The Filioque is accepted by the 3rd Ecumenical Council

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

I agree with the rest of your replies, but I am very confused about these two quotes of yours:

Aren't "the energies of the Holy Spirit" themselves part of "the very divine nature of God," though of course they are not His essence, which is utterly impenetrable?

Yes, that would be technical imprecision on my part. Any energy ascribed to the Spirit belongs also to the Father and to the Son.

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

If not, in what way do we "partake of the divine nature" as Scripture says, if the energies we can partake of are not themselves God's divine nature?

This question maybe requires a bit more attention, because the divine nature and the divine energies are related but not the same. Now, we have to be careful not to ascribe 'parts' to God, because God himself is simple and without parts. St. John of Damascus writes:

The Deity is simple and uncompound. But that which is composed of many and different elements is compound. If, then, we should speak of the qualities of being uncreate and without beginning and incorporeal and immortal and everlasting and good and creative and so forth as essential differences in the case of God, that which is composed of so many qualities will not be simple but must be compound. But this is impious in the extreme. Each then of the affirmations about God should be thought of as signifying not what He is in essence, but either something that it is impossible to make plain, or some relation to some of those things which are contrasts or some of those things that follow the nature, or an energy.

Exact Exposition on the Orthodox Faith 1.9

So when we make an apophatic statement, like that God is uncreated, we do not mean to say that uncreatedness is what He is in essence, but we mean that he is uncreated only in relation to us, who by contrast are created. When we say that God is incorporeal, we do not mean to say that what He is is incorporeity, but that He is not corporeal, unlike us. When we affirm cataphatic statements about God, like God is good or God is creative, we are not describing what his essence is, but we are describing either those things, "that follow the nature or an energy."

So what is the relationship between a nature, what follows a nature and energy? For this, we can pull together a few other passages also from St. John of Damascus:

Uncreate, without beginning, immortal, infinite, eternal, immaterial , good, creative, just, enlightening, immutable, passionless, uncircumscribed, immeasurable, unlimited, undefined, unseen, unthinkable, wanting in nothing, being His own rule and authority, all-ruling, life-giving, omnipotent, of infinite power, containing and maintaining the universe and making provision for all: all these and such like attributes the Deity possesses by nature, not having received them from elsewhere, but Himself imparting all good to His own creations according to the capacity of each.

Exact Exposition on the Orthodox Faith 1.14

These properties belong to God by nature. In some sense, they follow nature, because anything of the divine nature will necessarily have all of these properties, not receiving them from any outside source, just as fire by nature has the property of heat, such that anything of the nature of fire must display heat. The Son and Holy Spirit, for example, possess all of the natural properties of the Father (this is opposed to his hypostatic property, which is causality) not through any form of participation, but by their very shared nature. Now what is energy? St. John of Damascus answers:

All the faculties we have already discussed, both those of knowledge and those of life, both the natural and the artificial, are, it is to be noted, called energies. For energy is the natural force and activity of each essence: or again, natural energy is the activity innate in every essence: and so, clearly, things that have the same essence have also the same energy, and things that have different natures have also different energies. For no essence can be devoid of natural energy.

Exact Exposition on the Orthodox Faith 2.23

And

“For I live,” says the Lord, “and I shall glorify those who glorify me,” (1 Kgd 2:30) and the divine apostle, “So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, an heir of God through Christ,” (Gal 4:7) and “if we suffer together [with him], so that we are glorified together.” (Rom 8:17) You are not waging a war against images, but against the saints. John the theologian, who leant on Christ’s breast, there-fore says, that “we shall be like him.” (1 Jn 3:2) For just as iron plunged in fire does not become fire by nature, but by union and burning and participation, so what is deified does not become God by nature, but by participation. I am not speaking of the flesh of the incarnate Son of God; for that is called God immutably by hypostatic union and participation in the divine nature, not anointed by the energy of God as with each of the prophets, but by the presence of the the whole of the one who anoints. Because by deification the saints are gods, it is said that “God stands in the company of gods, in the midst he discriminates between the gods,” (Ps. 81:1) when God stands in the midst of the gods, distinguishing their several worth, as Gregory the Theologian interprets it.

Apologetic Treatises against those Decrying the Holy Images 2.19

By energy these properties which belong to God by nature are given to us by grace. Just like an iron through fire, becomes fire not by nature but by participation, we become gods not by nature but by participation. That is what it means when we are told that we will become partakers of the divine nature, even though we do not believe that the divine nature can be communicated to us.

