F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Was that on this Forum? Would it be useful and save time if we read through those posts?
The Jesus Prayer in Irish:
A Thiarna Iosa Chriost, Mac De, dean trocaire orm-se peacach
- Status
The Jesus Prayer in Irish:
A Thiarna Iosa Chriost, Mac De, dean trocaire orm-se peacach
G
GAssisi
Guest
Dear Maggie,
The term “spiration” is used by the Catholic Church to mean the same thing as what the Orthodox mean by “procession.” In the ancient Church, each Person was delineated by their causal relationship. The Father is eternally “UNBEGOTTEN”; the Son is eternally “BEGOTTEN” or “GENERATED” by the Father; the Spirit eternally “PROCEEDS,” or according to a Latin rendering “SPIRATES” from the Father through the Son. To the Greeks and Latins, “spiration”/ “procession” has always been distinguished from “generation.”
Dear Father,
Your analogy to sending the apostles is lacking (to say the least), and I’m surprised you would even use such an argument. Can it be that you truly do not understand the unique relationship between the Son and the Spirit? Are you saying that the Apostles are ontologically identical to the Spirit? Do you truly believe that Jesus “sending” the Apostles, is an identical action as Jesus “sending” the Spirit?
God bless,
Greg
The term “spiration” is used by the Catholic Church to mean the same thing as what the Orthodox mean by “procession.” In the ancient Church, each Person was delineated by their causal relationship. The Father is eternally “UNBEGOTTEN”; the Son is eternally “BEGOTTEN” or “GENERATED” by the Father; the Spirit eternally “PROCEEDS,” or according to a Latin rendering “SPIRATES” from the Father through the Son. To the Greeks and Latins, “spiration”/ “procession” has always been distinguished from “generation.”
Dear Father,
Your analogy to sending the apostles is lacking (to say the least), and I’m surprised you would even use such an argument. Can it be that you truly do not understand the unique relationship between the Son and the Spirit? Are you saying that the Apostles are ontologically identical to the Spirit? Do you truly believe that Jesus “sending” the Apostles, is an identical action as Jesus “sending” the Spirit?
God bless,
Greg
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
I concede the point. It was right of the top of my head
I think that we need a Greek scholar to tell us if the word “send” is the same word used by the Lord when He speaks of sending the Spirit and sending the Apostles. If it is the same word it militates against the Western interpretation which equates the Son’s temporal sending of the Spirit as a proof of the Son’s eternal procession of the Spirit.
M
MaggieOH
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
I wish I still had the original material
Maggie
Alas it was not on this forum and it took place around the year 2000 or 2001. The forum was ACTS run by Scott Windsor.
I wish I still had the original material
Maggie
M
MaggieOH
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
we are making really good progress here. Are you familiar with the work of Ludwig Ott? I need to find my copy again (because it has grown legs and walked off somewhere) because I think that this might help us to clear up any misunderstanding about the “spiration” of the Holy Spirit from both Father and Son.
Maggie
Fr. Ambrose,I concede the point. It was right of the top of my head
I think that we need a Greek scholar to tell us if the word “send” is the same word used by the Lord when He speaks of sending the Spirit and sending the Apostles. If it is the same word it militates against the Western interpretation which equates the Son’s temporal sending of the Spirit as a proof of the Son’s eternal procession of the Spirit.
we are making really good progress here. Are you familiar with the work of Ludwig Ott? I need to find my copy again (because it has grown legs and walked off somewhere) because I think that this might help us to clear up any misunderstanding about the “spiration” of the Holy Spirit from both Father and Son.
Maggie
M
michaelp
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
John 15:26 When the Advocate comes, whom I will send you from the Father–the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father–he will testify about me.
It is used only once, by implication, of Christ sending the Apostles.
John 13:20 I tell you the solemn truth, whoever accepts the one I send pempo] accepts me, and whoever accepts me accepts the one who sent me."
Michael
The word sent used by Christ of the Holy Spirit is the Greek pempo.I concede the point. It was right of the top of my head
I think that we need a Greek scholar to tell us if the word “send” is the same word used by the Lord when He speaks of sending the Spirit and sending the Apostles. If it is the same word it militates against the Western interpretation which equates the Son’s temporal sending of the Spirit as a proof of the Son’s eternal procession of the Spirit.
