Filioque - Distinguishing the Essence and Person of the Holy Spirit

[Ghosty]

Actually, Revered Ghosty, the Orthodox don’t have any problem with the Filioque as a theological view of the Latin Church (they never had). Such a view could not be imposed on anyone else who didn’t share it.

Even St Mark of Ephesus didn’t expect the Latins to do away with their Trinitarian theology as such.

The only thing was the maintenance of the Creed in its original form - as also maintained by every Pope of Rome prior to 1015 AD.

Alex

This isn’t what the Orthodox themselves have said here on these forums and in their writings on the subject. We wouldn’t even be having the discussion on this thread if the filioque was accepted as a legitimate theological view. The first person to bring up the canonical issue of adding the filioque to the Creed was you; everything prior was objections to the filioque on the grounds of it being heretical. Some accept the filioque teaching, others don’t, but acceptance is not very widespread in my experience.

You and I may believe that the theology of the filioque is sound, but this is not the widespread belief of the Eastern Orthodox in my experience. If everyone agreed that the filioque is sound doctrine then removing it would be a substantial step, but as it stands it would merely be papering over a hole in the floor.

Personally I don’t care if the Latins keep it or drop it in their Liturgy; their Liturgical Creed is not the Nicene Creed and I don’t expect it to be. For much of history they didn’t recite any Creed in their Liturgy, and even now on several occasions they recite the Apostles Creed instead. I think all the hubbub over what other Churches do in their Liturgy is misplaced; I certainly wouldn’t appreciate the Latins telling us what we could and couldn’t recite in ours, so long as we’re orthodox.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

If everyone agreed that the filioque is sound doctrine then removing it would be a substantial step

That is the point. Your side is constantly trying to tell the East that the Filioque means the same thing…that it is semantics or tramslation problems. So there really is no “filioque theology.” There is no procession from the Father and the Son.

 

[Ghosty]

That is the point. Your side is constantly trying to tell the East that the Filioque means the same thing…that it is semantics or tramslation problems. So there really is no “filioque theology.” There is no procession from the Father and the Son.

I haven’t seen anyone on this thread, or anywhere else, say that the teaching is the same. The statements of Photius and the teaching of the Fathers are diametrically opposed.

What is often said, and I’m saying it here, is that those who object to the filioque do so on false grounds, not understanding what the filioque actually teaches.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

The statements of Photius and the teaching of the Fathers are diametrically opposed.

Nonsense.

those who object to the filioque do so on false grounds, not understanding what the filioque actually teaches.

More nonsense. I think that it is you who does not understand.

 

[Ghosty]

Nonsense.
More nonsense. I think that it is you who does not understand.

A profound and well reasoned rebuttal, Mickey.

 

[Mickey]

Personally I don’t care if the Latins keep it or drop it in their Liturgy;

Really?

any[/B]

Creed in their Liturgy, and even now on several occasions they recite the Apostles Creed instead.
The fact that the Latins did not recite a creed for a period of history cannot validly be used as an argument for altering the normative creed of A.D. 381.

Same goes for those who may have used a creed other than the one issued by the Holy Fathers at the Second Council of Constantinople (such as the Armenians).

 

[Mickey]

A profound and well reasoned rebuttal, Mickey.

Thank you.:tiphat:

 

[Alexander_Roman]

This isn’t what the Orthodox themselves have said here on these forums and in their writings on the subject. We wouldn’t even be having the discussion on this thread if the filioque was accepted as a legitimate theological view. The first person to bring up the canonical issue of adding the filioque to the Creed was you; everything prior was objections to the filioque on the grounds of it being heretical. Some accept the filioque teaching, others don’t, but acceptance is not very widespread in my experience.

You and I may believe that the theology of the filioque is sound, but this is not the widespread belief of the Eastern Orthodox in my experience. If everyone agreed that the filioque is sound doctrine then removing it would be a substantial step, but as it stands it would merely be papering over a hole in the floor.

Personally I don’t care if the Latins keep it or drop it in their Liturgy; their Liturgical Creed is not the Nicene Creed and I don’t expect it to be. For much of history they didn’t recite any Creed in their Liturgy, and even now on several occasions they recite the Apostles Creed instead. I think all the hubbub over what other Churches do in their Liturgy is misplaced; I certainly wouldn’t appreciate the Latins telling us what we could and couldn’t recite in ours, so long as we’re orthodox.

Peace and God bless!

