Filioque - revisited

[mardukm]

Dear brother dcointin,

I have some honest questions that I was hoping Mardukm and others could address about the Filioque.

This is what the Second Council of Lyons in 1274 decreed:

“We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike. But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one.”

What is meant by “as from one principle”… “as by one single spiration”?

I understand that Catholics are not saying that the Holy Spirit has its origin in the Son in the same sense that he has his origin in the Father, but I’m not sure what is being said.

“As from one principle” refers to the Father’s role as Arche of the Trinity. It directly addresses the Eastern concern that filioque somehow means that there are two Sources of the Spirit. “Source” and “principle” are equivalent terms. There are not two sources/principles, but only one.

“As by one spiration” refers to the motive power of procession, which originates from the Father alone. The Son has no inherent power of procession - only the Father has that. If the Son had an inherent power of procession distinct from the Father, that would make the Son a Source of the Spirit. But the power of procession the Son has is not distinct from the power of procession that the Father has, but is rather a sharing in the power of procession that originates from the Father alone.

I think there’s a bit more that needs to be said, but I must go.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alexius]

From what I’ve read, the Anglicans and EO have had talks on the issue, and the Anglicans don’t seem willing to remove filioque - at least not according to the terms insisted upon by the EO. The Lutherans are more amenable, but are not united on the matter. I don’t know about the other Protestant confessional bodies.

One of my teachers from high school, a Presbyterian pastor (PCA, so conservative Calvinist), expressed his support for the filioque addition. I believe he used the same justification as presented here by so many.

On a side note, the Ukrainian Catholic liturgical books approved by the hierarchs in 1988 include the filioque; however, it is shown as “who proceeds from the Father [and the Son].” The filioque has been marked out in my parish, though, I suppose to avoid confusion from visitors from Latin parishes and keep the creed in its official use.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[JohnVIII]

One of my teachers from high school, a Presbyterian pastor (PCA, so conservative Calvinist), expressed his support for the filioque addition. I believe he used the same justification as presented here by so many.

On a side note, the Ukrainian Catholic liturgical books approved by the hierarchs in 1988 include the filioque; however, it is shown as “who proceeds from the Father [and the Son].” The filioque has been marked out in my parish, though, I suppose to avoid confusion from visitors from Latin parishes and keep the creed in its official use.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

Since I’m technically Eastern Catholic now, I visited a Ukrainian Catholic Church and a Maronite Catholic Church here in Denver, Colorado and both of these parishes use the filioque in the Creed; and I don’t think they have to, so I assume it is by choice. Maybe it’s just because I was EO for over 25 years that I can’t seem to understand why any church would want to use it.

The so-called “Athanasian Creed” has the filioque in it. Why don’t these churches use it in the Mass? Just wondering

 

[Alexander_Roman]

There are historical reasons why the Filioque is used in the Ukrainian Catholic Church.

First of all, Latinization. However, that has to be qualified somewhat. The Filioque was used as a way to distinguish the Ukrainian Eastern Catholics from the Russian Orthodox in the 19th and 20th centuries especially.

When Tsarist troops moved into an Eastern Catholic area of Western Ukraine, they began the assault on the Eastern Catholic Church by, first of all, issuing an “Easternization” program for the “uniates.” The first thing they did, of course, was remove the Filioque.

(In the early years after the Union of Brest was signed in 1596, Eastern Catholics in Ukraine and Belarus resisted the inclusion of the Filioque for the same reason of keeping their identity separate from that of the RC Poles.)

In 1946, the Soviets sponsored a council of the Russian Orthodox Church that broke the Ukrainian Catholic Church from Rome and “reunited” it with Moscow. The Filioque was, by then, taken as something of a national banner and its use by underground parishes was seen as a way to show that one hadn’t given into the Soviets.

Today, however, there should be no problem leaving it out. Parishes in North America and elsewhere that have it, keep it as a result of lingering Latinization.

