Filioque Debate

[Gabriel_of_12]

You are ignoring all the “dogmatic” declarations in the Western Church that added glosses on the clause itself. As Seraphim said, the clause itself is capable of an orthodox understanding, but these declarations, at Lateran IV, Lyons II, and Florence, that the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son equallyas from one principle, are not. This is where the real problem lies.

The CCC 246-255 places the Catholic Faith in a pure perspective that never has any of these declarations problematic nor isolated from one another to draw a false conclusion or misinterpretation.

Wandile, provided us with great post’s describing the filioque discussions and controversies earlier in the Church +. The arguments for debate you introduce today, you relate to councils that come later. These are not ignored, but can be summed up from the CCC 238-267, if anyone would like to really learn what the CCC teaches about the filioque, without a misrepresentation.

The CCC sums it best, how the Apostolic Faith is expressed from the filioque when professed within the Nicene Creed, which St. Hilary teaches from antiquity.

I think St. Hilary gives a great introduction to the filioque that supports the CCC today; “When the advocate has come whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of me” (Jn.15:26). “The advocate will come and the Son will send Him from the Father”

The CCC agrees with St. Hilary, because St. Hilary does not apply rigidity to the filioque here; “He who sends manifests His power in that which He sends”…( The Father distinctly sends because he is the source; the Son distinct from the Father also sends with His power the Father gives the Son)…“Nor will I infringe upon anyone’s liberty of thought in this matter, whether they may regard the Paraclete Spirit as coming from the Father or from the Son”…. (St. Hilary adds Jn. 16:12-15)…
“Many things yet I have to say to you, but when the Paraclete comes He will reveal them to you”, “Consequently (the Spirit) he receives from the Son who has been sent by Him and who proceeds from the Father”. St. Hilary asked the question? “Whether it is the same to receive from the Son as to proceed from the Father?”…“We shall have to admit that it is the One and the Same, to receive from the Son as it is to receive from the Father”.…(parenthesis mine).

The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son from one principle through one Spiration in Love.

St. Augustine; “But only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son all are co-equal. The Spirit from the divine economy is the same Spirit that proceeds from the Father and of the Son. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the one who begets and from the one who is begotten of the Father. There can be no division from what is co-equal in what is Consubstantial, this substance of the divine all three persons being one God. Yet it is from the distinct persons from the economy divine which reveals the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son”.

The filioque debate has views and opinions pro and con from afar long before the filiqoue enters the creed in the West.

The filioque is not necessarily the reason for the schism, once the Latin Catholic faith expression is respected and realized that the filioque never changes or adds to the Apostolic faith, but only confirms Jesus is God incarnate.

Jesus the Word of God helps us reflect the mystery of the Trinity and the filioque expressed within the Nicene Creed.

John 13:20 "Truly, truly I say to you, he who receives anyone whom I send receives me; and he who receives me, receives Him who sent me"

If? One falsely Interprets the filioque outside of what is already professed within the Nicene Creed loses the Latin Expression of the Apostolic faith.

Authority appears to be the stumbling block of the schism, the filioque when viewed from antiquity, becomes an excuse to react to political circumstances of power in the early Church.

Peace be with you

 

[Expatreprocedit]

If the Spirit and the Son only interact in time and not eternally then how could it every be truly said that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ? Trinitarian relationships are ** eternal** and they existed before time.

The Father begot the Son not in time but in eternity. The Son begotten not in time but in eternity. The Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Father because he eternally proceeded from Him. By what other way can it be that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son also except by procession? Do you believe the spirit is the spirit of the son only in so far as time is concerned?

Yes, I believe that “Spirit of the Son” refers to the sending of the Spirit by the Son in time.

 

[Wandile]

The way the filioque is explained today is that it does not refer to an ontological procession. So who is wrong?

Both traditions also clearly affirm that the Father is the primordial source (arch‘) and ultimate cause (aitia) of the divine being, and thus of all God’s operations: the “spring” from which both Son and Spirit flow, the “root” of their being and fruitfulness, the “sun” from which their existence and their activity radiates; both traditions affirm that the three hypostases or persons in God are constituted in their hypostatic existence and distinguished from one another solely by their relation*ships of origin, and not by any other characteristics or activities;

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/filioque-church-dividing-issue-english.cfm

This doesn’t say what you think its saying. It is a simple affirmation of the monarchy of the father and the way in which persons are distinguished. It seems you are unaware that the official teaching of the filioque of the Catholic Church is from the council of Florence and is referenced in the Catechism of the Catholic Church :

CCC :

244 The eternal origin of the Holy Spirit is revealed in his mission in time. the Spirit is sent to the apostles and to the Church both by the Father in the name of the Son, and by the Son in person, once he had returned to the Father.69 The sending of the person of the Spirit after Jesus’ glorification70 reveals in its fullness the mystery of the Holy Trinity.

