Can you explain the Western position on the filioque?

[Hatikvah]

This is a little bit of explanation on the filioque from Scripture on CA, though it does not explain much: (Resource)

So in the West, we have added “of the Son” to the Nicene Creed. However, I have heard one user state in the past that the West has the same position as the East – except with different wording, because the West uses Latin and the East uses Greek. I’ve read one article from the United States Conference of Bishops stating that it is merely an issue of semantics – but I’m not too sure of this.

Can someone please explain this? I’m aware that it is a deep issue, but I’d like to know the difference in linguistics and so on, because the latter article was a little confusing for me. Thanks!

 

[esieffe]

catholic.com/tracts/filioque

This article seems well substantiated, but what I have read from the EOC claims this is still very much a divisive issue. This article says East and West are almost on the same page about it.

 

[thephilosopher6]

catholic.com/tracts/filioque

This article seems well substantiated, but what I have read from the EOC claims this is still very much a divisive issue. This article says East and West are almost on the same page about it.

Since there’s a large amount of history behind it, it can at times become very complicated. Though, I agree it’s mostly an issue of semantics rather than doctrine, there is still a lot behind it.

 

[po18guy]

My more practical/less dogmatic reply to this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1015346

As less of a legal matter and more practical, Father and Son are “consubstantial” - of the same substance. The Holy Spirit is defined (among other things) as the intense love existing between Father and Son. A love so utterly pure and intense that He constitutes a Divine Person. If He exists between them, and is a part of their ‘consubstantiality’, and cannot be separated from either, He was intended from the beginning to be present on earth after the Son ascended. Jesus did nothing that was outside of, or contrary to the Father’s will. Therefore, the Father clearly intended the shared Spirit of love to proceed also from the Son.

 

[Hatikvah]

The Holy Spirit is defined (among other things) as the intense love existing between Father and Son. A love so utterly pure and intense that He constitutes a Divine Person. If He exists between them, and is a part of their ‘consubstantiality’, and cannot be separated from either, He was intended from the beginning to be present on earth after the Son ascended

The only potential issue with this is that it seems to degrade the Holy Spirit as a Person compared to the Father and Son. It’s just the wording of it: He is a Person, and we all recognize that, but here it says that He is defined as the “intense love,” not as “a Divine Person proceeding from Father and Son as God.” It seems to be that His position here becomes the idea that He is only a Person because He is God. We must be wary about the idea that He becomes a “force” of some sort like the Christadelphians and JWs assert.

This here I got from Esieffe’s CA link. It does claim that the West has the same position as the East, because “through the Son” and “and the Son” are relatively the same:

The quotations below show that the early Church Fathers, both Latin and Greek, recognized the same thing, saying that the Spirit proceeds “from the Father and the Son” or “from the Father through the Son.”

These expressions mean the same thing because everything the Son has is from the Father. The proceeding of the Spirit from the Son is something the Son himself received from the Father. The procession of the Spirit is therefore ultimately rooted in the Father but goes through the Son. However, some Eastern Orthodox insist that to equate “through the Son” with “from the Son” is a departure from the true faith.

That makes as much sense as I think it can without the Beatific Vision. Thanks for your help and participation, everyone!

 

[tweedlealice]

This is a little bit of explanation on the filioque from Scripture on CA, though it does not explain much: (Resource)

So in the West, we have added “of the Son” to the Nicene Creed. However, I have heard one user state in the past that the West has the same position as the East – except with different wording, because the West uses Latin and the East uses Greek. I’ve read one article from the United States Conference of Bishops stating that it is merely an issue of semantics – but I’m not too sure of this.

Can someone please explain this? I’m aware that it is a deep issue, but I’d like to know the difference in linguistics and so on, because the latter article was a little confusing for me. Thanks!