Alex

 

[dcointin]

So if I understand this correctly, the Son is a source of the Spirit in that he shares in the power of the Father to originate (i.e. spirate, breathe, process) the Spirit?

If so, I can understand where the confusion has developed when Eastern Christians heard this version of the Nicene Creed recited. The phrase “who proceeds from the Father and the Son” makes no distinction between the manner in which the Spirit proceeds, so one would assume that he proceeds in the same manner from both. I’m not sure that this explanation makes the matter any more acceptable to Eastern Orthodox, however. I realize that the intention of the insertion was good, but one cannot judge something soley on the intention it was made with, but on its overall consequences as well. How can the Son share in something which is particular to the nature of the Father, i.e. origination, without it being a confusion of the Father and the Son? On what grounds can we confess dogmatically that the Son shares in this origination?

 

[Ghosty]

So if I understand this correctly, the Son is a source of the Spirit in that he shares in the power of the Father to originate (i.e. spirate, breathe, process) the Spirit?

No, the Son is not a source of the Spirit; only the Father is the Source according to Florence.

The best illustration, IMO, was given by St. John of Damascus. He compared the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to the spring (of water), the river, and the sea. There is one flowing of water, and therefore one principle, but only the spring is the source of water. If the river were a source then it would be contributing water that was not from the spring, but that is not the case; likewise, the Son is not a source because the spiration of the Holy Spirit does not originate in the Son in any way.

The key thing to understand is that “one principle” just refers to a single flowing point; the word principal would refer to the origin point. A modern example would be a flow of water from a hose that is connected to a spigot; the hose and spigot are one principle because the water flows from them both insofar as they are considered a unit, but the spigot alone remains the source of water; the hose does not produce water at all.

So “as from one principle” just means that there is one flowing of the Holy Spirit, and the Father and Son share in it. Some might say that this leaves ambiguity about whether the Holy Spirit originates in the Father, or in the Father and Son together as a united whole, but such confusion isn’t possible in Latin theology because the Son is already stated to be “begotten of the Father” (and is therefore a pure recipient in that relationship), so the confusion doesn’t occur. Even if it was said that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Son, it would be understood that the Holy Spirit originates in the Father alone, because the Son receives everything from the Father.

Peace and God bless!

 

[stephraim]

How can the Son share in something which is particular to the nature of the Father, i.e. origination, without it being a confusion of the Father and the Son? On what grounds can we confess dogmatically that the Son shares in this origination?

“But when He desires to declare His unity with the Father, He teaches it without any reserve, saying: ‘All things whatsoever the Father has are Mine.’ And one cannot but admire the exactness of the language. For He has not said ‘all things whatsoever the Father has, He has given to Me,’ lest He should appear at one time not to have possessed these things; but ‘are Mine.’ For these things, being in the Father’s power, are equally in that of the Son. But we must in turn examine what things ‘the Father has.’ For if Creation is meant, the Father had nothing before creation, and proves to have received something additional from Creation; but far be it to think this. For just as He exists before creation, so before creation also He has what He has, which we also believe to belong to the Son. For if the Son is in the Father, then all things that the Father has belong to the Son. So this expression is subversive of the perversity of the heterodox in saying that ‘if all things have been delivered to the Son, then the Father has ceased to have power over what is delivered, having appointed the Son in His place. For, in fact, the Father judges none, but has given all judgment to the Son?’. But ‘let the mouth of them that speak wickedness be stopped’, (for although He has given all judgment to the Son, He is not, therefore, stripped of lordship: nor, because it is said that all things are delivered by the Father to the Son, is He any the less over all), separating as they clearly do the Only-begotten from God, Who is by nature inseparable from Him, even though in their madness they separate Him by their words, not perceiving, the impious men, that the Light can never be separated from the sun, in which it resides by nature. For one must use a poor simile drawn from tangible and familiar objects to put our idea into words, since it is over bold to intrude upon the incomprehensible nature [of God].”
–Athanasius, On Luke 10:22 (Matthew 11:27)

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother dcointin,

So if I understand this correctly, the Son is a source of the Spirit in that he shares in the power of the Father to originate (i.e. spirate, breathe, process) the Spirit?

