Filioque and Eastern Christian Trinitarian understanding

[whosebob]

JMJ + OBT​

Dear Fr. Ambrose,

I found some canons and a paragraph from the Catechism that seem very relevant to this matter.

As regards heresy, apostasy and schism:

1983 Code of Canon Law

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.” The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.

As regards “following one’s conscience:”

1983 Code of Canon Law

Can. 15 S1 Ignorance or error concerning invalidating or incapacitating laws does not prevent the effect of those laws, unless it is expressly provided otherwise.

S2 Ignorance or error is not presumed about a law, a penalty, a fact concerning oneself, or a notorious fact concerning another. It is presumed about a fact concerning another which is not notorious, until the contrary is proved.

Can. 212 S1 Christ’s faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound to show Christian obedience to what the sacred Pastors, who represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith and prescribe as rulers of the Church.

Can. 748 S1 All are bound to seek the truth in the matters which concern God and his Church; when they have found it, then by divine law they are bound, and they have the right, to embrace and keep it.

S2 It is never lawful for anyone to force others to embrace the catholic faith against their conscience.

Can. 750 S1 Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to shun any contrary doctrines.

[updated via Ad Tuendam Fidam]
S2 Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Can. 752 While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic Magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.

(continued below)

 

[whosebob]

(continued from above)

Can. 754 All Christ’s faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which lawful ecclesiastical authority issues for the purpose of proposing doctrine or of proscribing erroneous opinions; this is particularly the case of those published by the Roman Pontiff or by the College of Bishops.

Can. 1321 S1 No one can be punished for the commission of an external violation of a law or precept unless it is gravely imputable by reason of malice or of culpability.

S2 A person who deliberately violated a law or precept is bound by the penalty prescribed in that law or precept. If, however, the violation was due to the omission of due diligence, the person is not punished unless the law or precept provides otherwise.

S3 Where there has been an external violation, imputability is presumed, unless it appears otherwise.

Can. 1322 Those who habitually lack the use of reason, even though they appeared sane when they violated a law or precept, are deemed incapable of committing an offence.

Can. 1323 No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept:

1 has not completed the sixteenth year of age;

2 was, without fault, ignorant of violating the law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance

3 acted under physical force, or under the impetus of a chance occurrence which the person could not foresee or if foreseen could not avoid;

4 acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls;

5 acted, within the limits of due moderation, in lawful self-defense or defense of another against an unjust aggressor;

6 lacked the use of reason, without prejudice to the provisions of canon. 1324, S1, n. 2 and 1325;

7 thought, through no personal fault, that some one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in nn. 4 or 5.

Can. 1324 S1 The perpetrator of a violation is not exempted from penalty, but the penalty prescribed in the law or precept must be diminished, or a penance substituted in its place, if the offence was committed by:

1 one who had only an imperfect use of reason;

2 one who was lacking the use of reason because of culpable drunkenness or other mental disturbance of a similar kind;

3 one who acted in the heat of passion which, while serious, nevertheless did not precede or hinder all mental deliberation and consent of the will, provided that the passion itself had not been deliberately stimulated or nourished

4 a minor who has completed the sixteenth year of age;

5 one who was compelled by grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, if the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls;

6 one who acted in lawful self-defense or defense of another against an unjust aggressor, but did not observe due moderation;

7 one who acted against another person who was gravely and unjustly provocative;

8 one who erroneously, but culpably, thought that some one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in Can. 1323, nn. 4 or 5;

9 one who through no personal fault was unaware that a penalty was attached to the law or precept;

10 one who acted without full imputability, provided it remained grave.

S2 A judge can do the same if there is any other circumstance present which would reduce the gravity of the offence.

S3 In the circumstances mentioned in S1, the offender is not bound by a latae sententiae penalty.

Can. 1325 Ignorance which is crass or supine or affected can never be taken into account when applying the provisions of canon. 1323 and 1324. Likewise, drunkenness or other mental disturbances cannot be taken into account if these have been deliberately sought so as to commit the offence or to excuse it; nor can passion which has been deliberately stimulated or nourished.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[whosebob]

JMJ + OBT​

Whoops! I forgot to include Can. 1364 in the list above, which is important for backing up the point I made originally about apostasy, etc. being mortal sins:

Can. 1364 S1 An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of Can. 194 S1, n. 2; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with the penalties mentioned in Can. 1336 S1, nn. 1, 2 and 3.

S2 If a longstanding contempt or the gravity of scandal calls for it, other penalties may be added, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.

