LatinTrad,
I get the feeling that this thread is going to start going in circles very soon. Given this, I'm not sure (save unless something new really does come up) there is much value pursuing this, if we're both just going to keep repeating ourselves. Frankly, it would be vain.
1) Please cite the exact quote from John VII. As I recall he NEVER used the word "heretical" in relation to the Filioque.
He was a signator to an Imperial Council (which is what all of the Ecumenical Councils were); this was not some unilateral act on the part of Pope John, which is more a hallmark of later Latin ecclessiastical polity.
Every single time you guys have made an assertion like that, and I've gone back to check it, I've found that you guys are wrong.
If this is in fact the case, you've yet to share the insights you've "checked" with us - since you've yet to post anything in response that I have found in the least big compelling. That's not a slight, just how I see things. Your citation of the "Athanasian Creed" for example, was the kind of "proof" you were providing.
2) If John VII thought that the Filioque was heretical, why were the Spanish never excommunicated for it? Huh? Come on! The issue was not heresy (at least not until long after 1054). The issue was whether a local council could change the creed used in the Liturgy.
I think this is a fair question. Honestly I do not know enough about just what the Spanish were saying at that time to offer an informed reply to this, based on primary sources. I do know, however, that someone who has looked into this more than me (the late Fr.John Romanides) did talk about the political situation of the Papacy at the time (essentially in tension with the ruling Franks, who most certainly were fond of the Filioque clause joined with it's Augustinian apology) - the lack of strong action, at least towards the Frankish rulers who endorsed this idea, was according to his research, due to the near "hostage" situation the Papacy existed in at the time. This is why the East Romans ("Byzantines") often spoke in terms of the Papacy having fallen due to being placed into the captivity of the "barbarians". You'd be better served reading his ideas first hand, than my regurgitation of them...
The Romans website
I will also throw something of a bone to the Latins here, out of fairness. I think it will also serve as a qualification of just how things were able to get so out of hand.
From my reading of those who have looked into these issues with the kind of discipline and erudation I frankly lack (and simply do not have the time for these days!), it seems that the "filioque" problem has two sources, which came together to form something which was genuinely heretical. It's also important to note that this is a uniquely Latin phenomenon - it's a web of events which simply did not begin to involve the East until it was too late.
Admittedly, the following is in large part a summary of what I've said previously (hopefully, putting it in one place will help)...
Slight difference in emphasis on the part of some Latin Fathers from those in the East: the late heiromonk (of blessed memory) Fr.Seraphim (of Platina) one remarked that the west was, in general, far less penetrative or profound in it's theological outlook than the East on the whole was. To some extent, I think this is true. However, I think what is perhaps "more true" is to say that in general the Latin Fathers are by in large, were more cocerned with the "practical" dimension of Christianity in their writings (hence, a larger emphasis upon moralism/ethics), where as the Eastern Fathers (and certain conspicuous Western Fathers who have a very "Eastern" flavour to them) were generally more inclined to look into deeper, more subtle matters. These are generalizations obviously - but they tend to be true, when one reads both (granting a lot of overlap.) As this relates to "triadology" (discussion of the Holy Trinity) what one will find is that the Latin Fathers often seem more concerned about speaking of the "economic Trinity" rather than the "trancendent" Trinity.
From an "economic" point of view, there is a sense in which we can say the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Son...however, this would require the use of the word "proceed" in a way entirely different from how the Nicence Creed uses it, which is dealing with the "trancendent Trinity" and speaking of "procession" in the same way it does "begotteness" as pertaining to the Son.
This is why (as the examples I gave previously show) the Latin Fathers tend to speak in a less distinct way - though it is quite obvious when read in context, that the great Latin teachers did not confound the "eternal procession" of the Holy Spirit from the Father, with His resting upon and being sent forth by God the Son. The Eastern Fathers equally express this same teaching (regarding the energetic manifestation of God the Holy Spirit through the Word), though speaking the language that the Nicene Creed was composed in, and being perhaps "more concerned" with the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from God the Father, tend to make a much sharper differentiation in how they speak (thus they will say "proceeding from the Father, through the Son, making quite clear what they are saying.)
I'm inclined to think it is such a tendency, that caused the aberation of the "Filioque clause" to appear in the Creed used by the Spanish, who by this time were not Greek speakers, and were operating in this theological climate. What they did was anti-canonical, and opposed by the Ecumenical Councils themselves, and quite possibly was itself of heterodox import.
However, as you rightly observe, the matter did not really "blow out" until much later. While in part this had to do largely with the ignorance of the Christian East of this local abheration and it's spread (until basically it was too late), and the see-sawing back and forth of various Latin heirarchs in dealing with this problem (largely due, imho, to political considerations), I think the decisive reason for this not becoming a problem until much later was due to the following factor...