No that’s not what I’m saying at all. I’ll explain more below.

If so, I can understand where the confusion has developed when Eastern Christians heard this version of the Nicene Creed recited. The phrase “who proceeds from the Father and the Son” makes no distinction between the manner in which the Spirit proceeds, so one would assume that he proceeds in the same manner from both. I’m not sure that this explanation makes the matter any more acceptable to Eastern Orthodox, however. I realize that the intention of the insertion was good, but one cannot judge something soley on the intention it was made with, but on its overall consequences as well. How can the Son share in something which is particular to the nature of the Father, i.e. origination, without it being a confusion of the Father and the Son? On what grounds can we confess dogmatically that the Son shares in this origination?

As noted earlier, even without filioque, the meaning of the Credal line at issue would be different in the Greek understanding from the Latin understanding.

I strongly believe that the real immediate cause of the confusion is the secondary language translations of the Creed. Let’s just take English, for the sake of simplicity. The proper translation of ekporeusai into English is not “proceed,” but rather “originates.” But because EO don’t make that distinction, the confusion ensues.

This is evident in our present discussion. I wrote, “the power of procession the Son has is not distinct from the power of procession that the Father has, but is rather a sharing in the power of procession that originates from the Father alone.”

I can see from your first sentence above that you immediately interpreted “the power of procession” to mean “the power of origination.” But “procession” literally does not mean the same thing as “origination.”

As I explained earlier (and obviously not too well ), “procession” in the Latin Tradition has never referred to the hypostatic origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father. Rather, “procession” in the Latin Tradition has always referred to the sharing of the Divine Essence (btw, this is all explained in the official Clarification on Filioque promulgated by HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory in the last century).

So “the power of procession” to which I referred earlier does not at all mean “the power to originate the Holy Spirit.” Rather, “the power of procession” means “the power to share the Divine Essence.”

This distinction was reinforced at the Council of Florence when it taught that the Father is the one Source (referring to the originator of hypostasis), while Father and Son are Cause (referring to the sharing of the Divine Essence) – I think many of the Eastern Fathers at Florence understood that distinction, while Mark of Ephesus obviously did not.

NOTE: I accept St. Palamas’ teaching that the Son is not the origin or Source of the Spirit’s Hypostasis. But I reject the interpretation of modern Orthodox apologists that this means that the Son has absolutely no role in the Spirit’s eternal Hypostasis or Being. St. Palamas himself would have rejected this modern interpretation, since he himself taught the eternal energetic procession (ekporeusai) of the Spirit from the Son (as did the Synod of Blarchanae).

I hope that explanation was more helpful.

And yes, I believe the responsibility for making the distinction in the secondary languages rests with the Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental), not the Latins. Why? Because “proceeds” is already the proper translation of procedit. In fact, “proceeds” is the transliteration of procedit.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dcointin]

“But when He desires to declare His unity with the Father, He teaches it without any reserve, saying: ‘All things whatsoever the Father has are Mine.’ And one cannot but admire the exactness of the language. For He has not said ‘all things whatsoever the Father has, He has given to Me,’ lest He should appear at one time not to have possessed these things; but ‘are Mine.’ For these things, being in the Father’s power, are equally in that of the Son. But we must in turn examine what things ‘the Father has.’ For if Creation is meant, the Father had nothing before creation, and proves to have received something additional from Creation; but far be it to think this. For just as He exists before creation, so before creation also He has what He has, which we also believe to belong to the Son. For if the Son is in the Father, then all things that the Father has belong to the Son. So this expression is subversive of the perversity of the heterodox in saying that ‘if all things have been delivered to the Son, then the Father has ceased to have power over what is delivered, having appointed the Son in His place. For, in fact, the Father judges none, but has given all judgment to the Son?’. But ‘let the mouth of them that speak wickedness be stopped’, (for although He has given all judgment to the Son, He is not, therefore, stripped of lordship: nor, because it is said that all things are delivered by the Father to the Son, is He any the less over all), separating as they clearly do the Only-begotten from God, Who is by nature inseparable from Him, even though in their madness they separate Him by their words, not perceiving, the impious men, that the Light can never be separated from the sun, in which it resides by nature. For one must use a poor simile drawn from tangible and familiar objects to put our idea into words, since it is over bold to intrude upon the incomprehensible nature [of God].”
–Athanasius, On Luke 10:22 (Matthew 11:27)

