Explain Like I'm 5: Eastern Rejection of the Filioque

[FossilResin]

Explain to me like I’m a 5 year old: why does the Eastern Orthodox church believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father and not from the Son? This is called the Filioque, when we in the Latin church say “proceeds from the Father and the Son”

How can the Holy Spirit not proceed from God the Son as well as the Father?

Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
(John 20: 21-22)

I read that the Filioque was not in the original Nicene Creed. But if so, then why?

 

[adamhovey1988]

I don’t know, but my experience with Eastern Catholics, has been that they do not use the filioque when they say the Creed. I don’t know enough about Eastern Orthodoxy to know why they do reject what they do, I had an Eastern Orthodox priest as Professor once, that was not really something he discussed. I know that there are other people here that are way more knowledgeable of this than I am. I wish I could be of more help.

 

[Justin_Mary]

This is called the Filioque, when we in the Latin church say “proceeds from the Father and the Son ”

I’m not Orthodox, but my understanding is they believe “proceeds from” to mean what we believe “begotten” to mean & that makes the Holy Spirit a lesser being. Not equal to the Father, not equal to the Son.

Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
(John 20: 21-22)

That’s my understanding of “proceeds from” it doesn’t address filoque for the Orthodox

 

[Dan_Defender]

Filioque is Latin for ‘and the Son.’ The Creed of the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) was not that specific at the time, the Creed of the Council of Constantinople (381 AD) is the one that actually clarifies the role of the Holy Spirit. The dispute is actually more a matter of semantics.

 

[babochka]

I read that the Filioque was not in the original Nicene Creed. But if so, then why?

This isn’t the question to ask. The question to ask is, “Why was the phrase added to the original creed?” The answer is complex. As I understand it, the problem is linguistic. Greek is an extraordinarily precise and nuanced language. When the Creed is translated literally into Latin, it does not convey the full sense of the theology of The Holy Trinity. The phrase was added only to the Latin translation of the Creed. The Church does not use the phrase when praying the Creed in the original Greek.

At this point in history, the vast majority of theologians, both east and west, do not see the filioque as a major theological problem.

 

[Justin_Mary]

They reject it because it was added without an ecumenical Council.

& the West doesn’t see it as an addition. Just a translation. I.E. the West wasn’t trying to add to Nicea. Just translating what was there.

 

[ziapueblo]

Here’s a good article:

Filioque | From East to West

ZP

 

[George720]

Explain to me like I’m a 5 year old: why does the Eastern Orthodox church believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father and not from the Son?

Because I AM a 5 year old, perhaps I can finally be useful to at least one person on this forum!

The Creed, aka the Symbol of the Faith, was given to the Church by the Holy Spirit fairly early in its Ecumenical Life, and it was given to UNITE ALL CHRISTIANS in ONE Confession of the Faith of our Lord Jesus Christ which He gave to His Disciples, the Apostles, who have passed it on to us all…

And of course, everyone wanted to “improve” it with their own theological ideas, such that subsequent Ecumenical Councils in the first Millennium of this Faith ruled that it be neither added to nor subtracted from by even so much as one word, lest its purpose be subverted and the Church divided…

Then the Filioque was added at the beginning of the second millennium, and VOILA!!

The term “proceeds”, translated into English, would be better rendered “is proceeding” in the Greek present tense… And it refers to the differentia of the manner of Being of the Holy Spirit from the manner of Being of the Son in relation to the Father, because the Creed begins with: “I believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of the heavens and the earth, and of all things visible and invisible…” Hence the Father is the Source or Origin of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…

So that in the context of the Creed, the term “is proceeding” does not refer to the economia of movement, but of relationship to the Father as Origination of Being… In terms of movement, both the Son and the Holy Spirit “are going forth” (eg - “are proceeding”) from the Father…

And the killer anecdote comes from when the early first century Latin Bishops demanded of the Orthodox Bishops in no uncertain terms to explain in great detail exactly WHY the Orthodox had REMOVED the Filioque from the Creed, and WHO exactly they thought they were to commit such an outrage! That small problem did manage to exit the scene within a fairly short period of time, thanks be to God, unlike the persistence of the Filioque!

The Latin Church has now conceded the Orthodox understanding, and only keeps the Filioque in its Latin version of the Creed, as a local Counciliar matter in the combatting of a local Arian (I think) heresy… eg They do not require it any longer in the Papal Greek Confession…

So there is progress toward reunification…

geo

 

[babochka]

And the killer anecdote comes from when the early first century Latin Bishops demanded of the Orthodox Bishops in no uncertain terms to explain in great detail exactly WHY the Orthodox had REMOVED the Filioque from the Creed, and WHO exactly they thought they were to commit such an outrage!

Who are these first century Latin bishops, who asked this question before the creed was even written and before different rites had developed in the Church?

They do not require it any longer in the Papal Greek Confession

Has it ever been required in the Papal Greek confession? If so, when did that cease?

Although Greek Catholics used to add it, that Latinization was entirely self-imposed. The first provision of the Union of Brest specifically states that, as a condition of the union, Greek Catholics would be compelled to no other Creed then that which had been handed down to them. If there has been some sort of concession on the part of the Catholic Church, it happened four centuries ago.

 

[George720]

Who are these first century Latin bishops, who asked this question before the creed was even written and before different rites had developed in the Church?

Forgive me - I meant the first century of the second millennium…

Although Greek Catholics used to add it, that Latinization was entirely self-imposed.

It was insisted on at the Council of Florence by the Latin Legates…

The first provision of the Union of Brest specifically states that, as a condition of the union, Greek Catholics would be compelled to no other Creed then that which had been handed down to them.

That is good (might I add “old”??) news - Thank-you… I am not a keen historian…

One path now opening up some is the treatment of the Latin rulings as having Local Council import, and not applicable to the whole Catholic Church… I am a little suspicious of that way, but it does seem to work somewhat ok with the Filioque…

geo

 

[dochawk]

How can the Holy Spirit not proceed from God the Son as well as the Father?

The ultimate problem here is that you’re asking about English and latin verbs.

The creed is in greek, which has about a half a dozen verb that all translate to “proceed” in latin.

The greek verb used, which I never manage to remember, means to proceed in origin. While this will get mixed up shortly with cherry-picked quotes, the East does not reject the notion that the spirit is sent forth from Christ (He even says he will do this in the Gospels).

That said, it would just as reasonable to put your question as, “Why did the Roman church reject the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople, and unilaterally alter the creed?”

 

[irenaeuslyons]

A very thorough explanation by the late Cardinal Avery Dulles.
http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/dullesthefilioque.pdf