The Filioque is accepted by the 3rd Ecumenical Council

[Zekariya]

The Filioque is accepted as a Theological belief in the 3rd Ecumenical Council. It is not approved for the Creed, however, it also is not debated as being bad theology or heresy. I will not join in a Filioque debate. I am posting this for informational purposes for my Eastern and Western Catholic brothers to use in defense of our faith.

This quote from the Third Letter of St Cyril of Alexandria to Nestorius was approved by the 3rd Ecumenical Council.

"For even if the Spirit exists in his own hupostasis, and moreover is considered by himself insofar as he is the Spirit and not the Son, yet he is not therefore alien from the Son, for he is called the Spirit of truth and Christ is the truth, and the Spirit proceeds from him, just as undoubtedly he also proceeds from God the Father." - St Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 17:17 (Third Letter to Nestorius)

From: "The Fathers of the Church, St Cyril of Alexandria, Letters 1-50" translated by John I. McEnerney
Nihil obstat: Rev. Michael Slusser, S.T.B., D. Phil. Censor Deputatus
Imprimatur: Rev. Msgr. Raymond Boland, Vicar General for the Archdiocese of Washington
Copyright © 1987 by The Catholic University of America Press, Inc.


Another translation:
"For even though the Spirit exist in His Own Person, and is conceived of by Himself, inasmuch as He is the Spirit and not the Son, yet is He not therefore alien from Him; for He is called the Spirit of truth, and Christ is the Truth, and He proceedeth from Him, just as from God the Father." - St Cyril of Alexandria, The Three Epistles of S. Cyril, Third Letter to Nestorius

Edited and translated by P. E. Pusey, Oxford, 1872

[Skeptic92]

Originally Posted by Zekariya

The Filioque is accepted as a Theological belief in the 3rd Ecumenical Council. It is not approved for the Creed, however, it also is not debated as being bad theology or heresy. I will not join in a Filioque debate. I am posting this for informational purposes for my Eastern and Western Catholic brothers to use in defense of our faith.

This quote from the Third Letter of St Cyril of Alexandria to Nestorius was approved by the 3rd Ecumenical Council.

"For even if the Spirit exists in his own hupostasis, and moreover is considered by himself insofar as he is the Spirit and not the Son, yet he is not therefore alien from the Son, for he is called the Spirit of truth and Christ is the truth, and the Spirit proceeds from him, just as undoubtedly he also proceeds from God the Father." - St Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 17:17 (Third Letter to Nestorius)

From: "The Fathers of the Church, St Cyril of Alexandria, Letters 1-50" translated by John I. McEnerney
Nihil obstat: Rev. Michael Slusser, S.T.B., D. Phil. Censor Deputatus
Imprimatur: Rev. Msgr. Raymond Boland, Vicar General for the Archdiocese of Washington
Copyright © 1987 by The Catholic University of America Press, Inc.


Another translation:
"For even though the Spirit exist in His Own Person, and is conceived of by Himself, inasmuch as He is the Spirit and not the Son, yet is He not therefore alien from Him; for He is called the Spirit of truth, and Christ is the Truth, and He proceedeth from Him, just as from God the Father." - St Cyril of Alexandria, The Three Epistles of S. Cyril, Third Letter to Nestorius

Edited and translated by P. E. Pusey, Oxford, 1872

I've heard this before, and yes from what I understand about the Orthodox position is that they will accept the Filioque as a theological position (That the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son) as the Filioque as a Theological position is found in the Cappadocian Father St Gregory of Nyssa:

Originally Posted by St Gregory of Nyssa- To Ablabius on Not Three Gods

‘For one is directly from the first Cause, and another by that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the interposition of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father.’

The problem is its inclusion in the Creed, it has been inserted without the Authority of an Ecumenical Council (as the 2nd Ecumenical Council decrees is needed), problems with the translation (the Filioque can sound like we are professing the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son) and some remaining bitter blood from the Great Schism.

[Zekariya]

As far as my Eastern Orthodox uncle and many traditional Orthodox Christians are concerned (check out the traditionalist websites), the filioque is a heresy. Here is an example: http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010...ue-heresy.html

Some people such as St Maximos the Confessor defended the filioque as not being a heretical saying. However, many consider it heretical and damaging to the theology of the Trinity. It is definitely an issue amongst anti-ecumenist groups as well.

[Zekariya]

oops

[Zekariya]

As far as my Eastern Orthodox uncle and many traditional Orthodox Christians are concerned (check out the traditionalist websites), the filioque is a heresy.

Some people such as St Maximos the Confessor defended the filioque as not being a heretical saying. However, many consider it heretical and damaging to the theology of the Trinity. It is definitely an issue amongst anti-ecumenist groups as well.