John 15:26 When the Advocate comes, whom I will send you from the Father–the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father–he will testify about me.
It is used only once, by implication, of Christ sending the Apostles.
John 13:20 I tell you the solemn truth, whoever accepts the one I send pempo] accepts me, and whoever accepts me accepts the one who sent me."
Michael
M
MaggieOH
Guest
I found this document on the web:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19901107en.html
It gives a clarification of the western viewpoint.
Maggie
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19901107en.html
It gives a clarification of the western viewpoint.
Maggie
M
MaggieOH
Guest
There is much fruit that can come from this discussion. Your comment above helps to clarify in my mind the truth about Apostolic Succession that is shared by both East and West - that it was God who sent forth the Apostles to carry on the work started by Jesus, and through the Great Commission, the Apostles sent forth others in the name of Christ to carry on this work.
I have had many discussion with Fundamentalists who deny the Apostolic succession of the Catholic (East and West) Church, and here in this one word “pempo” there is an undeniable clarity of the Truth
Thank you.
Maggie
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Excellent material! I must give it a good reading.
At a meeting with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, Pope John Paul II called for clarification of the filioque clause of the Creed–‘proceeds from the Father and the Son.’
Here is the Roman Catholic response to that call from the Pope. It is a text from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.
**THE GREEK AND LATIN TRADITIONS REGARDING THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT **
Pontificial Council for Promoting Christian Unity
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM
Since the Vatican document is official I guess that we should give it more than a quick perusal.
Here is an Orthodox response from Metropolitan John Zizioulas of Pergamon
ONE SINGLE SOURCE
agrino.org/cyberdesert/zizioulas.htm
And if you access this website, you’ll find a number of serious articles by the Orthodox on the filioque
THE FILIOQUE
agrino.org/cyberdesert/filioque.htm
“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
G
GAssisi
Guest
Dear All,
We need to consider Father’s comment about the word “send” seriously. Father, after the many months we have been blessed with each others’ company, you have finally said something that truly merits discussion, and not merely an occasion for slinging supposed facts or interpretations of facts by one party to the other (yes I know, you’ve already commented that you adjudge anything and everything I’ve ever said as simply “anti-Orthodox” and perhaps without merit at all). I think the use of the word “send” cannot be interpreted apart from a consideration of the ontological relationship between the sender and the sendee. In this regard, I don’t think the word “send” has much effect on the discussion. However, I think something else Father has said deserves our serious attention.
It seems that the word “send” is only used in a “temporal” sense in Scripture. I believe Catholics must be more careful in our use of scriptural passages that have the word “send” to prove the eternal Procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son (not that there is not abundant patristic testimony to prove our point). How would Catholics respond to this? Have we already responded to it? What fruits or implications can we derive from the official explanation of the Filioque from the Holy See?
God bless
Greg
We need to consider Father’s comment about the word “send” seriously. Father, after the many months we have been blessed with each others’ company, you have finally said something that truly merits discussion, and not merely an occasion for slinging supposed facts or interpretations of facts by one party to the other (yes I know, you’ve already commented that you adjudge anything and everything I’ve ever said as simply “anti-Orthodox” and perhaps without merit at all). I think the use of the word “send” cannot be interpreted apart from a consideration of the ontological relationship between the sender and the sendee. In this regard, I don’t think the word “send” has much effect on the discussion. However, I think something else Father has said deserves our serious attention.
It seems that the word “send” is only used in a “temporal” sense in Scripture. I believe Catholics must be more careful in our use of scriptural passages that have the word “send” to prove the eternal Procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son (not that there is not abundant patristic testimony to prove our point). How would Catholics respond to this? Have we already responded to it? What fruits or implications can we derive from the official explanation of the Filioque from the Holy See?
God bless
Greg
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Good grief, have I? I wonder if I will ever have the fortune to say something which merits your kind words again?
M
MaggieOH
Guest
Greg,
I think I am beginning to see the direction from which you are coming and yes I do think that you are making a good point about the understanding of the word “send”. This brings me back to the fact that there are different senses to the Scripture. A word can have different meanings because of the sense it is being used.
