P
PolycarpOfSmyrna
Guest
So, I’ve reached the conclusion recently that the Filioque can be understood in an Orthodox way if we count primarily on what St. Augustine taught, and not going stray from it. St. Augustine, in his De Trinitate, to sum it up, made the monarchy of the Father very clear, saying the HS proceeds from Him principally, but also said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, in a communitative / relative way, transmitting the clear notion that he is not talking about the Holy Spirit ultimate source here. However, this definition by pope Gregory XIII for the Greek Church is, in my honest opinion, problematic in light of what St. Augustine established:
“I also believe, and I accept and profess all the things which the holy ecumenical Synod of FLORENCE defined and declared concerning the union of the western and eastern Church, namely that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son; and that He has His essence and His subsistent being from the Father and from the Son together; and that He proceeds from both eternally, as from one principle and by a single procession, since what the holy Doctors and Fathers say comes to mean the same thing, that from the Father through the Son the Holy Spirit proceeds, and that the Son, according to the Greeks, is also the cause, and according to the Latins, indeed the principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, as is the Father. All things, however, which are of the Father, the Father Himself has given to His only-begotten Son in generation, outside of being the Father; the very fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, the Son himself eternally has from the Father, by whom He has also been eternally begotten. And that the explanation of these words, “Filioque,” for the sake of declaring the truth, and because of imminent necessity, has lawfully and reasonably been added to the Creed. . . .”
I really dislike, first of all, how is so often that these later definitions by the West do not recognize the monarchy of the Father before making these kind of statements. I think the major problem I have with this one in particular is the “He has his essence and His subsistent being from the Father and from the Son together”. What does that even mean? In what way does the Son participate in the subsistence of the Holy Spirit if the Father alone is the sole cause of the Holy Spirit? It is a bit frustrating for me how these supposed formulas of reunion can be read in such polemical ways.
“I also believe, and I accept and profess all the things which the holy ecumenical Synod of FLORENCE defined and declared concerning the union of the western and eastern Church, namely that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son; and that He has His essence and His subsistent being from the Father and from the Son together; and that He proceeds from both eternally, as from one principle and by a single procession, since what the holy Doctors and Fathers say comes to mean the same thing, that from the Father through the Son the Holy Spirit proceeds, and that the Son, according to the Greeks, is also the cause, and according to the Latins, indeed the principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, as is the Father. All things, however, which are of the Father, the Father Himself has given to His only-begotten Son in generation, outside of being the Father; the very fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, the Son himself eternally has from the Father, by whom He has also been eternally begotten. And that the explanation of these words, “Filioque,” for the sake of declaring the truth, and because of imminent necessity, has lawfully and reasonably been added to the Creed. . . .”
I really dislike, first of all, how is so often that these later definitions by the West do not recognize the monarchy of the Father before making these kind of statements. I think the major problem I have with this one in particular is the “He has his essence and His subsistent being from the Father and from the Son together”. What does that even mean? In what way does the Son participate in the subsistence of the Holy Spirit if the Father alone is the sole cause of the Holy Spirit? It is a bit frustrating for me how these supposed formulas of reunion can be read in such polemical ways.