- The Frankish infatuation with the "triadology" of Augustine of Hippo : Most of the works of Augustine of Hippo (which are numerous) were unknown in the Christian East up until relatively recently (well after the schism even, most of them went untranslated into Greek and the various Slavic tongues). However, he was very beloved by the new Frankish rulers of much of western Europe. This is the origin of the estimation of Augustine as the "greatest Father of the west" or even "greatest Father, period" by the Latins - it did not exist beforehand...indeed, the cult to Augustine of Hippo itself was hardly present in the west until this time, largely limited to his relatively few devoted followers.
Augustine adds something to the mix here, which you do not find in the various "economic" discourses on the Holy Trinity that you find in either the West or the East; he gives his own explanation of how the "procession" of the Holy Spirit in eternity, fundamentally differs from the "begotteness" of the Son. In this, he does what all of the other Fathers said was outside of our knowledge.
It was, I think, the fusing of these Augustinian views with the once provincial abormality introduced into the Nicence Creed in Spain, which brought the matter to a head. As the controversies leading towards the separation of Rome from the Eastern Patriarchates towards the end of the first millenia, the final schism, and the various "re-union" attempts (such as Florence) make very clear, what the Orthodox were now contending with was not simply a slightly ambiguous, or promiscuously worded discussion of triadology from an "economic" or "temporal" perspective - but the outright teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both God the Father and God the Son, eternally.
This would become so thoroughly imbedded in Latin consciousness, that by the time an open schism was created (inaugerated by Cardinal Humbert slamming a "bull of excommunication" against the Ecumenical Patriarch upon the Altar of Hagia Sophia), many Latins even believed their form and understanding on the subject was in fact the "genuine" one, as was their form of the Creed! Keep in mind, one of the charges made against the Orthodox in the infamous "bull" was that they had in fact removed the filioque clause from the Creed!
With this in mind (even if you disagree with this, at least keep in mind this is where I am coming from), I have the following two questions...
1) If you take exception to the above explanation of how the filioque controversy grew, and finally created a break of the Papacy (and it's adherants) from the Church of Christ, or any explanation which basically amounts to the above (filioque = unacceptable innovation, which Latins began to insist upon no less), then what do you think is the origin of the theology of the Filioque as it's come to exist in Catholicism? If not Augustine, then which other Father(s) can you point to who taught this type of procession from God the Word?
2) Is the alleged authority of the Papacy (argument from authority) the only argument this "development" has in it's defence?
Catholicism, which you insist on calling "Papism," actually views the
Depositum Fidei as complete with the death of St. John the Evangelist. Later Fathers and Doctors sought to explain it, clarify it, and defend it from error. Nevertheless, the ultimate custodian of the Deposit of Faith is not the Fathers or later "savants" but the Church herself.
i) why has revelation ended with St.John the Theologian? This has always seemed arbitrary to me. Generally this is why the Orthodox tend to make a differentiation between the Holy Scriptures and the rest of the Holy Tradition more on the basis of "degree" rather than "kind".
ii) While you say that the "Church" is ultimatly custodian of the Faith (and I'd agree with THAT statement, according to the letter), I think we'd be using the word "Church" very differently. That you push the Fathers aside, or make them something "different" than this "Church" you speak of is evidence of this. By "Church", you really mean "Papacy", and the RC doctrine of the episcopate, in which bishops in reality act as lieutenants of the Pope (hence, vicar bishops, receiving their limited, local juristiction from the hands of the uber-Bishop in Rome, who has juristiction over the entire world)...hence, really, just "Papacy" (since the episcopate only exists as an extension of the Papacy.) This is unacceptable from an Orthodox view, for the Fathers are members of the Church, and have come to be recognized by the Body of Christ to speak Her mind; they are teachers in the Teacher, God-inspired and can by no means be pitted against the heirarchal excercise of the Church's Priesthood.
You know as well as I do that the Fathers sometimes contradicted one another.
Examples? I think the examples would be key here - I want to see what exactly you mean by "contradict".
Could they possibly be the ultimate guide, never needing clarification? You seem to treat the Fathers the way Protestants treat the Bible--as a dead-letter, written-down court of appeal. Ultimately, however, the living Church is the guardian of both the Fathers AND the Bible.
Derogatory (rightly or wrongly) references to Protestantism will not have the same shock value upon Orthodox "thinkers" that you're probably used to getting from using a similar type of rhetoric against your own dissenters (say, so called "Lefebvrists" or "Latin Trads" a little more right of center than yourself). Frankly, the Protestants were right about a few things, or at least right to be upset about some of the things they were "protesting". Of course, in the end, they ended up throwing the baby out with the bath-water. 
The Holy Scriptures, can never be a "dead letter", unless read with a "dead faith" - they are the God-inspired words of Patriarchs and Prophets, indeed, the revelation of God. They stand paramount in the Holy Tradition of the Church, which we also believe is inspired by God. Just as St.Peter did not confess the Divinity of Christ by his own genius or power, but by that of God, so too the great teachers which the Church has both taught, and been taught by.
