Filioque question in EC divine liturgy

  • Thread starter Thread starter pistis87
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
crazzeto said:
John 8:42

Quote:
42Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.

(2009). The Ignatius Bible . Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.
John 15:26

Quote:
26In that day you will ask in my name; and I do not say to you that I shall ask the Father for you;

(2009). The Ignatius Bible . Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.

I actually don’t see the support for a temporal procession, particularly of the Holy Spirit given Christ is talking of him self. There is, finally, a temporal element to John 15:26, but I don’t know that I can agree that this temporal element referrs to a temporal procession of the spirit (or Christ, for that matter).

Edit
If anything John 8:24 for me, tends to refute the idea of a temporal procession. But that’s just me.
Click to expand...

1 Eternal: begetting of the Son and procession of the Holy Spirit​

2 Temporal: Christ incarnates, sends the Holy Spirit (e.g., Pentecost)

St. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote:

“The Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and strength, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of God came down upon the Lord, and the Lord in turn gave this Spirit to his Church, sending the Advocate from heaven into all the world into which, according to his own words, the devil too had been cast down like lightning.”
 
Vico said:

1 Eternal: begetting of the Son and procession of the Holy Spirit​

2 Temporal: Christ incarnates, sends the Holy Spirit (e.g., Pentecost)

St. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote:

“The Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and strength, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of God came down upon the Lord, and the Lord in turn gave this Spirit to his Church, sending the Advocate from heaven into all the world into which, according to his own words, the devil too had been cast down like lightning.”
Click to expand...
  1. There is not, however a temporal element to John 8. As we know, all three persons are eternal.
  2. Fully aware Christ sends the spirit durring penticost (specifically), this does not in my opinion speak of a temporal procession.
 
crazzeto said:
  1. There is not, however a temporal element to John 8. As we know, all three persons are eternal.
  2. Fully aware Christ sends the spirit durring penticost (specifically), this does not in my opinion speak of a temporal procession.
Click to expand...
Temporal means in time, it is an event in time.
 
crazzeto said:
Yes, I understand the meaning.
Click to expand...
Good, then you know that he incarnated in time, so taking human form is temporal.

John 8:42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.
 
Vico said:
Good, then you know that he incarnated in time, so taking human form is temporal.

John 8:42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.
Click to expand...
Yes I understand the incarnation is temporal, however I beleive the procession is eternal. Just as Christ is eternal, etc. I don’t believe your scriptures point to a temporal procession.

===============================

i.e. just like the Filioque states
The Son proceeds (eternally) from the Father, the Holy Spirit (eternally) through the Son from the Father. Photius’s temporal (and from the Father alone) procession was, in my opinion, a defective understanding.
 
crazzeto said:
Yes I understand the incarnation is temporal, however I beleive the procession is eternal. Just as Christ is eternal, etc. I don’t believe your scriptures point to a temporal procession.

===============================

i.e. just like the Filioque states
The Son proceeds (eternally) from the Father, the Holy Spirit (eternally) through the Son from the Father. Photius’s temporal (and from the Father alone) procession was, in my opinion, a defective understanding.
Click to expand...
The classic theology is that the temporal is a mirror of the eternal, yet they are not the same thing. As was described by Fr. Hardon there is a difference between internal procession and external.
 
Vico said:
The classic theology is that the temporal is a mirror of the eternal, yet they are not the same thing. As was described by Fr. Hardon there is a difference between internal procession and external.
Click to expand...
Temporal would not be the same as eternal, though yes even here in the temporal we have many mirrors of the eternal. We are the image and likeness of God, marriage is a mirror of the Holy Trinaty (I guess only if we accept the Filioque?) etc.

Again, this fails to prove a temporal procession as described.
 
crazzeto said:
Temporal would not be the same as eternal, though yes even here in the temporal we have many mirrors of the eternal. We are the image and likeness of God, marriage is a mirror of the Holy Trinaty (I guess only if we accept the Filioque?) etc.