 

[whosebob]

JMJ + OBT​

Whoops! I forgot to include Can. 1364 in the list above, which is important for backing up the point I made originally about apostasy, etc. being mortal sins:

Can. 1364 S1 An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of Can. 194 S1, n. 2; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with the penalties mentioned in Can. 1336 S1, nn. 1, 2 and 3.

S2 If a longstanding contempt or the gravity of scandal calls for it, other penalties may be added, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

Pope Eugenius says that you are wrong. Here is his definition from the Council of Florence. You will notice at once that he defines that both the eternal procession and the spiration are from both Father and Son:

"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."

Here, for context, is his full definition:

In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal [ecumenical] 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. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

Pope Eugenius at the Council of Florence.

---

“Remove not the ancient landmarks which your fathers have set” -Proverbs 22.28

The “context” includes the very next paragraph.

“And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

The “context” includes the very next paragraph.

“And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”

I don’t see why you desire to add this in for additional “context.” It simply affirms and consolidates the erroneous teaching of the previous paragraph. I saw no reason to add it.

In what way do you think it alters or modifies the preceding paragraph?

 

[prodromos]

steve b:

The “context” includes the very next paragraph.

“And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”

Do you believe the third person of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit, is something the Father “possesses”? Is the Holy Spirit now simply a characteristic of the Father which He shares with the Son?

 

[steve_b]

prodromos:

Do you believe the third person of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit, is something the Father “possesses”? Is the Holy Spirit now simply a characteristic of the Father which He shares with the Son?

Except for not being the Father, what exactly does the Son NOT have that the Father has?

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

I don’t see why you desire to add this in for additional “context.” It simply affirms and consolidates the erroneous teaching of the previous paragraph. I saw no reason to add it.

In what way do you think it alters or modifies the preceding paragraph?

Jn 16:15
All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.

With the exception of not being the Father, if one sees the Son they’ve seen the Father. The Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father. They are ONE.

When Jesus, second person of the blessed Trinity, ****says ALL things, that the Father has are mine, what exactly got left out from ALL?

 

[prodromos]

Steve, your question is not an answer. Please try again.

 

[StMarkEofE]

prodromos:

Steve, your question is not an answer. Please try again.

From all the reading that is on this thread, I get the impression that the western mindset relegates the Holy Spirit to something less than a full person in the Blessed Trinity. Its only my opinion but it is clear from the last readings alone that the Father and Son have more in common than They both do with the Holy Spirit. And, the Holy Spirit is starting to sound like an apparition (not Person) resulting from the love of the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father. This sort of thinking borders on heresy and leaves the Holy Spirit relegated to some position of step Person rather than a coequal personage within the Trinitarian Godhead. Again this is my take from Steve’s posts.

If the Filioque is true and the Holy Spirit being truly God and equal to the Son then it would hold true that the Son could proceed from the Holy Spirit as well.

StMarkEofE

 

[prodromos]

Thankyou Mark, this has been my impression also. While I do not believe this is what Steve believes or intends, it is unfortunately the impression he gives when he uses a passage from scripture to support the filioque, when the passage in question has absolutely nothing to do with the person of the Holy Spirit.

John.

 

[TheGarg]

Fr Ambrose:

I like this friar. He has some constructive and positive thoughts.

BUT… over the last few days there has been a light growing brighter and brighter at the end of the tunnel… and I now know what will keep us separated forever… Remarriage!

If I am to judge from this Forum, there is no way at all the Church of Rome will ever allow divorce and remarriage. It seems an absolute bete noire. And I am just as sure that the Orthodox will never allow their usage of one divorce and a remarriage to be denied them.

It is this which will turn out to be an irreconciliable difference…

I dont understand this point at all, it seems a very small matter. I am divorced legally from my wife, but we are still married in the Roman Catholic Church, ergo we are still married in God’s eyes, now I can try and get an anullment, and if i get it, which i should be able to since she has since married another and had his child, I will be free to marry again in the Church…so i dont know where the beef is. People should think long and Hard before they get married…i will abide by the church, if they deny my anullment, i will remain unmarried to anther, but i am almost postive i will get the anullment…

I am curious to hear your response…

Peace of the Lord be with you!

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

TheGarg:

I dont understand this point at all, it seems a very small matter. I am divorced legally from my wife, but we are still married in the Roman Catholic Church, ergo we are still married in God’s eyes, now I can try and get an anullment, and if i get it, which i should be able to since she has since married another and had his child, I will be free to marry again in the Church…so i dont know where the beef is. People should think long and Hard before they get married…i will abide by the church, if they deny my anullment, i will remain unmarried to anther, but i am almost postive i will get the anullment…

I am curious to hear your response…

Peace of the Lord be with you!