I’m not sure that Athanasius is addressing the procession of the Holy Spirit in this selection. The Father has given all things to the Son, except for those things which are proper to his nature as Father, which I would argue is origination, whether of the Son or of the Spirit. If the Father has given the Son all things in an absolute sense, then he has given him Fatherhood as well, in which case the Father and the Son are one person. Or would you disagree that origination in both senses is proper to the Father, and that only Fatherhood is? I have to go, but I look forward to hearing more!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother dcointin,

I’m not sure that Athanasius is addressing the procession of the Holy Spirit in this selection. The Father has given all things to the Son, except for those things which are proper to his nature as Father, which I would argue is origination, whether of the Son or of the Spirit. If the Father has given the Son all things in an absolute sense, then he has given him Fatherhood as well, in which case the Father and the Son are one person. Or would you disagree that origination in both senses is proper to the Father, and that only Fatherhood is? I have to go, but I look forward to hearing more!

This statement from St. Athanasius would be a proper defense of the Latin understanding, because the Latin teaching would take this to refer to the sharing of the Divine Essence.

In this light, the non-Latin rejoinder, “but the Father can’t share his fatherhood or character as Arche” is seen to be a straw man, because the Latins are not claiming, and have never claimed, that filioque means the Son shares in the Fatherhood or Arche of the Father (i.e., being the originator of hypostasis).

Blessings

 

[PAboy57]

Many thanks and blessings upon all of you. What a wonderful discussion and great explanation of this concept and the history to go with it.

You all brought this into the light so everyone can understand.

Thank you.

 

[Madaglan]

No, the Son is not a source of the Spirit; only the Father is the Source according to Florence.

The best illustration, IMO, was given by St. John of Damascus. He compared the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to the spring (of water), the river, and the sea. There is one flowing of water, and therefore one principle, but only the spring is the source of water. If the river were a source then it would be contributing water that was not from the spring, but that is not the case; likewise, the Son is not a source because the spiration of the Holy Spirit does not originate in the Son in any way.

The key thing to understand is that “one principle” just refers to a single flowing point; the word principal would refer to the origin point. A modern example would be a flow of water from a hose that is connected to a spigot; the hose and spigot are one principle because the water flows from them both insofar as they are considered a unit, but the spigot alone remains the source of water; the hose does not produce water at all.

So “as from one principle” just means that there is one flowing of the Holy Spirit, and the Father and Son share in it. Some might say that this leaves ambiguity about whether the Holy Spirit originates in the Father, or in the Father and Son together as a united whole, but such confusion isn’t possible in Latin theology because the Son is already stated to be “begotten of the Father” (and is therefore a pure recipient in that relationship), so the confusion doesn’t occur. Even if it was said that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Son, it would be understood that the Holy Spirit originates in the Father alone, because the Son receives everything from the Father.

Peace and God bless!

The Latin side seems to have two understandings of procession: 1) procession *ἐκπορευόμενον *from the Father alone as single source (arch)–received from the conciliar and Greek teaching of procession 2) procession from the Father and the Son as a single principle (in the sense that Ghosty presents above).

The problem as I see it is that John 15:26, from which the ἐκπορευόμενον of the Nicene-Constantinople Creed is drawn, employs the same root verb as used in the Creed. To add the Greek equivalent of “and the Son” to either the Creed or to the Gospel original (as in a marginal note) would be heretical. Yet, the Vulgate (and I would think earlier Latin editions) translates the verb as procedit, which if Ghosty is right, has a different emphasis, even though it be the same activity of procession.

