The Filioque

[Lukaris]

You bring more and more themes of discusion, let us finish the one of this thread and let us open new threads for each one of the themes you have as objections.

In due respect, I do not think it is necessary to do so. What might have remained as seriously different (but permitted) theological perspective became part of the schism because of secular political pressures. This is how it stands, we can still be very close friends on many things as the Christian Arab village of Taybeh exmplifies:
Taybeh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ArmyMatt]

none of those say he was chief above the Apostles, and none say anything about any kind of special grace passed onto his successors. no one here denies St Peter had a headship. no one denies his role or his rank as Christ's right hand man. what we reject, are assumptions you are making concerning his role.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

none of those say he was chief above the Apostles, and none say anything about any kind of special grace passed onto his successors. no one here denies St Peter had a headship. no one denies his role or his rank as Christ's right hand man. what we reject, are assumptions you are making concerning his role.

Were not the apostle part of the brethren? I just completed the quotes from Saint John Chrysostom review it again. And yes you deny that Saint Peter had any superior authority.

Now, Didn't you know about what the petrine sees were? They were Rome, Antioch and Alexandria, And all of them regarded Rome as the first until Constantinople pretended to declare itself New Rome and took precedence to those petrine sees in the diptics in the council of Chalcedony.

I would like to know what assumptions you think we do about the Role of the pope as succesor of Saint Peter.

 

[Knee V]

Were not the apostle part of the brethren? I just completed the quotes from Saint John Chrysostom review it again. And yes you deny that Saint Peter had any superior authority.

Now, Didn't you know about what the petrine sees were? They were Rome, Antioch and Alexandria, And all of them regarded Rome as the first until Constantinople pretended to declare itself New Rome and took precedence to those petrine sees in the diptics in the council of Chalcedony.

I would like to know what assumptions you think we do about the Role of the pope as succesor of Saint Peter.

Rome was first for a number of reasons. It wasn't because there was some indelible mark passed to her exclusively from St Peter that no other church possessed. That right there is papal fantasy.

Rome was the "church of saints Peter and Paul", the two most preeminent Apostles. Rome witnessed the martyrdom of both of those apostolic giants, which in itself is a huge honor.

Rome witnessed the martyrdoms of Christians from all over the world who were brought there to be executed. Those martyrs professed their faith before dying, which gave Rome a voice that truly represented the entire church, thus making Rome's confession of faith the most "catholic" of any other church. She was truly a solid bedrock of orthodoxy.

Rome was also the capital of the empire and its most significant city.

Those facts alone put Rome in a unique position in the church, a position of honor and leadership. But it had nothing to do with a special and unique authority being handed down from Peter exclusively to her.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Were not the apostle part of the brethren? I just completed the quotes from Saint John Chrysostom review it again. And yes you deny that Saint Peter had any superior authority.

Now, Didn't you know about what the petrine sees were? They were Rome, Antioch and Alexandria, And all of them regarded Rome as the first until Constantinople pretended to declare itself New Rome and took precedence to those petrine sees in the diptics in the council of Chalcedony.

I would like to know what assumptions you think we do about the Role of the pope as succesor of Saint Peter.

I said he has a headship. I agree with the quote. what I disagree with is how YOU interpret the quote. your second sentence is just silly. Constantinople as New Rome, and Moscow as Third Rome, does not mean that the see of Rome not having headship of honor, and the Bishop of Rome not being the first among equals, which he had until the Schism. the funny thing is that no other Petrine See declared anything special about themselves just because they were founded by Peter. and Constantinople was New Rome because it became the capital of the Eastern Empire. had the capital moved to Antioch, Antioch would have been the New Rome.

as for your second point, one is your assumption that St Peter, and the Pope's authority over the other Apostles and their successors.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Ok I see that filioque Discusion has been closed. And I think that in good therms, because we have reached to the real point of all the disagreements the Primacy of the Pope. The Bishop of Rome. So I will open again other thread and will take this discussion there.

 

[prodromos]

Ok From Saitn John Chrysostom about Saint Peter:
CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 88 on the Gospel of John (Chrysostom)

John 21:15




Ok if you, or any of your clergy teaches different that Saint John Chrysostom, that one can not be called orthodox to the faith of the fathers and the apostles. You are not refuting me as if I were innovating or as if the "Chief authority of the Church" was a position invented by Catholicism, Even the most brilliant Patriarch of Constantinople, Saint John Chrysostom, Understood very well this Role of Primacy of the Apostle Peter.

Saint John Chrysostom spent the majority of his life in the Church, out of communion with Rome, and yet he wrote nothing to suggest that he saw this as something to be concerned about. His life clearly demonstrates that whatever St John wrote about the Apostle Peter, did not in any way relate to the bishop of Rome.

