Filioque, why was it added?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ronofs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I do not reject that The Father is the Source and that all things are given by the Father to the Son. I do reject that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. I accept that the Spirit is given through and by the Son to us in time. I accept that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son but again I reject that the Spirit proceeds from the Son.
 
Ronofs said:
But even St Augustine denies the HS proceeds from the Son.
Click to expand...
Where does he say that? I’m very interested, because I’ve found a clear quote (see below) where he affirms the Filioque – did he change his mind at some point? I’ve never seen anyone claim that he denied it before. Do you have a citation?
How is it a heresy to state something that Scripture doesn’t affirm?
Click to expand...
It’s a heresy to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son because it is part of Scripture and Tradition that He does. For example, here is what St. Augustine says on this topic:

“the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also. [For] the Father…so begot [the Son] as that the common [Spirit] should proceed from Him also, [so that] the Holy Spirit should be the Spirit of both.” (On the Trinity Book 15 Chapter 17 Paragraph 29)
 
Last edited:
Ronofs said:
I do not reject that The Father is the Source and that all things are given by the Father to the Son. I do reject that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. I accept that the Spirit is given through and by the Son to us in time. I accept that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son but again I reject that the Spirit proceeds from the Son.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by “proceeds?”
 
Last edited:
The words are very technical. I will have to look back in my notes but St Augustine clearly differentiated between the word proceed in the Latin and the Greek and allowed for that difference.
 
dmar198 said:
It’s a heresy to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son because it is part of Scripture and Tradition that He does. For example, here is what St. Augustine says on this topic:

“the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also. [For] the Father…so begot [the Son] as that the common [Spirit] should proceed from Him also, [so that] the Holy Spirit should be the Spirit of both.” (On the Trinity Book 15 Chapter 17 Paragraph 29)
Click to expand...
@Ronofs

Are you going to respond to the above quote from Saint Augustine? Seems he did not dispute that the Holy Spirit “proceeds” from the son.
 
Ronofs said:
Its there. I found it pretty easily.
Click to expand...
And I’m finding plenty to the contrary and that this is a weak strawman.

To quote Augustine’s On the Trinity, Book XV:
  1. And yet it is not to no purpose that in this Trinity the Son and none other is called the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit and none other the Gift of God, and God the Father alone is He from whom the Word is born, and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. And therefore I have added the word principally, because we find that the Holy Spiritproceeds from the Son also. But the Father gave Him this too, not as to one already existing, and not yet having it; but whatever He gave to the only-begotten Word, He gave by begetting Him. Therefore He so begot Him as that the common Gift should proceed from Him also, and the Holy Spirit should be the Spirit of both. This distinction, then, of the inseparable Trinity is not to be merely accepted in passing, but to be carefully considered; for hence it was that the Word of God was specially called also the Wisdom of God, although both Father and Holy Spirit are wisdom. If, then, any one of the three is to be specially called Love, what more fitting than that it should be the Holy Spirit?— namely, that in that simple and highest nature, substance should not be one thing and love another, but that substance itself should be love, and love itself should be substance, whether in the Father, or in the Son, or in the Holy Spirit; and yet that the Holy Spirit should be specially called Love.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Scripture says the Spirit proceeds from the Father who is the Source and Principle in the Trinity. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit Proceeds from the Father. That was the question I had. Someone added a link to an article that answered my question.
 
thank you for posting this article. It contains what I read about Augustine and the difference in the meaning of the Greek and Latin pertaining to the Proceeding of the Spirit. Both sides were right in the way that they were emphasizing. The Orthodox are right when they are emphasizing the origin of the Holy Spirit. The Latins are right when they are emphasizing the consubstantian of both Son and Spirit with the Father. I think we can put this thread to bed.
 
its best not to refer to people in the third person when they are present to the conversation. You come off as very adversarial and not helpful at all.

thanks
Ron
 
No where and no word in 2 Tim 3:16-17 says that scripture is sufficient. You missed the point of the question. See the article that Canvas posted. That is the discussion I was trying to have. Thanks anyway.

Ron
 
In Timothy (Kallistos) Ware’s book on the Orthodox, he had the following to say about the Filioque. That is what I was referring to about St Augustine.

"When Augustine stated that the Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son, he was careful to qualify this by insisting that the Spirit does not proceed from the Son in the same manner as He proceeds from the Father. There are two different kinds of procession. The Spirit proceeds from the Father principaliter, ‘principally’ or ‘principially’, states Augustine, but He proceeds from the Son only per donum Patris, ‘through the gift of the Father’. The procession of the Spirit from the Son, that is to say, is specifically something that the Father Himself has conferred upon the Son. Just as the Son receives all things as a gift from the Father, so also it is from the Father that He receives the power to ‘spirate’ or ‘breathe forth’ the Spirit. In this way for Augustine, as for the Cappadocians, the Father remains the ‘fountainhead of the deity’, the sole source and ultimate origin within the Trinity. Augustine’s teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son – but with the qualification that He proceeds from the Son, not ‘principially’ but ‘through the gift of the Father’ – is thus not so very different from Gregory of Nyssa’s view that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. The Council of Florence, in endorsing Augustine’s doctrine of Double Procession, explicitly re-emphasized the point that the spiration of the Spirit is conferred on the Son by God the Father. The contrast, then, between Orthodoxy and Rome as regards the ‘monarchy’ of the Father is not nearly so stark as appears at first sight.

there is today a school of Orthodox theologians who believe that the divergence between east and west over the Filioque, while by no means unimportant, is not as fundamental as Lossky and his disciples maintain. The Roman Catholic understanding of the person and work of the Holy Spirit, so this second group of Orthodox theologians conclude, is not basically different from that of the Christian east; and so we may hope that in the present-day dialogue between Orthodox and Roman Catholics an understanding will eventually be reached on this thorny question."

I don’t agree that the Filioque needed to be added in the manner that it was added. I think Rome road roughshod over the rest of the church and did not put the full explanation of their emphasis on consubstantiation out there. Had they done this, a lot of the problems with the Eastern Church could have been avoided. And also perhaps if the Latins had not sacked Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade… but that is another topic.

Thanks,
Ron
 
Here is the filioque in scriptures.

Revelation

22 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
 
Last edited:
uh yes, Augustine clarified it. It is a matter of emphasis. See my post below from the book by Ware. I was prevented from posting after a certain number of posts yesterday due to limits set by the system so I was unable to respond to several people that posted.
 
uh no, that is a stretch. I know what you are trying to do but that doesn’t work. John 15:26 says it plainly enough from the words of our Savior

thanks
Ron
 
The only thing I’ll add to this is that Augustine wrote that the Son received the Holy Spirit as part of him being eternally begotten of the Father. Augustine did not believe it was received temporally.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top