Dropping the Filoque

[Madaglan]

Yes, the term he used was “ek” (from), as in the Greek term in the Creed “ekporousis”. That term carries the implication of “source” in Greek, but there is no comparable term in Latin, so when the Creed was translated the more general sense of “going out from” was used with the Latin term “ex procedere”.

With the term “ek”, the filioque is absolutely erroneous, and the filioque is actually not allowed even when Latins are reciting the Creed in Greek. When the filioque was added by the Latins, however, they only knew the Latin terms, and didn’t realize the Greek carried a completely different connotation.

Peace and God bless!

Thanks. I’ve heard this before, but it’s always good for a refresher!

So, when it comes down to it, do the Latins really believe in **two “**processions” of the Holy Spirit: “procession” as Greeks understand it and found in the Greek version of the Creed (ekporousis) , the Father alone as source; and procession as translated into Latin (ex procedere), which, as you write, has a completely different connotation from the Greek original?

Also, I know that you and others here claim that the Greek Fathers held to the filioque as well. What Greek term(s) did they use when speaking of procession from the Father and (or through) the Son?

 

[Madaglan]

To clarify the first question of my last post: two quite different meanings of the one procession? (since I don’t think Latins believe in two actual processions of the Holy Spirit)

It seems that the Latins, in translating the Greek as they did, asserted a secondary meaning of procession, which later, when the filioque was added to the Creed, became the by far primary meaning.

Why didn’t the Pope of Rome invent a Latin phrase for the Creed and infallibly declare it to mean the same exact thing as the Greek?

 

[Ghosty]

To clarify the first question of my last post: two quite different meanings of the one procession? (since I don’t think Latins believe in two actual processions of the Holy Spirit)

It seems that the Latins, in translating the Greek as they did, asserted a secondary meaning of procession, which later, when the filioque was added to the Creed, became the by far primary meaning.

Why didn’t the Pope of Rome invent a Latin phrase for the Creed and infallibly declare it to mean the same exact thing as the Greek?

Unfortunately Papal Infallibility doesn’t work that way, but it would be nice in this instance.

You’re correct about the two meanings of procession, however. In Greek there are two terms for procession: ekporousis and proinai. The first has the connotation of “from the source”, the second has the same basic meaning as the Latin term procedere, meaning just “going forth from”. To my understanding, most Greek speakers used the second term when describing the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, though there may have been a few who used the first. Over time, however, the accepted norm has been that the first term applies only to the Father.

One major problem as time went on and fewer and fewer people were fluent in both Latin and Greek is that when procedere was translated from Latin it was often translated as “ekporousis”. In some cases that might be correct, but certainly not in the case of the filioque. On top of that, the Latins were unfamiliar with the difficulty in the terminology, having only one term for procession (so both proinai and ekporousis were translated into the same word in Latin!) so everything looked fine from their perspective.

Of course all of this leaves aside the question of whether the filioque should have been added to the Creed in the first place. That’s another matter entirely, regardless of the orthodoxy of the term.

Peace and God bless!

 

[lanceg]

Since the modern Latin Church doesn’t have to deal with Arians, could we drop the “Filoque” from the creed without any problems with our understanding of the Trinity or the procession of the Holy Spirit? Might that go a long way toward reunification with our Eastern Brothers and Sisters?

If I am not mistaken, doesn’t Dominus Iesus feature the Creed without the filioque?

 

[Ghosty]

If I am not mistaken, doesn’t Dominus Iesus feature the Creed without the filioque?

Yep, sure does. The Universal Creed has no filioque, so neither does Dominus Iesus which was addressed to the whole Church.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Alethiaphile]

As far as I know, the “equally” refers to the “power of spiration,” not the roles. The POWER from the Father, is the SAME POWER, that flows through the Son. Is that so hard to comprehend?

There is nothing to comprehend, because it is incoherent. If a power originates with the Father and flows through the Son, then it is not from both “equally”. The decree language doesn’t say it’s the same power, it says the Spirit proceeds from both “equally”. If it had meant simply that it was the same power, then the decree would have said it was the same power. The drafters of the decrees were educated, literate men, and they knew how to communicate their meaning.

Why would that matter? Something is only dogmatized if it requires a definitive teaching - for example, if there is conflict over the matter. There was no conflict over the monarchy of the Father. Why do you think its exclusion from the dogmatic definition at Florence means anything?