 

[prodromos]

Ok I see that filioque Discusion has been closed. And I think that in good therms, because we have reached to the real point of all the disagreements the Primacy of the Pope. The Bishop of Rome. So I will open again other thread and will take this discussion there.

As Patriarch Bartholomew stated in his address at Georgetown University in 1997:

The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.​

 

[prodromos]

Looks like Alonso earned himself a short vacation from posting at CF

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Saint John Chrysostom spent the majority of his life in the Church, out of communion with Rome, and yet he wrote nothing to suggest that he saw this as something to be concerned about. His life clearly demonstrates that whatever St John wrote about the Apostle Peter, did not in any way relate to the bishop of Rome.

Lets move to the other thread please

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Looks like Alonso earned himself a short vacation from posting at CF

I have a life to live out of the internet. Mainly on weekends. Sorry for delaying.

 

[prodromos]

I did a bit of digging in the wayback machine to find TRValentine's articles on the filioque. I just wanted to post an excerpt.

There is a fragment of a letter purportedly written by Saint Maximos the Confessor to the priest Marinus is frequently cited by proponents of the Filioque (and by those who wish to deny the judgement of an Ecumenical Synod that Pope Honorius was guilty of heresy). Its authenticity is not certain. According to Haugh, there are three reasons for doubting its authenticity: Saint Maximos elsewhere writes of a letter to Marinus falsely attributed to him, there is no extant synodical letter by Pope Martin I stating "the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son" as is claimed in this doubtful letter, and the letter in question mentions "six" councils when only five had been held. (Haugh, p. 32, fn 31) We have no way of knowing whether this letter in question is the one Maximos says was falsely attributed to him and the absence of a synodical letter does not prove it was not written, but the reference to six councils is an extreme problem and suggests the letter may have been written after the Sixth Ecumenical Synod of 680-681, (Saint Maximos died in 662, Pope Martin in 655).

If the letter is authentic, then we have evidence that Pope Martin I wrote a synodical letter that, because it professed the Filioque, had its orthodoxy challenged by Constantinople and Saint Maximos sought to defuse the situation, insisting that the Latins were "far from making the Son the cause of the Spirit, for they recognise the Father as the one cause of the Son and of the Spirit; the former by begetting, the latter by procession." The letter in question claims the Latin Filioque was an attempt "to express the Spirit's going forth through the Son", that he had admonished the Latins to be more careful in how they expressed the faith, and that he felt confident that Constantinople's reaction would make the Latins more cautious in the future. (Haugh, p. 33)

One ought to consider that if Pope Martin made the mistake of professing the Filioque, Saint Maximos would have had a strong incentive to defend the pope of Old Rome. Having fled to Old Rome to escape persecution from the Monothelite heretics (officially supported by the Empire), it was the only city willing to protect Maximos against the imperial forces. It would not have been in Saint Maximos' interests to turn against Old Rome when it was possible to interpret the statement in an orthodox manner.

If the letter is authentic, we have evidence that as soon as Constantinople received the first indication of the Filioque, it condemend the error. Thus, if the letter is authentic, the oft-repeated claim that the East offered no protest against the Filioque until it was politically expedient to do so, is simply not true. If the letter is not authentic, then the supporters of the Filioque cannot claim Saint Maximos the Confessor defended the Filioque.

If the letter is authentic, then we have a problem reconciling the words of Saint Maximos:

[The Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit — they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession — but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence. (Letter to Marinus, PG 91, 136)​

with the words of Augustine:

Further, in that Highest Trinity which is God, there are no intervals of time, by which it could be shown, or at least inquired, whether the Son was born of the Father first and then afterwards the Holy Spirit proceeded from both (On the Trinity, 15:26:45)

Wherefore let him who can understand the generation of the Son from the Father without time, understand also the procession of the Holy Spirit from both without time. (On the Trinity, 15:26:47)​

Clearly, Augustine taught a double procession of the Holy Spirit outside time. Thus, if the letter is authentic, Saint Maximos may well have been mistaken about the Latin meaning of the Filioque. He certainly did not endorse the Filioque of the double procession taught by Augustine.

Finally, it should be noted that when the letter purportedly from Saint Maximos was presented by the Latins to the Greeks at the Council of Florence, the Greeks suggested it as the basis for an agreement on the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Latins rejected this proposal, insisting on the double processsion of Augustine.

 

[prodromos]

Wow, I did not expect to find this.

Here is a link to the New American Bible on the Vatican website, John 15. Now there is nothing particularly wrong with the translation of verse 26

"When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me.​

But then you look at the footnote attached to the same verse

[26] Whom I will send: in ⇒ John 14:16, ⇒ 26 the Paraclete is to be sent by the Father, at the request of Jesus. Here the Spirit comes from both Jesus and the Father in mission; there is no reference here to the eternal procession of the Spirit.​

This is a blatant denial of the clear reading of the Greek text. Unbelievable!