So what does John mean when he says the Holy Spirit “proceeds” from the Father? Those who follow the Greek of the original understand the procession in the first sense, which excludes the possibility of a procession from the Son. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father [alone]. The Latin tendency, based on the translation into Latin of the Greek, is, however, to conceive that John means procession from the Father [and the Son].

It may be that procedit is not an exact match for the Greek original, in the Creed and in the Gospel; in which case Latins should draw meaning from the Greek rather than add to the Greek with the attitude that John means this (as the Greek original indicates), but he also means this (as the Latin translation suggests).

I think, given that the Creed (as the Gospel of John) originally was written in Greek amongst bishops who largely were immersed in the Greek language and culture, the Greek version ought to serve as the standard of meaning for translations (as the Latin). This last part was St. Photius’ point as well. To my mind, there is, in addition to putting additional words into John’s mouth, the danger of suggesting that the Eastern Fathers actually meant what the Latins mean by their Latin word for procession.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Madaglan,

The problem as I see it is that John 15:26, from which the ἐκπορευόμενον of the Nicene-Constantinople Creed is drawn, employs the same root verb as used in the Creed. To add the Greek equivalent of “and the Son” to either the Creed or to the Gospel original (as in a marginal note) would be heretical. Yet, the Vulgate (and I would think earlier Latin editions) translates the verb as procedit, which if Ghosty is right, has a different emphasis, even though it be the same activity of procession.

The highlighted portion of your excerpt is the source of the problem. To the Greeks, “procession” refers to the origination of hypostasis. However, to the Latins, “procession” refers to the sharing of the Divine Essence. So it is NOT the same activity. The important thing is that though the meaning is different, they both express the same original intention of the Second Ecum Council - to assert and defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

As I explained to brother Dcointin, “procession” in Latin is not the same thing as “procession” in Greek. Until the Easterns and Orientals understand that, there won’t be any unity on the matter, even if filioque is removed.

I think, given that the Creed (as the Gospel of John) originally was written in Greek amongst bishops who largely were immersed in the Greek language and culture, the Greek version ought to serve as the standard of meaning for translations (as the Latin).

The only other word the Latins could have used would have been easily translatable as “beget,” as well. Do you really want to open up that can of worms?

I don’t sympathize with your proposal at all, not only because it violates certain Oriental principles, but also because it is not patristic. Recall that the Christological controversies in the early Church was in large part the result of the different meanings of certain key terms among the different Churches. They resolved it not by forcing one group’s meaning on the other, but by trying to understand - and succeeding in understanding - what the other group actually meant. This is also the way the Christological controversy has been resolved in our own time between the OO and the CC.

I don’t agree at all with the attitude, “We know that you Latins have had this understanding forever, and that with that understanding, filioque is not necessarily heretical, but we insist that you adopt our understanding, so you will have no excuse to include it anymore.”

This last part was St. Photius’ point as well.

He didn’t even know Latin.

Blessings

 

[Madaglan]

Originally posted by mardukm:

Dear brother Madaglan,

The highlighted portion of your excerpt is the source of the problem. To the Greeks, “procession” refers to the origination of hypostasis. However, to the Latins, “procession” refers to the sharing of the Divine Essence. So it is NOT the same activity. The important thing is that though the meaning is different, they both express the same original intention of the Second Ecum Council - to assert and defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

Procession is not only a specific designation but is the revealed hypostatic activity of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit has one, not two or more, processions.

As I explained to brother Dcointin, “procession” in Latin is not the same thing as “procession” in Greek. Until the Easterns and Orientals understand that, there won’t be any unity on the matter, even if filioque is removed.

