Talk:Filioque

Kallistos Ware's opinion

The article doesn't take into account that Kallistos Ware accepts the west's view of the filioque ONLY if couched in the terms of early Fathers such as Augustus (A History of Christian Doctrine Scholars' Editions in Theology p110)

At the bottom of that page he states a difference in position between a filioque as understood by Augustine and a filioque as accepted at the Council of Florence

This distinction that HE makes is not bourne out by the Wiki article

AND thus the article as a whole is unbalanced for whilst it has sections on Orthodox who don't support the filioque AND has those who are supposedly not against it, it doesn't show any divisions in belief within the Roman Catholic church... which Ware notes (p112)

Is the filioque Catholic dogma?

Montalban (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"Loose and unguarded language"

An editor at IP 173.79.41.44 has inserted in the article the following comment, which I am moving here:

In Gregory's Life of Saint Benedict (Vita Benedicti), written in 593, the Pope states that everyone agrees ("constat") that the The Spirit, the Paraclete proceeds always from the Father and the Son ("Paraclitus Spiritus ex Patre semper procedat et Filio"). In the recent Sources Chrétiennes edition of Jacque Fontaine this is in Chapter 38, paragraph 4 (Dialogues 2.38.4). Perhaps Siecienski treats this text; if not, the phrase "loose and unguarded language" has no place in this treatment of Gregory's thought on the Filioque.

The phrase "loose and unguarded language", quoted by Siecienski on page 70, did not refer to any denial by Gregory the Great that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The phrase mentioned by 173.79.41.44 is quoted by Siecienski himself in the form: "cum enim constet quia Paracletus Spiritus a Patre simper [sic] procedat et Filio" (since it is clear that the Paraclete Spirit always proceeds also from the Son). Siecienski adds that a Greek translation of the same text reads instead: "ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς προέρχεται καὶ ἐν τῷ Υἱῷ διαμένει", a statement that the Spirit "proceeds" (not the same verb as in the Nicene Creed, but instead the verb that Maximus the Confessor used to translate Latin procedere, when he approved its use with regard to the Spirit proceeding from the Son) "from the Father and abides in the Son". This translation - a translation, not what Gregory himself wrote - became the basis, Siecienski says, of the later Byzantine assertion that Gregory did not support the double procession.

Siecienski in no way questions the fact that the Latin Fathers said the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father. But he speaks instead of a question that is not dealt with in any depth in the Wikipedia article, namely the interpretation of the phrase "from the Father and the Son". Siecienski says that in the Fathers this phrase did not necessarily carry with it all the notions about cause or principle, single or twofold, that later theologians found in it or attached to it. It is at that level, not that of the use of the phrase "and from the Son" that Siecienski speaks of different Western and Byzantine positions. I don't think we have either the need or the capability of going into that question on Wikipedia, and any attempt will only confuse and mislead. Not even the Latin version of the Nicene Creed goes into that question. What we can say is that the Latin Fathers and some of those in the East - as Maximus agreed - did speak of the Holy Spirit as proceeding (procedere, προϊέναι) from the Father and the Son. Even the presentation now in the Wikipedia article 173.79.41.44 found misleading, and not without reason. I must get around to remedying the obscurity caused by seeming to present Siecienski as doubting that the Latin Fathers spoke of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father and the Son. They did say that. And that is all that the Latin version of the Nicene Creed says. Of course, the Fathers also spoke of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father, but never as proceeding from the Father alone. Esoglou (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Why this articles is pro Roman Catholic POV.

• What's missing.
  

