Filioque and Eastern Christian Trinitarian understanding

[steve_b]

a pilgrim:

Hi steve b!

No, I do not.

A note of caution: Please take care when referencing New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia entries as a basis for proving points. …accuracy of* New Advent’s* information has been found to be outdated… wrong on enough occasions… to make all their entries suspect - not a reliable source for the truth by any stretch.

Hey Pilgrim,

ALL entries are suspect and unreliable for truth?
a pilgrim:

The encyclopedia article you linked to in your post…
…is grossly archaic and, frankly, riddled with errors (I started circling the errors as I read through the article and ran out of ink !). Case in point - the very title of the article, Ruthenian Rite, is a misnomer - there is simply no such thing as the Ruthenian Rite.

When I refer to myself as a Roman Catholic, I’m really saying I am a Catholic of the Roman/Latin rite. Or I can just call myself Catholic. As you know, all rites in the Catholic Church are equal. No one rite is better than the other. Therefore, it’s perfectly okay and not archaic, outdated, or just plain wrong for a Ruthenian Catholic to say Catholic of the Ruthenian rite, or just say Catholic. Do a search on “Ruthenian Rite”.
a pilgrim:

What there is instead is the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church, one of the 23 Churches sui juris that together constitute our Catholic Church.

Just to ask for clarification. How are you using “OUR”?
a pilgrim:

This is the Church of which I am a canonical member. Despite the fact that currently upwards of 90% of my worship practice takes place in the Western (Latin) Church, I am still and always will be an Eastern Catholic, bound by the Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Churches.

What are the odds? I haven;t followed your posts. I did read your bio but there was no mention of your profession of faith. I only post about 1.6 times per day. So for me to use the example of Ruthenian Catholic when I responded to you,… well, as I say what are the odds of that happening? Nice to meet you.
a pilgrim:

We in the East do not take the filioque when we recite the Creed - nor, for that matter, does our Holy Father when he celebrates the Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy.

Pilgrim, as I said before, it’s okay not to say the filioque. And that is truth. But the filioque is also truth. The fullness of truth. And the Holy Father would not* deny* the truth of the filioque just because he used the liturgy of the East… As a Roman Catholic I can say the creed either way too depending on where I am in the world, and it is true both ways. Like the Holy Father, I don’t deny the filioque.
a pilgrim:

…wherein all Catholics, East and West, have been instructed to make themselves aware of the theological riches that the Churches of the East bring to the fabric of our Holy Mother Church, and to take whatever steps necessary to abandon the vestiges of latinization within our Churches in favor of our ancient traditions and practices, those that more suitably fit within the framework of our Eastern Catholic theology.

True. As I said before, all rites are equal. No rite is better than the other no matter the size. The pope preserves the dignity of all rites. The Latin rite is worldwide. So Latins can worship all over the world in our rite. It’s much harder, near impossible for the other rites to maintain identity outside their original areas. I recognize that and appreciate what you say.
a pilgrim:

Let me stress that this is not a case of the Eastern Churches looking to assert their “birthright,” as it were - this is a case of the Holy See, our Holy Father himself, mandating that we do so.

I understand. The Holy Father is Father over all the rites, including the Latin rite, and the Ruthenian rite equally, correct?
a pilgrim:

And since the filioque has never been part of Eastern Trinitarian belief (except during the period of its “forced” inclusion, which has, gratefully, come and gone), the fact that we do not take it today is not only sanctioned by Rome, but is also in direct obedience to the expressed wishes of the Pastoral Shepherd of all Catholics, our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II.

What I’m sensing is that you as an Eastern Catholic can’t/won’t say both versions. How do you personally recite the creed when you are at a Latin Mass? Do you say “and the son” or do you omit saying it because of tradition, or because you deny it?

 

[Subrosa]

I originally posted this on another thread. Sorry, I didn’t realize this one was here. This is a more appropriate thread.

