Filioque Controversy - Latin monks letter to Pope Leo III
#1
http://www.geocities.ws/trvalentine/orth...eoiii.html

Quote:The Letter of the Pilgrim Monks Living On Mount Olivet to the Roman Pontiff, Leo III. (Year 807).

The Congregation of Mt. Olivet to our most holy and most reverend lord in Christ and father, Leo, supreme pontiff and universal pope of the holy apostolic see of the city of Rome.
Lord Father, the Lord has deigned to exalt you above all priests, and your holy see is exalted above all Christian sees. To you Christ has deigned to say from his mouth, "Thou art Peter" (Matt. 16:18), etc. Most benign Father, we strangers who are living in the holy city of Jerusalem, love no man on earth more than you, and as much as possible in these holy places, we your servants, prostrate on the ground with tears, pour forth our prayers to the Lord day and night on your behalf. Accordingly, we are informing you of the tribulation which we are suffering here. John, who was from the monastery of St. Sabbas, whom your servant, Iguminus Thedulus knows, is raised above us, saying that the Franks who are on Mt. Olivet are heretics. He also said to us that all you Franks are heretics, and he reproved our faith by saying that it is no better than heresy. And we said to him: "Brother, be silent. Because if you call us heretics, you are calling the holy, apostolic See heretical."

And he disturbed us so much that on the day of the birth of our Lord, in the holy place in holy Bethlehem, where our Lord the Redeemer of the human race deigned to be born for the salvation of the world, he sent laymen who wanted to throw us out, saying "You are heretics and the books which you have are heretical." But through your holy prayers and faith the Lord strengthened us. And they were not able to throw us out. We all said: "Here we wish to die, for you will not be able to throw us out." Then all we, your servants, raised our voices and said even to the priests who are in the holy city: "Fathers and brothers, look at this man who says such things and other things against us and against the holy Roman faith, because such things we have never heard about our people."

After this, on the Lord's Day, the priests with other clergy and the people gathered across from the Lord's holy sepulchre, near the holy place of Calvary, and those same priests inquired about our faith concerning the way we say the Creed. We said we believe just as the holy Roman Church does. "We have said and still say in our language what you do not say in Greek. In the Glory to the Father you do not say 'as it was in the beginning,' and in the Glory to God in the Highest you do not say, 'Thou alone art most High.' You recite the Our Father differently, and in the Creed we say more than you, 'Who proceeds from the Father and the Son,' because of which words that John, an enemy of his own soul, says that we are heretics."

We begged the men of Jerusalem saying: "Do not listen to this man, and do not accuse us of heresy. If you say that we are heretics, you impute heresy to the throne of Blessed Peter, and if you say that, you lead yourselves into sin." The priests wrote us a letter about our faith, about what we should believe. They said to us, "Do you believe just as the Church of the Holy Resurrection of the Lord does?" We said that we believe the same as the Holy Resurrection of the Lord and the Holy Apostolic Roman See. Then the archdeacon in St. Constantine's went up to the prominent place with us and read the letter to the people. All of us, your servants, anathematized every heresy and all who accused the Holy Apostolic Roman See of heresy. And now, lord and most benign Father, deign to think about us, your servants, who are your sheep although we are far away. The whole world has been entrusted to you, as your holiness knows, for the Lord said to Peter, "If you love me, Peter, feed my sheep" (Jn. 21:16). Most benign father, while I, your servant Leo, was in your holy presence, and in the devout presence of your son, the most pious Emperor lord Charles, we heard it said in his chapel in the Creed of the faith "who proceeds from the Father and the Son." And in the homilies of St. Gregory, which your son the Emperor lord Charles gave us, it says in the sermons for the octave of Easter, "But his sending forth is his procession; he proceeds from the Father and the Son." And in the rule of St. Benedict, which your son lord Charles gave us, and which contains the faith about the Holy and inseparable Trinity, it says, "I believe that the Holy Spirit is true God, proceeding from the Father and the Son." And in the dialogue, which your holiness deigned to give us, it says the same thing.

