• For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

Bishop St. Fulgentius of Ruspe on the Filioque.

Xavier

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,225
Reaction score
13
Points
38
Age
32
Website
marianapostolate.com
St. Fulgentius is considered a Bishop and Saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why is his testimony on Filioque, which the Saint teaches in the strongest terms, disregarded? St. Fulgentius says the Filioque is the Catholic Doctrine of the Apostles and the Prophets. The Saintly Bishop urges us to believe it most firmly without doubting.

From: https://erickybarra.org/2017/10/14/filioque-in-the-west/

St. Fulgentius of Ruspe (+526 – Feast Day Jan. 3rd) writes:
“Believe most firmly , and never doubt, that the same Holy Spirit, the One Spirit of the Father and the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son. That He proceeds also from the Son is supported by the teaching both of Prophets and Apostles” (De Fide 11, Patrologia Latina 65.695). And : “The Father is begotten of none; the Son is begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son” (De Trinitate 2, Migne 499). And: “The Holy Spirit is wholly the Father’s and wholly the Son’s, because He is by nature the One Spirit of the Father and the Son; for which cause He proceeds wholly from the Father and the Son, and abides wholly in the Father and the Son; for He so abides as to proceed, and so proceeds as to abide” (Epistle 14, Migne 418)
 

PorphyriosK

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
283
Points
83
“If [these] Fathers had spoken in opposition when the debated question was brought before them and fought it contentiously and had maintained their opinion and had persevered in this false teaching, and when convicted of it had held to their doctrine until death, then they would necessarily be rejected together with the error of their mind. But if they spoke badly, or, for some reason not known to us, deviated from the right path, but no question was put to them nor did anyone challenge them to learn the truth, we admit them to the list of Fathers, as if they had not said it - because of their righteousness of life and distinguished virtue and faith; faultless in other respects. We do not, however, follow their teaching in which they stray from the path of truth... We, though, who know that some of our holy Fathers and teachers strayed from the faith of true dogmas, do not take as doctrine those areas in which they strayed, but we embrace the men. So also in the case of any who are charged with teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, we do not admit what is opposed to the word of the Lord, but we do not cast them from the rank of the Fathers.”

- St. Photios the Great

The Church decided the matter definitively in accord with Christ's own direct teaching concerning the procession of the Spirit. Christ's own direct words cannot be considered flawed, insufficient, or incomplete. The matter is settled dogma in Orthodoxy.
 

PorphyriosK

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
283
Points
83
I see Wandile in the user list, furiously typing away. Do you two coordinate your attacks now or is it just random chance? :ROFLMAO:
 

Katechon

Sr. Member
Warned
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Messages
164
Reaction score
47
Points
28
Location
Germany
St. Fulgentius is considered a Bishop and Saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why is his testimony on Filioque, which the Saint teaches in the strongest terms, disregarded? St. Fulgentius says the Filioque is the Catholic Doctrine of the Apostles and the Prophets. The Saintly Bishop urges us to believe it most firmly without doubting.

From: https://erickybarra.org/2017/10/14/filioque-in-the-west/

St. Fulgentius of Ruspe (+526 – Feast Day Jan. 3rd) writes:
“Believe most firmly , and never doubt, that the same Holy Spirit, the One Spirit of the Father and the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son. That He proceeds also from the Son is supported by the teaching both of Prophets and Apostles” (De Fide 11, Patrologia Latina 65.695). And : “The Father is begotten of none; the Son is begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son” (De Trinitate 2, Migne 499). And: “The Holy Spirit is wholly the Father’s and wholly the Son’s, because He is by nature the One Spirit of the Father and the Son; for which cause He proceeds wholly from the Father and the Son, and abides wholly in the Father and the Son; for He so abides as to proceed, and so proceeds as to abide” (Epistle 14, Migne 418)
Why are you constantly refusing to engage this topic on a substantial level and in every instance just refer back to your stupid quotemines?
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
2,706
Reaction score
67
Points
48
Age
57
Location
USA
There may have been a time in the past when some breathing room on this issue could have been possible. I think the East might have tolerated it but would not embrace it. Later it was forced on us & that was a permanent breakdown ( the history is undoubtedly complicated: RCs are not the “bad” vs us “good” guys). It is among other deal breaker issues & that is just an unfortunate truth.

An issue like purgatory comes to mind also along these lines. It does not seem economy can be applied to matters like these since there would be mutual damage for all of us, nothing to gain, & much to lose. Especially in the modernist concept of ecumenism this seems to apply because these issues would probably be lumped with gender issues, sacramental breakdown etc.
 

