Author Topic: Adding the Filioque in the Creed (Read 2062 times)

tadeas · « **on:** July 03, 2015, 03:06:49 PM »

Pope st. Agatho (+681) in his doctrinal letter to the emperor, and approved by the third Council of Constantinople, said:

"Nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning." (cf. Gregory XVI, Mirari vos 7).

So, how was it possible later to add "filioque" (and the Son) to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Fourth Council of the Lateran? I don't know to answer this. Thanks.

saintalice · « **Reply #1 on:** July 03, 2015, 03:32:24 PM »

The Filioque is a very complex issue, historically. The Western church started using it around the 6th century in an effort to combat Arianism that was till raging. Although local churches in the West were reciting the Creed with the Filioque the Popes did not "officially" change the Creed until around 1014.

Here is a nice, non-polemical, response from the OCA on the issue, emphasis mine:
http://oca.org/reflections/fr.-lawrence-farley/the-filoque-clause

Quote

The Filioque Clause
One of the things which has historically been a point of polemic and conflict between the Orthodox East and the Roman Catholic West is the use of the Filioque clause in the Creed. The word “filioque” is Latin for “from the Son”, and it is used in the classically western version of the Creed to describe the Person and procession of the Holy Spirit. In that version of the Creed, the Spirit is said to “proceed from the Father and the Son”.

Lesson from Church History 101: in the Councils of the Church in the fourth century (specifically the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople, held in 325 and 381 respectively), the divine natures of Christ and the Holy Spirit were emphatically set forth. Nicea declared the Son to be “light from light, true God from true God, of one essence (Greek homoousios) with the Father”. Constantinople declared the Spirit to be “the Lord, the Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father”. That is, the Spirit was not created by the Father as the angels were created, but rather proceeded from the Father’s very being so that He was as divine as the Father was. These declarations of Nicea and Constantinople came together in the final version of the Creed, the one we recite today at Divine Liturgy. Much later, Christians in the far west (modern Spain to be precise) were hard at it, slugging away dogmatically and combatting the Arians there who still maintained that Christ was not homoousios with the Father. From the days of Augustine these western Christians believed that the Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son. Everyone believed that, they felt (at least everyone in their western neighbourhood), so why not confess it in the Creed? That would stress in a big way the divinity of the Son and His equality with the Father. So when they recited the Creed, they sang that the Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son. If asked they doubtless would have said that this was the original version of the Creed. And when they later met some Christians from the East who recited the Creed without the Filioque, they accused them indignantly of omitting this important clause. The reaction of those eastern Christians can be imagined. Since then, the East and the West have parted company, fighting over the use of the Filioque in the Creed (among other things).

It should be acknowledged that many thoughtful people in the world can make neither head nor tail out of this quarrel. It is, they feel, just one more example of the ridiculous and petty quarrelsome nature of the Christians, fighting tooth and nail over a single word. In particular, why are the Orthodox so stubborn over such trifles? At the end of the day, what does it matter? It’s just a single word. Why can’t the Orthodox East just chill out?

A few things may be said in response. First is the question of historical accuracy and honesty. Say, for example, that someone tinkered not with the Creed, but with the American national anthem. Say that someone said that the good ol’ American anthem read, “Oh, say! can you see by the dawn’s early light what so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming; whose dear maple leaf, through the perilous fight, o’er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?” Surely it would be only fair to protest and point out that the original version of the anthem did not extol the Maple Leaf, but the Stars and Stripes. One could change The Star Spangled Banner into The Maple Leaf Forever if one wanted to, but honesty should compel all involved to acknowledge that this was a change from the original. In the same way, surely it is reasonable for the Orthodox East to insist that if Christians say that they are reciting the Creed from the fourth century then that Creed should be recited in its original form, simply as a matter of historical honesty. Of course Orthodox go on to further insist that the Filioque addition is doctrinally erroneous, the venerable opinions of St. Augustine and other western teachers notwithstanding. But even apart from matters of historical honesty and doctrinal truth, there are other considerations which even secular people should be able to understand.

These considerations are two in number. First is the question of authority. When the western church after the Council of Trent (that was the anti-Reformation council of the sixteenth century, as you recall) wanted to appeal to authority, the first and strongest appeal was to the Pope in Rome. “Roma locuta est, causa finita est,” (i.e. “Rome has spoken, the case is closed”) was the basic mindset. That is, a Roman Catholic reflexively appealed to the central authority in Rome to determine the truth in matters of controversy. But the eastern church has always appealed not to a single living institution (i.e. the Papacy) but to the historical example of the Fathers. We Orthodox do not reflexively ask, “What does Rome (or New Rome) think?”, but rather, “What did the Fathers say?” For us, the first, strongest, and abiding authority is that of the patristic consensus. This is important, because it sets the tone for all our theology and for how we think and live today. For us, wisdom and the way forward into the future come from following in the trajectory of the past, not because we are bound by the limitations of those living ago, but because we are freed by them from the tyranny of the present, a present with its blind spots and its slavery to fad and fashion. For us, Tradition is not a strait-jacket, but a set of wings. It means that we do not have to keep on trying to re-invent the wheel, only to get the shape wrong because current fashion favours octagons over circles.

