Filioque??

[Ghosty]

Ghosty,

The example of the spring, river, and lake didn’t do it for me. Could you give a theological metaphysical explanation? I heard from a friend yesterday that “hypostasis” in the West is understood and used more broadly than it is in the East. Could you explain this to me in greater detail? Thanks.

In Christ through Mary

I’ll be happy to help as best I can. Which theological “language” are you most comfortable with? In terms of Latin theology, I’m most “fluent” in Thomistic terminology, but I don’t mind stretching out a bit.

I’ll wait to hear your response before I spin my wheels any more, wasting the time of both of us.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ignatios]

Flip-flopping, yes, but we need to remember that it is the filiogue itself which is a matter of doctrine, not its being added to the creed which is a disciplinary/liturgical matter. If the doctrine is sound then there is no real problem with its being added to the creed…

BUT, Primarily we must NOT forget, that one of the main Reasons for the Schism, ACTUALLY, was the Addition of the Filioque to the Creed, the Filioque existed way before the Schism as we all know, So your comment above is either needs to be clarified or it contradict the History.
as for for being “disciplinary/liturgical” this comment came too short of what the Fathers of Church intended when tthey compiled the Creed. The Creed is a Dogmatical statement, in which all must adhere to.

1. John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
   the red text is where the part of the Creed that it says who “proceedeth from the Father” came from.
2. If the LORD JESUS CHRIST said that the Holy Spirit proceed from the FATHER, who are anybody to allow themselves to tamper with the words of the LORD, keeping in mind that by saying other than what CHRIST had said you would be going against CHRIST.
3. The part of the verse where it says that the " HOLY SPIRIT proceedeth from the FATHER" is a clear indication of the ETERNAL Procession, if it was what the Romans are suggesting then, this is where we would have found their assertion. which it would have included the SON, in the above there is no room whatsoever for deviating from the Bible.
4. In the matter of Theology=study or learning about GOD, when we are learning about GOD we do not rely on our pittiful Opinion, explanations, approaches, intelligence, wisdom, amazing philosophy etc… however any of them make sence or it sounds logical or it adds up, THE ONLY thing that we must rely on in order to be Godly and Valid is to use ONLY what had been revealed and was handed down to us in the Tradition namely and the Most important part, the Holy Scriptures that is.
5. Could the Romans show us from the Holy Scriptures that the Holy Spirit Proceed from the FATHER and the SON ? and spare us from the fancy words.

GOD BLESS YOU ALL †

 

[anthony022071]

Ultimately isn’t the Western approach far too Middle-Platonist for the East? Central in Plotinus’ cosmology is the a chain of hypostases.

“…With regard to the existence that is supremely perfect *, we must say it only produces the very greatest of the things that are found below it. But that which after it is the most perfect, the second principle, is Intelligence (Nous). Intelligence contemplates the One and needs nothing but it. But the One has no need of Intelligence *. The One which is superior to Intelligence produces Intelligence which is the best ex-istence after the One, since it is superior to all other beings. The (World-)Soul is the Word (Logos) and a phase of the activity of Intelligence just as Intelligence is the logos and a phase of the activity of the One. But the logos of the Soul is obscure being only an image of Intelligence. The Soul therefore directs herself to Intelligence, just as the latter, to be Intelligence, must contemplate the One…Every begotten being longs for the being that begot it and loves it…”

Ultimately, isn’t it the similarity of Neo-Platonist emanation of the One and the Nous that makes the East so uncomfortable?**

Where is the similarity? Plotinus does not seem to be talking about persons. And the Catholics Church does not teach that the Son or the Spirit exist separately from the Father. Catholic theology is not so confused or confusing as Plotinus.

 

[Taboric_Light]

I’ll be happy to help as best I can. Which theological “language” are you most comfortable with? In terms of Latin theology, I’m most “fluent” in Thomistic terminology, but I don’t mind stretching out a bit.

I’ll wait to hear your response before I spin my wheels any more, wasting the time of both of us.

Peace and God bless!

Ghosty,

I’m most comfortable with Byzantine theological language, but since I what to try and understand this from a Western approach Thomistic terminology is good. The explanation of the distinction between source and principle was very helpful. I think what I’m wanting to know the most right now is how Latins use the word hypostasis/subsistence. Are these two words even synonymous? The East is very specific and particular when it uses this word. Does the West have a broader understanding and usage of it? If so, what is that understanding and usage, and how does it differ from the East? Thanks.