Salutations,
The debate over centuries involving Rome vs the Byzantine church in Constantinoplle is on the Latin word Filique. Which means with the Son. So,the Spirit comes from the Father and or with the Son.
Or the Spirit comes through the Father and the Son.
Their debating the position of the personalities of the
One God, as a, Trinity. It still means the Father and the Son (filique) are one and the Spirit comes after Jesus but is part of the whole. It is semantics between churches. It’s like we have transubstantiation and Lutherens have consubstantiation. ACROSS THE SUBSTANCE OR WITH THE SUBSTANCE.
OLD Testament. The Father THOUGHT CREATION.
JESUS SPOKE CREATION. Jesus is the WORD. And the SPIRIT, WHO IS THE POWER PERFORMED CREATION. ONE GOD IN THREE PERSONS. It makes more sense as personalities.
New Testament, Jesus physically was there. Jesus said at Lazaruses tomb,"FATHER, YOU ARE IN ME AND I AM IN YOU. " He mentions the Spirit at the last supper. THERE WILL BE ONE THAT COMES AFTER ME WHO WILL EMPOWER YOU " THE SPIRIT CAME AT PENTECOST. Curious tO me, I felt. the Spirit was in Jesus helping wit the miracles aND being in Jesus, made His suffering bearable.
But Jesus said, “I HAVE TO LEAVE YOU FOR HIM TO COME.” So, double ouch with the crucifixion. Surely, His angels were there reducing the pain.
I hope I helped make that clearer or I confused you more.
in Christ’s love
Tweedlealice

 

[Duane1966]

This is a little bit of explanation on the filioque from Scripture on CA, though it does not explain much: (Resource)

So in the West, we have added “of the Son” to the Nicene Creed. However, I have heard one user state in the past that the West has the same position as the East – except with different wording, because the West uses Latin and the East uses Greek. I’ve read one article from the United States Conference of Bishops stating that it is merely an issue of semantics – but I’m not too sure of this.

Can someone please explain this? I’m aware that it is a deep issue, but I’d like to know the difference in linguistics and so on, because the latter article was a little confusing for me. Thanks!

This is a long article, but very good: catholicbridge.com/orthodox/catholic_orthodox_filioque_father_son.php

 

[Wandile]

the point that the Roman Church tried to make was to point out the necessary relational distinction between the Son and the Holy Ghost.

Keep these three fundamental tenets in mind:

• The essential distinction that makes each Person of the Blessed Trinity distinct is relational, which is a distinction that deals mostly with the mode of procession (e.g. x proceeds from y).
• The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is essentially the manifestation of God’s infinite and perfect intellectual act (generation); the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity is likewise the manifestation of God’s infinite and perfect charitable act [act of love] as reciprocated by the Son (spiration).
• The Son of God the Father, as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made man, proceeds from God the Father independently of God the Holy Ghost.

The Orthodox presentation of the teaching results in a lack of any essential distinction between God the Son and God the Holy Ghost; both proceed from God the Father independently of the other such that both are relatively and relationally identical to the Father.

But if the distinction between the Persons is essentially relational, yet the Second and Third Persons are both relationally identical to the Father, then there are only two distinct Persons of the Trinity, which utterly destroys the rationality of the dogma. Put another way: If we contend that the Persons of the Trinity are “really distinct,” and the only metaphysical difference between the Persons (which difference makes them “really distinct”) is in their distinct modes of relationship to the Father, but both the Son and Spirit have the exact same relationship to the Father, then both the Son and Spirit are not truly distinct; rather, they are identical persons that become indistinguishable, and thus there are only two distinct Persons of the Blessed Trinity.

Hence, the Roman Church teaches that a relational distinction between the Father-to-Son relationship and Father-to-Spirit relationship is necessary to distinguish the Person of the Son (relative to the Father) from the Person of the Spirit (relative to the Father).

Therefore, the “filioque” phrase was used to designate the procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son in a way that makes the spiration of the Spirit a consequence (as it were) of the generation of the Son from the Father.

Metaphysically, there can be no other solution if one understands the nature of the persons. Since love proceeds from knowledge, and not knowledge from love (there can be no love without knowledge of the object of that love), we can understand why Scholastic theologians support the idea that the Son proceeds from the Father as a manifestation of the intellectual act of God (generation).

The procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son is, therefore, a manifestation of the reciprocal and mutual exchange of love between the Father and the Son predicated and dependent upon Their perfect knowledge of Each Other, not in the order of time but in the order of logical sequence (spiration).

In the order of this logical sequence, the Father must first intellectually conceive of the Son before loving Him, and only as a consequence of His procession can the Son reciprocate an identical love, since, the Father and Son being equal, are also equal in the love spirated from Them, again, not in the order of time, but in the order of logical sequence.