Yes, I very much understand that. Yet, I wonder that the Latin procedit cannot attune its meaning to the Scriptural and conciliar term. Consubstantialem, for example, may not bear the same exact significations as *homoousios *(in the secular or Church-received sense) but as used in the the Church it is understood to have the same meaning as the Greek term first defined and defended by the Fathers.

The only other word the Latins could have used would have been easily translatable as “beget,” as well. Do you really want to open up that can of worms?

I was not suggesting an alternative translation, only that the translation draw into itself the meaning of the original.

I don’t sympathize with your proposal at all, not only because it violates certain Oriental principles, but also because it is not patristic. Recall that the Christological controversies in the early Church was in large part the result of the different meanings of certain key terms among the different Churches. They resolved it not by forcing one group’s meaning on the other, but by trying to understand - and succeeding in understanding - what the other group actually meant. This is also the way the Christological controversy has been resolved in our own time between the OO and the CC.

I don’t agree at all with the attitude, “We know that you Latins have had this understanding forever, and that with that understanding, filioque is not necessarily heretical, but we insist that you adopt our understanding, so you will have no excuse to include it anymore.”

He didn’t even know Latin.

Blessings

I’m not sure you received my point. I’m arguing against imposition, as the imposition of translated meaning over an original. Church teaching ought to be understood and received according to the cultural context in which it is expounded and defended.

For example, to approach the term “person” (hypostasis) of the Trinity from the context of modern Western psychology would be to impose a meaning that the Fathers likely did not intend. Hypostasis must be understood within its temporal-cultural context. We see this elsewhere, as with “do this in memory of me,” meaning more than just mental recollection, but has the meaning of amamnesis–by which a past event is made present and real to those who participate in it.

The Fathers who took part in the battles placed great emphasis on the importance of correct language.

 

[dcointin]

Could anyone provide quotations from Eastern fathers where they speak of the Spirit as proceeding from or through (or an equivalent word) the Son?

What I’m having trouble grasping (and thank you for bearing with me) is what procession means if it does not mean origination. I admit that it’s very difficult for me to think of it in different terms, and that’s where my confusion is coming from. If “who proceeds from the Father and the Son” is equivalent to “who share in the divine essence of the Father and the Son”, or to put it another way “who is consubstantial with the Father and the Son,” then not just say so?

 

[Ghosty]

Could anyone provide quotations from Eastern fathers where they speak of the Spirit as proceeding from or through (or an equivalent word) the Son?

What I’m having trouble grasping (and thank you for bearing with me) is what procession means if it does not mean origination. I admit that it’s very difficult for me to think of it in different terms, and that’s where my confusion is coming from. If “who proceeds from the Father and the Son” is equivalent to “who share in the divine essence of the Father and the Son”, or to put it another way “who is consubstantial with the Father and the Son,” then not just say so?

I have the perfect quote for you, though it doesn’t specifically use the words you’re looking for:

If, however, any one cavils at our argument, on the ground that by not admitting the difference of nature it leads to a mixture and confusion of the Persons, we shall make to such a charge this answer—that while we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another—by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another by that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the interposition of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father.

This is St. Gregory of Nyssa, from the work “Not Three Gods”. It’s one of the founding texts of the Eastern tradition on the Trinity (the Cappadocian theology), and it clearly teaches what the Latins call the filioque. The Father remains “the Cause”, but the Son is interposed, and the Holy Spirit, as Person, comes “by the Son”.

You can also see how St. John of Damascus describes the relationship between the Three here. This is where I got the previous example of spring/river/sea. Another illustration he gives is that of a root (Father), branch (Son), and fruit (Holy Spirit). Again, this shows that the Eastern Fathers indeed taught that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son, as from one principle” without having His Source in Son, just as the Latins teach today.

Peace and God bless!

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

If I didn’t know any better (i.e., the Orthodox hardliners will never accept it), I would say the best way to resolve any question regarding how to treat the whole “filioque contoversy” would be (and this would only work if the two Lungs of the Church would come together) the way my Publicans Prayer Group Head handles. When she goes to an RC church (as she is allowed to since she is a Melkite), when the Creed is recited and the term “the Son” makes its appearance, she does not say it. She only says “The Father,” as we Melkites use the Orthodox Filoque (as most EC do, as far as I know). That’s how it should be. The EC and Orthodox do it Their Way, and the RCers do it Their Way.

