Filioque in plain english

[Art321]

:slapfight:

There seems to be a bit of fight going on here. Come on guys. Calm down. I’m sure we can all have a civil conversation about all of this without having it to get ulgy in here.

 

[mardukm]

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

And you claiming that the Latin teaching makes a “Biune God” is not “implying heresy.” Oh please. My statement is not anymore an accusation of heresy than yours is.

Like I said, you are reacting emotionally instead of logically. If you want to debate or discuss, try to think logically, and leave your emotions out of it.

The logical response would be to show why your argument is not similar to the Pneumatomachian logic. Try doing that. It will make the conversations go more smoothly,

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Art321]

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.

I’m sure someone better than me will come along to explain it. I’m learning all of this myself. So let’s continue with the conversation without the need to kill each other.

I also hope our Churches can come together one day. But in the end, it will be in God’s time.

 

[Cavaradossi]

And you claiming that the Latin teaching makes a “Biune God” is not “implying heresy.” Oh please. My statement is not anymore an accusation of heresy than yours is.

Like I said, you are reacting emotionally instead of logically. If you want to debate or discuss, try to think logically, and leave your emotions out of it.

The logical response would be to show why your argument is not similar to the Pneumatomachian logic. Try doing that. It will make the conversations go more smoothly,

Blessings,
Marduk

Only once you show us how it is similar to Pneumatomachian logic, then we can talk about refuting your assertion. You made the assertion, now back it up with some facts.

 

[mardukm]

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.

The Pneumatomachi were claiming the Spirit was subordinated to the Father and the Son because the early Fathers all taught exactly what the Catholic Church teaches today - that the OUSIA of the Holy Spirit is from the Father and Son.

The Pneumatomachi interpreted these statements to mean either that the Father and Son created the Holy Spirit, or that the Son created the Holy Spirit, or that the Essence is not a CONSUBSTANTIAL (i.e. from Eternity) characteristic of the Holy Spirit — in other words, exactly the same polemic that certain EO use against the Latin filioque.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

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

The question mark indicates a question mark. The “I’m not going to answer that because heretics asked that” is an implication of heresy.

What the Orthodox Church teaches has nothing to do with my question. Meanwhile your accusing others of polemics while you merrily engage in them yourself helps nothing. I asked an honest question. I know you like to believe everyone who doesn’t view the world as you do is out to discredit you at any cost - you started a thread on it - but it isn’t true.

I didn’t say you accused the Eastern Orthodox teachings of being heretical, I said you strongly implied ME of being a heretic. If my reactions are emotional it is only because I’m apparently dealing with an emotional individual. You can’t answer anything I say in a straight on fashion.

I asked a simple question, an honest question, and you go off on a soliloquy on Orthodox polemicists trying to misinterpret Latin teachings (gee, that wasn’t aimed).

But perhaps you’re right, perhaps I am getting too emotional in this. I’d probably be better off without your polemics about evil Orthodox polemicists, or your theories on Petrine Authority. Time to put the ignore list to good use.

Peace/

 

[mardukm]

Only once you show us how it is similar to Pneumatomachian logic, then we can talk about refuting your assertion. You made the assertion, now back it up with some facts.

Sorry. I was not aware you did not have knowledge of the Pneumatomachi. The Pneumatomachi taught that the Holy Spirit was subordinated to the Father and Son as a creature, and they used the orthodox sayings of the Fathers to support their position. They had the same misinterpretation of the patristic sayings that EO polemicists have of the Latin teaching on filioque.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

The question mark indicates a question mark. The “I’m not going to answer that because heretics asked that” is an implication of heresy.

What the Orthodox Church teaches has nothing to do with my question. Meanwhile your accusing others of polemics while you merrily engage in them yourself helps nothing. I asked an honest question. I know you like to believe everyone who doesn’t view the world as you do is out to discredit you at any cost - you started a thread on it - but it isn’t true.

I didn’t say you accused the Eastern Orthodox teachings of being heretical, I said you strongly implied ME of being a heretic. If my reactions are emotional it is only because I’m apparently dealing with an emotional individual. You can’t answer anything I say in a straight on fashion.

I asked a simple question, an honest question, and you go off on a soliloquy on Orthodox polemicists trying to misinterpret Latin teachings (gee, that wasn’t aimed).

But perhaps you’re right, perhaps I am getting too emotional in this. I’d probably be better off without your polemics about evil Orthodox polemicists, or your theories on Petrine Authority. Time to put the ignore list to good use.

