An interesting trend on the filioque

1,943 Views | 25 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by titan
Athanasius
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Huge Step Towards Unity: 69% of Russian Orthodox Accept "And the Son"

The math seems a little fuzzy, but interesting...

LINK

  • From the Father and the Son [69%]
  • Only from the Father [10%]
  • None of these statements [3%]
  • Difficult to answer [10%]


Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Which of the statements do you think is right: "Does the Holy Spirit come from the Father and the Son" or "does the Holy Spirit come only from the Father"?

This is not a correct question because Orthodoxy recognizes that the spirit is sent by and through the Son in time, and that the Spirit of the Father is the Spirit of the Son.

Asking where the Spirit "comes" from does not give any insight whatsoever into the Filioque.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It certainly is ironic since Catholic Apologists don't truly believe in the filioque anymore.

They acknowledge that it really should be "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son."

This article is only interesting though if the Russians start actually adding it into the Liturgy (which I doubt the will).
Athanasius
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AgLiving06 said:

It certainly is ironic since Catholic Apologists don't truly believe in the filioque anymore.

They acknowledge that it really should be "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son."
Link?
Aggiefan#1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Most of the issues werent necessarily with the wording. A great deal of the Orthodox world agreed but did not accept the unilateral decision by the Bishop of Rome to change The Creed.

I imagine the poll would have looked a lot the same then too.

AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Athanasius said:

AgLiving06 said:

It certainly is ironic since Catholic Apologists don't truly believe in the filioque anymore.

They acknowledge that it really should be "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son."
Link?

I don't have one, but it's a standard answer from Jimmy Akins on Catholic Answers.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I am not sure I agree with that. The East has never confessed that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, only through the Son (in time) or sent by the Son. If the method was the only issue people such as St Photios and St Mark would not have opposed it on theological grounds. Even when certain bishops attempted to accept it in a council (Ferrara-Florence) the eastern church at large rejected it.
Aggiefan#1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I agree with you theologically .

Today, just as then though, the majority of lay persons would not have found major issue with the wording but would have taken larger issue with The Bishop of Rome more directly.

My understanding is the poll is of clergy and lay people.

Not a disagreement on the theology but just stating that general attitudes among laypeople is not so strongly against the philoke as it is against the Pope. I believe this is consistent today as it was then.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Right - but I think it's a bit of a mistake to say that the theology aspect lies with bishops independently of the laity. Together we make up the Church, and infallibility is for the Church, not just for the assembled bishops. I'm not so sure the collective laity would accept the filioque as-is even via conciliar reconciliation.

A better poll would have been the percentage of people surveyed willing to recite the Symbol of Faith with the filioque.
94chem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Together we make up the Church, and infallibility is for the Church, not just for the assembled bishops.
Won't somebody - either RC or O - have to blink first? IOW, how can there be reconciliation without one side admitting they were only "almost" infallible? How would that play out?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Well, kind of. For reunion to happen one side will have to more or less say their doctrine was in error, ie, they were not the Church. However, the easy path is to more or less say it's all a big misunderstanding based on Latin and Greek and those pesky crusaders sacking Constantinople - so now we can agree on some modified language (proceeds from the Father through the Son or something).
94chem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I was kind of expecting that to be your answer. I, too, would guess that the "both sides were right, it was a semantic misunderstanding" would be the approach. Nonetheless, wouldn't that still leave the issue of apostolic succession up in the air? Hasn't somebody had counterfeit patriarchs for 1000 years? Appreciate your thoughts.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I dono, both sides have maintained their succession lists. Hypothetically if it was just a misunderstanding based on language everyone was valid all along. Tada!

Not my opinion, and evidence is silliness like Vatican I and papal infallibility, but you know. Whatever.
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S

Apostolic Succession isn't that closely connected to the filioque.

In fact, filioque is one of those `possibly slam dunk' easier concessions, I have always felt in my own opinion, that Rome could make toward them where the East is concerned. If for no other reason than that Nicea said the `creed was not to be changed' the Easts objection to the change seems solid. Just don't change it. Yet they did. And not only that, but it went thru a period where Western Popes like Leo III were aware it was a reading that was starting to drift. The heart of the issue is it started not as a theological reality and meaning debate, but the equivalent of how something can get a bit mangled in vernacular. Yet very soon, as "investments" in positions built up on both sides, advocacy began to obscure this pattern.

Complicating the issue was an argument with Constantinople over jurisdiction and even some secular matters tha in the late 880's not long - in medieval terms at least - after the time of some of the first corrective attempts of Leo III. (right around 800 and Charlemagne). It gets very complicated, but its easy enough to tell the chances to get some kind of real clarity on the issue got `drowned out' by some bigger divides, and became a chasm that arguably should not be there. Some Orthodox even think understood properly, the filioque doesn't present a theological problem of the Trinity, so that just goes further to this point.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Charlemagne's people accused the east of changing the symbol of faith to remove the Filioque.
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
k2aggie07 said:

Charlemagne's people accused the east of changing the symbol of faith to remove the Filioque.
Exactly! Yet at the very same time, many in the Western Church knew Constantinople was correct.

