Filioque and the east

[Famulus]

So I watched a video about the Divine Liturgy used in the Byzantine rite, and the creed they recited did not include the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. Do they believe it and just don’t say it in the creed, or do they outright reject it and have some dispensation from Holy Mother Church?

 

[DeniseNY]

http://www.byzcath.org/index.php/re...ne-catholic-churches/335-treaty-of-brest-1595

 

[adamhovey1988]

Well, they can’t reject it, because part of being an Eastern Catholic is accepting all the Church teaches, however, they do have some different ways of expressing things. For instance, I once saw someone say that Eastern Christians don’t believe in purgatory. That’s not quite accurate , for one the union of Brest affirms that some do, and some of the other Eastern Christians that are not in communion with the Catholic Church, have a parallel idea of purgatory, even if they don’t use the name. You have to remember, that in the East, different ways of expressing the faith were developed, and this is even more true after the East West Schism, it’s not that one is right and one is wrong, it’s just a different emphasis

 

[Paragon468]

the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son

Does this imply double procession, or procession from the Father and through the Son? One is heresy, one is not.

The Eastern churches (and the Latin church for that matter) all disagree with the idea of double procession. Unfortunately, the Filioque is very easy to misunderstand, and as a result I have heard many Catholics, including priests, teach it in a heretical way.

We’re better off without it.

 

[Famulus]

I would disagree, however I am not qualified to debate this topic as you are. I just know what Holy Mother Church says. God Bless you brother.

 

[dochawk]

, or do they outright reject it and have some dispensation from Holy Mother Church?

dispensation my {censured}.

It is in the very terms of union for both Brest and Uhzrod, and we don’t need a dispensation.

Same for choosing our own bishops, married clergy, not using wooden clappers during lent, crossing ourselves in the correct direction, our Eucharistic practices, and sacramental anointing for the entire congregation after liturgy on Holy Thursday.

I just know what Holy Mother Church says.

If you think that “Holy Mother Church” and “Roman Catholic Church” mean the same thing, you quite simply don’t.

 

[ziapueblo]

Here’s a pretty good discussion about Eastern Christianity with Dr. Edward Siecienski (an amazing knowledgeable individual) on his most recent book:

He gets into the Filioque but has a particularly good discussion on it near the end when he’s taking questions from viewers.

ZP

 

[Famulus]

Isn’t it double procession? The Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son? He proceeds from both, from the love of the Father and the Son. It wouldn’t really make sense if He didn’t proceed from both other Persons of the Most Holy Trinity. I disagree we’re better without it, because God led His Church to this belief.

 

[Lobster_Johnson]

No, the Holy Spirit only has one source - God the Father.

The Spirit cannot originate eternally from both, because the Son is begotten of the Father, so anything that proceeds from the Son has its eternal source from the Father. When we say the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, we mean that he proceeds eternally from the Father, and temporally through the Son.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

That’s not quite accurate , for one the union of Brest affirms that some do, and some of the other Eastern Christians that are not in communion with the Catholic Church, have a parallel idea of purgatory, even if they don’t use the name.

Is the concept of “toll booths” part of this? That, in essence, Almighty God and His Church, through her prayers, “slug it out” with the evil one and the fallen angels, with the departed soul being pulled in both directions and having to choose?

I don’t mean that to sound crude, but I have studied “toll booths” and it comes across to me, as being something like this.

No, the Holy Spirit only has one source - God the Father.

The Spirit cannot originate eternally from both, because the Son is begotten of the Father, so anything that proceeds from the Son has its eternal source from the Father. When we say the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, we mean that he proceeds eternally from the Father, and temporally through the Son.

I know enough ink has been spilled over the filioque in the past thousand years to fill an oil tanker, but might both East and West say “proceeds from the Father through the Son” and be done with it? That expresses a truth and contradicts neither filioque nor sine filioque. The West gets to keep filioque, after a fashion, and the East isn’t forced to hint (in their minds) at double procession.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Do they believe it and just don’t say it in the creed,

This. They believe Holy Spirit comes from the Father through the Son (as do we, Latins, essentially) but they use creed traditional for East- one without Filioque. Same way we, Latins, believe icons to be special but we do not use them in our tradition way East does.

or do they outright reject it and have some dispensation from Holy Mother Church?

That would disturb unity.

 

[Lobster_Johnson]

might both East and West say “proceeds from the Father through the Son” and be done with it?

I’m all for that! It pleases both sides, and it’s a lot less confusing than the Filioque.

I don’t, however, think we should add it to the Creed and use it during the Liturgy. We should honor the ecumenical council and refrain from adding to the Creed. Theologically, it’s the most accurate description.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

might both East and West say “proceeds from the Father through the Son” and be done with it?

I’m all for that! It pleases both sides, and it’s a lot less confusing than the Filioque.

I don’t, however, think we should add it to the Creed and use it during the Liturgy. We should honor the ecumenical council and refrain from adding to the Creed. Theologically, it’s the most accurate description.

I am all for “leaving well enough alone”, but to my Western, Saxon/Celtic/Germanic mind, “proceeds from the Father” sounds kind of funny, kind of like the Son proceeds from the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father too, kind of like — and don’t anybody snap my head off for phrasing it like this — the Father is “God 1.0”, the Son is “God 2.0”, and the Holy Spirit is “God 2.1”. Sounds like only the Father is “really God” and the two other Persons are “not as much God as the Father is”.

Please understand that no language — Greek, Latin, English, whatever — is sufficient to convey the full truth of the Trinity. We will only know that in the next life, and even then, only if Almighty God chooses for us to know it.

 

[Genesis315]

As long as our understanding is the same, either wording is orthodox as the Council of Florence defined:

For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.