Since we would all be ONE Church then, we would ALL be in Communion with Rome and be able to follow different traditions/styles of worship without sacrificing any allegiance to Rome or our own Patriarchs (if we had them still by that time).

Like I said, know better than to hope too hard for that. But it is good to “dream” once in a while. Just as it is Good to Dream that The Two Lungs will one day breathe as one once in a while.

Good for the Soul.

I HAVE to say something (bear with me):

This subject, to be honest, has been overdiscussed from all possible angles here to total weariness.
Next thing you know, we will be asking whether either the Eastern or Western Filioque will affect the number of Angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

Or whether Simon Cowell Of American Idol would be less snarky if you said “The Father,” or “The Father Through The Son.” to him.

When I first came here, I thought I would be spending a good portion of my time discussing various subjects of different stripes with my EC and Orthodox brethren—instead I mostly spend my time forums AWAY from this One where I can talk about things OTHER than what is usually discussed here. (I.E., Reunification, Priesthood, the Filioque, What caused the Great Schism in the 11th century, etc…)

I know some may find what I have to say “obnoxious,” or “bratty,” but can we talk about something else once in a while??? I don’t know, somebody name a subject–I’ll be open to what you want to talk about.

I just want to spend some time with my “people” once in a while, ya know?
Other forums here are great and I enjoy posting over there—but I have a need to discuss issues that relate to my “people” once in a while.

If I’m overstepping my bounds, please by all means tell me. We can even make that a discussion----why OrdinaryMelkite has to be such a presumptous, ignorant so-and-so that he feels he can dictate what can or cannot be discussed in the EC forum!!! I can handle it!!! I’m a big boy!!!

I just think what God will decide will happen regarding the Filioque or reunification or whatever. We are just his instruments. He is the First Cause and the Last Cause.
To be naive, why can’t we just leave it up to him??? Maybe he will one day decide to put the “let’s end our disagreements and squables and reunite” thought in our heads—who knows??? Maybe he won’t…The point is, what will happen, will happen. God is in control.

Thank for your consideration.

“Through the prayers of the Mother Of God, have mercy on us and save us.”

 

[mardukm]

Procession is not only a specific designation but is the revealed hypostatic activity of the Holy Spirit.

You argue for correct language below. So let’s be fair. The Greek Tradition shouldn’t be using a translated word that does not perfectly mean ekporeusai. It is the Latin Church that has dibs on the the word “Procession” because it is etymologically directly derived from procedit. So if we speak of Procession, we should mean what the Latins mean, not what the Greeks mean. If you want to refer to what the Greeks mean, don’t use the word “Procession.” For the sake of argument, let’s use the wrod “Origination” to translate the Greek. So your point would be valid - there is only one Origination, a hypostatic activity of the Holy Spirit. But Procession is a different hypostatic activity, distinct from the hypostatic activity of Origination. Wouldn’t that solve the problem?

The Holy Spirit has one, not two or more, processions.

Actually, the Synod of Blarchanae and St. Palamas distinguished the hypostatic procession and the eternal energetic procession - ekporeusai in both senses.

Yes, I very much understand that. Yet, I wonder that the Latin procedit cannot attune its meaning to the Scriptural and conciliar term. Consubstantialem, for example, may not bear the same exact significations as *homoousios *(in the secular or Church-received sense) but as used in the the Church it is understood to have the same meaning as the Greek term first defined and defended by the Fathers.

I was not suggesting an alternative translation, only that the translation draw into itself the meaning of the original.

That’s a good argument, especially since procedere can theoretically accomodate that meaning. However, this ambiguity only seems possible in secular usage. Theologically, however, procedit in the Creed has never taken - and can never take - on the meaning of origination. When it does, it leads to the heresy of Double Procession.

