Filioque Debate

[Gabriel_of_12]

If we are unable to defend the person of Christ without adding “and of the son”…

We might be the worst apologists in history…

God does not accept testimony from men of who God is. Only God can give testimony of who God is; which is revelation of God from God, true God from true God who is light from light.

An apology is useless, when faith is what man is called to believe in what the one and true God reveals in the Son.

Christ does not need to be defended of who Jesus is. The living witness accounts from the lives of the Catholic Saints blood of Catholic Martyrs who followed the Master’s example exceeds any apology a historian, apologist, theologian, scholar could ever give. When the former give testimony and witness of the Son with their lives, the latter sink or fall short with words from men that can do nothing.

Scholastics and theological discourses, do not dictate what is already believed which Jesus revealed and the apostles handed down the full deposit of faith. These only expound upon and clarify this one Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith to diverse tongues, peoples, nations, tribes in every age, without change.

No, Isaiah, you miss the whole mission of the Church. It is not to prove Jesus exists or Jesus is God from an apology. We are called to faith, which is our hope and our living is what gives testimony of who the Son is.

The profession of faith is for those who are called by the Father to live this faith. The Nicene Creed which includes the filioque protects the faithful from ever denying who Jesus is. The Nicene Creed is not an apology to be used to defend the person of Jesus Christ.

We profess the Nicene Creed because we already believe Jesus is God incarnate, without doubt, because the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son to make them known. It is in this divine eternal procession made present; Is when God gives testimony of God from God, true God from true God, Light from light.

When we are asked to give an account for our faith, we do it with all we are and who we are in Christ, and when this fails, we use words.

Peace be with you

 

[Isaiah45_9]

God does not accept testimony from men of who God is. Only God can give testimony of who God is; which is revelation of God from God, true God from true God who is light from light.

An apology is useless, when faith is what man is called to believe in what the one and true God reveals in the Son.

Christ does not need to be defended of who Jesus is. The living witness accounts from the lives of the Catholic Saints blood of Catholic Martyrs who followed the Master’s example exceeds any apology a historian, apologist, theologian, scholar could ever give. When the former give testimony and witness of the Son with their lives, the latter sink or fall short with words from men that can do nothing.

Scholastics and theological discourses, do not dictate what is already believed which Jesus revealed and the apostles handed down the full deposit of faith. These only expound upon and clarify this one Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith to diverse tongues, peoples, nations, tribes in every age, without change.

No, Isaiah, you miss the whole mission of the Church. It is not to prove Jesus exists or Jesus is God from an apology. We are called to faith, which is our hope and our living is what gives testimony of who the Son is.

The profession of faith is for those who are called by the Father to live this faith. The Nicene Creed which includes the filioque protects the faithful from ever denying who Jesus is. The Nicene Creed is not an apology to be used to defend the person of Jesus Christ.

We profess the Nicene Creed because we already believe Jesus is God incarnate, without doubt, because the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son to make them known. It is in this divine eternal procession made present; Is when God gives testimony of God from God, true God from true God, Light from light.

When we are asked to give an account for our faith, we do it with all we are and who we are in Christ, and when this fails, we use words.

Peace be with you

You can’t on one hand say:

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.

And then on the other hand claim faith.

Jesus doesn’t need any of us nor any of our apologies. But that’s not what is in question.

We are to be always ready give an account of our faith of what we hope for, consistent with what St. Peter says.

But you cannot dismiss the very same argument you brought forth. You can’t say that the words of filioque are to remove all the wolves and then when challenged because you have to use the filioque then dismiss words all together as unnecessary. That is a major contradiction.

Either the filioque is necessary or it isn’t. Which one is it?

 

[pablope]

You can’t on one hand say:

Either the filioque is necessary or it isn’t. Which one is it?

This if for the Church to decide…so who, do you think, in the Church should decide?

 

[Seraphim73]

This if for the Church to decide…so who, do you think, in the Church should decide?

Who is the Church?

 

[pablope]

Who is the Church?

Both east and west.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

But you cannot dismiss the very same argument you brought forth. You can’t say that the words of filioque are to remove all the wolves and then when challenged because you have to use the filioque then dismiss words all together as unnecessary. That is a major contradiction.

