A
Alethiaphile
Guest
Doesn’t unity of faith matter to anybody?
- Status
C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
Yes, of course we do.
A
Alethiaphile
Guest
Then why not say it? If it is the fullest expression of the Faith, it should be said. If it is not, it should be discarded.
A
Apotheoun
Guest
I am an Eastern Catholic and I do not accept the filioque. I believe that the Spirit as hypostasis proceeds (ekporeusis) only from the Father, and not from or through the Son. The Father is the sole cause of the Son by generation, and He alone is the sole cause of the Spirit by ekporeusis (see St. Maximos’ Letter to Marinus).
Now as far as the “per filium” is concerned, it applies only to the Spirit’s manifestation as energy, and so it does not concern His subsistent (hypostatic) being.
A
Alethiaphile
Guest
Thank you for your post. Joe
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Do Eastern Catholics accept the filioque?
While personal belief among Easter Catholics may vary (as with Latin Catholics, e.g. contraception), according to canon law, “A religious obsequium * of intellect and will*, even if not the assent of faith, is to be paid to the teaching on faith or morals which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishopsenunciate when they exercise the authentic magisterium even if they do not intend to proclaim it with a definitive act; therefore the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid whatever is not in harmony with that teaching.” (c. 599).**
While personal belief among Easter Catholics may vary (as with Latin Catholics, e.g. contraception), according to canon law, “A religious obsequium * of intellect and will*, even if not the assent of faith, is to be paid to the teaching on faith or morals which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishopsenunciate when they exercise the authentic magisterium even if they do not intend to proclaim it with a definitive act; therefore the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid whatever is not in harmony with that teaching.” (c. 599).**
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
V
Volodymyr_988
Guest
I
Ignatios
Guest
Although you call yourselves Eatsern Catholics, you are orthodox in my book, we know you when we see you, May GOD heal this division with our truly brothers and sister and bring us back together. Amen †††
G
George14
Guest
"…who proceeds from the Father and the Son…
has been taught for a very long time.
I see it that way: it makes a ton of sense to me (it is as I said earlier, like two lovers who express their love as a “third person” in their relationship when they speak of OUR LOVE for each other.)
EACH one – Father and Son – experiences that Other entity in the same way. The Son is not a conduit: He is begotten and of the fullness of the Father.
So their shared Love, their Spirit, is equivalent in its nature, the breath, the spirit, the Love between themselves.
I wonder how the “through the Son” concept can be reconciled with this fairly clear and common experience of lovers made in the image and likeness of God…
has been taught for a very long time.
I see it that way: it makes a ton of sense to me (it is as I said earlier, like two lovers who express their love as a “third person” in their relationship when they speak of OUR LOVE for each other.)
EACH one – Father and Son – experiences that Other entity in the same way. The Son is not a conduit: He is begotten and of the fullness of the Father.
So their shared Love, their Spirit, is equivalent in its nature, the breath, the spirit, the Love between themselves.
I wonder how the “through the Son” concept can be reconciled with this fairly clear and common experience of lovers made in the image and likeness of God…
A
Alethiaphile
Guest
Problems:
- It makes the Holy Spirit a different type of entity than the Father and the Son. All the persons of the Trinity are supposed to be of the same nature (God).
- A very ancient teaching of the Fathers regarding the Trinity is that any property or attribute should either be said of one of the Divine Persons, or of all three of them, but never of two. That is because to set two Persons against a third unbalances the Trinity. And that is exactly what happens when you have the Father and the Son both processing the Spirit.
- This account (as opposed to “through”) takes away from the Father as the arche of the Godhood of the other Persons, which is a cardinal Patristic teaching
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Interestingly enough, St. Maximus of Constantinople, who Eastern Orthodox scholars say “may be regarded as the real Father of Byzantine theology” [John Meyendorff, *Byzantine Theology, New York: Fordam University Press, p. 37], defends the Latin use of “filioque” as being an authentic expression of the same Catholic faith.
According to St. Maximus of Constantinople:
, PG 91, 136]
Processio (Latin) and ekporeusis (Greek) did not mean the same thing. Processio is a general term in Latin theology, whereas ekporeusis refers to a specific kind of relationship in Greek theology. To people natively fluent in one language but not the other, this would not be readily apparent. St. Maximus understood that problem and defended the orthodoxy of the Latin understanding of the faith. This understanding is explained by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity document, *The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity *[in English in *Catholic International magazine (volume 7, no. 1: January, 1996; pp 36-49).]
