• Please remember: Pray for Ukraine in the Prayer forum; Share news in the Christian News section; Discuss religious implications in FFA: Religious Topics; Discuss political implications in Politics (and if you don't have access, PM me) Thank you! + Fr. George, Forum Administrator

The Filioque Controversy.

Xavier

OC.Net Guru
Post Moderated
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,323
Reaction score
45
Points
48
Age
34
Location
India
Website
marianapostolate.com
Faith
Traditional Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction
The Pope - but my heart is for Re-Union!
So since it's been a long time since we've discussed the Filioque, the Principal Issue still delaying the Much-Desired and Longed-For Holy Union between the Holy Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Holy Western Catholic Churches, let us see if we can somehow, by the Grace of God, help bring this millenia-old problem to a Final Solution acceptable to both sides.

Let me quote a 2 Paragraph Excerpt from a writing of Cardinal St. Robert Bellarmine, a Cardinal, Saint and Doctor of the Catholic Church. It's fair to say, based on his qualifications, that St. Robert represents the official post-Florentine and post-Tridentine view on this difficult doctrinal matter: "Fourteenth, Blessed Pope Gregory [i.e. Pope St. Gregory I the Great] produced a creed that reads as follows, “I believe in the Holy Spirit, neither generated nor ungenerated, but eternal proceeding from the Father and Son,” and elsewhere, “The Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son.” It is a wonder why the [Orthodox] Greeks allow Gregory to be in their calendar and honor him as a saint, since they execrate his opinion as a heresy.

Let fifteenth and last from the Latins be the Venerable Bede, for I have decided to cite only those who flourished before the rise of the schism. Bede then speaks as follows, “the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son.” In his collections from Augustine on Paul’s epistles he brings in a long disputation of Augustine in which is proved that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son. But now let us come to the Greeks."
And then, just as he cited 15 Latin Fathers, he proceeds to cite 15 Greek Fathers as well.

Taken from: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/procession.htm Thoughts on this? Can not the Filioque be seen, at least, as a Legitimate Theologoumenon that now - after so many centuries, with Love and Rapprochement now on both sides, with Popes and Patriarchs close to reconciliation - at least need not irrevocably divide Latin West and Greek East forever? If so many Saints have expressed opinions close to Filioque, then those Saints and their opinion should be allowable.

Xavier,
From now on, please post anything regarding the filioque in this thread, which has been renamed for this purpose. Do not start any more new threads on this topic. If you do, they will be treated as spam and/or proselytisation and you will be warned accordingly.

Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Messages
592
Reaction score
319
Points
63
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
OCA
The filioque is not be a theologoumenon but it must be interpreted in an Orthodox manner, insofar as St. Maximus says, that the Latin Fathers do not mean the Son is the cause of the Spirit, but that He shines forth from and rests in the Son eternally showing the unity of the Divine Essence. We do not accept filioque as interpreted by Thomas Aquinas, where the hypostatic opposite relation of the Spirit is to caused by the Father and the Son. We differentiate the persons of the Trinity by their respective properties of unbegottenness (cause), begottenness, and of proceeding and not by opposite relations.

See this writing of Bl. Theodoret about St. Cyril of Alexandria (who according to St. Maximus shares the Latin fathers idea of filioque) since they had a proto-filioque dispute and reconciled on this basis:
" For in it our Lord Jesus Christ is exhibited as perfect God and perfect man; it shews two natures, and the distinction between them; an unconfounded union, made not by mixture and compounding, but in a manner ineffable and divine, and distinctly preserving the properties of the natures; the impassibility and immortality of God the Word; the passibility and temporary surrender to death of the temple, and its resurrection by the power of the united God; that the holy Spirit is not of the Son, nor derives existence from the Son, but proceeds from the Father, and is properly stated to be of the Son, as being of one substance. Beholding this orthodoxy in the letter, we have hymned Him who heals our stammering tongues, and changes our discordant noises into the harmony of sweet music. "
The Spirit is of the Son not in causality, which would add another αρχη to the Godhead other than the Father, but the Son receives the Spirit from the Father to show the unity of the substance. So we cannot say that the Spirit "proceeds equally from the Father and the Son as one Principle" because the Principle is the Father, who is the fount of deity. We can say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son qualified as a shining forth procession and not causal procession because of the unity of the Divine Essence. As St. Gregory of Nyssa (IRRC) says "the Son receives everything that the Father has, except causality. "
 

J Michael

Cave Dweller
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
13,573
Reaction score
966
Points
113
Location
People's Republic of Maryland
Faith
Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction
Here and now (well...sometimes...)
Is the filioque really the " the Principal Issue still delaying the Much-Desired and Longed-For Holy Union between the Holy Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Holy Western Catholic Churches..."?

What about the issues of papal supremacy vs. papal primacy, papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc.? I always thought those were much bigger issues. But...what do I know?
 

Xavier

OC.Net Guru
Post Moderated
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,323
Reaction score
45
Points
48
Age
34
Location
India
Website
marianapostolate.com
Faith
Traditional Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction
The Pope - but my heart is for Re-Union!
The filioque is not be a theologoumenon but it must be interpreted in an Orthodox manner, insofar as St. Maximus says, that the Latin Fathers do not mean the Son is the cause of the Spirit, but that He shines forth from and rests in the Son eternally showing the unity of the Divine Essence. We do not accept filioque as interpreted by Thomas Aquinas, where the hypostatic opposite relation of the Spirit is to caused by the Father and the Son. We differentiate the persons of the Trinity by their respective properties of unbegottenness (cause), begottenness, and of proceeding and not by opposite relations.
Hello Gloria Tibi Trinitas, thank you for your response.

I am happy you agree the Filioque can be interpreted in an Orthodox Manner. That is Common Ground on which we can build. I for my part wholly agree that it MUST be interpreted in light of Orthodox Tradition.

You mentioned Thomas Aquinas' understanding. I pass over him, since some Orthodox are skeptical of St. Thomas Aquinas (though he was very learned in the Church Fathers, and imho represented their Apostolic Doctrine faithfully) and go straight to the Source: the Church Fathers themselves. First, let us study St. Athanasius the Great.

1. St. Athanasius says in his Creed: "The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; not Begotten nor Created nor Made but Proceeding". Do you agree with the Doctrinal Teaching of this Great Greek Father of the Church? As I'm sure you know, the Council Fathers of Florence found this Creed perfectly acceptable and proposed it as a means of Holy Union between Greek East and Latin West. Do you disagree with them?

Xavier,
Orthodox reasons for the rejection of Florence have been put forward repeatedly on OC.net in response to your continual assertions that it is a perfectly acceptable council. Here are just a few examples:




If you continue to post as if such well-documented reasons do not exist and you have never seen them, you will be warned for spamming and proselytising. I trust that this is clear.

Pravoslavbob


Now, at the time, no one objected St. Athanasius did not write the Athanasian Creed. The same liberal scholars who today claim St. Athanasius didn't write the Athanasian Creed claim the Holy Apostles did not write the Apostles' Creed. But if you do believe that, St. Robert Bellarmine addresses that as well: " that this creed is not really from Athanasius ... is easily refuted, both from Nazianzen where he says in praise of Athanasius that he composed a most perfect confession of faith that the whole West and East venerate, and also from Augustine who by name cites Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria and adduces a complete section of this creed, and he uses whole sentences from it, with the name of Athanasius, as if it were very well known in the Church." If St. Athanasius taught the Filioque, then it is proved that Filioque is Apostolic.

2. Pope St. Damasus, a contemporary of St. Athanasius, is next: "Pope St. Damasus, quite likely in a synod before the year 380 A.D., used the Filioque in a response to the Macedonian heresy: “We believe … in the Holy Spirit, not begotten nor unbegotten, not created nor made, but proceeding from the Father and the Son, always co-eternal with the Father and the Son” [The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy, A. Edward Siecienski, pp. 56–5].