[Vico]

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

So... yes, uncreated grace is part of the divine nature?
...

The indwelling of the Holy Spirit in a person means the presence of the created gifts of grace and his uncreated divine nature, but does not produce a substantial union, rather it is an accidental union. The indwelling is sanctifying grace which is the created result of the uncreated grace of God's presence. This is the Latin Church expression. It takes another form in the eastern churches.



For example, St. Gregory of Nyssa writes:

1035 [37] "But since human nature is twofold, composed of body and soul, it is necessary that both of these make contact with the Author of life. . . What then is the remedy [for the body tainted by sin]? it is none other than that Body that has been shown to be stronger than death [Christ's], and has become [the source] of life for us. Just as a little yeast, as the Apostle says [1 Cor 5:6] -- assimilates the whole batch of dough to itself, so that body raised by God to immortality, when it enters our bodies, changes [Gr., metapoiei] and transforms them [Gr, metatithesin] into itself. . . . Since only the body in which the Divinity became incarnate has received the grace [of immortality] and since it has been demonstrated that it is not possible for our body to become immortal, unless it share in incorruptibility through communion with the Immortal Body, it is necessary to consider how it is possible for that one Body, although it is distributed continually to so many thousands of the faithful throughout the world, to remain whole when it is allotted to each individual, through a portion while still remaining whole in itself . . . .(8)... Since each body gets its existence from nourishment, from eating and drinking . . . . (9) so, if a person sees bread, he sees, in a certain sense, the human body, because the bread that enters the body becomes the body itself. So too, the Body into which God entered, by being nourished with bread, was in like manner identical with the bread. . . . This Body, by the indwelling of God the Word, has been changed [Gr.,metapoiethe] to divine dignity. Rightly then do we believe that the bread consecrated by the word of God has been changed [Gr., metapoieisthai] into the Body of God the Word. For that Body was bread in power, but it has been sanctified by the dwelling there of the Word, who pitched his tent in the flesh. The change that elevated to divine power the bread that had been transformed into that Body causes something similar now. In that case, the grace of the Word sanctified that Body whose material being came from bread and was, in a certain sense, bread itself. In this case, the bread "is sanctified by God's word and by prayer" [1 Tim 4:5], as the Apostle says, not becoming the Body of the Word through our eating but by being transformed [Gr., metapoiumenos] immediately into the body by means of the word, as the Word himself said, 'This is my Body' . . . . (12). . . He shares himself with every believer through the Flesh whose material being [Gr., sustais] comes from bread and wine . . . in order to bring it about that, by communion with the Immortal, man may share in incorruption. He gives these things through the power of the blessing by which he transelements [Gr., metastoikeiosas] the nature of the visible things [to that of the Immortal]."

[Ubenedictus]

Originally Posted by Hesychios

What difference would it make?

Before the schism the Latin church was (supposedly) western Orthodox and the eastern churches were likewise eastern Catholic.

TRUE

Now we have an encyclical in a Pope's words describing how the imposition was done to people who were only 'eastern Catholic' because the law and occupying armies required them to be.

really? Are you still pushing the old war or are you in for reconcilation?

Crete, mentioned in the encyclical reverted entirely to Orthodoxy after the crusaders lost control, but while the western powers held the island (and much more besides) all of the inhabitants were technically eastern Catholics by law, against their will, and the Pope was comfortable with a decision to send an inquisitor with power to enforce it upon them. In fact these were Orthodox people.

Even the notorious bull released by Cardinals Humbert and Frederic included the fact that the Greeks did not accept the western filioque as one reason for excommunication. Of course the implication was that if they would accept the interpolation (among other things), the condemnations could be lifted.

hmm still war

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by Ubenedictus

really? Are you still pushing the old war or are you in for reconcilation?

This is not about what I think.

Would you rather I had not posted the facts? Would that make you happy?

For my part I was relating the facts. I don't see how that constitutes war. It would be like never discussing the Battle of the Bulge or Quadalcanal because we want to be friends with Germans and Japanese. What difference does it make? It is still history and it is still truth.

"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."

Edmund Burke

Originally Posted by Ubenedictus

hmm still war

If you have a point, you should state it.

Should we pretend it never happened? Would you be happy if it was not discussed publicly? Would you rather that the lurkers and participants here were totally ignorant of the facts, related here in a Pope's own words?

