Filioque. An Option Now For Eastern Catholics?

[CharlesdeFoucld]

Yes, I believe I understand why you find it inadequate; but according to your earlier post, St. John the Damascene agrees with you that it’s inadequate. Can you back that up? (Needless to say, it doesn’t have to be something where he used that specific word, just something from him.)

I retract ‘admitted its inadequacy’, which was poorly stated on my part. I agree that precision in language is important in talking about these things. I should’ve phrased it something like this: ‘but admitted that we don’t know in what this distinction consists.’ This wording may still not be perfect.

If you’d like to see the quotation in context, it’s originally from De fide orthodoxa i. 8 (Migne, 808), but I got it from The Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church, Henry Barclay Swete, p. 282. It’s in the public domain and available on Internet Archive.

Finally, I don’t think John of Damascus presents in an isolated case. Among the reticent Fathers—and I think they’re a minority—they seem to struggle to give a full explanation for why the Son and the Holy Spirit aren’t really two sons. Here’s Gregory Nanzianzen:

‘What is our adversary’s case? He meets us with a counter alternative. “If the Spirit is God, is He generate or ingenerate?” Suppose we answer " Ingenerate," we are charged with holding two Principles. Or suppose we say “Generate,” the objector is ready with the further question, “From the Father or from the Son?” adding “If from the Father, there are two Sons.” But what if we do not admit that the Spirit must be either generate or ingenerate? what if we maintain that the Holy Spirit is neither generate nor ingenerate, but proceeding? " But wherein?" we are asked, " does the Spirit, as you represent Him, fall short of Sonship?" It is not a case of falling short, but of differentiation between two co-equal Persons ; the Three are one in Godhead, and the One three in hypostasis’ (Theological Orations v. 7, also taken from Swete’s The Holy Spirit).

I don’t think anything in St. Gregory’s defense is wrong, but I don’t think it explains anything either.

 

[Peter_J]

I retract ‘admitted its inadequacy’, which was poorly stated on my part. I agree that precision in language is important in talking about these things. I should’ve phrased it something like this: ‘but admitted that we don’t know in what this distinction consists.’ This wording may still not be perfect.

OIC.