Note the special value of this ancient testimony of the 4th-century Roman Church, world-renowned for its Catholic orthodoxy and defense of St. Athanasius contra mundum under Pope St. Julius, et al. It is incidental and undesigned. It presupposes the dogmatic truth of the Filioque in a controversy against Macedonian heretics (who blasphemed against the Divinity of the Holy Spirit). And it shows that the dogma of the Holy Spirit’s divinity is no less certain than the dogma of the Filioque." Excerpt taken from my article: https://onepeterfive.com/filioque-separated-east/

See this writing of Bl. Theodoret about St. Cyril of Alexandria (who according to St. Maximus shares the Latin fathers idea of filioque) since they had a proto-filioque dispute and reconciled on this basis: " For in it our Lord Jesus Christ is exhibited as perfect God and perfect man; it shews two natures, and the distinction between them; an unconfounded union, made not by mixture and compounding, but in a manner ineffable and divine, and distinctly preserving the properties of the natures; the impassibility and immortality of God the Word; the passibility and temporary surrender to death of the temple, and its resurrection by the power of the united God; that the holy Spirit is not of the Son, nor derives existence from the Son, but proceeds from the Father, and is properly stated to be of the Son, as being of one substance. Beholding this orthodoxy in the letter, we have hymned Him who heals our stammering tongues, and changes our discordant noises into the harmony of sweet music. "
I agree with Holy Saint Cyril of Alexandria. Saint Cyril also said, as quoted here: "In the Patristic period, an analogous theology had developed in Alexandria, stemming from St Athanasius. As in the Latin tradition, it was expressed by the more common term of procession (proienai) indicating the communication of the divinity to the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son in their consubstantial communion: "The Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son; clearly, he is of the divine substance, proceeding (proion) substantially (ousiwdwV) in it and from it" (St Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus, PG 75, 585 A) .4 https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/li...arding-the-procession-of-the-holy-spirit-2349 So St. Cyril considers the Father to be Sole Cause of the Procession, but the Procession itself to be Mediated through the Son. We can say the Father is the Source, and the Son is the Mediator.

The Spirit is of the Son not in causality, which would add another αρχη to the Godhead other than the Father, but the Son receives the Spirit from the Father to show the unity of the substance. So we cannot say that the Spirit "proceeds equally from the Father and the Son as one Principle" because the Principle is the Father, who is the fount of deity. We can say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son qualified as a shining forth procession and not causal procession because of the unity of the Divine Essence. As St. Gregory of Nyssa (IRRC) says "the Son receives everything that the Father has, except causality. "
East and West unsuccessfully tried for Holy Unia at Florence. We can try again, in 2025, or later, on a New Basis. We don't have to be bound by Scholastic Formulas, who were trying to express Greek Theology, from translated sources, as best they could. Today, Scholars know better. Today, all agree, on both sides, that the Eternal Father is the Sole Unoriginate Cause of both His Son, or His Word, and His Spirit. But the Procession of the Spirit from the Father is not alien to the Son, but must necessarily be admitted to Eternally Proceed or Eternally Spirate through the Son.

God Bless.

P.S. Agreed, Michael, that other issues like Papal Primacy are Important too. But Filioque has always held Principal Place in Doctrinal Discussions between Greeks and Latins. Hopefully, as Christian Brothers and Sisters Working Together in Love, we can at last Peacefully resolve it. God Bless.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

J Michael

Cave Dweller
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
13,573
Reaction score
966
Points
113
Location
People's Republic of Maryland
Faith
Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction
Here and now (well...sometimes...)
P.S. Agreed, Michael, that other issues like Papal Primacy are Important too. But Filioque has always held Principal Place in Doctrinal Discussions between Greeks and Latins. Hopefully, as Christian Brothers and Sisters Working Together in Love, we can at last Peacefully resolve it. God Bless.
I think (I'm no expert or "theologian") that the Filioque may be one of the differences between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches that would be most easy to resolve to the satisfaction of both. The other issues, however, not so much. On that basis I question your labeling of the Filioque issue as being "the Principle Issue".
 

Katechon

High Elder
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Messages
601
Reaction score
304
Points
63
Location
Germany
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
ROC-MP
This is about the 100th thread that Xavier started about the Filioque controversy, in which - again - he is relying on quotemines and - AGAIN - refuses to adress the fundamental critiques regarding Filioque that the Orthodox position brings forth. See also here:

 

Pravoslavbob

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
3,883
Reaction score
126
Points
63
Location
Canada
Faith
Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction
OCA
Thread locked pending moderator review.
 

Pravoslavbob

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
3,883
Reaction score
126
Points
63
Location
Canada
Faith
Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction
OCA
Thread unlocked.
 
Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Messages
592
Reaction score
319
Points
63
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
OCA
Hello Gloria Tibi Trinitas, thank you for your response.

I am happy you agree the Filioque can be interpreted in an Orthodox Manner. That is Common Ground on which we can build. I for my part wholly agree that it MUST be interpreted in light of Orthodox Tradition.

I agree with Holy Saint Cyril of Alexandria. Saint Cyril also said, as quoted here: "In the Patristic period, an analogous theology had developed in Alexandria, stemming from St Athanasius. As in the Latin tradition, it was expressed by the more common term of procession (proienai) indicating the communication of the divinity to the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son in their consubstantial communion: "The Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son; clearly, he is of the divine substance, proceeding (proion) substantially (ousiwdwV) in it and from it" (St Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus, PG 75, 585 A) .4 https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/li...arding-the-procession-of-the-holy-spirit-2349 So St. Cyril considers the Father to be Sole Cause of the Procession, but the Procession itself to be Mediated through the Son. We can say the Father is the Source, and the Son is the Mediator.
OK - you agree with St. Cyril. And you have pasted some quotes from the Latin Fathers. As for the Athanasian creed, I would have to see Robert Bellarmine's actual sources but imo it does not matter. We can agree with the Latin Fathers and the "Athanasian" creed if by proceeding from the Father and the Son it is meant as how St. Cyril and St. Maximus interpret it.

I think historically Rome has misinterpreted the Latin fathers. There is a clear divergence between the teaching of the West at the time of St. Maximus versus later medieval interpretations of the filioque. While I do not follow Fr. Romanides scholarship that the Franks corrupted all of Western Christendom, there were some Western councils that even rejected the "per filium" formula as too weak and insisted that the Father and the Son were equal causes of the Spirit.

Can you agree with the interpretations of St. Cyril and St. Maximus'? That the Father alone is the cause of the Godhead, and that the Latin Fathers, when they say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, do not mean the Son is the cause of the Spirit, but that the Spirit shines, rests, and manifests in Him and through Him eternally to show the unity of the Divine Essence?

Can you repudiate the position that the Father and the Son equally generate the Spirit as one principle, affirming the Orthodox faith that the Father is the only Principle of the Godhead?



East and West unsuccessfully tried for Holy Unia at Florence.
The reason it was unsuccessful was because when St. Mark of Ephesus proposed using St. Maximus' letter on the filioque as a compromise formula the Latins rejected it as a forgery, and then they continued papal machinations to force the East to capitulate by political means and other foolish tactics (for instance, St. Mark had to withdraw from the council due to illness, and one of the Latin delegates continued debating an imaginary opponent and declared the victory.)

If the West was willing to return to Orthodoxy, the East would have accepted the papacy as the first primate and we would have accepted the Latin use of filioque (though not in the creed itself) as interpreted via St. Maximus and Cyril. This is still the case today if Rome is willing to repent.


Today, all agree, on both sides, that the Eternal Father is the Sole Unoriginate Cause of both His Son, or His Word, and His Spirit.
This is not what the robber council of Florence says. It says that the Father and the Son equally cause the Spirit as from one Principle.

If Rome is ever to reunite with the Orthodox Church, Florence, Lyons, and all other heretical councils must be repudiated for their interpretation of the filioque clause, and then we can come to mutual agreement.

You have said to pass over Aquinas, but his misunderstanding of the patristic doctrine in this instance is the root of the error of Florence. I am not one who is "skeptical" of Aquinas. I view him as generally valuable when interpreted through the patristic tradition and when he is not viewed as the end-all be-all of theology, but he had a misunderstanding of Triadology that is not Orthodox (unfortunately, most of it was based on forged texts so it is not completely his fault).

