Church Fathers on the Filioque

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Reuben_J said:
I don’t know I can agree with this. That is not what the Trinity is. The three persons of the Trinity, being co-equal and uncreated, how can the Father then be the origin of the Son and the Holy Spirit?
Click to expand...
This is precisely how the persons are co-equal and uncreated, whilst remaining one God. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father’s essence; he is consubstantial with the Father because of this begetting, i.e. the Father’s being his origin. Likewise with the Spirit.
 
Novocastrian said:
This is precisely how the persons are co-equal and uncreated, whilst remaining one God. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father’s essence; he is consubstantial with the Father because of this begetting, i.e. the Father’s being his origin. Likewise with the Spirit.
Click to expand...
I don’t follow. I don’t mind to learn. But when you said the Father is the origin of the Son and the Holy Spirit it implies that they originate from the Father. I cannot see how that is co-equal. I understand consubstantial but not origin which denotes source. Source implying that they are created.
 
Reuben_J said:
I don’t follow. I don’t mind to learn. But when you said the Father is the origin of the Son and the Holy Spirit it implies that they originate from the Father. I cannot see how that is co-equal. I understand consubstantial but not origin which denotes source. Source implying that they are created.
Click to expand...
The Father begets the Son, right?
 
Novocastrian said:
The Father begets the Son, right?
Click to expand...
You used the word ‘origin’ and I disagree with it. You may have a point but to my understanding right now and has been, that does not speak of the Trinity correctly. I may have to think about your explanation but it is a long shot if I should agree with it.

I would rather you just go on explaining in your post than asking me question, to save time.
 
Reuben_J said:
You used the word ‘origin’ and I disagree with it. You may have a point but to my understanding right now and has been, that does not speak of the Trinity correctly. I may have to think about your explanation but it is a long shot if I should agree with it.

I would rather you just go on explaining in your post than asking me question, to save time.
Click to expand...
Ok, well, that’s just what it means to say that Father is the arche (origin, beginning) of the trinity. The Son, qua begotten-one, receives His essence from the Father. That is *how * He is consubstantial with the Father. In this sense, the Father is the eternal, atemporal origin of the uncreated Son.
 
To all:

Does the teaching of the Catholic Church agree or disagree with the views of the Early Church Fathers expressed in the OP?

Thanks.
 
That’s a very different question to, “Do the views of the Early Church Fathers expressed in the OP agree with the teaching of the Catholic Church?”
 
Novocastrian said:
Ok, well, that’s just what it means to say that Father is the arche (origin, beginning) of the trinity. The Son, qua begotten-one, receives His essence from the Father. That is *how * He is consubstantial with the Father. In this sense, the Father is the eternal, atemporal origin of the uncreated Son.
Click to expand...
OK fair enough.
 
Novocastrian said:
That’s a very different question to, “Do the views of the Early Church Fathers expressed in the OP agree with the teaching of the Catholic Church?”
Click to expand...
Does A = B?

Does B = A?

I’m not following you here…🤷
 
Randy_Carson said:
Does A = B?

Does B = A?

I’m not following you here…🤷
Click to expand...
Well, on the face of it they agree. But the quotes you provide pre-date the Latin Church’s dogmatic definition of the filioque as being the procession of the Spirit from the Father and Son as one principle. To read that into the earlier statements with no corroborating contemporary evidence is anachronistic at best.
 
Nacho45 said:
This does seem to be a sticking point between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. I have seen may Orthodox scholars state the problem is not with the accuracy or inaccuracy of the Catholic Church creed, rather it was not vetted properly.
Click to expand...
IOW, no ecumenical council that approved it?

Jon
 
Novocastrian said:
Well, on the face of it they agree. But the quotes you provide pre-date the Latin Church’s dogmatic definition of the filioque as being the procession of the Spirit from the Father and Son as one principle. To read that into the earlier statements with no corroborating contemporary evidence is anachronistic at best.
Click to expand...
But is the Catholic position on the filioque in line with what the Fathers wrote or not?
 
Randy_Carson said:
But is the Catholic position on the filioque in line with what the Fathers wrote or not?
Click to expand...
I am inclined to think that the dogmatic definition of the filioque re: one principle is not in line with the theology of the Fathers.
 
Novocastrian said:
I am inclined to think that the dogmatic definition of the filioque re: one principle is not in line with the theology of the Fathers.
Click to expand...
Actually after reading through them you can pretty much cherry pick your way into the EO or CC,.Cyril, Basil and Athanasius too. 😃
 
Novocastrian said:
This is precisely how the persons are co-equal and uncreated, whilst remaining one God. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father’s essence; he is consubstantial with the Father because of this begetting, i.e. the Father’s being his origin. Likewise with the Spirit.
Click to expand...
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!).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top