Filioque - Distinguishing the Essence and Person of the Holy Spirit

[Vico]

Interesting. The Latins have just implemented many changes to their Liturgy in an attempt to turn back the clock to some traditional-minded translations. It would have been a perfect oppotunity to correct the creed…but they did not.

They would need to update the master document, the Latin Mass, to do that. It is only the English translation that was updated. ***Liturgiam authenticam: ***

§ 4. A translation of a Latin text into the vernacular for use in the Liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20010507_comunicato-stampa_en.html

Of course some of the eastern Catholic Churches have removed it to be true to the earlier liturgies.

 

[Vico]

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]

Yes,
CCC 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, [Cf. Leo I, Quam laudabiliter (447): DS 284.] 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.”
In that letter of 447 Pope St. Leo I, wrote a letter refuting the Arians, to Bishop St. Turibius of Astoga, using the phrase “and as though there were not one Who begat, another Who is begotten, another Who proceeds from both.”

 

[Mickey]

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.

You don’t say?

If we’re talking about translations,

But Ghosty says it is not a translation issue.

 

[Mickey]

OBJECTIVELY SPEAKING, the Latins have it right in ALL the Latin-derived languages, and the Orthodox have it — well — wrong.

LOL. That is not objectively speaking. That is a Latin apologist speaking subjectively and polemical.

 

[Mickey]

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

Most Westerners I know think that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

 

[Mickey]

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

The Son receives divinity by generation (gennesin), while the Spirit received it by procession (ekporeusis), which means that way of reception is not common to the Son and Spirit, and that is why they are distinct hypostaseis. You (and others) do not like to admit this, but you do not understand the Orthodox position correctly.

 

[Mickey]

ἐκπορεύσθαι concerns the procession (ἐκπορεύσθαι) of origin of the Holy Spirit as hypostasis from the Father alone; while προϊέναι refers to the Spirit’s progression (προϊέναι) through the Son as already existing eternally from the Father.

Now once these two distinct theological realities are firmly established it becomes clear why the Eastern Orthodox will only use the word προϊέναι, which refers to the Spirit’s temporal and eternal manifestation (φανέρωσις), but not His origin, when they speak about the co-essential communion that exists between the Son and Spirit (and the Father too of course).

Sadly the Latins do not distinguish between ἐκπορεύσθαι and προϊέναι because they translate these two distinct words (and realities) with the one word processio, thus creating a false equivalence between the Spirit’s procession (ἐκπορεύσθαι) of origin from the Father and His manifesting progression (προϊέναι) through the Son.

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

Round and round the circle goes. Where it stops, nobody knows. And Catholics and Orthodox wonder why I am taking my time in “finding God’s Church”.

How about this:

1. The Bishops of the Churches gather together.
2. Discuss the relevant theologies regarding what is being spoken of, and the orthodoxy of each.
3. Finally address the interpolation of the filioque into the Creed. Either it must be removed, or it does not need to be. Either way, someone is going to be offended, I’m sure.
4. These decisions are proclaimed to the laity, and the laity accept the decisions their Bishops have made.

Perhaps, then, life can move on.

Just my :twocents:

 

[Vico]

Btw, as an Oriental, I can accept the notion of “external activity” and “internal activity,” but I cannot comprehend the notion of “external being” and “internal being.”

Blessings,
Marduk

Those terms are used by Catholic theologians. Fr. Hardon Modern Catholic Dictionary explains external and internal and communication of uncreated grace.
Procession:
The origin of one from another. A procession is said to be external when the terminus of the procession goes outside the principle or source from which it proceeds. Thus creatures proceed by external procession from the triune God, their Primary Origin. An internal procession is immanent; the one proceeding remains united with the one from whom he or she proceeds. Thus the processions of the Son and the Holy Spirit are an immanent act of the Holy Trinity. An internal, divine procession signifies the origin of a divine person from another divine person (Son from the Father), or from other divine persons (the Holy Spirit from Father and Son) through the communication of numerically one and the same divine essence.
Uncreated Grace:
God himself, insofar as in his love he has predetermined gifts of grace. There are three forms of uncreated grace: the hypostatic union, the divine indwelling, and the beatific vision. In the first of these, God has communicated himself in the Incarnation of Christ’s humanity (the grace of union) so intimately that Jesus of Nazareth is a divine person. In the second and third communications, the souls of the justified on earth and of the glorified in heaven are elevated to a share in God’s own life. All three are created graces, considered as acts, since they all had a beginning in time. But the gift that is conferred on a creature in these acts is uncreated.

 

[Ghosty]

You don’t say?
But Ghosty says it is not a translation issue.

You haven’t been reading what I’ve written if you think I’ve said this. Mardukm has simply restated what I myself said in posts 85 and 86.
**
dcointin**: Properly understood that statement is perfectly orthodox, IMO.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

Round and round the circle goes. Where it stops, nobody knows. And Catholics and Orthodox wonder why I am taking my time in “finding God’s Church”.

How about this:

1. The Bishops of the Churches gather together.
2. Discuss the relevant theologies regarding what is being spoken of, and the orthodoxy of each.
3. Finally address the interpolation of the filioque into the Creed. Either it must be removed, or it does not need to be. Either way, someone is going to be offended, I’m sure.
4. These decisions are proclaimed to the laity, and the laity accept the decisions their Bishops have made.

Perhaps, then, life can move on.

Just my :twocents:

This happened at the Council of Florence; the people of the East refused to accept the decisions of the Orthodox bishops and Patriarch (for various reasons) and the Council was eventually repudiated when the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire was destroyed by the Ottoman Turks.

So we’ve been down the road you suggest before, and it only resulted in a hardening of positions and hearts.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

Round and round the circle goes. Where it stops, nobody knows.

Yes indeed.

