Did the Meaning of the Dogma of the Filioque Change in the Medieval Church?

[Michael Wilson]

Goldfinch started a thread in the "prayer" section a while back for J.M. He sure does need our prayers. He is definitely a good man, but very confused.

[AlNg]

And the Orthodox have their absurd heretical teaching on 3 divorces, such that I can't take them seriously.

They do? I thought it was 2 divorces and 3 marriages allowed? The Roman Church has a teaching on marriage annulments. When considered and implemented properly, as was done in 1929, when there were 9 marriage annulments allowed in the US, it is a reasonable teaching. However, the current practice of giving out marriage annulments for flimsy reasons, has been called into question by Cardinal Kasper and others. Yes, there is a semantic difference. But is the current American Catholic practice of granting marriage annulments that much different operationally from the Orthodox practice?

[james03]

You're asking on a Trad forum if the current novus ordo policy on annulment is BS?

When considered and implemented properly, as was done in 1929, when there were 9 marriage annulments allowed in the US, it is a reasonable teaching.

Not only is it reasonable, it is biblical.  The Lord said that except in the case of fornication, divorce and remarriage results in adultery.  There are 2 interpretations:

1.  A general statement on annulment in general, as fornication is the sex between unmarried people.

2.  A reference to the jewish fornication test spelled out in the Old Testament (I'm not looking it up.).  Anyhow failing the test allowed a husband to file for divorce at the temple.

As far as 2 divorces/3 marriages, you're probably correct.  I simply don't care because whatever the number it is absurd.

[AlfredtheGreat]

I left the Church many years ago and actually wound up in Orthodoxy for a time. Unfortunately I think a lot of disaffected Catholics see Orthodoxy as a stalwart foundation resisting all attempts at modernization of either liturgy, theology or morality. Nothing could be further from the truth. The beautiful liturgy often masks the fact that Orthodoxy has almost completely capitulated to the culture of Death. Most parishes are filled with political and religious liberals. Support for legalized abortion is common. Many priests and bishops allow birth control under the guise of 'economia', which if you ask me is nothing more than situational ethics. I once heard a priest state from the amvon that abortion was "unfortunately sometimes necessary." Open and practicing sodomites are not uncommonly given communion.

I found Orthodoxy, at least Orthodoxy in America, to be spineless and terrified of ever 'offending'. Some jurisdictions such as the OCA harbor heretical lunatics like "bishop" Lev Puhalo who openly advocates for trans sexualism and sodomy.

I think one of the problems with American Orthodoxy is that most jurisdictions are filled with ex Protestants who bring their heretical baggage with them. Outside of ROCOR and old calendar jurisdictions American Orthodoxy is largely a fraud dressed in pretty vestments and ritual.

This all is not to even mention the fact that Orthodox theology can be difficult to nail down since they do not see the Gospel or Christianity the way we do. It's a completely different mindset which, if you aren't raised in it, just isn't going to make a whole lot of sense to a Roman mind. And on Ecclesiology it's little better than Protestantism. There is no final court of appeal on doctrinal matters. No one source to declare that this or that is heretical or not. I've come to see the wisdom, even if it doesn't always seem like it works, of having a place where everyone knows the buck stops.

If Justin is still reading this thread I would caution against thinking that Orthodoxy is the solution. At least in my case that isn't what I found.

[truly-a-philosofan]

And what about St. Maximus who predates Damascene? He was very familiar with the Latin Fathers yet says they understood the filioque in a way that is mutually exclusive with Florence and the Frankish development. Do you know if there are any Latin Fathers that would help demonstrate St. Maximus to be in error (or anything that would demonstrate his letter to Marinus to be a forgery)?

Based on my understanding of the Catholic response to this objection of yours: Both the eastern fathers were not contradicting Florence, but only taught that the Son being the Cause of the Spirit does not exclude the Father's uniqueness as the sole Cause of the entire Godhead, nor cancel out the Son's unique term of relation with the Father as the begotten.

[truly-a-philosofan]

Okay just found out the OP has been [rightly] kicked out. But still, just needed to put out a response to a Photian/Cerularian/anti—Filioquist objection.

[Jean Carrier]

As much as I hate to necro a thread, there's alot of overly simplistic, polemical theology argued by the OP whom unfortunately apostatised. The linked video below more than suffices to demonstrate the half-truths and falsehoods that underlie the arguments which attempt to deny that the Filioque is a dogma taught by Sacred Tradition and the Cappadocians:

https://www.youtube.com/live/JaFySO2gHzA?feature=share

As for Constantinople 879, Pope John VIII explicitly only approved this local council and the decision of his legates insofar as both agreed with his original instructions to said legates and insofar as both were in accord with Sacred Tradition - something I noticed was intentionally snipped from the citations of John VIII.  So he definitely did not approve of Photius' condemnation of the Filioque at said Council anymore than Pope St. Leo approved of Canon 28 of Chalcedon.

Hopefully this information can be of use to any lurkers or users who stumble upon this thread while looking through old posts.