 

[mardukm]

There is nothing to comprehend, because it is incoherent. If a power originates with the Father and flows through the Son, then it is not from both “equally”. The decree language doesn’t say it’s the same power, it says the Spirit proceeds from both “equally”. If it had meant simply that it was the same power, then the decree would have said it was the same power. The drafters of the decrees were educated, literate men, and they knew how to communicate their meaning.

Apparently not, since you are still having problems with it. And that’s my criticism with the Lyons/Florence decrees - they are not clear enough. But you’re saying they ARE clear enough.

I disagree with you, especially given the fact that the issue of the difference between procedit and ekporeusai was not treated at Lyons/Florence. That has only come to the attention of the Church much more recently, and the official/semi-official correspondences so far have been an awesome contribution to the whole issue.

If there was “no conflict over the monarchy of the Father”, then why was anything at all said about it? We know from historical record there were deep concerns over it, so your answer makes no sense.

You need to make a distinction between actual conflict, and mere misunderstanding. There was NEVER a time that the Latins did not admit the monarchy of the Father. There was certainly a certain ambiguity in the language of the Latins, but that is as far as it goes.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dvdjs]

Alethiaphile,

Consider:
1=1
0.3+0.7=1
x=1
x-3=1
(cosx)^2+(sinx)^2=1

Notice the many, distinctive uses of “=”.

 

[Madaglan]

Alethiaphile,

Consider:
1=1
0.3+0.7=1
x=1
x-3=1
(cosx)^2+(sinx)^2=1

Notice the many, distinctive uses of “=”.

I didn’t get the x-3=1

If x = 1, then wouldn’t that come out to -2=1?

 

[mardukm]

The Easterns believe:

(1 X 1)(1 x 1 x 1) = 1, where (1 X 1) = the Essence/Energies of God

Westerns believe:

(1)(1 x 1 x 1) = 1, where (1) = the Simplicity of God

Orientals believe:
(1)(1 X 1)(1 x 1 x 1) = 1

By the commutative property:

(1 X 1)(1 x 1 x 1) = (1)(1 x 1 x 1) = (1)(1 X 1)(1 x 1 x 1)

Therefore, there is nothing to divide us.

 

[Jimzz12]

Since the modern Latin Church doesn’t have to deal with Arians, could we drop the “Filoque” from the creed without any problems with our understanding of the Trinity or the procession of the Holy Spirit? Might that go a long way toward reunification with our Eastern Brothers and Sisters?

I have a Russian orthodox neighbor who gives me the impression they view God as a line and less like a trinity:

Father —> Son → Holy Spirit

Like the Father shots a Holy Spirit arrow through the Son and it doesn’t go back to the Father because the Father doesn’t need the Holy Spirit.

This kind of weirds me out. I was always brought up with the notion that a triangle stands on its own. The whole evidence of a characteristic of God drawn from creation kind of thing.

I also read from a thing from a Cypriot bishop Maximos (originally a monk from Mt Athos) who in between making jokes about how the Pope could never be inflallible because well because nobody else could be infallible. He said Catholics spend all their time thinking how to rational God and Orthodox pray unceasingly and therefore do not need to think about rational concepts. I think I was more bothered by putting condescending remarks into print than by the comment of downplaying the gift of the mind.

 

[Madaglan]

The Easterns believe:

(1 X 1)(1 x 1 x 1) = 1, where (1 X 1) = the Essence/Energies of God

Westerns believe:

(1)(1 x 1 x 1) = 1, where (1) = the Simplicity of God

Orientals believe:
(1)(1 X 1)(1 x 1 x 1) = 1

By the commutative property:

(1 X 1)(1 x 1 x 1) = (1)(1 x 1 x 1) = (1)(1 X 1)(1 x 1 x 1)

Therefore, there is nothing to divide us.

(1 X 1)(1 x 1 x 1)/1 = (1)(1 x 1 x 1)/1 = (1)(1 X 1)(1 x 1 x 1)/1

 

[Taboric_Light]

The Easterns believe:

(1 X 1)(1 x 1 x 1) = 1, where (1 X 1) = the Essence/Energies of God

Westerns believe:

(1)(1 x 1 x 1) = 1, where (1) = the Simplicity of God

Orientals believe:
(1)(1 X 1)(1 x 1 x 1) = 1

By the commutative property:

(1 X 1)(1 x 1 x 1) = (1)(1 x 1 x 1) = (1)(1 X 1)(1 x 1 x 1)

Therefore, there is nothing to divide us.