But the Procession of the Spirit from the Father is not alien to the Son, but must necessarily be admitted to Eternally Proceed or Eternally Spirate through the Son.
This is a typical strawman argument accusing the Orthodox Church of "monopatrism". We confess, with Ss. Maximus, Cyril, John of Damascus, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, and all the saints, that the Father alone is the principle of the Godhead, and so in this sense, the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone (in reference to cause). The Spirit can be said to proceed from the Father and/through the Son, not in causuality, but because the Spirit is proper to the Son, as the Son is of the Divine Essence. We can say this in the Latin tradition with procedere and other synonymns from the Father and the Son, because procedere does not necessarily indicate cause. In Greek, we must say προεναι and other words like as St. John Damascene says that the Spirit "rests in the Son" or is mediated eternally through Him, meaning the same thing. We cannot say, in the same sense of proceeding that the Nicene Creed says, that the Holy Spirit εκπορευμενον proceeds from the Father and the Son.
 
Last edited:

melkite

Elder
Joined
Mar 25, 2011
Messages
389
Reaction score
179
Points
43
Age
42
Location
Maryland
Faith
Melkite Catholic
Jurisdiction
Eparchy of Newton
This is about the 100th thread that Xavier started about the Filioque controversy, in which - again - he is relying on quotemines and - AGAIN - refuses to adress the fundamental critiques regarding Filioque that the Orthodox position brings forth. See also here:

How do the Orthodox deal with the, as I understand it, extensive support for it among the pre-schism Latin Fathers? Not saying this is the case here, but it seems like, in the Orthodox paradigm, one could just dismiss anything they disagree with if it wasn't unanimously supported at all times everywhere, and no matter what kind of support one could provide to the contrary, use "quotemining" as a cop-out.
 

Katechon

High Elder
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Messages
601
Reaction score
304
Points
63
Location
Germany
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
ROC-MP
How do the Orthodox deal with the, as I understand it, extensive support for it among the pre-schism Latin Fathers? Not saying this is the case here, but it seems like, in the Orthodox paradigm, one could just dismiss anything they disagree with if it wasn't unanimously supported at all times everywhere, and no matter what kind of support one could provide to the contrary, use "quotemining" as a cop-out.
There is no "overwhelming support" for the Filioque among pre-schism Latin Fathers, except if you want to argue on the basis of a Word/Concept fallacy. Read this:

 
Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Messages
592
Reaction score
319
Points
63
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
OCA
How do the Orthodox deal with the, as I understand it, extensive support for it among the pre-schism Latin Fathers? Not saying this is the case here, but it seems like, in the Orthodox paradigm, one could just dismiss anything they disagree with if it wasn't unanimously supported at all times everywhere, and no matter what kind of support one could provide to the contrary, use "quotemining" as a cop-out.
Read what I wrote above here in this thread. The problem isn't the Latin fathers. The problem is the West rejected filioque as it meant at the time of St. Maximus and later interpreted it to mean the Father and the Son form a different principle of the Spirit, confusing the Godhead or subordinating the Spirit.
 

Pravoslavbob

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
3,883
Reaction score
126
Points
63
Location
Canada
Faith
Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction
OCA
Your article linked to here once again shows your true colours and intentions when it comes to relations with the Orthodox. You refer to us as "the separated east", and the urgent need for us to "return" to the Catholic Church, etc., all the while using Roman Catholic language and imagery that is completely foreign to the Orthodox. You boldly proclaim under your avatar that you are an "Ecumenical Catholic Christian" and that your jurisdiction is "the Pope", but that your "heart is for reunion!" Reunion under the domination of Rome, evidently. What is more, you are seeking this while not being in full communion with Rome yourself.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
2,981
Reaction score
319
Points
83
Age
58
Location
USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Patriarchate of Antioch
I think there was some breathing room on this prior to the 1054 incident. I believe the eastern church was always skeptical of it and when Humbert shoved it on us, there was no more room for discussion. It is too bad but it is unresolvable in this world. Personally, I believe there is still ( for now) saving grace in the RCC but there are too many other irreconcilable issues between us.
 

SirHandel6

Jr. Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2021
Messages
39
Reaction score
19
Points
8
Age
20
Location
America
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian Orthodox Church
I think Fr Hopko has a good video on the issue of the filioque and the west. https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/the_filioque
The thing with the Filioque and the west is that yes you'll find saints who believed in it and even may have said it in the Creed. This doesn't make it right or simply "theologoumenon" whatever that word means. We live in a fallen world, and so every saint will have their faults, including in the west. For the longest iconoclasm was largely supported too, yet we solved this issue as the Orthodox Catholic Church did with the filioque, especially the insertion of it into the creed.
 

Xavier

OC.Net Guru
Post Moderated
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,323
Reaction score
45
Points
48
Age
34
Location
India
Website
marianapostolate.com
Faith
Traditional Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction
The Pope - but my heart is for Re-Union!
Dear Orthodox Christian Brothers and Sisters, please let us try to get along with each other. We're each Passionate about what we believe, but there's no reason we can't be friends and even brothers imho. As for me, I have my own Conscientious Convictions, but I accept and respect Orthodox Christians as Devout and Faithful Christians on the Path to Salvation, and so I am not trying to proselytize anybody to my jurisdiction.

What I do hope for, is what we Catholics Traditionally call Holy Unia between the Holy Eastern Churches and the Holy Western Churches, namely the Bishops of the East and the Bishops of the West, including the Patriarch of Rome, the Patriarch of Moscow and the Patriarch of Constantinople, signing a Joint Doctrinal Formula on Filioque or Per Filium as both Mutually Acceptable and thus Re-Establishing Inter-Communion between East and West.. When will it happen? I don't know. Perhaps in 2025, at the planned for Third Nicene Council, or perhaps later on. That is for Popes and the Patriarchs of the Churches to decide and discuss together.

As I wrote in my article, It is time imho for Pro-Life, Christ-Loving, Mary-Honoring Christians, such as both Catholics and Orthodox are, to unite as Joint Allies in the Struggle Against Atheism, Communism, Radical Islamism, Persecution of Christians and the Infanticidal Abortionism of our time:

"Dear Orthodox Christians: A word from our hearts to yours — if we wish Christianity to successfully combat and entirely overcome the new paganism of the culture of death, of abortionism, contraception, divorce, pornography, and other forms of immorality and lawlessness, if we hope for the worldwide Church to receive more conversions from paganism and baptize more individuals into Christ and the Triune God, and make them members of the Church, the time to reunite is now and quickly"

Nor is this my opinion alone. Both Patriarch Kirill and Patriarch Bartholomew are on Good Terms with Pope Francis, and one of these Venerable Leaders of the Christian Church have expressed the opinion that Catholic-Orthodox Re-Union is Inevitable: "According to OrthoChristian.com, last November, the highest authority in the Eastern Orthodox Church, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, announced that the long awaited reunification with the Roman Catholic Church is now inevitable. This comment was made behind closed doors during a meeting with abbots at Mt. Athos in Greece. His reasoning was that Orthodox Christianity and Catholicism have no dogmatic differences." https://rcrusadernews.com/3610/reli...es-faces-roadblock-to-repairing-great-schism/

It is my hope that Patriarch Kirill, Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew will all sit down and work the problem out. The Devout Christian Faithful can support them in Prayer.

Nobody is proposing Lyons II and Florence again in this 21st Century as Models for Re-Union. Those Councils failed. Yet the Cause of Holy Unia which they labored for is no Unworthy Cause to be Ashamed of - as if the Division of Christendom was something Good and to be longed-for, which is evidently absurd - but rather a Holy and Most Just Cause to be eagerly pursued anew in our age. It is almost in a Certain Sense like ministering to the Wounds of Our Divine Lord Jesus, and trying to heal them, for that is what we actually do, when we heal Wounds in His Body.

As Laetentur Caeli said, when Holy Union seemed in sight: "Let the heavens be glad and let the earth rejoice. For, the wall that divided the western and the eastern church has been removed, peace and harmony have returned, since the corner-stone, Christ, who made both one, has joined both sides with a very strong bond of love and peace, uniting and holding them together in a covenant of everlasting unity. After a long haze of grief and a dark and unlovely gloom of long-enduring strife, the radiance of hoped-for union has illuminated all.

