Filioque : "who proceeds from the Father and the Son"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wandile
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wandile

Guest
"In coming to understand the Procession of the Holy
Ghost, from the Father and the Son, we can see this
from the fact that the Son is “begotten” from the Father–
this is the first kind of procession-- the Son exists from
eternity, but was “generated” as the Word (John 1:1).
Now, the Holy Ghost is called the Spirit of Christ, the
Spirit of the Son (Gal., iv, 6), the Spirit of Jesus (Acts, xvi,
7). These terms imply a relation of the Spirit to the Son,
which can only be a relation of origin.

In order for something to be “sent” it must proceed. Just
as the Father externally sent the Son into time (in the
world) the Son internally proceeds from the Father in the
Trinity. This is confirmed by Christ who said that “He”
would send the Holy Ghost into the world (John 15:26,),
thus it may be said that he internally proceeds from both
Father and Son in the Trinity (Acts 2:33). An objection
however is that some tend to try and distinguish
between being “sent” and “proceeding” however such
an objection is put to rest if one comes to see that all
things that are sent actually proceed from their very
source, much like the suns rays are sent to us from the
sun but in actual fact we see that all light (no matter how
small the amount of light we receive) all proceed from
the sun (their source)."
  • Catholic Apologist, Raymond Taouk
For more info, follow the link : Filioque

To me it all makes sense 🙂

What are the Orthodox objections to this? I preferably would like to hear from someone who is in opposition to the Catholic point of view on the filioque.

God bless you all 🙂
 
You understand the difference of the East/West? Just saying to me this isn’t a deal breaking issue but I’m not in Rome either.

The East expresses the Father as First Origin [fine] of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit “who proceeds from the Father through the Son”.

The West is, the Father and Son are “consubstantial” which you state at Church. 😉 The Father and Son in Communion as an eternal gift of the Father to the Son, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son. 🤷
 
Wandile said:
"In coming to understand the Procession of the Holy
Ghost, from the Father and the Son, we can see this
from the fact that the Son is “begotten” from the Father–
this is the first kind of procession-- the Son exists from
eternity, but was “generated” as the Word (John 1:1).
Now, the Holy Ghost is called the Spirit of Christ, the
Spirit of the Son (Gal., iv, 6), the Spirit of Jesus (Acts, xvi,
7). These terms imply a relation of the Spirit to the Son,
which can only be a relation of origin.

In order for something to be “sent” it must proceed. Just
as the Father externally sent the Son into time (in the
world) the Son internally proceeds from the Father in the
Trinity. This is confirmed by Christ who said that “He”
would send the Holy Ghost into the world (John 15:26,),
thus it may be said that he internally proceeds from both
Father and Son in the Trinity (Acts 2:33). An objection
however is that some tend to try and distinguish
between being “sent” and “proceeding” however such
an objection is put to rest if one comes to see that all
things that are sent actually proceed from their very
source, much like the suns rays are sent to us from the
sun but in actual fact we see that all light (no matter how
small the amount of light we receive) all proceed from
the sun (their source)."
  • Catholic Apologist, Raymond Taouk
For more info, follow the link : Filioque

To me it all makes sense 🙂

What are the Orthodox objections to this? I preferably would like to hear from someone who is in opposition to the Catholic point of view on the filioque.

God bless you all 🙂
Click to expand...
To that apologetic? There are none.

I personally have two objections to the filioque:
  1. It was inserted unilaterally into the creed and then an attempt was made to force it on the East - this is particularly disturbing in light of the fact that the Greek word translated “proceed” indicates an explicit point of origin.
  2. If you go deeper into Catholic theology the statement is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle. I find this disturbing.
The first issue is easily overcome, the second, I have my doubts.
 
Hello Andre,

Please be aware that we ourselves can not really know the inner workings of God, we can only imagine, and all explanations, or attempts at it, are going to be inadequate. We are creatures of God and cannot completely comprehend the divine, so we make up explanations that are intended to give us a sense for it but leave a lot of latitude.

I have stated this before, and I repeat here … the interpolation of the filioque is the most misunderstood piece of theological opinion in the whole catalog. Most Roman Catholics do not understand it (a fact which can be readily verified any Sunday morning after Mass). So it does not clarify, but confuses, and it divides Christians through the very document intended to unite them.
Andre1000 said:
Why it is still ONE God?
Click to expand...
Ask yourself ‘in what sense ONE god?’