:yyeess::clapping:

 

[Taboric_Light]

Ghosty,

I’ve been kind of in and out and I don’t have time to do it right now, but sometime I am going to respond to the quote from St. Gregory of Nyssa. See you around.

In Christ through Mary

 

[Madaglan]

I have a Russian orthodox neighbor who gives me the impression they view God as a line and less like a trinity:

Father —> Son → Holy Spirit

Like the Father shots a Holy Spirit arrow through the Son and it doesn’t go back to the Father because the Father doesn’t need the Holy Spirit.

This kind of weirds me out. I was always brought up with the notion that a triangle stands on its own. The whole evidence of a characteristic of God drawn from creation kind of thing.

I also read from a thing from a Cypriot bishop Maximos (originally a monk from Mt Athos) who in between making jokes about how the Pope could never be inflallible because well because nobody else could be infallible. He said Catholics spend all their time thinking how to rational God and Orthodox pray unceasingly and therefore do not need to think about rational concepts. I think I was more bothered by putting condescending remarks into print than by the comment of downplaying the gift of the mind.

Interesting you think of it like a line. I’ve several times seen the Eastern view represented as a triangle, and the Western view as an upside down triangle.

 

[mardukm]

(1 X 1)(1 x 1 x 1)/1 = (1)(1 x 1 x 1)/1 = (1)(1 X 1)(1 x 1 x 1)/1

Mmmm. I translate your formula to mean that what is SEEMINGLY divisive, is NOT REALLY divisive, because it all results in the same equivalence.

Would that be a correct interpretation?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Madaglan]

Mmmm. I translate your formula to mean that what is SEEMINGLY divisive, is NOT REALLY divisive, because it all results in the same equivalence.

Would that be a correct interpretation?

Blessings,
Marduk

Who said division has to be divisive?

 

[mardukm]

Who said division has to be divisive?

By its very nature?

I would say distinctions need not be divisive.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[SedesDomi]

Mmmm. I translate your formula to mean that what is SEEMINGLY divisive, is NOT REALLY divisive, because it all results in the same equivalence.

Are you supporting relativism now?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Taboric Light,

I’ve been kind of in and out and I don’t have time to do it right now, but sometime I am going to respond to the quote from St. Gregory of Nyssa. See you around.

While you’re at it, I’d also like to hear your comments on this, from St. Gregory of Nyssa’s “Against Eunomius, Bk I”:

[The Son] is always with a Father Who always is, as those inspired words of our Master expressed it, “bound by way of generation to His Father’s Ungeneracy.” Our account of the Holy Ghost will be the same also; the difference is only in the place assigned in order. For as the Son is bound to the Father, and, while deriving existence from Him, is not substantially after Him, so again the Holy Ghost is in touch with the Only-Begotten, Who is conceived of as before the Spirit’s subsistence only in the theoretical light of a cause. Extensions of time find no admittance in the Eternal Life; so that, when we have removed the thought of cause, the Holy Trinity in no singly way exhibits discord with itself; and to It is glory due.

That sure sounds like the theology of filioque in no uncertain terms, exactly as the Latins teach it.

Here is another fascinating analogy from Gregory which demonstrates his understanding of the Trinity from his work “On the Trinity”:
It is as if a man were to see a separate flame burning on three torches, and we will suppose that the third flame is caused by that of the first being transmitted to the middle, and then kindling the end torch…If there is really no hindrance to the third torch being fire, though it has been kindled from a previous flame, what is the philosophy of these men, who profanely think that they can slight the dignity of the Holy Spirit because He is named by the divine lips after the Father and the Son?

Keep in mind that St. Gregory is combatting those who doubted the divinity of the Holy Spirit. He is not speaking here of just the Energies, for in fact, he distinctly asserts in the very next paragraph: “Since, then it has been affirmed, and truly affirmed, that the Spirit is of the Divine Essence…”

Clearly, the polemic of some modern EO that the Son has absolutely no role in the hypostasis of the Spirit is a sheer novelty.

Blessings,
Marduk