Filioque. An Option Now For Eastern Catholics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RomanCatholic66
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
slaveoftruth said:
Hello all,
As far as I understand it it might be an option for Eastern Catholics to not use the filoque in the creed but it is still something which we profess to believe. I believe the dispute originated in the language itself. For instance, I could say something like I am going to New Mexico and California or I could say I am going through New Mexico to California. This would be like saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son or like saying from the Father and the Son. The Orthodox (a break off from the Eastern Catholic Church) split from the Church because of this distinction.
Click to expand...
Bingo. 😉
 
Bingo, my foot. That analogy totally doesn’t work, because one of the problems with the filioque, as it is affirmed at Trent, is that it supposes two eternal sources of the Holy Spirit ("…but as from one single spiration"). And you can’t be coming or going to a particular place from two sources of origin simultaneously, no matter what preposition you use…“I’m going from New Mexico and Nevada as from one place of origin to California” makes absolutely zero sense.
 
dzheremi said:
Bingo, my foot. That analogy totally doesn’t work, because one of the problems with the filioque, as it is affirmed at Trent, is that it supposes two eternal sources of the Holy Spirit ("…but as from one single spiration"). And you can’t be coming or going to a particular place from two sources of origin simultaneously, no matter what preposition you use…“I’m going from New Mexico and Nevada as from one place of origin to California” makes absolutely zero sense.
Click to expand...
At the risk of extending yet another ‘filioque’ debate…

Obviously, the travel analogy (‘from Mexico through Nevada’) is a very approximate simile to express that the Father is the underived source of the Spirit, and the Son is the derived source (see Avery Dulles, The Filioque: What is at Stake?, p. 41).
 
Your PDF does not display correctly for me, so I am afraid that I cannot address its content, but I can repeat that there is no “derived source” of the Holy Spirit, or at least not that is addressed in the Creed as it was used by Rome in common with the East for about 200 years at least (Constantinople held in 381, while the Filioque was first inserted into the Creed at Toledo in 589, and it was clearly not immediately added by all other Latin churches). This is the Creed that we still profess, and it does not address the temporal sending of the Holy Spirit into the world (what I assume you mean by “derived source”), but only His origin from the Father. These are two very different things, as I pointed out several pages ago (with support from my bishop, HG Bishop Youssef).

One is the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, one in His Hypostasis, proceeding from the Father, purifying the whole creation, and teaching us to worship the Holy Trinity, one in divinity and one in essence.
 
First, my apologies to the original poster for hijacking his thread. I’ll be very brief. I hope you get your question answered.
dzheremi said:
Your PDF does not display correctly for me, so I am afraid that I cannot address its content, but I can repeat that there is no “derived source” of the Holy Spirit, or at least not that is addressed in the Creed as it was used by Rome in common with the East for about 200 years at least (Constantinople held in 381, while the Filioque was first inserted into the Creed at Toledo in 589, and it was clearly not immediately added by all other Latin churches).
Click to expand...
That it was not in the creed doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
dzheremi said:
This is the Creed that we still profess, and it does not address the temporal sending of the Holy Spirit into the world (what I assume you mean by “derived source”), but only His origin from the Father. These are two very different things, as I pointed out several pages ago (with support from my bishop, HG Bishop Youssef).
Click to expand...
I was referring to his eternal procession. Actually, Dulles argues (correctly, I believe) that the immanent Trinity and the economic Trinity are the same, i.e. that Jesus sending the Spirit reveals the mystery of the Son (with the Father) eternally breathing forth the Spirit. The mission reveals the eternal procession, the procession manifests itself in the mission. There can be no division between the God of salvation and the transcendent, triune life of God.

For Dulles (and I agree), the innovation is not thefilioque, but the monopatrism of Photios. The very common eastern patristic formula ‘from the Father through the Son’ aligns very well with the filioque, unless one wants to develop a category of ‘eternal manifestation’. I take this ‘eternal manifestation’ to be a later development.
dzheremi said:
One is the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, one in His Hypostasis, proceeding from the Father, purifying the whole creation, and teaching us to worship the Holy Trinity, one in divinity and one in essence.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree with anything in this statement, and I’m a convinced filioquist.
 