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

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.

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.

 

[Wandile]

Yes, I believe that “Spirit of the Son” refers to the sending of the Spirit by the Son in time.

That is heretical even in your church I’m pretty sure. If the Spirit of God is not the Spirit of the Son of God eternally then how can it be said that the Son of God is divine? You with your position stretch into semi-Arianism

 

[prodromos]

That is heretical even in your church I’m pretty sure. If the Spirit of God is not the Spirit of the Son of God eternally then how can it be said that the Son of God is divine?

Are you kidding? Arianism was defeated in the East without any reference to the Holy Spirit’s relationship to the Son.

You with your position stretch into semi-Arianism

Complete and utter rubbish. Such a claim doesn’t even deserve a rebuttal

 

[Wandile]

Are you kidding? Arianism was defeated in the East without any reference to the Holy Spirit’s relationship to the Son.

You do know there was more than one version of arianism?

Complete and utter rubbish. Such a claim doesn’t even deserve a rebuttal

The lack of connection between the Holy Spirit and Christ means he is not God or at least less God than the Father and the Holy Ghost as he lacks the spirit of God. This is arianism … The rejection of the divinity of Christ or the rejection of his divinity being equal to that of the Father. The filioque was used to prove the divinity of Christ.

 

[Wandile]

The Creed of Constantinople at first declared only the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father; it was directed against the followers of Macedonius who denied the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. That’s why I always chuckle at people who always claim that the filioque is heretical or unnecessary because it was never included in the original creed.

In the East, the omission of Filioque did not lead to any misunderstanding. But conditions were different in Spain after the Goths had renounced Arianism and professed the Catholic faith in the Third Synod of Toledo, 589 after the various disputes and arguments that used the filioque to prove the divinity of the Son and the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Denying the Sons involvement in the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit thus denies the the presence of the Spirit in Christ, which hints at Arianism. Expatreprocedit explicitly affirmed that the Holy Spirit is not the Spirit of Christ except in time. This definitively arrives at Arianism.

 

[Seraphim73]

Are you kidding? Arianism was defeated in the East without any reference to the Holy Spirit’s relationship to the Son.

Complete and utter rubbish. Such a claim doesn’t even deserve a rebuttal

For all of the talk about all the heresies arising in the east and how Rome never fell, the east defeated Arianism long before the west and did it without adulterating the Creed.

 

[Wandile]

For all of the talk about all the heresies arising in the east and how Rome never fell, the east defeated Arianism long before the west and did it without adulterating the Creed.

Are you deliberately ignoring the fact that there different kinds of Arianism? Nevermind the hand of the emperor and that in the east Arianism pretty much imploded with its divisions. In the west there was a more unified and stronger front of Arianism that held the Son to be less divine than the father. Seeing that the creed never involved the Son in the procession of the Holy Ghost , they jumped on the silence in the creed and used this to prove the Son to be less divine than the Father. That’s why the west had to prove the consubstantiality of the persons of the trinity and by this that the Son being all that the Father is except being the Father , the Son participates in the procession of the Holy Spirit. This was conclusive proof of the divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost.

IOW what worked in the east didn’t work in the west. The creed on its own without the filioque did not sufficiently answer the Goths until the insertion of the Filioque.

 

[Seraphim73]

Are you deliberately ignoring the fact that there different kinds of Arianism? Nevermind the hand of the emperor and that in the east Arianism pretty much imploded with its divisions. In the west there was a more unified and stronger front of Arianism that held the Son to be less divine than the father. Seeing that the creed never involved the Son in the procession of the Holy Ghost , they jumped on the silence in the creed and used this to prove the Son to be less divine than the Father. That’s why the west had to prove the consubstantiality of the persons of the trinity and by this that the Son being all that the Father is except being the Father , the Son participates in the procession of the Holy Spirit. This was conclusive proof of the divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost.