With great appreciation,
In Christ through Mary

 

[Taboric_Light]

BUT, Primarily we must NOT forget, that one of the main Reasons for the Schism, ACTUALLY, was the Addition of the Filioque to the Creed, the Filioque existed way before the Schism as we all know, So your comment above is either needs to be clarified or it contradict the History.
as for for being “disciplinary/liturgical” this comment came too short of what the Fathers of Church intended when tthey compiled the Creed. The Creed is a Dogmatical statement, in which all must adhere to.

1. John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
   the red text is where the part of the Creed that it says who “proceedeth from the Father” came from.
2. If the LORD JESUS CHRIST said that the Holy Spirit proceed from the FATHER, who are anybody to allow themselves to tamper with the words of the LORD, keeping in mind that by saying other than what CHRIST had said you would be going against CHRIST.
3. The part of the verse where it says that the " HOLY SPIRIT proceedeth from the FATHER" is a clear indication of the ETERNAL Procession, if it was what the Romans are suggesting then, this is where we would have found their assertion. which it would have included the SON, in the above there is no room whatsoever for deviating from the Bible.
4. In the matter of Theology=study or learning about GOD, when we are learning about GOD we do not rely on our pittiful Opinion, explanations, approaches, intelligence, wisdom, amazing philosophy etc… however any of them make sence or it sounds logical or it adds up, THE ONLY thing that we must rely on in order to be Godly and Valid is to use ONLY what had been revealed and was handed down to us in the Tradition namely and the Most important part, the Holy Scriptures that is.
5. Could the Romans show us from the Holy Scriptures that the Holy Spirit Proceed from the FATHER and the SON ? and spare us from the fancy words.

GOD BLESS YOU ALL †

Ignatios,

Everything you have said is very good. I will give you a full reply, but it may take me a couple of days due to family events and much less internet access than I am use to having. Until then…

In Christ through Mary

 

[Ghosty]

Ghosty,

I’m most comfortable with Byzantine theological language, but since I what to try and understand this from a Western approach Thomistic terminology is good. The explanation of the distinction between source and principle was very helpful. I think what I’m wanting to know the most right now is how Latins use the word hypostasis/subsistence. Are these two words even synonymous? The East is very specific and particular when it uses this word. Does the West have a broader understanding and usage of it? If so, what is that understanding and usage, and how does it differ from the East? Thanks.

With great appreciation,
In Christ through Mary

Ok, I’ll see what I can do.

First off, Latins don’t use the term hypostasis, because literally translated it means substance (both literally mean “what lies below the outward state”). Since substance is used more to mean nature and essence in Latin theology, hypostasis doesn’t fit as meaning Person.

Subsistence, on the other hand, doesn’t necessarily mean person either. Subsistence means “something that exists permanently”. This meaning is also found in Greek use of “hypostasis”, but not usually theologically (it carries a lot more baggage when used theologically, from what I’ve read). So while “subsistence” is used to refer to the Three Divine Persons, it’s precisely because they “abide in existence distinctly”, and so are three subsistences rather than one (just as human persons persist in existence distinctly from one another, rather than sharing a single instance of human nature; human nature is instantiated and subsists seperately in each human person). It’s related to person, but it doesn’t directly mean person.

So when Florence uses the term “subsistent being”, saying that the Holy Spirit has His subsistent being from the Father and Son, it’s saying that the Holy Spirit’s existence is from the Father and the Son (with the distinction between the Father being the Source and the Son being a consubstantial, eternal “conduit” still holding force). If the Holy Spirit did not have His subsistent being from the Son, and was merely sent forth as already subsistent, then it would contradict St. Gregory of Nyssa’s point about the Holy Spirit being “by that which is from the Cause”, as opposed being “directly from the Cause”. The Son, being uniquely “only-Begotten”, is the only one who’s existence is solely from the Father.

The nature of being Divine and being a Person, however, obviously is source-from the Father, since it is the Father’s Personhood (in the general sense of definitive quality) and Nature that is given to the Holy Spirit. Hence Latin theology understand this passage from John 16:

13] When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
14] He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
15] All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

not to mean that the Holy Spirit Glorifies the Son just because He’s also from the Father, or that the Son merely sends the Holy Spirit (which is not the apparent meaning of this passage at all, unlike Christ breathing on the Apostles) but that the Holy Spirit receives what the Father has “through the Son” eternally, that He eternally receives from the Son. Again, it’s still the Father alone who is Source, but it it would be false to say that the Holy Spirit doesn’t receive this also from the Son (not as the Son Himself giving His own being, but rather giving the being of the Father which He receives in His only-Begotten manner). This is why St. Gregory of Nyssa says that the Holy Spirit is not cut off by nature from the Father, despite the Son being eternally “between them” so to speak. In Latin theological speak, the Holy Spirit has what the Father has “through the Son”.