CharlesdeFoucld said:
That it was not in the creed doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
Click to expand...
This sort of argument admits many innovations. The Creed is perfect as it is because of the clarity of its positions. If you start introducing other things to it just because you can argue using sophistry that they’re true, then it makes the Creed into something other than what it was originally intended to be: A concise, easy to understand statement of the basic beliefs that are the foundation of the Orthodox Catholic faith. It is best to leave it alone, for this reason.
I was referring to his eternal procession. Actually, Dulles argues (correctly, I believe) that the immanent Trinity and the economic Trinity are the same, i.e. that Jesus sending the Spirit reveals the mystery of the Son (with the Father) eternally breathing forth the Spirit. The mission reveals the eternal procession, the procession manifests itself in the mission. There can be no division between the God of salvation and the transcendent, triune life of God.
Click to expand...
This does not address what I wrote at all. I pointed out that the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone is not the same as the sending of the Holy Spirit into the world (one deals with His origin; the other with His mission), not that there is any kind of division between “the God of salvation and the transcendent, triune life of God”, whatever that means. It’s still the same God, the question is: Are we talking about origins, or temporal ‘sending’? The Creed talks about the origin of the Holy Spirit, not temporal procession. This is why it says “Proceeds from the Father” and not “Proceeds from the Father through the Son” in the first place.
For Dulles (and I agree), the innovation is not thefilioque, but the monopatrism of Photios.
Click to expand...
This is absolutely irrelevant to any point I would make. Orientals are not Byzantines, Photios is too late for us, and we still do not agree with the Filioque.
The very common eastern patristic formula ‘from the Father through the Son’ aligns very well with the filioque
Click to expand...
Again, not according to your Council of Florence (excuse me, it wasn’t Trent as I mistakenly wrote earlier), it doesn’t, because the definition given there talks about eternal procession, while the one above refers to temporal procession. They’re not the same thing.
unless one wants to develop a category of ‘eternal manifestation’. I take this ‘eternal manifestation’ to be a later development.
Click to expand...
I do not know what you are talking about here.
I don’t disagree with anything in this statement, and I’m a convinced filioquist.
Click to expand...
Then either you don’t understand the statement, or you don’t understand the Filioque as it has been defined by your own Church. From the Council of Florence:

*“We define that this truth of Faith be believed and accepted by all Christians, and that all likewise profess that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son and has His essence and His subsistent being both from the Father and the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and one spiration” *

We do not believe that He has “His essence and His subsistent being both from the Father and the Son” (how could this be when all three are of the same essence?), nor that He “proceeds from both eternally”. These are both wrong ideas.
 
CharlesdeFoucld said:
For Dulles (and I agree), the innovation is not thefilioque, but the monopatrism of Photios. The very common eastern patristic formula ‘from the Father through the Son’ aligns very well with the filioque, unless one wants to develop a category of ‘eternal manifestation’. I take this ‘eternal manifestation’ to be a later development.
Click to expand...
The monopatrism of Photios does not originate with him, but at the very least can be traced back to St. Cyril and Theodoret of blessed memory. Theodoret at one point accused St. Cyril of teaching that the Holy Spirit receives subsistence from the Father and the Son instead of from the Father alone (even writing that nobody had ever dared to teach such a thing), a charge which St. Cyril denied. It is rather amusing to be told that all of the language of the Eastern Fathers about proceeding through and progressing from the Son are evidence for filioquism and against monopatrism, when one of the most prolific users of this type of language, St. Cyril, affirmed when questioned on the matter that Spirit receives subsistence from the Father and not the Father and the Son.
 
CharlesdeFoucld said:
First, my apologies to the original poster for hijacking his thread. I’ll be very brief. I hope you get your question answered.

That it was not in the creed doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

I was referring to his eternal procession. Actually, Dulles argues (correctly, I believe) that the immanent Trinity and the economic Trinity are the same, i.e. that Jesus sending the Spirit reveals the mystery of the Son (with the Father) eternally breathing forth the Spirit. The mission reveals the eternal procession, the procession manifests itself in the mission. There can be no division between the God of salvation and the transcendent, triune life of God.

For Dulles (and I agree), the innovation is not thefilioque, but the monopatrism of Photios. The very common eastern patristic formula ‘from the Father through the Son’ aligns very well with the filioque, unless one wants to develop a category of ‘eternal manifestation’. I take this ‘eternal manifestation’ to be a later development.

I don’t disagree with anything in this statement, and I’m a convinced filioquist.
Click to expand...
Well, in the economy of salvation, Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. So is the Son eternally begotten both by the Father and the Holy Spirit?
 