Would you rather people here not discuss the Papal Encyclical Allatae Sunt?

Do you want me to not point out that crusaders occupied places like Crete with military might and legally forced the Orthodox into subjection to the bishop of Rome, and imposed the filioque on the Orthodox residents?

Would like me not to repeat that the Pope sent an inquisitor to the place, to enforce the religious policy and compel the Orthodox recite the filioque?

Well, OK then.

[Ubenedictus]

I tried an internet search on the filioque because i find the usual reference to heresy, principle, etc hard to handle. I came across this article (it seem simple to understand) i would like to know the precieved flaws in this article according to orthodox understanding.Www.agrino.org/cyberdesert/statement.htm

[Ubenedictus]

Originally Posted by Hesychios

This is not about what I think.

Would you rather I had not posted the facts? Would that make you happy?

It wont make me happier i just doubt if you are telling this story with a good intention.

For my part I was relating the facts. I don't see how that constitutes war. It would be like never discussing the Battle of the Bulge or Quadalcanal because we want to be friends with Germans and Japanese. What difference does it make? It is still history and it is still truth.

"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."

Edmund Burke

If you have a point, you should state it.

Should we pretend it never happened? Would you be happy if it was not discussed publicly? Would you rather that the lurkers and participants here were totally ignorant of the facts, related here in a Pope's own words?

Wow!!! A good post, i would like to ask about the work of the inquisitor, atleast he should have something to do. Im sorry if my knowledge in history is limited i guess you can feel me in. My 'war' response was because you were responding about the bad practice after the 'divide' when my post was talking about before. In my head it seemed your point was simply to portray a bad catholic church.

Would you rather people here not discuss the Papal Encyclical Allatae Sunt?

Do you want me to not point out that crusaders occupied places like Crete with military might and legally forced the Orthodox into subjection to the bishop of Rome, and imposed the filioque on the Orthodox residents?

Would like me not to repeat that the Pope sent an inquisitor to the place, to enforce the religious policy and compel the Orthodox recite the filioque?

Well, OK then.

please provide proof that the latins with the support of the pope forced the orthodox. What i find in the encyclical are guidlines for orthodox christain who want to be in communion with rome.
Ubenedictus

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by Ubenedictus

It wont make me happier i just doubt if you are telling this story with a good intention.

One could say the same about you

Originally Posted by Ubenedictus

please provide proof that the latins with the support of the pope forced the orthodox. What i find in the encyclical are guidlines for orthodox christain who want to be in communion with rome.

Then you seem to agree that anyone who wants to be in communion with Rome can be forced.

In the bull Allantae Sunt the Pope was relating what the Orthodox on Crete were subjected to by his predecessors. The church on Crete did not ask to be placed under the authority of the Pope, they were compelled by law and military force.

Once that force was expelled the people of Crete no longer were under the Pope, and remain overwhelmingly Orthodox to this day.

These were Orthodox people. So much the worse for those who actually wanted to be under the Pope and asked for communion. The stories of abuses are many and disturbing.

This tells us that unless the Pope admits that he has no unilateral authority to do any such thing we can not come to agreements.

It has been proven that when a Pope makes a promise not to exercise power he thinks he retains, his successors will not feel bound to honor those old promises. This is the core message of Eastern Catholicism, played out here over and over again in one thread of concern and then another.

The system has been tried and found lacking by proofs over hundreds of years continually with the Eastern Catholic experiment. So I repeat, unless the Pope admits that he does not have the unilateral authority to impose upon Eastern Christians (neither in theology nor discipline nor administration), we will not commune with him. His promises, treaties and assurances are not sufficient. He has to admit he has no native authority in these areas and never had.

Once that happens we can recognize one another as truly equal Sui Iuris churches, and we can mutually agree to commune as brothers in Christ.

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by Ubenedictus

I tried an internet search on the filioque because i find the usual reference to heresy, principle, etc hard to handle. I came across this article (it seem simple to understand) i would like to know the precieved flaws in this article according to orthodox understanding.Www.agrino.org/cyberdesert/statement.htm

My biggest criticism would be that they are falling back on the justification that the Holy Spirit must proceed substantially through the Son, because of the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. But why then is the Son not begotten through the Holy Spirit? If they deny this (and they do deny this), then they imply some sort of priority of the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son over the consubstantiality of the three persons, that is to say that the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, is lesser than the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. But how can that priority come to be unless there is some shared attribute between the Father and Son, in which the Holy Spirit does not participate? They say they don't subordinate the Spirit, but they certainly seem to do so regardless.

