Filioque??

[tnystrom]

ahem, I’m not an “e-pologist” but any claim that Lyons and Florence preclude any teaching that the procession of the Holy Ghost procedes from the Father through the Son is false. Infact, the orthodox teaching of Florence teaches thusly:

“In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.”

The Ball is in your court.

Thank you.

 

[mardukm]

The OP cited the fact the Son has everything the Father has as proof of procession from the Son. I merely pointed out that if that were true, then the Son must have begetting as well, since the Father also has that.

That still does not follow because the very statement that “the Son has everything the Father has” admits a distinction between Father and Son, and by those very words indicates a relationship wherein one is arche or source (i.e., the Father). And besides that, the Catholic Church EXPLICITLY teaches that the Father is the arche of the Trinity, and the Source of both Son and Spirit.

This is like the debate with the protestants about intercession. We claim, “the Blessed mother intercedes for us.” The Protestants argue, “there is only one intercessor, so the Blessed mother does not do so.” On its own, the first statement can be taken to mean exactly as the Protestants misunderstand it. But a true and proper understanding requires recourse to OTHER things that the Catholic Church teaches - namely, that there is indeed only one Intercessor, but that we likewise become intercessors by virtue of the divine grace of Jesus existing in us.

One can’t take little snippets of the Catholic Church’s teachings as if it was devoid of context or relationship to her other teachings.

Another example closer to home would be the dogma of the Trinity. We say the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. On its own, we can be charged with tri-theism. One needs recourse to the OTHER teachings of the Catholic Church in order to understand that we are indeed monotheists.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

No. 2. For everyone.

I understand what you mean, and I also find the idea pretty attractive.

However, since filioque with a proper understanding does not violate the Faith, should not the Latins be able to keep it since it is so much part of their theological identity since time immemorial? Our goal in unity is understanding, not uniformity, right? If we all hold the same FAITH, it shouldn’t matter right?

I mean, if one supports the decisions of the Eastern Christians during the debacle with Abp Ireland, who wanted to retain their merely disciplinary tradition, should we not moreso respect a desire to retain a THEOLOGICAL tradition (since it does not violate the Faith)?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[a_priori]

Yes, The Filioque or no Filioque is a matter of Faith as it is describing two different Gods.

I mean no disrespect, but this is the Mother of all red herrings. We cannot describe God. Human language cannot come close to describing the relationship between the Persons of the Godhead. To parse words like this and to divide the Church as a result is tragic. It is as if God is no different than the gods of the Pantheon that could be described because they were exaggerated humanity who did and felt what men do and feel except with superpowers. They were angry, sad, swore vengeance, etc. etc.

Our God is so far above anything we could attempt to conceptualize that claiming to have an understanding in literal terms concerning how the Holy Spirit “proceeds” from the Godhead is extremely hubristic.

We know that the Creed sums up the Faith. But it doesn’t have the exhaustive explanatory power often ascribed to it. Nothing on Earth does. We know there is a Trinity. We know Christ is a Person of the Trinity who came and died for us. Claiming to peer into the Trinity and split the Church over the conclusion is bad. Very bad.

 

[anthony022071]

anthony, I am glad that you are reading the Bible but one must understand what he is reading too,
Again, CHRIST was Teaching when HE said that the HOLY SPIRIT proceed from the FATHER**.**Period
HE did not say from the FATHER AND the SON

Please give a Book chapter and verse name and number for what Saint PAul had said so I can research it. because as you know that CHRIST was Fully man and fully GOD. the HOLY SPIRIT rests upon the SON but does not proceed from HIM, If the HOLY SPIRIT proceed from HIM then CHRIST would have said it since it was a teaching.
later all

“. . . thanks to your prayers and the support I receive from the Spirit of Jesus Christ” (1 Philippians 2:19).

“If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ” (Romans 8:9).

“May God, the source of all patience and encouragement, enable you to live with one another according to the spirit of Christ Jesus, so that with one heart and voice you may glorify God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 15:5).

“God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts” (Gal 4:6).

[Here Paul says that the Father sends the Spirit of his Son,whereas Jesus said of himself that he will send the Spirit,who proceeds from the Father.]

“The prophets investigated the times and the circumstances which the Spirit of Christ within them was pointing to, for he predicted the sufferings destined for Christ and the glories that would follow” (1 Peter 1:11).

Now,an Orthodox apologist may say that these verses do not refer to the Son being the origin of existence of the Spirit but only that the Son has the Spirit. But the fact is that the Son has the Spirit of the Father from eternity,because the Father and Son are one in being,consubstantial.

