Why wasn't the filioque ever removed?

Daniel Peres

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2022
586
150
57
Miami
✟26,872.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Widowed
Why would merely citing a verse show that other verses need to be read in its light? That isn't reasonable.
Because I was responding to a post that listed other verses. I made the point that the other verses must be read in light of verses like the one I cited. That really sounds unreasonable to you?
If the verse you cited explicitly describes the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father then it doesn't favor the Catholic view.
I never said the verse I cited explicitly describes the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father, it explicitly describes the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son.
The Catholic view is that it is correct to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as well as the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. It is incorrect to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son alone. I agree with the Catholic position and have not contradicted it.
Where have I picked and chosen? You are making things up.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seemed to me at the time that you wished to ignore the verse I cited. If I am wrong, then I apologize.
How so? You don't even know what my view is. You seem to have a constant need to opine on things you know nothing about, including the filioque controversy.
The only thing I know about your view is what you have revealed, and it seems you disagree with the filioque clause. Am I wrong?
Orthodox have always distinguished between an ontological procession and an economic procession (or else "eternal manifestation"). Although the latter has been described in different ways, it always accounts for the sort of verses you referenced. The Orthodox haven't overlooked that verse for the last 1600 years. :sigh:
I agree with this statement, which is why I don't understand why the Eastern Orthodox hate the filioque clause. The creed is accurate with or without the filioque clause. If the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics don't want to recite the filioque clause, that's fine with me and the Catholic Church, but why are the Eastern Orthodox so opposed to the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church reciting the filioque clause.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Peres

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2022
586
150
57
Miami
✟26,872.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Widowed
As for the complaint that the First Council of Constantinople was simply a local council is not a good one.
It is a good because it raises questions about hypocrisy, and Jesus was very clear that he hated hypocrisy. Why is it acceptable for this local council to add to the Nicene Creed, but it is not acceptable for another local synod (Third Council of Toledo) to also make an addition to the creed.
The Council of Toledo (589), which formally added the fillioque to the Creed, added it to the N-C creed, which Chalcedon (451 had declared the N-C creed as unalterable).
Both the Third Council of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451) decreed that the original Nicene creed, without the additions from the First Council of Constantinople, could not be contradicted. The Ephesus council didn't even mention Constantinople's additions. Chalcedon merely approved the teaching of Constantinople's additions about the Holy Spirit, saying it was a good clarification of the original creed needed to combat heresy about the Holy Spirit. Neither Ephesus or Chalcedon declared that changes or additions could be made. These councils just prohibited any contradictions to the original Nicene Creed. Both the additions of the First Council of Constantinople and the Council of Toledo made additions to combat heresy by adding clarifications to the creed and neither addition contradicted the original Nicene Creed of 325.

I recommend that you go to paplencyclicals.net to learn the truth about the councils. Don't be fooled by the website's title, the website doesn't contain only papal encyclicals, it also contains other relevant council documents.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,424
11,978
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,262.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The Council did have many representatives, but it still was, in fact, a local synod. Additional proof that it was merely a local synod was that none of its canons were accepted by the church. Furthermore, even with the Pope's approval of the synod's additions to the Nicene Creed, the Third Council of Ephesus which took place in 431 (long after the First Council of Constantinople) did not recognize the additions to the original Nicene creed and in fact confirmed only the original Nicene Creed.
Thus you demonstrate that it was not accepted by the Church based on the Pope signing off on it. Also, the Canons were eventually all accepted by the Church, including Rome.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,424
11,978
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,262.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
2) Logic does not dictate that three cannot be one. I am a son, a husband, a father, a guitarist, a lawyer, etc.. I have many personas/posopon/faces, and all of them make up my one being. Does that sound illogical to you?
It sounds exactly like the heresy of Modalism. Look where your logic took you.
I am not saying the Father was crucified. However, the Father did not separate himself from Jesus at his crucifixion. Do you deny this?
So you want to have your cake and eat it too. If logic dictates that because the Father and the Son are one that the Holy Spirit must proceed from both, then logic also dictates that when the Son became man, the Father did also.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Daniel Peres

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2022
586
150
57
Miami
✟26,872.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Widowed
Thus you demonstrate that it was not accepted by the Church based on the Pope signing off on it. Also, the Canons were eventually all accepted by the Church, including Rome.
It was accepted in the sense it was acceptable to recite, and Chalcedon accepted his decision.

As for the canons, I am an aware of the Catholic Church ever accepting any of the Chalcedon canons. In fact, I know for sure that the canon where Constantinople claimed to usurp Antioch’s position as second most import Christian city (due to its connection to Peter) was never accepted and Antioch still holds the place of second most important city after Rome.