Consequently, the filioque difference isn’t incompatible with the faith of both East and West, as admitted to even according to Eastern Orthodox scholars.
For instance, other than the issue of the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, according to Eastern Orthodox Metropolitan Damaskinos of Switzerland, in a letter to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, 30 October 2000:
Likewise, from Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware, as stated in May of 1995:
It is ironic that those claiming to be in full communion with the Roman Pontiff are so sure of their own private judgment of this theological issue that they pridefully reject the sound theology and defense of the Latin use of filioque as articulated by no less an Eastern Father than St. Maximus of Constantinople, an expert in ancient Latin and Greek. They do so, furthermore, in contradiction to Catholic canon law, which obstinately rejected is a grave sin.
C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
FYI:
The Chaldean Catholic Church recently renewed Her *Qurbana *and one of the specific requests by the Holy See was that we remove the filioque clause from the Symbol of Faith.
kaldu.org/14_Reformed_ChaldeanMass/QA_NewMass.html
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
**Those of the Queen of cities (Constantinople) have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope…one relates to the theology (of the Trinity) and according to this, says ‘the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.’
…they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit–they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession–but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence.
They (the Romans) have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong to accuse them, whereas the former (the Byzantines) have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them (Monothelitism).
In accordance with your request I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them (the ‘also from the Son’) in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided… It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot do. [Saint Maximus’ Letter to Marinus, PG 91, 136] **
If it’s good enough for St. Maximos the Confessor and St. Cyril of Alexandria, it’s good enough for me.
…they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit–they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession–but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence.
They (the Romans) have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong to accuse them, whereas the former (the Byzantines) have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them (Monothelitism).
In accordance with your request I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them (the ‘also from the Son’) in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided… It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot do. [Saint Maximus’ Letter to Marinus, PG 91, 136] **
If it’s good enough for St. Maximos the Confessor and St. Cyril of Alexandria, it’s good enough for me.
A
ASimpleSinner
Guest
Don’t have any real idea what the correlation is between the text of mine quoted and your question. Of course unity of faith matters.
Does a little civility and respect matter to?
Do people go to the weddings, funerals, baptisms of folks outside of your church or tradition and at the wake or reception begin a discussion about the points of difference?
This discussion belonged in its own thread, not in a thread of Father Brendon discussing the path he and his have chosen.
E
eelpis
Guest
Since the Son is eternally begotten by the Father, and gets all his being from him doesn’t he get the spiration of the Holy Spirit from him too? How could the Son be the perfect image of the Father without the procession of the Holy Spirit?
A
Alethiaphile
Guest
You could use that same logic to say “Since the Son is the perfect image of the Father, He must beget the Son also.” Which is of course absurd.
E
eucharisteo
Guest
Oh!!! I used to talk like this. And aren’t you the obnoxious one accusing the ancient church fathers. You obvioiusly don’t know what your talking about the way you’ve stated this. Or maybe you are being obstinate as you deny. Sounds more like you have a chip on your shoulder - an axe to grind. I’d prefer that we go back to the first Creed. But I do not deny that what is taught is incorrect. This say what you mean and mean what you say could be applied to THEOTOKOS or Mother of God. BUT definitions are important to understand what you are talking about. Once we agree on which definitions to use for words then we can continue to discuss what we mean. A good example of this would be Original Sin. Original Sin probably should have a had different words because it may have been better to use something like First woundedness or something like that. But I won’t get off track.
M
marlo
Guest
A
Apotheoun
Guest
I am an Eastern Catholic and I do not believe in the filioque. Instead, I believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds (ἐκπόρευσις) from the Father alone, that is, I believe that He (i.e., the Holy Spirit) receives His subsistent being (i.e., His hypostatic existence) only from the Father, and not from the Son or through the Son. The Father alone is the sole cause of the other two persons within the Trinity, for He alone causes the Son through generation (γέννησιν) and the Holy Spirit through procession (ἐκπόρευσιν).
- Status