Filioque and Eastern Christian Trinitarian understanding

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hesychios
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
steve b:
We not only disagree on “proceed” but I sense we disagree on who the HS is also. Read that article in full on the HS from New Advent.
Click to expand...
Same reply as above. New Advent is out of date with contemporary theological developments in the Roman Catholic world.
“We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century… Oh that you could only consent to be again what you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!”
-Alexis Khomiakov
 
40.png
JackQ:
It should not surprise us that the Holy Spirit guards the entire Church from error, so that the Creed in both forms is correct. But it should equally not surprise us that those who would keep the Church divided would be wrong, regardless of what side they claim to be on.
Click to expand...
And why be surprised that there are those who say the filioque is heresy and would rather have their tongue cut out than say it.

Remember that the whole Arian heresy hinged NOT on one word but on the tiniest letter - the letter “i”. Do we say homoousios or homoiousios in the Creed? The addition of the “i” removed the Son’s equality with the Father.

Words matter. Truth matters. Better to be divided than acquiesce in something untrue, whether arianism or filioqueism.
 
Fr Ambrose:
And why be surprised that there are those who say the filioque is heresy and would rather have their tongue cut out than say it…
Click to expand...
Father,

The filioque issue has been settled. The Holy Father has said the Creed sans the filioque. I am being forced to the belief that you prefer to continue to propagate the separation in Christs Church. You seem to seek ways to stay divided, rather than seeking ways to find unity.

May the peace of Christ be with you.
 
40.png
Ignatius:
The filioque issue has been settled. The Holy Father has said the Creed sans the filioque.
Click to expand...
Removing a word does not correct the theology. For as long as the Popes teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds “from the Father and the Som as from from principle and one spiration” we are divided.
 
Fr Ambrose:
I don’t see how we can say that the Son does everything the Father does.

The Father gives birth to the Son. The Son does not do that.
Click to expand...
We can say it because the Scripture says it. To quote again, this time from a different translation (RSV), “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise.’” (John 5:19) If the Father does it, the Son does it. That’s what scripture says. So if the Father processes the Spirit, so does the Son.

Now this clearly doesn’t involve begetting the Son, because then the Son would have to beget himself, which is ridiculous. It is ridiculous because the Son could not both be himself and beget himself, because if he begot himself he would not be the Son, but the Father. And here we get to the distinction. The Son is not the Father, but he does everything that the Father does.

Here’s an example of how this kind of reasoning works. In 1st Corinthians 15: 24-28 St. Paul is talking about Christ this way:

“Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. ‘For God has put all things in subjection under his feet.’ But when it says, 'All things are put in subjection under him,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to everyone."

St. Paul’s scriptural quote is from Psalm 8:6. Now we don’t say to St. Paul that he can’t escape that way, but we acquiesce in the common sense interpretation. Similarly, we don’t tell Jesus that he doesn’t really do everything the Father does because then he would have to beget himself. However much sophistical appeal that argument may have, it is an argument that fails to distinguish between being and action.
 
Fr Ambrose:
And why be surprised that there are those who say the filioque is heresy and would rather have their tongue cut out than say it.

Remember that the whole Arian heresy hinged NOT on one word but on the tiniest letter - the letter “i”. Do we say homoousios or homoiousios in the Creed? The addition of the “i” removed the Son’s equality with the Father.

Words matter. Truth matters. Better to be divided than acquiesce in something untrue, whether arianism or filioqueism.
Click to expand...
I suspect that the reason that some would rather have their tongue cut out than say the filioque is because they believe that it is a really bad thing.

The Arian controversy may have hinged on one letter as a matter of spelling or grammar, but there was a universe of difference as to meaning. But far be it from me to try and evaluate what is important to you.

Yes, words and truth matter, and we should never acquiesce in something untrue.

So, outside of your assertion that the filioque is untrue, I don’t disagree with a thing you posted here. With all due respect I must ask, Father, what is your point? that the filioque is untrue? If so, you’ve merely asserted it, and I already knew that was your position.

Of course, you may be trying to say that belief in the truth of the filioque is on a par with Arianism. If so, could you point me to something in one of the Seven Ecumenical Councils that says this, or that says that the Spirit does not proceed from the Son?
 
40.png
JackQ:
We can say it because the Scripture says it. To quote again, this time from a different translation (RSV), “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise.’” (John 5:19) If the Father does it, the Son does it. That’s what scripture says. So if the Father processes the Spirit, so does the Son.
Click to expand...
Jack, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, the Father does not “process” the Holy Spirit. The procession of the Holy Spirit is not something the Father “does”

John.
 
40.png
JackQ:
, what is your point? that the filioque is untrue? If so, you’ve merely asserted it, and I already knew that was your position.
Click to expand...
Our knowledge of the interior life and relationships of the Three Persons of the Trinity is a matter of what God has chosen to reveal of Himself.

Our Lord has told us very clearly: " But when the Comforter comes Whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, Who proceeds from the Father…"

This is the word of the Lord.

Trying to go beyond it by the use of human reasoning is beyond our ability. We are mere mortals, the earth-born. We cannot know the life of the Trinity by logic. The whole interior dynamic of the Trinity is not within our grasp.

So we accept what has been revealed - “the Comforter… the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father.”

So we come back to basics:

The Father is eternal and unoriginate

The Son is born of the Father

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
 
40.png
Aris:
So you don’t beleive that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son?
Click to expand...
Temporally, economically, yes.

In the sense of the theory developed out of the RC predilection for ratiocination, no.
 
