Filioque and the Catechism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dave_in_Dallas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dave_in_Dallas

Guest
I was scanning the Catechism and I can’t find where the Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son… it seemed to me it was saying the Spirit proceeds from the Father but didn’t see anything about from the Son…

Any one?
 
Dave_in_Dallas said:
I was scanning the Catechism and I can’t find where the Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son… it seemed to me it was saying the Spirit proceeds from the Father but didn’t see anything about from the Son…

Any one?
Click to expand...
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
 
Annie39 said:
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
Click to expand...
That’s not good. 😦

It seems to me that it was explained differently to me by some Eastern Catholics here, which made me cautiously optimistic.
 
Hesychios said:
That’s not good. 😦

It seems to me that it was explained differently to me by some Eastern Catholics here, which made me cautiously optimistic.
Click to expand...
Don’t worry Michael, I’m sure it doesn’t mean what you think it means. 😉
 
Hesychios said:
That’s not good. 😦

It seems to me that it was explained differently to me by some Eastern Catholics here, which made me cautiously optimistic.
Click to expand...
Latin proceeds (procedit) from the Father can mean two things, so it is ambiguous when used:
  1. Greek ekporev (ontology) “to come out”
  2. Greek pemps (economy) “to send”
    So “and the Son” (filioque) is added to procedit make the economic meaning clear, a “mission of the Spirit from the Father and the Son”, or a combined ontological and economic meaning of “procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son”.
Catechism:

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.​

77 Jn 15:26; cf. AG 2.
78 Council of Florence (1439): DS 1302.
79 Council of Florence (1442): DS 1331.
80 Cf. Council of Lyons II (1274): DS 850.
DS = Denzinger Schonmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum (Handbook of Creeds and Definitions)
AG = Ad gentes, Decree on the Church’s Missionary Activity, 7 December 1965​

AG 2. The pilgrim Church is missionary by her very nature, since it is from the mission of the Son and the mission of the Holy Spirit that she draws her origin, in accordance with the decree of God the Father. (Cf. Dogmatic constitution, “Lumen Gentium,” 1) This decree, however, flows from the “fount - like love” or charity of God the Father who, being the “principle without principle” from whom the Son is begotten and Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son, freely creating us on account of His surpassing and merciful kindness and graciously calling us moreover to share with Him His life and His cry, has generously poured out, and does not cease to pour out still, His divine goodness. Thus He who created all things may at last be “all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28), bringing about at one and the same time His own glory and our happiness. But it pleased God to call men to share His life, not just singly, apart from any mutual bond, but rather to mold them into a people in which His sons, once scattered abroad might be gathered together (cf. John 11:52).
Click to expand...
 
Here’s the whole section… now if I could just figure out what it means :hmmm:
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
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
247
The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447,76 even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
 
Vico said:
Latin proceeds (procedit) from the Father can mean two things, so it is ambiguous when used:
  1. Greek ekporev (ontology) “to come out”
  2. Greek pemps (economy) “to send”
    So “and the Son” (filioque) is added to procedit make the economic meaning clear, a “mission of the Spirit from the Father and the Son”, or a combined ontological and economic meaning of “procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son”.
Catechism:
Click to expand...
Its the “proceeds eternally from both as from one principle” which seems to contradict the idea that it comes from the Father and simply goes by way of the Son.
 
Nine_Two said:
Its the “proceeds eternally from both as from one principle” which seems to contradict the idea that it comes from the Father and simply goes by way of the Son.
Click to expand...
That refers to the statement from The 2nd Council of Lyons, 1274, Constitution on the Procession of the Holy Spirit.

The Roman Catholic dogmatic statements do not refer to the Monarchy of the Father as “sole origin (arche, aitia)” of the Son and Spirit. So the misaprehension stems from not understanding that this refers not to ultimate causality, but to the collective or shared dimension of the Spirit’s origin.

St. Maximos said that orthodox *filioque *is not about the *ekporevsis *but the proienai.
 
Nine_Two said:
Its the “proceeds eternally from both as from one principle” which seems to contradict the idea that it comes from the Father and simply goes by way of the Son.
Click to expand...
Ironically, “from one principle” is precisely the point that defends the notion that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father through the Son. The alternative, two principles, would mean that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both seperately, much the way you proceed from both your mother and father. That’s why “from one principle” was added to the explaination, in answer to the Greek complain that the filioque made the Son a Source of the Holy Spirit; if the Father and Son are one principle, then only one of them can be the Source. 🙂

Peace and God bless!
 
