Filioque Debate

[GaryTaylor]

]

Since when did the Orthodox begin professing that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone? Or is clarification needed here? or is this heresy in the making from a "mutual agreement?

Ah I seen that one too but I didn’t want to create an indictment list.

I think what he is attempting to say is what we all agree on. We must profess the Holy Spirit is of one principle. St Basil and St Ambrose and of course the Councils they don’t accept. Needless to say though we all agree on this point.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

GaryTaylor;12539334]They have communion without communion of unity.

That sounds to complicated for a filioque debate.

I don’t think I would want to be a part of any community that has communion without unity? I believe that expounds the definition of an oxymoron.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Ah I seen that one too but I didn’t want to create an indictment list.

I think what he is attempting to say is what we all agree on. We must profess the Holy Spirit is of one principle. St Basil and St Ambrose and of course the Councils they don’t accept. Needless to say though we all agree on this point.

I hoped for a clarification, whether or not that was an official document quoted or an opinion of the sort? Thus I asked for a clarification.

I believe both East and West agree on the Father being the source and principle without principle. But I have no idea where the Orthodox get the “Holy Spirit”, “work of God” proceeds from the Father alone?

 

[GaryTaylor]

That sounds to complicated for a filioque debate.

I don’t think I would want to be a part of any community that has communion without unity? I believe that expounds the definition of an oxymoron.

Amazing conversations, I think all this is in the basics of the CCC. One Principle-God. One communion, Gods Church. It must have been the simplicity of youth. “Let the children come to Me”

I’m starting to wonder about the [cause] analogy though. Thats more repetitive from the East that I thought. And all around the same time frame.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Amazing conversations, I think all this is in the basics of the CCC. One Principle-God. One communion, Gods Church. It must have been the simplicity of youth. “Let the children come to Me”

I’m starting to wonder about the [cause] analogy though. Thats more repetitive from the East that I thought. And all around the same time frame.

I am always amazed how God’s little children in catechism can grasp at these divine mysteries and hold on to the Words of Christ alone who teaches and reveals these mysteries to them with a faith that never doubts God’s Word and Holy Spirit.

Try explaining the ''cause" to a simple child, and he/she would respond, God is the cause always, what’s the problem with you guys? Jesus gospel is simple that even the faith of children can grasp these deep mysteries without a need of a theological discourse to confuse one of who God is, when faith (like these little ones) is what God calls us to.

One Faith, One Lord, One baptism, One body of Christ, One God.

 

[spina1953]

I am always amazed how God’s little children in catechism can grasp at these divine mysteries and hold on to the Words of Christ alone who teaches and reveals these mysteries to them with a faith that never doubts God’s Word and Holy Spirit.

Try explaining the ''cause" to a simple child, and he/she would respond, God is the cause always, what’s the problem with you guys? Jesus gospel is simple that even the faith of children can grasp these deep mysteries without a need of a theological discourse to confuse one of who God is, when faith (like these little ones) is what God calls us to.

One Faith, One Lord, One baptism, One body of Christ, One God.

Hi Gabriel: I agree and wonder as I tend to think that the Apostles when they preached and taught those hearing them had no problem understand the Trinity and the cause which is the Father, wonder why it became such a big problem now with the Orthodox?

 

[Seraphim73]

]

Since when did the Orthodox begin professing that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone? Or is clarification needed here? or is this heresy in the making from a "mutual agreement? That creates another schism?

That “heresy in the making” was proclaimed in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople.

 

[GaryTaylor]

St Thomas said that God cannot be the cause of Himself, if He were to be the cause of His own existence, then He would have existed prior to Himself. Which is impossible, because God always existed.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

That “heresy in the making” was proclaimed in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople.

It’s heresy without qualification. The Work of God, the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father.

 

[GaryTaylor]

That “heresy in the making” was proclaimed in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople.

Oh I don’t think they were saying the same thing as you. I think, you think your saying the same thing. Its a wonderful thing this gift of the Lord of the teaching primacy. You would have us pledging that God is a cause and effect of Himself. :nope:

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

St Thomas said that God cannot be the cause of Himself, if He were to be the cause of His own existence, then He would have existed prior to Himself. Which is impossible, because God always existed.

It’s too bad the Orthodox excuse themselves from the great thinkers such as St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Jerome, St. Augustine and other Latin Fathers, who object to think, or contemplate any Latin expressions of the Catholic faith, such as the filioque which confirms Jesus is God incarnate.

St. Thomas appears to have those Orthodox in somewhat of a pickle, who think the Work of God and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (cause) alone, when God’s Essence does not proceed from no one, yet the procession begins with the Father presence not God’s Essence which does not come down to us, which supports the filioque which agrees with St. Thomas that God is not the cause of His existence, when it is the presence of God in Trinity which the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Although speaking from a Latin understanding which supports all ECF’s, Saints and Martyrs, who write; That the Essence of God does not proceed, when it is the Trinity of persons in Presence who proceeds divine revelation to be known.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi Gabriel: I agree and wonder as I tend to think that the Apostles when they preached and taught those hearing them had no problem understand the Trinity and the cause which is the Father, wonder why it became such a big problem now with the Orthodox?