Katechon

Sr. Member
Warned
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Messages
164
Reaction score
47
Points
28
Location
Germany
Why are you constantly refusing to engage this topic on a substantial level and in every instance just refer back to your stupid quotemines?
Seriously, how do you avoid the accusation of prooftexting the fathers in the same way protestants prooftext scripture to support their peculiar pet heresies?
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,315
Reaction score
192
Points
63
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Seriously, how do you avoid the accusation of prooftexting the fathers in the same way protestants prooftext scripture to support their peculiar pet heresies?
By not caving in on artificial birth control as all other Christians did after 1930. #humanaevitae #nfp #romesweethome
 

Katechon

Sr. Member
Warned
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Messages
164
Reaction score
47
Points
28
Location
Germany
By not caving in on artificial birth control as all other Christians did after 1930. #humanaevitae #nfp #romesweethome
The fact that divorces are called anulments in his sect propably also plays into this.
 

mcarmichael

#realmorephrem
Post Moderated
Joined
May 2, 2015
Messages
2,300
Reaction score
19
Points
38
Location
free breakfast
Maybe unlike the bishop of Rome, he didn't allow that the whole church rode upon this opinion? There must be some reason he wasn't condemned, even ex-cathedra?
 

Xavier

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,225
Reaction score
13
Points
38
Age
32
Website
marianapostolate.com
Hecma925 said:
One of one bishop's writings.
Hi Hecma. Please review the link. 15 Saints accepted by both East and West in the First Millenium are cited, most of them Bishops.

Patriarch Photios quoted by Por said:
We, though, who know that some of our holy Fathers and teachers strayed from the faith of true dogmas, do not take as doctrine those areas in which they strayed, but we embrace the men.
It is agreed that some of the Saints can innocently make mistakes. But it was Patriarch Photius who made a mistake here. Because it is not one or two Saints alone, but at least 15 to 30 Saints that teach the doctrine of the Filioque. Are they all mistaken, or is it Photius that is mistaken?

In the article below, Cardinal St. Robert Bellarmine, who examines the history of the question in depth, shows that (1) 15 Greek Fathers, (2) 15 Latin Fathers, and (3) 5 Ecumenical Councils endorsed the doctrine of the Filioque. I post only the excerpt on that last part here, which shows that Five General Councils endorsed a letter of Patriarch St. Cyril in which the Saint taught the Filioque: "Omitting these things, then, let us bring forward the Councils that testify the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. First the Council celebrated at Alexandria, from which Council Cyril writes a letter to Nestorius in which are these words, “The Spirit is called the Spirit of Truth, and Christ is Truth, and so He proceeds from Him likewise as from the Father.” This letter was read in the Council of Ephesus and was approved both by the Council of Ephesus itself and by the fourth Synod, and by the fifth Synod and by the sixth and seventh Synods.

We have therefore five general Councils celebrated among the Greeks which receive the most open and clear opinion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as from the Father. What then do they now seek? What do they demand?"

From: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/procession.htm

katechon said:
Why are you constantly refusing to engage this topic on a substantial level and in every instance just refer back to your stupid quotemines?
I have engaged in it on a "substantial level". The Catholic Church, in agreement with the Orthodox Church, rightly proves the Eucharist from Scriptural texts like John 6. Likewise, we hold the Filioque is rightly proved from the Church Fathers, Eastern and Western alike. The Western Tradition tends to say, from the Father and the Son, and the Eastern Tradition, from the Father through the Son. From the Father alone to the exclusion of the Son is a Monopatrite novelty that originated much, much later. All the Church Fathers quoted clearly rejected that Monopatrism.

Recent Convert said:
There may have been a time in the past when some breathing room on this issue could have been possible.
There was a very recent theological statement, from Greek and Latin Bishops and Theologians, that arrived at some consensus on the issue: " The Orthodox Orient has, however, given a happy expression to this relationship with the formula dia tou Uiou ekporeuomenon (who takes his origin from the Father by or through the Son)." The issue is not with the Eastern "through the Son" at all, which was always accepted by the Catholic Church; St. Thomas says it is perfectly complementary, as does the Council of Florence, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The issue was with a new idea, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father but not by or through the Son. This idea is completely foreign to the thought of the Church Fathers cited in the above links, including Bishop St. Fulgentius, Patriarch St. Cyril etc. Unfortunately, linguistic issues complicated the matter, because the word for proceeds was translated differently in Greek and Latin; but now this consensus has been reached.

God Bless.
 

Katechon

Sr. Member
Warned
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Messages
164
Reaction score
47
Points
28
Location
Germany
I have engaged in it on a "substantial level". The Catholic Church, in agreement with the Orthodox Church, rightly proves the Eucharist from Scriptural texts like John 6. Likewise, we hold the Filioque is rightly proved from the Church Fathers, Eastern and Western alike. The Western Tradition tends to say, from the Father and the Son, and the Eastern Tradition, from the Father through the Son. From the Father alone to the exclusion of the Son is a Monopatrite novelty that originated much, much later. All the Church Fathers quoted clearly rejected that Monopatrism.
No you haven't, there are multiple instances in whom you mixed up ontological origin with economic manifestation. Your monopatrism is also a ridiculous strawman clearly showing that you don't know that every church father teaches the monarchy of the father and him being the arche of the Godhead as well as the principle cause of it.
The novelty here, my friend, is the essentialism which was both basis and result of the filioque and the primary obsession of the scholastic philosopher's speculations around God, marking the historic break with patristic theology. Even your own sects "Vatican clarification on the filioque" admits that.

