fililoque

[Nils]

Where do I find this teaching in the Church, I’m interested in reading it?

**Council of Lyon: **

“We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration.”

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/LYONS2.HTM

**Council of Lyon: **

“…]the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his
subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration.”

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM

 

[UbiCaritas15]

**Council of Lyon: **

“We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration.”

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/LYONS2.HTM

**Council of Lyon: **

“…]the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his
subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration.”

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM

See, that doesn’t sound like two origins to me. In fact, the single spiration from the perfect Son magnifying and in conjunction with the perfect Father, the two in such union as we humans can not understand, only seems to greaten the image of the Father. Kind of like how we talk about Marian veneration glorifying God.

 

[Peter_J]

See, that doesn’t sound like two origins to me.

Well, let’s at least give Nils a little credit. I seriously doubt that he ever said “two origins”.

 

[GaryTaylor]

**Council of Lyon: **

“We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration.”

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/LYONS2.HTM

**Council of Lyon: **

“…]the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his
subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration.”

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM

“Proceed” doesn’t indicate a starting point. I’m sorry I thought you had an official teaching, what appears to be occurring is you have read into the quotes from your own understanding or possibly another who was misunderstanding. Common I imagine.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I seriously doubt that he ever said “two origins”.

Ah, I missed this, again my apology.

 

[UbiCaritas15]

Well, let’s at least give Nils a little credit. I seriously doubt that he ever said “two origins”.

I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that anyone personally said anything about two origins. I just don’t understand why, given John 17 and Ephesians 5, we are arguing for thousands of years over this.

 

[Nils]

“Proceed” doesn’t indicate a starting point. I’m sorry I thought you had an official teaching, what appears to be occurring is you have read into the quotes from your own understanding or possibly another who was misunderstanding. Common I imagine.

This is not official teaching?

“…proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration.”

So eternally proceeding from both equally does not mean they are both his origin? If the Father is the origin of the Son, how then is not the Father and the Son both the origin of the Holy Spirit, with such definitions?

Also this:

“[the Holy Spirit] has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son”

His very essence is from the Father together with the Son

English is a foreign language to me, so maybe I seriously misunderstand something because I cannot comprehend the nuance of some words, but somehow I doubt it.

You would never say that the Son get his essence from the Father together with the Spirit for example.If this is not double origin, I do not know what it is.

 

[UbiCaritas15]

This is not official teaching?

“…proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration.”

So eternally proceeding from both equally does not mean they are both his origin? If the Father is the origin of the Son, how then is not the Father and the Son both the origin of the Holy Spirit, with such definitions?

English is a foreign language to me, so maybe I seriously misunderstand something because I cannot comprehend the nuance of some words, but somehow I doubt it.

From a purely human and logical stance, I can see how one origin might be impossible to grasp from two parties. From a mystical perspective Jesus repeats over and over: the Father and I are one. Like the hypostatic union, marriage, Eucharist, these things are mysteries. But it seems totally plausible to me that there is one origin with the full participation of both the Father and the Son. Then again, even my husband would agree that I’m nuts, so…

 

[GaryTaylor]

This is not official teaching?

“…proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration.”

So eternally proceeding from both equally does not mean they are both his origin? If the Father is the origin of the Son, how then is not the Father and the Son both the origin of the Holy Spirit, with such definitions?

Also this:

“and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son”

His very essence is from the Father together with the Son

English is a foreign language to me, so maybe I seriously misunderstand something because I cannot comprehend the nuance of some words, but somehow I doubt it.

I follow, its not that its not correct with the Saints etc, its the latin understanding where proceed derives from, which is first principle God the Father. Their [Latin] understanding of the way the Creed is recited already concedes this point. So in effect what we have is the same, with another understanding added after the original. I don’t think its a wrong or right. Tis the later rendition, that is true.

Nils, its more as you quoted here “but by one single spiration”

 

[Nils]

I follow, its not that its not correct with the Saints etc, its the latin understanding where proceed derives from, which is first principle God the Father. Their [Latin] understanding of the way the Creed is recited already concedes this point. So in effect what we have is the same, with another understanding added after the original. I don’t think its a wrong or right. Tis the later rendition, that is true.

