www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Development of Doctrine

Eli,

I didn't say that I agree with Todd, I just said that I now understood the Eastern view (as presented by him) better. That was the point of this thread in the first place.

Which? To get the eastern view, or a particular view from the east?

I hope I did not offend. There might have been others besides yourself who might have been interested in what I posted. Ordinarily I don't think of bulletin boards as "private" conversations.

Eli

Todd,
I can't be denied that the East (and West) has reduced doctrine to proposition at one time or another. For example, the Church in Antioch (Eastern Orthodox) worships according to the Chrysostom Liturgy when the Liturgy delivered to it by the Apostles is the St. James Liturgy celebrated by the Syriac Orthodox. Also the fact that the Syriacs retained the same worship as they always have, yet were (are, by some) accused of monophysitism, accentuates the fact that the preposition was (and sometimes still is) made more important than the faith practiced.

But the West denies that its formula "contradicts" the expression of faith, but is only a clarification - which maybe the same reasoning used to replace the Syriac (and Coptic) Liturgy with the Byzantine in Antioch (and Alexandria) or at one time, claim that the Orientals are not really Orthodox.

Actually, Eli, you are being unfair to Todd attributing to him things he didnt say. In fact, it was you in this thread who posted after Todd only to agree with him. Todd is also the one who has teached people in ths thread.

As far as Filioque is concerned, I do not see how Filioque fits to 'what has been believed always, everywhere and by all' formula of ecumenical infallibility.

On both levels is a mistake: a) it hasnt followed the conciliar way of being introduced into the church. 2) Doctrinally, it bears fruits of a not properly understanding of the doctrine.

Arbanon,

I think many Western theologians have answered the doctrinal concerns satisfactorally - they do not mean that the Spirit originates eternally from the Son. The West agrees that the Holy Spirit spirates from the Father alone.

Although I agree that those without a grasp on the theology can misconstrue to mean a dual spiration.

Michal

my point was not to simply discuss Filioques theological credibility, since this is not what the thread is about, but to see its introduction in the light of doctrinal development versus 'what has been believed by all, everywhere and always' formula of ecumenical authority.

This is rich.

What I did was say to any who would listen that the east and the west do not think differently on this matter of mystery and the clarificaion of truth over time, even though many protestants and Orthodox would have us believe that there was a great difference in approach.

For me to say there is not a difference is hardly being in agreement with anyone's false propositions of difference.

We have had a distinct history history in the west but do not view the deposit of faith differently from the east.

Eli

Let me point out to anyone who cares to see that the fact of the matter is that the filioque, as it was and is professed in the west, does not contradict any of the Truths of revelation.

Like any theological proposition, filioque is subject to misunderstanding. There is no doctrinal teaching that is not subject to some abuse however small.

A clarification is a development in teaching that makes a necessary improvement in one's understanding of the truth, when the truth is challenged and the teachers of truth are placed under duress, and in that sense the filioque is a doctrinal development.

The fact that the filioque was promulgated in the west and not the east is a fact that can be explained historically in several legitimate ways that have nothing to do with the fact that the idea of the filioque was an explanation and a corrective that had great merit in terms of maintaining the doctrinal or teaching integrity of Revealed Truth.

Credal statements have had many iterations in translation, over time.

So it is necessary to take all this into consideration when evaluating what has happened east to west concerning the filioque.

One might even conclude that if there was any error or breach at all that the addition of the filioque was a breach in eccliastical discipline, since it has been shown over and over again not to have been a breach of theological and revealed truth.

Breaches in eccliastical discipline, or local changes in discipline, are even provided for in the canons, as long as they do not do fatal damage to the ability to teach Revealed Truth.

I believe the Joint Consultation in this country did a good job of making all this clear. I simply disagree with the accommodationist conclusion that the filioque should be removed in the west. That does not make me less eastern in my thinking.

Eli

Dear Eli,

In fact, the Filioque was always understood by the East to be a heresy against orthodox Triadology AND a breach of the canons since the West added this word to a Creed intended, by the Councils that promulgated it, to be an expression of the universal Christian faith.

I'm not well versed in the high theological things of the educated people on this thread and forum, so I'll give my own explanation reflecting what little I know.

The Filioque was also resisted by many in the West, including even Pope John VIII who, according to tradition, told the Patriarch Photios that he himself regarded those who supported the Filioque to be heretics.

The primary reason for the heretical basis of the Filioque is that it simply posited something that cannot be known and is not necessary to Orthodox Faith to be known.

The distinctiveness of the identity of the Holy
Spirit does not rest on His Procession from the Son. Both Churches, East and West, have always believed this to be true. The Son's being Begotten of the Father and the Spirit's Procession from the Father cannot be comprehended by us. But that is the basis for Their distinctiveness and nothing further should or can be added to that.

The Filioque can also be seen to be "troubling" in that it posits NO distinction between His Procession from the Father and from the Son - and according to Roman Catholic principles of Trinitarian theology THAT would truly be HERESY.

RC Trinitarian theology has ALWAYS posited, in affirming the Filioque, that the Spirit is spirated ACTIVELY from the Father but only PASSIVELY from the Son. The "Filioque" is problematic insofar as it does not immediately make that distinction evident.

"From the Father through the Son" is an expression that both Churches could have agreed to (indeed they already use it) at Florence while, at the same time, the Latin West could have removed the Filioque from its use of the Creed - according to Fr. John Meyendorff (+memory eternal!).

I do not believe that the Filioque is heretical.

I do believe that it is a weak term that is open to much misunderstanding and therefore should have been chucked by the West long ago. And I believe that the West should abide by the rulings of the Ecumenical Councils and not have unilaterally interpolated its change to the Creed the way it did.