St.Athanasius:
“Insofar as we understand the special relationship of the Son to the Father, we also understand that the Spirit has this same relationship to the Son. And since the Son says, ‘everything that the Father has is mine (John 16:15),’ we will discover all these things also in the Spirit through the Son. And just as the Son was announced by the Father, Who said, ‘This is my beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased (Matthew 3:17),’ so also is the Spirit of the Son; for, as the Apostle says, ‘He has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’ (Galatians 4:6).” (Athanasius, Letters to Serapion, III, 1, 33, PG 26, 625 B).

St. Gregory Nyssa:
“The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is [further] attested that He is of the Son. St Paul says: ‘Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to Him’ (Romans 8:9). So the Spirit Who is of God (the Father) is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son Who is of God (the Father) is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed.” (Fragment in Orationem Dominicam, quoted by St John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC).

St. Ambrose of Milan:
“Just as the Father is the fount of life, so too, there are many who have stated that the Son is designated as the fount of life. It is said, for example that with You, Almighty God, Your Son is the fount of life, that is, the fount of the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit is life, just as the Lord says: ‘The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life.’ [John 6:63]” (The Holy Spirit 1:15:152 [A.D. 381]).

Pope St. Damasus I:
“The Holy Spirit is not of the Father only, or the Spirit of the Son only, but He is the Spirit of the Father and the Son. For it is written, ‘In anyone loves the world, the Spirit of the Father is not in him (1 John 2:15)’; and again it is written: ‘If anyone, however, does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His (Romans 8:9).’ When the Father and the Son are named in this way, the Holy Spirit is understood, of Whom the Son Himself says in the Gospel, that the Holy Spirit ‘proceed from the Father (John 15:26),’ and that ‘He shall receive of mine and shall announce it to you (John 16:14).’” (Acts of the Council of Rome, 382).

 

[bobzills]

There are Romanian Greek Catholic priests and even bishops who do not use the Filioque. I have not experienced the Liturgy in Romania, but I know His Grace +John Michael does not use the addition either in Romanian or English here in the US.
FDRLB

However in the Roman Catholic Church in Romania, Western rite, the credo in the liturgy has:“Care de la Tatăl şi de la Fiul purcede.”

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

I am Orthodox, and I say this conversation is stupid and pointless. Why? Because I believe in the Bible’s infallibility and respect God.

Luke 11:4
And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

In order to have our sins forgiven, we must forgive others. I would not, as an Orthodox, hold grudges. To hold a grudge is to eliminate all chance of receiving God’s forgiveness. Any one holding a grudge about the Sack of Constantinople and the rest of the atrocities committed by the Latin Christians is unable to receive mercy for their sins, or complete theosis. It must follow then, that if I were to hold a grudge, I have damned myself to Hell. I don’t know about my co-religionists, but I neither want to go to Hell, nor do I wish to disobey my Lord. I suggest all do the same. Of course, that is assuming you all serve the same Lord.

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

Also, I am ashamed at the cold-heartedness of you, my “Orthodox” brother. Had you had the power to destroy nations! Thank God you don’t! You would, for the sake of a man’s oppression of you, murder his innocent children who were not even alive to commit the oppression you persecute them for. The Crusaders sacked us once, and since then, you have sat with poison in your hearts. It seethes and bubbles, and now, when the crusades have died and their children play, you try to verbally butcher and rape them like heathens. When you get done crusading, dear “orthodox”, look up and search for Christ. Seek his forgiveness. It is sad that I can witness such hypocrisy. Are not we, as Christians, supposed to seek to be perfect as Christ is perfect? Yet, I look, and I see no resemblance of my dear Lord. “You shall know them by their fruits.” And what is the Fruit of the Spirit? Love? Peace? Gentleness? Must not be, because I see none. Either God is a liar, or you are. Somehow, I doubt Truth can lie…

There was one, a cursed one, and the Lamb of God called him the father of lies…

Take that for what it’s worth.

 

[bobzills]

I am Orthodox, and I say this conversation is stupid and pointless. Why? Because I believe in the Bible’s infallibility and respect God.

