Did people seriously die over this? Was there no way to compromise>inb4 the schism was completely political in nature because I an atheist cant relate with it
>>17089484The filioque was a side issue. The real source of the schism was whether or not the Bishop of Rome was the head of the Church on faith and morals. That disagreement is fundamentally what led to the schism.
>>17089484>Was there no way to compromiseThe East accepted Pope Leo III idea. Unfortunately King Charlemagne wanted it to be dogmatized.
>>17089484There were basically three positions available for any participant in this debate:1. Radical Photinism: Basically taking St Gregory the Theologian's argument that the difference between the begetting of the Son and the procession of the Spirit is unknowable and not revealed in Scripture. Making any statement on the eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit is imprudent if not heretical.2. Latin Triadology: The Spirit has a dual procession from the Father and the Son. Pretty straight forward.3. Eternal manifestation of the Spirit through the Son: The midpoint between these two positions that preserves the singular procession of the Spirit from the Father yet while also explaining why the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son, or the Spirit of Christ, or the Spirit of Jesus (Acts 16:7; Romans 8:9; 1 Peter 1:11; Galatians 4:6; Philippians 1:19), and why precisely Scripture says that He who does not have the Spirit of Christ is not Christ's (Romans 8:9), and why it is that in the Spirit through Christ we have access to the Father (Ephesians 2:18), as we are temples of God and the Spirit of God dwells in us (1 Corinthians 3:16), becoming a dwelling place for God in the Spirit (Ephesians 2:22), and why it is Christ that sends the Holy Spirit (John 20:22), and why Christ works through us by the power of the Holy Spirit (Romans 15:17-19), and why He casts out demons by the Spirit of God (Matthew 12:28), and why the Spirit receives all that is the Father's from the Son so that He may give it to us (John 16:15) -- while remaining in fidelity to the literal words of John 15:26: "when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me."
>>17089484>>17089929This position especially essentially believed that the Spirit is the eternal unction of the Son, that the baptism of Christ with the Holy Spirit is a reflection of an eternal relationship whereby the Spirit is sent forth by the Father so that He may rest in the Son, anointing Him eternally as God from God, the Kingship befitting to the King that is the Son. Thus, the Son eternally manifests the working of the Spirit and works through and in the Spirit. The Divine Monarchy of the Father is preserved as the sole source of the divinity in the Godhead, while the eternal relationship between Son and Spirit is defended. Indeed, one can say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. This theology can be found in St Gregory of Nyssa, St Maximus the Confessor and St John of Damascus, and it was basically dogmatized in the Orthodox world by the Council of Blachernae in 1285 headed by the then patriarch of Constantinople, Gregory of Cyprus, despite some opposition by radical Photinists at the time. Defended by St Gregory Palamas, it was the majority position of representatives of the Orthodox Church at Florence.Some patristic evidence for this position:
>>17089484>>17089929>>17089935>Now the Divine Scripture says that the Holy Spirit is the unction of the Only-Begotten Acts 10:38, interpreting the dignity of the Spirit by a transference of the terms commonly used in this world. For as, in ancient days, in those who were advanced to kingship, the token of this dignity was the unction which was applied to them, and when this took place there was thenceforth a change from private and humble estate to the superiority of rule, and he who was deemed worthy of this grace received after his anointing another name, being called, instead of an ordinary man, the Anointed of the Lord: for this reason, that the dignity of the Holy Spirit might be more clearly shown to men, He was called by the Scripture the sign of the Kingdom, and Unction, whereby we are taught that the Holy Spirit shares in the glory and kingdom of the Only-begotten Son of God. For as in Israel it was not permitted to enter upon the kingdom without the unction being previously given, so the word, by a transference of the terms in use among ourselves, indicates the equality of power, showing that not even the kingdom of the Son is received without the dignity of the Holy Spirit. And for this reason He is properly called Christ, since this name gives the proof of His inseparable and indivisible conjunction with the Holy Spirit. If, then, the Only-begotten God is the Anointed, and the Holy Spirit is His Unction, and the appellation of Anointed points to the Kingly authority, and the anointing is the token of His Kingship, then the Holy Spirit shares also in His dignity. If, therefore, they say that the attribute of Godhead is significative of dignity, and the Holy Spirit is shown to share in this last quality, it follows that He Who partakes in the dignity will also partake in the name which represents it.To Eustathius: On the Holy Trinity, by St Gregory of Nyssa:https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2904.htm
>>17089484>>17089929>>17089935>>17089941>If, however, any one cavils at our argument, on the ground that by not admitting the difference of nature it leads to a mixture and confusion of the Persons, we shall make to such a charge this answer — that while we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another — by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. 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.To Ablabius: On Not Three Gods, St Gregory of Nyssa:https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2905.htm
