Filioque Debate

[Gabriel_of_12]

Isaiah45_9;12506668]Consubstantial meaning of the same essence, right?

Following your logic, when all are of the same essence, how does the filioque “presence” diminish the Holy Spirit’s presence?

Consubstantial points to the mystical substance by which the Father and the Son share in what is consubstantial of the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit proceeds from. Although it could be same essence? Yet the Essence of God is not defined by any sane person on this side of death ,for one to draw any theological thought or faith to cause the presence of the Holy Spirit proceeding divine revelation from the Son, that diminishes the presence of God from any one person of the God head.

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

The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in Trinity are of the same Eternal Essence One God divine. Yet the Father’s presence is distinct from the Son’s presence and both are distinct from the Holy Spirit’s presence. The presence of God veils God’s Essence.

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

Good point! but that is not the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith professed and believed the past 2000 years.

When you state “Cause”, we leave the mystical Eternal Essence of God and enter into the known presence of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, what is revealed to be the Trinity, who’s presence reveals the divine economy that proceeds God from God, true God from true God, light from light.

When only the Father is the principle (cause) source that begins the eternal procession of sending of the Holy Spirit and begetting of the eternal Son who is the (effect).

The Greek mystics theological undertakings would place anyone in awe, as they reflect upon the Essence of God. To take these wonderful works that reach into the depths of God’s eternal Essence and try and force them upon the procession of the Trinity of persons in presence is comparing apples to oranges.

That which is consubstantial of the Father and the Son, we need the Greek mystics to help us here. The presence of God who proceeds divine revelation, of the Father sending and begetting, reflects the divine economy of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son. which God gives and reveals His revelation to our humanity. From each procession of God’s presence, God never ceases to be God at any time.

In creation terms the Father is the creator, the Son is the creative cause of creation and the Holy Spirit is the Lord and giver of life to creation, this procession eternally proceeds and sustains life and the creation of visible and invisible order of things in the balance. Science proves this remarkable perfect balance of creation, that can never become out of chaos.

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

Both do not proceed from the Father. The Father eternally begets the Son and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Essence of God has no beginning or end, yet the procession of God is eternal, what reveals the divine economy of the eternal procession in time and space, becomes known in the Presence of the persons of the Trinity, when the Essence of God does not come down to us.

The filiqoue professes the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in what is consubstantially professed of the Father and the Son the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds. Here it is revealed that the Father gives everything to the Son in what is consubstantial of the Father and the Son, from that which the Holy Spirit proceeds from both, distinctly due to the presence of the Father is not the Son’s presence, we are not reaching into the Essence of God here, where all three persons of the Trinity are co-equal One in divine Essence that is unapproachable.

The presence of God in Trinity, does not define or disqualify the Essence of God from the eternal procession made present in time and space from the presence of God.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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.

How you been Cavaradossi, good to see ya

No one said either creed is deficient and the Arian heretics did not teach from the apostles creed to disprove Jesus is not God.

But thanks for the blessing.

I believe there is a question on the present board. How does the presence (not essence, we covered that) of the Holy Spirit become diminished by the filioque?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Following your logic, when all are of the same essence, how does the filioque “presence” diminish the Holy Spirit’s presence?

That’s not my assertion.

I’ll read slowly the rest of your post.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

That’s not my assertion.

I’ll read slowly the rest of your post.

lol… sorry about that, if I carried another poster’s thought over into your post. I will be more careful next time. Thanks your thought is duly noted

 

[Expatreprocedit]

I believe there is a question on the present board. How does the presence (not essence, we covered that) of the Holy Spirit become diminished by the filioque?

If the Holy Spirit is not spoken of correctly, it stands to reason his presence will be diminished.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

I believe there is a question on the present board. How does the presence (not essence, we covered that) of the Holy Spirit become diminished by the filioque?

If the Spirit is not spoken of in a befitting way, it stands to reason his presence will be diminished.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

lol… sorry about that, if I carried another poster’s thought over into your post. I will be more careful next time. Thanks your thought is duly noted

Still reading.

This subject of the procession is similar to Romans 7:15-20. Try saying it 3 times really fast

 

[benjohnson]

The only thing that I think I can safely remark baed on my reading, is that the Orthodox are not being needlessly obstinate in this.

Seemingly, Lutherans consensus seems to be that we should remove the Filioque as we can rely on the Athanasian Creed for combating any Trinitarian heresies.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

benjohnson;12507296]The only thing that I think I can safely remark baed on my reading, is that the Orthodox are not being needlessly obstinate in this.

How is it that you can speak for some of the Orthodox who object to the filioque, when those Orthodox theologians who looked into the filioque do not object to the filioque?

Thus far on this subject of the filioque, commentary is referenced from only the CCC teaching from paragraph 246-248, 253-255 has been introduced without rebuttal from the Orthodox or any one else who objects to the filioque.

Seemingly, Lutherans consensus seems to be that we should remove the Filioque as we can rely on the Athanasian Creed for combating any Trinitarian heresies.

That’s interesting; Which Lutheran possesses the authority and divine keys to bind and loose on earth, so as to remove the filioque from the Creed? When all any one can do is object to it, just as the heretics did who tried to infect the Nicene Creed with heresy.

