Church Fathers on the Filioque

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Isaiah45_9 said:
Would it be fair to say that the Father is the cause of the Son and the Spirit?

I think it is clear how, while being co-equal, the Son and the Spirit do follow the Father’s directions.

I’m still going over LionHeart777’s link (Thank you!).
Click to expand...
Great point. I have always wondered about the Son following the Father’s direction while also being co-equal.
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
…

I’m still going over LionHeart777’s link (Thank you!).
Click to expand...
You’re welcome!

This topic is admittedly not easily grasped for me, at least the theological part. I am reading a history of the Ecumenical Council of Florence by Fr. Joseph Gill, S.J, at the present, and reading the theological debate/discussion on the Filioque between Archbishop Mark of Ephesus (Greek side) and John of Montenero O.P. (Latin side) is not something I seem to be able to do when tired. :o
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
Would it be fair to say that the Father is the cause of the Son and the Spirit?

I think it is clear how, while being co-equal, the Son and the Spirit do follow the Father’s directions.

I’m still going over LionHeart777’s link (Thank you!).
Click to expand...
So, I tend to be more careful about language of causality simply because I don’t understand it as well as I do the Greek terms arche, etc. I’d venture a guess as to say that there’s nothing inherently wrong with calling the Father the cause of the other two, but it seems like the Fathers prefer and regard as safer the term ‘origin’. I am, of course, happy to be corrected on that!
 
Novocastrian said:
So, I tend to be more careful about language of causality simply because I don’t understand it as well as I do the Greek terms arche, etc. I’d venture a guess as to say that there’s nothing inherently wrong with calling the Father the cause of the other two, but it seems like the Fathers prefer and regard as safer the term ‘origin’. I am, of course, happy to be corrected on that!
Click to expand...
👍

I am the complete opposite, lol. I am more comfortable with causality language than I am with the Greek or “origin”.

Hey, maybe we can make a good theologian between the 2 of us 🙂
 
LionHeart777 said:
You’re welcome!

This topic is admittedly not easily grasped for me, at least the theological part. I am reading a history of the Ecumenical Council of Florence by Fr. Joseph Gill, S.J, at the present, and reading the theological debate/discussion on the Filioque between Archbishop Mark of Ephesus (Greek side) and John of Montenero O.P. (Latin side) is not something I seem to be able to do when tired. :o
Click to expand...
That makes 2 of us. And it includes me when I’m rested as well, lol.
 
Much of this seems like chicken and egg nonsense to me. How can a Father be a Father, without a Son? If the Father is eternally begetting a Son, the Son must eternally be acting as a Son to the Father. As far as we know, from the beginning was the Word, who is with God and is God. If the Father is perfect, which we must assume he is, he would Father nothing less than the perfect Son, at which point the procession of the Holy Spirit would have to be from both, so the Son would not be of the same perfect will as the Father.
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
But we know that the chicken came first:

[bibledrb]Genesis 1:24-25[/bibledrb]

It didn’t say He made the eggs or the babies first :cool:
Click to expand...
It also never mentioned specifically not the egg, BUT this is a fun thought for am father-in-law who is completely opposed to evolution, but thinks that God could have formed the earth from adulthood, if you will… Nice job making his point 😉
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
👍

I am the complete opposite, lol. I am more comfortable with causality language than I am with the Greek or “origin”.

Hey, maybe we can make a good theologian between the 2 of us 🙂
Click to expand...
That’s the beauty of Christian orthodoxy. I think we can often find two ways of saying the same thing!
 
Hi Randy: I have this book The teachings of the Catholic Church By John R. Willis, SJ Ignatius press on page 189, 417 (1662) of St. Augustine: it says: if, therefore, that also which is given has Him for a Beginning by whom it is given, since it has received from no other source that which proceeds from Him; it must be admitted that the Father and the Son are a Beginning of the Holy Spirit, not two Beginnings but as the Father and Son are one God, and one Creator, and one Lord relatively to the creature, so are they one Beginning relatively to the Holy Spirit. But the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one Beginning in respect to the creature, as also one Creator and one God. On the trinity, BK,5 Chap.14 ML42,921 NPNFIII,95
418 (1839) Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, seeing that He is likewise the Spirit of the Son? For did He not so proceed, He could not, when showing Himself to His diciples after the resurrection, have breathed on upon them, and said" Receive the Holy Spirit" (JN.20:22). For what else was signified by such a breathing upon them, but that from Him also the Holy Spirit proceeds? " There is much more but thought that this might help in gaining some little understandng that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son and not just from the Father only. On the Gosple of St. John Tr.99:7 ML 35, 1889 NPNF VII 383-384
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top