Either the filioque is necessary or it isn’t. Which one is it?

Truthfully, It’s both; The filioque is not necessary in the Apostles Creed, but is necessary in the Nicene Creed to remove false teachers from misinterpreting the Nicene Creed to the flock of Jesus Christ. The filioque protects the teaching that Jesus is God incarnate.

Correction; You introduced a secular argument in regards to an apology, to be used to prove the person of Jesus Christ.

An apology exercised publicly is not the same as one professing the Nicene Creed in liturgy before the presence of God.

The filioque protects the flock of Christ and removes any heretics (wolves) from infecting what is **already professed **within the Nicene Creed, when heretics deny Jesus divinity from the Nicene Creed.

A heretic is one who has been exposed to the full deposit of faith and then rejects it for something other. Heretics are not classified as unbelievers. Most heretics and apostates are wolves, because they are teachers of the faith, many of these are priests, deacons, bishops, patriarchs, which many of these have repented from their heretical views and teachings. A heretic is a wolf in a shepherds (sheep) clothing that has the influence to infect the flock with heterodox teachings.

The filioque removed the wolves and their heresies from the Nicene Creed and healed the lamb flock from infection of heresy.

It’s a contradiction to use an apology in our liturgy where and when the Nicene Creed is professed.

The liturgy does not ever use or need an apology to give an account of what we in communion already believe and profess before God. Do you know that only a Bishop, Priest or deacon are the only ones who can read the gospels in our liturgies? and who can give a homily from the words of Christ? Not to mention all stand and praise God as the Word of God (Evangelium) enters our presence? We have no need for an apology in the Catholic Mass when all focus is on the most blessed Trinity proceeding in God’s presence in our presence.

A Catholic Christian apology is used in secular circles, that can give an account to clarify misunderstandings or define what is already believed, not what to believe.

Our living witness as Christians is what gives an account daily of our Catholic faith in Jesus Christ. Words come second to none.

Remove the filioque outside of the professed Nicene Creed, you no longer have the filioque declaration of Jesus is God incarnate. You create a monster.

Again, we the Latin Church do not use the Nicene Creed to baptize an unbeliever into the Kingdom of God. We use the pre-Nicene Creed from the Apostles, which we have never failed this Orthodox faith from the Apostles Creed, which does not require the filioque, because we already believe Jesus is God incarnate.

If you have difficulty with the filioque, then profess our Apostles Creed which predates the Nicene Creed. We still practice the Apostles Creed. Look at your missal at Mass, there you will find both the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. But don’t take my advice, just consider that the Latin Church has never left the Rock Jesus builds upon Peter and the apostles, pre or post Nicene Creed.

 

[Wandile]

Both east and west.

Western and Eastern Catholics. Beware not to fall into the error of two or more denominations together constitute the church. The Catholic Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

…

So it’s not necessary?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

So it’s not necessary?

Truthfully, It’s both; The filioque is not necessary in the Apostles Creed, but is necessary in the Nicene Creed to remove false teachers from misinterpreting the Nicene Creed to the flock of Jesus Christ. The filioque protects the teaching that Jesus is God incarnate

 

[Seraphim73]

Truthfully, It’s both; The filioque is not necessary in the Apostles Creed, but is necessary in the Nicene Creed to remove false teachers from misinterpreting the Nicene Creed to the flock of Jesus Christ. The filioque protects the teaching that Jesus is God incarnate

At the expense of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

At the expense of the Holy Spirit.

Greetings Seraphim73;

When and how does the presence of God can “expense” His presence? Without dividing the God head?

Can you explain how this is so, from your statement?

 

[Seraphim73]

Greetings Seraphim73;

When and how does the presence of God can “expense” His presence? Without dividing the God head?

Can you explain how this is so, from your statement?

The Father, the “One God” referred to at the beginning of the Creed, is the arch or source of the Divinity. The Father generates the Son and the Spirit, the Son through begetting and the Spirit through procession. The terms “begotten” and “proceeds” in the Creed refer to God in Himself, the ontological reality. So to say that the Son generates the Spirit as well as the Father places the Spirit in an inferior position. It makes the Son and the Father the arch or source of Divinity and not the Spirit.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Seraphim73;12506164]The Father, the “One God” referred to at the beginning of the Creed, is the arch or source of the Divinity. The Father generates the Son and the Spirit, the Son through begetting and the Spirit through procession. The terms “begotten” and “proceeds” in the Creed refer to God in Himself, the ontological reality.

