at, read, and studied the history of the Church and I do not find strong support for the claims of Rome.
Besides, recently, Rome has been saying she'll be willing to go back to not having the filioque if that means the Orthodox will accept her re-union. That begs the question, doesn't it?

Wow that is strange because I also discovered the Early Church and studied her, and I found plenty of evidance of the filioque. I almost even converted to the Orthodox Churches but found Rome to be the truth of apostolic doctrine and so forth. Its funny how we arrive at different conclusions, it kind of reminds me of my old Protestant days where all the different denominations came to different conclusions and interpretations of the scriptures, but that's another story, ill save that for a rainy day ofcorse

 

[RomanRite]

Since the OP requested only one opponent, I nominate Megaloskhemos to take up the gauntlet of this debate, if he is willing, of course

Sure, or maybe even ArmyMatt of Constantine, but that's up to them ofcorse

God Bless!

 

[ArmyMatt]

none of what you brought up says anything about the Spirits eternal ORIGIN in both the Father and the Son. your basically just putting forth an opinion, and then saying it is so because it is how you see it. and those councils were accepted by Rome, even if not initially.

and you commentary of the Rublev Icon is wrong. the One in the middle is Christ, hence the similar clothing in other iconography, the tree behind Him (the Cross), and the fact that He is in the Center of the chalice shape made by the contours of the other Two Persons. the One on the right side as you look at it is the Spirit, by His color scheme of green and blue (Life and baptism) and that His hand is reaching into the Chalice, and not in a position of blessing. since He is the active power behind the consecration of Holy Communion.

 

[RomanRite]

none of what you brought up says anything about the Spirits eternal ORIGIN in both the Father and the Son. your basically just putting forth an opinion, and then saying it is so because it is how you see it. and those councils were accepted by Rome, even if not initially.

and you commentary of the Rublev Icon is wrong. the One in the middle is Christ, hence the similar clothing in other iconography, the tree behind Him (the Cross), and the fact that He is in the Center of the chalice shape made by the contours of the other Two Persons. the One on the right side as you look at it is the Spirit, by His color scheme of green and blue (Life and baptism) and that His hand is reaching into the Chalice, and not in a position of blessing. since He is the active power behind the consecration of Holy Communion.

I'm not sure who you are speaking to to be honest because I never mentioned any icons nore am I familiar with most Greek Orthodox art. The points I brought up has much evidance, hence I was not convinced once by the Greek Orthodox stand point to be honest. Note ( your comment on my sources is also a opinion if you haven't noticed ).

 

[ArmyMatt]

you posted this

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.

and that is what I was commenting on.

and no, I did not post opinion. I posted councils that state that the teaching in the Creed cannot be altered or added to. it is full and complete.

 

[RomanRite]

you posted this



and that is what I was commenting on.

and no, I did not post opinion. I posted councils that state that the teaching in the Creed cannot be altered or added to. it is full and complete.

I thought you were replying to another post, I apologize.

Because you made the claim you are quoting the councils, are you aware that icons were once forbiden in the Early Church in the East, which is now used for Orthodox liturgies and devotionals? My point here is that even though at some point one thing was not accepted that in the future it can be because of the guidance of the Holy spirit. I brought this up because you have made the claim Rome did not always accept the Holy Spirit proceeding from the son, which it has, and my point is if this contradicts the early councils then so do icons.

Back to the topic, The Catholic Church has always taught that the spirit proceeds from the Father and the son, or the Father through the son. The Orthodox make the claim that both are not equivalent, but they are. This is why the Catechism of the Catholic Church states in paragraph 248 that they are equal as it always has. The Orthodox Church does agree on the statement " Proceeds from the Father through the son " which is why in 1439 the council of Florence almost led to reunion between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches because of the agreement on " Through the son ". In the 1450s the process of repairment came to a end because of the conflict between the Latin crusaders and Islam in the East, which forced all Eastern Christians to leave union with the west.

 

[GregConstantine]

"Because you made the claim you are quoting the councils, are you aware that icons were once forbiden in the Early Church in the East, which is now used for Orthodox liturgies and devotionals?"

According to that logic, we should all be Arians, much of the East became Arian, therefore, the Church taught Arianism? Of course not!

All the Ecumenical Councils (and Roman Catholics would agree with this, and read this very carefully and slowly)

Declare what the Church has always believed from the very beginning!

They did not add to, changed, developed etc the Apostolic Faith once delivered to the saints.
So your point above really doesn't hold much water.

As to your point about doing research about the early Church, well, many people have done that and have become Orthodox, including Roman Catholics (including yours truly)

 

[RomanRite]

"Because you made the claim you are quoting the councils, are you aware that icons were once forbiden in the Early Church in the East, which is now used for Orthodox liturgies and devotionals?"

According to that logic, we should all be Arians, much of the East became Arian, therefore, the Church taught Arianism? Of course not!

All the Ecumenical Councils (and Roman Catholics would agree with this, and read this very carefully and slowly)

Declare what the Church has always believed from the very beginning!

They did not add to, changed, developed etc the Apostolic Faith once delivered to the saints.
So your point above really doesn't hold much water.

As to your point about doing research about the early Church, well, many people have done that and have become Orthodox, including Roman Catholics (including yours truly)

Exactly, and the Roman Church is still teaching that apostolic faith.

