Filioque and Eastern Christian Trinitarian understanding

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hesychios
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
GAssisi:
Great responses, the gamut from ultra-eastern to middle of the road.

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.
You are right, I registered an opinion that sounds like an attack on the western use of the filioque, sorry, I didn’t mean it that way. My actual interest was to register my opinion along with that of the preceeding poster. I don’t really care much whether the Latin Catholics use the filioque, I am a little more concerned when Byzantine Catholics share the Latin perspective and I decided to broaden the range of opinion expressed here.

The real difference is in how the west and east understand the Trinity, in the eastern way of understanding the Trinity there really just isn’t any place for the “filioque”, it’s like there just aren’t any more seats on the bus.

So it isn’t a black or white type of issue, it’s a black or -blank- issue.
As you started the thread, you have the final say in the matter.
Click to expand...
I opened the thread on behalf of two others, Aris and Father A. I have attempted to start several topics of my own in the past and been frustrated becuse they wouldn’t take, something isn’t working well. So I had a bit of empathy with their plight.

I do not feel as though I own the thread, I came back into it because there was some bemoaning of the fact that there was little to no (name removed by moderator)ut from Eastern Catholics. I gave (name removed by moderator)ut (shared my opinion) and now I am done with it. As you can see, eastern Catholics are in no way of one mind on this topic, highly symptomatic of the difficult position of being between two awesome points of view.
Click to expand...
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.
I wasn’t closing the thread, or even asking for a closure of the thread. That is actually my opinion. Anyone who wants to say anything else on the eastern perspective should be free to do so as far as I am concerned. If you would like to expand the theme of this thread to a debate on Filioque the persons to address would be Father Ambrose or Aris.

What makes this problematic for easterners is that we are automatically suspected of heresy for not taking the filioque, and are always expected to defend the position. (You have no idea…I have been jumped on by visitors to my parish who want to debate this topic in our parking lot!) Easterners just pretty much want to be left alone on the subject: for eastern Catholics the opinion is ‘do what you like but leave us alone’ and for eastern Orthodox the opinion is ‘do what you like, but we cannot share communion with you’. See the difference?

For Latin Catholics it seems to be ‘we want to reunite the churches, can’t we all just get along? but you’ll need to stop being heretics and accept the filioque’.
Code: 
 I really have no further opinion on the subject, as far as I am concerned, the Filioque should never have become an issue and I have no further interest in it.
But thanks for asking.

+T+
Michael
 
When it all comes down to it, the question still for me is: Why was the Filioque added to the whole church council approved Creed without the aid of another formal Council? The early Christians knew that any addition to the Creed as adopted by council would be at least somewhat heretical. If this addition was as correct as the original version why would the western church have any problem submitting it to a council prior to the Schism? Or did the western church consider councils as a hinderace to the development of doctrine? I tend to think that the western church wanted to conduct their own councils minus the troublesome antiquated eastern brothers. But this is only my opinion.

StMarkEofE
 
40.png
StMarkEofE:
When it all comes down to it, the question still for me is: Why was the Filioque added to the whole church council approved Creed without the aid of another formal Council? The early Christians knew that any addition to the Creed as adopted by council would be at least somewhat heretical. If this addition was as correct as the original version why would the western church have any problem submitting it to a council prior to the Schism? Or did the western church consider councils as a hinderace to the development of doctrine? I tend to think that the western church wanted to conduct their own councils minus the troublesome antiquated eastern brothers. But this is only my opinion.
Click to expand...
My own suspicions are that the Arian heresy had taken its toll and the angst over it, superceded other things. And if we an judge by the interactions of bishops with their fellow bishops in the exercise of their collegiality - some seem to want to proceed with out others . We can’t know too much about the political and social interaction between them at this point but I suspect more was going on than is plain to us today. Human nature is human nature, no matter what century.
 
