Filioque question in EC divine liturgy

[Ghosty]

I am suprised you said this. The double internal procession as one spiration is the dogma of the filioque.

From Fr. John Hardon, S.J. 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.

Mardukm’s point is that “double procession” is a misleading term. Even Fr. John Hardon’s doesn’t use this expression. The expression “double procession” can be understood to mean that the Holy Spirit proceeds distinctly from the Father and Son, rather than proceeding at once from both.

Since there is only one procession of the Holy Spirit, from the Father through the Son, and not two processions, the term “double procession” is not typically used in Magisterial documents.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Vico]

Mardukm’s point is that “double procession” is a misleading term. Even Fr. John Hardon’s doesn’t use this expression. The expression “double procession” can be understood to mean that the Holy Spirit proceeds distinctly from the Father and Son, rather than proceeding at once from both.

Since there is only one procession of the Holy Spirit, from the Father through the Son, and not two processions, the term “double procession” is not typically used in Magisterial documents.

Peace and God bless!

Yes, as usual, unless studied for the real meaning, all the dogmas are misunderstood. Merriam-Webster give the meaning of double procession: the theological doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. So it is good for people to be aware of the standard English meaning. Also The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church mentions no other doctrines using the term other than the western church. One needs to know this to read historical documents.

 

[Vico]

Your response contains too many qualifiers for me to believe you yourself actually think “double procession” is on its own a proper way to express the Catholic dogma.

Blessings,
Marduk

Simply procession has not worked so well for the Church, it appears to need qualifiers.

 

[Hesychios]

The problem with that statement is that the Pope does not have the authority you pretend he does.

You never cease to amaze …

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vico,

Simply procession has not worked so well for the Church, it appears to need qualifiers.

Actually, it has. If you read the reunion councils of Lyons and Florence, you will see that they both DOGMATICALLY specify that there is only ONE procession. I just don’t see why lay apologists would insist on using a term which has no magisterial backing, which is liable to SO VERY EASILY be taken in an heretical way, and which is always understood as such by our Orthodox brethren.

To put it another way, why should we insist that our Orthodox brethren take the effort to understand a novel terminology in the history of the Church, when it is much easier for Catholics to just stop using it? We’re finally making some headway on the term filioque. What possible benefit is there in insisting on the usage of another term which is altogether misleading? I say, just STOP making new roadblocks on the road to reunion.

And I second brother Ghosty’s insight that Fr. Hardon does not actually utilize that term in the quote you gave.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

You never cease to amaze …

Oh, the protos of the Church universal certainly has more authority than Low Petrine advocates wish, but he just as certainly has less authority than both Absolutist Petrine exaggerators and Low Petrine detractors pretend.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

Dear brother Vico,

Actually, it has. If you read the reunion councils of Lyons and Florence, you will see that they both DOGMATICALLY specify that there is only ONE procession. I just don’t see why lay apologists would insist on using a term which has no magisterial backing, which is liable to SO VERY EASILY be taken in an heretical way, and which is always understood as such by our Orthodox brethren.

To put it another way, why should we insist that our Orthodox brethren take the effort to understand a novel terminology in the history of the Church, when it is much easier for Catholics to just stop using it? We’re finally making some headway on the term filioque. What possible benefit is there in insisting on the usage of another term which is altogether misleading? I say, just STOP making new roadblocks on the road to reunion.

And I second brother Ghosty’s insight that Fr. Hardon does not actually utilize that term in the quote you gave.

Blessings,
Marduk

One cannot wish away the historical use of the terminology. The filioque is a double procession per the statements of the general councils. The 4th Lateran Council, 1215 “A definition against the Albigenses and other heretics” states: “The Father is from no one; the Son is from the Father only; and the Holy Spirit is from both the Father and the Son equally.” And in 447 Pope St. Leo I, wrote a letter refuting the Arians, to Bishop St. Turibius of Astoga, using the phrase “and as though there were not one Who begat, another Who is begotten, another Who proceeds from both.”
Dogmatic meaning of filioque
The dogma of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son as one Principle is directly opposed to the error that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, not from the Son. Neither dogma nor error created much difficulty during the course of the first four centuries. …
While outside the Church doubt as to the double Procession of the Holy Ghost grew into open denial, inside the Church the doctrine of the Filioque was declared to be a dogma of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second council of Lyons (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438-1445).
APA citation. Maas, A. (1909). Filioque. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved July 26, 2011 from New Advent: newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm

 

[dcointin]

In “The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit” by Pope John Paul II, not once does he use the phrase “double procession”. I consider this work to be the best explanation of the Filioque written by a Catholic, and highly encourage everyone to read it.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM

 

[Hesychios]

In “The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit” by Pope John Paul II, not once does he use the phrase “double procession”.

I think this may represent an ongoing evolution in Roman Catholic thinking.

 

[pistis87]

To put it another way, why should we insist that our Orthodox brethren take the effort to understand a novel terminology in the history of the Church, when it is much easier for Catholics to just stop using it? We’re finally making some headway on the term filioque. What possible benefit is there in insisting on the usage of another term which is altogether misleading? I say, just STOP making new roadblocks on the road to reunion.