Another reason the Orthodox East regards the Filioque as destroying the balance of Triadology is the way the West associates the Holy Spirit with the "Love" between the Father and the Son etc.

In fact, Divine Love is a quality that is characteristic of all Three Divine Persons. To associate the Spirit with the quality of Love in this way is to embark on a theological road that could ultimately result in a "depersonalization" of the Spirit.

In fact, how else can one really explain why the Holy Spirit in the West seems to have become, for centuries, the "forgotten Divine Person?"

And how the Holy Spirit, in Eastern theology, liturgy and sacramentology, remains centrally dynamic?

Some thoughts, anyway.

Alex

That does not counter the fact that it was understood badly, and not understood even in the tradition of the Fathers. That is not a fault of the west.

Eli

A survey of the lives and writings of saints of the west from the time of the schism 1000-1300 to the present will surely demonstrate that this is another fiction perpetrated falsely and persistently falsely in the face of strong monastic and ecclisiastical evidence from the west. This sort of assertion is why it is so difficult for western Catholics to take eastern Catholics seriously. And I say that as an eastern Catholic.

Eli

Without further explanation and more words the same thing can be said for "trinity", "incarnation", and "real presence."

None of those words over which hundreds of gallons of eccliastical and monastic ink have been spilled have meanings that are prima face evident as you demand for "filioque" here. Why not demand the same explicit transparency in the language used for these other mysteries?

Eli

Dear Eli,

First of all, with respect to your first post in response to what I wrote above, I don't understand your point about the Filioque being badly understood.

It was understood as unnecessary and even heretical by Pope John VIII when he reconciled with Photios of Constantinople. Today's RC theologians tend generally to agree that the Filioque does not belong in the Nicene Creed at all.

And which of the early Church Fathers promoted the Filioque? Even St Augustine of Hippo was hardly a promoter of it and said he submitted to the judgement of all the early Fathers in respect to his views.

Again, I don't regard it as heretical and that's not what I'm saying.

I am saying that, as far as an explanatory clause goes, the Filioque is confusing and can easily descend into an heretical notion on the principles of Roman Catholic Trinitarian theology alone!

RC Trinitarian theology, as you know, is quite developed and affirms readily that the Spirit proceeds "passively" only from the Son and to say otherwise (i.e. "actively") would be an heresy.

That is just my point - the Filioque affirms no distinction between the "active" and "passive" Spiration of the Spirit. To affirm that the Spirit "actively" Spirates from both the Father and the Son would definitely be an heresy from the standpoint of RC Trinitarian theology - let alone Orthodox Triadology.

It is confusing and adds NOTHING to a more precise understanding of the spiration of the Holy Spirit.

This has nothing to do with Eastern Catholics but with the Roman Catholic/Orthodox dialogue.

My parish uses the Filioque when it sings the Creed and I have yet to walk out when that happens - rest assured, I never will.

But we are commenting on the Filioque from an ecumenical vantage-point.

Ideally, the RC Church should remove it from the Creed, as was the common, universal tradition of the once united Church of Christ, East, West, North and South.

If the Latin Church wishes to maintain the Filioque as a theological opinion, more power to it - just don't impose it on anyone else as a standard of universal orthodox Christian faith.

I don't see anything here that is unreasonable or that is not in keeping with the tradition of the united Church of Christ from before the schism of 1054 AD.

It is not something that will ever be accepted by the East and the East is quite willing to concede it as an opinion for the Latin Church.

The East will not conceded a unilateral addition to the Creed intended to be for the universal Church as defined by two Ecumenical Councils.

Again, nothing unreasonable there either.

Sorry I've upset you.

Alex

Dear Eli,

With respect to your third post in response to what I said above, let's take a look at what is being said here.

We should not pretend as if there aren't real, Church-appointed theologians from both the RC and Orthodox Churches that aren't discussing these issues.

Ultimately, when the Greeks came to Florence, they conceded the right of the Latins to think as they please, SAVE for the issue of keeping the Filioque in the Creed. If the Latins would return to the original Creed, all would be well.

Roman Catholic theology is very well-developed when it comes to, say, Soteriology and the Incarnation - conceded readily by Fr. John Meyendorff.

The point is that the Filioque is the one big sticking issue in RC and Orthodox relations - RC theology on many other issues are not.

Having said that, I'm simply saying that if the rationale for inserting the Filioque into the Nicene Creed was to explain this or that - then it is a poor means of explanation and can lead to confusion about the Spiration of the Holy Spirit - which I'm sure we can agree is a very significant aspect of Trinitarian theology.

RC theology is VERY specific in its exposition of Trinitarian, Incarnational and other aspects of theology.

The Filioque is simply a weak tool to get across that teaching. It has no relevance for the East, but if it is important to the West, then as long as it isn't imposed as a standard of orthodoxy, that's all right.

As an Eastern Catholic, I don't think there is anything controversial or offensive to RC's about any of this - and RC teachings square perfectly with Orthodoxy on this today.

As for the role of the Holy Spirit, no one denies that RC mystics and mystical/spiritual literature relates to the Holy Spirit!

I was referring to the public, liturgical life of the Latin Church in medieval and pre-Vatican II times - and the idea that the Holy Spirit did not have the same explicit role as He always has in the Eastern Churches.

The RC liturgists of the post-Vatican II era have gone to great lengths to acknowledge and correct this.

As someone who came from a highly Latinized spiritual environment, I think that one cannot COMPARE the great, dynamic role of the Holy Spirit in the overt spiritual and sacramental life of the Eastern Churches with that of the Latin Church.

No one is implying the Latin Church ignores the Holy Spirit!

It is just that the Eastern Church truly IS the "Church of the Holy Spirit."

Alex