Do Protestants have a particular stand on the filioque?

[mark_a]

Just curious. It seems to be such a biggie between Orthodox and Catholics.

 

[Rhubarb]

Filio-what?

 

[edward_george]

*Filioque *is Latin for “and the Son,” and comes from the Nicene Creed–“I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” This has been a major source of dispute between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches; the Catholic Church holds that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, the Orthodox Church teaches that the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father. I remember reading in Peter Kreeft’s Fundamentals of the Faith about how the Churches could be reunited without compromising on the filioque, but I’m not sure how.

I’m not sure how the Protestants view this–I’d say it depends entirely upon the denomination. Denominations that use the Nicene Creed (Lutheran comes to mind, maybe there are others) probably accept this as it is in the Creed. Denominations that don’t use any formal creed (a Church of Christ I once visited had “No Creed but Christ” printed on the back of its brochure–along with a few other statements) might not have a position on this. I’m really not sure.

-ACEGC

 

[Mickey]

mark a:

Just curious. It seems to be such a biggie between Orthodox and Catholics.

Most, if not all, protestants who say the Nicene creed use the filioque. This is because the reformation split from the West, not the East.

 

[drforjc]

We certainly used the Filioque when I was Lutheran.

 

[David_Zampino]

Mickey:

Most, if not all, protestants who say the Nicene creed use the filioque. This is because the reformation split from the West, not the East.

Several of the individuals involved in the creation of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer for the Episcopal church wanted to remove it, however, they were overruled. Some Protestant theologians have argued for its removal, but without success. (Jurgan Moltmann, for one).

 

[VociMike]

In my experience they accept it (I doubt most even know of the controversy).

 

[ahimsaman72]

mark a:

Just curious. It seems to be such a biggie between Orthodox and Catholics.

None of the Baptist churches I have belonged to had any creed at all. So, it’s really a non-issue. Frankly, I always saw it as the Son was sent by the Father and the Holy Spirit was sent by the Son and they were all divine - they were all “God”.

Peace…

 

[mark_a]

ahimsaman72:

. . . . .and the Holy Spirit was sent by the Son
Peace…

Is this your personal perspective?

Thanks.

 

[ahimsaman72]

mark a:

Is this your personal perspective?

Thanks.

Yes and no. It is mine along with other Baptists that I know. It comes from the words of Jesus Himself when He said, “But I will tell you the truth, it is better for you that I go. For if I do not go, the Advocate will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.”
John 16:7 (NAB)

But, now that I look deeper I notice that in John 15:26 Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit coming from the Father. I suppose I never took that to mean the same as “proceeding” from the Father. Coming from Him (to me) was equivalent to telling or calling someone to perform a task whereas “proceeding” from the Father seems to mean something deeper and intimate.

I don’t know to be honest. This was never something that was ever preached on in the churches I attended. They were more about being good people and improving our spiritual lives on a daily, mundane level, unlike the deep spiritual thoughts of the Catholic theologians.

Peace…

 

[mark_a]

They were more about being good people and improving our spiritual lives on a daily, mundane level, unlike the deep spiritual thoughts of the Catholic theologians.

Peace…

Now I feel like I’m in a time warp or a parallel universe or bizarro world!!!
Or maybe I’m like George Castanza where left is right, up is down, black is. . . . .

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[ahimsaman72]

mark a:

Now I feel like I’m in a time warp or a parallel universe or bizarro world!!!
Or maybe I’m like George Castanza where left is right, up is down, black is. . . . .

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

I don’t understand your feeling of being in a parallel universe and such. I suppose I said something that you thought illogical or immaterial. That’s too bad - perhaps I could have clarified something instead of receiving your rhetoric.

You are welcome for the (name removed by moderator)ut. I answered your questions the best I could.

Peace…

 

[MariaG]

From CA Library Filioque catholic.com/library/filioque.asp
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.

For a greater understanding, at least from the Catholic postition, read the whole article, not long

 

[flameburns623]

mark a:

Just curious. It seems to be such a biggie between Orthodox and Catholics.

Not many Protestants I know of care about the issue. Most think our spiritual ancestors must have been true idiots to divide over it. I’ve seen the issue come up in this forum and tried very hard to follow the logic. I’m still at a loss about why anyone cares or ever cared. If shucking the filioque clause would be the one thing needful to reunite East and West, I think I’d order a few gallons of White-Out and solve the problem.

