Expressions for filioque

[mardukm]

I thought about doing this poll in light of a recent thread in which I was involved. Here’s what I said so far in that other thread:

mardukm:

I must clarify that while it is wholly incorrect and a misrepresentation of Catholic teaching to say “the Father with the Son is the origin of the Holy Spirit,” I have read some theologians refer to Them together as the “principle of origin.” I think this is somewhat acceptable, though obviously also likely to be misunderstood – i.e., “principle of origin” as a philosophical concept CAN denote (1) a source/origin and an agency, (2) two separate sources/origins contributing separately and equally, or (3) two conjoined sources/origins dependent on each other of necessity. The Catholic teaching is (1), but NIEVER (2).or (3).

I would like to add that I much prefer the term “principle of procession” as opposed to “principle of origin.” Though the latter is often used by Latin Catholic theologians, the former is more faithful to the actual theological terminology of the Councils, and less likely to breed the confusion that the Son is Origin/Source of the Holy Spirit.

Of course, I believe the best expressions are the ones from the first millenium undivided Church -

Either “ekporeusai from the Father through the Son” or “procedit/proienai from the Father and the Son.”

On a scale from 1 to 10, I’d give, “The Father and Son are the origin of the Holy Spirit” a -10.

A 5 for “The Father and Son are the principle of origin of the Holy Spirit.”

An 8 for “The Father and Son are the principle of procession of the Holy Spirit.”

A 10 for either “ekporeusai from the Father through the Son” or “procedit/proienai from the Father and the Son.”

This poll is only for those who accept the orthodox teaching behind filioque.

You may vote for multiple answers.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[DavidFilmer]

I vote for none of the above. But you did not provide such an option.

Quantum physics teaches (according to the Copenhagen Interpretation of Niels Bohr) that electromagnetic energy (and, later proved, matter itself) exists in a quantum “superposition” of wave and particle energy, which does not “collapse” into one state or another until it is observed.

In other words, if you construct an experiment that will reveal the particle nature of light, you will always find light to consist of particles (photons). If you construct an experiment to reveal the wave nature of light (such as the famous two-slit experiment) you will always observe the wave nature of light. It has been proven that it is impossible to construct an experiment that can simultaneously observe both the wave and particle nature of light.

(I could digress to the subject of quantum entanglement, which Einstein (who rejected Bohr’s ideas - oops) called “spooky action at a distance” but has been experimentally verified beyond all doubt by Alian Aspect).

I suggest that the Trinity is a sort of superposition (a Divine Superposition, as opposed to a quantum superposition) of God.

Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father AND THE SON? It all depends on how you observe the action of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Ysara]

I vote for none of the above. But you did not provide such an option.

Quantum physics teaches (according to the Copenhagen Interpretation of Niels Bohr) that electromagnetic energy (and, later proved, matter itself) exists in a quantum “superposition” of wave and particle energy, which does not “collapse” into one state or another until it is observed.

In other words, if you construct an experiment that will reveal the particle nature of light, you will always find light to consist of particles (photons). If you construct an experiment to reveal the wave nature of light (such as the famous two-slit experiment) you will always observe the wave nature of light. It has been proven that it is impossible to construct an experiment that can simultaneously observe both the wave and particle nature of light.

(I could digress to the subject of quantum entanglement, which Einstein (who rejected Bohr’s ideas - oops) called “spooky action at a distance” but has been experimentally verified beyond all doubt by Alian Aspect).

I suggest that the Trinity is a sort of superposition (a Divine Superposition, as opposed to a quantum superposition) of God.

Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father AND THE SON? It all depends on how you observe the action of the Holy Spirit.

Love your reply!!! :thumbsup:

 

[mardukm]

. Very clever, brother David. On your premise, you should choose options 1, 2, and 3, or just 2 and 3.

Blessings,
Marduk

I vote for none of the above. But you did not provide such an option.

Quantum physics teaches (according to the Copenhagen Interpretation of Niels Bohr) that electromagnetic energy (and, later proved, matter itself) exists in a quantum “superposition” of wave and particle energy, which does not “collapse” into one state or another until it is observed.

In other words, if you construct an experiment that will reveal the particle nature of light, you will always find light to consist of particles (photons). If you construct an experiment to reveal the wave nature of light (such as the famous two-slit experiment) you will always observe the wave nature of light. It has been proven that it is impossible to construct an experiment that can simultaneously observe both the wave and particle nature of light.

(I could digress to the subject of quantum entanglement, which Einstein (who rejected Bohr’s ideas - oops) called “spooky action at a distance” but has been experimentally verified beyond all doubt by Alian Aspect).

I suggest that the Trinity is a sort of superposition (a Divine Superposition, as opposed to a quantum superposition) of God.

Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father AND THE SON? It all depends on how you observe the action of the Holy Spirit.

 

[JonNC]

I thought about doing this poll in light of a recent thread in which I was involved. Here’s what I said so far in that other thread:

I would like to add that I much prefer the term “principle of procession” as opposed to “principle of origin.” Though the latter is often used by Latin Catholic theologians, the former is more faithful to the actual theological terminology of the Councils, and less likely to breed the confusion that the Son is Origin/Source of the Holy Spirit.

Of course, I believe the best expressions are the ones from the first millenium undivided Church -

Either “ekporeusai from the Father through the Son” or “procedit/proienai from the Father and the Son.”

On a scale from 1 to 10, I’d give, “The Father and Son are the origin of the Holy Spirit” a -10.

A 5 for “The Father and Son are the principle of origin of the Holy Spirit.”

An 8 for “The Father and Son are the principle of procession of the Holy Spirit.”

A 10 for either “ekporeusai from the Father through the Son” or “procedit/proienai from the Father and the Son.”

This poll is only for those who accept the orthodox teaching behind filioque.

You may vote for multiple answers.

Blessings,
Marduk

My understanding as a Lutheran is “from the Father through the Son”. I’m not saying that’s the Lutheran teaching, only that it is my understanding.

Jon

 

[MarcoPolo]

A 10 for either “ekporeusai from the Father through the Son” or “procedit/proienai from the Father and the Son.”

I tend toward one of these, although we are trying to use human language to exemplify a mystery. One of my favorite ECF quotes on this is from an, I believe, Eastern Father, who is not alone in recognizing a certain bridal type in the Spirit, i.e. Eve:*… through the recapitulation of His passion, should die again, coming down from heaven, and being “joined to His wife,” the Church, should provide for a certain power being taken from His own side, so that all who are built up in Him should grow up, even those who are born again by the laver, receiving of His bones and of His flesh, that is, of His holiness and of His glory. For he who says that the bones and flesh of Wisdom are understanding and virtue, says most rightly; and that the side is the Spirit of truth, the Paraclete, of whom the illuminated receiving are fitly born again to incorruption. (St. Methodius, Banquet of the Ten Virgins, 3.8) *As Eve proceeded from Adam’s side in the temporal order, so too does the Spirit proceed in some sense from the Father through the Son.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

I vote for none of the above. But you did not provide such an option.

Quantum physics teaches (according to the Copenhagen Interpretation of Niels Bohr) that electromagnetic energy (and, later proved, matter itself) exists in a quantum “superposition” of wave and particle energy, which does not “collapse” into one state or another until it is observed.

In other words, if you construct an experiment that will reveal the particle nature of light, you will always find light to consist of particles (photons). If you construct an experiment to reveal the wave nature of light (such as the famous two-slit experiment) you will always observe the wave nature of light. It has been proven that it is impossible to construct an experiment that can simultaneously observe both the wave and particle nature of light.

(I could digress to the subject of quantum entanglement, which Einstein (who rejected Bohr’s ideas - oops) called “spooky action at a distance” but has been experimentally verified beyond all doubt by Alian Aspect).

I suggest that the Trinity is a sort of superposition (a Divine Superposition, as opposed to a quantum superposition) of God.

Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father AND THE SON? It all depends on how you observe the action of the Holy Spirit.

I really like this response…I have often wondered how can the Holy Spirit, who is in all, and through all, flow or proceed from one place to another? If He occupies all space, then he neither flows or proceeds, but is…but since the Holy Spirit is not directly observable, He seems to proceed from both the Father and the Son.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Since the Bible uses the term ekporeuomai in reference to the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and (through) the Son, I considered the last ‘option’ to be the correct one. St Ambrose and other early fathers understood the “River” in Revelation 22:1 to be a reference to the Holy Spirit proceeding from both:
This is what St Ambrose said in On the Holy Spirit, Book III, putting together John 7:37-39** AND** Revelations 22:1-2, saying in Chapter 20:

153. And this, again, is not a trivial matter that we read that a river goes forth from the throne of God. For you read the words of the Evangelist John to this purport: And He showed me a river of living water, bright as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street thereof, and on either side, was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruits, yielding its fruit every month, and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of all nations. (Revelation 22:1-2) 154. This is certainly the River proceeding from the throne of God, that is, the Holy Spirit, Whom he drinks who believes in Christ, as He Himself says: If any man thirst, let him come to Me and drink. He that believes in Me, as says the Scripture, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spoke He of the Spirit. (John 7:37-38) Therefore the river is the Spirit.
​

Also, the typical “triangle” model we often see when demonstrating the Filioque is incorrect and should stop being used, since even though it indicates one ‘origin’, it implies two ‘proceeding’ paths. Really, the model should be that of a straight line.