That’s all fine, except you are not discussing the Nicene Creed here; You introduce a theological understanding of terms professed from the Nicene Creed; Besides the Father eternally begets the Son, when you relate the Father generates the Son, it draws on a false conclusion of the begetting to time and space, which can be misleading of the begotten Son and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son.

In all fairness as it relates to the filioque, we should indicate from which we draw our points from the eternal presence of God or the presence of God manifested in time and space, so as not to draw any false conclusions. For example the Father eternally begets the Son and the Son of God incarnate is born of flesh from our blessed Mother ever virgin revealed in space and time in the Son of Man.

If the terms “begotten” not made and “proceeds” professed in the Creed refer to God in Himself? then how is it that you conclude God’s presence at the “expense” His presence diminishes the Holy Spirit presence?

So to say that the Son generates the Spirit as well as the Father places the Spirit in an inferior position.

Seraphim73, I agree with you here, and I think we should report such a one who ever makes such a false claim, “that the Son generates the Spirit”.

Who ever says such a thing? Who makes the false claim that the Father places the Spirit in an inferior position? I say you and I get a rope!

It makes the Son and the Father the arch or source of Divinity and not the Spirit.

The “it” I am guessing you are relating to the filioque here? The filioque is not relating to the rigidity of the source in Essence of Divinity. The filioque relates to the presence of God in revelation from what is consubstantial with the Father and the Son as professed within the Nicene Creed.

We do not disagree that the Father is the principle source without principle from which the eternal procession of God’s presence exist.

The filioque professed within the Creed never addresses the theological discussion you introduce here from the Hypostasis.

But I am willing to listen to your point of view.

 

[Seraphim73]

That’s all fine, except you are not discussing the Nicene Creed here; You introduce a theological understanding of terms professed from the Nicene Creed; Besides the Father eternally begets the Son, when you relate the Father generates the Son, it draws on a false conclusion of the begetting to time and space, which can be misleading of the begotten Son and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son.

In all fairness as it relates to the filioque, we should indicate from which we draw our points from the eternal presence of God or the presence of God manifested in time and space, so as not to draw any false conclusions. For example the Father eternally begets the Son and the Son of God incarnate is born of flesh from our blessed Mother ever virgin revealed in space and time in the Son of Man.

If the terms “begotten” not made and “proceeds” professed in the Creed refer to God in Himself? then how is it that you conclude God’s presence at the “expense” His presence diminishes the Holy Spirit presence?

I’m not 100% sure I understand what you are asking. If we are going to speak about the Creed we have to use words and terms not actually in the Creed. I use the word “generate” simply to indicate the Father is the one cause of both the Son and the Spirit.

Seraphim73, I agree with you here, and I think we should report such a one who ever makes such a false claim, “that the Son generates the Spirit”.

But that’s exactly what adding the filioque does. The Creed, quoting Scripture word for word, is making a statement about the ontological reality.

The “it” I am guessing you are relating to the filioque here? The filioque is not relating to the rigidity of the source in Essence of Divinity. The filioque relates to the presence of God in revelation from what is consubstantial with the Father and the Son as professed within the Nicene Creed.

The filioque professed within the Creed never addresses the theological discussion you introduce here from the Hypostasis.

But I am willing to listen to your point of view.

But the clause itself makes no such distinction. That is the problem. You can explain it in a way that is acceptable, speaking of the economic procession of the Spirit, but the plain language does not indicate that it speaks about an ontological procession from the Father and an economic procession from the Son.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I remember reading a dialogue on the Filioque where it was said that there is agreement in that the Father is the cause for both the Son and the Spirit. I don’t remember the term exactly but it had to do with how the Latin and the Greek express it. And that while the Son and the Father are one - in like manner, the Holy Spirit is one with the Father and the Son.

And if I understand that correctly, there is one cause for both the Father and the Son. I think the Greek terms are different, albeit my understanding of Greek philosophical terms and Eastern theology is very much infant.

