Dropping the Filoque

[mardukm]

Are you supporting relativism now?

That’s the great thing about math. There’s no relativism involved (though there is a concept called “frame of reference” in vectors, it has nothing to do with relativism, but is the exact opposite).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Madaglan]

That’s the great thing about math. There’s no relativism involved (though there is a concept called “frame of reference” in vectors, it has nothing to do with relativism, but is the exact opposite).

Blessings,
Marduk

True, except when one uses imaginary numbers.

jk… I suppose they have absolute value…

 

[mardukm]

True, except when one uses imaginary numbers.

jk

OUCH! :doh2: :bowdown2:

You have humbled me!

 

[mardukm]

OUCH! :doh2: :bowdown2:

You have humbled me!

But only relatively… for as you know, multiplying two imaginary numbers results in a real number.

 

[Alethiaphile]

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.

You are being fuzzy with your language. I don’t have problems interpreting the language of Lyons/Florence, it’s pretty clear what it means. I have a problem with it in the sense that I don’t believe it. I do not believe that the Father and the Son equally spirate the Holy Spirit. Joe

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Joe,

You are being fuzzy with your language. I don’t have problems interpreting the language of Lyons/Florence, it’s pretty clear what it means. I have a problem with it in the sense that I don’t believe it. I do not believe that the Father and the Son equally spirate the Holy Spirit.

Then there’s really no problem. Because what brother Ghosty and myself are saying (that Florence is explicit that the Son is not the Source, but the Father is) is exactly what you believe (that the Son is not the Source, but the Father is).

So let’s not argue about words anymore, per St. Paul’s own exhortation, agreed?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alethiaphile,

mardukm;4912930:

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.

I believe brother Ghosty has been trying to point this out to you incessantly, without, though no fault of his own, much success. But let me give it a try.

First, I believe the problem is that you are treating the word “proceeds” as if it comes from the Greek ekporeusai. I’m sorry, but it DOES NOT. The word “proceeds” is derived from the Latin procedit, and has the same connotations of that word, with the same difference from the word ekporeusai. Namely, the English word “proceeds” as used by the Western Church does NOT mean “originate from”(which is what ekporeusai literally means in English) but merely “flow from” (which is what procedit literally means in English).

Second, given the above, it should not cause you any concern that Lyons uses the word “equally” with regards to procedit. You complain that Lyons does not say “the power proceeds equally…” but rather “the Spirit proceeds equally.” But here is what you are seemingly failing to comprehend: There is something about the word procedit that is very significantly different from ekporeusai - namely, the word procedit, unlike ekporeusai, makes no inherent reference to the origin. Procedit only refers to the divine action, not the divine Source. Thus, the statement “the Spirit proceeds procedit not ekporeusai]equally from” is actually a reference to the processive act or power, NOT the Source.

Now, if ekporeusai was being used in the phrase, then your complaint would actually be legitimate. In other words, since ekporeusai inherently refers to the Source, then the phrase would refer to two equal Sources. But the phrase does NOT use ekporeusai - instead, it uses procedit. Since procedit is used, the MOST you can conclude is that the phrase refers to two equal flowing/processive actions.

The whole problem was that, when the text of the Decree was translated for the Greeks, the word ekporeusai was used to translate the word procedit. By God’s grace, the recent official and semi-offical clarifications on the difference between those two words have been exposed. Let us go on from there, and stop arguing about words.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dvdjs]

You are being fuzzy with your language. I don’t have problems interpreting the language of Lyons/Florence, it’s pretty clear what it means. I have a problem with it in the sense that I don’t believe it. I do not believe that the Father and the Son equally spirate the Holy Spirit. Joe

Alethiaphile: Your interpretation contradicts the understanding of the Catholic Church. You may think that you have no “problems interpreting the language”, but your interpretation, however easily you arrive at it, is in error. It is your selection of a particular meaning of “equally” among its many nuances that is root of your error.

 

[Apophatic]

Dear brother Alethiaphile,

First, I believe the problem is that you are treating the word “proceeds” as if it comes from the Greek ekporeusai. I’m sorry, but it DOES NOT. The word “proceeds” is derived from the Latin procedit, and has the same connotations of that word, with the same difference from the word ekporeusai. Namely, the English word “proceeds” as used by the Western Church does NOT mean “originate from”(which is what ekporeusai literally means in English) but merely “flow from” (which is what procedit literally means in English).