Peace/

Well, no I didn’t imply that you were being a heretic. That is your emotional overreaction to a logical response.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Pneumatomachi were claiming the Spirit was subordinated to the Father and the Son because the early Fathers all taught exactly what the Catholic Church teaches today - that the OUSIA of the Holy Spirit is from the Father and Son.

The Pneumatomachi interpreted these statements to mean either that the Father and Son created the Holy Spirit, or that the Son created the Holy Spirit, or that the Essence is not a CONSUBSTANTIAL (i.e. from Eternity) characteristic of the Holy Spirit — in other words, exactly the same polemic that certain EO use against the Latin filioque.

Blessings,
Marduk

That’s not the same as the argument against the Filioque. The Problem is that the Holy Spirit having its subsistent existence (as per the council of Florence’s definition) from the Father and the Son as one principle means that the procession of the Spirit comes from an impersonal principle of a Father-Son dyad. Because hypostatic properties are unique to a particular hypostasis (for example, causality, being begotten and being projected are three unique hypostatic properties which can only be associated with one hypostasis), while things which are in common are ascribed to essence (and thus common between all three), this prescription of the property of causality to the Father and the Son as an impersonal principle implies that they share in some common trait (this joint causality) that the Holy Spirit does not have. This is unmistakably saying that the Father and the Son share in an essence which is like, but not identical to the essence of the Holy Spirit, and hence we have subordinationism. It has nothing to do with how the essence proceeds and everything to do with how the Holy Spirit has its subsistent existence.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Sorry. I was not aware you did not have knowledge of the Pneumatomachi. The Pneumatomachi taught that the Holy Spirit was subordinated to the Father and Son as a creature, and they used the orthodox sayings of the Fathers to support their position. They had the same misinterpretation of the patristic sayings that EO polemicists have of the Latin teaching on filioque.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thanks. I knew what they taught, I just was not aware how they formed their argument.

 

[mardukm]

Thanks for the concise explanation.

That’s not the same as the argument against the Filioque. The Problem is that the Holy Spirit having its subsistent existence (as per the council of Florence’s definition) from the Father and the Son as one principle means that the procession of the Spirit comes from an impersonal principle of a Father-Son dyad. Because hypostatic properties are unique to a particular hypostasis (for example, causality, being begotten and being projected are three unique hypostatic properties which can only be associated with one hypostasis), while things which are in common are ascribed to essence (and thus common between all three), this prescription of the property of causality to the Father and the Son as an impersonal principle implies that they share in some common trait (this joint causality) that the Holy Spirit does not have.

The statement “as one principle” is not meant by the Latins to say that the Spirit comes from an impersonal principle. “As one principle” means that the principle cause of the Holy Spirit’s ESSENCE/NATURE/SUBSTANCE is the Father ALONE and communicates it to the Spirit from the Son. The Latin teaching is a bulwark against the idea that the Son imparts something to the Spirit that is not from the Father (Who is the ONE SOURCE, arche or principle without principle of the Godhead) or that PART of the Spirit is from the Son, and PART of the Spirit is from the Father. THAT is the Latin meaning of “as one principle.” It has nothing to do with the idea of an “impersonal” principle.

Has this explanation assuaged you, or do you have other questions?

This is unmistakably saying that the Father and the Son share in an essence which is like, but not identical to the essence of the Holy Spirit, and hence we have subordinationism. It has nothing to do with how the essence proceeds and everything to do with how the Holy Spirit has its subsistent existence.

And this was EXACTLY the logic of the Pneumatomachi. However, in response to these ponderings by the Pneumatomachi, the Fathers pointed out that in the same way that the Essence is shared from the Father through the Son to the Holy Spirit, the Essence is shared from the Father to the Son. The Pneumatomachi for the most part believed in the full divinity of the Son, so it was hypocritical for them to use a logic to deny the full divinity of the Holy Spirit, when that same logic can be used to deny the full divinity of the Son.

Does that help?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

Thanks for the concise explanation.

The statement “as one principle” is not meant by the Latins to say that the Spirit comes from an impersonal principle. “As one principle” means that the principle cause of the Holy Spirit’s ESSENCE/NATURE/SUBSTANCE is the Father ALONE and communicates it to the Spirit from the Son. The Latin teaching is a bulwark against the idea that the Son imparts something to the Spirit that is not from the Father as SOURCE, or that PART of the Spirit is from the Son, and PART of the Spirit is from the Father. THAT is the Latin meaning of “as one principle.” It has nothing to do with the idea of an “impersonal” principle.

Has this explanation assuaged you, or do you have other questions?

I don’t see how this interpretation of as one principle is in line with the teaching of Florence:

when Holy Doctors and Fathers say that the Holy Spirit proceeds ἐκπορεύεσθαι] from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause αἰτίαν], and according to the Latins as principle άρχήν] of the subsistence ύπἁρξεως] of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father.