Fr. Ambrose -

Would you mind commenting on these statements?

agrino.org/cyberdesert/zizioulas.htm

agrino.org/cyberdesert/statement.htm

…the pipes, the pipes are calling… http://www.holidayclip-art.com/Images/Bagpipe3.jpg
http://www.qksrv.net/image-1386393-10281960

 

[steve_b]

JPrejean:

1. No, it’s not one way. The mutual love of the Son for the Father in the Holy Spirit is what completes the Trinity. This is known as perichoresis, the internal life of love within the Trinity.

As I’ve understood lit,

The Father loves Himself, and in this love He generates His Son (from all eternity). He loves Himself in His Son, and His Son loves Himself in His Father, and from this love, the HS proceeds.

The Father generates one single love, one single power, one single sanctity, and so forth… He ties the inseperable union of the 3 Divine Persons in love.

JPrejean:

1. It’s absurd to speak of a Person having the divine essence as “only a conduit.” You’re talking about divinity; to have it is to have all of it. The divine essence is absolutely simple and indivisible. The whole point is that it is shared in communion fully among the persons. It’s not as if the Son has “less” divinity because He is “only a conduit” as you put it. The Spirit is the Son’s own because the Son gives the entirety of the divine substance to the Spirit, just as the Son receives the entirety of the divine essence from the Father.

No need to get your ears back. I was just looking for clarification on what you said. I’ll be the first to admit, I’m not always clear in what I say.

JPrejean:

1. The Holy Spirit both rests on the Son and is of the Son.

As far as my interpretation of the passages, as I said before, they are true in two different ways. The former refers to hypostatic origin (although also substance), and the latter refers only to substance.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Subrosa]

Fr Ambrose:

I remember that Maggie, at the beginning of this thread, said she had done a previous study of scriptural proofs for the filioque and she wanted to offer her research to us, but I don’t think she has done so?

Maggie, if you are still reading this thread, would you be able to address the scriptural proofs?

Hi Fr. Ambrose -

Here’s some scripture that I’ve noticed supporting the filioque. All passages are NAB.

John 14:26

The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name

John 15:26

"When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me.

(These passages clearly indicate the origin: The Father)

Acts 2:33

Exalted at the right hand of God, he received the promise of the holy Spirit from the Father and poured it forth, as you (both) see and hear.

(This passage again states the origin, but now indicates that Jesus “poured it forth”)

John 20:21-23

21 (Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit.

23 Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."

Luke 24:49

And (behold) I am sending the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.

(These passages indicate the origin of the spirit, but that it is Jesus, in fact, sending the spirit.)

John 16:13-15

13 But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.

14 He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.

15 Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you

(Here a double consideration is in place. First, the Son has all things that the Father has, so that He must resemble the Father in being the Principle from which the Holy Ghost proceeds. Secondly, the Holy Ghost shall receive “of mine” according to the words of the Son; but Procession is the only conceivable way of receiving which does not imply dependence or inferiority. In other words, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.)

Here is a Vatican statement that tries to clerify the issue. It states that the origin is the father, but stresses the consubstantiality of the son, like the last passage above. I posted it earlier.

agrino.org/cyberdesert/statement.htm

Hope your fast is going well,
Jerry

 

[oat_soda]

You’ve got it exactly. The hypostases of the Son and Holy Spirit are both eternally derived from the Father, so the derivation of either one cannot depend on the other.

i don’t think the church is saying that the Holy Spirit is originating or was created by the Son but the Holy Spirit proceeds, or is sent, by the Son. In scripture we see the Holy Spirit sent by the Father, and by the Son. We never see the Son sent by the Holy Spirit, but the Son sent by the Father, and the Father sending both the Son and Holy Spirit.

the latin word procedere means to go forward. it doesn’t imply a source. Does the EO accept the Spirit being sent by the Son?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

oat soda:

the latin word procedere means to go forward. it doesn’t imply a source.

Are you sure this is Roman Catholic teaching?

If proceed does not mean source for Catholic theology then the Father is not the source of the Spirit.

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

Are you sure this is Roman Catholic teaching?

If proceed does not mean source for Catholic theology then the Father is not the source of the Spirit.

