Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

in the year 869 in Constantinople, 8th council

Expand Messages
  • rllaplante2003
    Rudolf Steiner refers frequently to this Council as to the abolishment of the spirit in man. This came up in our study group Monday night. `Spirit was
    Message 1 of 2 , May 7, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Rudolf Steiner refers frequently to this Council as to the abolishment of the spirit in man.
      This came up in our study group Monday night.

      " `Spirit' was eliminated (as I have often related) from Western humanity in the year 869 at
      the Eighth Ecumenical Council in Constantinople. The dogma was then drawn up that
      Christians must not regard man as consisting of body, soul and spirit, but of body and soul
      only, though certain spiritual qualities were to be ascribed to the soul. This abolition of the
      spirit is of tremendous significance. It was dogma, — that in the year 869 in
      Constantinople, it was decided that man must not be regarded as endowed with `anima'
      and `spiritus,' but only `unam animam rationalem et intellectualem.' The dogma that `The
      soul has spiritual qualities' was spread over the spiritual life of the West in the twilight of
      the ninth century.

      from Earthly Death and Cosmic Life
      LECTURE 3.

      THE LIVING AND THE DEAD.
      http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/EarthDeath/19180205p01.html;mark=30,27,41#WN_ma
      rk

      There does not seem to be a clear statement of the abolishment but a deduction of the
      two souls controversy and the Filioque controversy in my research on the Internet. Two
      references below mention these:

      One of our members forwarded the following;

      "This council, designated as the eighth ecumenical council by western canonists:
      http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum08.htm#Definition

      11

      Though the old and new Testament teach that a man or woman has one rational and
      intellectual soul, and all the fathers and doctors of the church, who are spokesmen of God,
      express the same opinion, some have descended to such a depth of irreligion, through
      paying attention to the speculations of evil people, that they shamelessly teach as a
      dogma that a human being has two souls, and keep trying to prove their heresy by
      irrational means using a wisdom that has been made foolishness.

      Therefore this holy and universal synod is hastening to uproot this wicked theory now
      growing like some loathsome form of weed. Carrying in its hand the winnowing fork of
      truth, with the intention of consigning all the chaff to inextinguishable fire, and making
      clean the threshing floor of Christ, in ringing tones it declares anathema the inventors and
      perpetrators of such impiety and all those holding similar views; it also declares and
      promulgates that nobody at all should hold or preserve in any way the written teaching of
      the authors of this impiety. If however anyone presumes to act in a way contrary to this
      holy and great synod, let him be anathema and an outcast from the faith and way of life of
      Christians.

      the two souls controversy referred to appears to be Manicheeism -- the idea that man had
      a good soul and and a bad soul...

      The following is an outline of Manichaeism and Plotinus' doctrine on evil. Reviving the
      errors of the Marcionites, the Gnostics, and of Zoroaster, the Manichaeans posited two
      supreme principles, one beneficent, the other evil, in order to explain the evil found in the
      world, since evil cannot come from God, the good principle. They also taught that matter
      and the flesh are from the evil principle, as is also the inferior or sensitive soul in man,
      whereas the spiritual soul is derived from the good principle"



      I found this about the Filioque (and the son) Controversy:

      see

      http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/holy_spirit.htm

      "The Holy Spirit in Christian Theology

      A formal doctrine of the Holy Spirit did not begin to be developed until the early third
      century. Tertullian (c.160-c.225) and the Montanist heresy showed the need to distinguish
      between true and false activities of the Holy Spirit. Origen of Alexandria (c.185-c.254)
      taught that the Spirit worked primarily within the Church, whereas the Word (Christ)
      worked within the whole of creation.

      In the 4th century, a heretical group known as the Pneumatomachi or Macedonians
      accepted the divinity of Christ (against Arianism) but denied the full divinity of the Holy
      Spirit. This belief was refuted by St. Basil the Great in his De Spiritu Sancto ("On the Holy
      Spirit") and the Pneumatomachi were condemned by Pope Damasus in 374 and by the
      Council of Constantinople (canon 1) in 381. It was also at the Council of Constantinople
      that the divinity of the Holy Spirit was formalized. The doctrine of the Spirit was further
      elaborated by St. Augustine in his important work De Trinitate ("On the Trinity"), in which
      the Holy Spirit is seen as the bond of union and love between the Father and the Son.
      The Filioque Controversy

      The controversy over the Latin word filioque is regarded by scholars as one of the chief
      factors contributing to the split of the western and eastern churches, which was
      formalized in 1054 AD. It continues to be the source of bad feeling towards Catholicism in
      Eastern Orthodoxy today. Although the controversy centers around just one word and a
      rather abstract issue regarding the Holy Spirit, it causes some theological difficulty for
      Eastern Christians, but perhaps more importantly, they resent the West's tampering with
      the ecumenical creeds, which are of great importance in Orthodoxy.