The second reason that the question of the inclusion or non-inclusion of the Filioque is important has to do with community. That is, to change the original wording of the Creed to include the Filioque would necessitate a new consensus of all the existing Orthodox churches. Take the example once again of the American national anthem. Recognizing that the original version spoke of Stars and Stripes, America could change it so that is spoke of the Maple Leaf instead of the Stars and Stripes, but this would require an impressive consensus of Americans, and would involve not talking about the “National Anthem”, but about the “Revised National Anthem”. (Even the Coca-cola Company had the decency to call New Coke “Coca-Cola II”.) In the same way, the Orthodox Church could decide that the Filioque was doctrinally correct after all and include the phrase, but it would have to speak not of “the Creed” any more, but of “the New Creed”, and this would require pretty much all the various autocephalous churches to sign on to it. What matters with us is community and consensus, and no major changes in things like the Creed can be made without without the whole community first agreeing to it. We march together as one. This means, given human timidity and the reluctance to move out of comfort zones, that change in Orthodoxy usually proceeds at a somewhat glacial pace. But given the catastrophic nature of changes which have occurred in churches outside her canonical borders, this may be a good thing.

The Orthodox reluctance to monkey with its Creed, that confession which has served as the doctrinal bedrock and the basis of unity, is entirely understandable. We think that the Creed as it stands to be historically original, doctrinally true, a witness to the patristic basis of our faith, and a safeguard of our conciliar unity. Not surprisingly therefore we will leave it as it is.

songbird · « **Reply #2 on:** July 03, 2015, 04:47:45 PM »

St. Cyril or Augustine stated that changes occur. For example: changes for perfection. A baby changes to child, to adult. We change for perfection for heaven. Changes can be expected, but only for perfection.

saintalice · « **Reply #3 on:** July 03, 2015, 05:34:26 PM »

Quote from: songbird

St. Cyril or Augustine stated that changes occur. For example: changes for perfection. A baby changes to child, to adult. We change for perfection for heaven. Changes can be expected, but only for perfection.

Distorting the Dogma of the Trinity (which the Filioque does) as outlined by the Cappadocian Fathers, can hardly be called "perfection." More can be read about this here:

http://www.orthodoxnet.com/wisdom/h003.html

Meg · « **Reply #4 on:** July 03, 2015, 06:23:38 PM »

Quote from: saintalice

Quote from: songbird
St. Cyril or Augustine stated that changes occur. For example: changes for perfection. A baby changes to child, to adult. We change for perfection for heaven. Changes can be expected, but only for perfection.

Distorting the Dogma of the Trinity (which the Filioque does) as outlined by the Cappadocian Fathers, can hardly be called "perfection." More can be read about this here:

http://www.orthodoxnet.com/wisdom/h003.html

Quote from the above Orthodox article:

"The filoque's distortion of the doctrine of the Trinity also led directly oftlamented "neglect" of the Holy Spirit in the Western Church, which same neglect the Charismatic movement in this century set out to heal."

I've read that there are many Charismatics who feel the same - that the Holy Ghost had been neglected, and Charismatic Renewal changed that. I don't believe it.

saintalice · « **Reply #5 on:** July 03, 2015, 07:25:12 PM »

I agree with you. The so-called Charismatic Renewal/movement has not changed nor can it change anything in regards to the Roman Church. All they have done is sewn more confusion.

Meg · « **Reply #6 on:** July 03, 2015, 07:36:42 PM »

Quote from: saintalice

I agree with you. The so-called Charismatic Renewal/movement has not changed nor can it change anything in regards to the Roman Church. All they have done is sewn more confusion.

Yes, it has sewn confusion in the Catholic Church. But not only that. It has also led some to believe that the Holy Ghost is primarily accessed through speaking in tongues and prophecy. Which isn't true. the Holy Ghost can confer extraordinary gifts, but it's not a common thing, and it's to be used for good purposes, such as in the confessional, by priests. (such as how Padre Pio used it). The Holy Ghost is the sanctifier. Traditionalists know this. Perhaps the Orthodox priest who wrote the article isn't aware of these things.

saintalice · « **Reply #7 on:** July 03, 2015, 08:03:30 PM »

Quote

Oh Heavenly King, the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, who art everywhere present and fillest all things, treasury of good things and giver of life come and dwell in us and cleanse us from every stain and save our souls oh good One.

That prayer is said over and over again by the Orthodox not only as part of the liturgy (St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil) but as part of the Trisagion Prayers that are said before one begins their prayers, morning, noon, night. Therefore I am pretty sure this Orthodox priest is well aware of exactly Who the Holy Spirit is, and Who He is not.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #8 on:** July 03, 2015, 08:17:12 PM »

Quote from: saintalice

Quote from: songbird
St. Cyril or Augustine stated that changes occur. For example: changes for perfection. A baby changes to child, to adult. We change for perfection for heaven. Changes can be expected, but only for perfection.