A complete mess.
94chem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
They're still fighting about something that happened 1200 years ago? I think they may already be married.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
titan said:


Some Orthodox even think understood properly, the filioque doesn't present a theological problem of the Trinity, so that just goes further to this point.

What sources do you have for this?

When I went through the Orthodox course at my local Orthodox Church, the Father (Fr. Kees) taught that the filioque inverts has a major impact on the Trinity.
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
AgLiving06 said:

titan said:


Some Orthodox even think understood properly, the filioque doesn't present a theological problem of the Trinity, so that just goes further to this point.

What sources do you have for this?

When I went through the Orthodox course at my local Orthodox Church, the Father (Fr. Kees) taught that the filioque inverts has a major impact on the Trinity.
This refers to some ecumencial dialogue about what was trying to be said back then (century when it surfaced) when the "inversion" happened. In other words, greater understanding of the non-theological impetus. That it partly came simply from the assumption that God and Jesus are One. This approach requires trying to "dig back out of a hole" though, that subsequent "justify your position" type arguments since have built up. See the difference? You probably indeed heard that, and it would even be correct if insisting on the inverts too theologically. The secular politics of the 9th C have a great deal to do with how it got where it did. It is just possible, if the desire is there, to walk that back.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I dono titan. It's pretty tough to undo the writings of St Mark and St Photios. There's a pretty big difference in the underlying assumptions about words such as energeia and their subsequent use by the Scholastics. I think the filioque represents a difference in thinking about God as shown by Barlaam and St Gregory Palamas. It manifests itself right up to and including how we understand every grace we partake in.
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
k2aggie07 said:

I dono titan. It's pretty tough to undo the writings of St Mark and St Photios. There's a pretty big difference in the underlying assumptions about words such as energeia and their subsequent use by the Scholastics. I think the filioque represents a difference in thinking about God as shown by Barlaam and St Gregory Palamas. It manifests itself right up to and including how we understand every grace we partake in.
Perhaps, but this didn't start from them making a theological statement--that's the point. It was in no small part to make clear in western provinces west of Italy that Christ was not subordinate, not somehow "less". It was an contra-Arian firewall. This is what I mean by once you starting making arguments to justify a position that you may have taken up for even secular political or regional reasons, it obscures the picture. But it is just conceivable it can be walked back once you hit generations indifferent to it on both sides. That sometimes happens in history.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ah right I get you. And yes, clearly the original intent was against Arianism, and no doubt it was piously motivated.

The issue becomes that it is a symbol of the variance in theological tradition -- reason versus mysticism. The West and the East drifted a lot on this topic, especially after the schism. Some of the things I've read from Aquinas and others throw up bigtime warning flags, and it all comes back to the energies and essences distinction.

Barlaam and Palamas are basically the whole thing in a nutshell.
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
k2aggie07 said:

Ah right I get you. And yes, clearly the original intent was against Arianism, and no doubt it was piously motivated.

The issue becomes that it is a symbol of the variance in theological tradition -- reason versus mysticism. The West and the East drifted a lot on this topic, especially after the schism. Some of the things I've read from Aquinas and others throw up bigtime warning flags, and it all comes back to the energies and essences distinction.

Barlaam and Palamas are basically the whole thing in a nutshell.
Yes it can and they certainly did --- West and East almost had different worldviews about the nature of the metaphysical even when totally otherwise friendly with one another.. Yet the fact that Pope Leo III -- in every sense a powerful one - counter-manded its insertion and tried to oppose Charlegmagne on it gives the ground for the `call' in favor of the East. Don't get into the theology--focus on the fact the creed was not to be changed.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That touches on the nature of the canons. Canons are not repealable or amendable in the Orthodox Church. The Roman church later decided that they could be altered by the pope, but to us this defeats the purpose of a canon.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
titan said:

AgLiving06 said:

titan said:


Some Orthodox even think understood properly, the filioque doesn't present a theological problem of the Trinity, so that just goes further to this point.

What sources do you have for this?

When I went through the Orthodox course at my local Orthodox Church, the Father (Fr. Kees) taught that the filioque inverts has a major impact on the Trinity.
This refers to some ecumencial dialogue about what was trying to be said back then (century when it surfaced) when the "inversion" happened. In other words, greater understanding of the non-theological impetus. That it partly came simply from the assumption that God and Jesus are One. This approach requires trying to "dig back out of a hole" though, that subsequent "justify your position" type arguments since have built up. See the difference? You probably indeed heard that, and it would even be correct if insisting on the inverts too theologically. The secular politics of the 9th C have a great deal to do with how it got where it did. It is just possible, if the desire is there, to walk that back.


Gotcha. Yes, I think handled differently this should have been a blip.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
People forget southern Italy was eastern / Byzantine well after the schism. Much like William the Conquerer's invasion of England... lot of this stuff was politically influenced.
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
k2aggie07 said:

People forget southern Italy was eastern / Byzantine well after the schism. Much like William the Conquerer's invasion of England... lot of this stuff was politically influenced.
Absolutely. And a certain tendency in some writings (mainly because of Gibbon's tone) to generally blame Byzantium is not warranted. Often as not, it was because of concessions to unruly factions like the Franks could be, in the West too.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.