As for the other canons, can you provide information or documentation about them being accepted by the Catholic Church.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Peres

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2022
586
150
57
Miami
✟26,872.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Widowed
It sounds exactly like the heresy of Modalism. Look where your logic took you.

So you want to have your cake and eat it too. If logic dictates that because the Father and the Son are one that the Holy Spirit must proceed from both, then logic also dictates that when the Son became man, the Father did also.
With logic, you can understand many things about God, but not everything. All I know for sure is that Jesus is fully God. He is not the son, separated from the Father and the Holy Spirit. God is not made up of three separate entities. God is one single being with three separate and distinct personas/prosopons, and in each one, the other two are always fully present. Don’t you agree?

Therefore, since the Son is always with the Father and the Holy Spirit, logic does dictate that in some way, they were also crucified. However, I personally don’t think that is theologically correct to say. I have never read anything from the Catholic Church saying the Father and the Holy Spirit were also crucified, so I won’t say it either. In this case, I wouldn’t go with the logic because we simply don’t have enough facts to make a logical conclusion.

Anyway, I don’t know if I have explained myself well here, but I can assure you that I don’t accept modalism. I may be a sinner, but I’m not a heretic.

No one, including me, can fully understand the Trinity. We can only understand what has been revealed about the Trinity. In fact, there’s an old Christian saying that says something like, “If you claim to fully understand the Trinity, you have committed a heresy.”
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Peres

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2022
586
150
57
Miami
✟26,872.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Widowed
Citation please, not just your biased opinion.
I meant to say that the rest of the Church that did not participate in Chalcedon accepted the Pope’s decision to approve the council’s addition to the Nicene Creed.

But as to your question, of course the East accepted the Pope’s approval. Unless you know something different, from what I understand, the Eastern Orthodox recognize the Chalcedon Council as an Ecumenical Council, and it’s considered ecumenical because of the Pope’s approval of the council’s addition to the Nicene Creed. Do you disagree? If you do, I will try to provide you with proof that the Eastern Orthodox recognize Chalcedon as an Ecumenical.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,424
11,978
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,262.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I meant to say that the rest of the Church that did not participate in Chalcedon accepted the Pope’s decision to approve the council’s addition to the Nicene Creed.
There is no evidence that the rest of the Church was waiting on the Pope's approval. That is something you have pulled out of thin air.
But as to your question, of course the East accepted the Pope’s approval. Unless you know something different, from what I understand, the Eastern Orthodox recognize the Chalcedon Council as an Ecumenical Council
Correct
and it’s considered ecumenical because of the Pope’s approval of the council’s addition to the Nicene Creed.
Non sequitur.
Do you disagree? If you do, I will try to provide you with proof that the Eastern Orthodox recognize Chalcedon as an Ecumenical.
You need to provide proof that they did so because the Pope accepted it. That was your claim, not simply that they accepted it as Ecumenical.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Daniel Peres

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2022
586
150
57
Miami
✟26,872.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Widowed
There is no evidence that the rest of the Church was waiting on the Pope's approval. That is something you have pulled out of thin air.

Correct

Non sequitur.

You need to provide proof that they did so because the Pope accepted it. That was your claim, not simply that they accepted it as Ecumenical.
It’s a fact that the First Council of Constantinople was convened as a local council. It did not include the input of the entire church, so as a matter of fact, it was just a local council by definition. The only possible thing that could have elevated it to the status of “Ecumenical Council” was the Pope’s approval of the addition to the Nicene Creed, which made the addition applicable to the entire church. Can you point to any other reason it is considered an ecumenical council?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,424
11,978
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,262.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
It’s a fact that the First Council of Constantinople was convened as a local council. It did not include the input of the entire church, so as a matter of fact, it was just a local council by definition.
That is utter nonsense. It had representation from 3 of the 4 patriachates that existed at the time as well as many metropolitans. A local council would be one with representation by bishops from neighboring cities only.
The only possible thing that could have elevated it to the status of “Ecumenical Council” was the Pope’s approval of the addition to the Nicene Creed, which made the addition applicable to the entire church. Can you point to any other reason it is considered an ecumenical council?
You seem to have this bizarre idea that the pope is the only bishop of any importance in the West. What about Carthage, Lyons, Cordoba? What about Addis Ababa in Ethiopia, or Vagharshapat in Armenia? Their approval was just as important. What makes the council "Ecumenical" however, is not the assent of the various bishops around the world at that time, but rather a recognition of the importance of its defence against a heresy that attacked the universal faith of the Church.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,927
5,591
49
The Wild West
✟461,272.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
It is a good because it raises questions about hypocrisy, and Jesus was very clear that he hated hypocrisy. Why is it acceptable for this local council to add to the Nicene Creed, but it is not acceptable for another local synod (Third Council of Toledo) to also make an addition to the creed.