Again, this fails to prove a temporal procession as described.
Click to expand...
There is a temporal procession. The definition is external terminus. Fr. Hardon 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.
 
Vico said:
There is a temporal procession. The definition is external terminus. Fr. Hardon 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.
Click to expand...
The Holy Spirit however, proceeds eternally from the Father through the Son (and the Son as written in the Filioque). The spirit does come to us temporally, specifically in the upper room. However the procession of the Spirit is eternally from the Father through the Son. When we discussion the origin of the Spirit (from one to another) as described it must be eternal. The Spirit does not, after all generate him self.
 
crazzeto said:
The Holy Spirit however, proceeds eternally from the Father through the Son (and the Son as written in the Filioque). The spirit does come to us temporally, specifically in the upper room. However the procession of the Spirit is eternally from the Father through the Son. When we discussion the origin of the Spirit (from one to another) as described it must be eternal. The Spirit does not, after all generate him self.
Click to expand...
We see the action in the world in John 8:42 when we read:

“Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.”

Bl. Pope John Paul II, commentary on the active (temporal):

"In the Letter to the Colossians we read: “He (Christ) is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible…all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Col 1:15-17).

The Apostle emphasizes the active presence of Christ both as the cause of creation (“through him”) and as its final cause (“for him”). It is a subject to which we shall have to return. Meanwhile we also note that the Letter to the Hebrews states that God through the Son “also created the world” (1:2), and that the “Son…upholds the universe by his word of power” (1:3)."

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19860305en.html

Also in 1990 he said:

“In John’s Gospel, Jesus states: “When the Advocate comes whom I will send, the Spirit of Truth who comes from the Father, he will testify to me” (Jn 15:26). According to many exegetes, these words of Jesus refer directly to the temporal mission of the Spirit given by the Father. One can legitimately see reflected in them the eternal procession, and therefore the Holy Spirit’s origin from the Father.”

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19901107en.html
 
yes, but before all this God existed, and when we talk about the eternal procession we are discussion the nature of God’s existance. So yes, the Holy Spirit coming to us is temporal, I’m not going to argue that any more than I would argue that Christ coming to us is temporal.

But the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father through the Son, or is eternally generated from the Father through the Son. It is, and must be eternal because God is.
 
crazzeto said:
yes, but before all this God existed, and when we talk about the eternal procession we are discussion the nature of God’s existance. So yes, the Holy Spirit coming to us is temporal, I’m not going to argue that any more than I would argue that Christ coming to us is temporal.

But the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father through the Son, or is eternally generated from the Father through the Son. It is, and must be eternal because God is.
Click to expand...
Yes, the filioque is about the internal procession. The two biblical quotes are of the temporal procession. The basis of the filioque is the Symbol of Faith.

In the Greek the word ekporeuesthai is not used in John 8:42, but only the simple exēlthon. There the Son is speaking of the mission He was sent forth on by His Father.
 
Vico said:
Yes, the filioque is about the internal procession. The two biblical quotes are of the temporal procession. The basis of the filioque is the Symbol of Faith.

In the Greek the word ekporeuesthai is not used in John 8:42, but only the simple exēlthon. There the Son is speaking of the mission He was sent forth on by His Father.
Click to expand...
It should be noted though, that even in the case of the temporal procession from heaven to humanity it is still from the Father through the Son… Thus in either case, who proceeds from the Father and Son is appropriate in either case. God bless,
 
crazzeto said:
No change in interpretation, and the Schism is really about much more than the Filioque, it was highly political as well. The church has never failed in explaining it, more just that there have been many reasons presetned as to why it’s a problem:

Translation in Greek creates heresy, thus the Filioque must be heresy (we know this is false)

You are not allowed to change the creed (even though many altered localed creeds are accepted among EO churches)

etc, etc, etc.