The Father and Son are called “equal”, not because they are contributing equal parts of some greater whole, but because there is only a single Spiration that is from both, from the Father as Source, and the Son as participant in the “breathing forth”. If they weren’t equal, then the Holy Spirit would be divided in some manner, and there would have to be two Spirations (one greater from the Father, and another lesser from the Son). Since there is only one Spiration, since the Holy Spirit is only Spirated once, the Father and Son are both equally Spirators of the single Spiration (again, equal not meaning they have the same relation to the Spiration as Source, but equal in that they are both Spirators, breathers-forth of a single Breath).

So, to wrap it up and go back to the question of subsistence:

Why can it be said that that subsistence of the Holy Spirit is “from” or “through” the Son? Because the Holy Spirit exists (subsists) at-once, not in stages, not in parts, and that is eternally through the Son. It has no bearing on whether or not Personhood or Divine Nature is “from the Son Himself”.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Taboric_Light]

BUT, Primarily we must NOT forget, that one of the main Reasons for the Schism, ACTUALLY, was the Addition of the Filioque to the Creed, the Filioque existed way before the Schism as we all know, So your comment above is either needs to be clarified or it contradict the History.
as for for being “disciplinary/liturgical” this comment came too short of what the Fathers of Church intended when tthey compiled the Creed. The Creed is a Dogmatical statement, in which all must adhere to.

Ignatios,

You are, of course, correct that the Creed is a dogmatic statement. I definitely was not clear about that in my earlier post. I said that it was disciplinary/liturgical matter for two reasons:

1. the filioque was a particular part of Western theological approaches (St. Hilary and others); and
2. it’s use as a defense against arianism was particular to the West (specifically Toledo, not Rome).

The major mistake was when Rome added it to Her creed. To the greeks it would certainly appear that Rome was now professing a different faith from that commonly professed. Because the Creed is dogmatic this addition, of course, needed to be scrutinized. All that being said, if the filioque is orthodox (which I believe it is, even though I do not entirely understand it) it’s addition to the Creed is not a different profession of faith, hence, it is not a dogmatic matter. Obviously, this does not hold true for the East since they do not hold the filioque to be orthodox, though there has been some very good head way concerning this. (I recently heard that Bishop Kallistos Ware no longer sees it as a dogmatic problem, but rather a problem of semantics).

Okay, I have to go. So the response will be piecemeal.

In Christ through Mary

 

[Allyson]

Ignatios,

You are, of course, correct that the Creed is a dogmatic statement. I definitely was not clear about that in my earlier post. I said that it was disciplinary/liturgical matter for two reasons:

1. the filioque was a particular part of Western theological approaches (St. Hilary and others); and
2. it’s use as a defense against arianism was particular to the West (specifically Toledo, not Rome).

The major mistake was when Rome added it to Her creed. To the greeks it would certainly appear that Rome was now professing a different faith from that commonly professed. Because the Creed is dogmatic this addition, of course, needed to be scrutinized. All that being said, if the filioque is orthodox (which I believe it is, even though I do not entirely understand it) it’s addition to the Creed is not a different profession of faith, hence, it is not a dogmatic matter. Obviously, this does not hold true for the East since they do not hold the filioque to be orthodox, though there has been some very good head way concerning this. (I recently heard that Bishop Kallistos Ware no longer sees it as a dogmatic problem, but rather a problem of semantics).

Okay, I have to go. So the response will be piecemeal.

In Christ through Mary

Hey T-Lig’-git (Like k’-nig’-git in Holy Grail),

Don’t forget “lex orandi, lex credeni” , . So - yes - if it is a matter of semantics, it’s not a big deal; even so, a liturgical practice is supposed to be indicative of a dogmatic belief. All liturgical practice is catechetical, so it is easy to see how the addition is/was perceived as problematic, and how working out the semantics is important. (Obviously, I am using dogmatic in the broader, less technical way).

Now that I have stated things you already know, I will bow out of the exchage.

God Bless,
R.

 

[Allyson]

Hello StRaphael,

It’s been busier than expected this past week, and I will be working more hours this coming month, so I am going to take the time now to respond to your post. Thank you for your patience. I did get original language texts of Florence, but it will be a while before I have it read and properly transcribed, due to time constraints. (The source is “Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils: Volume I Nicaea I to Laternan VI”, ed. Norman P. Tanner S.J. Sheed & Ward and Georgetown University Press - 1990. It has all original texts in Greek and/or Latin and/or Armenian and probably others; plus the English trans. on the facing page.)