Let Mother Church also rejoice. For she now beholds her sons hitherto in disagreement returned to unity and peace, and she who hitherto wept at their separation now gives thanks to God with inexpressible joy at their truly marvellous harmony. Let all the faithful throughout the world, and those who go by the name of Christian, be glad with mother catholic church. For behold, western and eastern fathers after a very long period of disagreement and discord, submitting themselves to the perils of sea and land and having endured labours of all kinds, came together in this holy ecumenical council, joyful and eager in their desire for this most holy union and to restore intact the ancient love. In no way have they been frustrated in their intent. After a long and very toilsome investigation, at last by the clemency of the holy Spirit they have achieved this greatly desired and most holy union. Who, then, can adequately thank God for his gracious gifts?' Who would not stand amazed at the riches of such great divine mercy? Would not even an iron breast be softened by this immensity of heavenly condescension?"


Taken from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_of_Union_with_the_Greeks
 

Xavier

OC.Net Guru
Post Moderated
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,323
Reaction score
45
Points
48
Age
34
Location
India
Website
marianapostolate.com
Faith
Traditional Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction
The Pope - but my heart is for Re-Union!
Gloria Tibi Trinitas said:
OK - you agree with St. Cyril. And you have pasted some quotes from the Latin Fathers. As for the Athanasian creed, I would have to see Robert Bellarmine's actual sources but imo it does not matter. We can agree with the Latin Fathers and the "Athanasian" creed if by proceeding from the Father and the Son it is meant as how St. Cyril and St. Maximus interpret it.
Yes, as we saw above, both Latin Father Pope St. Damasus and Venerable Greek Father St. Athanasius the Great, clearly taught the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son. Therefore, the question is how to interpret this Patristic Formula. I agree with St. Cyril and St. Maximus that the Father is Sole Cause of His Son and His Spirit, and that He Causes His Spirit by Spirating Him eternally in and through His Son.

Do you? Here is St. Maximus: "By nature (jusei) the Holy Spirit in his being (kat’ ousian) takes substantially (ousiodwV) his origin (ekporeuomenon) from the Father through the Son who is begotten (di’ Uiou gennhqentoV)" (Quaestiones ad Thalassium, LXIII, PG 90, 672 C)." https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/li...arding-the-procession-of-the-holy-spirit-2349

The Theologians in the Above Study agreed: "The Father only generates the Son by breathing (proballein in Greek) through him the Holy Spirit and the Son is only begotten by the Father insofar as the spiration (probolh in Greek) passes through him. The Father is Father of the One Son only by being for him and through him the origin of the Holy Spirit." I find this Conclusion Perfectly Acceptable and Fully Sufficient For Re-Union.

I think historically Rome has misinterpreted the Latin fathers. There is a clear divergence between the teaching of the West at the time of St. Maximus versus later medieval interpretations of the filioque. While I do not follow Fr. Romanides scholarship that the Franks corrupted all of Western Christendom, there were some Western councils that even rejected the "per filium" formula as too weak and insisted that the Father and the Son were equal causes of the Spirit.
The Roman Church has not misinterpreted the Latin Father. How could She when, as I showed, Pope St. Damasus, at the same time as Constantinople I in 381, clearly taught, against the Macedonians, that the Spirit proceeded eternally from the Father and the Son?

The Saintly Pontiff, of the 4th Century, when Orthodox Christians agree the Ancient, Apostolic Church of Rome was Orthodox, said that the Truth of the Filioque is a Proof of the Dogma of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Filioque was an Incontestable Truth even in those times.

With regard to some Latin Theologians here and there who did not know Sacred Theology and thought Per Filium was Unacceptable, it is enough to say St. Tarasius, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Florence - all Catholic Authorities - completely disagree with them.

Can you agree with the interpretations of St. Cyril and St. Maximus'? That the Father alone is the cause of the Godhead, and that the Latin Fathers, when they say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, do not mean the Son is the cause of the Spirit, but that the Spirit shines, rests, and manifests in Him and through Him eternally to show the unity of the Divine Essence?
Yes, I agree with the Statement Above. And it is Sufficient for Re-Union Imho. The Father is Sole Cause. The Son is Mediator in the Eternal Procession. The Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and through the Son. The Ancient Patristic Formula of "Per Filium" is orthodox Catholic.

Can you repudiate the position that the Father and the Son equally generate the Spirit as one principle, affirming the Orthodox faith that the Father is the only Principle of the Godhead?
I think there is a misunderstanding here. St. Augustine said the Father and the Son are One Beginning or Principle of the Holy Spirit, just as Sun-Light is One Principle of Heat, even though Sun causes both Heat and Light: " If, therefore, that also which is given has him for a beginning by whom it is given, since it has received from no other source that which proceeds from him; it must be admitted that the Father and the Son are a Beginning of the Holy Spirit, not two Beginnings; but as the Father and Son are one God, and one Creator, and one Lord relatively to the creature, so are they one Beginning relatively to the Holy Spirit. But the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one Beginning in respect to the creature, as also one Creator and one God. " https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130105.htm Do you disagree with St. Augustine on this point?

Taken from: De Trinitate, Book V, Chapter IV: "
Chapter 14.— The Father and the Son the Only Beginning (Principium) of the Holy Spirit."
 

Xavier

OC.Net Guru
Post Moderated
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,323
Reaction score
45
Points
48
Age
34
Location
India
Website
marianapostolate.com
Faith
Traditional Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction
The Pope - but my heart is for Re-Union!
There is no "overwhelming support" for the Filioque among pre-schism Latin Fathers, except if you want to argue on the basis of a Word/Concept fallacy. Read this:

As I showed in my article, it is no fallacy to believe St. Augustine taught the Filioque Doctrine. Read St. Augustine through and through and it is clear.

A quote from St. Augustine: "And it is proved by many other testimonies of the Divine Word, that the Spirit, who is specially called in the Trinity the Holy Spirit, is of the Father and of the Son: of whom likewise the Son Himself says, Whom I will send unto you from the Father; and in another place, Whom the Father will send in my name. And we are so taught that He proceeds from both, because the Son Himself says, He proceeds from the Father. And when He had risen from the dead, and had appeared to His disciples, He breathed upon them, and said, Receive the Holy Ghost, so as to show that He proceeded also from Himself[.] … 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. And let him who can understand, in that which the Son says, As the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself, not that the Father gave life to the Son already existing without life, but that He so begot Him apart from time, that the life which the Father gave to the Son by begetting Him is co-eternal with the life of the Father who gave it: let him, I say, understand, that as the Father has in Himself that the Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, so has He given to the Son that the same Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, and be both apart from time: and that the Holy Spirit is so said to proceed from the Father as that it be understood that His proceeding also from the Son, is a property derived by the Son from the Father. For if the Son has of the Father whatever He has, then certainly He has of the Father, that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from Him. But let no one think of any times therein which imply a sooner and a later; because these things are not there at all. How, then, would it not be most absurd to call Him the Son of both: when, just as generation from the Father, without any changeableness of nature, gives to the Son essence, without beginning of time; so procession from both, without any changeableness of nature, gives to the Holy Spirit essence without beginning of time? [7]"

[7] St. Augustine, De Trinitate, Book 15, Ch. 26
 

Xavier

OC.Net Guru
Post Moderated
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,323
Reaction score
45
Points
48
Age
34
Location
India
Website
marianapostolate.com
Faith
Traditional Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction
The Pope - but my heart is for Re-Union!
Your article linked to here once again shows your true colours and intentions when it comes to relations with the Orthodox. You refer to us as "the separated east", and the urgent need for us to "return" to the Catholic Church, etc., all the while using Roman Catholic language and imagery that is completely foreign to the Orthodox. You boldly proclaim under your avatar that you are an "Ecumenical Catholic Christian" and that your jurisdiction is "the Pope", but that your "heart is for reunion!" Reunion under the domination of Rome, evidently. What is more, you are seeking this while not being in full communion with Rome yourself.
Dear Pravoslavbob, while as I mentioned above, I do hope for Catholic and Orthodox Christians, remaining faithful to their own Tradition, to be Allies in the Pro-Life Cause, against Persecution of Christians etc, and other Urgent Needs of the Universal Christian Church in our times, my thinking grows and evolves all the time. For e.g. the Discovery of this Article was a Major Landmark in my personal journey toward believing the Eastern Churches are already Catholic and Orthodox and simply need to rediscover Full Communion with the West. It is why I believe Inter-Communion between East and West is already possible, especially in light of Joint Doctrinal Statements between Catholic Popes and Patriarchs, and Bishops and Theologians, on the Filioque and Per Filium, from a few decades ago, that I quoted earlier.