Thankfully, at a high level the Filioque is no longer a barrier at all, we have all come to an understanding on the matter. I think there was even a joint declaration on the matter. The only problem exists among lay, novice appologists.
Click to expand...
Dear Sir,

Could you give an example of an altered local creed accepted by the EO?

Alex
 
Vico said:
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.
Click to expand...
The problem with BOTH the Filioque and the teaching of “double procession” is that they can both lead to a conclusion that could be heretical not only from the POV of the Orthodox East but, more importantly for purposes of this discussion, from the POV of Roman Catholicism as well.

Roman Catholic Trinitarian theology teaches, in most precise fashion, that the Third Person of the Trinity is spirated ACTIVELY from the Father but only PASSIVELY from the Son (i.e. from the Father through the Son as the Son receives what He has from the Father).

With that qualifier, then the Holy Spirit can be said to proceed from BOTH the Father and the Son in both East and West.

But qualifiers are needed, otherwise problems will arise. “From the Father through the Son” is a phrase that the entire Church can agree upon and such agreement could have been easily had at Florence on this basis (especially as per the Orthodox theologian Fr. John Meyendorff +memory eternal!).

This phrase does not annul the Latin “double spiration” etc. It just makes it crystal clear without having to refer to notes (e.g. “Who proceeds from the Father and the Son (See 17 page explanatory note appended at the end of this prayerbook” ;))

The use of the original Creed without the Filioque has always been legitimate in the Roman Catholic Church. Why could it not be, once again, the norm for the entire Church, East, West, North and South? Also, given its late acceptance at Rome and the fact that Pope-saints, like Pope St Leo IV, not only refused to include the Filioque, but also made a point of underlining the original Creed, especially with his tablets in Greek and Latin of the Creed which he placed on the Tomb of Peter?

Why is that such a problem for the Latin Church? Her teachings on the Filioque would remain intact - she has used both versions of the Creed, so WHAT is preventing her from returning to the earlier, original version? Did the Latin Church not introduce the Novus Ordo on the basis that it was returning to the earlier forms of Divine Liturgy (a question for discussion, to be sure)? How would a return to the original Creed by the Latin Church hurt her in any way?

Alex
 
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?
 
Alexander_Roman said:
The problem with BOTH the Filioque and the teaching of “double procession” is that they can both lead to a conclusion that could be heretical not only from the POV of the Orthodox East but, more importantly for purposes of this discussion, from the POV of Roman Catholicism as well.

Roman Catholic Trinitarian theology teaches, in most precise fashion, that the Third Person of the Trinity is spirated ACTIVELY from the Father but only PASSIVELY from the Son (i.e. from the Father through the Son as the Son receives what He has from the Father).

With that qualifier, then the Holy Spirit can be said to proceed from BOTH the Father and the Son in both East and West.

But qualifiers are needed, otherwise problems will arise. “From the Father through the Son” is a phrase that the entire Church can agree upon and such agreement could have been easily had at Florence on this basis (especially as per the Orthodox theologian Fr. John Meyendorff +memory eternal!).

This phrase does not annul the Latin “double spiration” etc. It just makes it crystal clear without having to refer to notes (e.g. “Who proceeds from the Father and the Son (See 17 page explanatory note appended at the end of this prayerbook” ;))

The use of the original Creed without the Filioque has always been legitimate in the Roman Catholic Church. Why could it not be, once again, the norm for the entire Church, East, West, North and South? Also, given its late acceptance at Rome and the fact that Pope-saints, like Pope St Leo IV, not only refused to include the Filioque, but also made a point of underlining the original Creed, especially with his tablets in Greek and Latin of the Creed which he placed on the Tomb of Peter?

Why is that such a problem for the Latin Church? Her teachings on the Filioque would remain intact - she has used both versions of the Creed, so WHAT is preventing her from returning to the earlier, original version? Did the Latin Church not introduce the Novus Ordo on the basis that it was returning to the earlier forms of Divine Liturgy (a question for discussion, to be sure)? How would a return to the original Creed by the Latin Church hurt her in any way?

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

peace
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top