Nils, its more as you quoted here “but by one single spiration”

Yes but it is not only the spiration. The way I read it, the Spirit proceeds in his principle, essence and subsistent being from the Father and the Son. Principle, essence and subsistent being should be about his very origin, should it not? It is certainly more than “proceeding through the Son” anyhow, which the uniats usually say in defense of this Latin theology?

It is also more than saying that both the Son and the Holy Spirit share their essence with their Father, because what is says is that the Spirit receives this from them both eternally. The same cannot be said about the Son; He does not not have his essence and subsistent being from the Father and the Holy Spirit, and this somehow makes the Spirit inferior. The Father and the Son share something that the Spirit cannot share…

Anyhow, if we should leave the theology part for now, could someone please explain to me why the Filioque was added in the West? I know about defending Orthodoxy from Arianism - but if filioque was necessary for this, why was it not added in the first place? It is not like Arianism was something completely unique in Toledo, or the West for that matter. It was also very present when the Creed was firstly written, and yet this add was not inserted.

 

[GaryTaylor]

As I remember reference is to the Gospel; “I and the Father are one” And both east and west concede there could only be one principle of the Holy Spirit. I think it was Basil and Ambrose.

Right the difficulty is the language.

 

[spina1953]

St. Augustine said on the Trinity that "All those Catholic’s expounders of the divine Scriptures both Old and New, whom I have been able to read, who have written before me concerning the trinity, Who is God, have purposed to teach, according to the Scriptures, this doctrine, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit intimate a divine unity of one and the same substance in an indivisible equality; and therefore that they are not three Gods, but one God; although the Father has begotten the Son, and so the Son is begotten by the Father, and so he who is the Son is not the Father; and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, but only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, Himself also co-equal with the Father and the Son, and pertaining to the unity of the trinity. (On the Trinity, BK. 1 Chap. 4 ML 42, 824, NPNF III, 20.)

 It seems to me that what St. Augustine is saying here is that the Holy Spirit comes from both the Father and the Son which also being distinct from each other but of the same essence and One Being with the Father make up the Trinity. Yet, while each is distinct and still are one in the Father being one God, suggests that at least to me that the Holy Spirit does not proceed only from the Father but from both the Father and the Son.

 I would like to point out that when the Apostles began preaching the Good News and were teaching what Jesus taught them and asked all to be baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, I wonder how they explained the Trinity and  whether or not they thought the Holy Spirit proceeded only from the Father or from both the Father and the Son? I also wonder if those  listening to the Apostles asked questions about whether the Son was God and if the Holy Spirit was God and if they proceeded from the Father only, or from the  Father and the Son, or did the just believed, or maybe these questions were not asked?  I ask because it seems to me that those first hearing the Apostles who came to believe, I think would have been asking many questions about this God and of Jesus and the Holy Spirit as it would have been or seem strange concept to those listening to what the Apostles were teaching and preaching.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think its a matter of elaboration and understanding. For example here in the CCC.264

“The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as the first principle and, by the eternal gift of this to the Son, from the communion of both the Father and the Son” (St. Augustine, De Trin. 15, 26, 47: PL 42, 1095).

 

[spina1953]

I think its a matter of elaboration and understanding. For example here in the CCC.264

“The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as the first principle and, by the eternal gift of this to the Son, from the communion of both the Father and the Son” (St. Augustine, De Trin. 15, 26, 47: PL 42, 1095).

Hi Gary Taylor: I agree with what you posted about what the CCC, 264 teaches.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think, again I could be wrong but its not a matter of dependence. The Word doesn’t depend on God because He is not the cause, He is the principle of origin. The Father is not able to be without being the Father, and He is not able to be without the Son. The impossibility of the procession of the Word cannot be proven, True God from True God is not a theological conclusion, but an article of Faith, because this is virtually revealed thus it is certain.

The Only begotten Son, this is where the difficulties reside.

 

[josie_L]

Yes but it is not only the spiration. The way I read it, the Spirit proceeds in his principle, essence and subsistent being from the Father and the Son. Principle, essence and subsistent being should be about his very origin, should it not? It is certainly more than "proceeding through the Son" anyhow, which the uniats usually say in defense of this Latin theology?