Is it a translation issue?
Is it semantics?
Is it a theological difference?

The Latins spend an awful lot of time attempting to justify something that should never have been added. This thread resurfaces every few months…and the same tired circles spin round and round. :whacky:

One thing is certain…great strides could be made with the stroke of a pen. Are you listening, Rome?

 

[Vico]

Yes indeed.

Is it a translation issue?
Is it semantics?
Is it a theological difference?

The Latins spend an awful lot of time attempting to justify something that should never have been added. This thread resurfaces every few months…and the same tired circles spin round and round. :whacky:

One thing is certain…great strides could be made with the stroke of a pen. Are you listening, Rome?

We don’t use it at our Byzantine Catholic parish, it is not in our books even. Yet, it seems that the eastern Catholics are not considered any differently than the Latin by the Orthodox, even though not using the* filioque*. I would guess that one would have to shout it out that it is not a dogma of faith to make any real difference.

 

[Mickey]

This happened at the Council of Florence; the people of the East refused to accept the decisions of the Orthodox bishops and Patriarch (for various reasons) and the Council was eventually repudiated

And it was a time of deception and bribes…threats and desperation.

I suggest that anyone interested read The Great Synaxaristes of the Orthodox Church (St Mark Evgenikos p. 679).

Thank God for St Mark.

St Mark of Ephesus pray for us!

 

[mardukm]

LOL. That is not objectively speaking. That is a Latin apologist speaking subjectively and polemical.

You claim to understand that the Greek ekporeusai and the Latin procedit don’t mean exactly the same thing.

So why would you now claim that ekporeusai should be translated to a word directly derived from the Latin procedit - i.e. PROCEEDS.

If you claim to know the difference, then you should admit that the Orthodox (whether in or out of communion with Rome) are translating ekporeusai wrongly in the Latin-derived languages. They should NOT be using the word “proceeds” as an equivalence of the Greek ekporeusai.

You keep blaming the Latins for misunderstanding the original Creed via a mistranslation. But at least the Latins did not do it on purpose. But the Orthodox (whether in or out of communion with Rome) must also share the blame for perpetuating the misunderstanding by themselves mistranslating ekporeusai when going into countires that use Latin-derived languages.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

We don’t use it at our Byzantine Catholic parish, it is not in our books even.

I was Byzantine Catholic for eight years. I saw it in some of the older books. Sometimes it was in parenthesis. I was in one parish which included the filioque every week even though they were instructed to stop…they could not stop because it was habitual for them. The last BC parish I attended was very Orthodox.

Part of my journey to Holy Orthodoxy had to do with identity crisis in the Eastern Catholic Church.

Having said that, the Orthodox are well aware that the Eastern Catholics are very close to them.

 

[Marybeloved]

Yes indeed.

Is it a translation issue?
Is it semantics?
Is it a theological difference?

The Latins spend an awful lot of time attempting to justify something that should never have been added. This thread resurfaces every few months…and the same tired circles spin round and round. :whacky:

If this is true, then how come none of you has been able to disprove those explanations, either by Patristic writings or even reasoning? It seems you’re simply unable to show why or how it’s wrong, so you dwell on the use of Filioque in the Creed, as if that alone will solve anything. Just my observations.

 

[Mickey]

So why would you now claim that ekporeusai should be translated to a word directly derived from the Latin procedit - i.e. PROCEEDS.

To understand the Eastern position one must keep in mind the distinction that exists between the Greek words ekporeusis and proienai. The former word (ekporeusis, i.e., procession properly so-called), concerns the origin of the Holy Spirit as person, which comes only from the Father; while the latter word (proienai, i.e., progression or energetic movement), concerns the Holy Spirit’s temporal and eternal manifestation as grace, but not as person, which comes from the Father through the Son, and which is poured out in the Holy Spirit to the world as a gift of tri-personal communion between the Trinity and mankind.

Sadly, the Scholastics (and the Western Church in general after the time of St. Augustine) translated these two Greek words by a single Latin word procedere, which caused a false equivalence between these two distinct divine realities, i.e., the hypostatic origin of the Holy Spirit, and the manifestation of the common divine energy that flows out from the Father, through the Son, and in the Holy Spirit, as the eternal and uncreated light and glory of the Trinity.

Ultimately, from an Eastern Christian perspective, a hypostatic filioque, i.e., a theory of the filioque in which the Son is made a cause of the Spirit’s person, is heretical, because it either promotes the sin of ditheism or the heresy of Sabellianism Modalism. While, on the other hand, a per filium in relation to the manifestation (phanerosis) of the uncreated and eternal divine energy is acceptable because it is supported by both scripture and the teaching of the Greek Fathers.
phatmass.com/phorum/topic/94637-abscondita-in-deo/page__st__60

 

[Mickey]

If this is true, then how come none of you has been able to disprove those explanations, either by Patristic writings or even reasoning?

It is you who have to prove that the filioque should have been added to the Creed. The burden of proof is on **you. **I have never seen a convincing argument.

Ghosty and Marduk always swarm these threads with the same circular reasoning. And it is still unconvincing the 1000th time around.

 

[mardukm]

ἐκπορεύσθαι concerns the procession (ἐκπορεύσθαι) of origin of the Holy Spirit as hypostasis from the Father alone;
Latins would have no problem with that.

while προϊέναι refers to the Spirit’s progression (προϊέναι) through the Son as already existing eternally from the Father.

Well, the Orthodox do not distinguish between ἐκπορεύσθαι and προϊέναι either because they translate these two distinct words (and realities) with words directly derived from the Latin processio, thus PERPETUATING a false equivalence between the Spirit’s procession (ἐκπορεύσθαι) of origin from the Father and His manifesting progression (προϊέναι) through the Son.

Blessings,
Marduk