R
- Status
F
Fuerza
Guest
Iâm glad to see that you can admit that, because as has been discussed many times, the Latin term âproceditâ does not carry the same meaning as the Greek term âekporeusisâ. Therefore, the Latin addition of Filioque poses no problem, especially since even the Greeks admit a âproienaiâ (sp?) of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. Of course, neither side is going to convince the other. I just find it interesting that the Orthodox in general seem to accept linguistic differences within other Eastern traditions, but not when it comes to Latins.
A
Allyson
Guest
Fuerza
âŚsee following post.
God Bless,
R.
I do not think that I admit to what I think you think I am admitting to. So correct me if I am wrong. I was not referring to the Latin langauge v. the Greek language (part of the same laguage family), which use the same formula from Constantinople. Rather, I am looking at the comparission of two creedal formulaâs that exist in two different language families altogether. I was responding to Bobzills response to the discussion of this other formula:
SoâŚthe difference is that there is not word for proceed at all. I was not dealing with the problems of the words in Latin and Greek for proceed. But, I will now.
âŚsee following post.
God Bless,
R.
A
Allyson
Guest
Bobzills:
I agree that language and translation is a technical thing, but that is the nature of being human (and I love it.) It is a glorious and exciting thing, and sometimes confounding.
As I said above I was comparing different creedal formulaâs, however, when you deal with the one creedal formula - Nicene-Constantinople - in two languages, and one is added to in such a way that translation into the other is problematic, there is a problem. So to be more speacific:
The Nicene-Constantinoplean was written in Greek. This is its original language, and should be the primary language by which we seek to understand its meaning. It uses the word ekpoureusis to explain the origination of the Holy Spirit. To add anything like a âfilioqueâ clause to this formula would be to express something heretical because of what ekpoureusis means. So, the problem with the Latin (langauge) formula is that procedit can mean either one of the two greek words for proceed. The Latin language has a smaller technical vocabulary for theology, and there are sadly not two corresponding words that we can use to be more clear. Procedit is the only terms for translation from Greek. While proeinai is not problematic, it is not used in the original creedal formula, so it is a bit huberistic to say that it is the meaning meant by the Latin (language) formula, and that that meaning can be carried back over to the Greeks. (Not that anyone has actually said that, but it can be taken as the logical conclusion of some of what I read.)
However, the Latin Church at the council of Florence stated that what was meant by procedit wasekpoureusis. Although, Florence, in her entirety, was left out of the more recent Clarification on the âfilioque,â many on these forums refer to her in the arguments for the legitimacy for the âfilioque.â Obviously, though, this leaves us with a very complicating factor. We can potentially leave proeinia out of the discussion, because that is not what the Latin Church at one time said she meant. Unless, of course, you want to reject the formula of Florence.
Latin and Greek are Indo-European languages and so share many similarities in culture and expression, but the creed Rony discusses in post #361 at the top of p.25 is in Aramaic, and is a Semitic language family member. I am far less familiar with the Semitic language family, but it has its own cultures and expressions that need to be understood to understand the language. I only some knowledge of Biblical Hebrew, which is not much help. Consequently my point I made before was a simple one, based on the simple absence of a word cause a great difference in the meaning of the creedal formula.
God Bless,
R.
What in particular is* too* technical?
I agree that language and translation is a technical thing, but that is the nature of being human (and I love it.) It is a glorious and exciting thing, and sometimes confounding.
As I said above I was comparing different creedal formulaâs, however, when you deal with the one creedal formula - Nicene-Constantinople - in two languages, and one is added to in such a way that translation into the other is problematic, there is a problem. So to be more speacific:
The Nicene-Constantinoplean was written in Greek. This is its original language, and should be the primary language by which we seek to understand its meaning. It uses the word ekpoureusis to explain the origination of the Holy Spirit. To add anything like a âfilioqueâ clause to this formula would be to express something heretical because of what ekpoureusis means. So, the problem with the Latin (langauge) formula is that procedit can mean either one of the two greek words for proceed. The Latin language has a smaller technical vocabulary for theology, and there are sadly not two corresponding words that we can use to be more clear. Procedit is the only terms for translation from Greek. While proeinai is not problematic, it is not used in the original creedal formula, so it is a bit huberistic to say that it is the meaning meant by the Latin (language) formula, and that that meaning can be carried back over to the Greeks. (Not that anyone has actually said that, but it can be taken as the logical conclusion of some of what I read.)