IOW what worked in the east didn’t work in the west. The creed on its own without the filioque did not sufficiently answer the Goths until the insertion of the Filioque.

One would think you could just have the Supreme Pontiff make an infallible statement and settle the issue.

You don’t fight error with error. It simply multiplies the problem. Now you have a Creed that, depending on which Catholic you are talking to at the time, is either clear error or just easily misunderstood. And you still have Arianism in the West along with iconoclasm, Nestroianism and quite a few other “isms”, even in the Catholic Church itself. There have been no good fruits from the addition of the filioque.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Are you deliberately ignoring the fact that there different kinds of Arianism? Nevermind the hand of the emperor and that in the east Arianism pretty much imploded with its divisions. In the west there was a more unified and stronger front of Arianism that held the Son to be less divine than the father. Seeing that the creed never involved the Son in the procession of the Holy Ghost , they jumped on the silence in the creed and used this to prove the Son to be less divine than the Father. That’s why the west had to prove the consubstantiality of the persons of the trinity and by this that the Son being all that the Father is except being the Father , the Son participates in the procession of the Holy Spirit. This was conclusive proof of the divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost.

IOW what worked in the east didn’t work in the west. The creed on its own without the filioque did not sufficiently answer the Goths until the insertion of the Filioque.

That is exactly what many Arians in the East taught too, that the Son was basically an exalted demiurge, a sort of unique liminal being on the boundry of being creature and divine (albeit still created), and the intermediary between God and creation (in fact, what fragments of Arius we have imply that he believed something similar).

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

For all of the talk about all the heresies arising in the east and how Rome never fell, the east defeated Arianism long before the west and did it without adulterating the Creed.

The West was already Rock in her Apostolic faith and did not require the invention of the Nicene Creed to defeat heretics and different forms of heresies including Arianism that were infecting the Eastern Catholic faith. We continued to use the Apostles Creed long before the development of the Nicene Creed.

The Nicene Creed developed and changed through councils.

Or did you forget the reason for the introduction and changes that took place while church councils developed her Nicene Creed to defeat heresies.? The Popes Apostolic faith never comes into question during these difficult times in the East. The Popes were holding to the unchanging Apostolic faith when the council required the Emperor’s to keep the peace among the Patriarchs in the East and the Bishop of Romes ratification of the Church councils in the East and her findings when it impacted the whole Christendom.

The Nicene Creed defeated certain heretics and distinct views of Arianism in the East with the Popes approval, because these infected the whole of the Catholic faith. The councils required the Popes approval. When the early Nicene Creed did not develop far enough to defeat the heretics and heresies at the time, the Nicene Creed developed further in councils.

When the Nicene Creed was infected by a different form of Arianism in the West, the filioque clarifies what is already professed within the Nicene Creed that Jesus is God and defeated this new form of Arianism.

Just as the development of the Nicene Creed defeated the heresies in the East.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Seraphim73;12499775]One would think you could just have the Supreme Pontiff make an infallible statement and settle the issue.

The Pope did, She protected the Nicene Creed with the filioque which defeated the Arians from infecting the Nicene Creed. But it did not require an infallible statement by the Pope. Such an infallible statement made from Peter’s Chair, is when the Church meets face to face with the head of the beast such as Communism, which drew on the Immaculate Conception and a declaration of Infallibility defined in the Kingdom of God, that ultimately placed a mortal wound by our Lady and Her Son to the beast.

Filioque removed all the wolves from consuming the faith from the flock of Jesus Christ on earth by His visible Vicar Peter on earth, exercised by the Bishop of Rome possessor of the divine keys to bind and loose on earth.

This is a great cause for rejoicing in the whole Church, not a reason for contention. The proof is in the pudding.

You don’t fight error with error. It simply multiplies the problem. Now you have a Creed that, depending on which Catholic you are talking to at the time, is either clear error or just easily misunderstood. And you still have Arianism in the West along with iconoclasm, Nestroianism and quite a few other “isms”, even in the Catholic Church itself. There have been no good fruits from the addition of the filioque.

Properly understood, the filioque does not change or add to the Apostolic faith professed within the Nicene Creed, that professes Jesus is God incarnate.

Filioque forever removes the doubt of Jesus divinity and protects the Apostolic faith from any threat by past, present and future heretics trying to infect the Apostolic Catholic Faith professed within the Nicene Creed with heresy.