Distorting the Dogma of the Trinity (which the Filioque does) as outlined by the Cappadocian Fathers, can hardly be called "perfection." More can be read about this here:

http://www.orthodoxnet.com/wisdom/h003.html

saintalice,

You are obviously Greek Orthodox. If you consider yourself Catholic, I suggest you read the Catholic Encyclopedia. Heresy is the denial of (even one) dogma. Greek Orthodox consider the DOGMA of the Filioque a heresy. They also deny Purgatory, The Immaculate Conception, Indissolubility of Marriage and the Supremacy of the Pope.

If you want to challenge the dogma of the Filioque, I suggest finding a Greek Orthodox forum.

Quote from: Catholic Encyclopedia

Filioque

http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=4673

Filioque is a theological formula of great dogmatic and historical importance. On the one hand, it expresses the Procession of the Holy Ghost from both Father and Son as one Principle; on the other, it was the occasion of the Greek schism. Both aspects of the expression need further explanation.

I. DOGMATIC MEANING OF FILIOQUE

The dogma of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son as one Principle is directly opposed to the error that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, not from the Son. Neither dogma nor error created much difficulty during the course of the first four centuries. Macedonius and his followers, the so-called Pneumatomachi, were condemned by the local Council of Alexandria (362) and by Pope St. Damasus (378) for teaching that the Holy Ghost derives His origin from the Son alone, by creation. If the creed used by the Nestorians, which was composed probably by Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the expressions of Theodoret directed against the ninth anathema by Cyril of Alexandria, deny that the Holy Ghost derives His existence from or through the Son, they probably intend to deny only the creation of the Holy Ghost by or through the Son, inculcating at the same time His Procession from both Father and Son. At any rate, if the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was discussed at all in those earlier times, the controversy was restricted to the East and was of short duration.

The first undoubted denial of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost we find in the seventh century among the heretics of Constantinople when St. Martin I (649-655), in his synodal writing against the Monothelites, employed the expression "Filioque". Nothing is known about the further development of this controversy; it does not seem to have assumed any serious proportions, as the question was not connected with the characteristic teaching of the Monothelites.

In the Western church the first controversy concerning the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was conducted with the envoys of the Emperor Constantine Copronymus, in the Synod of Gentilly near Paris, held in the time of Pepin (767). The synodal Acts and other information do not seem to exist. At the beginning of nineth century, John, a Greek monk of the monastery of St. Sabas, charged the monks of Mt. Olivet with heresy, they had inserted the Filioque into the Creed. In the second half the same century, Photius, the successor of the unjustly deposed Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople (858), denied the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, and opposed the insertion of the Filioque into the Constantinopolitan creed . The same position was maintained towards the end of the tenth century by the Patriarchs Sisinnius and Sergius, and about the middle of the eleventh century by the Patriarch Michael Caerularius, who renewed and completed the Greek schism.

The rejection of the Filioque, or the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, and the denial of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff constitute even today the principal errors of the Greek church. While outside the Church doubt as to the double Procession of the Holy Ghost grew into open denial, inside the Church the doctrine of the Filioque was declared to be a dogma of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second council of Lyons (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438-1445). Thus the Church proposed in a clear and authoritative form the teaching of Sacred Scripture and tradition on the Procession of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity .

As to the Sacred Scripture, the inspired writers call the Holy Ghost the Spirit of the Son ( Galatians 4:6 ), the Spirit of Christ ( Romans 8:9 ), the Spirit of Jesus Christ ( Philippians 1:19 ), just as they call Him the Spirit of the Father ( Matthew 10:20 ) and the Spirit of God ( 1 Corinthians 2:11 ). Hence they attribute to the Holy Ghost the same relation to the Son as to the Father.

Again, according to Sacred Scripture , the Son sends the Holy Ghost ( Luke 24:49 ; John 15:26 ; 16:7 ; 20:22 ; Acts 2:33 ; Titus 3:6 ), just as the Father sends the Son ( Romans 3:3 ; etc.), and as the Father sends the Holy Ghost ( John 14:26 ).

Now the "mission" or "sending" of one Divine Person by another does not mean merely that the Person said to be sent assumes a particular character, at the suggestion of Himself in the character of Sender, as the Sabellians maintained; nor does it imply any inferiority in the Person sent, as the Arians taught; but it denotes, according to the teaching of the weightier theologians and Fathers, the Procession of the Person sent from the Person Who sends. Sacred Scripture never presents the Father as being sent by the Son, nor the Son as being sent by the Holy Ghost. The very idea of the term "mission" implies that the person sent goes forth for a certain purpose by the power of the sender, a power exerted on the person sent by way of a physical impulse, or of a command, or of prayer, or finally of production; now, Procession, the analogy of production, is the only manner admissible in God. It follows that the inspired writers present the Holy Ghost as proceeding from the Son, since they present Him as sent by the Son.