      The filioque controversy centers around the relationship between the Spirit and the other
      two Persons in the Trinity, the Father and the Son. In Christian theology and creeds, the
      Son is "eternally begotten" of the Father. This means that the Son is somehow caused or
      generated by the Father but not created or begotten in a chronological sense, since the
      two are both eternal. But how to understand the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the
      Father and the Son? In the Eastern Church, the Spirit is described as proceeding from the
      Father. Like "begotten," this term both recognizes the Father as the source and indicate an
      eternal, ongoing relationship. This was the phrase used in the original Nicene-
      Constantinopolitan Creed (381).

      In the Western Church (Catholicism and Protestantism), however, the Spirit is described as
      proceeding from the Father and the Son. This last phrase, "and the Son," is the English
      equivalent of the Latin word filioque. The idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, which
      is also known as "Double Procession" is based on the following New Testament passages:
      John 16:13-15 - Jesus says the Spirit will take what is Jesus' and show it to the disciples
      Gal. 4:6 - Holy Spirit as "the Spirit of the Son"
      Rom. 8:9 - Holy Spirit as "the Spirit of Christ"
      Phil. 1:19 - Holy Spirit as "the Spirit of Jesus Christ"
      John 14:16, 15:26, 16:7 - Jesus sends the Holy Spirit
      John 20:22 - Jesus breathes on the disciples and says, "Receive the Holy Spirit"

      Western theologians also find support for the filioque doctrine in the writings of St. Cyril
      of Alexandria, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, and especially St. Augustine. The filoque phrase is
      first recorded as being added to the creed at the Third Council of Toledo (589), and by the
      9th century the phrase was routinely used in the Western Church. The attractiveness of
      this view for Western thinkers is that it emphasizes the relational bond between the three
      Persons of the Trinity. They sought to preserve the Persons' distinction from one another,
      but also emphasizing their unity and close relationship.

      However, most of the early Greek church fathers were adamant that the Spirit proceeds
      only from the Father, and, as seen above, the original 381 Creed reflects this belief.
      Eastern theologians stress that there must be only one Fount of Divinity within the
      Godhead, which is the Father. Thus the Son is begotten (gemnesis) of the Father and the
      Spirit proceeds (ekporeusis) from the Father. For Eastern Christians, the filioque amounts
      to believing that there are two sources of divinity within the Godhead, which causes all
      kinds of internal contradictions and tensions, weakens the distinction between Son and
      Spirit, and depersonalizes the Spirit. They point to the Western term "Spirit of Christ" as a
      classic example of the way the filioque doctrine blurs the line between the Second and
      Third Persons of the Trinity.

      However, despite the considerable tension between Greek and Latin thinkers on this issue,
      some have sought to reconcile the two approaches. St. Augustine, while affirming the
      filioque, affirmed that the Holy Spirit "principally proceeds" from the Father. Other Latin
      writers have likewise sought to clarify that they were not teaching two sources of divinity
      within the Godhead, and the Council of Lyons (1274) stated that "the Holy Spirit proceeds
      from the Father and the Son, yet not as from two origins but as one origin." Nevertheless,
      the same Council of Lyons also condemned those who deny the filioque clause and the
      doctrine remains a significant point of contention between Eastern and Western Churches
      today. The most recent development is a statement issued by the North American
      Orthodox-Catholic Consultation on October 28, 2003, which concluded a four-year study
      on the issue and suggested steps towards unity.

      Protestants generally follow the Catholic doctrine of the filioque. Anglicans, who among
      Protestants are most closely identified with Catholicism, have generally accepted Double
      Procession since the 39 Articles, but modern Anglican theologians participating in
      ecumenical discussions on the subject are often disposed to dropping the filioque from
      the Creed."

      I also did find a French text which is a translation of John Meyendorff, The Orthodox
      Church, Crestwood, NY, 1981 P.195-197 stated to be found at : http://www.ocf.org/

      After many attempts, I was not able to find the English text which is also the Filioque
      controversy as seen by the Orthodox at that address.

      So there does not seem to have been as clear statement as Rudolf Steiner's to be found in
      other sources.

      Any help to clarify this query would be appreciated.

      Roger L. Laplante
    • Durward Starman
      www.DrStarman.com To: steiner@yahoogroups.comFrom: rllaplante2003@yahoo.caDate: Wed, 7 May 2008 23:53:32 +0000Subject: [steiner] in the year 869 in
      Message 2 of 2 , May 7, 2008
      • 0 Attachment


        www.DrStarman.com


        To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
        From: rllaplante2003@...
        Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 23:53:32 +0000
        Subject: [steiner] in the year 869 in Constantinople, 8th council

        Rudolf Steiner refers frequently to this Council as to the abolishment of the spirit in man.
        This came up in our study group Monday night.