So first of, why I was asking about that particular quote:

“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.” {my emphasis}

It would appear upon a reading of this English translation, that what is being described is what I have always understood to be exactly what the East does not want to say of the relationship of the Son to the Holy Spirit; that the Holy Spirit’s existence is in any way caused by the Son. The is a very good quote from Gregory Palamas, which I have in a book in a box somewhere, where he describes the Holy Spirit as love between the Father and the Son, but that he has his existence (essence was used in the English trans. I have) from the Father alone. I can’t say more about it with out access to it. I simply present my best recollection of it here for contrast. It is from the “150 Chapters on the Natural and Theological Sciences.” The quote from Florence did not seem to me to describe the Eastern understanding of the Monarchy of the Father when it referred to the East.

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 (Do you want the word not here?) to the restricted ekporeusis.

I like what you say in the last part of this segment.

In light of what you say in the quote above, I wonder how you see the following from Florence. In particular the words for cause and procession, as related to the East.

Just some quick excerpts in Latin and Greek (transliterated without accent marks):

Latin:
“…declarantes quod id, quod sancti doctores et patres dicunt, ex Patre per Filium procedere Spiritum sanctum, ad hanc intelligentiam tendit, ut per hoc significetur Filium qouque esse, secundum Grecos quidquem causam, secundum Latinos vero pricipium subsistentie Spiritus sancti, sicut et Patrem”

Greek:
“Diasaphountes, (h)oti touth’ (h)oper (h)oi (h)agioi didaskaloi kai patres ek tou patros dia tou (h)uiou ekporeuesthai legousi to pneuma to (h)agion, eis tauten [long e]** pherei ten** [long e]** ennioan (h)oste** [long o]** touton** [long o]** delousthai, kai ton (h)uion einai kata men tous graikous, aitian, kata de tous latinous, archen** [long e]** tes** [long e]** tou (h)agiou pneumatos (h)uparkseos** [long o], (h)osper [long o]** kai ton patera**”

First, word for cause highlighted in the English translation above is “causam” in the Latin text, and “aitian” in the Greek. The pair representing the Latin perspective is “pricipum” and “arche” respectively.

Second, the word procedere is translated into greek as ekporeuesthai legousi <I am pretty sure that is one unit, but my Greek is rusty>. The council corresponded these two verbs. The primary language of the council would be Latin. However, I wonder why the Greek delegation, who should have been aware of the problems of using expoureusis would not have returned the document for correction.

It has been discussed already that there were many problems with the Council’s handling of the Eastern theology and language - Greek. This is part of why I think that Florence (including Session VI) can easily be left aside by the East. However, leaving aside those problems, the text of Florence makes it seem that the East does profess something which she did not, e.g. that the Son is a cause - in any way - of the existence of the Holy Spirit (by way of ekpoureusis).

(con’t…)

 

[Allyson]

In fact, it would seem that the texts of Florence have been abandoned in the following document. here

The Greek Fathers and the whole Christian Orient speak, in this regard, of the “Father’s monarchy”, and the Western tradition, following St Augustine, also confesses that the Holy Spirit takes his origin from the Father “principaliter”, that is, as principle (De Trinitate XV, 25, 47, PL 42, 1094-1095). In this sense, therefore, the two traditions recognize that the “monarchy of the Father” implies that the Father is the sole Trinitarian Cause (Aitia) or principle (principium) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
…
The doctrine of the Filioque must be understood and presented by the Catholic Church in such a way that it cannot appear to contradict the Monarchy of the Father nor the fact that he is the sole origin (arch, aitia) of the ekporeusiV of the Spirit. The Filioque is, in fact, situated in a theological and linguistic context different from that of the affirmation of the sole monarchy of the Father, the one origin of the Son and of the Spirit. Against Arianism, which was still virulent in the West, its purpose was to stress the fact that the Holy Spirit is of the same divine nature as the Son, without calling in question the one monarchy of the Father.

Which resembles more what you have said above.

Moving on:

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 “principle” signifies a property after the manner of a substantive, so “principle” 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 “God” signifies, they are one principle of the Holy Spirit because of the unity of property that “principle” 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}

It is my understanding of the East and the Eastern Fathers, that the hypostases of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinguished by there properties. The properties as relating to the immanent Trinity: The Father alone is the source of the other two persons, the Son is begotten, and the Holy Spirit is proceeded. In other words, the property of causing procession belongs to the Father alone. It is different expression of the the inner life of the Trinity, and it is easy to see how disagreements arise.

I understand what Thomas is saying about property and common nature, and I think is can easily be argued that there is no reason that a property cannot be said to properly belong to one suposita (to use the same expression) alone, and yet that they share one nature. It’s more of a paradox perhaps, but it is not impossible for a common nature to be shared in such a way that equality is not violated by difference.

There is always more that could be said said, but I need to find things and reflect on them before I could do justice to them; so this is a somewhat wandering response to your response I hope you find somewhat sufficient.