Finally, St. John (16:13-15) gives the words of Christ : "What things soever he [the Spirit] shall hear, he shall speak; ...he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine." Here a double consideration is in place. First, the Son has all things that the Father hath, so that He must resemble the Father in being the Principle from which the Holy Ghost proceeds. Secondly, the Holy Ghost shall receive "of mine" according to the words of the Son ; but Procession is the only conceivable way of receiving which does not imply dependence or inferiority. In other words, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

The teaching of Sacred Scripture on the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was faithfully preserved in Christian tradition . Even the Greek Orthodox grant that the Latin Fathers maintain the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. The great work on the Trinity by Petavius (Lib. VII, cc. iii sqq.) develops the proof of this contention at length. Here we mention only some of the later docuмents in which the patristic doctrine has been clearly expressed:

the dogmatic letter of St. Leo I to Turribius, Bishop of Astorga, Ep. XV, c. i (447);
the so-called Athanasian Creed ;
several councils held at Toledo in the years 447, 589 (III), 675 (XI), 693 (XVI);
the letter of Pope Hormisdas to the Emperor Justius, Ep. lxxix (521);
St. Martin I's synodal utterance against the Monothelites, 649-655;
Pope Adrian I's answer to the Caroline Books, 772-795;
the Synods of Mérida (666), Braga (675), and Hatfield (680);
the writing of Pope Leo III (d. 816) to the monks of Jerusalem ;
the letter of Pope Stephen V (d. 891) to the Moravian King Suentopolcus (Suatopluk), Ep. xiii;
the symbol of Pope Leo IX (d. 1054);
the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215;
the Second Council of Lyons, 1274; and the
Council of Florence, 1439.

Some of the foregoing conciliar docuмents may be seen in Hefele, "Conciliengeschichte" (2d ed.), III, nn. 109, 117, 252, 411; cf. P.G. XXVIII, 1557 sqq. Bessarion, speaking in the Council of Florence , inferred the tradition of the Greek Church from the teaching of the Latin; since the Greek and Latin Fathers before the ninth century were the members of the same Church, it is antecedently improbable that the Eastern Fathers should have denied a dogma firmly maintained by the Western. Moreover, there are certain considerations which form a direct proof for the belief of the Greek Fathers in the double Procession of the Holy Ghost.

First, the Greek Fathers enumerate the Divine Persons in the same order as the Latin Fathers ; they admit that the Son and the Holy Ghost are logically and ontologically connected in the same way as the Son and Father [St. Basil, Ep. cxxv; Ep. xxxviii ( alias xliii) ad Gregor. fratrem; "Adv.Eunom.", I, xx, III, sub init .]
Second, the Greek Fathers establish the same relation between the Son and the Holy Ghost as between the Father and the Son ; as the Father is the fountain of the Son, so is the Son the fountain of the Holy Ghost (Athanasius, Ep. ad Serap. I, xix, sqq.; "De Incarn.", ix; Orat. iii, adv. Arian., 24; Basil, "Adv. Eunom.", v, in P.G.., XXIX, 731; cf. Greg. Naz., Orat. xliii, 9).
Third, passages are not wanting in the writings of the Greek Fathers in which the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is clearly maintained: Greg. Thaumat., "Expos. fidei sec.", vers. saec. IV, in Rufius, Hist. Eccl., VII, xxv; Epiphanius, Haer., c. lxii, 4; Greg. Nyss. Hom. iii in orat. domin.); Cyril of Alexandria, "Thes.", ass. xxxiv; the second canon of synod of forty bishops held in 410 at Seleucia in Mesopotamia; the Arabic versions of the Canons of St. Hippolytus ; the Nestorian explanation of the Symbol.

The only Scriptural difficulty deserving our attention is based on the words of Christ as recorded in John 15:26 , that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, without mention being made of the Son. But in the first place, it can not be shown that this omission amounts to a denial; in the second place, the omission is only apparent, as in the earlier part of the verse the Son promises to "send" the Spirit. The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is not mentioned in the Creed of Constantinople, because this Creed was directed against the Macedonian error against which it sufficed to declare the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father. The ambiguous expressions found in some of the early writers of authority are explained by the principles which apply to the language of the early Fathers generally.

II. HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE FILIOQUE

It has been seen that the Creed of Constantinople at first declared only the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father; it was directed against the followers of Macedonius who denied the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. In the East, the omission of Filioque did not lead to any misunderstanding. But conditions were different in Spain after the Goths had renounced Arianism and professed the Catholic faith in the Third Synod of Toledo, 589. It cannot be acertained who first added the Filioque to the Creed ; but it appears to be certain that the Creed, with the addition of the Filioque, was first sung in the Spanish Church after the conversion of the Goths. In 796 the Patriarch of Aquileia justified and adopted the same addition at the Synod of Friaul, and in 809 the Council of Aachen appears to have approved of it.