245 The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381): *"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father."71 By this confession, the Church recognizes the Father as “the source and origin of the whole divinity”.72 But the eternal origin of the Spirit is not unconnected with the Son’s origin: "The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is God, one and equal with the Father and the Son, of the same substance and also of the same nature. . . Yet he is not called the Spirit of the Father alone,. . . but the Spirit of both the Father and the Son."*73 The Creed of the Church from the Council of Constantinople confesses: "With the Father and the Son, he is worshipped and glorified."74

246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)”. The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: ***“The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”***75

248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father *through *the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”,78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”,79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

258 The whole divine economy is the common work of the three divine persons. For as the Trinity has only one and the same natures so too does it have only one and the same operation: ***“The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three principles of creation but one principle.”***97 However, each divine person performs the common work according to his unique personal property. Thus the Church confesses, following the New Testament, “one God and Father from whom all things are, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and one Holy Spirit in whom all things are”.98 It is above all the divine missions of the Son’s Incarnation and the gift of the Holy Spirit that show forth the properties of the divine persons.

taken from vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

CCC248: At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father *through *the Son.

I have asked in previous messages for proof that this is the expression of the Eastern tradition. Conciliar teachings? Synodal decisions? Even just simple catechism statements?

This is a significant assertion by the Roman Catholic Church. Where do they get this? Was it a kind of wishful thinking by those who composed the Catholic Catechism? Did they think that the Orthodox would never know that they are being misrepresented?

The (Orthodox) Church teaches that the Spirit has a temporal mission from the Son which took place at Pentecost when the Son sent the Spirit to His Church. It is in this sense that the Orthodox say that the Spirit is “through the Son.” An event which took place in about 33 AD.

An eternal procession from the Father, a temporal mission from the Son - this is what the Lord has revealed to us…

“But when the Paraclete cometh whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.”
~ John 15:26

 

[JackQ]

JPrejean:

The thing about revealed truth is that one has to interpret the revelation properly to ascertain the divinely-intended meaning. It must be interpreted in its proper sense within the faith of the Church. Part of that proper sense is that “everything” does not refer to literally “everything.” If it is interpreted in that way, then the passage would be in blatant contradiction with other Scriptural passages (e.g., “The Father is greater than I” - John 14:28). One way to see this contradiction is that if you interpreted the passage as literally as you are suggesting, then it would lead to Sabellianism. When properly interpreted, the passage does not support what you are asserting that it supports. Therefore, it is incorrect for you to assert that someone is arguing with Jesus when you are misinterpreting what He is saying.

Of course the interpretation I am giving is the correct one, especially since I didn’t just come up with it myself, but read the passage in light of Church teaching. In this instance I refer to the Council of Florence, which said (as quoted in the Catechism), “And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being the Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.” I read John 5:19 in light of this. Now, naturally, I don’t expect an Orthodox Christian to accept the Council of Florence. But this should shed some light on why my interpretation of the passage doesn’t lead to Sabellianism, unless, of course, you accuse the Catholic Church of taking a position that leads to it.

JPrejean:

I strongly disagree with this attitude, because I think it proves too much. In fact, it’s probably because I have a master’s degree in physics that this particular analogy really highlights the problem with what you’re suggesting. By your reasoning, once we discover that quantum objects can act like both particles and wave, we should just give up the ghost. But it turns out that even though we don’t have a firm and definite conceptual grasp of exactly what is going on, we can still generate useful mathematical formulations that describe quantum behavior, make useful predictions, etc., etc. It’s the same way with the Trinity; the fact that there are areas that are admittedly incomprehensible (the divine essence, the exact nature of generation and procession) doesn’t mean that we can’t make useful and definite statements about the Trinity based on revealed truth. And incidentally, just because we can’t derive the Trinity by reason alone doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t make sense after it is revealed. St. Thomas certainly thought that the Trinity was comprehensible in certain respects even though it had to be revealed.

I’m impressed that you have a Master’s degree in physics, but you’ve missed my point, and, in the process, helped to make my point. It is precisely the case that just because quantum objects act like both particles and waves we should not give up the ghost. And we shouldn’t deny the existence of quantum objects until they agree to make better sense. Moreover, in the meantime, the knowledge we do have about them is quite useful. In the same way, if one part of revealed truth seems contrary to other parts of revealed truth, we can keep digging and ask God to expand our understanding. But we don’t deny one part of revealed truth in order to build some human edifice of consistency.