In this case the word is “pempo” which in English means send. The point that was raised by Fr. Ambrose is how are we to interpret the word “prempo” in its use to the Apostles as well as to the Holy Spirit. Because I am not a Bible scholar, I do not use the fancy big words such as ontological. Instead I will try to keep my own wording on a simple level.
It seems to me that the Orthodox argument against the use of the Filioque is based upon a specific understanding of one verse in John’s Gospel, that is John 15:26. Now I would argue that this verse does not support the Orthodox position because of the phrasing: “When the Advocate (Paraclete) comes, **whom I shall send **from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who issues from the Father, he will be my witness”. It is not just the word “send” or pempo, but the phrase “whom I shall send from the Father” that needs to be studied in detail.
In previous posts Fr. Ambrose has questioned the word “send” and whether it has the same “meaning” when used for the Apostles and also for the Spirit. The issue that has now been raised is how are we to understand “send”. Should it be from the “temporal” usage, or from a more spiritual usage?
At the moment I think that we are only sratching the surface where this controversy is concerned. I am finding that each time I look at even a small section of St. John’s Gospel in attempting to respond to this issue, that I am seeing more and more verses that point to the filioque being correctly inserted into the Creed.
I believe that there are deeper issues concerning the heresies that determined the use of the creed that need to be considered as well. We cannot get a full understanding of the controversy unless we also examine the reason why it was felt necessary to insert the filioque. In attempting to look at these issues, I am going to propose that Photius was in error with his objections to its use. I do not want to get side tracked with this proposition for the time being, but I want it to be known that this is my own underlying assumption.
It has already been mentioned that the Creed was developed to fight heresy and that the filioque was inserted in order to fight the Arian heresy. I think that this proposition also needs to be examined, but not before looking at further Scriptural that relates to the relationship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Maggie
I think I am beginning to see the direction from which you are coming and yes I do think that you are making a good point about the understanding of the word “send”. This brings me back to the fact that there are different senses to the Scripture. A word can have different meanings because of the sense it is being used.
In this case the word is “pempo” which in English means send. The point that was raised by Fr. Ambrose is how are we to interpret the word “prempo” in its use to the Apostles as well as to the Holy Spirit. Because I am not a Bible scholar, I do not use the fancy big words such as ontological. Instead I will try to keep my own wording on a simple level.
It seems to me that the Orthodox argument against the use of the Filioque is based upon a specific understanding of one verse in John’s Gospel, that is John 15:26. Now I would argue that this verse does not support the Orthodox position because of the phrasing: “When the Advocate (Paraclete) comes, **whom I shall send **from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who issues from the Father, he will be my witness”. It is not just the word “send” or pempo, but the phrase “whom I shall send from the Father” that needs to be studied in detail.
In previous posts Fr. Ambrose has questioned the word “send” and whether it has the same “meaning” when used for the Apostles and also for the Spirit. The issue that has now been raised is how are we to understand “send”. Should it be from the “temporal” usage, or from a more spiritual usage?
At the moment I think that we are only sratching the surface where this controversy is concerned. I am finding that each time I look at even a small section of St. John’s Gospel in attempting to respond to this issue, that I am seeing more and more verses that point to the filioque being correctly inserted into the Creed.
I believe that there are deeper issues concerning the heresies that determined the use of the creed that need to be considered as well. We cannot get a full understanding of the controversy unless we also examine the reason why it was felt necessary to insert the filioque. In attempting to look at these issues, I am going to propose that Photius was in error with his objections to its use. I do not want to get side tracked with this proposition for the time being, but I want it to be known that this is my own underlying assumption.
It has already been mentioned that the Creed was developed to fight heresy and that the filioque was inserted in order to fight the Arian heresy. I think that this proposition also needs to be examined, but not before looking at further Scriptural that relates to the relationship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Maggie
G
GAssisi
Guest
Dear All,
I hope our Eastern Catholic brethren participate more in this discussion. Here are the premises of issue (as I perceive it) regarding the word “sends.” The first premise is that we must have regard for the ontological relationship between the sender and the sendee. In this regard, as I noted before, the word “sends” does not affect the discussion, since the UNITY OF THE TRINITY demands and dictates that Jesus does not “send” the Holy Spirit in the same way that he “sends” the Apostles. Certainly, when Jesus also states that the Father will send the Spirit, this statement is admitted by all as an indication of an ontological relationship between Father and Spirit in the process of sending; thus, it cannot be denied that when Jesus states that HE will send the Spirit, this statement also indicates an ontological relationship between the Son and the Spirit in the process of sending. I think all parties would be in agreement at this point. If any object, please say so and explain.