The decrees of this last council were examined by Pope Leo III, who approved of the doctrine conveyed by the Filioque, but gave the advice to omit the expression in the Creed. The practice of adding the Filioque was retained in spite of the papal advice, and in the middle of the eleventh century it had gained a firm foothold in Rome itself. Scholars do not agree as to the exact time of its introduction into Rome, but most assign it to the reign of Benedict VIII (1014-15).

The Catholic doctrine was accepted by the Greek deputies who were present at the Second Council of Florence, in 1439, when the Creed was sung both in Greek and Latin, with the addition of the word Filioque . On each occasion it was hoped that the Patriarch of Constantinople and his subjects had abandoned the state of heresy and schism in which they had been living since the time of Photius, who about 870 found in the Filioque an excuse for throwing off all dependence on Rome. But however sincere the individual Greek bishops may have been, they failed to carry their people with them, and the breach between East and West continues to this day.

It is a matter for surprise that so abstract a subject as the doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost should have appealed to the imagination of the multitude. But their national feelings had been aroused by the desire of liberation from the rule of the ancient rival of Constantinople; the occasion of lawfully obtaining their desire appeared to present itself in the addition of Filioque to the Creed of Constantinople. Had not Rome overstepped her rights by disobeying the injunction of the Third Council, of Ephesus (431), and of the Fourth, of Chalcedon (451)?

It is true that these councils had forbidden to introduce another faith or another Creed, and had imposed the penalty of deposition on bishops and clerics, and of excommunication on monks and laymen for transgressing this law ; but the councils had not forbidden to explain the same faith or to propose the same Creed in a clearer way. Besides, the conciliar decrees affected individual transgressors, as is plain from the sanction added; they did not bind the Church as a body. Finally, the Councils of Lyons and Florence did not require the Greeks to insert the Filioque into the Creed, but only to accept the Catholic doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost.

saintalice · « **Reply #9 on:** July 03, 2015, 08:41:04 PM »

The OP asked a question and I answered it, respectfully. Meg then made a few comments to which I responded, again, I believe respectfully. Whether or not I am a practicing Roman Catholic is neither here nor there.

Meg · « **Reply #10 on:** July 03, 2015, 09:27:39 PM »

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=4673

Filioque is a theological formula of great dogmatic and historical importance. On the one hand, it expresses the Procession of the Holy Ghost from both Father and Son as one Principle; on the other, it was the occasion of the Greek schism. Both aspects of the expression need further explanation.

I. DOGMATIC MEANING OF FILIOQUE

The dogma of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son as one Principle is directly opposed to the error that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, not from the Son. Neither dogma nor error created much difficulty during the course of the first four centuries. Macedonius and his followers, the so-called Pneumatomachi, were condemned by the local Council of Alexandria (362) and by Pope St. Damasus (378) for teaching that the Holy Ghost derives His origin from the Son alone, by creation. If the creed used by the Nestorians, which was composed probably by Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the expressions of Theodoret directed against the ninth anathema by Cyril of Alexandria, deny that the Holy Ghost derives His existence from or through the Son, they probably intend to deny only the creation of the Holy Ghost by or through the Son, inculcating at the same time His Procession from both Father and Son. At any rate, if the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was discussed at all in those earlier times, the controversy was restricted to the East and was of short duration.

The first undoubted denial of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost we find in the seventh century among the heretics of Constantinople when St. Martin I (649-655), in his synodal writing against the Monothelites, employed the expression "Filioque". Nothing is known about the further development of this controversy; it does not seem to have assumed any serious proportions, as the question was not connected with the characteristic teaching of the Monothelites.

In the Western church the first controversy concerning the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was conducted with the envoys of the Emperor Constantine Copronymus, in the Synod of Gentilly near Paris, held in the time of Pepin (767). The synodal Acts and other information do not seem to exist. At the beginning of nineth century, John, a Greek monk of the monastery of St. Sabas, charged the monks of Mt. Olivet with heresy, they had inserted the Filioque into the Creed. In the second half the same century, Photius, the successor of the unjustly deposed Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople (858), denied the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, and opposed the insertion of the Filioque into the Constantinopolitan creed . The same position was maintained towards the end of the tenth century by the Patriarchs Sisinnius and Sergius, and about the middle of the eleventh century by the Patriarch Michael Caerularius, who renewed and completed the Greek schism.

The rejection of the Filioque, or the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, and the denial of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff constitute even today the principal errors of the Greek church. While outside the Church doubt as to the double Procession of the Holy Ghost grew into open denial, inside the Church the doctrine of the Filioque was declared to be a dogma of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second council of Lyons (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438-1445). Thus the Church proposed in a clear and authoritative form the teaching of Sacred Scripture and tradition on the Procession of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity .

As to the Sacred Scripture, the inspired writers call the Holy Ghost the Spirit of the Son ( Galatians 4:6 ), the Spirit of Christ ( Romans 8:9 ), the Spirit of Jesus Christ ( Philippians 1:19 ), just as they call Him the Spirit of the Father ( Matthew 10:20 ) and the Spirit of God ( 1 Corinthians 2:11 ). Hence they attribute to the Holy Ghost the same relation to the Son as to the Father.