[Fone Bone 2001]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

Now, we have to be careful not to ascribe 'parts' to God, because God himself is simple and without parts.

Yeah, I didn't like that I used the word "part"; I just couldn't think of another way of phrasing it.

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

Yes, that would be technical imprecision on my part. Any energy ascribed to the Spirit belongs also to the Father and to the Son.

This question maybe requires a bit more attention, because the divine nature and the divine energies are related but not the same. St. John of Damascus writes:

The Deity is simple and uncompound. But that which is composed of many and different elements is compound. If, then, we should speak of the qualities of being uncreate and without beginning and incorporeal and immortal and everlasting and good and creative and so forth as essential differences in the case of God, that which is composed of so many qualities will not be simple but must be compound. But this is impious in the extreme. Each then of the affirmations about God should be thought of as signifying not what He is in essence, but either something that it is impossible to make plain, or some relation to some of those things which are contrasts or some of those things that follow the nature, or an energy.

Exact Exposition on the Orthodox Faith 1.9

So when we make an apophatic statement, like that God is uncreated, we do not mean to say that uncreatedness is what He is in essence, but we mean that he is uncreated only in relation to us, who by contrast are created. When we say that God is incorporeal, we do not mean to say that what He is is incorporeity, but that He is not corporeal, unlike us. When we affirm cataphatic statements about God, like God is good or God is creative, we are not describing what his essence is, but we are describing either those things, "that follow the nature or an energy."

So what is the relationship between a nature, what follows a nature and energy? For this, we can pull together a few other passages also from St. John of Damascus:

Uncreate, without beginning, immortal, infinite, eternal, immaterial , good, creative, just, enlightening, immutable, passionless, uncircumscribed, immeasurable, unlimited, undefined, unseen, unthinkable, wanting in nothing, being His own rule and authority, all-ruling, life-giving, omnipotent, of infinite power, containing and maintaining the universe and making provision for all: all these and such like attributes the Deity possesses by nature, not having received them from elsewhere, but Himself imparting all good to His own creations according to the capacity of each.

Exact Exposition on the Orthodox Faith 1.14

These properties belong to God by nature. In some sense, they follow nature, because anything of the divine nature will necessarily have all of these properties, not receiving them from any outside source, just as fire by nature has the property of heat, such that anything of the nature of fire must display heat. The Son and Holy Spirit, for example, possess all of the natural properties of the Father (this is opposed to his hypostatic property, which is causality) not through any form of participation, but by their very shared nature. Now what is energy? St. John of Damascus answers:

All the faculties we have already discussed, both those of knowledge and those of life, both the natural and the artificial, are, it is to be noted, called energies. For energy is the natural force and activity of each essence: or again, natural energy is the activity innate in every essence: and so, clearly, things that have the same essence have also the same energy, and things that have different natures have also different energies. For no essence can be devoid of natural energy.

Exact Exposition on the Orthodox Faith 2.23

And

“For I live,” says the Lord, “and I shall glorify those who glorify me,” (1 Kgd 2:30) and the divine apostle, “So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, an heir of God through Christ,” (Gal 4:7) and “if we suffer together [with him], so that we are glorified together.” (Rom 8:17) You are not waging a war against images, but against the saints. John the theologian, who leant on Christ’s breast, there-fore says, that “we shall be like him.” (1 Jn 3:2) For just as iron plunged in fire does not become fire by nature, but by union and burning and participation, so what is deified does not become God by nature, but by participation. I am not speaking of the flesh of the incarnate Son of God; for that is called God immutably by hypostatic union and participation in the divine nature, not anointed by the energy of God as with each of the prophets, but by the presence of the the whole of the one who anoints. Because by deification the saints are gods, it is said that “God stands in the company of gods, in the midst he discriminates between the gods,” (Ps. 81:1) when God stands in the midst of the gods, distinguishing their several worth, as Gregory the Theologian interprets it.

Apologetic Treatises against those Decrying the Holy Images 2.19

By energy these properties which belong to God by nature are given to us by grace. Just like an iron through fire, becomes fire not by nature but by participation, we become gods not by nature but by participation. That is what it means when we are told that we will become partakers of the divine nature, even though we do not believe that the divine nature can be communicated to us.

Thank you, Cavaradossi, that was a wonderful and unimpeachably thorough response!