Ghosty said:
Ironically, “from one principle” is precisely the point that defends the notion that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father through the Son. The alternative, two principles, would mean that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both seperately, much the way you proceed from both your mother and father. That’s why “from one principle” was added to the explaination, in answer to the Greek complain that the filioque made the Son a Source of the Holy Spirit; if the Father and Son are one principle, then only one of them can be the Source. 🙂

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
Ghosty,

I’d love it if you could send me a bibliography of recommended reading some time. I always learn so much from your posts. 👍
 
josephdaniel29 said:
Don’t worry Michael, I’m sure it doesn’t mean what you think it means. 😉
Click to expand...
I suspect as much. I think those who misunderstand the Western teaching on filioque are likewise failing to understrand a very fundamental point of theology - the difference between hypostasis and ousia, In the Latin teaching on filioque, it is the ousia - the Essence, the substance of divinity - that proceeds (procedit or proienai) from the Father and the Son, or. alternatively, proceeds (ekporeusai) from the Father through the Son.

Eastern and Oriental Readers of the CCC must remember that it is a Latin work. When it uses the term “proceeds,” we have to remember that it does not mean “originate” (ekporeusai) but, rather, —well, um — “proceeds” (procedit).🤷

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
I suspect as much. I think those who misunderstand the Western teaching on filioque are likewise failing to understrand a very fundamental point of theology - the difference between hypostasis and ousia, In the Latin teaching on filioque, it is the ousia - the Essence, the substance of divinity - that proceeds (procedit or proienai) from the Father and the Son, or. alternatively, proceeds (ekporeusai) from the Father through the Son.

Eastern and Oriental Readers of the CCC must remember that it is a Latin work. When it uses the term “proceeds,” we have to remember that it does not mean “originate” but, rather, —well, um — “proceeds.”🤷

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
I would just like to know what you mean by Orthodox in Communion w/Rome.

Annie
 
Annie39 said:
I would just like to know what you mean by Orthodox in Communion w/Rome.

Annie
Click to expand...
It means:
  1. I believe everything that the Coptic Orthodox Faith teaches.
  2. I reject all misconceptions about the Latin Catholic Church and the Catholic Faith in general.
  3. I believe in living the Faith of the undivided Church of the first millenium.
  4. I believe being in communion with Rome is part of the Faith of the undivided Church of the first millenium.
  5. I believe Rome is orthodox in all her dogmas (as distinct from Latin doctrines and theologoumena).
  6. I believe there is a Faith that underlies and is more basic than even the doctrinal formulations of Ecumenical Councils and Popes. It is this underlying, basic Faith that unites all as Catholics.
For further clarifications, may I suggest you start a new thread on this topic (though I won’t be able to participate fully until about 3 weeks from now?

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
It means:
  1. I believe everything that the Coptic Orthodox Faith teaches.
  2. I reject all misconceptions about the Latin Catholic Church and the Catholic Faith in general.
  3. I believe in living the Faith of the undivided Church of the first millenium.
  4. I believe being in communion with Rome is part of the Faith of the undivided Church of the first millenium.
  5. I believe Rome is orthodox in all her dogmas (as distinct from Latin doctrines and theologoumena).
  6. I believe there is a Faith that underlies and is more basic than even the doctrinal formulations of Ecumenical Councils and Popes. It is this underlying, basic Faith that unites all as Catholics.
For further clarifications, may I suggest you start a new thread on this topic (though I won’t be able to participate fully until about 3 weeks from now?

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Orthodox do not accept this formulation but insist that you are an Eastern Catholic or Uniate, and not an Eastern Orthodox.
 
He’s not claiming to be Eastern Orthodox. The Coptic Orthodox Church is, Oriental Orthodox.
 
mardukm said:
It means:
  1. I believe everything that the Coptic Orthodox Faith teaches.
  2. I reject all misconceptions about the Latin Catholic Church and the Catholic Faith in general.
  3. I believe in living the Faith of the undivided Church of the first millenium.
  4. I believe being in communion with Rome is part of the Faith of the undivided Church of the first millenium.
  5. I believe Rome is orthodox in all her dogmas (as distinct from Latin doctrines and theologoumena).
  6. I believe there is a Faith that underlies and is more basic than even the doctrinal formulations of Ecumenical Councils and Popes. It is this underlying, basic Faith that unites all as Catholics.
For further clarifications, may I suggest you start a new thread on this topic (though I won’t be able to participate fully until about 3 weeks from now?

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Who is your bishop?

Annie
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top