Filioque in plain english

[Nine_Two]

From catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/TheChurch/Articles/Filioque.aspx

'“For, the Greek term for “proceeds” (ekporeusis – “ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon”) was translated into Latin as “procedit” (“ex Patre procedentum”) – a term that, unlike the Greek, does not imply procession from a single source, principal, or cause.”

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as posted by another poster in another thread:

The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)”. The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: “The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”

As I said, I’ve never been able to understand how this isn’t the same as duel procession, but anyone is welcome to take a crack explaining it.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as posted by another poster in another thread:

.

In that Website it talks about all that

“mischaracterizations (read: misinterpretations) of the Western expressions presented.”

Scroll down to “A Western Contradiction?”

 

[Vico]

Why. The eastern church objected (other than the fact that the latin church added it outside a preschism ecumenical council)

There are a few reasons.

Firstly, the eastern theology is “negative” (apophatic) rather than “positive” (cataphatic). The eastern Fathers eliminated the pagan philosophical word uses to produce a Christological expression of the incomprehensible. The west expanded the theology based upon categories (from Aristotle) to make positive statements about God which are approximations of the incomprehensible.

Secondly, the expression by the Latin Church is based upon two sources: 1) the Gospel for the external procession (mission) and 2) the acceptance by the Church of consubstantial (basis for the internal processions).

Thirdly, Greek vs Latin word meanings obscured the understanding. Procedit (Latin) has a dual meaning. The Creed used in the west in Greek has never included “and from the Son”. A Greek speaking person may translate the Latin differently than what was intended.

The objection was detailed by Patriarch of Constantinople Photius in On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. There is too much detail here to do it justice with a summary, so you can read it here:

myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/photios_mystagogy.html

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains the basis of the internal processions is from consubstantial:

248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. 77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”, 78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”, 79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. 80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

77 Jn 15:26; cf. Ad Gentes 2.
78 Council of Florence (1439): DS 1302.
79 Council of Florence (1442): DS 1331.
80 Cf. Council of Lyons II (1274): DS 850.

 

[Nine_Two]

In that Website it talks about all that

Scroll down to “A Western Contradiction?”

A game of catch doesn’t have its origin in an individual, and the Holy Spirit doesn’t come into being from the actions of the two.

I remain unconvinced that this isn’t duel procession. I’ll admit I didn’t read that section in its entirety, I got bored, I found it played on the idea that its reader wants its thesis to be correct, and therefore its arguments not particularly moving. If there is a particular argument within that you find convincing when it comes to the “as one principle” idea, I’d love to hear it.

I would love to agree that the Holy Spirit is not an issue between us.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. 77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”, 78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”, 79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. 80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.
*

“This is the context in which the The Catechism of the Catholic Church is speaking when it asserts that the Spirit “has His nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principal and through one spiration”. That one Principal of the Spirit is the Father, and the Father alone. It is only in the collective sense of the Personal, consubstantial communion between Father and Son that the Spirit proceeds from both.
And, indeed, once one steps away from a narrow Byzantine perspective and realizes that the Roman tradition expresses and embraces two distinct but equally valid truths – i.e., both the Father as the sole Cause (Aition / Principium) of the Spirit’s procession (“ekporeusis”) and the consubstantial communion of Father and Son resulting in the procession of the Spirit in a collective sense (“proienai”), we can suddenly read the other Western expressions presented by Cyril Quattrone in their true and intended light. For, when the 4th Lateran Council declares that “…the Holy Spirit is from both the Father and the Son equally”, this does not mean, as Mr. Quattrone assumes, that “…the adverb ‘equally’ indicates that in whatever way He proceeds from the Father, in the same manner He proceeds from the Son.” Rather, it merely refers to the collective sense of procession from Father and Son (“proienai”) and does not deny or threaten the Father as the sole Cause of the procession (“ekporeusis”). Likewise, the 11th Council of Toledo (not to be confused with the 3rd Council of Toledo, which first proclaimed Filioque) in no sense declares, as Mr. Quattrone misinterprets it, that “…in whatever way the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, He also proceeds from the Son.” This is not what Toledo XI says at all. Rather, when it says that the Spirit “is called the Spirit, not only of the Father nor only of the Son, but equally of the Father and of the Son”, this is merely a reference to their Personal consubstantial communion – the collective context of procession. Likewise, when it declares that the Spirit “proceeds not from the Father into the Son nor from the Son to sanctify creatures; but He is shown to have proceeded from both equally, because He is known as the Love of the sanctity of both”, this is not a denial of the Father as the sole Cause (Aition / Principium) of the Spirit, but a denial of the Arian position that the Son is merely a temporal participant in the Spirit’s procession – that the Son merely receives the Spirit after the procession (from the Father) comes about, as opposed to this taking place in the context of an eternal communion between Father and Son. It is of course quite disturbing (from the Western perspective) that modern Eastern Orthodox (i.e., Photian) theology comes very close to advocating this same Arian view by refusing to incorporate the Son’s participation in the Spirit’s eternal procession in any way.”