The article itself: "Yet the historical reality turns out to be more complicated ... in actual practice relations between Catholics and Orthodox often continued to be extraordinarily amicable, above all during the years 1600-1700. In the many regions of the Levant where members of the two Churches dwelt side by side, if there was sometimes tension on the local level, more frequently there was friendly cooperation, and not only cooperation but intercommunion. Within the Venetian dominions it was the normal policy of the Latin authorities to do everything possible to encourage harmony between their catholic and orthodox subjects; within the Ottoman empire, servitude to the infidel made Greeks and Latins alike more conscious of the common heritage which they shared as Christians ...

when full allowance is made for all the exceptions, the fact remains that in the years 1600-1700 vast numbers of Catholics and Orthodox, educated clergy as well as simple believers, acted as though no schism existed between East and West."


Taken from: https://journal.orthodoxwestblogs.c...seventeenth-century-schism-or-intercommunion/

Regarding the claim that I am not in Full Communion with Rome, that is simply a mistake. I am. I am a Roman Catholic Indult Traditionalist who supports Traditional Fraternities like the Fraternity of St. Peter, that is in Full Communion with the Pope and the Bishops. Recently, Pope Francis welcomed them to the Vatican and commended and praised them for preserving Catholic Tradition in the Full Communion of the Church.

God Bless you.
 

J Michael

Cave Dweller
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
13,573
Reaction score
966
Points
113
Location
People's Republic of Maryland
Faith
Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction
Here and now (well...sometimes...)
With respect to replies #16, 17, 18, 19---WTLDR. (Waaayyy Too Long, Didn't Read).

Any chance you could be a little less prolix, Xavier?

Your desire for the reunion of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches is highly laudable. But I don't think you're going to make much headway with efforts that appear to be proselytizing, though you may not mean them that way. And walls of words are really a good way to put people off.

Also, there is a tool in the toolbar where you write your post, just to the right of the smiley face. If you click on the little down arrow you'll see the word "Quote" with quotation marks next to it. Click on that and insert your quote between the brackets separating the two words "QUOTE". No need, then, to change the font color, and that makes reading it much easier on the eyes, and everyone knows it's a quote.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
2,981
Reaction score
319
Points
83
Age
58
Location
USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Patriarchate of Antioch
If Pope Benedict XVI was still Vicar, there might be some areas for unofficial but constructive discussion. The current titular hierarchs in both church groups, I would think, should discourage any sense of hope for any of us who ( for ex.) believe in the 10 commandments.
 

Tzimis

Taxiarches
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
5,561
Reaction score
265
Points
83
Location
wilderness
Faith
Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction
EP
How do the Orthodox deal with the, as I understand it, extensive support for it among the pre-schism Latin Fathers? Not saying this is the case here, but it seems like, in the Orthodox paradigm, one could just dismiss anything they disagree with if it wasn't unanimously supported at all times everywhere, and no matter what kind of support one could provide to the contrary, use "quotemining" as a cop-out.
Don't think it was an issue in the past, since the earlier fathers never made it such.
It seems more political to me, a way to create a schism intentionally aka Separatism.
 
Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Messages
592
Reaction score
319
Points
63
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
OCA
Yes, as we saw above, both Latin Father Pope St. Damasus and Venerable Greek Father St. Athanasius the Great, clearly taught the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son. Therefore, the question is how to interpret this Patristic Formula. I agree with St. Cyril and St. Maximus that the Father is Sole Cause of His Son and His Spirit, and that He Causes His Spirit by Spirating Him eternally in and through His Son.
If you can agree that the Son mediating the Spirit does not constitute that the Son causes the Spirit, I think this is acceptable.

do you? Here is St. Maximus: "By nature (jusei) the Holy Spirit in his being (kat’ ousian) takes substantially (ousiodwV) his origin (ekporeuomenon) from the Father through the Son who is begotten (di’ Uiou gennhqentoV)" (Quaestiones ad Thalassium, LXIII, PG 90, 672 C)." https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/li...arding-the-procession-of-the-holy-spirit-2349
I accept it. The Spirit is proper to the Son, because of the unity of the Divine Essence, but is not caused by Him.
The Theologians in the Above Study agreed: "The Father only generates the Son by breathing (proballein in Greek) through him the Holy Spirit and the Son is only begotten by the Father insofar as the spiration (probolh in Greek) passes through him. The Father is Father of the One Son only by being for him and through him the origin of the Holy Spirit." I find this Conclusion Perfectly Acceptable and Fully Sufficient For Re-Union.
Again this is acceptable insofar as the spiration of the Spirit through the Son does not make the Son a cause.



The Roman Church has not misinterpreted the Latin Father.
This is factually incorrect, at least at the time of Florence.
Read Fr. Christian Kaapes The Theology of the Divine Essence and Energies in George-Gennadios
Scholarios

And Edward Siecienski's scholarship on the use of St. Maximus the Confessor at the Council of Florence.
You will find that the Latins rejected the compromise formula of St. Maximus (since it disagreed with their theology which was that the Son indeed was a cause), relied on subordinationist (the Spirit is lesser in dignity) forgeries, and a forgery of Nicea II that said “ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον” which Rome would now consider heretical.

How could She when, as I showed, Pope St. Damasus, at the same time as Constantinople I in 381, clearly taught, against the Macedonians, that the Spirit proceeded eternally from the Father and the Son?
Again and again, you equivocate. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in προεναι, is given from the Father to the Son, and rests in the Son, and is shown back from the Son as reciprocated love. But this has nothing to do with cause, and the Father is the only cause in the Trinity. The Son has everything that the Father has, except causality, as St. Gregory the Theologian says.
The Saintly Pontiff, of the 4th Century, when Orthodox Christians agree the Ancient, Apostolic Church of Rome was Orthodox, said that the Truth of the Filioque is a Proof of the Dogma of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Filioque was an Incontestable Truth even in those times.
It was true, insofar as St. Maximus says the Latins do not mean the Son is cause.
With regard to some Latin Theologians here and there who did not know Sacred Theology and thought Per Filium was Unacceptable, it is enough to say St. Tarasius, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Florence - all Catholic Authorities - completely disagree with them.
Yet you must admit that there were varying opinions in the West of what filioque meant and that some of them were erroneous. Even between the Thomisics and the Scotists, besides the essence energy distinction they had different interpretations of filioque. Namely, due to their theory of opposite relations, the Dominican parties believed filioque was necessary to relationally distinguish the Spirit from the Son, as in Thomistic theology this is the only thing that formally distinguishes the Persons. The Scotist Franciscan party, along with the Orthodox, maintained that the hypostatic casual idiomata of unbegotten, begotten, and proceeding distinguishes by the Persons as real distinct subsistences.



Yes, I agree with the Statement Above. And it is Sufficient for Re-Union Imho. The Father is Sole Cause. The Son is Mediator in the Eternal Procession. The Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and through the Son. The Ancient Patristic Formula of "Per Filium" is orthodox Catholic.
Again, we need to qualify procedere with the Greek patristic tradition of προεναι, and not εκπορευσισ, a vital distinction the robber council of Florence completely failed to realize.



