Filioque in plain english

  • Thread starter Thread starter GrkCath86
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GrkCath86

Guest
Hola people, new to the forum lol.

Uh anyways, one thing I can’t really under stand is the filoque . so I was wndering if sumone can explain it IN PLAIN ENGLISH like without any theological words and stuf. I guess I needa dumbed down version of it haha.
 
GrkCath86 said:
Hola people, new to the forum lol.

Uh anyways, one thing I can’t really under stand is the filoque . so I was wndering if sumone can explain it IN PLAIN ENGLISH like without any theological words and stuf. I guess I needa dumbed down version of it haha.
Click to expand...
its the “And the son” part of the nicene creed. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed)

Eastern Christians don’t use it because they believe it to be an act of heresy(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy)
 
I already knew that.lol.

Well why is it heresy?

What is meant by proceeds?

I read dat it was put there to refute arianism, ok in what way?

Details pls :]
 
GrkCath86 said:
I already knew that.lol.

Well why is it heresy?

What is meant by proceeds?

I read dat it was put there to refute arianism, ok in what way?

Details pls :]
Click to expand...
If you already knew that, why did you ask? lol omg>ponies! 😃
 
GrkCath86 said:
Hola people, new to the forum lol.

Uh anyways, one thing I can’t really under stand is the filoque . so I was wndering if sumone can explain it IN PLAIN ENGLISH like without any theological words and stuf. I guess I needa dumbed down version of it haha.
Click to expand...
filioque = “and the Son” used in “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.”

Catechism of the Catholic Church 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.”
Pope St. Leo I, in Quam laudabiliter (447 A.D.) wrote:
  1. In the first chapter it is shown how impiously they believe in a divine Trinity which they claim to be one and the same person of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as though the same God is now named ‘Father’, now ‘Son’, now ‘Holy Spirit’. And (they assert) that there is not one who begot and another who is begotten, and another who proceeded from both, and that a singular unity should be accepted in the three names but not in three persons.
laportelatine.org/bibliotheque/encycliques/LeonI/Quam_Laudabiliter.php

books.google.com/books?id=Xzjvg-zfJJgC&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=to+Turibius,+Bishop+of+Astorga&source=bl&ots=3fF_84E9je&sig=jQeNoVPqzFHD4RDgmG1KYu3hmgw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=B1Q4T9aTOoe4tweZnIXCAg&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=to%20Turibius%2C%20Bishop%20of%20Astorga&f=false
 
The Orthodox say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

Catholics say the procession is from the Father AND the Son.

Exactly what that means, I can only guess. Proceed? To go ahead, go forth. Like, They send the HS to us? Just a guess.
 
THE_ENCORE said:
Eastern Christians don’t use it because they believe it to be an act of heresy(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy)
Click to expand...
I think it is better to say that Eastern Christians (which includes Eastern Catholics) do not use it as it was not the language agreed in ecumenical council for the Creed. Hence modifications adopted outside of an ecumenical forum are not appropriate.

As Eastern Catholics recite the unaltered Creed while being in full communion with Rome, to refer to such as heresy would be to suggest that Rome is condoning heresy within its own ranks.
 
GrkCath86 said:
What is meant by “proceeds”
Click to expand...
proceeds: “to come forth from a source” which is the English translation of procédit in the Latin expression used in the Creed: Qui ex Patre Filióque procédit.

From Fr. Hardon Modern Catholic Dictionary:

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.

therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl
 
Vico said:
proceeds: “to come forth from a source” which is the English translation of procédit in the Latin expression used in the Creed: Qui ex Patre Filióque procédit.

From Fr. Hardon Modern Catholic Dictionary:

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.

therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl
Click to expand...
Thank yu! That clears up that up for me lol. But what exactly is implicated by the difference “from the Father” and “from the Father and the Son”??
 
GrkCath86 said:
Thank yu! That clears up that up for me lol. But what exactly is implicated by the difference “from the Father” and “from the Father and the Son”??
Click to expand...
Are you interested in why the Latin Church added it to the Latin Creed or in why the eastern Church has objected to the addition?
 
Why. The eastern church objected (other than the fact that the latin church added it outside a preschism ecumenical council)
 
GrkCath86 said:
Why. The eastern church objected (other than the fact that the latin church added it outside a preschism ecumenical council)
Click to expand...
Because it makes it sound like both the father and the son are a duel source of origin (particularly in Greek). This is heresy. The Holy Spirit originates with the father and is sent through the son.
 
So at the end of the day, the Spirit has as its source the Father. Both latin Catholics and orthodox can agree.
 
GrkCath86 said:
So at the end of the day, the Spirit has as its source the Father. Both latin Catholics and orthodox can agree.
Click to expand...
Not quite. The Latins hold the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as one principle. I, and many Orthodox, have major issues with such language.
 
Ok now I’m lost again lol. What does “from one principle” mean. So far from what I’ve read and understand I’m by the orthodox pov. Why change a creed? Bt I’ve read there’s some polital motives behind the change.
 
Good question.

Every time someone has tried to explain it to me it comes out sounding like duel procession (the origin is both the father and the son).
Maybe someone on here can explain it in a way which doesn’t confuse, but I’m not the one to do it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top