Firstly, the Roman Catholic Church has always held this council to be ecumenical, along with every other church. That is why it is usually called the Second Ecumenical Council. However, the Roman church does not accept canons 5 through 7 attributed to the council as these are believed to be later editions based on manuscript evidence. Indeed I myself was unaware these disputed canons existed.

Secondly, the Roman church would not refuse to accept a council intending to promulgate church-wide legislation as Ecumenical until the Council of Trullo, also known as the Quinisext Council, which is upheld only by the Eastern Orthodox, as its canons prohibit depicting Christ as a lamb* and using unleavened bread in the Eucharist (which is also the practice of the Armenian Apostolic Church) and mandates other things which are very specific to the historic practices of the Byzantine Rite, but not the other liturgical rites.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the Roman Church sanctioned participated in the Third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus and the Fourth Ecumenical Council respectively, the former being supported by Pope** St. Celestine, one of my favorite Bishops of Rome along with St. Gregory the Great, St. Sixtus, St. Clement and St. Peter, by the way, who was the main ally of Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria in his struggle against Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople. And at the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon Pope Leo I had a major influence as the author of the Tome, which inadvertently contributed to the tragic schism with the Oriental Orthodox (in combination with the machinations of Ibas, later discovered to secretly be a supporter of Nestorius, who tricked the council into believing Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria was still a supporter of Eutyches, and thus a Monophysite, leading to him being deposed, when in fact he had anathematized Eutyches for heresy, and the Oriental Orthodox have never actually been Oriental Orthodox).

Now, the prohibition against modifying the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 was adopted in the canons of the Council of Ephesus and the Council of Constantinople.

Thus, the creed adopted by the Second Council the Roman Catholic Church upheld as Ecumenical and not Local, contrary to your claims otherwise, was made immutable by the Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils upheld by Rome. What is more, the Roman Church upheld this until the Ninth Century, when under St. Photius, the Filioque used in Toledo was introduced. Previously the Roman Church resisted adopting the Filioque despite extreme political pressure from Charlemagne to do so.

Fourthly, Rome restored communion that had been severed by St. Photius by agreeing to delete the Filioque at a council a minority of Orthodox Christians count as the Eighth or Ninth (since there are some who regard also the Quinisext Council and the Council that upheld the works of St. Gregory Palamas defending the Hesychast monks against Barlaam, who rejected the Orthodox doctrine of uncreated grace, as Ecumenical), and adhered to this position until shortly before the Great Schism of 1054.

Finally, it is worth noting that the Roman church has almost always omitted the filioque from Greek versions of the Creed, believing it would convey a heretical message in the Hellenic tongue.

As an aside, the Assyrian Church of the East never accepted the third or fourth ecumenical councils but nontheless rejects the filioque, and the Oriental Orthodox also reject it. There is also a version of Quincunque Vult, sometimes called the Athanasian Creed, without the filioque, and this version might be original.


*I recently read, but have not verified, that the hymn Agnus Dei was added to the Mass in protest to that provision, however, the Eastern Orthodox continue to call what the Roman Catholics refer to as the Eucharistic Host the Lamb, and I have never heard a contemporary Eastern Orthodox complaint about the hymn Agnus Dei, the target of the canon being iconographic depictions. Furthermore, the Antiochian Orthodox Western Rite Vicarate’s Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory, not to be confused with the Presanctified Liturgy of St. Gregory (which like the pre-1955 Roman Mass of the Presanctified was actually composed by Pope St. Gregory the Great), which is based on the Roman Mass, contains the hymn Agnus Dei. It is one of two Liturgies in the Western Rite Vicarate’s St. Andrew’s Service Book, along with a Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon of Moscow, based on the Anglican liturgy modified in accordance with the recommendations of a committee he convened after being installed as Patriarch in 1917, which evaluated the Anglican liturgy for Orthodox use at the request of Anglican converts prior to St. Tikhon ‘s arrest by the Soviet Cheka (early pre-NKVD secret police).

**Technjcally St. Celestine would be Patriarch, Archbishop, or Bishop of Rome, as at the time the title Pope was only used by the bishop of Alexandria until the mid 6th century, and it was Pope Leo I who adopted the title Pontifex Maximus, previously used by the ruling pontifex (bridge builder, meaning hierus or sacerdos, translated confusingly in most Bibles as priest despite priest being an Anglicization of Presbyter of the Roman civil religion (and once held by Gaius Julius Caesar when he was an ambitious young man starting out on the cursus honorum).
 
  • Like
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0