However, the Latin Church at the council of Florence stated that what was meant by procedit wasekpoureusis. Although, Florence, in her entirety, was left out of the more recent Clarification on the âfilioque,â many on these forums refer to her in the arguments for the legitimacy for the âfilioque.â Obviously, though, this leaves us with a very complicating factor. We can potentially leave proeinia out of the discussion, because that is not what the Latin Church at one time said she meant. Unless, of course, you want to reject the formula of Florence.
Latin and Greek are Indo-European languages and so share many similarities in culture and expression, but the creed Rony discusses in post #361 at the top of p.25 is in Aramaic, and is a Semitic language family member. I am far less familiar with the Semitic language family, but it has its own cultures and expressions that need to be understood to understand the language. I only some knowledge of Biblical Hebrew, which is not much help. Consequently my point I made before was a simple one, based on the simple absence of a word cause a great difference in the meaning of the creedal formula.
God Bless,
R.
A
Allyson
Guest
Thanks, for the info!
I hope some day to learn more languages. I love to study them.God Bless,
R.
A
Allyson
Guest
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Because the Latin alter the meaning of the Universal Creed.
G
Ghosty
Guest
No, it didnât. It didnât even address the question of ekporousis, and thereâs no indication that the Latins were aware of the linguistic issue.
Ekporousis, or âfrom the sourceâ (literally âfrom the mouthâ), is not dealt with in Latin theology directly at all, except in its insistence at the Council of Florence that the Father, not the Son, is the Source of the Holy Spirit. There have never been any Latin Councils or major theologians which have taught that the Son and the Father are together a Source of deity.
Peace and God bless!
R
ronyodish
Guest
Allyson,
There is an Aramaic word for âproceedsâ which shows up in the Aramaic Peshitta Bible in John 15:26:
ܢ܌܊ ânpqâ, which is pronounced by Chaldeans as: ânapeqâ
The above word does not show up in the Aramaic Creed of 410. Rather, the Creed simply has this: âdminâ, that is: âwho(is) fromâ.
God bless,
Rony
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Some time ago in Apologetics I think I posted all the NT references to the Greek ekporeusis, and some reference to the Aramaic npq (the two mostly overlap, at least in the NT). Iâll try to pull it up somehow, and post a link.
Done.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2832388&highlight=Aramaic#post2832388
A
Allyson
Guest
What would you say is the meaning of the following from Florence (Session 6)?
âWe 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.â {my emphasis}
Isnât this precisely what is objected to - what is meant by ekpouresis? It is my understanding that the East (i.e. Greeks/ByzantinesâŚ) does not want to say that the subsistence of the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son, but from the Father alone; that it should not be said that the Son is a cause.
I am tracking down the original text sources available to check which particular verb is used, but the translated quote above will suffice for now for discussion.
At the very least, it must be weighed heavily, that the origibal text of the creed - in Greek as written in the East at the Council of Constantinople - uses ekpouresis to describe the origination of the Holy Spirit, and and that the addition of the âfilioqueâ clause is problematic in the Greek text because of the meaning of the verb. The Greek verb is normative for understanding the origination of the Holy Spirit in the original formulation of the creed, thus to try and insert a âfilioqueâ clause into a description of the origination of the Holy Spirit, as is done in passage above, is a problem.
God Bless,
R.
A
Allyson
Guest
Thanks, again.
It occurs to me to ask what text characters you are using. They donât show up for me. I have a Mac Book. Any idea what I should download?
God Bless,
R.
S
StRaphael
Guest
What does the Monarchy entail? The Father alone is underived; He is the principle without principle of the entire Godhead, i.e. the Father alone is the source (peghe) and arche anarchos; the Son is not the arche anarchos. That is to say, the Son is not aitia because aitia deals with ekporeusis (origin from the sole principle without principle){1} but the Son is, together with the Father, the one principium from which the Holy Spirit proceeds because principium is more general and corresponds to processio, which signifies origin in any way at all as opposed to the restricted ekporeusis.