If in the sense that Christ and the Father are one, so is the Holy Spirit, thus the Holy Spirit proceeds from Himself, which ought to also be in the Creed (for clarity of understanding).

If that is not what you mean (that the Holy Spirit is self-proceeding) than you are subordinating the Holy Spirit and they can not be equal.

The Fathers were very clear, whatever formula is used must preserve the monarchy of the Father. Why they decided this I can not say here, but that is what they determined.

So the Son and the Holy Spirit both find their origin in the Father. If we say that the Holy Spirit finds It’s origin in both the Father and the Son (as from one principle), but we do not also say the Son finds His origin in the Father and the Holy Spirit, we are skewing the relationships and subordinating the Holy Spirit in our understanding.

This is why the common and immensely popular RC analogy of the Holy Spirit being the ‘love’ between the Father and the Son is flawed (it must be recognized as an attempted analogy of a flawed idea, but not good theology). It harms the concept of Holy Trinity, and introduces Ditheism, with the Holy Spirit some kind of impersonal derivative demi-god.
 
Hesychios said:
So the Son and the Holy Spirit both find their origin in the Father. If we say that the Holy Spirit finds It’s origin in both the Father and the Son (as from one principle), but we do not also say the Son finds His origin in the Father and the Holy Spirit, we are skewing the relationships and subordinating the Holy Spirit in our understanding.
Click to expand...
Why are you trying to conflate the CC formula of the filioque with a meaning that she has explicitly denied, rejected and contradicted? The CC has explicitly said that the origin of both the Son and Holy Spirit is the Father- indeed he’s the source of the whole diety. I’m sure you’re aware of it, too. “As from one principle” signifies the unity of the essence that the Holy Spirit receives from the Father- it’s not separate from the essence the Son has, which is The Father’s essence.
This is why the common and immensely popular RC analogy of the Holy Spirit being the ‘love’ between the Father and the Son is flawed (it must be recognized as an attempted analogy of a flawed idea, but not good theology). It harms the concept of Holy Trinity, and introduces Ditheism, with the Holy Spirit some kind of impersonal derivative demi-god.
Click to expand...
You mean, just like the Son being “The word” makes him impersonal and harms the Trinity? A simple derivative and a “demi-god”? Or even “wisdom”? 😉

Also the idea that proceeding leads to subordination makes no sense- The Son and Spirit are equal to the Father despite proceeding from him. True God from true God.
 
Marybeloved said:
… Trying to conflate the CC formula of the filioque with a meaning that she has explicitly denied, rejected and contradicted. The CC has explicitly said that the origin of both the Son and Holy Spirit is the Father- indeed he’s the source of the whole diety. I’m sure you’re aware of it, too.Ridiculous. You mean, just like the Son being “The word” makes him impersonal and harms the Trinity, a simple derivative and a “demi-god”? Or even “wisdom”? 😉 If you are going to attempt refuting our theology at least do it with reasoned arguments and leave the polemics aside for a moment.
Click to expand...
The question was asked, I answered it. Don’t use flawed language to explain your thinking, correct it or don’t say it at all.

My position is simply this: if you don’t mean it, don’t say it. If you do say it (in your prayers or in your creed) then I assume you believe it.

Don’t say ‘from the Father and the Son’ if you mean from the ‘Father through the Son’. It confuses everyone, especially the average Roman Catholic … most of whom have no idea what it means.
 
Hesychios said:
It is you who are being the polemicist.

The question was asked, I answered it. Don’t use flawed language to explain your thinking, correct it or don’t say it at all.

My position is simply this: if you don’t mean it, don’t say it. If you do say it (in your prayers or in your creed) then I assume you believe it.

Don’t say ‘from the Father and the Son’ if you mean from the ‘Father through the Son’. It confuses everyone, especially the average Roman Catholic … most of whom have no idea what it means.
Click to expand...
Right- Because most Christians understand everything else the creed says apart from the filioque which brings “so much confusion”? The Church explains the meaning just like she does with every other line of the creed- Lack of catechesis about the Filioque is the same as in every other area of our theology in the CC. Your oft repeated story about your experiment outside Sunday mass tells us nothing other than the fact that most Catholics have almost zero catechesis. The only “confusion” comes from those who’d like to tell the CC what she means instead of letting her say it. And it’s quite interesting that you can accuse me of polemics for setting out the teaching of my own Church AS she teaches it- what an interesting thought process. What we say is what we mean- we don’t have to use the language that you approve for us. By the way, I apologize for the polemics remark and actually edited it from my post.
 