This article does not explain that the Roman Catholic church has a very violent history of trying to force the filioque to be added into the Creed and accepted permanently and recited in the Nicene Creed by both East and West, UNIVERSALLY, catholicos. That means that all Christians no matter their language or culture would be forced whenever reciting the creed to have to recite the filioque as a permanent part of the creed or accept it as correct teaching and dogma. It is a rather new phenomenon for the Roman Catholic church to not call the Eastern Orthodox heretics for NOT using or accepting the filioque.
The Roman Catholic stance has been they made modifications to the creed outside of an Ecumenical council (with the East) and are justified and can do that PERIOD. It is a relatively new thing for the Roman Catholic church to not push that the Creed both East and West have the filioque and that only the Western Roman Catholic churches have to recite it. The Eastern Catholics are coming to the realization that they are not understood by the Roman Catholic church by in large and that them embracing only the first 7 ecumenical councils as truly Ecumenical is simply not a view held by the Roman Catholic faithful by and large. There are other ugly things coming out that do not bode well for the Unite but that is outside of this article's scope. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm very open to discussing these points in the article as long as it is done in a balanced and encyclopedic way. I agree that the recent efforts at unity and amity date back only about half a century and that before that there were centuries of animosity. Unfortunately, I am in the 99% of Catholics that know very little about this. Wikipedia, and particularly you and to a lesser extent Montalban, have started my education in this regard but I recognize that I remain mostly uneducated on this topic. Would you like to take a stab at addressing these issues or would you prefer to leave some notes here on the Talk Page for others such as myself to edit and then insert into the article? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes boys and girls what Richard just posted nullifies all these historical things from happening and all of his actions here on wikipedia. Restore the edit you removed from the filioque article if you think its in the wrong spot don't edit war and remove it, no just move it, you can place it anywhere you think it is appropriate and you could have done that in the first place. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Heresy or theologoumenon

I refrain from personally responding within the article to the citation request for the statement that not all Orthodox insist on a declaration by the West that Filioque is heretical. So would someone else please respond to it by citing this statement about a "view also held by many Orthodox at the present time"? Or this statement that "some Orthodox theologians, while affirming that the doctrine of the filioque is unacceptable for the Orthodox church, at the same time, having in mind the position of Prof. Bolotov (1854-1900) and his followers, regard the filioque as a 'theologoumenon' in the West"? Or this statement by John Zizioulas? Or something similar? Esoglou (talk) 10:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I took a quick look at it and I think I will try to respond to the citation request but it looks like I'll need to invest a bit of time into the task and I'm short on time at the moment. If you can ask someone else to help, please do so. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I suppose any one of the sources I mentioned would be a reliable source for the statement that not all Orthodox insist on a declaration by the West that Filioque is heretical. Or indeed any of the other sources that are already mentioned within the article in the section "Orthodox theologians who do not condemn the Filioque". One should be enough. Esoglou (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Why the article is biased and misinformation

There is missing from this article (as I have pointed out time and time again in the past) a very simple and clear explanation of why the Eastern Orthodox DO NOT ACCEPT the filioque. It could be put in the lede it's so short. The inclusion is something that was not done by council first. It was something done in the Western Church accepted in the Western Church and then by way of authority (Papacy) and war it was unilaterally done and then forced on the East. Note it was forced in degrees where first the East was to allow it because of "problems" with the Latin language and then it became genuine by way of scripture even though anyone that has read the history behind the Pneumatomachi and know that the wording of the part of the Nicene Creed that mentions the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father was worded by Gregory of Nyssa (whom was very much in the know about what putting in the phrase "from the Son" would do to his theology). We are lead to believe that because of the vagueness and hesitancy of statement in some of the early Fathers, the pro filioque were able to justify and propagate their views. But this argument from silence is at first an argument and then a fallacy. In as such it means that the sides that disagree has done so of their own accord. So now which side is showing fidelity and which is imposing? Or that the filioque is implying a participation of the Human Nature of the Son in the procession of the Holy Spirit (i.e. ditheism).LoveMonkey (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

More examples of out right bias

Has anyone noticed how Roman Catholic theologians and Protestant theologians are used to depict and represent the Eastern Orthodox side in this article? Why? Could it be that people dominating this article are only one sided and biased? If I posted an article and started out that article by having one side depicting and interpreting and conveying both sides of the issue THAT WOULD BE BIAS. Why does the section about the Orthodox start out with the name of a ROMAN CATHOLIC theologian (William La Due) and why is this Roman Catholic historian being the person that represents and depicts the Eastern Orthodox perspective? Why is William La Due defining the positions and perspective of the Eastern Orthodox right off the bat when he is a ROMAN CATHOLIC apologist.[1] Why is this person so qualified as to depict to the readers coming to this article and be informed what a perspective that they do not subscribe to -is? LoveMonkey (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)