Home Forums Everything Else [Orthodoxy] Filioque Reply To: [Orthodoxy] Filioque


[quote:1v7yy74x]I did answer the quote and I responded to Victor’s patristic quotes in doing so (and quit the glib replies, I know that all sources are biased). The fact that neither of you recognised that is an indication of how badly you misunderstand Orthodox theology. [/quote:1v7yy74x]

You have said this before and we openly admitted that we do not understand Orthodox theology fully.

[quote:1v7yy74x]The Eastern Fathers (including those you quoted Victor), never said that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from – in other words has His origin in – the Son. Read in context and in Greek, they clearly say that His eternal procession is from the Father alone but He proceeds in time through the Son. I said this in the last post and have no idea at all how either of you missed it. This is why at the 8th Ecumenical Council, which Rome accepted as such for about 200 years, the filioque insertion was condemned and is why the only form of filioque that would be accepted by the Orthodox would speak of procession through the Son and could not be inserted into the Greek of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed as that would imply eternal procession, which is contra-Scriptural and distorts the Trinity. And before I get my head bitten off I’m merely describing our position (again) so that you can understand why it is a major issue for us. Take it or leave it, but you’ll have to accept that if you want reunification the filioque must go. I don’t know one Orthodox Christian, lay or clergy who would say otherwise.

Now, I still don’t know if you teach double procession because whilst I have read that catechism I’ve also been shown documents to the effect that the modern RC teaching is equivalent to the Eastern Fathers’ ‘through the Son’ formula. I’ve seen RCs argue with one another on this and both sides seem to have had equally compelling arguments. You can talk ofa lack of unity on our side (much of which, I contend, is in the eye of the beholder) on matters of reasonably small import i.e. there is some disagreement on contraception, which is hardly an issue central to salvation, but there is no disagreement on abortion, which we all condemn as murder. This lack of unity is nothing compared to the direct contradictions I see on your side on central doctrines such as the filioque. Often I have said to reasonable RCs that you seem to be approaching us with your more modern teachings on things like the filioque or purgatory only to be told by others that they don’t accept what the first group said and to be shown the same medieval doctrines we’ve rejected all along. Say what you like of our disagreements amongst ourselves, I know of none so central to our faith as I see amongst you lot, but then that doesn’t matter does it? All you have to do is submit to the Pope and, like the Uniates you can keep whatever doctrines and practices (even contrary to Roman doctrine and practice) you had before and still be a good Catholic. That might be the sort of union looked for by your side but it is precisely the sort of politically motivated false union that we rejected before and will reject again.


James hopefully the last Council held on this issue will clarify things:

[b:1v7yy74x]Council of Florence (1439). [/b:1v7yy74x]
[i:1v7yy74x]”The Latins state that by saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son they do not mean to exclude that the Father is the source and the principle of all divinity, that is, of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Nor do they wish to deny that the Son learned from the Father that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son; nor do they hold that there are two principles or two spirations. Rather they assert that one only is the principle and one only the spiration of the Holy Spirit, as they have asserted up to now” (cf. Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, Bologna 1973, p. 526).[/i:1v7yy74x]

Let me know if this helps.