Again, according to Sacred Scripture , the Son sends the Holy Ghost ( Luke 24:49 ; John 15:26 ; 16:7 ; 20:22 ; Acts 2:33 ; Titus 3:6 ), just as the Father sends the Son ( Romans 3:3 ; etc.), and as the Father sends the Holy Ghost ( John 14:26 ).

Now the "mission" or "sending" of one Divine Person by another does not mean merely that the Person said to be sent assumes a particular character, at the suggestion of Himself in the character of Sender, as the Sabellians maintained; nor does it imply any inferiority in the Person sent, as the Arians taught; but it denotes, according to the teaching of the weightier theologians and Fathers, the Procession of the Person sent from the Person Who sends. Sacred Scripture never presents the Father as being sent by the Son, nor the Son as being sent by the Holy Ghost. The very idea of the term "mission" implies that the person sent goes forth for a certain purpose by the power of the sender, a power exerted on the person sent by way of a physical impulse, or of a command, or of prayer, or finally of production; now, Procession, the analogy of production, is the only manner admissible in God. It follows that the inspired writers present the Holy Ghost as proceeding from the Son, since they present Him as sent by the Son.

Finally, St. John (16:13-15) gives the words of Christ : "What things soever he [the Spirit] shall hear, he shall speak; ...he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine." Here a double consideration is in place. First, the Son has all things that the Father hath, so that He must resemble the Father in being the Principle from which the Holy Ghost proceeds. Secondly, the Holy Ghost shall receive "of mine" according to the words of the Son ; but Procession is the only conceivable way of receiving which does not imply dependence or inferiority. In other words, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

The teaching of Sacred Scripture on the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was faithfully preserved in Christian tradition . Even the Greek Orthodox grant that the Latin Fathers maintain the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. The great work on the Trinity by Petavius (Lib. VII, cc. iii sqq.) develops the proof of this contention at length. Here we mention only some of the later docuмents in which the patristic doctrine has been clearly expressed:

the dogmatic letter of St. Leo I to Turribius, Bishop of Astorga, Ep. XV, c. i (447);
the so-called Athanasian Creed ;
several councils held at Toledo in the years 447, 589 (III), 675 (XI), 693 (XVI);
the letter of Pope Hormisdas to the Emperor Justius, Ep. lxxix (521);
St. Martin I's synodal utterance against the Monothelites, 649-655;
Pope Adrian I's answer to the Caroline Books, 772-795;
the Synods of Mérida (666), Braga (675), and Hatfield (680);
the writing of Pope Leo III (d. 816) to the monks of Jerusalem ;
the letter of Pope Stephen V (d. 891) to the Moravian King Suentopolcus (Suatopluk), Ep. xiii;
the symbol of Pope Leo IX (d. 1054);
the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215;
the Second Council of Lyons, 1274; and the
Council of Florence, 1439.

Some of the foregoing conciliar docuмents may be seen in Hefele, "Conciliengeschichte" (2d ed.), III, nn. 109, 117, 252, 411; cf. P.G. XXVIII, 1557 sqq. Bessarion, speaking in the Council of Florence , inferred the tradition of the Greek Church from the teaching of the Latin; since the Greek and Latin Fathers before the ninth century were the members of the same Church, it is antecedently improbable that the Eastern Fathers should have denied a dogma firmly maintained by the Western. Moreover, there are certain considerations which form a direct proof for the belief of the Greek Fathers in the double Procession of the Holy Ghost.

First, the Greek Fathers enumerate the Divine Persons in the same order as the Latin Fathers ; they admit that the Son and the Holy Ghost are logically and ontologically connected in the same way as the Son and Father [St. Basil, Ep. cxxv; Ep. xxxviii ( alias xliii) ad Gregor. fratrem; "Adv.Eunom.", I, xx, III, sub init .]
Second, the Greek Fathers establish the same relation between the Son and the Holy Ghost as between the Father and the Son ; as the Father is the fountain of the Son, so is the Son the fountain of the Holy Ghost (Athanasius, Ep. ad Serap. I, xix, sqq.; "De Incarn.", ix; Orat. iii, adv. Arian., 24; Basil, "Adv. Eunom.", v, in P.G.., XXIX, 731; cf. Greg. Naz., Orat. xliii, 9).
Third, passages are not wanting in the writings of the Greek Fathers in which the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is clearly maintained: Greg. Thaumat., "Expos. fidei sec.", vers. saec. IV, in Rufius, Hist. Eccl., VII, xxv; Epiphanius, Haer., c. lxii, 4; Greg. Nyss. Hom. iii in orat. domin.); Cyril of Alexandria, "Thes.", ass. xxxiv; the second canon of synod of forty bishops held in 410 at Seleucia in Mesopotamia; the Arabic versions of the Canons of St. Hippolytus ; the Nestorian explanation of the Symbol.

