Filioque in plain english

  • Thread starter Thread starter GrkCath86
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mardukm said:
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.
Click to expand...
I admit surprise that Easterns don’t know what hyparxeos means. It seems to be the word upon which the Eastern accusations against the Latins stand or fall.

Many English translations interpret it as “subsistence” and it seems Eastern apologists (and polemicsts more) are not even bothering to go to the original Greek sources. The English translation is understandable - hyparxeos refers ot the divine essence/nature/substance of the Holy Spirit, and that divine essence/nature/substance is what makes the Holy Spirit God. Hence, it is translated as “subsistence” - i.e., subsistence AS GOD. But it is not a reference to His unique hypostasis, which is distinct from the ousia.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
I admit surprise that Easterns don’t know what hyparxeos means. It seems to be the word upon which the Eastern accusations against the Latins stand or fall.

Many English translations interpret it as “subsistence” and it seems Eastern apologists (and polemicsts more) are not even bothering to go to the original Greek sources. The English translation is understandable - hyparxeos refers ot the divine essence/nature/substance of the Holy Spirit, and that divine essence/nature/substance is what makes the Holy Spirit God. Hence, it is translated as “subsistence” - i.e., subsistence AS GOD. But it is not a reference to His unique hypostasis, which is distinct from the ousia.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Again, I have never seen it used that way. Both Gregory of Cyprus and Gregory Palamas use hyparxeos to mean the existence as an hypostasis of the Spirit, not the nature of the Spirit. You’re going to have to do a little better than that. The thought that you can understand Greek better than two Greek theologians is honestly a bit preposterous.
 
Well, so much for the filioque “in plain English”. We’re now down to a Greek lesson.
 
ByzCathCantor said:
Well, so much for the filioque “in plain English”. We’re now down to a Greek lesson.
Click to expand...
Right. 👍

The Creed of Nicea-Constantinople became the common confession of faith. Pope Leo III had it engraved on two silver plaques and displayed in Rome (without the filioque). The majority of Catholics and Orthodox are not theologians nor are they Greek/Latin linguistic experts.

The filioque should be removed from the Creed.
 
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...
Eastern Christians see it to be a heresy because it was not the same as the what the original Nicene creed is, and the Romans added it without discussing it with the other churches in a ecumenical council.
 
For the record, I am perfectly happy to discuss it in plain English.
 
Cavaradossi said:
For the record, I am perfectly happy to discuss it in plain English.
Click to expand...
The Greek Fathers believed in “Through the Son”

do you thinik thats the same as saying “And the Son”?

like if i said i came to your house “from Collins Ave through 79h street”
or said i came to your house "from Collins Ave and 79th street’

whats the difference?
 
Paul_theApostle said:
The Greek Fathers believed in “Through the Son”

do you thinik thats the same as saying “And the Son”?

like if i said i came to your house “from Collins Ave through 79h street”
or said i came to your house "from Collins Ave and 79th street’

whats the difference?
Click to expand...
I thought the analogy of St. John Damascene, shared by our brother Marduk in an earlier post in this thread, summed it up well:
mardukm said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Ok …Cavaradossi what u think about that flame analogy?

Was St John trying to explain Filioque?

did he accept it?
 
St. John of Damascus also says that the Spirit is not from the Son, only “projected from the Father through the Son”. Unless one uses mental and linguistic gymnastics to equivocate the phrases from the Father and the Son, and from the Father through the Son, I don’t see how how the former would have been acceptable to St. John of Damascus who explicitly denied that it was a possibility.
 
Paul_theApostle said:
Ok …Cavaradossi what u think about that flame analogy?

Was St John trying to explain Filioque?

did he accept it?
Click to expand...
I can’t comment on the flame analogy, as I don’t know the context behind it. Perhaps if somebody could provide the full passage. The only analogy I am aware of St. John of Damascus using is the sun, ray, radiance analogy, in which it can be said that the ray is quite clearly not the cause of the radiance (the sun is the cause of both), but only that which brings the radiance to us. Of course, the only thing I have read by St. John of Damascus would be his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, and it is indeed quite long. So if anybody is able to provide the full context for the analogy, I would be willing to comment on it.
 