Second, given the above, it should not cause you any concern that Lyons uses the word “equally” with regards to procedit. You complain that Lyons does not say “the power proceeds equally…” but rather “the Spirit proceeds equally.” But here is what you are seemingly failing to comprehend: There is something about the word procedit that is very significantly different from ekporeusai - namely, the word procedit, unlike ekporeusai, makes no inherent reference to the origin. Procedit only refers to the divine action, not the divine Source. Thus, the statement “the Spirit proceeds procedit not ekporeusai]equally from” is actually a reference to the processive act or power, NOT the Source.

Marduk

Thank you for that clarity, indeed the words are just a mask for the real issues:

1. The Latin (or the English “and”) means the Holy Spirit originates from the Son too.
2. The Latin Church made a unilateral (heretical?) modification to the Nicene Creed.

On the first point.

The full definition of the procession includes ‘…as from a single principle’. This is an important addition if one is to talk about the Son’s involvement in the procession.

The Son receives everything from the Father except the Monarchy, which is the source of the Trinity. Only the Father is not from another in origin. The Father does everything through the Son, and the Son does everything He sees the Father doing. So then, just what is the relationship of the Son to the Holy Spirit?

There must be a relationship between them at the core level of the Godhead or else it would be less than that between the Father and the Son, causing the Trinity to be lopsided. It would be linear with the Son interposing between and we would have the successionist heresies of the Father to the Son to the Holy Spirit. The Son cannot have a direct relationship to the Holy Spirit to the exclusion of the Father because everything He has is from the Father. It is only by saying ‘…through the Son as from a single principle’ that we safeguard both the Father as Source and the Son as consubstantial with Him.

I must disagree that the English translation is ambiguous in this regard. In English as well, to proceed or to be sent does not need to make a statement about origin. I can send a friend or I can send my son on a mission using identical wording.

A good reference to these points can be found in two of St. Thomas Aquinas’ works, Against the Errors of the Greeks and the Summa where he discusses the Persons of the Trinity and Their origin.

On the second point.

First and foremost, the Creed does not say ‘from the Father ALONE’. It makes no comment on the Son’s participation at all. This leaves open, at least the possibility of a deeper understanding of the relations in the Trinity. It would not be heresy, as such, to clarify this particular point. In fact, it was necessary in the West to do so, hence the filioque.

What about the prohibition of the Council about changes to the Creed? First of all, pull up the actual Nicene Creed from the documents and you will see that it is markedly different in places from the one we recite today. In both the East and the West (minus the filioque), we recite this same “different” creed. Does this mean that the Orthodox are potential heretics too? Not at all. In LITURGICAL use, the creed evolved and reached its final form by the time of the First Council of Constantinople in 381AD when it was accepted as is without comment.

You will also see that Nicea never prohibited changes to the creed. It was actually the Council of Chalcedon in 451AD that made such a prohibition.

…no one is permitted to produce, or even to write down or compose, any other creed or to think or teach otherwise. As for those who dare either to compose another creed or even to promulgate or teach or hand down another creed for those who wish to convert to a recognition of the truth from Hellenism or from Judaism, or from any kind of heresy at all: if they be bishops or clerics, the bishops are to be deposed from the episcopacy and the clerics from the clergy; if they be monks or layfolk, they are to be anathematised.

This anathema is the core of the Orthodox argument. So, are the Catholics wrong then?

It should be noted that this anathema was issued immediately following the declaration of the dual nature of Christ, not in the context of the creed as a whole. It does say that the creed of Nicea is to remain inviolate, but allows the changes made at Constantinople by saying,

…[This council] ratifies the teaching about the being of the holy Spirit handed down by the 150 saintly fathers who met some time later in the imperial city, the teaching they made known to all, not introducing anything left out by their predecessors, but clarifying their ideas about the Holy Spirit by the use of scriptural testimonies against those who were trying to do away with his sovereignty.