 

[GregConstantine]

No she doesn't
here is a list of non apostolic doctrines that Rome currently teaches:

Papal infalliability

Papal universal jurisdiction

the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God

Original Sin (in that the guilt of Adam is passed down generation to generation which lead to the development of the doctrine of the immaculate conception which led to...)
Limbo, which has been changed recently by Pope Benedict as being a doctrine no longer necessary to believed, however he never got rid of the original problem of Orginal Sin!

The juridical understanding of salvation, substitutionary atonement based on the teachings of Anselm and scholaticism based on Thomas Aquinas

The Filioque

Purgatory

Indulgences

 

[RomanRite]

No she doesn't
here is a list of non apostolic doctrines that Rome currently teaches:

Papal infalliability

Papal universal jurisdiction

the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God

Original Sin (in that the guilt of Adam is passed down generation to generation which lead to the development of the doctrine of the immaculate conception which led to...)
Limbo, which has been changed recently by Pope Benedict as being a doctrine no longer necessary to believed, however he never got rid of the original problem of Orginal Sin!

The juridical understanding of salvation, substitutionary atonement based on the teachings of Anselm and scholaticism based on Thomas Aquinas

The Filioque

Purgatory

Indulgences

I come to a strong disagreement with your claim, but because each topic contradicts the topic I will not respond, for they can all be discussed another time.

 

[GregConstantine]

I did not make that list so we can discuss each item because you're right, the original topic is the Filioque. I made that list in response to what you said, quote:

"Exactly, and the Roman Church is still teaching that apostolic faith."

My point is, that it is not teaching the original apostolic faith.

The Filioque was one of the items on that list. So we can continue to discuss it.

 

[RomanRite]

I did not make that list so we can discuss each item because you're right, the original topic is the Filioque. I made that list in response to what you said, quote:

"Exactly, and the Roman Church is still teaching that apostolic faith."

My point is, that it is not teaching the original apostolic faith.

The Filioque was one of the items on that list. So we can continue to discuss it.

I disagree period with the Church of Rome falling into heresy.

 

[truefiction1]

I disagree period with the Church of Rome falling into heresy.

Most Roman Catholics do, of course. But if there is any truth to Pope John Paul II's analogy which regards the Church as having both a right lung (Eastern Orthodox) and a left lung (Western Catholic), then your attitude makes perfect sense, from a psycho-social standpoint.

For it is obvious (at least to me) that we have in reality divided along party lines, where the Eastern Orthodox represent the right wing, with our strongly conservative approach in which we insist upon holding to Sacred Traditions delivered to us from long ago, along with our distrust of a strong central Church government, preferring a more democratic approach to ascertaining truth, in the form of Ecumenical Councils.

The Western Church, on the other (left wing) side, tend to be liberal minded, as they more readily accept change (doctrinal development, liturgical and other types of reform) and seem to have no problem with trusting the long term welfare of the Church to a single human leader who possesses great authority.

If we understand anything about human nature and the affects of the psychological suppression of the terror of death upon it, then drawing such a conclusion as I've just done is a no-brainer.

In summary, your choice to be Roman Catholic probably has little if anything to do with your rationalizations, and more to do with imperceptible, irrational forces which are unconscious to you. In other words, its due to your own personality and the unique way in which it has developed in our fallen world since your infancy.

If you wish to walk in the middle, rather than on the left as you now do, then be born anew, keep yourself unstained from sin which skews our person-hood, and become a saint who's perfect in faith. One such as this is one who is truly saved.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Because you made the claim you are quoting the councils, are you aware that icons were once forbiden in the Early Church in the East, which is now used for Orthodox liturgies and devotionals?

doesn't matter. it was never rejected by the Church as a whole. Orthodoxy is called Eastern because of the schism. we are going to pre Schism times. it's also not a strong argument for your case.

I brought this up because you have made the claim Rome did not always accept the Holy Spirit proceeding from the son, which it has, and my point is if this contradicts the early councils then so do icons.

no it hasn't. you have not provided anything that says that the Church believed the Spirit's eternal origin is in both.

Back to the topic, The Catholic Church has always taught that the spirit proceeds from the Father and the son, or the Father through the son. The Orthodox make the claim that both are not equivalent, but they are. This is why the Catechism of the Catholic Church states in paragraph 248 that they are equal as it always has. The Orthodox Church does agree on the statement " Proceeds from the Father through the son " which is why in 1439 the council of Florence almost led to reunion between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches because of the agreement on " Through the son ". In the 1450s the process of repairment came to a end because of the conflict between the Latin crusaders and Islam in the East, which forced all Eastern Christians to leave union with the west.

well, they don't mean the same thing. the Fourth Lateran Council states that the Spirit proceeds from both, eternally and EQUALLY. as does the Second Council of Lyons, where it is from one single spiration and not two. this is not the same as from the Father and through the Son. if it was, the term equally would not have been used.

 

[RomanRite]

doesn't matter. it was never rejected by the Church as a whole. Orthodoxy is called Eastern because of the schism. we are going to pre Schism times. it's also not a strong argument for your case.



no it hasn't. you have not provided anything that says that the Church believed the Spirit's eternal origin is in both.



well, they don't mean the same thing. the Fourth Lateran Council states that the Spiritual proceeds from both, eternally and EQUALLY. as does the Second Council of Lyons, where it is from one single spiration and not two. this is not the same as from the Father and through the Son. if it was, the term equally would not have been used.

1. I have given much, to be honest I have not seen much but opinions for your arguments, thus I have not been convinced.


2. If they are not the same then the Church of Rome must not even know its own doctrine.