And so a great confusion has been created among us in the holy city by that same John, since he says that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father and the Son. Thus, he spread a great error through all the monasteries. He demanded our profession of faith and our books, saying that lord Gregory's books must not be accepted. Whence, holy Father, again and again we ask and beseech you, prostrate on the ground with tears, through the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which is called one inseparable Trinity, that you deign to search out both in Greek as well as in Latin the holy Fathers who composed the Creed concerning that phrase where it is said: "Who proceeds from the rather and the Son." In Greek they do not say as we do, but rather they say: "Who proceeds from the rather," and they view that phrase which we say in Latin as a serious matter. Deign to give an order to your son the Emperor lord Charles because we heard the words "Who proceeds from the Father and the Son" in his chapel. Deign to inform us, your -servants here, since no form of this mystery seems as pleasant to us as your holy countenance and holy prayer and your intercession or remembrance. Whence, most benign Father, we beg of your most holy piety that you would deign to receive favorably the priest John as also these your servants, who, governed by God, have come to the dignity of your office, and direct us, your servants, with a definite order. Dominic, Theodore, Arimund, Gregory, John, Leo and the entire congregation of holy Mt. Olivet commend themselves, ' your servants, to your sacred prayers which are worthy of God. May the Lord our God, who is said to be blessed unto all ages, deign to rule over and protect you, most holy Father, and all who are with you, and may he guard you in everything, through everything, by his holy mercy, for the exaltation of his holy Church, for the salvation of your soul, and for our joy.
Reply
#2
Christians in America are not liken unto Leo III. The want a U.S. President that stands for their values and a U.S. Government that once was established on the Holy Bible.
Reply
#3
I've never understood the Filioque Controversy, makes total sense that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, because if it didn't include the Son (Christ) then why did they have to wait until after the death of Christ to receive it? John 14:15-30 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+14%3A15-30&version=RSVCE

God Bless
Jesus to St Faustina:

"For you I descended from heaven to earth; for you I allowed myself to be nailed to the cross; for you I let my Sacred Heart be pierced with a lance, thus opening wide the source of mercy for you. Come, then, with trust to draw graces from this fountain. I never reject a contrite heart." (Diary, 1485)

"Remember My Passion, and if you do not believe My words, at least believe My wounds." (Diary, 379)

"It is in My Passion that you must seek light and strength." (Diary, 654)
Reply
#4
(12-07-2018, 02:17 AM)josh987654321 Wrote: I've never understood the Filioque Controversy, makes total sense that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, because if it didn't include the Son (Christ) then why did they have to wait until after the death of Christ to receive it? John 14:15-30 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+14%3A15-30&version=RSVCE

God Bless
I never understood it either. The Filioque was something I was never comfortable with even when I was a RC. It was not a part of the actual Nicene-Constantinoplitan Creed and hence was a clear addition. To me it always seemed like it made the Spirit somehow lesser than the Father and the Son.

  At any rate this has not been solved for well over a thousand years and unlikely to be solved this side of eternity.  We will just have to continue to agree to disagree.  I have never been convinced of it being true and likely never will.   Tip o' the hat
Walk before God in simplicity, and not in subtleties of the mind. Simplicity brings faith; but subtle and intricate speculations bring conceit; and conceit brings withdrawal from God. -Saint Isaac of Syria, Directions on Spiritual Training


"It is impossible in human terms to exaggerate the importance of being in a church or chapel before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. I very seldom repeat what I say. Let me repeat this sentence. It is impossible in human language to exaggerate the importance of being in a chapel or church before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. That sentence is the talisman of the highest sanctity. "Father John Hardon
Reply
#5
(12-10-2019, 09:57 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: To me it always seemed like it made the Spirit somehow lesser than the Father and the Son.

But the begetting of the Son doesn't make Him seem less than the Father?
[-] The following 2 users Like Paul's post:
  • Augustinian, josh987654321
Reply
#6
(12-10-2019, 09:57 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: I never understood it either. The Filioque was something I was never comfortable with even when I was a RC. It was not a part of the actual Nicene-Constantinoplitan Creed and hence was a clear addition. To me it always seemed like it made the Spirit somehow lesser than the Father and the Son.

Given the Trinity however, it makes total sense to me that the Spirit would proceed from the Father and the Son, why just the Father when the Father and the Son are one? If we have seen the Son we have seen the Father.

God Bless You
Jesus to St Faustina:

"For you I descended from heaven to earth; for you I allowed myself to be nailed to the cross; for you I let my Sacred Heart be pierced with a lance, thus opening wide the source of mercy for you. Come, then, with trust to draw graces from this fountain. I never reject a contrite heart." (Diary, 1485)

"Remember My Passion, and if you do not believe My words, at least believe My wounds." (Diary, 379)

"It is in My Passion that you must seek light and strength." (Diary, 654)
Reply
#7
(12-11-2019, 02:58 AM)Paul Wrote:
(12-10-2019, 09:57 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: To me it always seemed like it made the Spirit somehow lesser than the Father and the Son.

But the begetting of the Son doesn't make Him seem less than the Father?