Dear and Revered Ghosty,

Actually, I don’t think the Orthodox have to accept the soundness of the Filioque or not - they could accept it as a theological view or theologoumenon of the Latin Church. The issue of the Filioque in the Creed is much more important/serious. And it also leads one into a discussion of the role of the Papacy versus the Councils. This is also why the Latin Church cannot remove the Filioque (and won’t in the foreseeable future). To do so would be to somehow denigrate the rights of the Papacy over the Councils. Does the Papacy have the right to do something over the head of an ecumenical council? That becomes the main (and truly most important) issue.

Alex

 

[Mickey]

This is also why the Latin Church cannot remove the Filioque (and won’t in the foreseeable future). To do so would be to somehow denigrate the rights of the Papacy over the Councils. Does the Papacy have the right to do something over the head of an ecumenical council? That becomes the main (and truly most important) issue.

Yes.

Here is an excellent paper regarding the Filioque controversy for anyone who may be interested.
sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/filioque

---

 

[Hesychios]

Go back and read post 91 onwards, Mickey & Ghosty and you’ll see what kind of conversation we are having- suffice it to say, it’s not literal, though not exactly hypothetical either…I don’t know how to describe it.

If you are trying to say that both the Vatican Catholic communion and the Orthodox Catholic communion are in agreement on the filioque … I think not.

If we were in agreement it wouldn’t be called filioque.

 

[Hesychios]

Actually, I don’t think the Orthodox have to accept the soundness of the Filioque or not - they could accept it as a theological view or theologoumenon of the Latin Church. The issue of the Filioque in the Creed is much more important/serious. And it also leads one into a discussion of the role of the Papacy versus the Councils. This is also why the Latin Church cannot remove the Filioque (and won’t in the foreseeable future). To do so would be to somehow denigrate the rights of the Papacy over the Councils. Does the Papacy have the right to do something over the head of an ecumenical council? That becomes the main (and truly most important) issue.

Alex

Well stated.

 

[Cavaradossi]

If Rome would simply return to the original Creed without the Filioque (or anything else), we would all be way ahead in ecumenical terms.

I also believe the Orthodox should canonize Pope St Leo IV who insisted on maintaining the original Creed and had two tablets inscribed with it in Latin and Greek and placed these on the Tomb of St Peter.

Alex

I’ll start a local veneration cult, write an embarrassingly historically inaccurate hagiography, and all of the hymns for his feast. With luck, he’ll be canonized in several decades.

 

[mardukm]

A poor translation of terms is not a legitimate source for developing a novel doctrinal theory.
That the ousia of the Spirit proienai from the Son is a novel doctrinal theory? The fact is, the Latin term procedit is understood by Latins in the sense of proienai, not ekporeusai. The only problem is that you are seeking to impose Eastern presuppositions on what the Latins are saying by their own theological language. Let them speak for themselves, please.

After all, the Holy Spirit receives His existence from the Father alone by εκπόρευσις, and it is vitally important that His hypostatic procession (εκπόρευσις) of origin not be confused with His manifesting progression (προϊέναι) from the Father through the Son.

 

[mardukm]

I’ll start a local veneration cult, write an embarrassingly historically inaccurate hagiography, and all of the hymns for his feast. With luck, he’ll be canonized in several decades.

Pope St. Leo IV is not ALREADY canonized in the Eastern Churches? Who knew?

 

[Mickey]

That’s exactly what the Latins teach.

Wonderful. Send them a message that they can change the creed back to its original form now…and we’ll be all set!

 

[Mickey]

the Latins teach that only the Father is the SOURCE

Wonderful. Send them a message that they can change the creed back to its original form now…and we’ll be all set!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alex,

Actually, I don’t think the Orthodox have to accept the soundness of the Filioque or not - they could accept it as a theological view or theologoumenon of the Latin Church.

The Faith expressed by filioque (that the ousia of the Spirit is derived from the Son, or proceeds from the Father through the Son) is a unanimous teaching of the Fathers, is it not? How could the Orthodox choose to not accept it?

The issue of the Filioque in the Creed is much more important/serious.

That’s an interesting pov. From the Oriental perspective, it is the Faith that the Latin Filioque intends to teach that is more important. After all, within the OO communion, there is variation in the TEXT of the Creed, though no one denies the orthodoxy of another Church merely because of the use of a different TEXT. Even the Coptic Orthodox Church does not recite the FULL Creed depending on the Liturgical season. If complete adherence to the TEXT is the determining factor, and not adherence to the Faith expressed by the text, there would be no unity in the OO communion. I think in this regards, the Easterns are a bit legalistic (forgive me for saying).

