fililoque

  • Thread starter Thread starter isus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dzheremi said:
No Orthodox person argues over the filioque. It is definitively rejected, so there’s no need to argue over it.
Click to expand...
I think you’re confused. No Catholic person argues over the filioque. It is definitively accepted, so there’s no need to argue over it. 😃 😉 😃
 
josie_L said:
Well, I can’t stand threads about the filioque either, but I believe there are some within Orthodoxy that don’t believe it is heretical.
Click to expand...
Indeed there are some who do not believe it is necessarily heretical, but I meant that as a Church, the Orthodox Church rejects it. Neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox communions are churches of individual opinion, so the fact that you might find a variety of opinions from individuals in either regarding this or other matters cannot be used to say that the churches themselves believe this or that. On those things on which some degree of personal opinion is allowed, I’m sure you can find all sorts of ideas out there. It doesn’t necessarily make them “Orthodox” just because an Orthodox person says them. Just yesterday as we sat together to break the fast, a friend of mine from Church spent considerable time trying to convince me that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. He heard it from another Coptic person on the internet. I asked him if he had approached either of our priests with this idea, or HG Bishop Youssef our bishop about this. He said he had talked to HG Bishop Youssef and HG said that the Coptic Orthodox Church does not embrace a literalist view regarding Gensis or the creation. That is in line with my understanding, from having read our Fathers on matters of Biblical interpretation. Therefore, the fact that I have apparently found one person who disagrees with our history and hermeneutic tradition and consistently taught faith in this matter and yet is still Orthodox does not mean that I can say “the Coptic Orthodox Church preaches biblical literalism” or “the Coptic Orthodox Church disbelieves in evolution”. Individual people within it may hold these stances, but that is of no consequence regarding what the Church teaches.
Moreover, no one would have thought that Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians would come to some degree of understanding and/or acceptance of each others beliefs, thus proving that if one takes the time to really delve into theology without any blinders on, progress can be made.
Click to expand...
This is irrelevant, and as the only non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Christian on this board I am tired of seeing this used as a comparison or reference for everything.
 
GaryTaylor said:
As I remember reference is to the Gospel; “I and the Father are one” .
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, this doesn’t solve the problem. The problem is that if you say the Father and Son act as one in processing the Spirit, then for the principle of origin of the Spirit you have a fourth entity in the Trinity; this combination of Father and Son. While Anselm and Thomas seem to have no problem with this, it is a huge problem from a patristic and Orthodox perspective. A divine person can only have its origin from another divine person, and that person must be the Father. The “Father-Son” so-to-speak (Thomas says the Father and the Son considered “confusedly”) is not a divine person, and it is not the Father. The Latins made the Spirit originate from a “principle”, rather than a divine person, the Father. This automatically makes the Spirit something different. That is the real problem.
 
The Catechism of the Catholic Churches (248) teaches that:… the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”,79 is the first origin of the Spirit …
79 Council of Florence (1442)

The Son has no function as aiton of the person of the Holy Spirit.
 
I cannot understand why this is the “third rail” of East/West dialogue. Human language words are incapable of describing the relationship between the eternal Members of the Godhead anyway. Any claim to definitively and exhaustively describe this relationship is necessarily reductionist. Just my :twocents:. Bludgeon me if you wish. I don’t get it.
 
Vico said:
The Catechism of the Catholic Churches (248) teaches that:… the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”,79 is the first origin of the Spirit …
79 Council of Florence (1442)

The Son has no function as aiton of the person of the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
Then what does Lateran IV mean when it says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son “equally”?
 
a_priori said:
I cannot understand why this is the “third rail” of East/West dialogue. Human language words are incapable of describing the relationship between the eternal Members of the Godhead anyway. Any claim to definitively and exhaustively describe this relationship is necessarily reductionist. Just my :twocents:. Bludgeon me if you wish. I don’t get it.
Click to expand...
I’m certainly not going to bludgeon you. But given what you’ve said, why not simply go with what the Creed initially said, and what Christ said in John 15:26: the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father, and leave it at that? It seems to me that it is the west which is guility of trying to overdefine.
 
Expatreprocedit said:
Then what does Lateran IV mean when it says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son “equally”?
Click to expand...
The Holy Ghost proceeds principally from the Father. (First origin.)

Also the Son has this power from the Father, so in that sense, the Holy Spirit proceeds equally. (The single principle.)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has:248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father *through *the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”,78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”,79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.
scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm

Also see: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19901107en.html
 
But even in that explanation, it does seem as though the RC/Latin tradition has confused the origin of the Holy Spirit with His temporal sending ("…Whom the Father will send in My name"). Since they’re most definitely not the same thing (which I take it the above explanation would or does recognize), to talk about a “first origin” (as opposed to what other? There’s only one origin) does not make sense.

