Filioque

Romanos

God is good.
Executive Administrator
Community Team
Supporting Member
Joined
May 12, 2015
Messages
3,588
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I never really quite understood the magnitude of the effect from this addition.
 

psalms 91

Well-known member
Moderator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
15,282
Age
75
Location
Pa
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
What is it?
 

Ruth

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2015
Messages
4,632
Location
Midwest
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I'm wondering the same thing. lol
 

Tigger

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,555
Age
63
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The clause 'and the Son' was added to the Nicene creed and helped kick off the great schism of 1054 between the RC and Orthodox Christians.
 

Brighten04

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Messages
2,188
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Protestant
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
So are you RCC or Eastern Orthodox?

Filioque (Ecclesiastical Latin: [filiˈɔkwe]), Latin for "and (from) the Son", is a phrase included in some later forms of the Nicene Creed but not others, not appearing in the original version. It has been the subject of great controversy between Eastern and Western churches.
 

Tigger

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,555
Age
63
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
So are you RCC or Eastern Orthodox?

Filioque (Ecclesiastical Latin: [filiˈɔkwe]), Latin for "and (from) the Son", is a phrase included in some later forms of the Nicene Creed but not others, not appearing in the original version. It has been the subject of great controversy between Eastern and Western churches.

Who me? Um, no. My faith icon indicates Lutheran.
 

Brighten04

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Messages
2,188
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Protestant
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Who me? Um, no. My faith icon indicates Lutheran.
Oh sorry, I didn't mean you. I meant Romanos. Romanos are you RCC or Eastern Orthodox?
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,192
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
So are you RCC or Eastern Orthodox?

Filioque (Ecclesiastical Latin: [filiˈɔkwe]), Latin for "and (from) the Son", is a phrase included in some later forms of the Nicene Creed but not others, not appearing in the original version. It has been the subject of great controversy between Eastern and Western churches.

The council of Florence defined the filioque to mean "and (through) the Son" . The argument between current Orthodox & Catholic theologians has more to do with the use of the Greek words aitia (cause) and arche (source). The Catholic theologians at the council of Florence used the word aitia to mean a cause whether first, second, or immediate while the Orthodox theologians present used it (seemingly exclusively) as first cause. The linguistic and cultural as well as philosophical differences between the Catholic Latin-speaking Christians of the western kingdoms and the Orthodox Greek-speaking Christians of the Byzantine empire was known and understood by the theologians at the council but not by the general population of either group. The result was that the decisions of the Council of Florence were received in the West by the Catholic Church but never really gained great acceptance among the people and the decisions of the council were rejected by the people in the Byzantine empire thus bringing to an end the attempt to re-unite the Catholic and Orthodox communities.

The word arche was not used in the canons of the council of Florence yet some current Theologians include it in their explanations of why the council failed to achieve reunion.

EWTN gives the following translation of the text of the relevant section of the documents from the council of Florence:
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?

These truly are works of God, not devices of human frailty. Hence they are to be accepted with extraordinary veneration and to be furthered with praises to God. To you praise, to you glory, to you thanks, O Christ, source of mercies, who have bestowed so much good on your spouse the catholic church and have manifested your miracles of mercy in our generation, so that all should proclaim your wonders. Great indeed and divine is the gift that God has bestowed on us. We have seen with our eyes what many before greatly desired yet could not behold.

For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.

In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

We define also that the explanation of those words "and from the Son" was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need.


Also, the body of Christ is truly confected in both unleavened and leavened wheat bread, and priests should confect the body of Christ in either, that is, each priest according to the custom of his western or eastern church. Also, if truly penitent people die in the love of God before they have made satisfaction for acts and omissions by worthy fruits of repentance, their souls are cleansed after death by cleansing pains; and the suffrages of the living faithful avail them in giving relief from such pains, that is, sacrifices of masses, prayers, almsgiving and other acts of devotion which have been customarily performed by some of the faithful for others of the faithful in accordance with the church's ordinances.

Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.

Also, renewing the order of the other patriarchs which has been handed down in the canons, the patriarch of Constantinople should be second after the most holy Roman pontiff, third should be the patriarch of Alexandria, fourth the patriarch of Antioch, and fifth the patriarch of Jerusalem, without prejudice to all their privileges and rights.​
 

Romanos

God is good.
Executive Administrator
Community Team
Supporting Member
Joined
May 12, 2015
Messages
3,588
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Oh sorry, I didn't mean you. I meant Romanos. Romanos are you RCC or Eastern Orthodox?

I am neither, I'm Christian, never bothered to label myself with anything to avoid a headache. :p I asked as I was browsing Facebook and found something through a Catholic friend about this and was stumped at to what it was.
 

Brighten04

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Messages
2,188
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Protestant
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
I am neither, I'm Christian, never bothered to label myself with anything to avoid a headache. :p I asked as I was browsing Facebook and found something through a Catholic friend about this and was stumped at to what it was.