The second premise: Despite this consideration from ontological relationship, however, we must still ask whether or not the sending of the Son by the Holy Spirit is an eternal quality, or merely a temporal quality. That is, is the ontological relationship between Son and Spirit (inherent in the action of sending) only by virtue of economy in the plan of salvation – and thus that this ontological relationship is found nowhere else and at no other time and no other circumstance – or is this ontological relationship between Son and Spirit by virtue of a de facto ontological relationship established in eternity obtained from the eternal ontological relationship with the First Cause, the Monarchia, the principaliter.
So far, does everyone agree with the two premises as I have stated them? If not, please say so and explain.
I would like comments on what I have said so far, and we will continue further discussion from here, or address other issues raised by my present explanation first.
God bless,
Greg
I hope our Eastern Catholic brethren participate more in this discussion. Here are the premises of issue (as I perceive it) regarding the word “sends.” The first premise is that we must have regard for the ontological relationship between the sender and the sendee. In this regard, as I noted before, the word “sends” does not affect the discussion, since the UNITY OF THE TRINITY demands and dictates that Jesus does not “send” the Holy Spirit in the same way that he “sends” the Apostles. Certainly, when Jesus also states that the Father will send the Spirit, this statement is admitted by all as an indication of an ontological relationship between Father and Spirit in the process of sending; thus, it cannot be denied that when Jesus states that HE will send the Spirit, this statement also indicates an ontological relationship between the Son and the Spirit in the process of sending. I think all parties would be in agreement at this point. If any object, please say so and explain.
The second premise: Despite this consideration from ontological relationship, however, we must still ask whether or not the sending of the Son by the Holy Spirit is an eternal quality, or merely a temporal quality. That is, is the ontological relationship between Son and Spirit (inherent in the action of sending) only by virtue of economy in the plan of salvation – and thus that this ontological relationship is found nowhere else and at no other time and no other circumstance – or is this ontological relationship between Son and Spirit by virtue of a de facto ontological relationship established in eternity obtained from the eternal ontological relationship with the First Cause, the Monarchia, the principaliter.
So far, does everyone agree with the two premises as I have stated them? If not, please say so and explain.
I would like comments on what I have said so far, and we will continue further discussion from here, or address other issues raised by my present explanation first.
God bless,
Greg
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Dear GAssisi,
What you say is enormously interesting but it would be better, as you say, if Eastern Christians would contribute as was Hesychios’ intention when he started the thread. It is not, IMHO, appropriate for a Western Christian to assume control of this particular thread.
Some of us perceive what you are presenting as being an a priori assumption of the Western position, and certainly what is being presented so far will inevitably lead into the Western understanding. I do not think that this is allowing Eastern Christians to present their beliefs as Hesychios was hoping.
I am enormously interested as to how Eastern Christians of the Catholic Church approach this and it is their views which I really entreat them to share with us.
R
rcwhiteh
Guest
Okay, I’ll try.
I agree with the first premise.
It seems to me that the second must be true, since Christ cannot separate Himself from the Father. “Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father.”
Now, if you’re asking if there was a “starting point” for the Spirit’s mission into the world, I would say that it would be clear that Pentecost was that starting point; it is also clear (at least to me) that the sacrifice of the Cross was the seminal event that had to precede this mission. In this sense, we could rightly say that the Father, at the Son’s behest, sent the Spirit into the world, and so the Spirit proceeded from the Father through the Son.
We may also rightly say, given the inseparable consubstantiality of the Father and the Son (“one in being with the Father”), that the Sprit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
This is my thinking only, but I seem to recall that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches recently signed a joint proclamation declaring that the “filioque” controversy was over, and that both Churches had correct understanding of the procession of the Spirit from different perspectives.