The Orthodox Church allows one divorce if a marriage breaks down irretrievably. Then a second church marriage may take place.

 

[GAssisi]

Dear All

I hope I can offer some perspective to the discussions here which heretofore may not have been considered.

First of all, I would like to address the issue of “and” and “through.” StMarkEofE stated that “and” and “through” are not identical terms. But the issue is not (merely) in regards to the difference between “and” and “through” per se, but also, and primarily, the difference between the original Greek and Latin use of the English word “proceeds.” For historic reasons, the word “proceeds” in Latin comes from the Latin word procedit; “proceeds” to Easterns, however, comes from the Greek word ekporeusai. The Greek word has connotations of origin, but the Latin word DOES NOT. The Latin at best connotes the consubstantiality of the persons, with no reference to origin. Therefore, taking into account the Latin word procedit, stating “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son” is completely orthodox, for it denotes nothing more than that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial to the Father and the Son. However, if one takes into account the Greek word ekporeusai, then the only orthodox statement possible would be that “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.”

Secondly, there is the issue of whether it was necessary for an ecumenical Council to be called for the addition of the filioque. The answer is “no” for two reasons. First, the filioque was a local phenomenon intended to address an issue of local significance. Second, the filioque did not change the Faith of Constantinople at all, but simply added a clarification to address, once again, a local issue in the Western Church.

Thirdly, some have opined that the filioque should be removed because the original occasion for its use is no longer present. Actually, this is not the issue. The real issue is whether or not the filioque is heretical. If it was/is heretical, it is impossible that it would or should have made its way into the Western version of the Creed. And if it is not heretical, then there is no justification for its removal.

Lastly, we must address the question of whether or not the filioque is actually heretical. For those Latin Christians that understand the Greek perspective, we must frankly admit that according to the Greek understanding of the Creed, the filioque IS heretical. This stems from our different understandings of the word “proceeds” as discussed above. Thus, Eastern Christians should not be reciting the Creed with the filioque. But Western Christians, and Eastern Christians who understand the Latin perspective, must just as adamantly insist that according to the Latin understanding of the Creed, the filioque IS orthodox. Thus, Western Christians should not be forced to delete it from our Creed.

The key to unity on this issue of the filioque is not in forcing one party to accept the position of the other party, but in one party truly understanding the position of the other party.

Now, as regards divorce and remarriage, though it is another topic which should be carried out elsewhere, I will venture an opinion (though beyond this one post, I will not comment on the issue anymore – it really belongs in another thread, as Father A suggested). There are only two recourses to possibly resolve this issue:

First, I think we can recognize that some of the reasons accepted by Orthodox to grant divorce, are the same reasons that the Catholic Church gives to grant annulments. There may be common ground in these cases. However, the Catholic Church will insist that the Orthodox Church divests itself of those reasons that were instituted not by the Church, but by the State. This will require some serious historical investigation.

Second, we need to seriously investigate what in fact the early Church permitted. Both sides must pray for the humility to submit to the patristic consensus, wherever such study leads us. Custom is not a sufficient reason to accept something if such a thing is against the Scriptures.

God bless,

Greg

 

[steve_b]

prodromos:

Steve, your question is not an answer. Please try again.

My question is meant to elicit an answer from YOU…

Here is my question again

.Jn 16:15
All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.

With the exception of not being the Father, if one sees the Son they’ve seen the Father. The Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father. They are ONE.

Now when Jesus, second person of the blessed Trinity, says ALL things, that the Father has are mine, what exactly got left out from ALL?

This is a simple question John.

 

[steve_b]

StMarkEofE:

From all the reading that is on this thread, I get the impression that the western mindset relegates the Holy Spirit to something less than a full person in the Blessed Trinity. Its only my opinion but it is clear from the last readings alone that the Father and Son have more in common than They both do with the Holy Spirit. And, the Holy Spirit is starting to sound like an apparition (not Person) resulting from the love of the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father. This sort of thinking borders on heresy and leaves the Holy Spirit relegated to some position of step Person rather than a coequal personage within the Trinitarian Godhead. Again this is my take from Steve’s posts.

If the Filioque is true and the Holy Spirit being truly God and equal to the Son then it would hold true that the Son could proceed from the Holy Spirit as well.