40.png
Aris:
So you don’t beleive that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son?
Click to expand...
“and the Son” is part of the Roman Catholic version of the Nicean Creed. If the Roman church means “through” vs. “and” then why dont the Romans change their Creed to reflect this? Right now the Roman Creed version explicitly says “and”. If you mean through then lets start seeing this version in your Creed. Of course, we will continue to use the infallible oecumenically accepted version of “from the Father”.

StMarkEofE
 
We’ve been through this before.

asking the other to change the creed in a way he doesn’t believe it should be said will only breed division and misunderstanding. :banghead:

We will progress if we try to understand each other.

That is why I have laid down the statements which I hoped the Orthodox would answer as a yes or no. Since there has been no qualified yes or no, that only leads me to conclude that there is no difference in our belief. And the difference is only magnified by not understanding the other’s position.
 
40.png
prodromos:
Jack, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, the Father does not “process” the Holy Spirit. The procession of the Holy Spirit is not something the Father “does”

John.
Click to expand...
So, what are you saying, that this happens to the Father involuntarily? Since the Father is the source of the Spirit, the procession must be something that he does.
 
Fr Ambrose:
Our knowledge of the interior life and relationships of the Three Persons of the Trinity is a matter of what God has chosen to reveal of Himself.

Our Lord has told us very clearly: " But when the Comforter comes Whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, Who proceeds from the Father…"

This is the word of the Lord.

Trying to go beyond it by the use of human reasoning is beyond our ability. We are mere mortals, the earth-born. We cannot know the life of the Trinity by logic. The whole interior dynamic of the Trinity is not within our grasp.

So we accept what has been revealed - “the Comforter… the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father.”

So we come back to basics:

The Father is eternal and unoriginate

The Son is born of the Father

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
Click to expand...
What you seem to be saying here is that it has not been revealed that the Spirit proceeds from the Son so it cannot be dogmatically stated. But that is quite different than the assertion that one who holds that the Spirit proceeds from the Son is a heretic.

Besides, it has been revealed that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. There is the scripture I cited to you. There is also this one relating one of Jesus’s postresurrection appearances:

"He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.
"When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.
“Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” (John 20:21-23)

Jesus breathes on his disciples and they receive the Holy Spirit. Now that’s the Spirit proceeding from the Son!
 
40.png
Aris:
We’ve been through this before.

asking the other to change the creed in a way he doesn’t believe it should be said will only breed division and misunderstanding. :banghead:

We will progress if we try to understand each other.

That is why I have laid down the statements which I hoped the Orthodox would answer as a yes or no. Since there has been no qualified yes or no, that only leads me to conclude that there is no difference in our belief. And the difference is only magnified by not understanding the other’s position.
Click to expand...
The Pope and the Council of Florence defined:

“… we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that 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.”

If you will deny that the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son as from one principle and a single spiration, then we may have an area of agreement from which to proceed towards a common belief.

Do you deny this? Yes? No?
 
40.png
JackQ:
So, what are you saying, that this happens to the Father involuntarily? Since the Father is the source of the Spirit, the procession must be something that he does.
Click to expand...
Something that is part of your very nature is not something that you do. You are a human being, is that something that you do? By nature of your being a creature you are in a form of communion with all other creatures, is this something you do?
 
JackQ said:
"He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.
"When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.
“Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” (John 20:21-23)

Jesus breathes on his disciples and they receive the Holy Spirit. Now that’s the Spirit proceeding from the Son!
Click to expand...

"And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?

“And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come into thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” Luke 1

The Holy Spirit comes into the Virgin Mary and she conceived the Son of God. So that’s the Spirit generating the Son.

"Dixit autem Maria ad angelum quomodo fiet istud quoniam virum non cognosco

Et respondens angelus dixit ei Spiritus Sanctus superveniet in te et virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi ideoque et quod nascetur sanctum vocabitur Filius Dei."
 
40.png
Ignatius:
Huh???
Click to expand...
Too much reliance is placed on the power of human reasoning to penetrate more of the mysteries of the Godhead than God has revealed.
 
Fr Ambrose:
The Pope and the Council of Florence defined:

“… we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that 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.”

If you will deny that the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son as from one principle and a single spiration, then we may have an area of agreement from which to proceed towards a common belief.

Do you deny this? Yes? No?
Click to expand...
I have had some lengthy discussions about this of late, and I believe that the answer is that it can be denied in the sense of origin. The language is murky at best, because it seems to confuse an eternal energetic procession (by way of ousia) with the eternal hypostatic procession (spiration/procession (ekporeusis of the Holy Spirit from the Father as sole arche of the Trinity). However, there is nothing in the language specifically that says that there is an eternal hypostatic procession from the Son, and thus, I believe that a Catholic can affirm the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son and the Father by way of ousiwdws without denying the monarchy of the Father, exactly as St. Basil did (“The goodness of [the divine] nature, the holiness of [that] nature, and the royal dignity reach from the Father through the only-begotten [Son] to the Holy Spirit. Since we confess the persons in this manner, there is no infringing upon the holy dogma of the monarchy.”). The last phrase simply maintains that the ousiwdws procession should not be confused with ekporeusis.

I see two problems. First, it’s wrong (and it always has been) to call this creed the “Nicene” Creed, since the Nicene Creed clearly related to ekporeusis. That is half the problem of the Orthodox being resistant to the idea. Second, there are some Latin theologians (starting from St. Augustine) that do appear to have confused the two, so while that wouldn’t negate any value in their teaching, I think that there may have to be some revision in how those teachings are accepted.

What do you think? I am very interested to have an Orthodox perspective on the matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top