Your mileage may vary.
H
Hesychios
Guest
The closer one gets to God, the fewer the words.
The Holy Spirit can only be partially expressed in human concepts. Anything we can say on this is unnecessary, and potentially misleading speculation.
Let us remember that it took the Fathers of the Church a great many years before they were able to commit anything specific to the concept of the Holy Spirit, and only under the strain of great contoversy. In fact, it was not uniquely the scriptures as such where we first learn of the Holy Spirit, it is in the prayers of the liturgy, the hymns and the baptismal formulae, which certainly predate the composition of the Gospels. They derive from the teachings of the Apostles themselves, and from them to Christ and the experience of Pentecost.
From the very beginning, baptisms have been done in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Yet many Christians were confused as to to fact of the Holy Spirit’s deity, so obscure to us this is.
The Spirit Proceeds from the Father, the Son is begotten of the Father, the Father is unbegotten and unproceeding. Anything we add to this formula has no purpose or meaning. “If the One was from the beginning, then the Three were so too.”
It has often been speculated in the past among early Christian apologists that the Holy spirit influenced pagans and Jews before the incarnation of Christ. Just as the Logos has been thought to have wrestled with Jacob, the Trinity has been thought to have visited Abram, and it has been argued the Holy Spirit influenced the pre-Christian world in it’s sparks of illumination.
The Incarnation of Christ (with the overpowering of the Holy Spirit upon Mary the virgin) was an episode in God’s plan for our salvation, so too the sending of the Paraclete upon Jesus return to the Father: an episode in the plan of salvation. The Holy Spirit is said to have been present with Jesus at the baptism in the Jordan, and with Jesus as the cloud around the Transfiguration. Since we know that God is truly transcendent, beyond time and place, these episodes are like intrusions into the created world, and do not indicate any sort of precedence.
To me these joint appearances of Jesus the Incarnate and the Holy Spirit are like one hand clasping another. There is a type of mutuality in the action of the Father, the Holy Spirit and the Son.
So anyway on a human timeline the starting point of the presence of the Holy Spirit was at least at the point of Incarnation, if not His presence as Triad with Abram. Possibly much, much earlier in ways that do not usually concern us.
The idea that the Holy Spirit might be eternally sent by the Son doesn’t work for us because it has the effect of placing the Holy Spirit in a subordinate position in the minds of we mortals, despite claims to the contrary. We may have witnessed the negative effects of this concept as it makes it’s way through the generations, the Holy Spirit is seriously neglected in the conciousness of many Christians, notably excepting the overemphasis by some Pentecostalists (who are probably reacting). It seems very difficult to find a balance in this devotion, and some people have gone to extremes in compensation.
In this day and age the idea of the Filioque has no meaning to people, not only adding words it increases confusion. It is a rump concept and needs to be dropped from the Creed we all share.
The Holy Spirit can only be partially expressed in human concepts. Anything we can say on this is unnecessary, and potentially misleading speculation.
Let us remember that it took the Fathers of the Church a great many years before they were able to commit anything specific to the concept of the Holy Spirit, and only under the strain of great contoversy. In fact, it was not uniquely the scriptures as such where we first learn of the Holy Spirit, it is in the prayers of the liturgy, the hymns and the baptismal formulae, which certainly predate the composition of the Gospels. They derive from the teachings of the Apostles themselves, and from them to Christ and the experience of Pentecost.
From the very beginning, baptisms have been done in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Yet many Christians were confused as to to fact of the Holy Spirit’s deity, so obscure to us this is.
The Spirit Proceeds from the Father, the Son is begotten of the Father, the Father is unbegotten and unproceeding. Anything we add to this formula has no purpose or meaning. “If the One was from the beginning, then the Three were so too.”
It has often been speculated in the past among early Christian apologists that the Holy spirit influenced pagans and Jews before the incarnation of Christ. Just as the Logos has been thought to have wrestled with Jacob, the Trinity has been thought to have visited Abram, and it has been argued the Holy Spirit influenced the pre-Christian world in it’s sparks of illumination.