With the filioque, Catholics are clarifying, not adding to the creed to combat attacks against the Holy Spirit’s Sovereignty they encountered from the Arians in the West.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Apophatic,

1. A hearty WELCOME TO THE BOARDS!!!
2. should I address you as “brother” or “sister”?
3. Given your name, would it be correct to assume that you are an Eastern/Oriental Catholic?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Madaglan]

Thank you for that clarity, indeed the words are just a mask for the real issues:

1. The Latin (or the English “and”) means the Holy Spirit originates from the Son too.
2. The Latin Church made a unilateral (heretical?) modification to the Nicene Creed.

On the first point.

The full definition of the procession includes ‘…as from a single principle’. This is an important addition if one is to talk about the Son’s involvement in the procession.

The Son receives everything from the Father except the Monarchy, which is the source of the Trinity. Only the Father is not from another in origin. The Father does everything through the Son, and the Son does everything He sees the Father doing. So then, just what is the relationship of the Son to the Holy Spirit?

There must be a relationship between them at the core level of the Godhead or else it would be less than that between the Father and the Son, causing the Trinity to be lopsided. It would be linear with the Son interposing between and we would have the successionist heresies of the Father to the Son to the Holy Spirit. The Son cannot have a direct relationship to the Holy Spirit to the exclusion of the Father because everything He has is from the Father. It is only by saying ‘…through the Son as from a single principle’ that we safeguard both the Father as Source and the Son as consubstantial with Him.

I must disagree that the English translation is ambiguous in this regard. In English as well, to proceed or to be sent does not need to make a statement about origin. I can send a friend or I can send my son on a mission using identical wording.

A good reference to these points can be found in two of St. Thomas Aquinas’ works, Against the Errors of the Greeks and the Summa where he discusses the Persons of the Trinity and Their origin.

On the second point.

First and foremost, the Creed does not say ‘from the Father ALONE’. It makes no comment on the Son’s participation at all. This leaves open, at least the possibility of a deeper understanding of the relations in the Trinity. It would not be heresy, as such, to clarify this particular point. In fact, it was necessary in the West to do so, hence the filioque.

What about the prohibition of the Council about changes to the Creed? First of all, pull up the actual Nicene Creed from the documents and you will see that it is markedly different in places from the one we recite today. In both the East and the West (minus the filioque), we recite this same “different” creed. Does this mean that the Orthodox are potential heretics too? Not at all. In LITURGICAL use, the creed evolved and reached its final form by the time of the First Council of Constantinople in 381AD when it was accepted as is without comment.

You will also see that Nicea never prohibited changes to the creed. It was actually the Council of Chalcedon in 451AD that made such a prohibition.

…no one is permitted to produce, or even to write down or compose, any other creed or to think or teach otherwise. As for those who dare either to compose another creed or even to promulgate or teach or hand down another creed for those who wish to convert to a recognition of the truth from Hellenism or from Judaism, or from any kind of heresy at all: if they be bishops or clerics, the bishops are to be deposed from the episcopacy and the clerics from the clergy; if they be monks or layfolk, they are to be anathematised.

This anathema is the core of the Orthodox argument. So, are the Catholics wrong then?

It should be noted that this anathema was issued immediately following the declaration of the dual nature of Christ, not in the context of the creed as a whole. It does say that the creed of Nicea is to remain inviolate, but allows the changes made at Constantinople by saying,

…[This council] ratifies the teaching about the being of the holy Spirit handed down by the 150 saintly fathers who met some time later in the imperial city, the teaching they made known to all, not introducing anything left out by their predecessors, but clarifying their ideas about the Holy Spirit by the use of scriptural testimonies against those who were trying to do away with his sovereignty.

With the filioque, Catholics are clarifying, not adding to the creed to combat attacks against the Holy Spirit’s Sovereignty they encountered from the Arians in the West.

Combat attacks against the Holy Spirit’s Sovereignty? The filioque is rather understood by many to subordinate the Holy Spirit. The inclusion of the filioque into the Creed was more intended to bolster the consubstantiality and coeternity of the Son with the Father.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Madaglan,

Combat attacks against the Holy Spirit’s Sovereignty? The filioque is rather understood by many to subordinate the Holy Spirit. The inclusion of the filioque into the Creed was more intended to bolster the consubstantiality and coeternity of the Son with the Father.