I think there is a misunderstanding here. St. Augustine said the Father and the Son are One Beginning or Principle of the Holy Spirit, just as Sun-Light is One Principle of Heat, even though Sun causes both Heat and Light: " If, therefore, that also which is given has him for a beginning by whom it is given, since it has received from no other source that which proceeds from him; it must be admitted that the Father and the Son are a Beginning of the Holy Spirit, not two Beginnings; but as the Father and Son are one God, and one Creator, and one Lord relatively to the creature, so are they one Beginning relatively to the Holy Spirit. But the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one Beginning in respect to the creature, as also one Creator and one God. " https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130105.htm Do you disagree with St. Augustine on this point?
I can agree with it insofar as what St. Augustine says in Book XV par 29
"And yet it is not to no purpose that in this Trinity the Son and none other is called the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit and none other the Gift of God, and God the Father alone is He from whom the Word is born, and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. And therefore I have added the word principally, because we find that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also. But the Father gave Him this too, not as to one already existing, and not yet having it; but whatever He gave to the only-begotten Word, He gave by begetting Him. Therefore He so begot Him as that the common Gift should proceed from Him also, and the Holy Spirit should be the Spirit of both. This distinction, then, of the inseparable Trinity is not to be merely accepted in passing, but to be carefully considered; for hence it was that the Word of God was specially called also the Wisdom of God, although both Father and Holy Spirit are wisdom. If, then, any one of the three is to be specially called Love, what more fitting than that it should be the Holy Spirit?— namely, that in that simple and highest nature, substance should not be one thing and love another, but that substance itself should be love, and love itself should be substance, whether in the Father, or in the Son, or in the Holy Spirit; and yet that the Holy Spirit should be specially called Love."

If you read the articles @Katechon linked to, you will find some more information on this. You keep on going back to word concept fallacies. Of course St. Augustine says the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The whole question is does he mean this in terms of cause, or as Craig Truglia in this article argues that he is referring to relational enhypostatic energies in an analogical context, and not saying literally the Holy Spirit is created by the love of Father and the Son (which is a form of Arianism, like the idea that the Son is a product of the will of the Father and thus is necessary an accident)

Imo, St. Augustine, as interpreted by St. Maximus and St. Gregory Palamas (who rehashes much of De Trinitate and talks about the Spirit is the bond of love between the Father and the Son etc) is Orthodox in this regard, when we understand that by procession of the Holy Spirit here he is talking about relationships and analogies within the Godhead, and does not mean that the Son is literally another cause of the Spirit or that the Son and Father constitute another principle of deity.
 

Katechon

High Elder
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Messages
601
Reaction score
304
Points
63
Location
Germany
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
ROC-MP
As I showed in my article, it is no fallacy to believe St. Augustine taught the Filioque Doctrine. Read St. Augustine through and through and it is clear.

A quote from St. Augustine: "And it is proved by many other testimonies of the Divine Word, that the Spirit, who is specially called in the Trinity the Holy Spirit, is of the Father and of the Son: of whom likewise the Son Himself says, Whom I will send unto you from the Father; and in another place, Whom the Father will send in my name. And we are so taught that He proceeds from both, because the Son Himself says, He proceeds from the Father. And when He had risen from the dead, and had appeared to His disciples, He breathed upon them, and said, Receive the Holy Ghost, so as to show that He proceeded also from Himself[.] … 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. And let him who can understand, in that which the Son says, As the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself, not that the Father gave life to the Son already existing without life, but that He so begot Him apart from time, that the life which the Father gave to the Son by begetting Him is co-eternal with the life of the Father who gave it: let him, I say, understand, that as the Father has in Himself that the Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, so has He given to the Son that the same Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, and be both apart from time: and that the Holy Spirit is so said to proceed from the Father as that it be understood that His proceeding also from the Son, is a property derived by the Son from the Father. For if the Son has of the Father whatever He has, then certainly He has of the Father, that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from Him. But let no one think of any times therein which imply a sooner and a later; because these things are not there at all. How, then, would it not be most absurd to call Him the Son of both: when, just as generation from the Father, without any changeableness of nature, gives to the Son essence, without beginning of time; so procession from both, without any changeableness of nature, gives to the Holy Spirit essence without beginning of time? [7]"

[7] St. Augustine, De Trinitate, Book 15, Ch. 26
 

Sethrak

Protokentarchos
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
5,127
Reaction score
336
Points
83
Location
California & Nevada ranches
Faith
Armenian Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Etchmiadzin, Armenia
Filioque,,is just a , Chip on the shoulder, what is wanted is authority, by both parties,,,
Each saying , We Are The Church,

It isn't a word or phrase that separate the Church, Churches, it is wanting to be THE TRUE ONE AND ONLY CATHOLIC, UNIVERSAL CHURCH,,

It was between Constantinople and the Latin church,,,,
Now it seems, Russian and West ,,,,
Politics,. Power and influence,,,
 

Tzimis

Taxiarches
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
5,561
Reaction score
265
Points
83
Location
wilderness
Faith
Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction
EP
Only problem I see, is why add it too the creed?
If you can answer that question you are a better man then me.
 

SirHandel6

Jr. Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2021
Messages
39
Reaction score
19
Points
8
Age
20
Location
America
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian Orthodox Church
Brother, the problem is not the creed, it is who is top dog, the good, the keeper of the stairs to heaven,,,
Christ in John 15 revealed to all the apostles, including Peter, the precedence of the Holy Spirit to the father and his sending of the Holy Spirit to them, and so as much as they wish to say otherwise, even all the way to the Pope, it still doesn't change what the scripture says and what the Nicene Creed says, even if it takes changing the creed itself.
 

Vanhyo

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
32
Points
48
Location
Bulgaria
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
BOC
Naa.

There is no need for this, i couldn't even know if what you quote is a forgery or not. I think as time passes it will become more and more manifest which Church is true and which is a man-made.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
2,981
Reaction score
319
Points
83
Age
58
Location
USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Patriarchate of Antioch
I often see a quotation of St. Maximos ( the Confessor) as a question to St. Thalassios (quoted in post #23). In that quote it says that the Holy Spirit takes in His being takes His origin from the Father through the Son Who is begotten. Surely, I believe this statement is truly from St. Maximos.

My only question is though it is framed as a statement in what is titled as a question to another monk ( St. Thalassios). In the Philokalia vol.2, the succinct & in depth statements of St. Thalassios are communication between these blessed saints who were friends. The Trinitarian statements of St. Thalassios are precise and inherently not inclined to the filioque. My understanding is that both saints understandings are given in the writings of St. Thalassios.

A major example of St. Thalassios Trinitarian expression:

“We regard the Father as unoriginate and as the source: as unoriginate because He is unbegotten, and as the source because He is the begetter of the Son and sender forth of the Holy Spirit, both of whom are by essence from Him and in Him from all eternity,”

( from the Philokalia vol.2, 4th c. #92)

From the same set of writings, St. Thalassios concluded, “Again, the Son and the Spirit are regarded as not unoriginate, and yet as from all eternity. They are not unoriginate because the Father is their origin and source; but They are eternal in that They coexist with the Father, the one begotten by Him and the other proceeding from Him for all eternity.”

Philokalia vol.2, 4th c.#94)

Note in what I bolded the clear distinction of begotten and proceeding and there is no mention in the above statements as the Spirit proceeding from the Son.
 

Cavaradossi

Archon
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
2,189
Reaction score
216
Points
63
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
AANA
Do you? Here is St. Maximus: "By nature (jusei) the Holy Spirit in his being (kat’ ousian) takes substantially (ousiodwV) his origin (ekporeuomenon) from the Father through the Son who is begotten (di’ Uiou gennhqentoV)" (Quaestiones ad Thalassium, LXIII, PG 90, 672 C)." https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/li...arding-the-procession-of-the-holy-spirit-2349
As I pointed out in another thread, this quote has been mangled. The text reads «Τὸ γὰρ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ὥσπερ φύσει κατ' οὐσίαν ὑπάρχει τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς, οὕτως καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ φύσει κατ' οὐσίαν ἐστὶν, ὡς ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσιωδῶς, δι' Υἱοῦ γεννηθέντος, ἀφράστως ἐκπορευόμενον· καὶ τῇ λυχνίᾳ, τουτέστι τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ, καθάπερ λύχνους τὰς οἰκείας ἐνεργείας δωρούμενον.» As I translated it in the other thread, "For just as the Holy Spirit by nature and according to substance exists of God the Father, so too by nature and according to substance is He of the Son, since He inexpressibly proceeds substantially from the Father, through the Begotten Son, and just as lamps to the lampstand, that is to the Church, He grants His own energies [or operations]."