JPrejean:

The flip side is that an appeal to mystery and/or incomprehensibility can be an equally cheap way of wriggling out of a debate. I completely agree with you that Arianism and Sabellianism took the easy way out, and that the orthodox view took a lot more thinking, but if the orthodox view were completely incomprehensible, then no one would have adopted it Also, what you didn’t mention is that both Arians and Sabellians did with Scripture exactly what you are doing: take certain passages at face value, and say “this is the way it is” without undertaking the effort that it would take to harmonize their interpretation with Tradition and arrive at the correct interpretation. I think that you are simply taking the easy way out with your Scriptural citations and excusing yourself from doing the work necessary to arrive at the correct interpretation by claiming that it’s all “mysterious.”

I made my point not because I think my interpretation of the passage in question comes anywhere near Sabellianism or any other heresy. In fact, it seems to me quite consistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church that I find in the Catechism, as my above quotation shows. So, I’m not doing what the Arians and Sabellians did, and I don’t even excuse myself when I belch. As for my scriptual citations, that was the challenge of Father Ambrose: to find scripture passages that support the filioque.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

JackQ:

As for my scriptual citations, that was the challenge of Father Ambrose: to find scripture passages that support the filioque.

Well, I suppose it may have begun to take on the look of a challenge but I was getting frustrated by people saying*: “Look, we’ve given you scriptural proof of the filioque”* when I myself had/have not seen any scriptural proof presented let alone any attempt to offer a convincing exegisis of it.

http://www.seoulshamrock.co.kr/Irish Virus.jpg

 

[Irish_Melkite]

steve b:

When I refer to myself as a Roman Catholic, I’m really saying I am a Catholic of the Roman/Latin rite. Or I can just call myself Catholic. As you know, all rites in the Catholic Church are equal. No one rite is better than the other. Therefore, it’s perfectly okay and not archaic, outdated, or just plain wrong for a Ruthenian Catholic to say Catholic of the Ruthenian rite, or just say Catholic. Do a search on “Ruthenian Rite”.

Steve,

My friend and brother, Al (a pilgrim), is absolutely correct when he states that there is not a “Ruthenian Rite”. The time has come (again) to explain the distinction between “Rite” and “Church”. Unfortunately, the two are sometimes used incorrectly by Eastern and Oriental Catholics, as well as by Latin Catholics.

For centuries, one who was a member of a particular religious group within Eastern or Oriental Catholicity was spoken of as being of the ____ Rite (e.g., Melkite, Ruthenian, Ukrainian) - with the concept being that each was a Rite within the Latin Church (e.g., the Ambrosian Rite). Several years ago, Rome finally recognized that what had been termed “Rites”, when applied to those of the East and Orient, were actually separate Churches, which together with the Latin Church, constitute the Catholic Church.

Thus, the Catholic Church is comprised of 23 self-governing Churches, also referred to as Churches sui iuris (“Churches of their own law”), also sometimes as Particular Churches or Autonomous Ritual Churches.

Correct usage of the term “Rite” is important, more so in the Eastern and Oriental Churches than in the Latin Church (although there are other Rites within the Latin Church, the Latin Rite vastly predominates in the West - the others are used only in very limited areas or under very particular circumstances).

Each Church sui iuris worships according to a particular Rite. A simple definition of a Rite is that it is the collected form of ritual, ceremony, and prayers according to which the members of a Church conduct their worship and other liturgical services; for the most part, Rites reflect the cultures in which they were developed.

Western Catholics use the Latin Rite (with a few exceptions, as I noted above). Eastern and Oriental Catholic Rites developed from the customs and style of worship practiced in what were the 3 most important centers of Christian development, other than Rome (i.e., Alexandria, Antioch, and Byzantium [later called Constantinople, and now Istanbul]). This happened at a time when achieving uniformity of liturgical practice was hampered by the limitations that resulted from geography and the difficulties of communication.