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Saint Ambrose of Milan explains the verse (Concerning Repentance, Capter 2, Paragraph 8)
CHURCH FATHERS: Concerning Repentance, Book I (Ambrose)

8. Consider, too, the point that he who has received the Holy Ghost has also received the power of forgiving and of retaining sin. For thus it is written: Receive the Holy Spirit: whosesoever sins you forgive, they are forgiven unto them, and whosesoever sins you retain, they are retained. John 20:22-23 So, then, he who has not received power to forgive sins has not received the Holy Spirit. The office of the priest is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and His right it is specially to forgive and to retain sins. How, then, can they claim His gift who distrust His power and His right?

Saint Ambrose of Milan, On The Holy Spirit Book 1 Chapter 4 CHURCH FATHERS: On the Holy Spirit, Book I (Ambrose)

The Holy Spirit is one and the same Who spoke in the prophets and apostles, Who is the Spirit of God and of Christ; Whom, further, Scripture designates the Paraclete, and the Spirit of life and truth.
55. But no one will doubt that the Spirit is one, although very many have doubted whether God be one. For many heretics have said that the God of the Old Testament is one, and the God of the New Testament is another. But as the Father is one Who both spoke of old, as we read, to the fathers by the prophets, and to us in the last days by His Son; Hebrews 1:1-2 and as the Son is one, Who according to the tenour of the Old Testament was offended by Adam, Genesis 3:17 seen by Abraham, Genesis 18:22-23 worshipped by Jacob; Genesis 28:17 so, too, the Holy Spirit is one, who energized in the prophets, 2 Peter 1:21 was breathed upon the apostles, John 20:22 and was joined to the Father and the Son in the sacrament of baptism. Matthew 28:19 For David says of Him: And take not Your Holy Spirit from me. And in another place he said of Him: Whither shall I go from Your Spirit?

The latest quote is far more eloquent in refering that The Holy Spirit being breath By Jesus as we can read in the sacred scriptures:

John 20, 22

After saying this he breathed on them and said: Receive the Holy Spirit.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

I dont have at hand the comments of the Fathers on the Gospel of Luke, So I will limit myself to quote the gospel:

Luke 3, 16

so John declared before them all, 'I baptise you with water, but someone is coming, who is more powerful than me, and I am not fit to undo the strap of his sandals; he will baptise you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Luke 12, 49

'I have come to bring fire to the earth, and how I wish it were blazing already!


Acts of the Apostles 2, 1-4

1. When Pentecost day came round, they had all met together,
2. when suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of a violent wind which filled the entire house in which they were sitting;
3. and there appeared to them tongues as of fire; these separated and came to rest on the head of each of them.
4. They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak different languages as the Spirit gave them power to express themselves.




The first quote from the gospel of Saint Luke tells us of the preaching of saint John Baptist, he Preaches that Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit and Fire. He was speaking not of the Father but of the Son.

The second quote of Saint Luke also makes reference to the mission of the Lord bringing fire to the world, he wants the world to Burn in fire, the fire of the Holy Spirit. Once Again is the Lord Jesus, the Son of God, who gives us the Holy Spirit.

The last and third quote is related again to the fact that the Holy Spirit is represented as fire. Both The Gospel of Saint Luke and The Book of the Acts of the Apostles are written by Saint Luke, If we would ask saint Luke.

I will look for the comments of Saint Jerome on the Gospel of Saint Luke and the acts to verify his teaching.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Once Again is the Lord Jesus, the Son of God, who gives us the Holy Spirit.

not the issue with the filioque

 

[mark46]

I agree with all that you say.

There have been decades of discussions between Orthodox and Catholics, and between Orthodox and Anglicans on this issue. As with many issues, I don't think that the primary issue is about dogma or doctrine, although there certainly have been misunderstanding.

The issue is that Bishop of Rome, Patriarch of the West, changed the Creed without agreement in Council, after all patriarchs had agreed not to do so.

To me, this issue is one that is an example of the difference between East and West regarding the authority of the Bishop Of Rome. To me, this is the ONE issue that divides us. Obviously, we can compose long lists, but IMHO, all other issues would go away in a few decades if the issue of the role of Bishop Of Rome were to be understood in the same way by East and West.

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.

 

[ArmyMatt]

To me, this is the ONE issue that divides us. Obviously, we can compose long lists, but IMHO, all other issues would go away in a few decades if the issue of the role of Bishop Of Rome were to be understood in the same way by East and West.

back in the day I would agree, but there is much that separates us now, both in terms of dogma and practice. there is no way we will unite unless Rome becomes Orthodox again. that is the only way.