And it also leads one into a discussion of the role of the Papacy versus the Councils. This is also why the Latin Church cannot remove the Filioque (and won’t in the foreseeable future). To do so would be to somehow denigrate the rights of the Papacy over the Councils.

Another interesting pov. The history of the the inclusion of filioque in the Latin Creed is the exact opposite of the absolute power that you imply the Pope enjoys. I mean, many continued using filioque even after the bishop of Rome insisted on not using it, and Rome was actually the LAST Western diocese to include the filioque in its Creed. The historical reality does not exactly match what you perceive about the prereogatives of the Pope.

I don’t think the difficulty of removing filioque has anything to do with the issue of papacy vs. Council. It is difficult to remove simply because it has become part of the Tradition of the Latin Church.

Does the Papacy have the right to do something over the head of an ecumenical council? That becomes the main (and truly most important) issue.

Surely, a trick question? The bishop of Rome is the head of an Ecumenical Council. Yes, I know that presents a quandary for Absolutist Petrine advocates, who constantly seek to separate the head from the body.

Again, I don’t believe this has anything to do with papacy vs. Council. The issue here is how we interpret the phrase pistin eteran that was used by the early Councils in their insistence that the Creed cannot be changed. Does the phrase mean “a different TEXT,” or does it mean “a different FAITH” than the one expressed by the Creed? Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria definitely understood it in the latter sense, an understanding carried on by the Oriental Orthodox Churches today. As noted earlier, I am under the impression that many Easterns are being legalistic about insisting that the TEXT (instead of the underlying Faith) is the greater factor in determining unity on this matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Wonderful. Send them a message that they can change the creed back to its original form now…and we’ll be all set!

I understand what you are getting at. The problem is that from the get-go, the Western Church has always understood the TEXT (in translation) differently than the Easterns.

The Westerns understand the text at issue to refer to the OUSIA of the Spirit.

The Easterns understand the text at issue to refer to the HYPOSTASIS of the Spirit.

If we’re talking about translations, OBJECTIVELY SPEAKING, the Latins have it right in ALL the Latin-derived languages, and the Orthodox have it — well — wrong. The Orthodox should not be translating ekporeusai as “PROCEEDS”; they should be translating it as “ORIGINATES.”

How would you feel about the following solution:

Get an Ecumenical Council to add a phrase using the term proienai to the Creed.

In translation, it would be, “The Holy Spirit ORIGINATES (ekporeusai) from the Father, and PROCEEDS (proienai/procedit) from the Son.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Marybeloved]

If you are trying to say that both the Vatican Catholic communion and the Orthodox Catholic communion are in agreement on the filioque … I think not.

If we were in agreement it wouldn’t be called filioque.

Perhaps you missed this posting of mine before

How do you figure this? If the theology is the same then no point in complaining about filioque, is there? Makes no difference, after all. What Ghosty said is true. Why focus on a word, when it’s the understanding behind it that has caused so much problems? Once the problems with that understanding gets cleared out of the way, the word by itself bears no weight. So removing it without focusing on the true issue solves no problems.

Clearly you misunderstood the conversation. Mickey was complaining about the Latin church not taking the opportunity to scrap the Filioque during the liturgical changes currently underway in Western English-speaking countries. Ghosty said that would be pointless because the theological disputes would remain, I’ve been supporting him by trying to show Mickey the flaw in that line of thinking. That’s the context of the post you were trying to respond to.

Peace.

 

[dcointin]

Would Catholics regard this statement as orthodox?:

"We also believe that the Holy Spirit, the Third Person in the Trinity is God, and that he [sic] is one and equal with God the Father and God the Son, of one substance as well as of one nature. However, he [sic] is not begotten nor created, but he [sic] proceeds from both and is the Spirit of both. We believe that the Holy Spirit is neither unbegotten nor begotten: lest, if we say unbegotten we should be asserting two Fathers; and if we said begotten we should appear to be preaching two Sons. He is called the Spirit, not only of the Father nor only of the Son but equally of the Father and of the Son. He proceeds not from the Father into the Son nor from the Son to sanctify creatures; but he [sic] is shown to have proceeded from both equally, because he [sic] is known as the love or the sanctity of both" [bold mine]