Regarding an Orthodox objection to the Filioque..

[little_flower10]

Hi,

I'm hoping someone could help me with this because it's causing me to worry :(  I don't know enough information about this to even make a good reply.

Someone was saying on another forum that during the whole controversy with the Filioque, - the Pope during that time didn't want to include it in the Creed and even had this written on something, like a door? (sorry I forgot.) And they said that St Maximus also counselled the West not to alter the Creed?

I read a quote by St Maximus saying that he didn't think the Filioque is heretical, - I read about this on Wikipedia and how it's not heretical in Latin, only in the Greek, if the words are used incorrectly (there are two Greek words, one implying procession, like in the Filique "processio", and the other implying cause).

It seemed to me that - the Filioque was not seen as heretical, and even Eastern Church Fathers talked about the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father, through the Son, - but what could we think about the fact that the Pope didn't want to change the Creed? the Orthodox see that as very important and that the Creed should never be changed... and I read about a canon from an early Church Council, I think excommunicating anyone who changes the Creed, but apparently this was for an earlier version of the Creed, which didn't even mention procession. (that was inserted later, so clearly the Creed got changed, - which means that that canon and anathema didn't apply to the Council, which could add and clarify certain things just not change or take away truths of the faith). And the Filioque could also be seen as a clarification.

I hope what I've written makes sense. Basically: is it true it wasn't seen as heretical, an earlier version of the Creed (that didn't mention procession) included an anathema on changing it, but the Council (and the Pope) can add clarifications, so the part about the Holy Spirit was added at a later Council, and then the Filioque was added. The Orthodox are saying, the Pope didn't want to add the Filioque.

But why didn't the Pope want to add it? does anyone know?  and is there any evidence that he didn't see it as heretical?

[Melkite]

The Pope at the time had it written on two metal plaques, one in greek and one in latin, without the filioque (they are still in Rome on the ediface of a church, don't remember which one).  At that time, the Pope was still politically aligned closer to the Byzantine Emperor than the Franks.  The Pope that added it was I believe the first Frankish pope.

[little_flower10]

Thanks for the reply, well is there any evidence that the Pope didn't see the Filioque as heretical, but - had other reasons for not inserting it? did the Pope ever discuss whether the Creed could be altered in such a way, - to clarify something, not to change the faith?

[randomtradguy]

The Pope at the time had it written on two metal plaques, one in greek and one in latin, without the filioque (they are still in Rome on the ediface of a church, don't remember which one).  At that time, the Pope was still politically aligned closer to the Byzantine Emperor than the Franks.  The Pope that added it was I believe the first Frankish pope.

Truth.
The Franks influenced Catholic theology negatively.
It had to do more with altering the Creed than a theological truth. The sky is blue, but we don't put it in the Creed, for example.
But then Florence happened, which is where even Byzantine Catholics have a problem with me; theoretically there, the East agreed that Filioque was the Faith, but I don't know anything about the putting the clause in the Creed.

[little_flower10]

The Orthodox also say that when the delegates from Rome came to excommunicate the Patriarch (?) - the excommunication bull said that the East removed the Filioque from the Creed, when actually it did not? (the original Creed did not have the Filioque). Why did this happen?

I did find out though that the canon (Canon 7, Council of Ephesus) that forbid changing the Creed, mentioned the Creed that was written in Nicaea, and this Creed did not mention procession at all.

[Malleus Haereticorum]

Hi,

I'm hoping someone could help me with this because it's causing me to worry :(  I don't know enough information about this to even make a good reply.

Someone was saying on another forum that during the whole controversy with the Filioque, - the Pope during that time didn't want to include it in the Creed and even had this written on something, like a door? (sorry I forgot.) And they said that St Maximus also counselled the West not to alter the Creed?

I read a quote by St Maximus saying that he didn't think the Filioque is heretical, - I read about this on Wikipedia and how it's not heretical in Latin, only in the Greek, if the words are used incorrectly (there are two Greek words, one implying procession, like in the Filique "processio", and the other implying cause).

It seemed to me that - the Filioque was not seen as heretical, and even Eastern Church Fathers talked about the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father, through the Son, - but what could we think about the fact that the Pope didn't want to change the Creed? the Orthodox see that as very important and that the Creed should never be changed... and I read about a canon from an early Church Council, I think excommunicating anyone who changes the Creed, but apparently this was for an earlier version of the Creed, which didn't even mention procession. (that was inserted later, so clearly the Creed got changed, - which means that that canon and anathema didn't apply to the Council, which could add and clarify certain things just not change or take away truths of the faith). And the Filioque could also be seen as a clarification.