God Bless,
R.

 

[Allyson]

Second, as Ghosty said, Nyssa’s primary concern is to affirm the distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and he does this by appealing to causality. The Father is Uncaused Cause; the Son is Caused Cause; and the Holy Spirit, well, he’s just Caused (poor guy, but I guess He gets His day as Cause at the Incarnation).

I remembered something I wanted to make note of here once I checked my old class notes.

The enlarged purple is Agustine’s language. Gregory of Nyssa used the following terms respectively; Cause, Immediately Caused, and Mediately Caused for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Just for fun…(from the same class notes)

Basil the Great’s three idiomata (Respectively again):

F: Fatherhood, or Paternity
S: Sonship
HS: Holy Power, Sanctifying Power, Sanctification

Gregory the Theologian (Street Name - G-Naz) E. will know what I am referring to.

The characteristic of the three hypostaseis. Each idiotes is a relation of origin.

F: unbegottenness (agennesia); He is the Unoriginate (anarchos).

S: begotteness (gennesis); He is the unoriginately Begotten (anarchos gennetheis).

HS: procession (ekporeusis); He is the unbegottenly Proceding (agennetos proelthon).

G-Naz did in fact coin this word for procession to distinguish the origination of the Holy Spirit from that of the Son, not that he had an easy time of defining it. After all it was a mystery, that he said would leave us all “frenzy-stricken for prying into the mystery of God.” That about sums up this thread.

Lifted from and based on class notes complied by J. T. Leinhard, S.J. passed down by his student to other students (like me) .

Time to make preparations for transplanting fruit trees. Or what I hope are fruit trees.

God Bless,
R.

 

[chrisb]

Where is the similarity? Plotinus does not seem to be talking about persons. And the Catholics Church does not teach that the Son or the Spirit exist separately from the Father. Catholic theology is not so confused or confusing as Plotinus.

Grace and Peace,

Actually if you care to read Plotinus, you’ll find he’s not confused at all. Plotinus teaches that the One (i.e. Father) begot the Logos (i.e. Son) and the dual contemplation of the Logos and the One manifests the World-Soul (i.e. Holy Spirit). This is identical to what Blessed Augustine taught. What’s confusing about that?

 

[anthony022071]

Grace and Peace,

Actually if you care to read Plotinus, you’ll find he’s not confused at all. Plotinus teaches that the One (i.e. Father) begot the Logos (i.e. Son) and the dual contemplation of the Logos and the One manifests the World-Soul (i.e. Holy Spirit). This is identical to what Blessed Augustine taught. What’s confusing about that?

That passage is certainly confused. It is muddle-headed.
It isn’t indentical to Augustine,because Plotinus is playing with philosophical abstractions,whereas Augustine’s ideas on the Trinity are based directly upon scripture and the writings of other Church Fathers. Plotinus is not talking about persons. His world-soul has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. It is a pantheistic idea. Plotinus says that the One produces Intelligence,not that Intelligence is begotten. And the idea that the Father begets the Son is not,of course,Augustine’s invention. Neither is the idea that the Father manifests the Holy Spirit.

 

[Allyson]

That passage is certainly confused. It is muddle-headed.
It isn’t indentical to Augustine,because Plotinus is playing with philosophical abstractions,whereas Augustine’s ideas on the Trinity are based directly upon scripture and the writings of other Church Fathers. Plotinus is not talking about persons. His world-soul has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. It is a pantheistic idea. Plotinus says that the One produces Intelligence,not that Intelligence is begotten. And the idea that the Father begets the Son is not,of course,Augustine’s invention. Neither is the idea that the Father manifests the Holy Spirit.

St. Augustine was well schooled in philosophy prior to his conversion, and was an avid follower of the neo-Platonist in translation. (Latin was better understood by Augustine than Greek. he was not a strong Greek reader and found the Gospels to be coarse reading compared to things like the Annead prior to his conversion. This dislike of the composition initially detracted Augustine from Christianity in his youth.) At the time of his conversion he was partly attracted to Christianity he perceived that the Trinity was very much like the Plotinan economy of the One, the Nous, and the World Soul. They may have even seemed to be mirror images. His early Trinitarian thought and writings were greatly influenced by noe-Plationism in both concept and language. As he matured spiritually and intellectually as a Christian, he realized the error. I am not enough of an Augustine scholar to rattle off the works and how much they were influenced by neo-Platonism, but I can say that Augustine himself has told us about all his intellectual influences and development in his own writings. His verbosity has its plus sides.

God Bless,
R.

 

[anthony022071]

I know Pelikan in his book Spirit took a very grim look at the doctrine.