In order to have our sins forgiven, we must forgive others. I would not, as an Orthodox, hold grudges. To hold a grudge is to eliminate all chance of receiving God’s forgiveness. Any one holding a grudge about the Sack of Constantinople and the rest of the atrocities committed by the Latin Christians is unable to receive mercy for their sins, or complete theosis. It must follow then, that if I were to hold a grudge, I have damned myself to Hell. I don’t know about my co-religionists, but I neither want to go to Hell, nor do I wish to disobey my Lord. I suggest all do the same. Of course, that is assuming you all serve the same Lord.

This is just a hypothetical question: Suppose someone breaks into your house, rapes your daughter and murders your wife, and steals your precious jewels which are worth one million dollars. A short time later, the robber comes to you and says that you are supposed to forgive him, but he tells you that he will not give you back your jewels. He says that he will keep all the jewels that he has stolen from your house, but still, you are supposed to forgive him and let him go free. What would your response be to such a situation?

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

This is just a hypothetical question: Suppose someone breaks into your house, rapes your daughter and murders your wife, and steals your precious jewels which are worth one million dollars. A short time later, the robber comes to you and says that you are supposed to forgive him, but he tells you that he will not give you back your jewels. He says that he will keep all the jewels that he has stolen from your house, but still, you are supposed to forgive him and let him go free. What would your response be to such a situation?

1. If it was the robber, I would attack him.
2. Despite that fact, it is still not right to attack him since Lord Jesus says to forgive. Right/wrong aren’t relative to what suits my passions.
3. While I would attack the robber, I certainly would not attack his son, if the son came and apologised.
4. Fact you may not know: Latins aren’t immune to death. The ones you talk to now…they didn’t rob us. I know right! Astounding.
5. In case you didn’t get that, that means you’re attacking the sons.
6. Lord Jesus refused to let Peter defend him.
7. Last time I checked, we aren’t worth more than Christ. I know right! Puts a lot of stuff in perspective, don’t it?
8. Vengeance is the Lord’s. I know right! Orthodox Christians are actually supposed to obey what’s in that book, you know, the one written by dead Jewish guys.

Of course, I could be wrong. I was just under the impression that we are the body of Christ, not Satan. Guess I figured that meant that we should be Christ-like. Oh wait! It does! Amazing the things you learn on forums!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Simply put: In Latin, it’s a non-issue, as the term used is able to be understood validly as “flows forth (from/through)”… but in the greek translation, the Greek used can ONLY be understood as “origniates from/with”. This greek translation is inherently heretical,

the Greek is not a translation. The Creed was written in it.

but the Latin is not…

the original.

It forms the primary basis of the Anathema by Constantinople against Rome. An Anathema recently lifted…

The Second and Third Councils were vacated? I missed that.

The meaning of the Filioque is along the lines of “Who origniates in the Father, and flows forth from the Father and the Son” which is orthodox… but it is not the Nicene nor the Nicene-Constantinoplian creed.

Right, it’s not.

It’s a big deal, because many of the Eastern Churches in Union were compelled to use it; given their norms for the vernacular of their native land, this often was problematic: either speak unmeant heresy, or engage in disobedience. But, since Vatican II, many have dropped the filioque.

Now if they can just finish the job. Pope Benedict has worked in that direction.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

That still does not follow because the very statement that “the Son has everything the Father has” admits a distinction between Father and Son, and by those very words indicates a relationship wherein one is arche or source (i.e., the Father). And besides that, the Catholic Church EXPLICITLY teaches that the Father is the arche of the Trinity, and the Source of both Son and Spirit.

Not accourding to this post

ahem, I’m not an “e-pologist” but any claim that Lyons and Florence preclude any teaching that the procession of the Holy Ghost procedes from the Father through the Son is false. Infact, the orthodox teaching of Florence teaches thusly:

“In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause [arche], and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.”
The Ball is in your court.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Isa,

I understand what you mean, and I also find the idea pretty attractive.

However, since filioque with a proper understanding does not violate the Faith, should not the Latins be able to keep it since it is so much part of their theological identity since time immemorial?

Given its history of havoc, no.

I for instance, with all due respect to the Chaldeans, believe that they should not be allodes to use yaldat mshikha (Chritotokos) to the exclusion of yaldat alaha (Theotokos), as the former is what the problem of Nestorius and the Third Council was all about.

Our goal in unity is understanding, not uniformity, right? If we all hold the same FAITH, it shouldn’t matter right?

and we want to keep it that way.

For instance, we used to say “Glory to the Father, through the Son and in the Holy Spirit.” Why did we change it: two guesses Nicea I and Constantinople I. The idea is to make it unpleasant for heretics to frequent our LIturgy.