I hope what I've written makes sense. Basically: is it true it wasn't seen as heretical, an earlier version of the Creed (that didn't mention procession) included an anathema on changing it, but the Council (and the Pope) can add clarifications, so the part about the Holy Spirit was added at a later Council, and then the Filioque was added. The Orthodox are saying, the Pope didn't want to add the Filioque.

But why didn't the Pope want to add it? does anyone know?  and is there any evidence that he didn't see it as heretical?

Its not an insurmountable problem as evidenced by what occured in 1274 (by the Second Council of Lyon) and in 1439 (by the Council of Florence), these difficulties were overcome. The Orthodox simply have a different way of looking at the Mission of Christ at present and I think autonomy is the real culprit - in Scripture we know that Christ speaks from both Natures as GOD and as Man at various times  - the Filioque was added to the original Creed but the Creed was necessary for an entirely different reason and in fact it did not change the meaning one iota. The Holy Trinity - the Hypostatic Union - Dogmas of the Church  - etc would all be compromised if the Western Church decided to back away from its position. We know that the Orthodox stance is tenuous at best.

The Filioque is not an insurmountable obstacle. Its merely a pawn in a greater scheme.

[Azurestone]

The Orthodox also say that when the delegates from Rome came to excommunicate the Patriarch (?) - the excommunication bull said that the East removed the Filioque from the Creed, when actually it did not? (the original Creed did not have the Filioque). Why did this happen?

Cardinal Humbert was a fool. He didn't know his history, and the Pope was already dead, and therefore he had no power as a legate to excommunicate anyone. He excommunicated Patriarch Cerularius after being refused an audience, in the middle of a divine liturgy (Mass) by laying down on the altar. This event was never even noticed by the majority until the 13th century. Life continued between the churches as before, for the most part.

I did find out though that the canon (Canon 7, Council of Ephesus) that forbid changing the Creed, mentioned the Creed that was written in Nicaea, and this Creed did not mention procession at all.

It didn't forbid changing the creed. It only forbids changing the faith of the creed. There were many other creeds professed around the universal Church. However, the one composed of at Nice was to removed doubt by expressing the faith of old through the mouths of hundreds of Bishops.

The actual canon:

Canon VII.

When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.
But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.
And in like manner, if any, whether bishops, clergymen, or laymen, should be discovered to hold or teach the doctrines contained in the Exposition introduced by the Presbyter Charisius concerning the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten Son of God, or the abominable and profane doctrines of Nestorius, which are subjoined, they shall be subjected to the sentence of this holy and ecumenical Synod.  So that, if it be a bishop, he shall be removed from his bishopric and degraded; if it be a clergyman, he shall likewise be stricken from the clergy; and if it be a layman, he shall be anathematized, as has been afore said.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xvi.x.html

The Orthodox don't particularly care much about the Council of Florence, however. What was signed at the council was quickly renounced and revoked by the same bishops who signed it once they returned home, and away from the council. If my memory recalls correctly, they were even coerced, to included starvation, to enable a signature.

[little_flower10]

Thanks! was it then Cardinal Humbert who wrote the excommunication bull, not the Pope?

[Azurestone]

Thanks! was it then Cardinal Humbert who wrote the excommunication bull, not the Pope?

Yes

[formerbuddhist]

I've studied the whole Orthodox/Catholic issue of the Filioque and the Trinity for years and still don't feel well enough versed on it to comment on it with any real authority. All I can say is that there are certainly not a few Orthodox who would vehemently say to this day that the issue of the Filioque is far from trivial and cannot be brushed aside in the name of ecumenism. It's not just about politics, as there are some who insist that the Filioque is a heresy and a great one at that. One other thing I can say is that often using proof texts of Eastern Fathers where it appears that they are in favor of the Filioque doesn't always work, as they will want to know what the context was that the particular Father was writing in. The Holy Ghost might come from the Son in time they might say, but in eternity the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father alone and any passage from Holy Writ that seems to speak of the "Spirit of the Son" is only in time and not eternity, as in the Son may send the Spirit in time but the Spirit does NOT proceed both from the Father and the Son eternally...or so some would very forcefully say.. Also, many reject the notion of the Holy Ghost being the mutal love between the Father and the Son. Of course I'm Catholic and accept the Filioque wholeheartedly even if I do not fully understand it. In fact it was the issue of the Filioque that almost made me become Orthodox once and it was really only the Petrine claims and the Immaculate Conception that pulled me back since this Filioque issue is so difficult.