40.png
Hesychios:
You are right, I registered an opinion that sounds like an attack on the western use of the filioque, sorry, I didn’t mean it that way. My actual interest was to register my opinion along with that of the preceeding poster. I don’t really care much whether the Latin Catholics use the filioque, I am a little more concerned when Byzantine Catholics share the Latin perspective and I decided to broaden the range of opinion expressed here.

The real difference is in how the west and east understand the Trinity, in the eastern way of understanding the Trinity there really just isn’t any place for the “filioque”, it’s like there just aren’t any more seats on the bus.

So it isn’t a black or white type of issue, it’s a black or -blank- issue.

I opened the thread on behalf of two others, Aris and Father A. I have attempted to start several topics of my own in the past and been frustrated becuse they wouldn’t take, something isn’t working well. So I had a bit of empathy with their plight.

I do not feel as though I own the thread, I came back into it because there was some bemoaning of the fact that there was little to no (name removed by moderator)ut from Eastern Catholics. I gave (name removed by moderator)ut (shared my opinion) and now I am done with it. As you can see, eastern Catholics are in no way of one mind on this topic, highly symptomatic of the difficult position of being between two awesome points of view.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t closing the thread, or even asking for a closure of the thread. That is actually my opinion. Anyone who wants to say anything else on the eastern perspective should be free to do so as far as I am concerned. If you would like to expand the theme of this thread to a debate on Filioque the persons to address would be Father Ambrose or Aris.

What makes this problematic for easterners is that we are automatically suspected of heresy for not taking the filioque, and are always expected to defend the position. (You have no idea…I have been jumped on by visitors to my parish who want to debate this topic in our parking lot!) Easterners just pretty much want to be left alone on the subject: for eastern Catholics the opinion is ‘do what you like but leave us alone’ and for eastern Orthodox the opinion is ‘do what you like, but we cannot share communion with you’. See the difference?

For Latin Catholics it seems to be ‘we want to reunite the churches, can’t we all just get along? but you’ll need to stop being heretics and accept the filioque’.

I really have no further opinion on the subject, as far as I am concerned, the Filioque should never have become an issue and I have no further interest in it.

But thanks for asking.

+T+
Michael

Michael,

the boot can be on the other foot. I have always found that those who have joined the Orthodox Church tend to want to argue with the rest of us, and ditto with the remarks about heresy. That is why I would prefer that consider not just one text in Scripture but all of the verses that relate to Trinity or to the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The problem with using just the early Church Fathers, without also examining Scripture is that it is easy to pick and choose the quotes that you are used hearing and reading.

I have my own views about the stubborness of both sides on this issue. They will remain my views for the time being (unless I decide to open up another aspect of the subject).

It is good to deal with people who are not as angry as some that I have dealt with in the past.

Maggie
Maggie
 
40.png
Hesychios:
For Latin Catholics it seems to be ‘we want to reunite the churches, can’t we all just get along? but you’ll need to stop being heretics and accept the filioque’.
Click to expand...
I really have no further opinion on the subject, as far as I am concerned, the Filioque should never have become an issue and I have no further interest in it.

But thanks for asking.

+T+
Michael

Michael,
  1. I agree that the Filioque should not be an issue. Aren’t the Eastern Catholics allowed to say the Creed according to their belief? Is this correct or just my perception? Catholics agree that with or without the Filioque it is the same. It is saying the same thing.
  2. Just to clarify. Why can’t the Spirit proceed through the Son as well? How does this change the character of the Spirit when we understand that the Three Persons are one.
PS. Thanks for opening this thread.
 