I mean, if one supports the decisions of the Eastern Christians during the debacle with Abp Ireland, who wanted to retain their merely disciplinary tradition, should we not moreso respect a desire to retain a THEOLOGICAL tradition (since it does not violate the Faith)?

I’m not convinced of how “mere” the discipliine was. Neither was St. Alexis Toth (who, remember was a widow whose children had died, so he had no stack in taking a stand on it). Hence his course of action.

For the Early Church, the primacy of Rome was merely a disciplinary tradtion. We know where that went.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I mean no disrespect, but this is the Mother of all red herrings. We cannot describe God. Human language cannot come close to describing the relationship between the Persons of the Godhead.

All the more reason to use HIS VERY WORDS WHICH THE FATHERS DID.

To parse words like this and to divide the Church as a result is tragic. It is as if God is no different than the gods of the Pantheon that could be described because they were exaggerated humanity who did and felt what men do and feel except with superpowers. They were angry, sad, swore vengeance, etc. etc.

Jesus said. We belive it. For us, that settles it.

Our God is so far above anything we could attempt to conceptualize that claiming to have an understanding in literal terms concerning how the Holy Spirit “proceeds” from the Godhead is extremely hubristic.

That is why we trust what GOD MADE MAN SAID.

We know that the Creed sums up the Faith. But it doesn’t have the exhaustive explanatory power often ascribed to it

No, just to separate Orthodox Catholic Dogma from heresy.

Nothing on Earth does.

When He came down from Heaven, was incarnate and became man and walked the Earth, He could. And He said "WHO PROCEEDS FROM THE FATHER.’

We know there is a Trinity. We know Christ is a Person of the Trinity who came and died for us.

and told us “PROCEEDS FROM THE FATHER.”

Claiming to peer into the Trinity and split the Church over the conclusion is bad. Very bad.

So trusing Christ on His Word is good. Very good.

 

[Ghosty]

Not accourding to this post

The Latin doesn’t use the term arche, and causa (the Latin term) doesn’t have the same implication as arche.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

“. . . thanks to your prayers and the support I receive from the Spirit of Jesus Christ” (1 Philippians 2:19).

“If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ” (Romans 8:9).

“May God, the source of all patience and encouragement, enable you to live with one another according to the spirit of Christ Jesus, so that with one heart and voice you may glorify God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 15:5).

“God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts” (Gal 4:6).

[Here Paul says that the Father sends the Spirit of his Son,whereas Jesus said of himself that he will send the Spirit,who proceeds from the Father.]

“The prophets investigated the times and the circumstances which the Spirit of Christ within them was pointing to, for he predicted the sufferings destined for Christ and the glories that would follow” (1 Peter 1:11).

Now,an Orthodox apologist may say that these verses do not refer to the Son being the origin of existence of the Spirit but only that the Son has the Spirit. But the fact is that the Son has the Spirit of the Father from eternity,because the Father and Son are one in being,consubstantial.

St.Athanasius:
“Insofar as we understand the special relationship of the Son to the Father, we also understand that the Spirit has this same relationship to the Son. And since the Son says, ‘everything that the Father has is mine (John 16:15),’ we will discover all these things also in the Spirit through the Son. And just as the Son was announced by the Father, Who said, ‘This is my beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased (Matthew 3:17),’ so also is the Spirit of the Son; for, as the Apostle says, ‘He has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’ (Galatians 4:6).” (Athanasius, Letters to Serapion, III, 1, 33, PG 26, 625 B).

St. Gregory Nyssa:
“The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is [further] attested that He is of the Son. St Paul says: ‘Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to Him’ (Romans 8:9). So the Spirit Who is of God (the Father) is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son Who is of God (the Father) is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed.” (Fragment in Orationem Dominicam, quoted by St John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC).

St. Ambrose of Milan:
“Just as the Father is the fount of life, so too, there are many who have stated that the Son is designated as the fount of life. It is said, for example that with You, Almighty God, Your Son is the fount of life, that is, the fount of the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit is life, just as the Lord says: ‘The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life.’ [John 6:63]” (The Holy Spirit 1:15:152 [A.D. 381]).

Pope St. Damasus I:
“The Holy Spirit is not of the Father only, or the Spirit of the Son only, but He is the Spirit of the Father and the Son. For it is written, ‘In anyone loves the world, the Spirit of the Father is not in him (1 John 2:15)’; and again it is written: ‘If anyone, however, does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His (Romans 8:9).’ When the Father and the Son are named in this way, the Holy Spirit is understood, of Whom the Son Himself says in the Gospel, that the Holy Spirit ‘proceed from the Father (John 15:26),’ and that ‘He shall receive of mine and shall announce it to you (John 16:14).’” (Acts of the Council of Rome, 382).