Initially, there were three Rites used by Eastern and Oriental Catholics: the Alexandrean, Antiochene, and Byzantine Rites. Eventually, as those Rites were carried back to other cities, modifications occurred. Three of the variations that arose developed in very isolated areas and, as a result, changed to such an extent that they came to be considered Rites unto themselves; those are the Armenian, Chaldean, and Maronite Rites.

In other instances, the changes which occurred in the Rites were less drastic and insufficient to merit being designated as a separate rite; such localized variations came to be termed “Traditions”. Thus, the Antiochene Rite is further divided into the East and West Syrian Traditions. The Alexandrean Rite is comprised of the Coptic and Ge’ez Traditions. The Byzantine Rite, largest of the six Eastern and Oriental Rites (in terms of the number of Churches that use it), has both Byzantine-Greek and Byzantine-Slav Traditions.

The Armenian and Maronite Rites are each utilized only by a single Church sui iuris, so, within those two, there is no further breakdown by tradition. Although, historically, the Chaldean Rite was utilized by the Syro-Malabarese Catholic Church sui iuris, as well as by the Chaldeans, the present usage of the Malabarese is more closely aligned to the Antiochene Rite, for a variety of reasons. Thus, the Chaldean Rite presently can be said to be without any breakdown by tradition.

The Byzantine-Greek and Byzantine-Slav Traditions are each used by several Churches, with further local variations due to the ethno-cultural differences among the faithful of those Churches. Such variations are termed Recensions - thus, for example, there are Ruthenian and Great Russian Recensions (among others) within the Byzantine-Slav Tradition and Greek and Greico-Arabic Recensions (among others) within the Byzantine-Greek Tradition.

There are also rescensions within the East and West Syrian Traditions.

(cont’ed)

 

[Irish_Melkite]

There is another breakdown, which is termed a Usage. This term hasn’t really been applied to the Eastern and Oriental Churches historically (in the Latin Church, it is applied to the Anglican Usage, which is the ritual form and prayers permitted to be employed by certain congregations of faithful in the US who returned to communion with Rome from the Anglican or Episcopalian Church). However, there is presently one historical instance in an Oriental Church where it could probably be applied pretty aptly and another of recent vintage to which it might have application.

Within the Syro-Malabarese Catholic Church, there is a distinct group referred to as Southists or Knanaites. They are an endogenous community who are descendents of 72 Jewish Christian families who emigrated to Kerala on the Malabar coast of India in 352 AD, under the leadership of Knai Thomman (Thomas the Canaanite). Early in the 20th century, the Holy See granted the request of the Knanaites that a canonical jurisdiction be erected for them at Kottayam in Kerala Province (India) solely on the basis of their ethno-cultural identity. They have their own hierarch and clergy, subject to the presiding hierarch of the Syro-Malabarese Catholic Church, of which they are a constituent entity, while retaining certain liturgical practices unique to themselves. This is really a Usage and probably would have been termed such, except that there was no such terminology being employed back at the time they came into being. I suspect the term will ultimately be applied to them.

More recently, the election of a new Patriarch for the Chaldean Catholic Church brought to notice two very distinct factions within that Church’s Synod of Bishops. They are commonly referred to as the Syriac (or Aramaic) and the Arabic parties. The former are dedicated to the Church’s traditional liturgical forms; the latter is inclined to the arabization of the Church, critical to its efforts at prosletyizing, but feared both because it could diminish the Church’s mission to its traditional base of Chaldean faithful and because it could damage the very fruitful dialogue and excellent relations between the Chaldeans and their counterparts of the Assyrian Churches. It is very possible that, ultimately, these will become 2 distinct Usages within the Chaldean Church.

The end result is that the term Rite is used differently within the Eastern/Oriental Churches and the Western Church. In the former, a single Rite is used either by a single Church or by multiple Churches - but never multiple Rites within a single Church; in the latter, a single Church uses multiple Rites.

I hope this is clear and not too confusing.