That’s a question that begins with diverse reasons that get answered which leads to objecting Peter’s Chair of jurisdiction on the earth. How this happens becomes a phenomenon.

We move from the simplicity of the apostolic faith to theological understandings, mainly due to heretics and heresies beginning from the Eastern side of the Church where philosophy and critical thinkers tried to force their secular thinking to define God in opposition to divine revelation revealed to our humanity by Jesus the Word of God incarnate.

The Greeks did well to defeat their own Greek heretical philosophers on their own terms. Yet these great minds kept falling in and out of heresy themselves.

Thank God, the Apostolic faith remained Rock and has come down to us fully intact with and through the Chair of Peter.

 

[Seraphim73]

If this were the issue, then there wouldn’t be any because Rome states the same aside for the analogy of cause. There is no contradiction of the monarchy of the Father nor the fact that he is the sole principle of principles. So the problem certainly isn’t here, but is misunderstanding.

And the fact that it causes misunderstanding is one of the strongest arguments against the filioque. These last handful of posts on this forum illustrate that quite well.

 

[Kmon23]

And the fact that it causes misunderstanding is one of the strongest arguments against the filioque. These last handful of posts on this forum illustrate that quite well.

If I am not mistaken, wasn’t the filioque partially added to address heresy in the West, a western Arianism of sorts?

 

[Wandile]

If I am not mistaken, wasn’t the filioque partially added to address heresy in the West, a western Arianism of sorts?

Yes and it defeated that version of Arianism

 

[GaryTaylor]

And the fact that it causes misunderstanding is one of the strongest arguments against the filioque. These last handful of posts on this forum illustrate that quite well.

Im sorry your wrong and you think Rome caused your misunderstanding.

I think its also imperative to address another misconception of yours. Which following Randy and his point ties in well. You don’t have an older Mass or Liturgy than Rome, and it for sure developed. And so you know, its also polemics and a fruitless and pointless conversation. But one I’m sure will be repeated.

myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/taft_evolution_4.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Tridentine_Mass

If the Saint walked in the Latin Church today he would recognize the Mass.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Ffathers%2F0126.htm&ei=MeV-VKTsBof6yATy6IC4AQ&usg=AFQjCNEcHSrEY0L_ZhnHYRzNPKm3Daax4g&bvm=bv.80642063,d.aWw

 

[GaryTaylor]

Although speaking from a Latin understanding which supports all ECF’s, Saints and Martyrs, who write; That the Essence of God does not proceed, when it is the Trinity of persons in Presence who proceeds divine revelation to be known.

Right, its a matter of discerning the language, same with the begotten Son and Spirit which proceeds. This is dogma of our Church [both Churches] which again is indicative of human analogy or procreation which or course isn’t reality with God. The language also can give the impression of a dual procession misunderstooding, which isn’t limited to Rome but polemics would like to attribute it to Rome, hence its the Creed. Here too St Thomas used cause and effect as his second of 5-points in elaboration of the existence of God. The argument is simple and leaves little room for rebuttal so its used even today in consistency such as in the apologetic’s area. For example lets look at the Creed which one can easily arrive at a dual procession.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made:

Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man;

And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried;

And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures;

And ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father;

And He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets;

And we believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.

We look for the Resurrection of the dead,

And the Life of the age to come. Amen.

Through the Son is understood as; The Father sends the Son: the Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit, the Son isn’t a vessel which Divinity passed through in a non active role. This understanding is disturbing as it reminds me of fringe protestant thinking with the Incarnation and Christ[God] Nature defined at Council. Thus again with the gospel of John- He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you."

In God there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Each of the Three Persons possesses the one (numerical) Divine Essence. (De fide.) The Divine Persons, not the Divine Nature, are the subject of the Internal Divine processions (in the active and in the passive sense). (De fide.) But there is “ONE” Divine Essence of which all have. We use numerical order to understand the monarchy of the Father, who as Augustine state in the CCC reference is the first principle without principle. Which if I remember is out of his work on the Trinity in the footnotes.

So for us its a matter of understanding first what is infallible to synthesis all this. Which in all honesty is why Randy and few others suggest reading Ludwig for fundamental doctrinal understanding For example we follow this…

1. In God there are two Internal “Divine Processions”. (De fide.)
2. The Divine Persons, not the Divine Nature, are the subject of the Internal Divine processions (in the active and in the passive sense). (De fide.)
3. The Second Divine Person proceeds from the First Divine Person by Generation, and therefore is related to Him as Son to a Father. (De fide.)
4. The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from a Single Principle through a Single Spiration. (De fide.)
5. The Holy Ghost does not proceed through generation but through spiration. (De. fide.)

And again as St Thomas explains in the highest sense this participation would be generation but not in any way corporal but spiritual, “since the divine intelligence is of the highest perfection, it is necessary that the divine word be perfectly one with Him from whom He proceeds without any diversity of Nature.”

This can be further read where its much deeper elaborated on for example in The Trinity by Garrigou Lagrange pg 93.