It is also more than saying that both the Son and the Holy Spirit share their essence with their Father, because what is says is that the Spirit receives this from them both eternally. The same cannot be said about the Son; He does not not have his essence and subsistent being from the Father and the Holy Spirit, and this somehow makes the Spirit inferior. The Father and the Son share something that the Spirit cannot share…

Anyhow, if we should leave the theology part for now, could someone please explain to me why the Filioque was added in the West? I know about defending Orthodoxy from Arianism - but if filioque was necessary for this, why was it not added in the first place? It is not like Arianism was something completely unique in Toledo, or the West for that matter. It was also very present when the Creed was firstly written, and yet this add was not inserted.

I don’t think Arianism affected the West as much as it did the East, however, the addition of the Filioque in the West is no different than the additions that were added at the first council of Constantinople in 381, which by the way, was a regional council up until Chalcedon in 552, wherein it was then universally adopted, i.e., made ecumenical. That means that for almost 200 years the East had incorporated additions to the original creed (Nicene) that were as yet to be universally accepted, i.e., so why couldn’t the West do the same? As such, the additions of the second ecumenical council (which were not present in the first creed, i.e., Nicene, at Nicea in 325) created a creed known as the Nicene Constantinopolitan creed (it’s an amalgamation of the two). Here are the two creeds (eventually made one), so you can see the additions made:

orthodoxwiki.org/Nicene-Constantinopolitan_Creed

P.S. And the filioque was implemented to fight Semi-Arianism which is a slightly different variation of Arianism.

If you’d like some more background on the filioque might I suggest that you read this article:

catholic-legate.com/apologetics/thechurch/articles/filioque.aspx

 

[tdgesq]

Yes but it is not only the spiration. The way I read it, the Spirit proceeds in his principle, essence and subsistent being from the Father and the Son. Principle, essence and subsistent being should be about his very origin, should it not? It is certainly more than "proceeding through the Son" anyhow, which the uniats usually say in defense of this Latin theology?

The Council of Florence affirms that:

The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto.Council of Florence, Session 6.

These relationships are all eternal, so from a Latin perspective we are usually limited to discussing these concepts by analogy. I have had this explained to me in terms of a lake that feeds a stream. The lake (the Father) is the source and principle from which the Spirit proceeds. The stream (the Son) is that through which the Spirit proceeds. For us it is accurate to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. It is also accurate to say that Spirit proceeds from the Father and through the Son.

Just so you know, the term “uniate” has a negative connotation and is no longer used by the CC. I’m sure you didn’t know that, so I just wanted to mention it.

 

[Peter_J]

This is not official teaching?

“…proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration.”

So eternally proceeding from both equally does not mean they are both his origin? If the Father is the origin of the Son, how then is not the Father and the Son both the origin of the Holy Spirit, with such definitions?

Also this:

“[the Holy Spirit] has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son”

His very essence is from the Father together with the Son

English is a foreign language to me, so maybe I seriously misunderstand something because I cannot comprehend the nuance of some words, but somehow I doubt it.

You would never say that the Son get his essence from the Father together with the Spirit for example.If this is not double origin, I do not know what it is.

There are two directions to go with this. One is a very simple response I can give you right now: although it is true that eternal procession from the Father and the Son is Rome’s official teaching, we don’t say that in the creed. We say simply “who proceeds from the Father and the Son”. (well, actually we Melkites and other Greek Catholics don’t even say “from the Son” at all.)

The other direction is about different meanings of “proceeding eternally from”, but this far beyond the theological level of this conversation. I would suggest reading the Vatican’s 1995 Clarification on the Filioque.

 

[dzheremi]

I cant believe catholics and orthodox are still arguing over this

No Orthodox person argues over the filioque. It is definitively rejected, so there’s no need to argue over it. I’m assuming that’s why the OP wants to focus on the political aspects, rather than the theological reasons for the doctrine.

But I’m with Malphono: – perhaps with a :banghead: thrown in, depending on how long this particular thread will last.

 

[josie_L]

No Orthodox person argues over the filioque. It is definitively rejected, so there’s no need to argue over it. I’m assuming that’s why the OP wants to focus on the political aspects, rather than the theological reasons for the doctrine.

But I’m with Malphono: – perhaps with a :banghead: thrown in, depending on how long this particular thread will last.

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. 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.