It's unfortunate that there are still Roman Catholics (though there is a tendency in some quarters to move away from this) who are using a polemic that is basically reactionary and very recent in origin - it was the Counter Reformation which produced the misguided idea that the Holy Scriptures somehow go "hand in hand" with Holy Tradition, rather than being a part of it. It is precisely this marginalization of the Holy Tradition, which has caused the ever continuing degredation of whatever was left of it in Papism, to march forward to the present day.
Regarding the simplicity of the Godhead--keep in mind that simplicity does not mean "easy to understand". Simplicity IN THIS SENSE OF THE TERM means "having no parts or diverse components." Even should we contemplate God for an eternity, He would still be ever ancient and ever new. We would never know Him the way He knows Himself, because that is impossible for a creature. Our MODE OF KNOWING does not allow us to do that.
I know what you're trying to say, since I grappeled with this one as well. The problem is, you're talking out of both ends of your mouth. You're basically saying God's essence is "knowable", but then turning around and saying the human mode of knowing (I'd submit, of creatures in general, including the highest of the Angels, and even the Theotokos herself) makes it unknowable. For if God was knowable "according to His Essence", yet man can never ever fully apprehend God, this would seem to cause the following to be concluded...
i) God is not in fact entirely simple, according to His Essence, but knowable according to His Essence (datum: God is knowable according to His Essence; but can never be fully grasped; hence, we're coming to know an endless succession of different "things" within God. Conclusion; He is not simple, is He?)
ii) God is simple according to His Essence, but knowable only according to His grace/energies (datum: God is knowable, but not according to His Essence, but according to His energies, which are His real revelations of self; hence God is eternal, but ever new)
I find it arbitrary to say that there is something qualitatively different about the experience of God in this life, and that in the next. I find nothing which can substantiate this. What is the case, is that there is a difference of degree, indescribably so (though some Saints have experienced incredible things...and by His mercy, even many sinners, though the experience was not a pleasant one, as it will not be in the next life for the damned) perhaps, but that is how the difference is experienced.
Hence, St.Paul will say we see "dimly" for now; but even this is a qualitative apprasial (since whether "dim" or "bright", in either case it is the same Light.)
Yet this is also what the doctrine of the "beatific vision" puts foward; a qualitative difference between the foretaste of the world to come experienced within the Church in this present age, and what is to come (indeed, even what the Saints experience in their repose, is only a foretaste of what is to come...which the "beatific vision" doctrine also undermines.) If you think I'm wrong in saying this, how so?
Sorry about the Athanasian creed.
No worries. I'm only glad to see that you realize it doesn't constitue a credible witness to what you were seeking to demonstrate.
While these type of discussions so easily fall apart into shouting matches, or ego trips, I really want to believe this will not happen here. I realize in the end, I cannot "make" you believe, or think differently. I simply hope something I say, will become an avenue by which the grace of God will admonish you and give you reason to pause - with all humility, if He can use the devil (despite himself) towards His ends, I hold out hope he can do the same with my meager words.
This all probably seems "theoretical", but if you look at what is being said, it is not. This is not a question of two different "spiritualities" as Catholicism would put it, or different "approaches" or "charisms" - what is at stake here is ultimatly a fundamentally different understanding not simply of God Himself, but more importantly (for us), of His economy towards mankind, particularly in these last days. This is something very concrete, which has ramifications upon what a person will do towards the work of saving their soul. This is why there is no heresy which is simply "vain theory" or "nit picking" as secular historians, looking in on religion, often characterize these type of polemics.
Of course, this all forms a complicated web - misunderstandings in one respect of God's economy (how He interacts with creatures), will touch everything else...error begetting error. The "essence/energies" issue, is connected to all sorts of other areas (ideas about the Church, Her Mysteries, etc.), even the nuts and bolts of soteriology. For example, post Anslemian ideas about just what the work of redemption "is", have had all sorts of adverse consequences in Catholicism (for example, in what it has done to the idea of penance; oddly enough, it led to it's almost complete dissolution in the life of the average Latin)...and I'd say in turn, his ideas about the "atonement" would not be possible, without already rejecting the differentiation between God's essence, and His energies (since without this, the door to subjecting God's essence to creaturely analogies is thrown right open...which resulted in Anslem confounding the Almighty with the feudal lords who dominated the lives of everyone, and forms of civil justice in his time...in short, a form of idolatry.)
In short, I "bother" because I would like to see you (and perhaps curious Roman Catholics reading this) re-appraise your committment to what is in fact a conglomeration of heresies, and for the first time approach the Ark of Salvation, which alone has the directions to Mt.Ararat, and the provisions necessary to make the dangerous voyage.
Seraphim