Does not the Apostles Creed predate the Athanasian Creed? I wonder why the heretics did not attempt to infect the Apostles Creed, and why the Athanasian Creed did not replace the Nicene Creed as such that you would replace the Nicene Creed with an Athanasian Creed?

Why would a Lutheran object to the filioque in the first place? Is it the authority issue, or is it the theology as spoken of from the early Church Fathers from antiquity? which the CCC references.

 

[prodromos]

How is it that you can speak for some of the Orthodox who object to the filioque, when those Orthodox theologians who looked into the filioque do not object to the filioque?

The Church has seen fit to only name three people as theologians. St John, St Gregory and Saint Symeon. Which of those are you referring to?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The Church has seen fit to only name three people as theologians. St John, St Gregory and Saint Symeon. Which of those are you referring to?

I would refuse to believe, because the Orthodox hold there faith to only seven councils from antiquity, that the Orthodox faith has not kept up with later times and present times who have been unable to produce any theologians to date.

I have a much higher regard and respect for the Orthodox than you may have here?

 

[benjohnson]

That’s interesting; Which Lutheran possesses the authority and divine keys to bind and loose on earth, so as to remove the filioque from the Creed? When all any one can do is object to it, just as the heretics did who tried to infect the Nicene Creed with heresy.

The ‘authority’ in this case would comes from the ecumenical councils - we’d simply be going back to what it was agreed upon.

Why would a Lutheran object to the filioque in the first place? Is it the authority issue, or is it the theology as spoken of from the early Church Fathers from antiquity? which the CCC references.

The ‘bad’ news from an ecumenical standpoint is that the Lutheran understating would be that the idea behind the Filioque is to be defended - (in Lutheran terms, and I’m probably messing it up… so be warned) that we would stress the unity of the Trinity.

From what I have seen is that the Lutheran position isn’t an absolute - that we respect the viewpoint of the Orthodox and have said the creed with them in ecumenical settings without the Filioque… and we didn’t become any more unhinged. On the other hand - we also defend the idea behind the Filioque in the Smalcald Articles as a bulwark against the various hereises of the times.

I was sincerely hoping that Lutheran theologians had found a way the thread the needle that could be agreeable to all - but while we’d be content to go back to the older Creed, we would probably still be in opposition to the Orthodox in significant and meaningful ways.

 

[benjohnson]

The Church has seen fit to only name three people as theologians. St John, St Gregory and Saint Symeon. Which of those are you referring to?

That’s interesting! I can appreciate the trepidation, as you could certainly pave the road to hell with bad Lutheran theologians.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The filioque is not the issue. Nor is the type of bread we use at mass nor any of the other commonly cited differences between Catholics and Orthodox.

The issue was, is and always will be the papacy - specifically the authority of the papacy in the Church.

I’m increasingly skeptical of any re-unification, and here’s why:

If Catholic and Orthodox leaders agree on some formula for Church governance and announce the end of the schism, etc., Catholics will not notice any real difference in their every day lives because the pope will still retain his place of primacy as “first among equals”. He will still be the center of attention at press conferences, and the cable news channels will still have their cameras trained on the chimney at the Vatican every time a new pope is elected. IOW, the pope, cardinals and bishops of our Church will continue to function just as they always have. The only visible difference will be that a few bearded men in funny clothes and hats whose names we can’t pronounce start showing up at important meetings. We have African bishops already, so we’re used to that.

The Orthodox, on the other hand, will always feel suspicious of Catholicism because of the Pope. The Patriarchs and Metropolitans, etc. will also continue to go about their normal routines just as they have for a thousand years. But when an entourage of Cardinals and the Holy Father shows up at a gathering held in Constantinople or Moscow or something, the Orthodox will smile nervously for the cameras but whisper amongst themselves behind closed doors. And heaven forbid that the Pope should actually open his mouth to offer his opinion on any “Orthodox” matter.

So, even if things are ironed out, it will be smiles and platitudes for hundreds of years before anything of substance can actually be said from one side to the other.

Am I right?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

benjohnson;12508216]The ‘authority’ in this case would comes from the ecumenical councils - we’d simply be going back to what it was agreed upon

.

If you are basing your faith on the seven ecumenical councils they never rule of the filioque. If your faith keeps up with the ages and the on going faith of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, then the ecumenical councils that do rule on the filiqoue do so in support of the filioque.

The ‘bad’ news from an ecumenical standpoint is that the Lutheran understating would be that the idea behind the Filioque is to be defended - (in Lutheran terms, and I’m probably messing it up… so be warned) that we would stress the unity of the Trinity.

The filioque is defended and protects the doctrine that Jesus is God incarnate. If you relate the filioque to the procession and the Trinity as the CCC teaches you are not far from Truth.

If you object to an unknown filioque outside of the Nicene Creed, then you object alone with some Orthodox, and invent your own filioque that is never Catholic.