Cavaradossi said:
I can’t comment on the flame analogy, as I don’t know the context behind it. Perhaps if somebody could provide the full passage.
Click to expand...
Marduk introduced it in an earlier post. I believe this is one of a few physically-based analogies that St. John Damascene used in his work, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (its been a long time since I read this in college, or so it seems).

Unless Marduk beats me to it, I’ll see if I can find and post the exact quotation.
 
GrkCath86 said:
Cavaradossi can yu plz explain in plain english. With no use of greek or latin.
Click to expand...
Ok, the contention is simply put that the Latins have defined the filioque clause to mean that the existence of the Holy Spirit is in some way derived from the Son. This is an impossibility in Eastern triadology.
 
Paul_theApostle said:
The Greek Fathers believed in “Through the Son”

do you thinik thats the same as saying “And the Son”?

like if i said i came to your house “from Collins Ave through 79h street”
or said i came to your house "from Collins Ave and 79th street’

whats the difference?
Click to expand...
I would interprete those quite differently myself. The later sounds like a street corner near where you started, the first sounds like a road you took on your way from the origin point.
 
Cavaradossi said:
I can’t comment on the flame analogy, as I don’t know the context behind it. Perhaps if somebody could provide the full passage. The only analogy I am aware of St. John of Damascus using is the sun, ray, radiance analogy, in which it can be said that the ray is quite clearly not the cause of the radiance (the sun is the cause of both), but only that which brings the radiance to us. Of course, the only thing I have read by St. John of Damascus would be his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, and it is indeed quite long. So if anybody is able to provide the full context for the analogy, I would be willing to comment on it.
Click to expand...
Just poking around a bit, the earliest use of this analogy I found was in the works of the Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iii.xviii.html

paragraph 4 on this page
 
Nine_Two said:
I would interprete those quite differently myself. The later sounds like a street corner near where you started, the first sounds like a road you took on your way from the origin point.
Click to expand...
yes…if one isnt familiar with the roads he may get that impression ,but if he is whats the difference with the language…

You and your Dad know your house very well,u say to ur dad

“I came in the front door,through the corridor into the back”

'I came in the front door,and the corridor into the back"

Or ur dad asks how u got into the backyard

“the front door through the corridor”
“the front door and the corridor”

God will be satisfied if we are like little children,we dont necessarily have to be Albert Einsteins
 
Cavaradossi said:
Again, I have never seen it used that way. Both Gregory of Cyprus and Gregory Palamas use hyparxeos to mean the existence as an hypostasis of the Spirit, not the nature of the Spirit. You’re going to have to do a little better than that. The thought that you can understand Greek better than two Greek theologians is honestly a bit preposterous.
Click to expand...
Actually, I believe you are incorrect. Hyparxeos on its own does not refer to “existence as an hypostasis.” The phrase utilized by the early Fathers (and presumably the later Eastern Fathers) to refer to “existence as an hypostasis” is tropos hyparxeos (other sources have it alternatively as tropos tes hyparxeos or tropai hyparxeos).

Tropos is Greek for “manner or way.” The WHOLE PHRASE refers to the manner of existing as God or, in your words, “existence as an hypostasis.” Thus, the Father exists as the ungenerated (that is His manner of existing as God), the Son as the generated (that is His manner of existing as God), and the Spirit as the one who proceeds from both - or originates from the Father through the Son (that is His manner of existing as God).

But Florence did not use the phrase tropos hyparxeos – It simply used hyparxeos. On its own, the term indeed refers to that which is possessed, and is a reference to the common divinity (i.e., the ousia).

Hence, as already explained, Florence was simply saying that the Son is Cause (NOT THE SOURCE) of the ousia (NOT THE HYPOSTASIS) of the Spirit, which is what the early Fathers unanimously teach.

Btw, you have not responded to a lot of what I have written. Does the silence mean (1) you agree, (2) you are still thinking about it, or (3) you disagree but don’t have an answer.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top