[Trebor135]

Originally Posted by Zekariya

As far as my Eastern Orthodox uncle and many traditional Orthodox Christians are concerned (check out the traditionalist websites), the filioque is a heresy.

Some people such as St Maximos the Confessor defended the filioque as not being a heretical saying. However, many consider it heretical and damaging to the theology of the Trinity. It is definitely an issue amongst anti-ecumenist groups as well.

An Eastern Orthodox priest (I believe Canadian-born) who I talked to a few months ago told me that the understanding of the filioque from around the fifth century would be acceptable, but its meaning from around the fifteenth century would be problematic, as the two are not one and the same.

[Nine_Two]

Originally Posted by Trebor135

An Eastern Orthodox priest (I believe Canadian-born) who I talked to a few months ago told me that the understanding of the filioque from around the fifth century would be acceptable, but its meaning from around the fifteenth century would be problematic, as the two are not one and the same.

I agree with that.

The issue isn't with the words - they are easily reconciled to our theology, but to how they were pushed upon the East (easily rectified), and by their modern interpretation.

[Zekariya]

Originally Posted by Nine_Two

I agree with that.

The issue isn't with the words - they are easily reconciled to our theology, but to how they were pushed upon the East (easily rectified), and by their modern interpretation.

I understand that. I personally am for having it removed as the reason that it was originally added in spain has passed. It would only help relations to remove it (and clear up some murky theology).

[dcointin]

Originally Posted by Zekariya

I understand that. I personally am for having it removed as the reason that it was originally added in spain has passed. It would only help relations to remove it (and clear up some murky theology).

I'm afraid that if they did you'd see a traditionalist revolt that would put SSPX to shame.

[Zekariya]

Originally Posted by dcointin

I'm afraid that if they did you'd see a traditionalist revolt that would put SSPX to shame.

I guess that is true.

[Trebor135]

Originally Posted by dcointin

I'm afraid that if they did you'd see a traditionalist revolt that would put SSPX to shame.

Why do you think so?

[Filii Dei]

Originally Posted by Trebor135

Why do you think so?

Some would see it as a capitulation of Rome to the Eastern Orthodox who insist that we remove the filioque. It's not so much an issue of improper theology as one of pride. Think of it as ultra-nationalists, but in an ecclesial setting.

Now, if only we could convene an Ecumenical Council some time in the future to agree upon "proceeds from the Father through the Son".

[Cavaradossi]

There is a problem with this text, if you intend to use it as a defense of the Filioque. The original Greek reads:

καὶ προχεῖται παρ' αὐτοῦ, καθάπερ ἀμέλει καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρός.

which roughly translates as "and [the Spirit] is poured forth from him [Christ], just as [he] is from God the Father". (here is the Greek text from Migne: http://books.google.com/books?id=Qb7...page&q&f=false)

It would be rather convincing defense of the Filioque had St. Cyril used a form of the verb ἐκπορεύω (proceeds), but instead, he used the verb προχέω, meaning literally to pour forth. I would wager that it is more connected to the verb ἐκχέω, used in Acts 2:17-18 to denote the economic pouring out of the Spirit by God, than it is to the verb for proceed, ἐκπορεύω, which is used in the Creed.

[dcointin]

Here's another version:

But when he spoke about the Spirit, he said: "He shall glorify me." If we think rightly, we do not say that the One Christ and Son as needing glory from another received glory from the Holy Spirit; for neither greater than he nor above him is his Spirit, but because he used the Holy Spirit to show forth His own divinity in his mighty works, therefore he is said to have been glorified by him just as if any one of us should say concerning his inherent strength for example, or His knowledge of anything, "They glorified me." For although the Spirit is the same essence, yet we think of him by himself, as he is the Spirit and not the Son; but he is not different from him; for he is called the Spirit of truth and Christ is the Truth, and he is sent by him, just as, moreover, he is from God and the Father. When then the Spirit worked miracles through the hands of the holy apostles after the Ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ into heaven, he glorified him. For it is believed that he who works through his own Spirit is God according to nature. Therefore he said: "He shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you." But we do not say this as if the Spirit is wise and powerful through some sharing with another; for he is all perfect and in need of no good thing. Since, therefore, he is the Spirit of the Power and Wisdom of the Father (that is, of the Son), he is evidently Wisdom and Power.

http://www.monachos.net/content/patr...istictexts/135

[dcointin]

I think one could make the argument that despite the difference in wording in the various English translations, the point that St. Cyril is making would be the same. He argues that the Spirit is sent from the Son just as he is from the Father. How is he sent from the Father but by procession? I also see similar argument with the Spirit being the Spirit of the Son. Just as the Son is the Son of the Father, and declares to us what he has received from the Father, so the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, and declares to us what he has received from the Son. In what other way would the Spirit be of the Son if not in an ontological sense?