The Filioque was not only illegitimate, it was also mistaken. It was based on certain theological premises which the East found to be inadequate or erroneous and which became visible in the course of the debates. Several of these lay in the area of what must be called ‘theological method,’ for they involved differences over the way trinitarian doctrine was to be arrived at. Beyond such methodoligical differences lay some ultimate, metaphysical differences in the doctrine of God itself… (Pelikan, Spirit pp. 192-193)

The ultimate reference point for orthodox beliefs was the Church of Rome,not the Greek Fathers,so the doctrine was not illegitimate nor mistaken. There were no metaphysical differences between the Trinity of the East and the Trinity of the West,only differences in emphasis. The East emphasized the Monarchy of the Father,while the West emphasized the consubstantial communion between Father and Son. Since the Father and Son are eternally one in being,the Spirit proceeds (goes forth) eternally from both as from one. Catholics don’t need to be reminded that the ultimate cause of the Spirit is the Father,because we take it as a given that the Father,being Father,is the ultimate cause of everything. But it is also true that the Son,being one with the ultimate cause,participates with the ultimate cause in the going forth of the Spirit.

When Orthodox theologians argue against the filioque,they do so by undermining the doctrine of consubstantiality. The filioque doctrine is a logical inference of the doctrine of consubstantiality.

Why do these scholars look at the issue of the Filioque with such concern, like Pope John VII, who wouldn’t even sing it at the request of Charlemagne himself, and a 50 years later, under German Popes, it is added without any concern at all?

Those were just pastoral decisions,not infallible doctrines.

What changed in Rome? Why do so many scholars in the East or like Pelikan express so much concern over this shift? I get the impression that Rome seems to take a very Cavalier attitude on this issue and yet we see in history that it was a major issue and continues to be.

It’s a big deal to Orthodox scholars because the East,from the time of Photios,equates Greek patristic theology with the apostolic faith as a whole. By the time of Photios,the major heresies in the East had died off,and so the Eastern churches no longer needed the Church of Rome to rescue them from heresies.

 

[Claudius]

Ok, I just had to laugh.

Yes, yes the most uncharitable poster is back for just a sec.

Here is how all the Filioque stuff seems to me.

Catholics say Filioque, which is Latin for “and by means of the son” .

Easterns disagree with this Orthodox expression of faith because they don’t say it and they want everyone to be like them.

They originally broke with us over the issue of Leavened bread but they kind of lost that issue since Latin aren’t going to take them seriously on it.

So they go back to Filioque because they think they have a slamdunk, but they don’t.

The 7th ecumenical council said that the Holy Spirit procedes from the Father Through the Son. How do you say that in Latin? Ex Patre Filioque.

Notice the verb used is Procede not Originate.

But we have all been here before.

Easterns complain about the Filioque to say that Catholics are heretics. We prove why the Filioque is right. The Eastern go away. They then force their minds to forget completely the conversation from before. They come back and complain about the Filioque again. After a while it becomes like a broken record.

Ad infinitum this goes on.

Then if they are talking to someone who they think they are winning against they throw Honorius, or the Sack of Constantinople or even made up events that never even happened at them. To convert them? NO, just to tell them that they hate them and are somehow justified for hating them.

What this really boils down to is that even though Catholics have apologized for what we have done wrong, in accordance with the teachings of Christ, the “orthodox” will never apologize for what they have done wrong. They won’t even acknowledge that Ceruleus was denounce by the Eastern Orthodox Church as a heretic before he died. They deny it ever happened. It wasn’t just us, their own Church excommunicated him. But they will not apoligize to us.

But that is ok. They can think they are better than us. They can think that they are high and we are the slime of the earth. That is ok. We Catholics much be good to them. We must bless them and pray for them. We Catholics are called to do and live as Christ commanded. We must forgive them even if they do not apoligize or forgive us. We must be blameless in the eyes of God. We are called to a higher standard and we must live up to that standard. We Catholics are called to be perfect, for nothing unclean will enter into the presence of God.

Let us all remember this. Just before the Muslims took Constantinople, the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholics were in perfect communion with each other, including unleavened bread, Filioque and the primacy of the Pope. Don’t let them fool you. Stick to the truth. We were in communion with each other and it was only the sword of a non Christian infidel that forced this schism. Why we allow it to continue now that we are free to come back into communion with each other is beyond me but we must. Not by denying the truth of the Filioque or history but by looking to Christ, the Truth. Lord Jesus prayed that we all be one, so we must do all we can in faithfulness to end the schism because it is a sin if we don’t.

In the meantime I am going to make little cards that explain the Filioque so that I can hand them out to Eastern Orthodox people who want to argue. When they forget that the conversation took place, I will ask them for the card back, thus proving that we have been over this before. But they will probably loose those the same as their memory so I will hand them a new one and explain it over again and count how many days it takes for them to forget again.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Ok, I just had to laugh.