Not to mention that there would be nothing wrong with continuing to teach that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father through the Son (this is in agreement with the rest of apostolic Christianity) while confessing the Creed without the addition that has created all these problems and confusing explanations…
 
dzheremi said:
But even in that explanation, it does seem as though the RC/Latin tradition has confused the origin of the Holy Spirit with His temporal sending ("…Whom the Father will send in My name"). Since they’re most definitely not the same thing (which I take it the above explanation would or does recognize), to talk about a “first origin” (as opposed to what other? There’s only one origin) does not make sense.

Not to mention that there would be nothing wrong with continuing to teach that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father through the Son (this is in agreement with the rest of apostolic Christianity) while confessing the Creed without the addition that has created all these problems and confusing explanations…
Click to expand...
The Gospel only refers to the economy. The basis of aiton is conciliar. Alexandrian and Roman tradition emphasize consubstantial communion.
 
a_priori said:
I cannot understand why this is the “third rail” of East/West dialogue. Human language words are incapable of describing the relationship between the eternal Members of the Godhead anyway. Any claim to definitively and exhaustively describe this relationship is necessarily reductionist.
Click to expand...
👍
GaryTaylor said:
As I remember reference is to the Gospel; “I and the Father are one”
Click to expand...
Some days I feel as though posts like this will be the death of me. 😊 Who ever denied that the Father and the Son are one? 🤷
 
dzheremi said:
But even in that explanation, it does seem as though the RC/Latin tradition has confused the origin of the Holy Spirit with His temporal sending ("…Whom the Father will send in My name"). Since they’re most definitely not the same thing (which I take it the above explanation would or does recognize), to talk about a “first origin” (as opposed to what other? There’s only one origin) does not make sense.

Not to mention that there would be nothing wrong with continuing to teach that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father through the Son (this is in agreement with the rest of apostolic Christianity) while confessing the Creed without the addition that has created all these problems and confusing explanations…
Click to expand...
Here is my problem with the whole thing- origin.
Everyone wants to discuss first origin second origin.

If the Trinity- Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God,
then there is NO origin since God cannot HAVE an
origin. And it seems to so limit God or reduce God
to a chicken and egg riddle to try and determine
who come from what.
God can only come from Himself and He has no
origin.
So the whole Fililoque issue I just sort of
close my eyes and breath deep.
 
marywarfield said:
Here is my problem with the whole thing- origin.
Everyone wants to discuss first origin second origin.

If the Trinity- Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God,
then there is NO origin since God cannot HAVE an
origin. And it seems to so limit God or reduce God
to a chicken and egg riddle to try and determine
who come from what.
God can only come from Himself and He has no
origin.
So the whole Fililoque issue I just sort of
close my eyes and breath deep.
Click to expand...
Dear Mary,

Your post is probably one of the best responses I’ve ever read about the whole filioque merry-go-round!!

Thanks for a really refreshing take on the whole matter! 👍👍

In Christ,
MinM
 
marywarfield said:
Here is my problem with the whole thing- origin.
Everyone wants to discuss first origin second origin.

If the Trinity- Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God,
then there is NO origin since God cannot HAVE an
origin. And it seems to so limit God or reduce God
to a chicken and egg riddle to try and determine
who come from what.
God can only come from Himself and He has no
origin.
So the whole Fililoque issue I just sort of
close my eyes and breath deep.
Click to expand...
Could I add to the Creed that the Father proceeds from the Holy Ghost?
 
marywarfield said:
Here is my problem with the whole thing- origin.
Everyone wants to discuss first origin second origin.

If the Trinity- Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God,
then there is NO origin since God cannot HAVE an
origin. And it seems to so limit God or reduce God
to a chicken and egg riddle to try and determine
who come from what.
God can only come from Himself and He has no
origin.
So the whole Fililoque issue I just sort of
close my eyes and breath deep.
Click to expand...
Great thought!
 
Nils said:
Could I add to the Creed that the Father proceeds from the Holy Ghost?
Click to expand...
I’m good with that.
As far as I am concerned
the Holy Spirit can proceed from the Father or the Son,
the Son AND the Father, or the Father from the Son
or the Son from the Spirit, or the Father from the Spirit-
any which way God decides to proceed is fine and
anyway any of the three Persons go, for they are
still God and still One and God has NO origin.

Who am I to tell God the Father, God the Son or
God the Holy Spirit in what order to do anything?
My understanding of the Trinity is woefully inadequate.
Outside my station in life actually. I’m not from
Downton Abbey but I know my place. 😃
 
marywarfield said:
I’m good with that.
As far as I am concerned
the Holy Spirit can proceed from the Father or the Son,
the Son AND the Father, or the Father from the Son
or the Son from the Spirit, or the Father from the Spirit-
any which way God decides to proceed is fine and
anyway any of the three Persons go, for they are
still God and still One and God has NO origin.

Who am I to tell God the Father, God the Son or
God the Holy Spirit in what order to do anything?
My understanding of the Trinity is woefully inadequate.
Outside my station in life actually. I’m not from
Downton Abbey but I know my place. 😃
Click to expand...
That is not how the Church Fathers argued, and it is not what the Creed says. This way, the Father would no longer be Father and the Son no longer Son. The relationship between the Three Persons are important.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top