/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>627753

I got the impression that it's not the theological implication (which are minor really). Rather it's that the filioque has been added by the pope after the council formulated the nicene creed. And the Orthodox would say that no person stands above an ecumenical council (since their results are considered to be the work of the holy spirit).

So it's more the question of the authority of the papacy.

Well, it's a question surrounding the nature of God. Getting it wrong is a major error, like an error in Christology.

As an Orthodox, I think that certain saints like Bonaventure have really problematic pneumatology, while other authors like Augustine or Richard of St Victor are perfectly fine.

The only real issue at Florence, and the sole reason Mark of Ephesus insisted on rejecting the filioque, is that it calls the Son "cause" -in Greek-. A different way to describe the relations between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was developped in the West, notably because of the less precise terms compared to Greek. Just compare the Cappadocians to Aquinas (in my opinion, both are acceptable just as long as we realize they do not use the exact same frame). It is fine in the Latin system to say the Son is the one cause of the Spirit's being with the Father, but I do not think it is fine to call the Son "cause" in Greek at all - at least Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor, and John of Damascus all wrote specifically to defend that the Son isn't "cause." To say the Son is "cause" in Greek necessarily means there are two causes, and to say there is only one cause is to make the Son and the Father a single hypostasis.

So really, I think the only thing blocking us today is how to interpret Florence in light of current scholarship. But that's pretty much nothing compared to what were historically the obstacles to a common understanding, so we've gotten pretty far I'd say.

_____

A mistake regarding the Spirit's procession and relation to the Son is as bad as a mistake regarding the Son's generation and relation to the Father.

But I don't think we really do have different understandings. Indeed, we agree that the schema is (Father) -(Son)-> (Holy Spirit) and the rest is a matter of terminology.

>>627763

The theology is actually what has disturbed both sides for most of history.

The issue of the legitimacy of the addition implies questioning the relationship between the Pope's authority and a council's authority, but furthermore it is complicated by how Catholics treat the council at Constantinople of 869-870 as ecumenical, while Orthodox treat the council at Constantinople of 879-880 as ecumenical and this latter council both anathematizes any additions to the creed and anathematizes the earlier council.

And Fr Francis Dvornik has done a good job to both prove that Photius wasn't a rabid anti-Latin zealot (on the contrary) and that the Pope had indeed agreed to the council of 879 but lost its proceedings during the Gregorian Reform.

So there was a council of Nicea. It produced creed and said nothing about proceeding of Spirit. The there was Constantinople which started as regional council and said that Spirit proceeds from the Father. Few yerars later there was council of Rome which said that Spirt proccedes from Father and Son.

HUGE DISCLAIMER

Greek text of the Constantinopolitan Creed of 381, the term "proceeds" (ekporeusis) had a specific and all-important meaning. It meant to originate from a single Source, Principal, or Cause (aitia in greek principium in latin). Latin version of the creed never had that meaning. Instead it use "procedit" as "proienai". Morover to say that Father is not alone principium of Godhead is heresy accroding to Romans.

/HUGE DISCLAIMER

Then, mianly against the arian and semiarian infuluence council of Toldeo started to officialy use creed with "Filioque". Then came Franks and started to due the same but Pope for the sake of unity with greeks (who acted like chuvinist retards i.e. "everything have to be done and speak as we do it") siad to stop with it even though he belived that filoque was ture. Meanwhile Romans sended translation of thier creed to the East but they translated "procedit" as "ekporeusis". Greeks were like wtf but St. Maximus explained that Latins do not mean that anyone but the Father is attion.

Then comes Nicea II and surrundings, Greeks sign the creed with filioque in it. Then comes Great Schism that was and countinues to be clusterfuck. Filoque was made into scapegoat by the greeks.

Then comes Lyons, Greeks yield but said fuck that few years later.

Then comes Florence. And Greeks again act like retards, here personificated in the person of Mark of Ephesus whose whole arguments can be sumarised with this sentece of his (quote actually but you get the point) "There is one source of the pre-essential Godhead –God the Father."

And if you read the Disclaimer then you would know that Latin already do believe that. So John the Montenegro, who was probably as tried of this bullshit as I and countless catholic are, said formally in hope of getting things as stright as possible. Read cautiously for this is what Rome belive about filioque: "The Church of Rome does not admit of two principles or causes in the Trinity, but only one cause and one principal, anathematizing all who think to the contrary."

Florence was absolute bloodbath for Greek argumentation (and pride). To quote Greek who attended it, John Bessarion: "They [the Latins] brought forward passages not only of the western teachers but quite as many of the eastern… to which we had no reply whatsoever to make except that they were corrupt and corrupted by the Latins. They brought forward our own Epiphanius as in many places clearly declaring that the Spirit is from the Father and the Son: corrupt we said they were. They read the text mentioned earlier in Basil's work against Eunomius: in our judgment it was interpolated. They adduced the words of the Saints of the West: the whole of our answer was 'corrupt' and nothing more. We consider and consult among ourselves for several days as to what answer we shall make, but find no other defense at all but that …We had no books that would prove the Latin texts to be corrupt, no Saints who spoke differently from those put forward. We found ourselves deprived of a just case in every direction. So we kept silent.".

Thorically Shism was healed but as soon as Greek left, they break all thier promises and declarations. So we had enough. And ever since when it comes to union with local EO churches (like one in Brest with Ruthenians) we are sattisfaied with "Accept that Filoque is not heretical and we won't force you to even try to understand it.

Here, history of filioque. I may have omitted few thing due the lack of knowledge of subject but I had hit major points. What I did omitted for sure is something irrelevant - canons of councils that anathemise those, who add to creed of NICEA. For at Nicea nothing was spoken about proccesion of Spirit.