StMarkEofE

Read what the filioque means in the CC before you start acusing anyone of heresy. Don’t interject your own definition then attack that definition. That’s what’s called a strawman.

In Jn 15:26, which is the verse you use to absolutize your position, the word there for proceed in the Greek, has the following meanings…

---

The Word for "Proceed" (1601 Strongs), in Greek ekporeuomai {ek-por-yoo’-om-ahee} is translated as “proceed” about 30 times in the NT.

{ekporeuomai} means

1) to go forth, go out, depart

2) metaph.

a) to come forth, to issue, to proceed

1) of feelings, affections, deeds, sayings

b) to flow forth

1) of a river

c) to project, from the mouth of one
d) to spread abroad, of a rumour

---

Mat 4:4 proceedeth 1601 out of the mouth of God .

[to deny the Son the ability to make the HS proceed from His mouth is to deny His divinity]

Mt :15:18 But those things which proceed 1601 out of the mouth come forth from the heart and they defile the man

Mar 7:21 out of the heart of men, proceed 1601

Lk: 4:22 And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded 1601 out of his mouth

Jn 15:26 which proceedeth 1601 from the Father

Eph 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed 1601 out of your mouth

Rev 4:5 out of the throne proceeded 1601 lightnings and thunderings and voices and [there were] seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.

Rev 11:5 fire proceedeth 1601 out of their mouth,

Rev 19:21 which [sword] proceeded 1601 out of his mouth:

Rev 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding 1601 out of the throne of God ***and of the Lamb. ***

---

{ekporeuomai} is also translated elsewhere as

go out, (6)

go, (5)

come, (4)

depart, (3)

go forth, (2)

---

According to the definitions of proceed above, 1) to go forth, go out, depart 2) metaph. a) to come forth, to issue, to proceed
1) of feelings, affections, deeds, sayings b) to flow forth 1) of a river go out, depart]

What part of these, can’t the Son do?

**1… The Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6) **

[By denying the filioque, are you saying the HS is only the Spirit of the Father and not of the Son, thereby denying Gal 4:6?]
**
2… The Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20).

[Is that exclusive to the Father alone or does the Son possess the Spirit also as in Gal 4:6?]

**3…****The Spirit is sent into the world by the Son and the Father (John 15:26, & Acts 2:33).

[by denying the filioque, are you denying these passages as well?]

4… Jesus breathed on them and said receive the HS.** (Jn 20:22)**

[does the Son cause to go forth, or give something, that is not His to give?]

Read how the CC defines the HS.
newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm

 

[GAssisi]

Dear SteveB,

I don’t think you will find the Orthodox denying the truth of any of those passages. The issue, as I posted much earlier, is whether this procession through the Son is merely temporal (that is, by economy for the sake of creation) or eternal (that is, an inherent character of the Son and not merely by economy). Judging by the biblical evidence alone, it is hard to resolve this issue. However, I suggest the following consideration:

The Son sends the Spirit temporally or economically AFTER He ascends, as Scripture proclaims, to the right hand of the Father. However, when Jesus actualizes this action, He is doing so “IN” and “FROM” the realm of Eternity. Since there is no time as we know it in Eternity, then from our perspective, the Spirit can correctly be said to proceed from the Son eternally, though its effect for the world is temporal (i.e., in time).

Comments?

God bless,

Greg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

The Son sends the Spirit temporally or economically AFTER He ascends, as Scripture proclaims, to the right hand of the Father. However, when Jesus actualizes this action, He is doing so “IN” and “FROM” the realm of Eternity. Since there is no time as we know it in Eternity, then from our perspective, the Spirit can correctly be said to proceed from the Son eternally, though its effect for the world is temporal (i.e., in time.

Comments?

Yes. Apply the same reasoning to the Incarnation. Since the Holy Spirit acts IN and FROM the realm of eternity, then it follows that the Incarnation was an eternal act and the Second Person of the Trinity has an eternal incarnation from the Virgin Mary.

That should excite the Co-redemptress advocates

---

Sé do bheatha, a Mhuire, atá lán de ghrásta, tá an Tiarna leat.

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

Actually, Scripture clearly states that the Incarnation occurred temporally IN THIS WORLD, not in Eternity. In contrast, Jesus said He would send the Spirit FROM THE FATHER AFTER HE ASCENDED TO HEAVEN IN ETERNITY. So I fail to see your comparison.

I certainly hope the Co-redemptress advocates don’t try to use your invalid analogy!

God bless,

Greg