Many years,

Neil

 

[oat_soda]

Are you sure this is Roman Catholic teaching?

If proceed

does not mean source for Catholic theology then the Father is not the source of the Spirit.

the church teaches only the Father is the first principle or origin of the Son and Spirit. Principle comes from the Latin *principium *which means “beginning”. The essence of the Father is his existence as an uncreated cause. He is the beginning without beginning or origin without origin. This is what makes him the Father. On this point, the Orthodox and Catholics agree.

The issue seems to be the distinction between principle and principle principle or beginning and beginning origin. The church teaches that the Spirit has its beginning origin in the Father but its beginning from the Son. I guess the church is saying that only the Father created the Spirit but he gave everything to the Son. He couldn’t give something he already didn’t have. The filioque doesn’t contradict the fact that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, it only completes or makes more full this reality. "since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son" (75 Council of Florence (1439): DS 1300-1301). It is relation between the persons in the Trinity that makes them distinct.

If the EO deny that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, then they deny that the Father gave all things to his Son and that the Spirit originally proceeds from the Father.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

oat soda:

If the EO deny that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, then they deny that the Father gave all things to his Son

Yes, that is obvious. As jprejean has pointed out you cannot take that “all” as “all” in every instance. If you do it will lead you not only to the necessity of declaring that the Son is the source of the Spirit but that the Son is also the co-father of Himself at the conception in Mary’s womb. So the Son has an eternal birth from His Father and a temporal birth from the Father *and * Himself since the Father has given Him “all.”. Is this the teaching of the Catholic Church? It would seem to be yours. Your use of “all” requires it.

then they deny… that the Spirit originally proceeds from the Father.

I do not follow what you are saying here.

 

[oat_soda]

you cannot take that “all” as “all” in every instance. If you do it will lead you not only to the necessity of declaring that the Son is the source of the Spirit but that the Son is also the co-father of Himself at the conception in Mary’s womb

the short answer is that God the Father gave his Son everything except him being the Father.

if God did give his Fatherhood to his Son, there would be no difference between the Father and Son, and you wouldn’t have a Trinity.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

oat soda:

the short answer is that God the Father gave his Son everything except him being the Father.

So, already you are conceding that “all” does not mean “all”

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

So, already you are conceding that “all” does not mean “all”

"ALL" was qualified up front, with one exception. The exception as the council of Florence states is, the Son is not the Father. EVERYTHING else the Father gives the Son…

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

"ALL" was qualified up front, with one exception. The exception as the council of Florence states is, the Son is not the Father. EVERYTHING else the Father gives the Son…

Slice it whichever way you want, but even just one exception shows that “all” does not mean “all.”

 

[JackQ]

Fr Ambrose:

Well, I suppose it may have begun to take on the look of a challenge but I was getting frustrated by people saying*: “Look, we’ve given you scriptural proof of the filioque”* when I myself had/have not seen any scriptural proof presented let alone any attempt to offer a convincing exegisis of it.

http://www.seoulshamrock.co.kr/Irish Virus.jpg

Oh, I don’t mean challenge in any negative sense. I’m just explaining why I was quoting scripture, which is kind of odd now that I think about it.

 

[JackQ]

Fr Ambrose:

I have asked in previous messages for proof that this is the expression of the Eastern tradition. Conciliar teachings? Synodal decisions? Even just simple catechism statements?

This is a significant assertion by the Roman Catholic Church. Where do they get this? Was it a kind of wishful thinking by those who composed the Catholic Catechism? Did they think that the Orthodox would never know that they are being misrepresented?

The (Orthodox) Church teaches that the Spirit has a temporal mission from the Son which took place at Pentecost when the Son sent the Spirit to His Church. It is in this sense that the Orthodox say that the Spirit is “through the Son.” An event which took place in about 33 AD.

An eternal procession from the Father, a temporal mission from the Son - this is what the Lord has revealed to us…

“But when the Paraclete cometh whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.”
~ John 15:26

I don’t think the Catechism is trying to represent the position of the eastern Churches which are not in communion with Rome. Eastern Catholics do not insert the filioque in their recitation of the Creed.