        " `Spirit' was eliminated (as I have often related) from Western humanity in the year 869 at
        the Eighth Ecumenical Council in Constantinople. The dogma was then drawn up that
        Christians must not regard man as consisting of body, soul and spirit, but of body and soul
        only, though certain spiritual qualities were to be ascribed to the soul. This abolition of the
        spirit is of tremendous significance. It was dogma, — that in the year 869 in
        Constantinople, it was decided that man must not be regarded as endowed with `anima'
        and `spiritus,' but only `unam animam rationalem et intellectualem. ' The dogma that `The
        soul has spiritual qualities' was spread over the spiritual life of the West in the twilight of
        the ninth century.

        from Earthly Death and Cosmic Life
        LECTURE 3.

        THE LIVING AND THE DEAD.
        http://wn.rsarchive .org/Lectures/ EarthDeath/ 19180205p01. html;mark= 30,27,41# WN_ma
        rk

        There does not seem to be a clear statement of the abolishment but a deduction of the
        two souls controversy and the Filioque controversy in my research on the Internet. Two
        references below mention these:

        One of our members forwarded the following;

        "This council, designated as the eighth ecumenical council by western canonists:
        http://www.piar. hu/councils/ ecum08.htm# Definition

        11

        Though the old and new Testament teach that a man or woman has one rational and
        intellectual soul, and all the fathers and doctors of the church, who are spokesmen of God,
        express the same opinion, some have descended to such a depth of irreligion, through
        paying attention to the speculations of evil people, that they shamelessly teach as a
        dogma that a human being has two souls, and keep trying to prove their heresy by
        irrational means using a wisdom that has been made foolishness.

        Therefore this holy and universal synod is hastening to uproot this wicked theory now
        growing like some loathsome form of weed. Carrying in its hand the winnowing fork of
        truth, with the intention of consigning all the chaff to inextinguishable fire, and making
        clean the threshing floor of Christ, in ringing tones it declares anathema the inventors and
        perpetrators of such impiety and all those holding similar views; it also declares and
        promulgates that nobody at all should hold or preserve in any way the written teaching of
        the authors of this impiety. If however anyone presumes to act in a way contrary to this
        holy and great synod, let him be anathema and an outcast from the faith and way of life of
        Christians.

        the two souls controversy referred to appears to be Manicheeism -- the idea that man had
        a good soul and and a bad soul...

        The following is an outline of Manichaeism and Plotinus' doctrine on evil. Reviving the
        errors of the Marcionites, the Gnostics, and of Zoroaster, the Manichaeans posited two
        supreme principles, one beneficent, the other evil, in order to explain the evil found in the
        world, since evil cannot come from God, the good principle. They also taught that matter
        and the flesh are from the evil principle, as is also the inferior or sensitive soul in man,
        whereas the spiritual soul is derived from the good principle"

        I found this about the Filioque (and the son) Controversy:

        see

        http://www.religion facts.com/ christianity/ beliefs/holy_ spirit.htm

        "The Holy Spirit in Christian Theology

        A formal doctrine of the Holy Spirit did not begin to be developed until the early third
        century. Tertullian (c.160-c.225) and the Montanist heresy showed the need to distinguish
        between true and false activities of the Holy Spirit. Origen of Alexandria (c.185-c.254)
        taught that the Spirit worked primarily within the Church, whereas the Word (Christ)
        worked within the whole of creation.

        In the 4th century, a heretical group known as the Pneumatomachi or Macedonians
        accepted the divinity of Christ (against Arianism) but denied the full divinity of the Holy
        Spirit. This belief was refuted by St. Basil the Great in his De Spiritu Sancto ("On the Holy
        Spirit") and the Pneumatomachi were condemned by Pope Damasus in 374 and by the
        Council of Constantinople (canon 1) in 381. It was also at the Council of Constantinople
        that the divinity of the Holy Spirit was formalized. The doctrine of the Spirit was further
        elaborated by St. Augustine in his important work De Trinitate ("On the Trinity"), in which
        the Holy Spirit is seen as the bond of union and love between the Father and the Son.
        The Filioque Controversy

        The controversy over the Latin word filioque is regarded by scholars as one of the chief
        factors contributing to the split of the western and eastern churches, which was
        formalized in 1054 AD. It continues to be the source of bad feeling towards Catholicism in
        Eastern Orthodoxy today. Although the controversy centers around just one word and a
        rather abstract issue regarding the Holy Spirit, it causes some theological difficulty for
        Eastern Christians, but perhaps more importantly, they resent the West's tampering with
        the ecumenical creeds, which are of great importance in Orthodoxy.