Notice that they argue for the equivalence of the Latin concept of principle with the Greek concept of cause. This is problematic. It confesses then that the Son causes the existence of the Holy Spirit. This is a particularly grave error, as it would imply, again that the Son and Father share this property of causing the existence of the Holy Spirit. Now because of this, we must admit one of three things: Because all things that are shared between two persons of the trinity are said to be properties of all three persons (that is, they are essential properties), while properties of only one person are said to be hypostatic properties, the property of causing the existence of the Holy Spirit must also be common to the Holy Spirit, in which case it participates in its own spiration, an abusrdity; or that the Holy Spirit does not participate in its own spiration, and thus must not possess the property of causality, meaning that either the Spirit is not one in essence with the Father and the Son, because the Father and Son share in some property that the Spirit does not, or that the Father and the Son are non-subsistent subdivisions within a greater hypostasis which bears the hypostatic property of spiration, fusing the Father and the Son in some Sabellian manner.

Again, this has nothing to do with the origin of the essence, this simply has to do with the origin of the mode of existence of the Spirit, which the Latins argue comes from the Father and the Son.

And this was EXACTLY the logic of the Pneumatomachi. However, in response to these ponderings by the Pneumatomachi, the Fathers pointed out that in the same way that the Essence is shared from the Father through the Son to the Holy Spirit, the Essence is shared from the Father to the Son. The Pneumatomachi for the most part believed in the full divinity of the Son, so it was hypocritical for them to use a logic to deny the full divinity of the Holy Spirit, when that same logic can be used to deny the full divinity of the Son.

Does that help?

Blessings,
Marduk

Again, I’m not seeing the similarity. Your argument is that the Pneumatomachians argued that because the essence proceeds from the Father and the Son to the Holy Spirit, it therefore must be subordinate. The Eastern argument only regards the origin of the existence of the Spirit as an hypostasis to be important, and this can only be from the Father alone, in direct contradiction to what was taught at Florence.

 

[mardukm]

I don’t see how this interpretation of as one principle is in line with the teaching of Florence:

Notice that they argue for the equivalence of the Latin concept of principle with the Greek concept of cause. This is problematic. It confesses then that the Son causes the existence of the Holy Spirit. This is a particularly grave error, as it would imply, again that the Son and Father share this property of causing the existence of the Holy Spirit. Now because of this, we must admit one of three things: Because all things that are shared between two persons of the trinity are said to be properties of all three persons (that is, they are essential properties), while properties of only one person are said to be hypostatic properties, the property of causing the existence of the Holy Spirit must also be common to the Holy Spirit, in which case it participates in its own spiration, an abusrdity; or that the Holy Spirit does not participate in its own spiration, and thus must not possess the property of causality, meaning that either the Spirit is not one in essence with the Father and the Son, because the Father and Son share in some property that the Spirit does not, or that the Father and the Son are non-subsistent subdivisions within a greater hypostasis which bears the hypostatic property of spiration, fusing the Father and the Son in some Sabellian manner.

Again, this has nothing to do with the origin of the essence, this simply has to do with the origin of the mode of existence of the Spirit, which the Latins argue comes from the Father and the Son.

See, that’s the crux of the problem. YOU don’t think it refers to the ESSENCE, but to the LATINS, it DOES refer to the Essence. The “mode of existence” refers to the fact of divinity. The Holy Spirit receives His divine nature/essence/substance - the thing that makes Him God - from the Son, granting that the one Source is the Father. All the Fathers teach that, and that is all the Latins are saying. The Latins are not referring to the hypostasis.

Again, I’m not seeing the similarity. Your argument is that the Pneumatomachians argued that because the essence proceeds from the Father and the Son to the Holy Spirit, it therefore must be subordinate. The Eastern argument only regards the origin of the existence of the Spirit as an hypostasis to be important, and this can only be from the Father alone, in direct contradiction to what was taught at Florence.

Again, here you validate the crux of the problem. YOU think Florence is speaking of the Hypostasis, but it is not - its statements are referring to the OUSIA.

Try this - re-evaluate your statements with the ousia in mind, and not the hypostasis, and see if you get the same conclusions.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I don’t see how this interpretation of as one principle is in line with the teaching of Florence:

Btw, you have not replied to my response about your claim that the Latin teaching refers to an “impersonal principle.” You respond by referring to the question of the Son being a PERSONAL cause of the Holy Spirit’s hypostasis. Not only does it not address the first point (about “impersonal principle”), but it imposes a meaning on the Latin teaching that it does not intend (i.e., YOU keep saying it refers to the hypostasis, while the Latins keep saying it refers to the ousia).