In effect, I think your argument leads to what I stated before - asking the Latins to change their traditional theological understanding of procedit so they will be forced to remove filioque. There’s just something so wrong with that, don’t you think? It would be equivalent to Latins forcing Easterns to change their understanding of Original Sin so they will have no choice but to accept the dogma of the IC. In fact, no change in the Eastern understanding of Original Sin needs to occur for a proper understanding of the IC. In the same way, no change in the Latin understanding of procedit needs to occur for this issue to be resolved.

I’m not sure you received my point. I’m arguing against imposition, as the imposition of translated meaning over an original. Church teaching ought to be understood and received according to the cultural context in which it is expounded and defended.

Agreed. But the original for the Latin Church is the Latin text. And the cultural context we are speaking about is the Latin Church, not the Greek Church.

In fact, I would have to argue that the Latin understanding perserves the original intention of the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council much better than the Greek understanding. Why? Because the idea that the hypostasis of the Spirit originates from the Father in fact did little or nothing to suppress the Pneumatomachian heresies it was intended to refute. The Pneumatomachi had no problem with the Credal line “The Holy Spirit ekporeusai from the Father” because it did not refute - and possibly actually supported - their heretical belief that the Holy Spirit was a creature. If you read the Greek Fathers who combatted the Pneumatomachi, you will discover that their primary argument was not that the Holy Spirit hypostatically originates from the Father, but rather that the Holy Spirit, like the Son, was consubstantial with the Father. In light of that, not only does the Traditional Latin understanding of procedit actually preserve the original purpose of the early Fathers (both Greek and Latin), but it would seem that when the Fathers of the Second Ecum used the term ekporeusai, they actually intended to refer to the ousia instead of the hypostasis.

The Fathers who took part in the battles placed great emphasis on the importance of correct language.

Agreed. Correct language, not correct text. Language is text and meaning, not text divorced from meaning. The way to resolve this matter is to ask the questions, “What do you mean by using this text?” and “Is your language (i.e., text and meaning) orthodox?” Anything beyond that is legalism, IMHO.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother OrdinaryMelkite

I just want to spend some time with my “people” once in a while, ya know?
Other forums here are great and I enjoy posting over there—but I have a need to discuss issues that relate to my “people” once in a while.

. Brother, your “people” (Eastern and Oriental Catholics) are the only ones I’ve seen on this thread. You will find many threads on just plain old EC/OC living (start one of your own!). But the fact is, this is primarily an apologetics website. IMO, not only are we called in this particular forum to present, promote, and defend our Eastern/Oriental traditions, but also to defend our unity with our Latin brethren in the Catholic Communion when the need arises.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Have you checked out the social groups on this website? I’ve never really checked it out (no time), but I’m pretty sure there are groups especially for Easterns/Oriental Catholics.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Dear brother OrdinaryMelkite

. Brother, your “people” (Eastern and Oriental Catholics) are the only ones I’ve seen on this thread. You will find many threads on just plain old EC/OC living (start one of your own!). But the fact is, this is primarily an apologetics website. IMO, not only are we called in this particular forum to present, promote, and defend our Eastern/Oriental traditions, but also to defend our unity with our Latin brethren in the Catholic Communion when the need arises.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Have you checked out the social groups on this website? I’ve never really checked it out (no time), but I’m pretty sure there are groups especially for Easterns/Oriental Catholics.

Believe me, I understand (BTW, I’ve always liked your posts, sincerely).
I understand we are called upon to defend our Religion and Eastern faith anytime, anyplace (I will even lay down my life for it).
It’s just that I seem to see the same posts OVER and OVER here of the same thing.
But you’re right, there have been other subjects. It’s just that the repetitive subject matter seems to overshadow whatever other sundry discussions there might be.

I’ll take you up on your offer and start a thread. Probably tomorrow. I have to go to sleep now.
Yours in Christ,
OM.