The only Scriptural difficulty deserving our attention is based on the words of Christ as recorded in John 15:26 , that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, without mention being made of the Son. But in the first place, it can not be shown that this omission amounts to a denial; in the second place, the omission is only apparent, as in the earlier part of the verse the Son promises to "send" the Spirit. The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is not mentioned in the Creed of Constantinople, because this Creed was directed against the Macedonian error against which it sufficed to declare the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father. The ambiguous expressions found in some of the early writers of authority are explained by the principles which apply to the language of the early Fathers generally.

II. HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE FILIOQUE

It has been seen that the Creed of Constantinople at first declared only the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father; it was directed against the followers of Macedonius who denied the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. In the East, the omission of Filioque did not lead to any misunderstanding. But conditions were different in Spain after the Goths had renounced Arianism and professed the Catholic faith in the Third Synod of Toledo, 589. It cannot be acertained who first added the Filioque to the Creed ; but it appears to be certain that the Creed, with the addition of the Filioque, was first sung in the Spanish Church after the conversion of the Goths. In 796 the Patriarch of Aquileia justified and adopted the same addition at the Synod of Friaul, and in 809 the Council of Aachen appears to have approved of it.

The decrees of this last council were examined by Pope Leo III, who approved of the doctrine conveyed by the Filioque, but gave the advice to omit the expression in the Creed. The practice of adding the Filioque was retained in spite of the papal advice, and in the middle of the eleventh century it had gained a firm foothold in Rome itself. Scholars do not agree as to the exact time of its introduction into Rome, but most assign it to the reign of Benedict VIII (1014-15).

The Catholic doctrine was accepted by the Greek deputies who were present at the Second Council of Florence, in 1439, when the Creed was sung both in Greek and Latin, with the addition of the word Filioque . On each occasion it was hoped that the Patriarch of Constantinople and his subjects had abandoned the state of heresy and schism in which they had been living since the time of Photius, who about 870 found in the Filioque an excuse for throwing off all dependence on Rome. But however sincere the individual Greek bishops may have been, they failed to carry their people with them, and the breach between East and West continues to this day.

It is a matter for surprise that so abstract a subject as the doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost should have appealed to the imagination of the multitude. But their national feelings had been aroused by the desire of liberation from the rule of the ancient rival of Constantinople; the occasion of lawfully obtaining their desire appeared to present itself in the addition of Filioque to the Creed of Constantinople. Had not Rome overstepped her rights by disobeying the injunction of the Third Council, of Ephesus (431), and of the Fourth, of Chalcedon (451)?

It is true that these councils had forbidden to introduce another faith or another Creed, and had imposed the penalty of deposition on bishops and clerics, and of excommunication on monks and laymen for transgressing this law ; but the councils had not forbidden to explain the same faith or to propose the same Creed in a clearer way. Besides, the conciliar decrees affected individual transgressors, as is plain from the sanction added; they did not bind the Church as a body. Finally, the Councils of Lyons and Florence did not require the Greeks to insert the Filioque into the Creed, but only to accept the Catholic doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost.

[/quote]
----------

Oops, I messed up the quote function.

Thanks for posting the above info, Maria Auxiliadora. It's interesting that it states above that...."Third, passages are not wanting in the writings of the Greek Fathers in which the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is clearly maintained:
Greg Thaumat., "Expos fidei sec., vers. saec. lV, in Rufius, Hist. eccl., Vll, xxv; Epiphanius, Haer., c. lxii 4; Greg, Nyss, Hom. iii in orat domin.); Cyril of Alexandria, "Thes", ass. xxxiv; the second canon of the synod of forty bishops held in 410 in Saleucia in Mesopotamia; the Arabic versions of the canons of St. Hippolytus, the Nestorian explanation of the symbol."

So from the above, it would seem that Gregory (Thaumat.), Rufius, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nyss., Cyril of Alexandria, the synod of forty bishops in Mesopotamia in 410, the Arabic version of the canons of St. Hippolytus, and the Nestorian explanation of the symbol, maintain that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son. That's interesting. How do the Orthodox explain that?

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #11 on:** July 03, 2015, 09:31:38 PM »

Quote from: saintalice

The OP asked a question and I answered it, respectfully. Meg then made a few comments to which I responded, again, I believe respectfully. Whether or not I am a practicing Roman Catholic is neither here nor there.

Quote from: saintalice

Distorting the Dogma of the Trinity (which the Filioque does)...

saintalice,

You stated that the Filioque (a dogma) distorts the dogma of the Trinity. How is it possible that one dogma can be in opposition to another dogma unless you deny one? Are you Greek Orthodox?

There is a Spanish saying: " If Mohammed will not go to the mountain, the mountain must come to Mohammed." Apostate Rome knows the Greek Orthodox are adamant in their heresies. The Romans are obsessed with the One World Religion. The only thing that will bring the Greek Orthodox into the big tent is by the Romans compromising dogma/doctrine.