>>17089484>>17089929>>17089935>>17089941>>17089945>If, then, the Son is in His very nature a king, and the unction is the symbol of His kingship, what, in the way of a consequence, does your reason demonstrate? Why, that the Unction is not a thing alien to that Kingship, and so that the Spirit is not to be ranked in the Trinity as anything strange and foreign either. For the Son is King, and His living, realized, and personified Kingship is found in the Holy Spirit, Who anoints the Only-begotten, and so makes Him the Anointed, and the King of all things that exist. If, then, the Father is King, and the Only-begotten is King, and the Holy Ghost is the Kingship, one and the same definition of Kingship must prevail throughout this Trinity, and the thought of unction conveys the hidden meaning that there is no interval of separation between the Son and the Holy Spirit. For as between the body's surface and the liquid of the oil nothing intervening can be detected, either in reason or in perception, so inseparable is the union of the Spirit with the Son; and the result is that whosoever is to touch the Son by faith must needs first encounter the oil in the very act of touching; there is not a part of Him devoid of the Holy Spirit. Therefore belief in the Lordship of the Son arises in those who entertain it, by means of the Holy Ghost; on all sides the Holy Ghost is met by those who by faith approach the Son. If, then, the Son is essentially a King, and the Holy Spirit is that dignity of Kingship which anoints the Son, what deprivation of this Kingship, in its essence and comparing it with itself, can be imagined?On the Holy Spirit, by St Gregory of Nyssa:https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2903.htm
>>17089484>>17089929>>17089935>>17089941>>17089945>>17089949>We do not conceive of Him as an impersonal breath of air, for the majesty of the divine nature would be reduced to low estate if its Spirit were likened to our own breath. Rather, we conceive of Him as a substantial power found in its own individuating personality, proceeding from the Father, coming to rest in the Word and declaring Him, not separated from God in essence or from the Word with whom it is associated, having might, not dissipated away into non-existence, but distinctly subsistent like the Word-living, endowed with will, self-moving, active, at all times willing good, exercising His power for the prosecution of every design in accordance with His will, without beginning and without end. For the Word fell short of the Father in nothing, and the Spirit did not fall short of the Word in anything. Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book I Chapter 7, by St John of Damascus
>>17089484>>17089929>>17089935>>17089941>>17089945>>17089949>>17089954>We likewise believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and abides in the Son; who is adored and glorified together with the Father and the Son as consubstantial and co-eternal with Them; who is the true and authoritative Spirit of God and the source of wisdom and life and sanctification; who is God together with the Father and the Son and is so proclaimed; who is uncreated, complete, creative, almighty, all-working, all-powerful, infinite in power; who dominates all creation but is not dominated; who deifies but is not deified; who fills but is not filled; who is shared in but does not share; who sanctifies but is not sanctified; who, as receiving the intercessions of all, is the Intercessor; who is like the Father and the Son in all things; who proceeds from the Father and is communicated through the Son and is participated in by all creation; who through Himself creates and gives substance to all things and sanctifies and preserves them; who is distinctly subsistent and exists in His own Person indivisible and inseparable from the Father and the Son; who has all things whatsoever the Father and the Son have except the being unbegotten and the being begotten. OF, Book I Chapter 8
>and the
>>17089484>>17089929>>17089935>>17089941>>17089945>>17089949>>17089954>>17089960>And we do say that the Holy Ghost is of the Father and we call Him the Spirit of the Father. Neither do we say that the Spirit is from the Son, but we call Him the Spirit of the Son-'Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ,' says the divine Apostle, 'he is none of his.' We also confess that He was manifested and communicated to us through the Son, for 'He breathed,' it says, 'and he said to his disciples: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.' It is just like the rays and brightness coming from the sun, for the sun is the source of its rays and brightness and the brightness is communicated to us through the rays, and that it is which lights us and is enjoyed by us. Neither do we say that the Son is of the Spirit, nor, most certainly, from the Spirit. OF, Book I Chapter 8>The Father is well-spring and cause of Son and Holy Ghost-He is Father of the only Son and Emitter of the Holy Ghost. The Son is son, word, wisdom, power, image, radiance, and type of the Father, and He is from the Father. And the Holy Ghost is not a son of the Father, but He is the Spirit of the Father as proceeding from the Father. For, without the Spirit, there is no impulsion. And He is the Spirit of the Son, not as being from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father for the Father alone is Cause.OF, Book I Chapter 12>The Holy Ghost is God. He is the median of the Unbegotten and the Begotten and He is joined with the Father through the Son. He is called Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, Mind of Christ, Spirit of the Lord, True Lord, Spirit of adoption, freedom, and wisdom-for He is the cause of all these.>The Holy Ghost is also God. He is a sanctifying force that is subsistent, that proceeds unceasingly from the Father and abides in the Son, and that is of the same substance as the Father and the Son. OF, Book I Chapter 13
>>17089484Yes. Catholics added the filioque os they fucked with christ our lord and saviour and God our heavenly father.
bump
>>17089484It was less ideological than either the Orthodox and Catholics would have you believe
>>17089484How is blaming it on politics an atheist thing??? Nobody seriously cares about the filioque; the controversy existed for hundreds of years before the schism. The real disagreement has always been the position of the pope (bishop of Rome) relative to all other bishops.