 

Xavier

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,225
Reaction score
13
Points
38
Age
32
Website
marianapostolate.com
I just showed you 30 Church Fathers that teach Filioque. Go through them one by one and you will see that they clearly teach "ontological origin" and not just "economic manifestation". For e.g. St. Augustine and St. Cyril both say, the Father gave to His Son, in eternally begetting Him, that the Holy Spirit should proceed from Him also. The generation of the Son is eternal; therefore it is obvious from these statements that the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son is co-eternal with the eternal generation of the Son. Further, it is obvious that the procession pertains to ontology, and not merely to mission; note such expressions as "by nature" in St. Fulgentius, " “The Holy Spirit is wholly the Father’s and wholly the Son’s, because He is by nature the One Spirit of the Father and the Son; for which cause He proceeds wholly from the Father and the Son".

We also teach the Father's Monarchy. St. Augustine and St. Thomas have said "The Father is the Principle of the Whole Deity". The Council of Florence reiterated it. The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms it. The Father is Monarch. The Son is Mediator. The Spirit is Proceeder. Both the Son and the Spirit come forth from the Father eternally. The Son comes forth as the Second Person, from the Father alone; the Spirit comes forth as the Eternal Third Person, from the Father through the Son. Here are 3 Saints from the OP link that explain the subject:

St. Leo the Great (+450, Feast Day Feb 18th) : “And so under the first head is shown what unholy views they hold about the Divine Trinity: they affirm that the person of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is one and the same, as if the same God were named now Father, now Son, and now Holy Ghost: and as if He who begat were not one, He who was begotten another, and He who proceeded from both yet another [Person]”” (Letter XV, section II)

St. Eucherios of Lyons (+AD 454 – Feast Day Nov. 16) , writes: “The Holy Spirit is neither begotten or unbegotten, but rather is He who proceeds from the Father and the Son, as a harmony, we may say, of Both” (Spiritus Sanctus nece genitus nec ingentius …. sed potius qui ex Patre et Filio procedat, velut quaedam patris filioque concordia). Migne 1.774

St. Isidore of Seville (+600 – Feast Day April 4th) writes:
“The Holy Spirit is called God because He proceeds from the Father and the Son and has their essence…There is, however, this difference between the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, that the Son is begotten of One, but the Spirit proceeds from both” (Patrologia Latina 82.268)
 

Dominika

Taxiarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
7,711
Reaction score
231
Points
63
Age
29
Location
Poland
Website
www.youtube.com
Now you've qoted all Western saints.. And the West has never made difference between economia of salvation in time and level of theologia for eternnity meanwhile for the East it is something crucial. That's st. Maximos the Confessor says that in the West Filioque is ok as it doesn't make difference between two levels. And actually at this point we could end the discussion about the saints quotes...
 

Katechon

Sr. Member
Warned
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Messages
164
Reaction score
47
Points
28
Location
Germany
I just showed you 30 Church Fathers that teach Filioque. Go through them one by one and you will see that they clearly teach "ontological origin" and not just "economic manifestation". For e.g. St. Augustine and St. Cyril both say, the Father gave to His Son, in eternally begetting Him, that the Holy Spirit should proceed from Him also. The generation of the Son is eternal; therefore it is obvious from these statements that the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son is co-eternal with the eternal generation of the Son.
Congratulations, you just discovered that every energetic procession is trinitarian in nature. Without the dogmatic Essence/Energy distinction later rejected in the West it's propably a bit difficult to grasp that this does not mean filioque.

Further, it is obvious that the procession pertains to ontology, and not merely to mission; note such expressions as "by nature" in St. Fulgentius, " “The Holy Spirit is wholly the Father’s and wholly the Son’s, because He is by nature the One Spirit of the Father and the Son; for which cause He proceeds wholly from the Father and the Son".
You mistake person for nature, as the three persons of the Godhead are indeed all one in nature, yet three distinct hypostases. Causation though isn't a property of nature (otherwise all three persons would cause each other) but of hypostasis=person, namely it is the distinct attribute of the person of the Father.
 

Vanhyo

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
1,184
Reaction score
16
Points
38
Location
Bulgaria
There are 3 types of processions
1.Hypostatic, from the Father alone (we believe in one God The Father....)
2.Energetic, from the Son
3.Economic, the sending of the Spirit in the created world.

In latin theology these are often confused, and the copy/paste of suspicious quotes does not help.
(maybe some "pious" monk decided to edit the quote to better elaborate what the saint was trying to say ?)
 
Top