My question right now is: Do you see that the EO accusation that the Latins teach an “impersonal principle” is invalid?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Btw, I hope some EO gives a reasonable response to my last two posts. I don’t want this discussion to end like so many other discussions with EO in the past - i.e., when the tough questions are asked, the EO just remain silent, yet they will repeat the same accusations against Latins over and over.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

See, that’s the crux of the problem. YOU don’t think it refers to the ESSENCE, but to the LATINS, it DOES refer to the Essence. The “mode of existence” refers to the fact of divinity. The Holy Spirit receives His divine nature/essence/substance - the thing that makes Him God - from the Son, granting that the one Source is the Father. All the Fathers teach that, and that is all the Latins are saying. The Latins are not referring to the hypostasis.

Again, here you validate the crux of the problem. YOU think Florence is speaking of the Hypostasis, but it is not - its statements are referring to the OUSIA.

Try this - re-evaluate your statements with the ousia in mind, and not the hypostasis, and see if you get the same conclusions.

Blessings,
Marduk

Can you provide a source for the idea that hyparxeos is equivalent to ousia? I have never seen anything which corroborates that. If you cannot, then you are speculating at best. I am under the impression that hyparxeos was always associated with the existence of an hypostasis, likewise with the equivalent term used in Florence, subsistence.

 

[mardukm]

Can you provide a source for the idea that hyparxeos is equivalent to ousia? I have never seen anything which corroborates that. If you cannot, then you are speculating at best. I am under the impression that hyparxeos was always associated with the existence of an hypostasis, likewise with the equivalent term used in Florence, subsistence.

I can give you the definitions of hyparxeos and hypostasis from my ancient Greek dictionary.

hyparxeos - that which one has; property; possession.

hypostasis - substantial nature; actual being.

So when Florence spoke of hyparxeos, it was referring to that which the Holy Spirit possesses - i.e., his divine nature/substance/essence - and was not referring to His hypostasis.

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

Btw, you have not replied to my response about your claim that the Latin teaching refers to an “impersonal principle.” You respond by referring to the question of the Son being a PERSONAL cause of the Holy Spirit’s hypostasis. Not only does it not address the first point (about “impersonal principle”), but it imposes a meaning on the Latin teaching that it does not intend (i.e., YOU keep saying it refers to the hypostasis, while the Latins keep saying it refers to the ousia).

My question right now is: Do you see that the EO accusation that the Latins teach an “impersonal principle” is invalid?

Blessings,
Marduk

Therein lies the problem. If we confess that the Son is a personal cause of the Spirit, then it follows that spiration is not a hypostatic property but a property of the essence, which leads to the absurd conclusion that the Holy Spirit proceeds personally from itself. The only way to avoid this problem is to make the Father and Son into an impersonal dyad which avoids subordinating the Holy Spirit, but at the same time makes a sabellian loss of distinction between the two hypostatic existences of the Father and the Son. The Filioque results in the destruction of the careful balance between the three persons and essence, rooted in the Monarchy of the Father, which is why it looks like total nonsense to the East.

 

[mardukm]

Therein lies the problem. If we confess that the Son is a personal cause of the Spirit, then it follows that spiration is not a hypostatic property but a property of the essence,

Huh? It is a hypostatic property of the Father to be the “from.” It is a hypostatic property of the Son to be the “through.” Together, they form one principle as regards the ousia, not with regards to the hypostasis. Again you are imposing an Eastern understanding of “cause” on the Latins - you understand “cause” to be always equivalent to “source.” But the Latins distinguish between “cause” and “source.” What is so hard to understand about that? Let’s try to avoid uniatism.

]which leads to the absurd conclusion that the Holy Spirit processes personally from itself.

Well, yes, an absurd premise will lead to an absurd conclusion. The problem is that your premise is off (see above).

The only way to avoid this problem is to make the Father and Son into an impersonal dyad which avoids subordinating the Holy Spirit, but at the same time makes a sabellian loss of distinction between the two hypostatic existences of the Father and the Son.

Well, no. One can avoid it by admitting that it is a personal hypostatic property of the Son to be the “through” as regards the ousia.

The Filioque results in the destruction of the careful balance between the three persons and essence, rooted in the Monarchy of the Father, which is why it looks like total nonsense to the East.

No, the filioque does not do that because the Father retains the hypostatic property of being the Arche in the Latin teaching.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[GrkCath86]

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

Thank you! This clears it up a whol lot more. Although I’m still trying to wrap my head around it more lol. I need prayer.

(I’m a brother btw! Lol)