probably non-cognitivism is true
>>17089760It wasn’t exclusive to Charlemagne and anyone who says that it is delusional. The Filioque had been accepted in Iberian local councils prior to Charlemagne. Pope Leo III himself believed in the filiqoue and it appears in his writings. Now he didn’t think it needed to be added to the Nicean-Constantinople Creed, which is fine. Similarly it didn’t need to be labeled as a heresy by Photius. Unfortunately autism is 1 hell of a drug and once you start a shit fit it’s hard for later generations to stop.For a simple way to touch grass I think it’s best to just go;1. The Holy spirit is the Spirit of Christ, 2. Therefore it necessarily has some form of processional relationship with the Son, otherwise the spirit of the son could just interact with the world entirely absent of the Son’s involvement. Which I choose to believe all sane people will agree is silly, it wouldn’t be much of a spirit of the son is that was the case.3. So we think okay, let’s just say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father Through the Son. There, a belief that allows distinction between the persons of the trinity, allows affirmation of the spirit as the Son of God. Tbh filioque or no filioque it has zero effect on christian praxis and is really a storm in a tea kettle.
>>17092185The idea of the procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son in line with the teachings of Gregory II of Cyprus and St Gregory Palamas was propounded by the Orthodox delegates at Florence and explicitly rejected by the Papacy of Eugenius IV. And yes, the dual procession of the Spirit on equal terms from both Father and Son IS a heresy because: 1. it undermines the Divine Monarchy of the Father, as it would make the Son a second source of the divinity, and as St Basil, we believe in one God because we believe in one Father, whose two hands are His Word and the Spirit of His mouth that accompanies it and subsists in It, the source of oneness and unity in the Godhead, and 2. if the power to generate persons is not a hypostatic property unique to the Father, then it must necessarily belong the essence, which entails the ontological subordination of the Spirit if He does not actualize said natural power as well by generating a fourth person Himself.>>17091439>Nobody seriously cares about the filioqueComplete nonsense; yes the phrase itself and its liturgical inclusion is not intrinsically bad, but the theology of it as propounded by the West was indeed heretical and did vitiate the faith. Political questions exacerbated but did not engender the theological differences between East and West. If the participants in those controversies tended to obscure political disagreements with theological questions, then darned moderns are incapable of grasping of how truly important these questions were for people back then.
>>17092352Explain how the Filioque is heretical.
>>17089484right makes more sense because it completes the triangle and because of >I will sendbut I'm biased. ultimately it was not the only or even the main reason of the Schism.
>>17092368Did you even read the post I made? Also consult:>>17089929>>17089935>>17089941>>17089945>>17089949>>17089954>>17089960>>17089968You >>17092372 too
Bump
>>17092352>was indeed hereticalI disagree.The only way it can be heretical is if you somehow demand that the Three Persons of God cannot be consubstantial. The Divine Monarchy *cannot* be unique to or more abundant within the Father because this would make *both the Son and the Holy Spirit no longer consubstantial.You make the same error here> if the power to generate persons is not a hypostatic property unique to the Father, then it must necessarily belong the essence, which entails the ontological subordination of the Spirit if He does not actualize said natural power as well by generating a fourth person Himself.which boils down to 'if the Father is not *so different from the other Persons of the Trinity* as to make the Persons alien to each other then...'Further, the lack of initiation of an innate ability cannot remove it from the ontological nature of a being. All men are CAPABLE of killing. All men are CAPABLE of begetting children. A priest that does neither is still ontologically the same. Thus the Holy Spirit (Who MUST HAVE THE SAME ESSENCE as the Father and the Son) does not "become lesser" for lack of using very element of the *ONE NATURE* of God.
>>17093992>The Divine Monarchy *cannot* be unique to or more abundant within the Father because this would make *both the Son and the Holy Spirit no longer consubstantial.Nonsense. The Son and the Spirit are consubstantial with the Father inasmuch they are in a state of mutual indwelling and interpenetration with Him; He in Them, and They in Him. The essence or fullness of God remains singular and unitary, indivisible, and the persons inseparable from one another, so that all that they do as one. The Son has no essence of His own separate from the Father's that He may proceed a person separate from Him. Since the Son has His source in the Father, He is not a separate principle, and Has no separate principle to produce a divine person on equal terms with the Father.Hypostatic properties are simply the mode of instantiation of certain common natural properties. The Son and the Spirit fully possess the natural power and love of the Father, yet not being the very source, manifest their actualized power and love differently from the Father. Your analogy with men is false and incoherent because corporeal composite creatures lack full actuality on account of said composition and existence within time, the very precondition for alteration and potentiality, yet God is eternal and as such actus purus -- thus, His potentiality MUST be eternally actualized. Now, given the essence-energies distinction, we do say that God does possess second potentiality on account of His first actuality, ie. that the eternal energies or activities possess the potential to be manifest and derivatively descended into time as activities which are extensions of the eternal activities in which they participate, but that is solely related to God's relation to creation -- in Himself, God is fully actual. So if the Spirit does not engender a fourth person -- that is because He cannot.