Spirate?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Seraphim73;12506374]I’m not 100% sure I understand what you are asking. If we are going to speak about the Creed we have to use words and terms not actually in the Creed. I use the word “generate” simply to indicate the Father is the one cause of both the Son and the Spirit.

I understand; Although, the Begetting (generation) or sending from the Father relates to the eternal procession not the Essence of God.

But that’s exactly what adding the filioque does. The Creed, quoting Scripture word for word, is making a statement about the ontological reality.

True, but the creed does not define or attempt to define the Essence of God, which does not come down to us.

But the clause itself makes no such distinction. That is the problem.

The filioque does not make a distinction when professed within the Creed, such as the Holy spirit proceeds from the Father does not. The relation to each profession is sustained in what is consubstantial of the Father and the Son.

You can explain it in a way that is acceptable, speaking of the economic procession of the Spirit, but the plain language does not indicate that it speaks about an ontological procession from the Father and an economic procession from the Son.

Sure it does, when the Creed includes the filioque, the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from Son in what is consubstantial with the Father and the Son, when the Father and the Son are One, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Because what is professed in the Creed from the filioque and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father find their source of procession in what is consubstantial of the Father and the Son. All three are professed within the Creed and all three compliment one another.

Outside the creed, the filioque without rigidity draws on the divine revelations of Jesus when he speaks; " The Father and the Son are One", “If you see me, you have seen the Father”, “I am in the Father and the Father is in the Son”, and the Word is God and the Word is with God from the beginning etc… It is from these teachings divine the filioque professes within the Creed the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Thus it is from what is professed in consubstantial of the Father and the Son the filioque professes the procession of the Holy Spirit. In the mystery of what is consubstantial of the Father and the Son the filioque professes the procession, from what all the Father has, the Son has, because the Father gives all to the Son except being Father, because the Son does not beget another.

Your theological undertakings if addressing the filioque has to be congruent as it relates to what is consubstantial of the Father and the SonThe Holy Spirit proceeds.

In the divine economy, the three persons are distinct from one another in their respective presence, the Father the voice, the Son the Word and the Holy Spirit who proceeds from both.

We can enter a discussion in what is consubstantial of the Father and the Son which remains a mystery, from which the filioque professes the Holy Spirit proceeds.

To isolate the Father and the Son from the Holy Spirit which the Creed never does including the filioque, attempts to divide the blessed Trinity. Unless we reference in what is consubstantial of the Father and the Son the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from both.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Seraphim73;12506374]I’m not 100% sure I understand what you are asking

.

You indicated or referenced that the filioque diminishes the Holy Spirit.

I asked how? Is it; that the presence of God in the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son diminishes the presence of God? When we profess the Trinity is One God in presence.

The Father who (generates) begets and sends relates to the eternal procession of God’s revelation in presence as declared from within the Creed. What is professed from the procession of God’s revelation never diminishes either persons of the blessed Trinity…

The filioque does not profess the Son is the Father, the filioque professes that the Son is consubstantial with the Father from which the Holy Spirit proceeds from both.

The presence of God the Son does not diminish the presence of God the Holy Spirit, when the Holy Spirit proceeds from what is consubstantial with the Father and the Son as professed within the Creed.

The only way we received God’s divine revelation to our humanity is from the Trinity of persons in God’s presence revealed from the divine economy. When the Essence of God does not come down to us.

Procession then, not Essence, points to the mystery from what is professed in faith from the Creed to what is consubstantial of the Father and the Son the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Your theological undertakings if addressing the filioque has to be congruent as it relates to what is consubstantial of the Father and the SonThe Holy Spirit proceeds.

Consubstantial meaning of the same essence, right?

The Holy Spirit is also from the same essence, no?

And still both are the effect of the same cause= The Father, right?

In that case, both proceed from the Father and belong to the same initial essence?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Spirate?

No. Nice suggestion thou!

 

[Cavaradossi]

Truthfully, It’s both; The filioque is not necessary in the Apostles Creed, but is necessary in the Nicene Creed to remove false teachers from misinterpreting the Nicene Creed to the flock of Jesus Christ. The filioque protects the teaching that Jesus is God incarnate

That has to be one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard. Neither the Nicene Creed nor the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed is deficient. If anything, the Apostles’ Creed could more easily be read in an Arianizing fashion.