How, then, can it be said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son as from one principle?{2} Well, St. Thomas Aquinas points out that this must be said because there is no relative opposition between the Father and Son as principle of the Spirit.{3} This same prince of theologians observes that âprincipleâ signifies a property after the manner of a substantive, so âprincipleâ takes its number from the form it signifies and as the Father and Son are one God by reason of the unity of form that âGodâ signifies, they are one principle of the Holy Spirit because of the unity of property that âprincipleâ signifies.{4} The saintly Doctor calls to attention the fact that there is no reason one property cannot be in two supposita that have one common nature, and the spirative power the Father and Son have signifies the one common nature with the property.{5} It is for this reason that the Father and Son are two spirating, but not two spirators.{6}
Ghosty{7} uses a superb patristically-rooted analogy to illustrate both the Monarchy of the Father and the equality of Father and Son as principle of the Holy Spirit. He says that the lake (Holy Spirit) comes equally from the spring (Father) and river (Son). The one source of the water (Godhead, divinity) is the spring (Father), and the river (Son) receives the same water and contribution (spirative power) from the spring (Father) without becoming the primordial source (the Father) of the lake (Holy Spirit).{8}
We say that the Holy Spirit proceeds principally or properly from the Father because the Son has the same spirative power from the Father.{9} Another way to think about it, according to the highly intelligent blogger Brandon Watson, is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father principally because He is the Spirit of the Son because He is the Spirit of the Father, not vice-versa.{10}
God bless!
{1} St. John of Damascus (Doctor), An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 1:12.
{2} This is the Florentine ecumenical and infallible definition.
{3} Aquinas, St. Thomas (Doctor), Summa Theologica 1:36:4. Thus we see from Aquinas, in his words, that since one power belongs to the Father and Son and whatever is from the Father must be from the Son unless it is opposed to the property of filiation since the Son is not from Himself but is from the Father. Ergo pace St. Photius I the Great and his assertions in his Mystagogy, far from being superfluous, Filioque is entirely necessary. The Son, says St. Thomas Aquinas, is not a second (i.e. secondary and instrumental) cause as some Eastern Orthodox polemicists, after the example of the extremely anti-Latin Mark of Ephesus, would accuse us (in fact the Spirit does not proceed from the Father more than from the Son) because the same spirative power belongs to the Father and Son such that the Holy Spirit proceeds equally from both.
{4} Ibid.
{5} Ibid.
{6} Ibid.
{7} forums.catholic-questions.org/member.php?u=3197
{8} forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3977057#post3977057
{9} Aquinas, St. Thomas (Doctor), Summa Theologica 1:36:2.
{10} Watson, Brandon (2/17/2007), âA Thought on the Filioque.â Siris. Retrieved August 2, 2008 from branemrys.blogspot.com/2007/02/thought-on-filioque.html. Cf. Gal 4:6; Rom 8:9; Phil 1:19.
A
Allyson
Guest
{I shortened the above for brevity.}
Believe me when I say that I can comprehend how it is said that the Father and the Son are one principle. I grew up with Latin theology after all. However, even the inclusion of the Son in procession in such a formulation can be seen as problematic, because procession (ekporeusis) is property of the Father alone.
However, for the sake of discussion, allow me return to down that quote I have from FlorenceâŚ
âWe 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.â
The Son is given the property of cause âjust like the Father,â not âwith the Father.â The wording in English seems to suggest something problematic. I am working on getting the text to see what word is used for âcauseâ for the Greeks. I hope to get it on Monday when I am out of town, and back to my old school library.
I apologize for sounding disoriented, I am doing to much at once.
God Bless,
R.
R
ronyodish
Guest
Isa,
Thanks for this link, and the NT references. I havenât seen this link before, as I only occasionally visit the Apologetics forum.
Allyson,
Sometimes, I will copy and paste from this site that Isa showed me, which has the Aramaic Peshitta NT:
pes.scripturetext.com/matthew/1.htm
Also, this might help:
Go to peshitta.org, and click on âIntroductionâ, and then click on âFontsâ. Aramaic (Estrangelo script) is the first of the four listed there.
Here are the instructions for a Mac.
- Download the font by clicking on the hyperlink. Select a folder to download the font.
- Open the Fonts folder. Select and drag the font suitcases onto the icon of your closed System Folder.
- When it asks whether you want the fonts placed in the Fonts folder, clickâOkayâ.
Iâm not certain if this will make you see Aramaic characters, but its worth a try.
God bless,
Rony
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Ignatios,
Thanks.
Blessings,
Marduk
I feel uncomfortable continuing our conversation in this thread, as it has nothing to do with filioque. There are several threads regarding the papacy, but I think our discussion fits well into the âPopes and Bishopsâ thread. Would you mind re-presenting your position in that thread, and I will respond to you there?
Thanks.