Yes, yes the most uncharitable poster is back for just a sec.

Here is how all the Filioque stuff seems to me.

Catholics say Filioque, which is Latin for “and by means of the son” .

Easterns disagree with this Orthodox expression of faith because they don’t say it and they want everyone to be like them.

They originally broke with us over the issue of Leavened bread but they kind of lost that issue since Latin aren’t going to take them seriously on it.

No, the filioque came up during the so called Photian schism.

So they go back to Filioque because they think they have a slamdunk, but they don’t.

The 7th ecumenical council said that the Holy Spirit procedes from the Father Through the Son. How do you say that in Latin? Ex Patre Filioque.

I’ve already corrected you once on this:

Actually, no.
a Patre Filioque procedere
versus
a Patre per Filium procedere
vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/p1s2c1p2_lt.htm#I.%20«%20In%20nomine%20Patris%20et%20Filii%20et%20Spiritus%20Sancti%20»
.

Notice the verb used is Procede not Originate.

The original word means both. Which is the point.

But we have all been here before.

Easterns complain about the Filioque to say that Catholics are heretics. We prove why the Filioque is right. The Eastern go away. They then force their minds to forget completely the conversation from before. They come back and complain about the Filioque again. After a while it becomes like a broken record.

Ad infinitum this goes on.

Are you including “Eastern Catholics” among the Easterners.

Then if they are talking to someone who they think they are winning against they throw Honorius, or the Sack of Constantinople or even made up events that never even happened at them. To convert them? NO, just to tell them that they hate them and are somehow justified for hating them.

Is there a point somewhere in there?

What this really boils down to is that even though Catholics have apologized for what we have done wrong, in accordance with the teachings of Christ, the “orthodox” will never apologize for what they have done wrong. They won’t even acknowledge that Ceruleus was denounce by the Eastern Orthodox Church as a heretic before he died. They deny it ever happened. It wasn’t just us, their own Church excommunicated him. But they will not apoligize to us.

But that is ok. They can think they are better than us. They can think that they are high and we are the slime of the earth. That is ok. We Catholics much be good to them. We must bless them and pray for them. We Catholics are called to do and live as Christ commanded. We must forgive them even if they do not apoligize or forgive us. We must be blameless in the eyes of God. We are called to a higher standard and we must live up to that standard. We Catholics are called to be perfect, for nothing unclean will enter into the presence of God.

Let us all remember this. Just before the Muslims took Constantinople, the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholics were in perfect communion with each other, including unleavened bread, Filioque and the primacy of the Pope. Don’t let them fool you. Stick to the truth.

The Truth is your dates are off: for one thing, the Crusaders sacked Constantinople 1204 and set up a Latin patriarch for each of the Orthodox patriarchates and imposed unleavened bread before the Muslims took Constantinople in 1453.

We were in communion with each other and it was only the sword of a non Christian infidel that forced this schism.

It was a Crusader’s sword. I leave it to you to decide how non Christian and infidel they were.

Why we allow it to continue now that we are free to come back into communion with each other is beyond me but we must. Not by denying the truth of the Filioque or history but by looking to Christ, the Truth. Lord Jesus prayed that we all be one, so we must do all we can in faithfulness to end the schism because it is a sin if we don’t.

In the meantime I am going to make little cards that explain the Filioque so that I can hand them out to Eastern Orthodox people who want to argue.

How about those who want to hold on to the Truth?

When they forget that the conversation took place, I will ask them for the card back, thus proving that we have been over this before. But they will probably loose those the same as their memory so I will hand them a new one and explain it over again and count how many days it takes for them to forget again.

Yes, we’ve had this conversation before. Florence for one.

 

[bobzills]

Catholics say Filioque, which is Latin for “and by means of the son” …

I thought that filioque meant “and from the Son”. Can you please explain why this translation of filioque is incorrect?

 

[Ignatios]

Ignatios,

You are, of course, correct that the Creed is a dogmatic statement. I definitely was not clear about that in my earlier post. I said that it was disciplinary/liturgical matter for two reasons:

1. the filioque was a particular part of Western theological approaches (St. Hilary and others); and
2. it’s use as a defense against arianism was particular to the West (specifically Toledo, not Rome).

The major mistake was when Rome added it to Her creed. To the greeks it would certainly appear that Rome was now professing a different faith from that commonly professed. Because the Creed is dogmatic this addition, of course, needed to be scrutinized. All that being said, if the filioque is orthodox (which I believe it is, even though I do not entirely understand it) it’s addition to the Creed is not a different profession of faith, hence, it is not a dogmatic matter. Obviously, this does not hold true for the East since they do not hold the filioque to be orthodox, though there has been some very good head way concerning this. (I recently heard that Bishop Kallistos Ware no longer sees it as a dogmatic problem, but rather a problem of semantics).