 

[prodromos]

The Creed of Constantinople at first declared only the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father; it was directed against the followers of Macedonius who denied the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father.

The above statement demonstrates you really don’t seem to know what you are talking about. The “pneumatomachi” denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, believing Him to be a creature and a ministering angel.

That’s why I always chuckle at people who always claim that the filioque is heretical or unnecessary because it was never included in the original creed.

Given the academic standard of your first statement, I imagine a lot of things make you chuckle.

 

[Wandile]

The above statement demonstrates you really don’t seem to know what you are talking about. The “pneumatomachi” denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, believing Him to be a creature and a ministering angel.

Lol I know who they were. You whole explanation only serves as a qualification for what I said . They, in keeping with their heretical doctrine, thus denied the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father as that would make him consubstantial with the Father. Hence why I mentioned the phrase of procession was included not to combat Arians but to combat Macedonius and his followers.

Given the academic standard of your first statement, I imagine a lot of things make you chuckle.

The joke is on you

 

[prodromos]

Lol I know who they were. You whole explanation only serves as a qualification for what I said . They, in keeping with their heretical doctrine, thus denied the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father as that would make him consubstantial with the Father.

Not at all, they probably understood it in the same way they understood all of creation to have come from the Father. They believed the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father as a creature, which is why the creed continues to say, “With the Father and the Son, He is worshipped and glorified” and “who spoke by the prophets”. Since only God is worshipped, that clause puts an end to any claim that the Holy Spirit is a creature.

The joke is on you

Apparently not.

 

[Wandile]

Not at all, they probably understood it in the same way they understood all of creation to have come from the Father. They believed the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father as a creature, which is why the creed continues to say, “With the Father and the Son, He is worshipped and glorified” and “who spoke by the prophets”. Since only God is worshipped, that clause puts an end to any claim that the Holy Spirit is a creature.

Prodromos… What you are saying is the procession does not signify divinity and that the other clauses were necessary. Yet the procession of the Holy Spirit is an eternal manifestation. This has to presuppose divinity. If your line of reasoning were taken throughout the whole creed then the statement “The only begotten Son of God, Born of the Father before all ages” does not prove Christs divinity as the other clauses of “Light from light, True God from True God” serve this purpose. Alas! ** All three of them express the same truth**. The first being implicit as the divinity of the son is the logical end of him being begotten. The other two being more explicit affirmations of the implied truth in the first.
The same applies the procession of the Holy Spirit and the supporting clauses.

Secondly and most importantly, the Macedonians DID deny the procession of the Holy Spirit. It is not theoretical as a reduction from their theological positions but a fact of history. You are speaking to the choir when you attempt to “inform” me about a heresy I already know about. Its also a historical fact that the phrase"Who proceeds from the Father" was specifically added for the Macedonians

Apparently not.

Proven to be on you again

 

[prodromos]

Secondly and most importantly, the Macedonians DID deny the procession of the Holy Spirit. It is not theoretical as a reduction from their theological positions but a fact of history.

Do you have a citation? Pretty much all of the christian heresies are based on misinterpretations of scripture but this is the first time I have heard someone claim a heresy flat out denied something that was expressly stated by Christ Himself as recorded in scripture.

 

[Wandile]

Do you have a citation? Pretty much all of the christian heresies are based on misinterpretations of scripture but this is the first time I have heard someone claim a heresy flat out denied something that was expressly stated by Christ Himself as recorded in scripture.

books.google.co.za/books?id=AWjOweA9nMgC&pg=PA440&lpg=PA440&dq=macedonians+denied+the+procession+of+the+holy+ghost&source=bl&ots=IuEkcsAg7r&sig=kum-aGAfGFt5-HEaGNtW6QcBOqU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0zVrVOK0ItXbat2hguAH&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=macedonians%20denied%20the%20procession%20of%20the%20holy%20ghost&f=false

And :

It has been seen that the Creed of Constantinople at first declared only the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father; it was directed against the followers of Macedonius who denied the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father.

newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The West was already Rock in her Apostolic faith and did not require the **invention **of the Nicene Creed to defeat heretics and different forms of heresies including Arianism that were infecting the Eastern Catholic faith. We continued to use the Apostles Creed long before the development of the Nicene Creed.

:nope: It is not an invention.