Well truth be told Nine bought up the point above. Its a bit much when you sit down with each other, agree. shake hands and part, then change you mind and inform everyone oh what 300-years later? 😉 Never mind with Mark, this started in the 5th century.

Rome forgot they had it another way in their Doctrine:eek: They realized what in 800? 😃

Nothing like a little respect.
 
Marybeloved said:
Right- Because most Christians understand everything else the creed says apart from the filioque which brings “so much confusion”? The Church explains the meaning just like she does with every other line of the creed- Lack of catechesis about the Filique is the same as in every other area of our theology i the CC, your oft repeated story about your experiment outside Sunday mass tells us nothing other than the fact that most Catholics have almost zero catechesis. The only “confusion” comes from those who’d like to tell the CC what she means instead of letting her say it. And it’s quite interesting that you can accuse me of polemics for setting out the teaching of my own Church AS she teaches it- what an interesting thought process. What we say is what we mean- we don’t have to use the language that you approve for us. By the way, I apologize for the polemics remark and actually edited it from my post.
Click to expand...
I believe they do, even if they don’t have an understanding of the theological issues which arise from the statements.
I’ve had different Catholics describe the filioque in so many different ways, I was on this forum for quite some time before anyone even attempted to explain the correct Catholic belief - the “as from one principle” thing.

Similarly I had a discussion between three other people - including an Orthodox Priest and a Catholic - on the Creation according to the Nicene Creed, and after twenty minutes of discussion we had complete consensus and could claim a full understanding of what it said on the issue.
 
Nine_Two said:
I believe they do, even if they don’t have an understanding of the theological issues which arise from the statements.
I’ve had different Catholics describe the filioque in so many different ways, I was on this forum for quite some time before anyone even attempted to explain the correct Catholic belief - the “as from one principle” thing.

Similarly I had a discussion between three other people - including an Orthodox Priest and a Catholic - on the Creation according to the Nicene Creed, and after twenty minutes of discussion we had complete consensus and could claim a full understanding of what it said on the issue.
Click to expand...
Just look up any thread on the Trinity or the nature of God at CAF and see how many supposedly informed Catholics know what it is, even though they understand much of other things like the papacy, eucharist, sacraments etc. The twenty minute (or post) agreement you described has been replicated on the Filioque right here at CAF.
 
Marybeloved said:
Just look up any thread on the Trinity or the nature of God at CAF and see how many supposedly informed Catholics know what it is, even though they understand much of other things like the papacy, eucharist, sacraments etc. The twenty minute (or post) agreement you described has been replicated on the Filioque right here at CAF.
Click to expand...
Do you have a link to any of these threads on the filioque? Because I can’t wrap my mind around it without the concerns Hesychios brings up getting in the way of my understanding. Because if someone can actually explain it in a concise way (emulating a 20 minute discussion), that makes sense, I’m perfectly willing to withdraw what I explained was a personal objection.

Perhaps I’ve been asking the wrong people to explain it to me in the past.
 
Nine_Two said:
Do you have a link to any of these threads on the filioque? Because I can’t wrap my mind around it without the concerns Hesychios brings up getting in the way of my understanding. Because if someone can actually explain it in a concise way (emulating a 20 minute discussion), that makes sense, I’m perfectly willing to withdraw what I explained was a personal objection.

Perhaps I’ve been asking the wrong people to explain it to me in the past.
Click to expand...
I do have, one in which I myself was one of those who began in confusion and ended up “in agreement”- still am. Not that long ago either.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=619526
 
Marybeloved said:
I do have, one in which I myself was one of those who began in confusion and ended up “in agreement”- still am. Not that long ago either.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=619526
Click to expand...
I don’t have time to read that entire thread right now, but I did skim it.

It seems to me that of the Catholics in that thread almost all are starting from the same point and trying to clarify it. In the end (of what seems like it would be far greater than 20 minutes), it seems you have the Catholics in agreement, while none of the Orthodox accept the position.

This seems to indicate to me (again, I confess to having only had time to skim it at this point) that either there is a theological distinction between our faiths that manifests itself in the filioque, or… well I don’t have an or… I’d be interested to hear other “or”'s that explain why a bunch of Eastern Catholics can’t explain it to a bunch of Eastern Orthodox.
 
