Filioque question in EC divine liturgy

[crazzeto]

More over, on a personal level anyhow… I’m quite fond of the Roman theology regarding the internal procession of the Holy Spirit. It really illuminates the purpose of marriage and family crystally, and helps explain the nature of God to children in a way which they experience every day.

The Son proceeds from the Father, the Father and Son love and know eachother perfectly, because they love and know eachother perfectly, that love it’s self becomes more than just an expression, but a third person the Holy Spirit. This is very beautiful, and a tool which I intend to utilize in handing down the faith to my children.

Frank Sheed explains it well in his Theology for Beginners. No doubt Easterns have an equally beautiful expression as well though. God bless,

 

[Alexander_Roman]

This has been discussed, the Arminian creed would be one example. Other posters have suggested that this altered creed is not a representation of the Nicean Creed at all, however the Arminians them selves call it this:

monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?5613-Armenian-version-of-the-Nicene-creed

Actually, the site Monachos.net is a traditional Eastern Orthodox site that considers Armenians “monophysite heretics” so it would hardly express a dispassionate view of the Armenian theology and Church (let’s remember that at one time in Greek Orthodox circles to be called an “Armenian” was the same as being called a “heretic” and this was a very offensive term - if an Armenian entered the cell of an Orthodox ascetic, the cell would have had to have been aspersed by holy water etc.)

The Armenians (“Arminians” are protestant followers of Arminius, BTW ) hold to a creed that was established earlier than the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed, which resembles it, but which is definitely not the Nicene Creed.

The only variation was the Filioque addition in the West.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

More over, on a personal level anyhow… I’m quite fond of the Roman theology regarding the internal procession of the Holy Spirit. It really illuminates the purpose of marriage and family crystally, and helps explain the nature of God to children in a way which they experience every day.

The Son proceeds from the Father, the Father and Son love and know eachother perfectly, because they love and know eachother perfectly, that love it’s self becomes more than just an expression, but a third person the Holy Spirit. This is very beautiful, and a tool which I intend to utilize in handing down the faith to my children.

Frank Sheed explains it well in his Theology for Beginners. No doubt Easterns have an equally beautiful expression as well though. God bless,

All good!

However, love is a quality that is shared by all Three Persons equally.

Another reason for the different emphasis in Trinitarian theology in the East is that the East adheres to a “social conception” of the Deity, as Fr. Karl Rahner SJ once wrote. All Three Divine Persons are glorified together in the liturgy and constantly in a way that They are not in the West.

And the Trinity of Persons is underscored in the East because this is a function of mystical Revelation. In other words, the Trinity is not something that can be arrived at through merely human philosophy or reason. The unity of God can certainly be, but not the Trinity of Persons. Thus, the emphasis on the Trinity of Persons in the East and on the One Divine Nature in the West - the latter resulting in a kind of “logical conclusion” of the Filioque.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

It would not hurt at all. you do understand that i never meant what you think i meant?

peace

I understand that you didn’t mean what you thought I meant, but really didn’t.

It’s all clear to me now . . . and I mean it . . .

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

That said Alexandar, neither are heresy and both are very well explained by the teaching authority of the Church. Your same argument could have been made about the proclalmation of combsubstantiality so many centuries ago (which lead to Arianism and the need for the filioque), but because it was true the church did not fear to proclaim it. Why should we fear double procession and the filioque, particular with the excellent explanations provided by Holy Mother Church?

Please call me “Alex!” (Although “Alexander” is, well, great too . . .).

If I may explain it this way, the original Nicene Creed was intended to be a kind of “one creed that fits all.”

It was said that all of the sentences were derived directly from Scripture, including the sentence proclaiming that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father” which were exactly Christ’s words. (I, for one, don’t see any reason for trying to improve our Lord’s Trinitarian theology . . .).

Be that as it may, there is no reason to wish to create another creed for the West. In fact, the West held to the original Creed and the popes likewise defended it in its original form.

The Orthodox East did not dispute with the West over its right to develop its own Trinitarian theology. It only asked that such theology not be imposed on it. Thus, the request at Florence to remove the Filioque (not to condemn it as heretical or anything like that, just remove it and return to the original version).

Rome’s answer then was for the Greeks to keep to the original version themselves while Rome maintained its version.

That was a non sequitur for the Greeks since the Nicene Creed was never any Particular Church’s “private property” to do with as it pleased. It belonged to the entire Catholic Church and so was universal.

This is a principle we’ve reviewed time and again. I don’t believe we will come to an agreement on it.

Happily, however, the Roman Catholic theologians discussing this matter with the Orthodox appear to be quite open to agreeing on this!

Also, and happily as well, we lay theologs have no say on this matter at the offical ecclesial levels!

So I’m content with that!

Alex

 

[crazzeto]

Alex - sorry about the naming I was just pulling it from your UN… I figured it best to go “formal” before becoming too familiar =)

With regards to the creed, we have seen however how other Eastern Churchs (one case in point, the Arminians) have done more extensive change to said creed without the same scandle brought forward against the Roman church specifically. The Filioque is something specific to Roman Christianity, it isn’t so much as imposed upon Eastern Churchs in communion with Rome.

So as far as I can see, I fail to find any reason why issue should be taken with Rome’s modest modification, which was aimed at fighting Arinaism (something which to this day need be fought!) when more extensive modifications are accepted.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Alex - sorry about the naming I was just pulling it from your UN… I figured it best to go “formal” before becoming too familiar =)

With regards to the creed, we have seen however how other Eastern Churchs (one case in point, the Arminians) have done more extensive change to said creed without the same scandle brought forward against the Roman church specifically. The Filioque is something specific to Roman Christianity, it isn’t so much as imposed upon Eastern Churchs in communion with Rome.

So as far as I can see, I fail to find any reason why issue should be taken with Rome’s modest modification, which was aimed at fighting Arinaism (something which to this day need be fought!) when more extensive modifications are accepted.

Dear Crazzeto,

No problem - but the Armenians hold to a creed that was framed earlier than the Nicene one, so they don’t hold the actual Nicene Creed at all.

Rome did fight Arianism with the Filioque - but one can debate whether that was a good way to fight it. One could say that the Filioque COULD have weakened the role of the Holy Spirit in so doing etc.

One could say that it is the role of the Holy Spirit via Theosis which is the most effective way to combat “Arianizing attitudes” today (and you are quite right about the contemporary situation - how excellent of you to bring that often neglected point to the fore).

I think that unity on this can be achieved automatically if both sides agree to the original Creed and also agree to recognize that each other’s Trinitarian theology is . . . each other’s.

Very good point on the modern Arianism, I must say!

Alex