Yep. Totally with you on this. Filioque has caused enough problems. Why introduce more, especially when it’s imprecise?

 

[dcointin]

I think this may represent an ongoing evolution in Roman Catholic thinking.

I’m not sure that’s the case. I see it as an thorough explanation of the doctrine in light of Orthodox objections. It’s essentially the same way that St. Maximos the Confessor viewed it in the 7th century:

“With regard to the first matter [Filioque], they [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit – they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession – but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence.”

monachos.net/content/patristics/patristictexts/185

 

[Ignatios]

I think this may represent an ongoing evolution in Roman Catholic thinking.

It does indeed, one cannot refrain also from noticing clearly how they are peddling away from few dogmas lately, especially the “filioque” issue.

 

[mardukm]

I think this may represent an ongoing evolution in Roman Catholic thinking.

How so, since the term “double Procession” is not contained in any Magisterial documents, past or present? As brother Ghosty stated, the constant, explicit teaching of the Catholic Church has always been ONE Procession from the Father through the Son.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ignatios]

How so, since the term “double Procession” is not contained in any Magisterial documents, past or present? As brother Ghosty stated, the constant, explicit teaching of the Catholic Church has always been ONE Procession from the Father through the Son.

Blessings,
Marduk

through the Son is an Eastern Formula and is accepted as Orthodox, The Latin formula is, AND FROM the SON=Filioque, And from the SON does not equal through the SON. and NO, the Roman Teaching is FROM the SON and this was (7th to 11th C. even maybe earlier) and is the teaching of the RCC.

 

[Vico]

How so, since the term “double Procession” is not contained in any Magisterial documents, past or present? As brother Ghosty stated, the constant, explicit teaching of the Catholic Church has always been ONE Procession from the Father through the Son.

Blessings,
Marduk

The term used in the Magisterial documents for double procession is “simul procedit” (proceeds at the same time) for the one spiration.

“He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and in one spiration.” CCC 246

As St. Thomas Aquinas elaborated, Fr. Hardon elaborated – internal procession and external procession:

Est autem duplex processio: una quidem secundum quod una persona procedit ab alia et per hanc multiplicantur et distinguuntur divinae Personae et quantum ad hoc attenditur discretio propria in communi modo discretionis; alia est processio secundum quam creatura procedit a Deo …

In De Div Nom CII, l ii, 153, 48a. (S. Thomae Aquinais ‘In librum beati Dionysii De divinis nominibus expositio’ Rome: Marietti, 1950)

Translated:

Procession is of two kinds: one [kind] is that according to which one person multiplied and proceed from another, and through this, divine persons are distinguished by their own separation, and herein lies the method of separation in general, another is the second [kind of] procession according to which the creature proceeds from God …

 

[mardukm]

through the Son is an Eastern Formula and is accepted as Orthodox, The Latin formula is, AND FROM the SON=Filioque, And from the SON does not equal through the SON. and NO, the Roman Teaching is FROM the SON and this was (7th to 11th C. even maybe earlier) and is the teaching of the RCC.

“EKPOREUSAI THROUGH the Son” is equivalent to “PROCEDIT AND the Son.”

You need to consider the WHOLE context and not just those two terms “through” and “and” by themselves.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vico,

The term used in the Magisterial documents for double procession is “simul procedit” (proceeds at the same time) for the one spiration.

And our Magisterium, in their God-given wisdom, has seen it fit not to use the term “double procession” but rather “procession at once.”

As principle or spiration, the Magisterium past and present has dogmatically wanted to avoid any indication in our theological language that could lead to an error of two principles or two spirations, or two processions. “Simul procedit” just does that, but “double procession” does not.

Let’s follow the Magisterium.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

Dear brother Vico,

And our Magisterium, in their God-given wisdom, has seen it fit not to use the term “double procession” but rather “procession at once.”

As principle or spiration, the Magisterium past and present has dogmatically wanted to avoid any indication in our theological language that could lead to an error of two principles or two spirations, or two processions. “Simul procedit” just does that, but “double procession” does not.

Let’s follow the Magisterium.

Blessings,
Marduk

At the same time, the gave the Catholic Encyclopedia quote about the double procession (filioque) that I posted earlier had this on the page of the quote:
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. September 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

 

[crazzeto]

At the same time, the gave the Catholic Encyclopedia quote about the double procession (filioque) that I posted earlier had this on the page of the quote:
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. September 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Can the term be found in the documents of Eccumenical Councils? Or in a dogmatic proclimation by the Bishop of Rome? Perhaps this is what brother Mardukum is driving at.

In the West we actually do use that term, because it suits our theology. We understand what it means, it is familiar to us and we know that it is not heresy when its used. However when the Church Universal is addressed, when we draw up Eccumencial documents is “double procession” a term we would use?

 

[kotim]

I want to be clear on something Do the Eastern Orthdox view christs role in the going forth of the Spirit as a second procession, ie one Source but two different processions, that is one from the Father and one from Christ or do they beleive that the procession from Christ is the same procession as from the Father, ie like the Father is the source of the River, whilst also being the river and Christ is like the river which is channeled through him but can also be directed by him in a different direction/way than the Fathers direction.

I just want to be clear on this as much as I can.

thanks

Tim