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother (sister?) GrkCath86,

So at the end of the day, the Spirit has as its source the Father. Both latin Catholics and orthodox can agree.

This is true, despite the apprehensions of our Orthodox brethren not in communion with Rome.

Here it is in plain English:

When the Latins say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, THEY mean that the OUSIA of the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (and ALL patristic sources, Greek and Latin, teach this).

When the Greeks say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, THEY mean that the HYPOSTASIS of the Spirit originates from the Father (and ALL patristic sources, Greek and Latin. teach this).

The problem is that Greeks do not understand the Latin saying according to how Latins understand it (a kind of reverse uniatism).

There are certain Eastern apologists who claim there are two problems with the statement that the OUSIA of the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
(1) It subordinates the Spirit to the Father and the Son;

(2) It deprives the Father of his arche.

Eastern polemicists will also claim that the Latins are heretics because of the above. But the complaints against the Latin teaching are unfounded for the following reasons:
(1) As far as the communication of ousia, it is impossible to say in an orthodox sense that the Holy Spirit is subordinated to the Father and Son because the Essence is communicated from them both as from on principle. If the Holy Spirit is subordinated (according to these Eastern polemicists) because the Essence is communicated from the Father and Son to the Holy Spirit, then that means they agree that the Son is subordinated to the Father because the Essence is communicated from the Father to the Son. In short, the Eastern polemicists are simply using the same arguments that the Arians and Pneumatomachi were using to deny the full divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit. I pray you do not give in to that hogwash.

(2) The Latins unequivocally teach that the Father is the Souce of both Son and Holy Spirit. Latins distinguish between the language of “cause” and the language of “source” as is evident even in the Decree of Florence on filioque. While the Father is cause and the Son is cause as One Principle of the Holy Spirit, the Latins teach that the Father alone is SOURCE of Son and Holy Spirit. So for Easterns to claim that the Latins are calling the Son “the Source” or “a Source” of the Holy Spirit just because they call Him “cause” of the Holy Spirit is unfounded and illogical.

To help you understand the distinction between “cause” and “source,” permit me to use an analogy that St. John Damascene used:
Imagine a first torch passing on its flame to a second torch, which thence passes on its flame to a third torch. BOTH the first and second torches are CAUSES of the flame of the third torch. HOWEVER, there is only ONE SOURCE of the flame, which is the first torch.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. 77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”, 78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”, 79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. 80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.
*