[Fone Bone 2001]

Originally Posted by Vico

The indwelling of the Holy Spirit in a person means the presence of the created gifts of grace and his uncreated divine nature, but does not produce a substantial union, rather it is an accidental union. The indwelling is sanctifying grace which is the created result of the uncreated grace of God's presence. This is the Latin Church expression. It takes another form in the eastern churches.

Thank you, Vico; that makes sense to me!

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by Hesychios

This tells us that unless the Pope admits that he has no unilateral authority to do any such thing we can not come to agreements.

The issue of the exercise of primacy is one that is open to discussion. Fortunately it is being discussed y responsible people who do more than draw lines in the sand about what "we": can or cannot do.

It has been proven that when a Pope makes a promise not to exercise power he thinks he retains, his successors will not feel bound to honor those old promises. ... So I repeat, unless the Pope admits that he does not have the unilateral authority to impose upon Eastern Christians (neither in theology nor discipline nor administration), we will not commune with him. His promises, treaties and assurances are not sufficient. He has to admit he has no native authority in these areas and never had.

Once that happens we can recognize one another as truly equal Sui Iuris churches, and we can mutually agree to commune as brothers in Christ.

This almost seems principled. However, if one were to deal less selectively with the actual facts of history, it is clear that the argument is far less sound that it appears. After all, both the EP and the MP have exercised their own primacy in ways that go far, far beyond any action of the Pope in dealings with Eastern Catholics. Both in the degree of interference in other ostensibly autocephalous churches, or in the degree of "force" used in its dealings with those under its thumb. So the argument is really just special pleading: One can find it eminently reasonable to overlook unpleasant historical realities of the exercise of primacy by EO primates, but the requirements for Rome raised to an entirely different level.

This is the core message of Eastern Catholicism, played out here over and over again in one thread of concern and then another. ... The system has been tried and found lacking by proofs over hundreds of years continually with the Eastern Catholic experiment.

1) I take vigorous exception to the vicious claim that this is the "core message of Eastern Catholicism". Brings other comments into perspective, I guess.
2) I am not sure of the meaning of "hundreds of years continually". What is continual? how does the case of Crete - reaching back nearly 4 centuries before the first of many unia, provide evidence for this "continually" stuff.

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

I believe it was the in the eighth century Libri Carolini where the Greeks were first accused of "removing" the Filioque from the creed. This same ridiculous claim was repeated by Cardinal Humbert in his bull of excommunication meant for Michael Cerlarius. Certainly, the Franks added much fuel to the fire themselves.

I wsih that such claims would be accompanied by documentation. I am not sure how this issue is phrased in the Libri Carolini, but I am certain that Cardinal Humbert did not accuse the Greeks of " 'removing' " the filioque from the Creed. It would be nice to stick to actual facts.

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by dvdjs

I wsih that such claims would be accompanied by documentation. I am not sure how this issue is phrased in the Libri Carolini, but I am certain that Cardinal Humbert did not accuse the Greeks of " 'removing' " the filioque from the Creed. It would be nice to stick to actual facts.

I'm positive Francis Dvornik wrote as much in his book Byzantium and the Roman Primacy. If Cardinal Humbert did not make such an accusation, it is hard to see how so many historians have been fooled for all these years.

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

I'm positive Francis Dvornik wrote as much in his book Byzantium and the Roman Primacy. If Cardinal Humbert did not make such an accusation, it is hard to see how so many historians have been fooled for all these years.

The bull of excommunication is widely available; it does not accuse the Greeks of " 'removing' " the filioque. Does Fr Dvornik have additional material? Does he actually say what you say? What other historians are you suggesting are in the position of potentially having been fooled?

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by dvdjs

The bull of excommunication is widely available; it does not accuse the Greeks of " 'removing' " the filioque. Does Fr Dvornik have additional material? Does he actually say what you say? What other historians are you suggesting are in the position of potentially having been fooled?

He wrote:

The bull of excommunication composed by Humbert shows very clearly how far the mentality of the Roman Church had changed under the influence of the reformers and how little understanding they had of the Eastern Church and its customs. Humbert thought that he discovered in the East the roots of all the great heresies and he accused them of simony while, as a matter of fact, it was only in the West that simony was rampant. He condemned their married clergy, their beards and their long hair, and he accused the Byzantines of having suppressed the Filioque from the Nicene Creed. . .

Byzantium and the Roman Primacy pg. 134