I am just a little bit surprised to hear you say this. I feel Apophatic’s statement is true. Though the theology behind filioque was used in the West to combat a Christological heresy, it was used in the East/Orient to combat Pneumatological heresies. The argument, as evident from the quotes I gave here in this thread from St. Basil and St. Gregory of Nyssa, ran: Because the Spirit is to the Son as the Son is to the Father, then the Spirit must necessarily be Divine as well.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ghosty]

Dear brother Madaglan,

I am just a little bit surprised to hear you say this. I feel Apophatic’s statement is true. Though the theology behind filioque was used in the West to combat a Christological heresy, it was used in the East/Orient to combat Pneumatological heresies. The argument, as evident from the quotes I gave here in this thread from St. Basil and St. Gregory of Nyssa, ran: Because the Spirit is to the Son as the Son is to the Father, then the Spirit must necessarily be Divine as well.

Blessings,
Marduk

That’s an interesting point that I’ve never noticed, despite drawing most of my filioque understanding and belief from such Eastern Fathers. The entire point really is to draw the whole Trinity together as one Deity, without cutting out any individuals, and to highlight the consubtantiality of all three.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Madaglan]

Dear brother Madaglan,

I am just a little bit surprised to hear you say this. I feel Apophatic’s statement is true. Though the theology behind filioque was used in the West to combat a Christological heresy, it was used in the East/Orient to combat Pneumatological heresies. The argument, as evident from the quotes I gave here in this thread from St. Basil and St. Gregory of Nyssa, ran: Because the Spirit is to the Son as the Son is to the Father, then the Spirit must necessarily be Divine as well.

Blessings,
Marduk

Apophatic mentioned the filioque as used to combat Arianism in the West. I was commenting on its intended use in the West, where it was added to the Creed and propagated.

Concerning the Cappadocian Fathers: they largely wrote before the Council of Constantinople (381). The Nicene-Constantinople Creed does not have a filioque clause, yet effectively affirms the divinity (and sovereignty) of the Holy Spirit: …“Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceeds (*ekporeusai) *from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified.” If the Greeks, in their combat against the Macedonians, thought it necessary to affirm that the Holy Spirit “flows from” the “Father and the Son,” they could have included this clause as well, but they did not. Not saying that they didn’t believe in it; but in directly addressing the heresy of the Spirit-fighters, they did see to include it in the Creed.

What I never understood is why the Latins don’t go the whole way and say that the Son is eternally begotten by the Father and the Holy Spirit. Surely the Father doesn’t beget the Son without any relation to the Holy Spirit. Maybe not two sources, but an idea akin to “flows from” both as one. A future clarification, perhaps.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Madaglan,

What I never understood is why the Latins don’t go the whole way and say that the Son is eternally begotten by the Father and the Holy Spirit. Surely the Father doesn’t beget the Son without any relation to the Holy Spirit. Maybe not two sources, but an idea akin to “flows from” both as one. A future clarification, perhaps.

No future clarification is needed. A thorough reading of the Fathers is sufficient. As Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria taught, as St. Basil taught, and as so many other Fathers have taught, our Faith is not restricted to the Creed or to things which are written down, but to the WHOLE Tradition of the Church.

In light of that, a thorough reading of the Fathers will demonstrate that your question had long ago been answered by the Fathers themselves. In response to your claim that the Persons can somehow be confused, the Cappadocians proclaimed that the very names of the Persons designates both their hypostases and their relationships. Further, they insisted that their relationship is properly reflected in the doxology. Pray and meditate on these facts next time you begin to feel confused about the patristic teaching that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father and proceeds through the Son.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Madaglan]

Dear brother Madaglan,

No future clarification is needed. A thorough reading of the Fathers is sufficient. As Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria taught, as St. Basil taught, and as so many other Fathers have taught, our Faith is not restricted to the Creed or to things which are written down, but to the WHOLE Tradition of the Church.

In light of that, a thorough reading of the Fathers will demonstrate that your question had long ago been answered by the Fathers themselves. In response to your claim that the Persons can somehow be confused, the Cappadocians proclaimed that the very names of the Persons designates both their hypostases and their relationships. Further, they insisted that their relationship is properly reflected in the doxology. Pray and meditate on these facts next time you begin to feel confused about the patristic teaching that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father and proceeds through the Son.