“This is the context in which the The Catechism of the Catholic Church is speaking when it asserts that the Spirit “has His nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principal and through one spiration”. That one Principal of the Spirit is the Father, and the Father alone. It is only in the collective sense of the Personal, consubstantial communion between Father and Son that the Spirit proceeds from both.
And, indeed, once one steps away from a narrow Byzantine perspective and realizes that the Roman tradition expresses and embraces two distinct but equally valid truths – i.e., both the Father as the sole Cause (Aition / Principium) of the Spirit’s procession (“ekporeusis”) and the consubstantial communion of Father and Son resulting in the procession of the Spirit in a collective sense (“proienai”), we can suddenly read the other Western expressions presented by Cyril Quattrone in their true and intended light. For, when the 4th Lateran Council declares that “…the Holy Spirit is from both the Father and the Son equally”, this does not mean, as Mr. Quattrone assumes, that “…the adverb ‘equally’ indicates that in whatever way He proceeds from the Father, in the same manner He proceeds from the Son.” Rather, it merely refers to the collective sense of procession from Father and Son (“proienai”) and does not deny or threaten the Father as the sole Cause of the procession (“ekporeusis”). Likewise, the 11th Council of Toledo (not to be confused with the 3rd Council of Toledo, which first proclaimed Filioque) in no sense declares, as Mr. Quattrone misinterprets it, that “…in whatever way the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, He also proceeds from the Son.” This is not what Toledo XI says at all. Rather, when it says that the Spirit “is called the Spirit, not only of the Father nor only of the Son, but equally of the Father and of the Son”, this is merely a reference to their Personal consubstantial communion – the collective context of procession. Likewise, when it declares that the Spirit “proceeds not from the Father into the Son nor from the Son to sanctify creatures; but He is shown to have proceeded from both equally, because He is known as the Love of the sanctity of both”, this is not a denial of the Father as the sole Cause (Aition / Principium) of the Spirit, but a denial of the Arian position that the Son is merely a temporal participant in the Spirit’s procession – that the Son merely receives the Spirit after the procession (from the Father) comes about, as opposed to this taking place in the context of an eternal communion between Father and Son. It is of course quite disturbing (from the Western perspective) that modern Eastern Orthodox (i.e., Photian) theology comes very close to advocating this same Arian view by refusing to incorporate the Son’s participation in the Spirit’s eternal procession in any way.”

Am I to understand then that the Father and the Son exist as a biune god within the greater Trinity?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine_Two

Am I to understand then that the Father and the Son exist as a biune god within the greater Trinity?

That sounds suspiciously like the argument that the Pneumatomachi used against the divinity of the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church did not listen to it back then. There’s no reason for the Catholic Church to listen to it now.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

Dear brother Nine_Two

That sounds suspiciously like the argument that the Pneumatomachi used against the divinity of the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church did not listen to it back then. There’s no reason for the Catholic Church to listen to it now.

Blessings,
Marduk

Speaking of polemics…

I am not denying the divinity of either the Son or the Holy Spirit, and you know that quite well. If you have to make such accusations to get out of giving an answer, that’s fine. But its rather hypocritical of you to accuse others of polemics.

If you can show how the divinity of those two entities depends on an RC understanding, then you’ll have won. Moreover you’ll have won without playing dirty. So can we have a nice clean discussion without ad hominems and accusations?

 

[mardukm]

Speaking of polemics…

I am not denying the divinity of either the Son or the Holy Spirit, and you know that quite well. If you have to make such accusations to get out of giving an answer, that’s fine.

And neither are the Latins denying the full divinity and equality of the Holy Spirit, so I don’t know why you think your rhetoric has any value.

But its rather hypocritical of you to accuse others of polemics.

Why is it polemics for me to help you recognize that your rhetoric is similar to the rhetoric of the Pneumatomachi. Can you answer that, or is this just an emotional reaction from you? Stop being so sensitive and look at it logically.

Blessings.
Marduk

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Am I to understand then that the Father and the Son exist as a biune god within the greater Trinity?

I dont know how to answer that Nine2…

i just was posting that websites replies to your questions,and you take it from there,
there is no way i could explain those things in my own words

I believe the Latin “procedit” is different to the greek as they mention etc and doesnt solely refer to the sole procession of the Father

and all those quotes like from the CC must be understood from the collective sense instead of the greek version

The Greek Fathers seemed to use “through the son”

whats the difference if i say “i came in the front door of the house and then “through” the dining room to the back”

or

“I came in the front door of the house “and” the dining room to the back”

What if i held a mirror outside and reflected the sunshine off the mirror onto you

you could say the light is shining at me from the Sun through the mirror
or from the sun and the mirror

 

[Cavaradossi]

Dear brother (sister?) GrkCath86,

This is true, despite the apprehensions of our Orthodox brethren not in communion with Rome.