But then, no one elected me Pope the last time around . A good thing, too: the Pope really ought to be a Catholic:ehh: .

 

[MariaG]

flameburns623:

Not many Protestants I know of care about the issue. Most think our spiritual ancestors must have been true idiots to divide over it. I’ve seen the issue come up in this forum and tried very hard to follow the logic. I’m still at a loss about why anyone cares or ever cared. If shucking the filioque clause would be the one thing needful to reunite East and West, I think I’d order a few gallons of White-Out and solve the problem.

But then, no one elected me Pope the last time around . A good thing, too: the Pope really ought to be a Catholic:ehh: .

Ultimately the real issue is that the East wants the phrase taken out AND admit that the phrase was wrong. The West contends that the same thoughts can be expressed differently, but there is nothing doctrinely wrong with “and the Son”. So just changing the words are not going to solve the problem. Someone needs to admit they are wrong(the west) or they misunderstood what was meant(the East).

As someone sitting on the West side, why should we admit that we were wrong when we weren’t? And on the East, (from a western perspective) since the Filioque is often cited as THE reason for the split, how embarassing to admit 1000 years of separation over a semantics error?

But there are some on the East have started to do just that. Even those who wrote things twenty years ago with a much different view.

From CA Library, Filioque catholic.com/library/filioque.asp
Today many Eastern Orthodox bishops are putting aside old prejudices and again acknowledging that there need be no separation between the two communions on this issue. Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware (formerly Timothy Ware), who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, states: “The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences” (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43

).

 

[Zooey]

First, I don’t claim to be speaking for anybody but myself on this, but I think that the filioque belongs in.
I mean, that’s what the Bible says, that the Spirit proceeds from both Father & Son…At least, as I understand it, which is why I qualify my answer. I have had one Lutheran say that she thinks it really doesn’t matter. (Which surprised me).

 

[ahimsaman72]

mark a:

Just curious. It seems to be such a biggie between Orthodox and Catholics.

What does the Holy Writ say about it? What passages speak of the Catholic understanding of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son?

 

[mark_a]

ahimsaman72:

I don’t understand your feeling of being in a parallel universe and such. I suppose I said something that you thought illogical or immaterial. That’s too bad - perhaps I could have clarified something instead of receiving your rhetoric.

You are welcome for the (name removed by moderator)ut. I answered your questions the best I could.

Peace…

Honestly- no harm intended. Just to clarify:

They were more about being good people and improving our spiritual lives on a daily, mundane level,

Catholics are often criticised for this very same thing. It’s odd (but refreshing) to hear a Protestant defend goodness.

 

[flameburns623]

MariaG:

Ultimately the real issue is that the East wants the phrase taken out AND admit that the phrase was wrong. The West contends that the same thoughts can be expressed differently, but there is nothing doctrinely wrong with “and the Son”. So just changing the words are not going to solve the problem. Someone needs to admit they are wrong(the west) or they misunderstood what was meant(the East).

As someone sitting on the West side, why should we admit that we were wrong when we weren’t? And on the East, (from a western perspective) since the Filioque is often cited as THE reason for the split, how embarassing to admit 1000 years of separation over a semantics error?

But there are some on the East have started to do just that. Even those who wrote things twenty years ago with a much different view.

).

Quick! Somebody ‘ding’ Fr. Ambrose. If he weighs in on this, we’ll get the EO perspective on why this issue is important. Which it isn’t and never was; but I’m not EO and don’t care whether the phrase is in or out. The real problem was too many guys in big pointy hats with big pointy egos running around the Middle Ages. The pointy-hatted guy in Rome wanted to assert his ‘right’ to insert a phrase without the consensus of the other guys with pointy hats. The pointy-hatted guys out East didn’t want him to have that ‘right’. So they gave him the big red raspberry and have been doing so ever since.

 

[Contarini]

mark a:

Just curious. It seems to be such a biggie between Orthodox and Catholics.

Protestants use it. Although as others have pointed out, many Protestants don’t know or care much about it.

I should add that most non-creedal Protestant churches profess adherence to the content of the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, although they don’t use them in worship.

Edwin