Blessings,
Marduk

I nowhere claimed in my last post that the Persons can somehow be confused.

This said, the Persons of the Trinity can in fact be confused, as in the case of Modalism.

 

[mardukm]

I nowhere claimed in my last post that the Persons can somehow be confused.

This said, the Persons of the Trinity can in fact be confused, as in the case of Modalism.

True, Modalists worked off of the premise that there was only ONE hypostasis in God. Off of that assumption, they could ONLY conclude that the Son and Holy Spirit were merely aspect of the Father.

But that is not the same premise off which the Eastern/Oriental Fathers worked when they taught that the Spirit originates from the Father and proceeds through the Son, nor. the Western Fathers when they taught that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. All Fathers worked off the same premises that: 1) the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct Persons of the Trinity; 2) that they are one in Divinity and Godhood (i.e., homoousious); 3) that the Father is the Source of the Son and Holy Spirit.

Now, if the Western Fathers taught that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, while teaching that the Father is the Source of the Son and the Spriit, how does one possibly conclude that the Spirit is somehow involved in the generation of the Son? How does one even make such a claim that is in clear violation of one of the most standard proofs of the relational properties of three Persons - namely, the doxology? Does any apostolic Church ever proclaim the order of Persons to be “Son, Father, and Holy Spirit”?
Or “Father, Holy Spirit, and Son?” Or “Holy Spirit, Son, Father?” Or “Son, Holy Spirit, Father?” Remember, brother, WE PRAY, THEREFORE WE BELIEVE. The doxology (the order of the Names) itself reflects not only their distinct hypostases, but also their proper relationship in the Trinity.

So why and how, pray tell, do such thoughts possibly enter your mind? I believe the very fact that the Latin Church did not “go all the way,” as you put it, indicates that the hand of God had and has been protecting her up until now. Let’s hope the Holy Spirit likewise protects Eastern Orthodoxy, and prevents the spread of this polemical novelty that seeks to cause not mere distinction, but actual division between the Essence and Energies of God.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[johnnykins]

Hes are you saying you AGREE with the Catholic theology of the Filioque as clearly defined by Catholicism? If yes, that’s one thing. If NO, well— that’s another. No quibbling, Hes! Do you agree the Catholic Church’s understanding is orthodox (small “o” - and therefore the same as that of the Orthodox (capital “O”) church)?

Well, I guess HES can’t or won’t answer!!

That certainly answers the issue doesn’t it.

 

[jimmy]

“Through the Son” has the same meaning, in Latin theology, as “and from the Son”, so it could certainly be translated that way. I’ve heard some Eastern Orthodox reject even “through the Son”, however, so it wouldn’t be a fix for everyone. That the Latin Church understands it as “through the Son” can be seen quite clearly in the Articles of the Union of Brest (which created the Ukrainian Catholic Church). Article One states:

The problem is that the statement that ‘and the Son’ and ‘through the Son’ are the same still remains ambiguous. I get the feeling that when this is said, ‘through the Son’ is meant in the way that the Father gives the Son the power to spirate the Spirit and consequently the Son is really the primary source of the Spirit. You can then only say that the Father is the sole principle of the Spirit in as much as He is the principle of the Son. And so the monarchy of the Father is completely destroyed. What you then have looks like platonism in which there is the One, the nous and the world soul. The nous falls from the One and the world sould is a descent from the nous.

 

[Ghosty]

The problem is that the statement that ‘and the Son’ and ‘through the Son’ are the same still remains ambiguous. I get the feeling that when this is said, ‘through the Son’ is meant in the way that the Father gives the Son the power to spirate the Spirit and consequently the Son is really the primary source of the Spirit. You can then only say that the Father is the sole principle of the Spirit in as much as He is the principle of the Son. And so the monarchy of the Father is completely destroyed. What you then have looks like platonism in which there is the One, the nous and the world soul. The nous falls from the One and the world sould is a descent from the nous.

No one has ever claimed that the Son alone Spirates the Holy Spirit; it’s never even come up in the ongoing, century-long debates. I don’t think anyone should be concerned that this is the claim of the filioque, especially since the filioque itself says “from the Father and the Son”, indicating that the Father Spirates.

Peace and God bless!