All support procession through the Son, and proinai (i.e. economic) procession from the Son. Not a problem.

Nothing in support the Son as arche of the Spirit, i.e. filioque.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The Latin doesn’t use the term arche, and causa (the Latin term) doesn’t have the same implication as arche.

Peace and God bless!

But specifies “as the Greeks say cause,” which is arche in Greek, and it has that connotation.

 

[Ghosty]

But specifies “as the Greeks say cause,” which is arche in Greek, and it has that connotation.

I don’t think that can be taken from the text as a true statement, because it’s not clear that the Latin authors understood what the Greeks meant. If they did understand it, then the writers would have just contradicted what they had written only a paragraph before, namely that the Father is the Source.

Remember, the Greek understanding of terms was barely discussed at Florence, and the Latins did not have a complete understanding of Greek theology (the Latins didn’t even know of the Essence/Energies distinction as made in Byzantine theology; the Greek Bishops were forbidden from talking about it by their Emperor).

In short, Florence defined that the Father is Source, not the Son, so the Son is not “arche”. The Latins (and then only a few of them, according to the records available) were insisting on their own nuance of “causa” on the Greeks as a condition for reunion. They demanded that the Greeks admit that the Son was “causa”, not knowing that there was a significant difference in the nuance of the term translated as “arche” in Greek.

If the Latins had meant that the Son is “arche”, they would not have said that the Father alone was the Source.

Peace and God bless!

 

[bobzills]

1. If it was the robber, I would attack him.
2. Despite that fact, it is still not right to attack him since Lord Jesus says to forgive. Right/wrong aren’t relative to what suits my passions.
3. While I would attack the robber, I certainly would not attack his son, if the son came and apologised.
4. Fact you may not know: Latins aren’t immune to death. The ones you talk to now…they didn’t rob us. I know right! Astounding.
5. In case you didn’t get that, that means you’re attacking the sons.
6. Lord Jesus refused to let Peter defend him.
7. Last time I checked, we aren’t worth more than Christ. I know right! Puts a lot of stuff in perspective, don’t it?
8. Vengeance is the Lord’s. I know right! Orthodox Christians are actually supposed to obey what’s in that book, you know, the one written by dead Jewish guys.

Of course, I could be wrong. I was just under the impression that we are the body of Christ, not Satan. Guess I figured that meant that we should be Christ-like. Oh wait! It does! Amazing the things you learn on forums!

OK.
I think you gave a pretty good answer to the question.
With reference to the Fourth Crusade, I think it was one of the biggest disasters and mistakes in human history and while what you say has a lot of merit, at the same time, I don’t see why much of the stolen loot was not returned to the Eastern Oirthodox Church?

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

OK.
I think you gave a pretty good answer to the question.
With reference to the Fourth Crusade, I think it was one of the biggest disasters and mistakes in human history and while what you say has a lot of merit, at the same time, I don’t see why much of the stolen loot was not returned to the Eastern Oirthodox Church?

It was a lot of loot. I doubt anyone could find a great deal of it, even if they tried. Besides, we’re still here. We suffered some of the greatest abuses and misfortunes, yet we’re still here. Is that not one of the greatest testimonies that God can bless us with? The blessing of perseverance and survival. God has tried us in many fires, and we have emerged stronger every time. Sometimes suffering and sorrow build strength. Besides, there once were some wayward Latins who crucified a certain man. Yet, that man defeated death itself and rose victorious as the King of Kings. The Bible says when we are baptised, we put on Christ. So, though we have been crucified, and may still be crucified, by wayward Latins, what reason is there to fret or complain? It may indeed seem unbearable at times; even our Lord Jesus asked to be spared from torment. Yet, we can be assured that one day, whether near or far, we will rise and reign with him. What greater joy is there than that? We should be careful not to lay up treasures on earth. We are just pilgrims passing by. So let us take the strait path that leads to God, who will vindicate us and avenge us. All is well in the end for the children of the Almighty. After all, would the holy Father of lights cast His obedient children in the dark to die? Just be strong and trust that He knows what He’s doing. God will judge the wicked men who slaughtered us, and bless us for our faithfulness, whether in this life or the next. Just have patience.