Nine_Two said:
I don’t have time to read that entire thread right now, but I did skim it.

It seems to me that of the Catholics in that thread almost all are starting from the same point and trying to clarify it. In the end (of what seems like it would be far greater than 20 minutes), it seems you have the Catholics in agreement, while none of the Orthodox accept the position.

This seems to indicate to me (again, I confess to having only had time to skim it at this point) that either there is a theological distinction between our faiths that manifests itself in the filioque, or… well I don’t have an or… I’d be interested to hear other “or”'s that explain why a bunch of Eastern Catholics can’t explain it to a bunch of Eastern Orthodox.
Click to expand...
The point that was made was that Catholics are “confused” about the filioque in a special way in which they aren’t with regards to the other mysteries of God. Clearly it’s false. All it takes is catechesis for us. I don’t know why Orthodox acceptance of it should matter- that was not the point being made here- it was all about how the filioque confuses in a special way, us poor Catholics. And it’s not true that we started from the same point. We all started not understanding what Mardukm had said, but tried to explain and understand it before he came on the thread (which was a split from another) to explain it himself.
 
Marybeloved said:
The point that was made was that Catholics are “confused” about the filioque in a special way in which they aren’t with regards to the other mysteries of God. Clearly it’s false. All it takes is catechesis for us. I don’t know why Orthodox acceptance of it should matter- that was not the point being made here- it was all about how the filioque confuses in a special way, us poor Catholics. And it’s not true that we started from the same point. We all started not understanding what Mardukm had said, but tried to explain and understand it before he came on the thread (which was a split from another) to explain it himself.
Click to expand...
I believe the point was that it is confusing.
 
Nine_Two said:
I believe the point was that it is confusing.
Click to expand...
Clearly we are following different conversations here. Hesychios himself said to me that the filioque was confusing “to the ordinary Roman Catholic” to which I answered that the ordinary Catholic’s problem is Catechesis of the creed in its entirety not the filioque, then you told me that the Catholics do understand the Trinity aspects but impliedly, not the filioque, and I’ve objected to that assertion telling you that the Filioque has been taught and explained and understood by us.

Telling me about confusion tells me nothing. I’ve never found anything in Christianity quite so confusing as the so called “essence-energies” distinction, many questions questions I’ve asked about it about the gaps I see in it remaining still unanswered. I’ve met numerous Muslims and JW’s (even Trinitarian Christians) who having been explained to the Trinity, read it, still say that it is confusing. So what? Does not stop us from saying it because it’s still true. Those Orthodox that have engaged in dialogue with us have understood it, they have seen what it is not (origin) and we Catholics have understood when it was taught to us, something much less confusing for one who has some type of grasp about the Trinity than the Trinity is to a person who is still trying to grasp it or the Hypostatic union. What exactly is the point here? What exactly about it “confuses you” that still remains unexplained or unresolved even after hearing Catholic explanations for it and letting them speak for themselves without imposing on the Catholics apriori assumptions about what you believe it is? What holes or gaps in the explanations still remain unanswered/unexplained for you? Point them out, then perhaps we can have a dialogue about it as far as we are able.
 
That was a good link Mary, you see how easy it gets crazy through? Oh man, that just went to Doves, and Wow. 🙂

Mardukm and Vico are on point on that thread. Good comprehension of function “and” theory by both.
 
GaryTaylor said:
That was a good link Mary, you see how easy it gets crazy through? Oh man, that just went to Doves, and Wow. 🙂

Mardukm and Vico are on point on that thread. Good comprehension of function “and” theory by both.
Click to expand...
Yes, I found Mardukm’s and Ghosty’s posts most helpful. 🙂

The spring-river-sea analogy is the best, IMHO. The River from which the sea forms is from the Spring and is necessary for the sea, yet it’s not it’s origin, is it? But the Sea proceeds from them as from one principle because the River through which the Sea forms is itself wholly derived from the Spring- The River and the Sea both have one origin, the Spring. The water in the sea came through the river but is ultimately from the Spring. From the view-point of the Sea, you can say that the sea came “FROM” the River and be right without meaning that the sea’s origin is the river. 🤷 About the sea, you can say that it proceeds from the spring AND the River, as well as from the spring THROUGH the River.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top