        The filioque controversy centers around the relationship between the Spirit and the other
        two Persons in the Trinity, the Father and the Son. In Christian theology and creeds, the
        Son is "eternally begotten" of the Father. This means that the Son is somehow caused or
        generated by the Father but not created or begotten in a chronological sense, since the
        two are both eternal. But how to understand the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the
        Father and the Son? In the Eastern Church, the Spirit is described as proceeding from the
        Father. Like "begotten," this term both recognizes the Father as the source and indicate an
        eternal, ongoing relationship. This was the phrase used in the original Nicene-
        Constantinopolitan Creed (381).

        In the Western Church (Catholicism and Protestantism) , however, the Spirit is described as
        proceeding from the Father and the Son. This last phrase, "and the Son," is the English
        equivalent of the Latin word filioque. The idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, which
        is also known as "Double Procession" is based on the following New Testament passages:
        John 16:13-15 - Jesus says the Spirit will take what is Jesus' and show it to the disciples
        Gal. 4:6 - Holy Spirit as "the Spirit of the Son"
        Rom. 8:9 - Holy Spirit as "the Spirit of Christ"
        Phil. 1:19 - Holy Spirit as "the Spirit of Jesus Christ"
        John 14:16, 15:26, 16:7 - Jesus sends the Holy Spirit
        John 20:22 - Jesus breathes on the disciples and says, "Receive the Holy Spirit"

        Western theologians also find support for the filioque doctrine in the writings of St. Cyril
        of Alexandria, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, and especially St. Augustine. The filoque phrase is
        first recorded as being added to the creed at the Third Council of Toledo (589), and by the
        9th century the phrase was routinely used in the Western Church. The attractiveness of
        this view for Western thinkers is that it emphasizes the relational bond between the three
        Persons of the Trinity. They sought to preserve the Persons' distinction from one another,
        but also emphasizing their unity and close relationship.

        However, most of the early Greek church fathers were adamant that the Spirit proceeds
        only from the Father, and, as seen above, the original 381 Creed reflects this belief.
        Eastern theologians stress that there must be only one Fount of Divinity within the
        Godhead, which is the Father. Thus the Son is begotten (gemnesis) of the Father and the
        Spirit proceeds (ekporeusis) from the Father. For Eastern Christians, the filioque amounts
        to believing that there are two sources of divinity within the Godhead, which causes all
        kinds of internal contradictions and tensions, weakens the distinction between Son and
        Spirit, and depersonalizes the Spirit. They point to the Western term "Spirit of Christ" as a
        classic example of the way the filioque doctrine blurs the line between the Second and
        Third Persons of the Trinity.

        However, despite the considerable tension between Greek and Latin thinkers on this issue,
        some have sought to reconcile the two approaches. St. Augustine, while affirming the
        filioque, affirmed that the Holy Spirit "principally proceeds" from the Father. Other Latin
        writers have likewise sought to clarify that they were not teaching two sources of divinity
        within the Godhead, and the Council of Lyons (1274) stated that "the Holy Spirit proceeds
        from the Father and the Son, yet not as from two origins but as one origin." Nevertheless,
        the same Council of Lyons also condemned those who deny the filioque clause and the
        doctrine remains a significant point of contention between Eastern and Western Churches
        today. The most recent development is a statement issued by the North American
        Orthodox-Catholic Consultation on October 28, 2003, which concluded a four-year study
        on the issue and suggested steps towards unity.

        Protestants generally follow the Catholic doctrine of the filioque. Anglicans, who among
        Protestants are most closely identified with Catholicism, have generally accepted Double
        Procession since the 39 Articles, but modern Anglican theologians participating in
        ecumenical discussions on the subject are often disposed to dropping the filioque from
        the Creed."

        I also did find a French text which is a translation of John Meyendorff, The Orthodox
        Church, Crestwood, NY, 1981 P.195-197 stated to be found at : http://www.ocf. org/

        After many attempts, I was not able to find the English text which is also the Filioque
        controversy as seen by the Orthodox at that address.

        So there does not seem to have been as clear statement as Rudolf Steiner's to be found in
        other sources.

        Any help to clarify this query would be appreciated.

        Roger L. Laplante


        *******I believe that, to understand the root of the controversy, you'd have to go back to what was handed down to the Church from Aristotle about the separate 'souls' of Man, which was regarded as fundamental to all educated men's thought in late Roman times and especially influential to the thinking of most Gnostics, Platonists as they were. The rational soul the Greeks perceived that Man has was that through which Man knows the eternally true, as in mathematics. This the early Christians accepted as the spirit in Man. The later Roman church gradually downplayed this because it wanted authority to rest with its pseudo-Christian continuation of the Roman state religion, in other words that men could not know the spirit on their own but had to turn to Rome for answers. This is the root of the "two souls heresy."
        -starman


        Make Windows Vista more reliable and secure with Windows Vista Service Pack 1. Learn more.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.