As long as this procession occurs through the Son, originating from the Father, there really is no problem.  Otherwise, how is the Spirit to distinguish the Father from the Son, and vice versa?
I have resigned myself to the reality that I shall have no peace or joy should I continue to exist for eternity.  The question of deism or Christianity no longer matters.  I hope that Christianity is a farce, and that when I die, my consciousness will cease to exist.  In the meantime, I ask the Theotokos to be at my side at my judgement and ask her to intercede to, as I beg, Christ to have mercy on me and to allow me to cease to exist when I die.
Reply
#8
(12-11-2019, 10:38 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(12-11-2019, 02:58 AM)Paul Wrote:
(12-10-2019, 09:57 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: To me it always seemed like it made the Spirit somehow lesser than the Father and the Son.

But the begetting of the Son doesn't make Him seem less than the Father?


As long as this procession occurs through the Son, originating from the Father, there really is no problem.  Otherwise, how is the Spirit to distinguish the Father from the Son, and vice versa?
Through the Son makes the most sense to me. As that's how it occurs in Scripture. Christ sends the Paraclete once He ascends into heaven, not simultaneously with His life on earth, and not really before Christ, at least in the manner of the general gift of the Paraclete, Prophets are an exception.

Even saying "and the Son" still makes sense because Christ said He and the Father are one. Therefore, the Holy Ghost must proceed from both, otherwise this is a false statement. And this works even just to say He proceeds from the Father, as Orthodox and Easterners do, because, again, Christ and the Father are one.

I don't see the controversy theologically.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

'Vanity of vanities, said Ecclesiastes: vanity of vanities, and all is vanity.' - Ecclesiastes 1:2

My blog: https://slavetothesacredhe.art.blog/
[-] The following 1 user Likes Augustinian's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#9
(12-11-2019, 02:58 AM)Paul Wrote:
(12-10-2019, 09:57 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: To me it always seemed like it made the Spirit somehow lesser than the Father and the Son.

But the begetting of the Son doesn't make Him seem less than the Father?
I guess for me the important thing is that the Creed of Nicea- Constantinople does not have the Filioque, and so I stick with not saying it. That being said some version of the Filioque does have roots deep in western antiquity,  so I for one believe there is a way of saying "and the Son" that is perfectly orthodox (from an Eastern perspective), I just don't feel comfortable saying it personally.   

I don't have a problem with the Son having a role to play in sending the Spirit in time but I don't believe the Spirit proceeds from both as from one principle in Eternity. The Father eternally begets the Son and the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father but is given in time "through the Son". 

I'll have to dig up how one would differentiate the two (Son and Spirit) without the Filioque. If I recall St. John of Damascus correctly its only known from revelation,  the mechanics of it are not something knowable.  

Trinitarian theology is pretty complex no matter what way you look at it. 

As for the begetting of the Son making Him less than the Father,if I recall that was both Arius' and Origen's claim.  There's got to be a distinction between God as He is in Eternity and the Creation in time and how He relates to creation.   The late Father Florovsky has a very dense but very good paper on exactly this topic called "St. Athanasius' Concept of Creation".  If I read it correctly the Trinity has always existed as it is, with the  Father begetting the Son and the Spirit proceeding from the Father. The very nature of God is Trinitarian and always was.  It's really our language that makes it seem like there's a temporal succession of events within the Trinity.  Forgive me for the digression,  especially if it's not clear.  While this sort of thing is profoundly interesting to me it's pretty hard to wrap my head around.
Walk before God in simplicity, and not in subtleties of the mind. Simplicity brings faith; but subtle and intricate speculations bring conceit; and conceit brings withdrawal from God. -Saint Isaac of Syria, Directions on Spiritual Training


"It is impossible in human terms to exaggerate the importance of being in a church or chapel before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. I very seldom repeat what I say. Let me repeat this sentence. It is impossible in human language to exaggerate the importance of being in a chapel or church before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. That sentence is the talisman of the highest sanctity. "Father John Hardon
Reply
#10
(12-11-2019, 05:41 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: I guess for me the important thing is that the Creed of Nicea- Constantinople does not have the Filioque, and so I stick with not saying it. That being said some version of the Filioque does have roots deep in western antiquity,  so I for one believe there is a way of saying "and the Son" that is perfectly orthodox (from an Eastern perspective), I just don't feel comfortable saying it personally.   

I don't have a problem with the Son having a role to play in sending the Spirit in time but I don't believe the Spirit proceeds from both as from one principle in Eternity. The Father eternally begets the Son and the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father but is given in time "through the Son".

I've always heard that "through the Son" is acceptable, and more accurate in Greek. Latin "procedit" doesn't imply an origin in the Son, but the Greek word does, so it's heretical in Greek but not in Latin. But if both come eternally from the Father alone, there's nothing to distinguish the two Persons.

But, like most issues with the Catholics and the Orthodox, it comes down to papal authority. The Pope has his own authority, and doesn't need a council to exercise it, as he did with the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. If one accepts that authority, he's Catholic. If he rejects it, he's Orthodox.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Paul's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)