40.png
Aris:
Michael,
  1. I agree that the Filioque should not be an issue. Aren’t the Eastern Catholics allowed to say the Creed according to their belief? Is this correct or just my perception? Catholics agree that with or without the Filioque it is the same. It is saying the same thing.
  2. Just to clarify. Why can’t the Spirit proceed through the Son as well? How does this change the character of the Spirit when we understand that the Three Persons are one.
PS. Thanks for opening this thread.
Click to expand...
Simply stated: The Filioque is a big issue with the east, and cannot be taken lightly in any discussion on unity.
Saying the NC Creed with or without the Filioque is simply not the same, at least for the Eastern Orthodox. The word “and the Son” is not the same as “through the Son” no matter how you slice it. “And” and “through” are not the same word nor do they have the same meaning at least in the English language. The word "and’ is found in the western version of the Creed and not the word “through”. Now if “through” is supposed to be there why does this word not appear anywhere in the western Creed?
The word AND (in conjunction with) denotes dependency. IOW, the Holy Spirit can not be anywhere or affect anything except via the Father and the Son. So when a priest invokes the Holy Spirit he must do it via the Son which relegates the Holy Spirit to second class status (a lesser God?). It is as if the Holy Spirit, even though He is the Third Person of the Trinity and equally God, cannot ack without the consent or the will of the Son.
We believe that the Holy Spirit can and does act independently of the Son but dependently of the Father.
You ask us to understand the Filioque but hesitate to understand our side of the debate.
Let us have a council to iron it out. Please keep in mind, we consider the Filioque as heretical and when heresies arise it takes a council to determine what the truth is. One person be it the Pope or Patriarch or layman can not by themselves determine this. If the council determines that the Filioque is valid then you will get no argument from me. But until then I have to consider this man made addition as what it is.

StMarkEofE
 
Slava Isusu Christu! Slava Na V’iki!
Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory Forever!

As a Byzantine Catholic, I would like to clarify that we uphold dearly the first Seven Ecumenical Councils of our Holy Fathers. One of the most important is the 4th Council, which provided the Nicene Creed, which states simply:

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke through the prophets.
This was agreed upon by all Ecumenical Councils. The “Filioque” as I was taught, was introduced in Spain during the 5th century to assist in combating Arianism. I do not believe in using the “h” word, however, due to many movements of theological understanding (some incorrect), steps were taken by local Bishops to bring to the faithful proper understanding of the WORD. This is one of those cases. When His Holiness Pope John Paul II conducts the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, he recites the Nicean Creed as above, “from the Father”, not “from the Father and the Son,”.

I realize this post will not agree with everyone, but please understand that the Eastern Lung of the Catholic Church, with our Sister Churches of the East, focus on the Mysteries of our Lord and Savior.

As our Priest prays during the liturgy to Our God:

"Lord our God. Whose might is beyond utterance. and glory is incomprehensible,
Whose mercy is measureless, and love of man is ineffable:
Yourself O Master, look down with Your mercy upon us, and upon this holy house,
and grant to us, and to those who pray with us, the riches of Your mercy, and of Your compassion. "
**
How can we as man understand that which is incomprehensible? That we are to grow within our Theosis, yes, but will be be able to comprehend that which is incomprehensible? I do not believe so.

In Christ,

Michael
 
So when we say Byzantine Catholic, does that mean you are in union with Rome?
 
40.png
StMarkEofE:
Simply stated: The Filioque is a big issue with the east, and cannot be taken lightly in any discussion on unity.
You ask us to understand the Filioque but hesitate to understand our side of the debate.
Let us have a council to iron it out. Please keep in mind, we consider the Filioque as heretical and when heresies arise it takes a council to determine what the truth is. One person be it the Pope or Patriarch or layman can not by themselves determine this. If the council determines that the Filioque is valid then you will get no argument from me. But until then I have to consider this man made addition as what it is.

StMarkEofE
Click to expand...
  1. I understand the Filioque is a big issue. However, from our viewpoint it is a non-issue because there is no difference.
  2. This thread was started because of a request from a Catholic to know more about the other side. The question to answer is how does the Filioque change our notion of God. Orthodox have been saying that it does. How does it? Proof is not really important as past discussions would show. The other side can just say that is not the meaning of that verse.
    Corollary to this is if the mystery of the Trinity is so mindboggling as to defy human description who are we to say what is and what is not? Remember we are debating only two words “and” and “through”.
  3. As for a council, I don’t see how that will be possible without unity first. Of course this is in terms of the Orthodox definition of a valid ecumenical council, which of course is another topic.
 