Here it is in plain English:

When the Latins say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, THEY mean that the OUSIA of the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (and ALL patristic sources, Greek and Latin, teach this).

When the Greeks say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, THEY mean that the HYPOSTASIS of the Spirit originates from the Father (and ALL patristic sources, Greek and Latin. teach this).

The problem is that Greeks do not understand the Latin saying according to how Latins understand it (a kind of reverse uniatism).

There are certain Eastern apologists who claim there are two problems with the statement that the OUSIA of the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
(1) It subordinates the Spirit to the Father and the Son;

(2) It deprives the Father of his arche.

Eastern polemicists will also claim that the Latins are heretics because of the above. But the complaints against the Latin teaching are unfounded for the following reasons:
(1) As far as the communication of ousia, it is impossible to say in an orthodox sense that the Holy Spirit is subordinated to the Father and Son because the Essence is communicated from them both as from on principle. If the Holy Spirit is subordinated (according to these Eastern polemicists) because the Essence is communicated from the Father and Son to the Holy Spirit, then that means they agree that the Son is subordinated to the Father because the Essence is communicated from the Father to the Son. In short, the Eastern polemicists are simply using the same arguments that the Arians and Pneumatomachi were using to deny the full divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit. I pray you do not give in to that hogwash.

(2) The Latins unequivocally teach that the Father is the Souce of both Son and Holy Spirit. Latins distinguish between the language of “cause” and the language of “source” as is evident even in the Decree of Florence on filioque. While the Father is cause and the Son is cause as One Principle of the Holy Spirit, the Latins teach that the Father alone is SOURCE of Son and Holy Spirit. So for Easterns to claim that the Latins are calling the Son “the Source” or “a Source” of the Holy Spirit just because they call Him “cause” of the Holy Spirit is unfounded and illogical.

To help you understand the distinction between “cause” and “source,” permit me to use an analogy that St. John Damascene used:
Imagine a first torch passing on its flame to a second torch, which thence passes on its flame to a third torch. BOTH the first and second torches are CAUSES of the flame of the third torch. HOWEVER, there is only ONE SOURCE of the flame, which is the first torch.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

For someone who decries the supposed Eastern Orthodox “misrepresentation” of Latin teachings, you sure do return the favor manifold. Have you actually read Photius’ argument against the filioque, or are you just repeating the arguments of others?

 

[mardukm]

For someone who decries the supposed Eastern Orthodox “misrepresentation” of Latin teachings, you sure do return the favor manifold. Have you actually read Photius’ argument against the filioque, or are you just repeating the arguments of others?

How so? I have not put down the Orthodox teaching on the Procession. All I’ve done is attack the Eastern Orthodox POLEMIC against the Latin teaching. Go ahead and teach what you teach about the Procession. But the minute anyone in your camp tries to use nonsense to try to put down the Latin teaching, someone will point it out for the nonsense that it is.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

How so? I have not put down the Orthodox teaching on the Procession. All I’ve done is attack the Eastern Orthodox POLEMIC against the Latin teaching. Go ahead and teach what you teach about the Procession. But the minute anyone in your camp tries to use nonsense to try to put down the Latin teaching, someone will point it out for the nonsense that it is.

Blessings,
Marduk

I have seen that polemic against Photius’ Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit before. My question is if you have actually read that work, or if you are repeating a Latin polemic against Photius.

 

[Nine_Two]

How so? I have not put down the Orthodox teaching on the Procession. All I’ve done is attack the Eastern Orthodox POLEMIC against the Latin teaching. Go ahead and teach what you teach about the Procession. But the minute anyone in your camp tries to use nonsense to try to put down the Latin teaching, someone will point it out for the nonsense that it is.

Blessings,
Marduk

You’ve attacked the “Eastern Orthodox POLEMIC” by implying we are heretics for questioning how it works (which, if I remember my rhetoric classes correctly, is the very definition of a polemic).