Ok I understand. It is much the same with me with my Protestant claim.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I never really quite understood the magnitude of the effect from this addition.

Christianity has never been monolithic. For the first 300 years or so, Christianity was a very loose MOVEMENT - illegal, underground, unorganized, and certainly with a variety of beliefs.

When Rome founded the first denomination (in the 4th century), it forced upon it its own OBSESSION with centrality, organization, unity, power - enforcement - compliance. ROME demanded that this new Roman denomination for the Roman Empire not only get the organization together but also its teachings. One of the first major actions was the First Ecumenical Council, in Nicea, in 325 AD (from which the roots of the Nicene Creed come).

But there was never full unity. East and West had been drifting apart for THREE HUNDRED YEARS already.... different language, different worship, different Tradition and traditions, even different teachings. The first BIG rift came in the mid 5th Century (when the Roman Church was about 130 years old) - spinning of what today we call the Oriental Orthodox Churches. But the rift speeded up with the "Fall" of the City of Rome and of the west - and the movement of everything East. This rift grew and grew.... the West (especially the Bishop of the now has-been town of Rome) trying to recapture POWER and lord it over the East where the power and money and prestege now were. The ever widening rift lead effectively to two different, separate denominations by 800 (when the last of the ecumenical councils ended with the West walking out). From 800 to 1054, TECHNICALLY there as one denomination but in fact, there was two.

The FINAL, OFFICIAL split came in 1054 (by FAR the biggest split in the history of Christianity; far bigger than the Protestant divide some 500 years later). There were DEEP problems - but the EXCUSE, the "straw that broke the camel's back") was the Filioque controversy.

The Nicene Creed was never exactly formalized; it underwent centuries of tweeking - especially in the West. In the West, it became common to state that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND THE SON ("filioque"), which theologically seems valid. But the East, still quite focused on Scripture, noted that the Bible never says "and the Son" but specifically states that the Holy Spirit comes FROM THE FATHER. What the West had been adding was unbiblical. Ultimately, the Bishop of Rome excommunicated the Eastern Bishops over this..... the Eastern Bishops excommunicated the Western Bishops.... and the split became OFFICIAL (although, again, de facto it was already centuries old): Roman Catholic Denomination, Eastern Orthodox Churches (there's not one denomination in the East): by far the biggest split in the history of Christianity. Still is.

The filique issue was the EXCUSE.... the final straw that broke the camel's back.



I hope that helps.



Pax



- Josiah
 

Brighten04

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Messages
2,188
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Protestant
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Christianity has never been monolithic. For the first 300 years or so, Christianity was a very loose MOVEMENT - illegal, underground, unorganized, and certainly with a variety of beliefs.

When Rome founded the first denomination (in the 4th century), it forced upon it its own OBSESSION with centrality, organization, unity, power - enforcement - compliance. ROME demanded that this new Roman denomination for the Roman Empire not only get the organization together but also its teachings. One of the first major actions was the First Ecumenical Council, in Nicea, in 325 AD (from which the roots of the Nicene Creed come).

But there was never full unity. East and West had been drifting apart for THREE HUNDRED YEARS already.... different language, different worship, different Tradition and traditions, even different teachings. The first BIG rift came in the mid 5th Century (when the Roman Church was about 130 years old) - spinning of what today we call the Oriental Orthodox Churches. But the rift speeded up with the "Fall" of the City of Rome and of the west - and the movement of everything East. This rift grew and grew.... the West (especially the Bishop of the now has-been town of Rome) trying to recapture POWER and lord it over the East where the power and money and prestege now were. The ever widening rift lead effectively to two different, separate denominations by 800 (when the last of the ecumenical councils ended with the West walking out). From 800 to 1054, TECHNICALLY there as one denomination but in fact, there was two.

The FINAL, OFFICIAL split came in 1054 (by FAR the biggest split in the history of Christianity; far bigger than the Protestant divide some 500 years later). There were DEEP problems - but the EXCUSE, the "straw that broke the camel's back") was the Filioque controversy.

The Nicene Creed was never exactly formalized; it underwent centuries of tweeking - especially in the West. In the West, it became common to state that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND THE SON ("filioque"), which theologically seems valid. But the East, still quite focused on Scripture, noted that the Bible never says "and the Son" but specifically states that the Holy Spirit comes FROM THE FATHER. What the West had been adding was unbiblical. Ultimately, the Bishop of Rome excommunicated the Eastern Bishops over this..... the Eastern Bishops excommunicated the Western Bishops.... and the split became OFFICIAL (although, again, de facto it was already centuries old): Roman Catholic Denomination, Eastern Orthodox Churches (there's not one denomination in the East): by far the biggest split in the history of Christianity. Still is.

The filique issue was the EXCUSE.... the final straw that broke the camel's back.



I hope that helps.



Pax



- Josiah

Yes this helps me. Thanks.
 
Top Bottom