The Incarnation of Christ (with the overpowering of the Holy Spirit upon Mary the virgin) was an episode in God’s plan for our salvation, so too the sending of the Paraclete upon Jesus return to the Father: an episode in the plan of salvation. The Holy Spirit is said to have been present with Jesus at the baptism in the Jordan, and with Jesus as the cloud around the Transfiguration. Since we know that God is truly transcendent, beyond time and place, these episodes are like intrusions into the created world, and do not indicate any sort of precedence.
To me these joint appearances of Jesus the Incarnate and the Holy Spirit are like one hand clasping another. There is a type of mutuality in the action of the Father, the Holy Spirit and the Son.
So anyway on a human timeline the starting point of the presence of the Holy Spirit was at least at the point of Incarnation, if not His presence as Triad with Abram. Possibly much, much earlier in ways that do not usually concern us.
The idea that the Holy Spirit might be eternally sent by the Son doesn’t work for us because it has the effect of placing the Holy Spirit in a subordinate position in the minds of we mortals, despite claims to the contrary. We may have witnessed the negative effects of this concept as it makes it’s way through the generations, the Holy Spirit is seriously neglected in the conciousness of many Christians, notably excepting the overemphasis by some Pentecostalists (who are probably reacting). It seems very difficult to find a balance in this devotion, and some people have gone to extremes in compensation.
In this day and age the idea of the Filioque has no meaning to people, not only adding words it increases confusion. It is a rump concept and needs to be dropped from the Creed we all share.
M
Mickey
Guest
Without immersing myself in endless debate and theological diatribe on the subject, I will simply state: Byzantine Catholics do not say the filioque, and I believe that the Holy Spirit spirates from The Father. John 15:26 is quite clear.
G
GAssisi
Guest
Great responses, the gamut from ultra-eastern to middle of the road.
Dear Father,
Can you explain how my questions/statements were overly Western or “assuming control”? I note you stated “some of us PERCEIVE” that I was being too Western. Can you indicate exactly what words or terms I used that caused this perception?
If this thread is meant to be primarily or only for Eastern ideas, then Filioque should have been left out of the title?
Dear Mickey,
Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. If you want to exclude it, no one objects.
Dear Heyschios,
I thought the purpose of this thread is not to find reasons to convince Westerns to remove it from our Creed (as it is perfectly legitimate according to Western theology), but simply to understand our differences. As you started the thread, you have the final say in the matter.
If this discussion is only meant for Eastern perspectives, as Fr A proposes, then when you state “Anything we add to this formula has no purpose or meaning,” that effectively calls for a closing of the thread. My point is that the addition or subtraction of the filioque is not the issue. I would like to discuss the underlying theology of the filioque.
Eastern theology is more apophatic, and mayhap it would be ideal that such matters were never discussed. But the fact is, the Eastern Church DID discuss this matter (I would not call it an “issue,” since East and West were united on it), and one of the reasons the West felt it did not matter to add the filioque clause is because there was ample Eastern patristic evidence for the theology of her position.
What was this theology? What did the Eastern fathers have to say about the relationship of the Son to the Spirit in the Procession? Even St. Gregory Nazianzen whom you quote provides testimony to the theology of the filioque in his debate against the Pneumatomachi. So as much as modern Easterns may like to be silent for the sake of the apophatic principle, there was definitely an underlying current of filioque theology among the Fathers East and West which I feel we owe it to them to discuss for the sake of unity.
If you feel this thread should go in the direction I have suggested, then please indicate your approval or rejection. If you approve, let’s discuss the patristic sources, beginning with St Greg Nazianzen.
(continued)
Dear Father,
Can you explain how my questions/statements were overly Western or “assuming control”? I note you stated “some of us PERCEIVE” that I was being too Western. Can you indicate exactly what words or terms I used that caused this perception?
If this thread is meant to be primarily or only for Eastern ideas, then Filioque should have been left out of the title?
Dear Mickey,
Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. If you want to exclude it, no one objects.
Dear Heyschios,
I thought the purpose of this thread is not to find reasons to convince Westerns to remove it from our Creed (as it is perfectly legitimate according to Western theology), but simply to understand our differences. As you started the thread, you have the final say in the matter.