Blessings,
Marduk
F
Fuerza
Guest
Allyson,Fuerza
I do not think that I admit to what I think you think I am admitting to. So correct me if I am wrong. I was not referring to the Latin langauge v. the Greek language (part of the same laguage family), which use the same formula from Constantinople. Rather, I am looking at the comparission of two creedal formulaâs that exist in two different language families altogether. I was responding to Bobzills response to the discussion of this other formula:
SoâŚthe difference is that there is not word for proceed at all. I was not dealing with the problems of the words in Latin and Greek for proceed. But, I will now.
âŚsee following post.
God Bless,
R.
The fact that Latin and Greek are both Indo-European languages has nothing to do with the filioque controversy. Just because two languages share a distant ancestor does not mean that they will express themselves in the same way. The problem between the two languages has to do with the strictness of ekporeusis contrasted with the vagueness of processio. Ekporeusis can only have one meaning. Procedit, without the filioque, can mean either ekporeusis or proeinai, while it can only mean proienai with the expression. Any Latin theologian will admit that the Roman version of the creed does not have the exact same meaning as the original Greek, but it does not change the faith. It merely expresses a different aspect of the same truth.
I know that you read the Council of Florence as stating that procedit means ekporeusis, but that is not the case. Firstly, if it were the case, the Latin Church would allow the filioque in Greek language liturgies of the Roman rite, while in reality it expressly forbids this. Also, as few, if any, of the Latin bishops were fluent in Greek, they would not have used an unfamiliar Greek term to describe their beliefs. Finally, the council explicitly states the the Father is the sole cause of the Trinity. The statement that the Spirit proceeds also from the Son is an expression of the consubstantiality of the Trinity, and is perfectly in line with proienai. St. Thomas Aquinas describes this very well, although sometimes using what appears to be unnecessarily complicated language. I believe that another poster has already quoted him above. The Catholic position is pretty well explained in the article linked to on the first page of this thread. Here it is again:
catholic-legate.com/articles/filioque.html
A
Allyson
Guest
What makes you think I think Latin and Greek express themselves the same way? It should be evident from my posts that I do not. My comment was not on the contrast between these Indo-Euro languages, but that they use one formula that it different from the one in Aramaic from 410. The language family comments was a minor side point. The major point was that there were two different formulaâs, and that the addition of âand the Sonâ is different from that addition in the other. What we mean when we discuss the âfilioque controversyâ is the significance this word has when added to the Nicene-Constantinopolean Creed, that it does not necessarily have in the Creed from Synod of Mar Isaac in 410 (that I am not qualified to explicate on beyond what has already been posted on this thread - that a word for proceed is NOT used in it).
The âGreekâ and âLatinâ Churches use the same formula, and the primary language for this Creed is in fact Greek. It was composed in the East using the more technical langauge, and the word used is ekporeusis. If as you say, the use of âfilioqueâ restricts the word âproceditâ to meaning âproenai,â than it would seem that the meaning of the creed is changed in Latin; that it is not fundamentally the âsameâ creed. The basis for understanding the meaning of âproceditâ really should be the word used in the original Greek. I am sure that like with most of the early councils held in the East, a Latin translation was made at or/immediately subsequent to the council to be sent/taken to Rome, using as its basis for the meaning of words the Greek text as composed at the council.
I apply the same standard to understanding a councilâs texts is the council was composed originally in Latin.
As for Florence, I am working on getting the primary text in Latin and (I hope) Greek (how the East would have received the text once the council ended), but I wonât have access to it until Monday. I will be proof-texting my own comment. I have posted one quote in English from the council that would suggest that what is meant is closer to the meaning of ekporeusis than proeinai. Florence is so often brought up to explain what is meant by the âfilioqueâ on these forums, yet, in the clarification on the âfilioque,â Florence is never mentioned. Any thoughts?
God Bless,
R.
W
White_Russian
Guest
Yes, he omitted the filioque and he recited the Creed in Greek, too!!
Didnât HH Pope Benedict omit it when he said the Creed with HH Patriarch Bartholomew in June? I donât think it would be a bad idea for the Latin Church to return to the practice of having it excluded from the Creed, or at least producing an explanation that it is NOT meant as a double procession.
Alloho minokhoun,
Andrew
F
Fuerza
Guest
I would Imagine that the particular quote of which you speak is never mentioned because there is no contradiction, and therefore no one saw the need to specifically discuss it. I believe that the article to which I linked above does exaplain it, as well as your other concerns. If youâre one of the lucky ones capable of reading St. Thomas Aquinas without getting dizzy (his language and thought processes really do seem unnecessarily complicated
), then I recommend getting his take on it as well.- Status