You’ve made it quite clear that you believe anyone who does not accept the Latin explanation is a heretic, so yes, you have in fact put down the Orthodox teaching.

 

[Art321]

You’ve attacked the “Eastern Orthodox POLEMIC” by implying we are heretics for questioning how it works (which, if I remember my rhetoric classes correctly, is the very definition of a polemic).

You’ve made it quite clear that you believe anyone who does not accept the Latin explanation is a heretic, so yes, you have in fact put down the Orthodox teaching.

Well, I haven’t read the entire thread so I can’t really say anything except this. The Latin teaching on the filioque is certainly different from the Orthodox teaching but it certainly is not heresy. Neither is that of the Orthodox teaching. They are both different but in a really good way. I suppose it is just what we view things differently and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Nine_Two]

And neither are the Latins denying the full divinity and equality of the Holy Spirit, so I don’t know why you think your rhetoric has any value.

That was not an accusation I made against them.

Why is it polemics for me to help you recognize that your rhetoric is similar to the rhetoric of the Pneumatomachi. Can you answer that, or is this just an emotional reaction from you? Stop being so sensitive and look at it logically.

Blessings.
Marduk

How is it polemics to imply that someone is on par with Pneumatomachi? Hmmm, Can I answer that? Hmmm, do you know what polemics means? Do you even know what rhetoric is?

There is a story from the Sayings of the Desert Fathers (I assume you are familiar with that work) in which one of the fathers is met by three others who insult and demean him. The Father laughs it off, agrees with them, no matter what the charge, finally one of the three calls the Father a heretic. The Father stops laughing, looks at the young man, and says “I am not a heretic.”
The men ask the Father why he was able to take all the insults against him so well, but took being called a heretic so seriously, and the Father replied “Because when you insult me you hurt my pride, and that is good. But when you call me a heretic you call into question my relation with God.”

Bottom line, it is beyond uncivilized to imply that someone is a heretic.

I wish you’d take your own advice and think logically for once. It gets old reading your mental gymnastics over how the Pope is supreme but really not, and how we Eastern Orthodox are evil.

And for the record, that last bit is a polemic. The first one I’ve written in this thread.

 

[mardukm]

You’ve attacked the “Eastern Orthodox POLEMIC” by implying we are heretics for questioning how it works (which, if I remember my rhetoric classes correctly, is the very definition of a polemic).

You’ve made it quite clear that you believe anyone who does not accept the Latin explanation is a heretic, so yes, you have in fact put down the Orthodox teaching.

Oh, so YOUR statements are just “questionings.”

MY statements are outright accusations of heresy. Gotcha.

Can you distinguish between what the Orthodox positively teach about the Procession from what your polemicists accuse the Latins of?

If I’ve made any accusations of heresy against what the Eastern Orthodox positively teach about the Procession, please point it out. Otherwise, your comments are just a bunch of emotional overreactions.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

Well, I haven’t read the entire thread so I can’t really say anything except this. The Latin teaching on the filioque is certainly different from the Orthodox teaching but it certainly is not heresy. Neither is that of the Orthodox teaching. They are both different but in a really good way. I suppose it is just what we view things differently and there is nothing wrong with that.

I hope so, it seems some Orthodox scholars have been convinced of this. I just can’t get how setting aside the Father and The Son together within the Godhead isn’t itself creating another sub-godhead. It would be nice if someone could answer that rather than just tell me the question is off limits because some heretics asked it once.

I do hope for Communion between our churches some day, and the less that has to be rectified, the better we’ll be.

 

[Jacob50]

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.

Well my comment to you is that I have never understood why some (if not all) Orthodox say we are heretics when the bible and tradition both point out that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also.

John 15:26
“When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.

Go to this link which is of this site and you can read about the filioque:
catholic.com/tracts/filioque

It offers a breaf info about what filioque is etc etc. Also offers patristic quotes such as:

“[The one] from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term ‘principally’ because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son” (The Trinity, 15:17:29[A.D. 408]).

“Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him” (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).

-Augustine

“Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources” (The Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 357]).

-Hilary of Poitiers