It didn’t explain.

If it was able to can you please post it here. I can not see the explanation of how it changes the very definition of God.
 
40.png
Aris:
So when we say Byzantine Catholic, does that mean you are in union with Rome?
Click to expand...
Aris, yes, Our Holiness, Pope John Paul II is the Patriarch of our Church. I invite you to take a look at the Byzantine Catholic Church to see what the Right Lung is all about.

As I had stated earlier, the Byzantine Catholic Church, along with all 22 other Eastern Churched in Communion/Union with Rome, focus on the Mysteries of Christ. Here is a summary:

What is Distinctive about our Tradition?

As Eastern Catholics, we have a particular style of Christian living all our own. We especially stress:
  • A belief in our call to be divinized.
  • Union with God through the Holy Mysteries.
  • A ‘public’ life of worship, fellowship, service.
  • A ‘private’ life of prayer, fasting and sharing.
and
  • The need for ‘spiritual warfare’
To read more, please visit:

stanne-byzcath.org/eastern_church.htm

One last thing, reflecting on the title of this thread, this is a prayer we sing after receiving communion:

We have seen the true light,
we have received the heavenly Spirit,
we have found the true faith,
and we worship the undivided Trinity;
for the Trinity has saved us.

(from the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom)

In Christ,

Michael
 
Hi Michael,

Thanks for the information.

So when you say the creed, do you say “through the Son” or do you say “And the Son”?

How does the Eastern Catholic view the filioque issue that separates the Orthodox from the Catholic Church?

I ask this because there are many seeming similarities in culture and rite or practices between the Eastern Catholics and Orthodox.
 
40.png
MaggieOH:
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.
Click to expand...
Dear Maggie,

I did not mean for my response to sound insipid, nor did I claim that one party was wrong. I merely stated that the Byz Catholics recite the Nicene creed as it was written regarding spiration of the Holy Spirit. Sorry if I offended you.
 
40.png
Aris:
Hi Michael,

Thanks for the information.

So when you say the creed, do you say “through the Son” or do you say “And the Son”?

How does the Eastern Catholic view the filioque issue that separates the Orthodox from the Catholic Church?

I ask this because there are many seeming similarities in culture and rite or practices between the Eastern Catholics and Orthodox.
Click to expand...
Aris,
We say neither.

We say,
I believe in one God, Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth and of all things, visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages: Light of light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made: who for us men and for our salvation came, down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin May, and was made man: who was crucified of us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried: who rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and is enthroned at the right hand of the Father; who will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; and of whose kingdom there shall be no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is worships and glorified, who spoke through the prophets. In one, holy catholic and apostolic Church. I profess one baptism for the remission of sins. I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Mickey:
Dear Maggie,

I did not mean for my response to sound insipid, nor did I claim that one party was wrong. I merely stated that the Byz Catholics recite the Nicene creed as it was written regarding spiration of the Holy Spirit. Sorry if I offended you.
Click to expand...
Mickey,

you did not offend me. My point is directed to all who offer these insipid answers. The Spiration of the Holy Spirit comes from both Father and Son, and this is evidenced by John’s Gospel, especially when Jesus “Gave up his Spirit”.

The blame for this whole issue is sheeted back to the monk Photius who was prepared to find a way for the emperor of Constantinople to defy Rome, thus attempting to cause a split.

Fr. Ambrose has been making some good points and there is definitely no animosity between any of us, and I would hate to think that this was not so with yourself.

Maggie
 
40.png
MaggieOH:
The blame for this whole issue is sheeted back to the monk Photius who was prepared to find a way for the emperor of Constantinople to defy Rome, thus attempting to cause a split.
Click to expand...
I have never heard of this monk Photius. Who is he? :confused:
 
40.png
MaggieOH:
The blame for this whole issue is sheeted back to the monk Photius who was prepared to find a way for the emperor of Constantinople to defy Rome, thus attempting to cause a split.
Click to expand...
I have not heard of monk Photius. Who is he? And what is he blamed for? :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top