dzheremi said:
This sort of argument admits many innovations. The Creed is perfect as it is because of the clarity of its positions. If you start introducing other things to it just because you can argue using sophistry that they’re true, then it makes the Creed into something other than what it was originally intended to be: A concise, easy to understand statement of the basic beliefs that are the foundation of the Orthodox Catholic faith. It is best to leave it alone, for this reason.
Click to expand...
The filioque is an explanation, not an innovation. I’m in no position to judge whether it was prudent to include the explanation or not, I’m just arguing that it’s true.
dzheremi said:
This does not address what I wrote at all. I pointed out that the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone is not the same as the sending of the Holy Spirit into the world (one deals with His origin; the other with His mission), not that there is any kind of division between “the God of salvation and the transcendent, triune life of God”, whatever that means. It’s still the same God, the question is: Are we talking about origins, or temporal ‘sending’? The Creed talks about the origin of the Holy Spirit, not temporal procession. This is why it says “Proceeds from the Father” and not “Proceeds from the Father through the Son” in the first place.
Click to expand...
If you read my post again (beginning with ‘I was referring to the eternal procession…’), I think you’ll see that I did address your point. I am talking about the eternal procession. The mission of the Spirit from the Son reveals the origin of the Spirit through the Son (with all the usual qualifications: spirated passively, with the ultimate origin being the Father).
dzheremi said:
Then either you don’t understand the statement, or you don’t understand the Filioque as it has been defined by your own Church. From the Council of Florence:
Click to expand...
I hope I do understand the Council of Florence , and I subscribe to it completely. I still have no problem with the liturgical text you posted. I think it’s important to note that many texts are patient of more interpretations than one might realize. Catholics have no problem talking about proceeding from the Father, full stop. We simply cannot accept the alone.
 
Cavaradossi said:
The monopatrism of Photios does not originate with him, but at the very least can be traced back to St. Cyril and Theodoret of blessed memory. Theodoret at one point accused St. Cyril of teaching that the Holy Spirit receives subsistence from the Father and the Son instead of from the Father alone (even writing that nobody had ever dared to teach such a thing), a charge which St. Cyril denied. It is rather amusing to be told that all of the language of the Eastern Fathers about proceeding through and progressing from the Son are evidence for filioquism and against monopatrism, when one of the most prolific users of this type of language, St. Cyril, affirmed when questioned on the matter that Spirit receives subsistence from the Father and not the Father and the Son.
Click to expand...
Could you provide me with the citation from Patrologia Graeca so that I can look at it myself? I would never contradict this great Doctor of the Church, but I will need to read his words in context.
 
RyanBlack said:
Well, in the economy of salvation, Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. So is the Son eternally begotten both by the Father and the Holy Spirit?
Click to expand...
Cardinal Dulles is suggesting a harmony between the the mission and the processions. I don’t know we’d say the Spirit ‘sent’ the Son anymore than we’d say the Son ‘sent’ the Father. But there are clearly references to the Father sending the Son, and the Father and/or Son sending the Spirit. The Bible refers to ‘the Spirit of the Son’, ‘the Spirit of Jesus’ (for references, see the Dulles article I linked a few posts ago). I don’t know that we ever talk about ‘the Son of the Spirit’ or ‘Jesus of the Spirit’.
 
dzheremi said:
Bingo, my foot. That analogy totally doesn’t work, because one of the problems with the filioque, as it is affirmed at Trent, is that it supposes two eternal sources of the Holy Spirit ("…but as from one single spiration"). And you can’t be coming or going to a particular place from two sources of origin simultaneously, no matter what preposition you use…“I’m going from New Mexico and Nevada as from one place of origin to California” makes absolutely zero sense.
Click to expand...
“Born of the father before all ages” - close enough to eternal for mortal mankind.
 
:confused:

Yes, Christ was born before all ages, sure. The Filioque does not address the incarnation of Christ.

Also, why settle for “close enough”? The Creed is exact. We’re not playing horseshoes.
 
dzheremi said:
Also, why settle for “close enough”? The Creed is exact. We’re not playing horseshoes.
Click to expand...
Of course, we Catholics would say that we’ve gotten even closer (at least in the Latin version) by preserving the same faith in more precise language.
 
CharlesdeFoucld said:
Cardinal Dulles is suggesting a harmony between the the mission and the processions. I don’t know we’d say the Spirit ‘sent’ the Son anymore than we’d say the Son ‘sent’ the Father. But there are clearly references to the Father sending the Son, and the Father and/or Son sending the Spirit. The Bible refers to ‘the Spirit of the Son’, ‘the Spirit of Jesus’ (for references, see the Dulles article I linked a few posts ago). I don’t know that we ever talk about ‘the Son of the Spirit’ or ‘Jesus of the Spirit’.
Click to expand...
There are also clear references to the role of the Holy Spirit in the Incarnation of the Son. If you insist that the Son’s sending of the Holy Spirit in salvation history must reveal something about the eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit, then you should also insist that the conception of the Son as man “by the power of the Holy Spirit” (clearly based on Holy Scripture) must reveal something about the eternal relationship between the Spirit and the Son.
 
Well, I would say they never had a power struggle amongst themselves in heaven. 😛
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top