However, point being the teachings begin with the Creed with has infallible implications.

Interesting enough aside from the polemics the doctrine of Father and Son is…

The Father sends the Son: the Father and the Son send the Holy Ghost. (Sent. certa.)

This is infallible but has not been formally elevated yet to the level of De Fide, with respect to the dialogue of the East.

So while Rome is elaborating from the West, its mindful of the “us” as in East-West. Which anyone following Aquinas will quickly realize, he doesn’t disregard the Fathers but corrects language which is misleading and distracting. The Fathers digress to Rome as Augustine did in Retractions, they knew contemplation of discernment would continue. And it has as for example with Essence and Energies. Thus its not a matter of changing the truth which we have been saying, but clarification of the truth.

Anyway, not to further complicate a complicated teaching.

Peace

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

GaryTaylor;12540311]Right, its a matter of discerning the language, same with the begotten Son and Spirit which proceeds. This is dogma of our Church [both Churches] which again is indicative of human analogy or procreation which or course isn’t reality with God. The language also can give the impression of a dual procession misunderstooding, which isn’t limited to Rome but polemics would like to attribute it to Rome, hence its the Creed. Here too St Thomas used cause and effect as his second of 5-points in elaboration of the existence of God. The argument is simple and leaves little room for rebuttal so its used even today in consistency such as in the apologetic’s area. For example lets look at the Creed which one can easily arrive at a dual procession.

1. In God there are two Internal “Divine Processions”. (De fide.)

1. The Divine Persons, not the Divine Nature, are the subject of the Internal Divine processions (in the active and in the passive sense). (De fide.)

1. The Second Divine Person proceeds from the First Divine Person by Generation, and therefore is related to Him as Son to a Father. (De fide.)

1. The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from a Single Principle through a Single Spiration. (De fide.)

1. The Holy Ghost does not proceed through generation but through spiration. (De. fide.)

Thank you for your post, it is most enlightening.

I am still digesting some of Aquinas writings you posted here.

I may have missed it, so please correct me; I did not find any mention of the procession as being professed eternally or in space and time?

When you mention double procession, Your post did not clarify, whether it relates to the procession as eternal or in space and time for a double procession?

How does a double procession exist?, when the procession is eternal? Or did I miss something in your post from the language? I am very interested in this view whether it relates to presence in time or eternal procession of presence.

Thanks; Gary

 

[Seraphim73]

Im sorry your wrong and you think Rome caused your misunderstanding.

I think its also imperative to address another misconception of yours. Which following Randy and his point ties in well. You don’t have an older Mass or Liturgy than Rome, and it for sure developed. And so you know, its also polemics and a fruitless and pointless conversation. But one I’m sure will be repeated.

myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/taft_evolution_4.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Tridentine_Mass

If the Saint walked in the Latin Church today he would recognize the Mass.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Ffathers%2F0126.htm&ei=MeV-VKTsBof6yATy6IC4AQ&usg=AFQjCNEcHSrEY0L_ZhnHYRzNPKm3Daax4g&bvm=bv.80642063,d.aWw

I’m sorry but we are not the one with the misunderstanding. Even today 75% of Roman Catholics here in the US believe that the Holy Spirit is not a person! And about the same percentage of Protestants, who themselves were born from Roman Catholic thought, believe the same. And I don’t think it’s any coincidence that all of the changes that occurred in Roman Catholicism, from abandoning immersion for baptism, to delaying the reception of children and denying them the Eucharist, to denying the Sacred Cup to the laity, all of the post schism dogmas and even to breaking communion with every single ancient Apostolic see and the loss of entire Western nations to the Reformation. All of this happened after this addition into the Creed. And that spirit continues to this day with the complete rewrite of the liturgy and modern day iconoclasm, with parish after parish ripping out sacred images or putting up new, plain white washed buildings. In fact, quite to our astonishment, you continue to make your churches and liturgies look more and more like Protestant buildings and services.

You say a saint could walk into a church and immediately recognize it. Not only would a saint from the first millennium not recognize a modern Roman Catholic church a Catholic from 1950 wouldn’t recognize it. And the most amazing thing of all, not only is that not considered a problem, it’s considered a virtue! You have to look at the fruits and in this case the fruits simply are not good.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I may have missed it, so please correct me; I did not find any mention of the procession as being professed eternally or in space and time?

When you mention double procession, Your post did not clarify, whether it relates to the procession as eternal or in space and time for a double procession?

The procession is eternal and internal which was confronted with the Arians. Thus a procession of cause and effect confronted. Athanasius and Augustine explained that in Divine procession their is no diversity of Nature since the Nature remains the same only the diversity of person in relation. Course we use the word procession for two reasons as its professed in the Creed and written in scripture in several places. John mulitple times as in John 8;42 “For from God I proceeded” For this reason there are two processions defended, but there is not one of the three persons which precedes the other in eternity, because they have the same divine nature. Outside of time there can be no difference since time doesn’t exist. God is not bound by time thus the reality of the real presence The “Word” also signifies proceeding from another as a concept of the mind. Which has been repeated through the ages by the Fathers.

Peace