If this discussion is only meant for Eastern perspectives, as Fr A proposes, then when you state “Anything we add to this formula has no purpose or meaning,” that effectively calls for a closing of the thread. My point is that the addition or subtraction of the filioque is not the issue. I would like to discuss the underlying theology of the filioque.
Eastern theology is more apophatic, and mayhap it would be ideal that such matters were never discussed. But the fact is, the Eastern Church DID discuss this matter (I would not call it an “issue,” since East and West were united on it), and one of the reasons the West felt it did not matter to add the filioque clause is because there was ample Eastern patristic evidence for the theology of her position.
What was this theology? What did the Eastern fathers have to say about the relationship of the Son to the Spirit in the Procession? Even St. Gregory Nazianzen whom you quote provides testimony to the theology of the filioque in his debate against the Pneumatomachi. So as much as modern Easterns may like to be silent for the sake of the apophatic principle, there was definitely an underlying current of filioque theology among the Fathers East and West which I feel we owe it to them to discuss for the sake of unity.
If you feel this thread should go in the direction I have suggested, then please indicate your approval or rejection. If you approve, let’s discuss the patristic sources, beginning with St Greg Nazianzen.
(continued)
G
GAssisi
Guest
(continued)
Dear RCWHITEH,
Your understanding of the issue is not quite Western, but not quite Eastern either. In terms of the temporal or economic procession, we agree that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. Your separation of the issue of the eternal procession from the economic procession is definitely an Eastern concept. The West would not make this distinction, affirming that the Father does ALL things through the Son, even in the Procession.
However, your view that the eternal Procession by virtue of the consubstantiality of the Persons merits the statement “the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son” is Western in its worst possible interpretation by the East, and Eastern in its best possible interpretation by the West. Quite a paradox, huh? Hahaha! Allow me to explain.
That the statement with the filioque is merited by the consubstantiality of the Persons is a Western concept. However, depending on your use of the word “proceeds,” it is either Western in the worst possible interpretation by the East, or Eastern in the best possible interpretation by the West. To the East, the word “proceeds” connotes origin; to the West, “proceeds” does NOT connote origin. If you are using “proceeds” in the Eastern sense AND use filioque, then the East will accuse you of confusing the Persons, regardless of whether one admits that the statement reflects consubstantiality or not. If you are using “proceeds” in the Western sense AND use filioque, then the West will congratulate you for actually understanding the Western theology behind it, especially in your recognition of its value to affirm consubstantiality.
Have I confused anyone else besides me? Hahaha!
God bless,
Greg
Dear RCWHITEH,
Your understanding of the issue is not quite Western, but not quite Eastern either. In terms of the temporal or economic procession, we agree that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. Your separation of the issue of the eternal procession from the economic procession is definitely an Eastern concept. The West would not make this distinction, affirming that the Father does ALL things through the Son, even in the Procession.
However, your view that the eternal Procession by virtue of the consubstantiality of the Persons merits the statement “the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son” is Western in its worst possible interpretation by the East, and Eastern in its best possible interpretation by the West. Quite a paradox, huh? Hahaha! Allow me to explain.
That the statement with the filioque is merited by the consubstantiality of the Persons is a Western concept. However, depending on your use of the word “proceeds,” it is either Western in the worst possible interpretation by the East, or Eastern in the best possible interpretation by the West. To the East, the word “proceeds” connotes origin; to the West, “proceeds” does NOT connote origin. If you are using “proceeds” in the Eastern sense AND use filioque, then the East will accuse you of confusing the Persons, regardless of whether one admits that the statement reflects consubstantiality or not. If you are using “proceeds” in the Western sense AND use filioque, then the West will congratulate you for actually understanding the Western theology behind it, especially in your recognition of its value to affirm consubstantiality.
Have I confused anyone else besides me? Hahaha!
God bless,
Greg
M
MaggieOH
Guest
So why, on the Cross did Jesus give up His spirit?
Jesus said that He had to depart so that the Paraclete could come. If the Son and the Father are one, why would the Spirit proceed only from the Father?
These are some of the theological questions that I believe need to be addressed in full. They should not be addressed by insipid responses about one or other party being wrong. They should be addressed by a humble reading of the Scripture.
Maggie
- Status