About 20 years ago, under JPII, Rome began to "suggest" the Eastern Rite Catholics change their traditions in order to please the Orthodox. Not only the E.R.Cs took the Filioque out of the Creed to please them, but openly started denying it in their diocesan/eparchy papers. They stopped the Tradition of kneeling after the Feast of Pentecost, started to do baptisms by immersion only (Orthodox believe is the only valid way) ...and now, they are about to approve Communion for the divorced and remarried (Orthodox can marry 3 times), and planning to change the Easter date to their calendar. All for the sake of "unity".

We have enough confusion and apostasy already and I resent dogma being attacked/denied in a Catholic forum. Nothing personal.

BTNYC · « **Reply #12 on:** July 03, 2015, 09:47:23 PM »

Quote from: saintalice

The OP asked a question and I answered it, respectfully. Meg then made a few comments to which I responded, again, I believe respectfully. Whether or not I am a practicing Roman Catholic is neither here nor there.

'

To hell with human respect. You disparaged the Filioque by heretically (perhaps even blasphemously) stating that it distorts the dogma of the Trinity. This forum is not open to you - or anyone else - to give utterance to heresy and blasphemy.

And if you want to dare to speak about "changes" and "distortions," why not talk about how your priests and bishops have distorted a Tradition even older than the Creed - namely, the indissolubility of marriage, and the absolute prohibition against divorce and remarriage that came clearly and unambiguously from the lips of Our Lord Himself? Let you and your schismatic clerics see first to the beam in your own eye - that diabolical invention of eastern schismatics with far too much respect for men and far too little fear of God known as "Ecclesiastical Divorce."

I've reported you to Matthew, btw, for pronouncing and promoting heresy.

Anathema sit.

Nishant · « **Reply #13 on:** July 03, 2015, 09:53:22 PM »

The dogma of the Filioque is clearly taught in the Athanasian Creed, "The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; not created, not begotten, but proceeding". This is a dogmatic confession of the Catholic Faith necessary for salvation. He who does not believe it no longer has an orthodox and patristic understanding of the Trinitarian mystery. He who denies this dogma can never find life or salvation but will go into that eternal fire prepared for the devil and his Angels.

This site produces nearly 100 ancient patristic witnesses establishing the dogma of the Filioque against the later novel errors of Photius and the Greeks. http://catholicpatristics.blogspot.in/2009/08/filioque.html

1. St. Athanasius says, "David sings in the psalm [35:10], saying: 'For with You is the font of Life;'because jointly with the Father the Son is indeed the source of the Holy Spirit."

St. Cyril says, "For, in that the Son is God, and from God according to nature (for He has had His birth from God the Father), the Spirit is both proper to Him and in Him and from Him, just as, to be sure, the same thing is understood to hold true in the case of God the Father Himself."

St. Augustine says, The Father begot a Son and, by begetting Him, gave it to Him that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him as well. If He did not proceed from Him, He would not say to His disciples, "Receive the Holy Spirit" [Jn 20:22], and give the Spirit by breathing on them. He signified that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from Him and showed outwardly by blowing what He was giving inwardly by breathing. If He were born, He would be born not from the Father alone or from the Son alone, but from both of Them; He would beyond any doubt be the son of both of Them. But because He is in no sense the son of both of Them, it was necessary that He not be born from both. He is, therefore, the Spirit of both, by proceeding from both."

St. Ambrose says, "The Holy Spirit also, when He proceeds from the Father and the Son, is not separated from the Father nor separated from the Son."

St. Isidore of Seville says, ""The Holy Spirit is called God because He proceeds from the Father and the Son and has Their essence ... There is, however, this difference between generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, that the Son is begotten of One, but the Spirit proceeds from Both."

St. Fulgentius says, ""Believe most firmly, and never doubt, that the same Holy Spirit, the One Spirit of the Father and the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son. That He proceeds also from the Son is supported by the teaching both of Prophets and Apostles."

2. St. Leontios at Nicaea I says, "the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and is proper to the Son and gushes forth from Him."

Pope St. Leo the Great says, "as though there were not one Who begat, another Who is begotten, another Who proceeds from both"

Pope St. Hormisdas says, "Great and incomprehensible is the mystery of the Trinity. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, an undivided Trinity, and yet it is known because it is characteristic of the Father to generate the Son, characteristic of the Son of God to be born of the Father equal to the Father, characteristic of the Spirit to proceed from Father and Son in one substance of deity."

Patriarch St. Tarasius of Constantinople says at Nicaea II, "And in the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father through the Son, and Who is acknowledged to be Himself God."

Pope St. Leo III says, "the Holy Spirit, proceeding equally from the Father and from the Son, consubstantial, coeternal with the Father and the Son. The Father, complete God in Himself, the Son, complete God begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit, complete God proceeding from the Father and the Son..."

Innumerable ancient ecclesiastical sources clearly establish this dogma.

saintalice · « **Reply #14 on:** July 03, 2015, 09:54:03 PM »

Only an Ecuмenical Council can change the Creed, not an individual, not several individuals outside of an Ecuмenical Council who may just happen to agree. In 431 the Third Ecuмenical Council (the Council of Ephesus) ruled that no changes are to be made to the Creed, Canon VII.