As far as ecumenical is concerned, this concerns the Greeks respecting the Latin expression of the Apostolic Faith as the filioque defends the apostolic faith and removes heretics from infecting what is professed and believed within the Nicene Creed, in addition to Latins conceding to the Vatican Councils I and II not to make Greek Catholics Latin Catholics.

For the Lutheran’'s there does not exist an ecumenical effort between the Latin or the Greek speaking Catholic Church in the Truest sense of reality, someone has duped you into false pretense of ecumenical dialogue, when it is reconciliation of our communion that is required not ecumenical.

From what I have seen is that the Lutheran position isn’t an absolute - that we respect the viewpoint of the Orthodox and have said the creed with them in ecumenical settings without the Filioque… and we didn’t become any more unhinged. On the other hand - we also defend the idea behind the Filioque in the Smalcald Articles as a bulwark against the various hereises of the times.

Your effort here is supported. We have no problem with the Orthodox professing the Nicene Creed without the filioque, so long as they do not object to the filioque and respect the Latin expression of our Apostolic faith and not try and force any fold that is not of Greek into Greeks. A side from all of this we the Latin Church still profess the Apostles Creed which predates the Nicene Creed. When it is the Apostles Creed from the Apostles to which the Latin Church has never left.

I was sincerely hoping that Lutheran theologians had found a way the thread the needle that could be agreeable to all - but while we’d be content to go back to the older Creed, we would probably still be in opposition to the Orthodox in significant and meaningful ways.

Please do not take this in a negative way here; But the Lutheran Community removed itself from the Latin side of the Church, reconciliation is called for here. It makes no difference to me personally, of which side of the Church Lutherans choose to reconcile with Greek or Latin. The main thing is to reconcile with either community, to a valid priesthood and valid sacraments, and you may all have to be Re- baptized again which you have no choice in the Matter when it comes to the Orthodox.

As far as the reconciliation with the Latin side of the Church, the filioque would still be professed in our Liturgy, there is no ecumenical discussion with the filioque professed in the Latin Mass.

 

[SteveVH]

The filioque is not the issue. Nor is the type of bread we use at mass nor any of the other commonly cited differences between Catholics and Orthodox.

The issue was, is and always will be the papacy - specifically the authority of the papacy in the Church.

I’m increasingly skeptical of any re-unification, and here’s why:

If Catholic and Orthodox leaders agree on some formula for Church governance and announce the end of the schism, etc., Catholics will not notice any real difference in their every day lives because the pope will still retain his place of primacy as “first among equals”. The pope, cardinals and bishops of our Church will continue to function just as they always have. The only visible difference will be that a few bearded men in funny clothes and hats whose names we can’t pronounce start showing up at important meetings.

Orthodox, on the other hand, will always feel suspicious of Catholicism because of the pope. So, when an entourage of Cardinals and the Holy Father show up at a gathering held in Constantinople or Moscow or something, they’re going to smile nervously for the cameras but whisper amongst themselves behind closed doors. And heaven forbid that the Pope should actually open his mouth to offer his opinion on any “Orthodox” matter.

So, it will be smiles and platitudes for hundreds of years before anything of substance can actually be said from one side to the other.

Am I right?

I have really never entered into any discussions with EO before now. If the attitude expressed by the EO on this forum is a true indicator of the level of interest in unification with the Catholic Church I doubt it will even get that far.

I completely agree with you that the real issue is the papacy and nothing else. Pride seems to be the greatest obstacle.

 

[benjohnson]

.

Please do not take this in a negative way here; But the Lutheran Community removed itself from the Latin side of the Church, reconciliation is called for here.

No offense taken! That is defiantly the Catholic viewpoint and you said it with charity and concern born out of true Christian love.

The bad news is we Lutherans view ourselves as a valid continuation of the western church, so we’re a bit obstinate in this.

 

[Seraphim73]

I have really never entered into any discussions with EO before now. If the attitude expressed by the EO on this forum is a true indicator of the level of interest in unification with the Catholic Church I doubt it will even get that far.

I completely agree with you that the real issue is the papacy and nothing else. Pride seems to be the greatest obstacle.

But notwithstanding this, the [Catholics] do not cease to this day, nor will cease, according to wont, to attack Orthodoxy,—a daily living reproach which they have before their eyes, being deserters from the faith of their fathers. - Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs

Many Catholics think the way you do. Honestly it’s more than an little condescending.

 

[Seraphim73]

I have really never entered into any discussions with EO before now. If the attitude expressed by the EO on this forum is a true indicator of the level of interest in unification with the Catholic Church I doubt it will even get that far.

I completely agree with you that the real issue is the papacy and nothing else. Pride seems to be the greatest obstacle.

Many Catholics think the way you do. Honestly it’s more than a little condescending.

 

[benjohnson]

I have really never entered into any discussions with EO before now. If the attitude expressed by the EO on this forum is a true indicator of the level of interest in unification with the Catholic Church I doubt it will even get that far.

I completely agree with you that the real issue is the papacy and nothing else. Pride seems to be the greatest obstacle.

My opinion is that we can certainly learn a lot from the Othrodox even if reunification never takes place.

I know I’d tread carefully with accusing the Orthodox of pride - they have endured countless struggles, atrocities, and difficulties and they have my respect.