This quote, in fact, is given in the context of the economic manifestation of the Holy Spirit. When you say that the Father Spirates the Spirit in and through the Son and present this mangled quote as evidence for that position, I suspect that you understand "through" in the sense of a modern ecumenically-friendly presentation of Thomistic doctrine where the Son shares in Father's power of Spiration and the Spirit can be said to take "ultimate origin" from the Father because the power of Spiration is proper to the Father. In contrast, in this passage from St. Maximus, the metaphor here is completely spatial—the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son and to the Church—and it thereby does not seem to admit a causal interpretation of "through".
 

123abc

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
87
Reaction score
10
Points
8
Location
Jersey
Faith
Reformed
Jurisdiction
PCA
I guess Nishant isn't having much luck converting India to Catholicism so he decided on another hit and run piece wherein he simply repeats himself, ignores all contrary arguments, engages in fake politeness, and then disappears for a time.
 
Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Messages
592
Reaction score
319
Points
63
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
OCA
I guess Nishant isn't having much luck converting India to Catholicism so he decided on another hit and run piece wherein he simply repeats himself, ignores all contrary arguments, engages in fake politeness, and then disappears for a time.
Xavier's threads have been disproved so many times on the filioque and papal supremacy that it is beyond comprehension why they still continue. Considering any historical reading, the fact he keeps on trying to quote St. Maximus to prove the filioque when Florence rejected the letter to Marinus as a forgery is a practical admission that the West was wrong. The rest is all equivocation and cherry picking.
 
Joined
Nov 7, 2021
Messages
695
Reaction score
506
Points
93
Location
USA
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antioch but secret ROCOR
Christ in John 15 revealed to all the apostles, including Peter, the precedence of the Holy Spirit to the father and his sending of the Holy Spirit to them, and so as much as they wish to say otherwise, even all the way to the Pope, it still doesn't change what the scripture says and what the Nicene Creed says, even if it takes changing the creed itself.
Are you saying Jesus is correct?
 

Sethrak

Protokentarchos
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
5,127
Reaction score
336
Points
83
Location
California & Nevada ranches
Faith
Armenian Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Etchmiadzin, Armenia
The Church is all the Ancient Churches, the Apostolic Churches, there is No One church that is the head office that all others must report to or be instructed by,
This is the Claim of the Latin Church,but not only they lay claim to being the one and only,
 

Xavier

OC.Net Guru
Post Moderated
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,323
Reaction score
45
Points
48
Age
34
Location
India
Website
marianapostolate.com
Faith
Traditional Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction
The Pope - but my heart is for Re-Union!
If you can agree that the Son mediating the Spirit does not constitute that the Son causes the Spirit, I think this is acceptable.

I accept it. The Spirit is proper to the Son, because of the unity of the Divine Essence, but is not caused by Him.
Again this is acceptable insofar as the spiration of the Spirit through the Son does not make the Son a cause.
Agreed. The Father Causes His Spirit through His Son. The Father is Cause. The Son is Mediator. The Son is not the Cause as the Father is.

This is factually incorrect, at least at the time of Florence.
Florence dogmatically defined the acceptability and equivalence of the "Per Filium" or "through the Son" formulation, thus putting an end to all speculation to the contrary. Among the Greeks, too, there were errors, for e.g. the Complete Rejection of the Per Filium:

"Later again around 860AD the controversy over the Filioque and the Frankish monks broke out in the course of the disputes between Photius and Patriarch Ignatius of Constantinople.[75] In 867, Photius was Patriarch of Constantinople and issued an Encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs, and called a council in Constantinople in which he charged the Western Church with heresy and schism because of differences in practices, in particular for the Filioque and the authority of the Papacy.[86] This moved the issue from jurisdiction and custom to one of dogma. This council declared Pope Nicholas anathema, excommunicated and deposed.[87]

Photius excluded not only "and the Son" but also "through the Son" with regard to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit: for him "through the Son" applied only to the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit (the sending in time).[m][n][o] He maintained that the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit is "from the Father alone".[89] This phrase was verbally a novelty.[90][91] However, Orthodox theologians generally hold that in substance the phrase was only a reaffirmation of traditional teaching.[90][91] Sergei Bulgakov, on the other hand, declared that Photius's doctrine itself "represents a sort of novelty for the Eastern church".[92][p]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_filioque_controversy

How do you explain this? We do not agree with those who believed St. Maximus were mistaken. The Council of Florence itself defined nothing on that point, other than that both from the Son and through the Son were acceptable. If you accept the Per Filium, how do you explain the above?

Again and again, you equivocate. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in προεναι, is given from the Father to the Son, and rests in the Son, and is shown back from the Son as reciprocated love. But this has nothing to do with cause, and the Father is the only cause in the Trinity. The Son has everything that the Father has, except causality, as St. Gregory the Theologian says.
And another St. Gregory, St. Gregory of Nyssa, explains what the East meant by Cause: " It is as if a man were to see a separate flame burning on three torches (and we will suppose that the third flame is caused by that of the first being transmitted to the middle, and then kindling the end torch ), and were to maintain that the heat in the first exceeded that of the others; that that next it showed a variation from it in the direction of the less; and that the third could not be called fire at all, though it burnt and shone just like fire, and did everything that fire does." https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2903.htm In other words, St. Gregory simply means the Father causes His Spirit through His Son.

Two things happened here: (1) Among the Greeks, the Monopatrists claimed the Fathers excluded procession through the Son, and (2) Among the Latins, some were confused about what the Greek Fathers mean by Cause. Further study shows the meaning is as I explained above.

It was true, insofar as St. Maximus says the Latins do not mean the Son is cause.
I agree with St. Maximus. St. Maximus is of Greater Authority than later, lesser Latin Theologians. However, all of Pope St. Damasus of Rome, Patriarch St. Athanasius the Great of Alexandria, Pope St. Leo the Great (and even Pope St. Gregory the Great) teach the Filioque, and the East's Apologetic Attempts to deny this are, frankly, rather silly. To be deep in history is to cease to oppose the Filioque as taught by Latin Fathers.

Yet you must admit that there were varying opinions in the West of what filioque meant and that some of them were erroneous. Even between the Thomisics and the Scotists, besides the essence energy distinction they had different interpretations of filioque. Namely, due to their theory of opposite relations, the Dominican parties believed filioque was necessary to relationally distinguish the Spirit from the Son, as in Thomistic theology this is the only thing that formally distinguishes the Persons. The Scotist Franciscan party, along with the Orthodox, maintained that the hypostatic casual idiomata of unbegotten, begotten, and proceeding distinguishes by the Persons as real distinct subsistences.
I agree there were varying opinions, among the Latins, just as there were among the Greeks. Varying opinions are precisely why Councils exist.

Again, we need to qualify procedere with the Greek patristic tradition of προεναι, and not εκπορευσισ, a vital distinction the robber council of Florence completely failed to realize.
We do not say the Ekporeusis of the Spirit is from the Son. But we do say the Ekporeeusis of the Spirit from the Father is through the Son.

I can agree with it insofar as what St. Augustine says in Book XV par 29
"And yet it is not to no purpose that in this Trinity the Son and none other is called the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit and none other the Gift of God, and God the Father alone is He from whom the Word is born, and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. And therefore I have added the word principally, because we find that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also. But the Father gave Him this too, not as to one already existing, and not yet having it; but whatever He gave to the only-begotten Word, He gave by begetting Him. Therefore He so begot Him as that the common Gift should proceed from Him also, and the Holy Spirit should be the Spirit of both. This distinction, then, of the inseparable Trinity is not to be merely accepted in passing, but to be carefully considered; for hence it was that the Word of God was specially called also the Wisdom of God, although both Father and Holy Spirit are wisdom. If, then, any one of the three is to be specially called Love, what more fitting than that it should be the Holy Spirit?— namely, that in that simple and highest nature, substance should not be one thing and love another, but that substance itself should be love, and love itself should be substance, whether in the Father, or in the Son, or in the Holy Spirit; and yet that the Holy Spirit should be specially called Love."
Beautiful Citation! I agree with it completely. I have bolded some other areas than you did also, which are imho highly significant.

The Doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas, as those who have studied it in detail know (including Jay Dyer) is EXACTLY THAT OF ST. AUGUSTINE.

It's interesting you quote the above with approval. It's well known that Jay Dyer attacks both St. Thomas and St. Augustine for holding it.

I will quote that in the next post.
 

Xavier

OC.Net Guru
Post Moderated
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,323
Reaction score
45
Points
48
Age
34
Location
India
Website
marianapostolate.com
Faith
Traditional Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction
The Pope - but my heart is for Re-Union!
Imo, St. Augustine, as interpreted by St. Maximus and St. Gregory Palamas (who rehashes much of De Trinitate and talks about the Spirit is the bond of love between the Father and the Son etc) is Orthodox in this regard, when we understand that by procession of the Holy Spirit here he is talking about relationships and analogies within the Godhead, and does not mean that the Son is literally another cause of the Spirit or that the Son and Father constitute another principle of deity.
If you read the articles @Katechon linked to, you will find some more information on this. You keep on going back to word concept fallacies. Of course St. Augustine says the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The whole question is does he mean this in terms of cause, or as Craig Truglia in this article argues that he is referring to relational enhypostatic energies in an analogical context, and not saying literally the Holy Spirit is created by the love of Father and the Son (which is a form of Arianism, like the idea that the Son is a product of the will of the Father and thus is necessary an accident)
Nobody is saying the Holy Spirit is created by the Love of the Father and the Son. That is a Complete Straw-Man.

Rather, St. Augustine Teaches - and we hold - that the Holy Spirit is the ETERNAL UNCREATED LOVE between the Father and the Son.

In like manner, Jesus Christ, God the Son, is the UNCREATED WORD of the Eternal Father. It is not that He is created by the Word, but that He Himself is that Word that created all things with His Father and His Spirit. In like manner, the Spirit is the Co-Creating Love of Father and Son.

Imo, St. Augustine, as interpreted by St. Maximus and St. Gregory Palamas (who rehashes much of De Trinitate and talks about the Spirit is the bond of love between the Father and the Son etc) is Orthodox in this regard, when we understand that by procession of the Holy Spirit here he is talking about relationships and analogies within the Godhead, and does not mean that the Son is literally another cause of the Spirit or that the Son and Father constitute another principle of deity.
If St. Palamas agreed with St. Augustine, we agree with him (St. Palamas) too.

St. Palamas wrote: " The Spirit of the Word is like a love of the Father for the mysteriously begotten Word, and it is the same love that the beloved Word and Son of the Father has for the one who begot him. That love comes from the Father at the same time as it is with the Son and it naturally rests on the Son" Again, there are Orthodox who disagree with this formulation.

Jay Dyer said: " Rather than the Orthodox formulation of love as a natural divine energy all Three have in common, here “Love” is somehow more one Person than another." https://souloftheeast.org/2017/06/02/filioquism-is-arian-subordinationism-applied-to-the-spirit/ It's not I who disagree with St. Augustine, or even St. Palamas in the above, it's those like Jay Dyer who do.

Dyer notes that St. Thomas agrees with St. Augustine, and thus attacks Aquinas also; let me quote that portion here as well: "

Briefly, though, lets look and see that this is also the teaching of Thomas Aquinas (following in the train of Augustine) in his conflated double procession argument:

“Furthermore, the order of the procession of each one agrees with this conclusion. For it was said above (I:27:4; I:28:4), that the Son proceeds by the way of the intellect as Word, and the Holy Ghost by way of the will as Love. Now love must proceed from a word. For we do not love anything unless we apprehend it by a mental conception. Hence also in this way it is manifest that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.” Summa Theologica, I. Q36, 3"

So who is wrong, Gloria Tibi Trinitas? Is St. Augustine wrong that the Holy Spirit is the Eternal Love between the Father and the Son, or Dyer?

By the way, St. Augustine's Catholic Doctrine is Biblical Also. In Jn 17:26, Our Lord speaks of the Love with which His Father has loved Him as a Person, just like St. John would later say (1 Jn 4:6) that God Himself is Personal Love, " 26And I have declared unto them Thy Name, and will declare it: that the Love wherewith Thou hast loved Me may be in them, and I in them. " (Jn 17:26). So we Latins maintain St. Augustine was right.

In Christ,
N. Xavier.
 

Xavier

OC.Net Guru
Post Moderated
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,323
Reaction score
45
Points
48
Age
34
Location
India
Website
marianapostolate.com
Faith
Traditional Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction
The Pope - but my heart is for Re-Union!
As I pointed out in another thread, this quote has been mangled. The text reads «Τὸ γὰρ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ὥσπερ φύσει κατ' οὐσίαν ὑπάρχει τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς, οὕτως καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ φύσει κατ' οὐσίαν ἐστὶν, ὡς ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσιωδῶς, δι' Υἱοῦ γεννηθέντος, ἀφράστως ἐκπορευόμενον· καὶ τῇ λυχνίᾳ, τουτέστι τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ, καθάπερ λύχνους τὰς οἰκείας ἐνεργείας δωρούμενον.» As I translated it in the other thread, "For just as the Holy Spirit by nature and according to substance exists of God the Father, so too by nature and according to substance is He of the Son, since He inexpressibly proceeds substantially from the Father, through the Begotten Son, and just as lamps to the lampstand, that is to the Church, He grants His own energies [or operations]."

This quote, in fact, is given in the context of the economic manifestation of the Holy Spirit. When you say that the Father Spirates the Spirit in and through the Son and present this mangled quote as evidence for that position, I suspect that you understand "through" in the sense of a modern ecumenically-friendly presentation of Thomistic doctrine where the Son shares in Father's power of Spiration and the Spirit can be said to take "ultimate origin" from the Father because the power of Spiration is proper to the Father. In contrast, in this passage from St. Maximus, the metaphor here is completely spatial—the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son and to the Church—and it thereby does not seem to admit a causal interpretation of "through".
Thanks for the quote and your translation. Apart from the latter part, where it is said He grants His energies or operations to the Church, I do not see a substantial difference between your translation and that which the Greek and Latin Scholars and Theologians made in their Study.

In both cases, it says the Holy Spirit is of the Father in the same way that He is of the Son, and the reason given for this is because He proceeds from the Father, through the Only Begotten Son. The argument being made is that as the Word of the Father is consubstantial with the Father because the Word is of the Father's Essence (unlike creation, of course), so the Spirit is Consubstantial with both the Father and the Word, since He proceeds from both the Father and the Word, i.e. from the Father through the Word.

With regard to economic manifestation, we do not draw an absolute distinction between it and eternal procession in the way that you seem to do. It is true enough to say the Father sends His Son into the world (although it is never said the Son sends His Father into the world), but this does not mean that the Son was not eternally begotten from the Father, as we both confess He was. Likewise, just because the Fathers mention eternal procession and economic manifestation together, it doesn't follow that they are excluding either.

Re: causal interpretation of "through". I maintain that St. Maximus, and other Fathers, did not use Cause in the sense that the later Monopatrists (those who believed the Spirit proceeded from the Father alone did). He used it in the same sense as St. Gregory does: " " It is as if a man were to see a separate flame burning on three torches (and we will suppose that the third flame is caused by that of the first being transmitted to the middle, and then kindling the end torch ), and were to maintain that the heat in the first exceeded that of the others; that that next it showed a variation from it in the direction of the less; and that the third could not be called fire at all, though it burnt and shone just like fire, and did everything that fire does." What is St. Gregory saying here? St. Gregory is saying the Father is Cause because the Father Causes His Son by or through His Spirit. Do you believe St. Gregory excludes eternal procession through the Son, and speaks only of economic manifestation?

In Christ,
N. Xavier.
 
Top