Okay, I have to go. So the response will be piecemeal.

In Christ through Mary

First, let me note here that although the eastern churches did not agree to the Filioque but further rejected it as a sound thelogical opinion as we all know, BUT they didnt cause the schism in the Church because of it, so long it was no more than a theological opinion, but when the Romans went further as to force it on the Eastern Churches and condemn those who do not obied by it then and only then the schism happened, and prior to that it was the Photian schism in which it included the filioque issue, but that was when the West was by then teaching it and singing it in many of their Churches, however after the Photian Schism, although the west didnt abandon this Idea in all their churches, BOTH EASTERN AND WESTERN Churches agreed NOT to include it in the Creed in order to preserve the Orthodox Faith.

Now what I see here that many are mixing the filioque in the Creed with the filioque as theological opinion, those two subjects cannot be discussed as one subject.

However, My own opinion on this issue, is that the Orthodox Church might tolerate the Idea of the Filioque but not agree to it, so long that the west would agree to restore the Creed in their churches back to its orthodoxy.
Is this a long shot? I dont think so my self, Since similiar statement came out of some conference between the Orthodox and the Roman caholics:

" Recently, an important, agreed statement has been made by the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, on October 25, 2003. This document The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?, provides an extensive review of Scripture, history, and theology. Especially critical are the recommendations of this consultation, for example:
…

1. That the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.
2. That the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son” is no longer applicable. usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml

Well, I will stop at this for now.
GOD Bless all †

 

[Ignatios]

Ok, I just had to laugh.

Yes, yes the most uncharitable poster is back for just a sec.

Here is how all the Filioque stuff seems to me.

Catholics say Filioque, which is Latin for “and by means of the son” .

Easterns disagree with this Orthodox expression of faith because they don’t say it and they want everyone to be like them.

They originally broke with us over the issue of Leavened bread but they kind of lost that issue since Latin aren’t going to take them seriously on it.

So they go back to Filioque because they think they have a slamdunk, but they don’t.

The 7th ecumenical council said that the Holy Spirit procedes from the Father Through the Son. How do you say that in Latin? Ex Patre Filioque.

Notice the verb used is Procede not Originate.

But we have all been here before.

Easterns complain about the Filioque to say that Catholics are heretics. We prove why the Filioque is right. The Eastern go away. They then force their minds to forget completely the conversation from before. They come back and complain about the Filioque again. After a while it becomes like a broken record.

Ad infinitum this goes on.

Then if they are talking to someone who they think they are winning against they throw Honorius, or the Sack of Constantinople or even made up events that never even happened at them. To convert them? NO, just to tell them that they hate them and are somehow justified for hating them.

What this really boils down to is that even though Catholics have apologized for what we have done wrong, in accordance with the teachings of Christ, the “orthodox” will never apologize for what they have done wrong. They won’t even acknowledge that Ceruleus was denounce by the Eastern Orthodox Church as a heretic before he died. They deny it ever happened. It wasn’t just us, their own Church excommunicated him. But they will not apoligize to us.

But that is ok. They can think they are better than us. They can think that they are high and we are the slime of the earth. That is ok. We Catholics much be good to them. We must bless them and pray for them. We Catholics are called to do and live as Christ commanded. We must forgive them even if they do not apoligize or forgive us. We must be blameless in the eyes of God. We are called to a higher standard and we must live up to that standard. We Catholics are called to be perfect, for nothing unclean will enter into the presence of God.

Let us all remember this. Just before the Muslims took Constantinople, the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholics were in perfect communion with each other, including unleavened bread, Filioque and the primacy of the Pope. Don’t let them fool you. Stick to the truth. We were in communion with each other and it was only the sword of a non Christian infidel that forced this schism. Why we allow it to continue now that we are free to come back into communion with each other is beyond me but we must. Not by denying the truth of the Filioque or history but by looking to Christ, the Truth. Lord Jesus prayed that we all be one, so we must do all we can in faithfulness to end the schism because it is a sin if we don’t.

In the meantime I am going to make little cards that explain the Filioque so that I can hand them out to Eastern Orthodox people who want to argue. When they forget that the conversation took place, I will ask them for the card back, thus proving that we have been over this before. But they will probably loose those the same as their memory so I will hand them a new one and explain it over again and count how many days it takes for them to forget again.

Your silence was more senseful than your words.

Indeed their words speaks much of them.

May GOD guide you to the true Faith.