I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Sources. Plural, eh?
using your logic, the Spirit does.
filioque.
isn’t this arguments advanced for the Son for filioque?
Why?
They are the only differences between the persons.
- Status
S
StRaphael
Guest
Isa Almisry, Dr. Michael Liccione presents the following argument that shows that Filioque is true because the eternal manifestation of the Holy Spirit is equivalent to His existence:{1}
- God is not only essentially hypostatic, but also essentially perichoretic.
- That the Three Persons mutually indwell in love is not free; only how They love is free.
- Therefore, given the existence of the Holy Spirit, we have His eternal manifestation ad intra from the Father through the Son because they are logically equivalent.
- Thus, whatever is true necessarily of the eternal manifestation of the Spirit ad intra is true of His eternal procession.
- Therefore, the eternal existence of the Holy Spirit, and not only His eternal manifestation, proceeds from the Father through the Son and thus from the Father and the Son.
Forgive me for quoting my previous response, but I pray it will help you understand the meaning of the words of St. Hilary of Poitiers:
850].
{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} Ibid.]
God bless you and yours!
I
Ignatios
Guest
Is not the Holy Spirit also in eternity with the Father? or HE was not?
And are they not ( the SON and the HOLY SPIRIT ) ({“eternally”}]) in the FATHER?
According to your understanding:
Since both the SON and the HOLY SPIRIT are one with the FATHER ETERNALLY, then, the HOLY SPIRIT must have participated in the begetting of the SON eternally also, unless you consider the HOLY SPIRIT is not one with the FATHER and the SON eternally, If the H.S. was proceeded from the FATHER and the SON, then, that would tell us that the SON was begotten first and then the H.S. proceeded afterwords since the SON participated in the procession of the H.S., BUT, also by the same token since they ARE all one in being ( now of course all this is according to your understanding) then the H.S. must have participated in the Begotting of the SON eternally since HE ( the H.S. that is) is one with the FATHER eternally.
You cannot take one out of the equation THEY BOTH existed eternally in the FATHER, Since there was no time when either one of THEM were not.
Besides what is your Scriptural reffrence to that Eternal procession from both the FATHER and the SON that is?
your understanding piles up to a blesphemy it doesnt matter how you shape it, May GOD forgive us for allowing ourselves to speak in such a manner of the most HOLY TRINITY, but we say this so all may open their eyes and not fall into a theory that is strongly at variance with the established belief.
That is a great sign that most if not all were on the same line concerning the manifestation.
You do not deffend something, unless there is a challenge to it.
And where is the H.S. in this equation? prior to the procession and the begotten was HE one and equal to the others? IS HE included in HIS eternal existing along with the SON in the FATHER?
If yes, then, when the SON was begotten first, the H.S. since HE is one in being with the FATHER, then the SON was begotten from the FATHER and the H.S., if not then the H.S. do not share with them.
which way do you wanna go, take your pick, either or you wind up in error.
If they are all involved, then the H.S. must have been sharing in HIS own spirating, thus the H.S. spirate from HIS own also, BUT HE is also being spirated, thus, your filioque fall short again, because now it must read "… and the H.S. who proceed from the FATHER and the SON and HIMSELF…)
And then the Holy SPirit must have been involved with the begotting of the SON eternally, so we must say also in the Creed that the SON is begotten of the FATHER and the HOLY SPIRIT before all ages (eternally), you see how your theory ends up always in error.
Then how could they apply time, then, say out of time or eternally, when you say that the H.S. proceed from the FATHER and the SON, you applied in a sense a time, but then you turn around and you say out of time, but since you applied distinction of priority between the begotten and the Procession, now you have a presence that is prior to, since one had been a cause of the other.
Your theory can not remain within the Scriptural boundary, the RCC by going out of what had been revealed to us they entered into a False dilemma.
Then you must be greator then Eastern theologian, that is the Orthodox and truly catholic theologians of the Church actually let me mention one of them who is not only THEEE Theologian but also a DOCTOR of your RCC Saint Gregory theeeeee Theologian, and he disagree with you completely, Now anthony as a good RC you should get on the phone and give Rome a call, you letting this go too far.
C
Claudius
Guest
This thread is going the wrong direction.
Here is the issue as regards the Filioque clause: Greeks don’t understand it and therefore they think it somehow must be wrong.
In order to translate (forgive my typing of Greek here) “Ekporeetai ex patros dia yioy” we must consider what this actually means.
The first thing to notice is that this phrase breaks the normal Greek word order. Adverbial phrases normally (though they do not have to) but normally go before the verb in a Greek sentence and especially in a relative clause (which is what this is). Relative clauses in Greek are almost always Verb Terminal in normal speech.
Why is this important? Because it tells us that this as many things in Christianity are put into words, follows the word order of Syriac. Greek is flexible in word order so it is no problem. That is an advantage that Greek has over Syriac in my opinion.
Also, the verb here is in the Middle Voice. (seeing as how it is depondent it implies an active, yet intransitive action).
Are you all still with me? I know, big linguistic words, but hold on.
Now, if we translate this into Latin we have a lot of choice in how to do it.
First the verb. We could use one of four Latin verbs. Incepit (non motion) orditur (non motion) oritur (motion) and procedit(motion).
When the context and the sense of each of these is considered we must come to the conclusion that procedit is the best verb to translate the Greek verb because of what the Greek verb is being used to mean.
The Greek does not imply a simple motion in the strict sense but a figurative motion that is beyond our understanding. This motion begins in the Father and comes out of the Father. Now, this does not mean that the Holy Spirit burst out of the Father’s chest like a moster in a horror movie. Such nonsense needs to be rejected out right. Which is why Orditur and Incepit are not suitable verbs to use.
Similarly, oritur implies that the Father dies and the Holy Spirit is born out of that death. Again, not acceptable.
Procedit implies motion, but not physical motion, figurative motion. You can proceed in a physical sense from house 1 to house 2 but you can also proceed from Math homework to Science homework. This verb works for both, usually more often in the figurative sense.
Now the preposition. We have the choice of Ab, Ex and De. These all work but each gives a little bit of a different idea. Since a direct, almost translitteration of the Greek works here, we will go with EX. EX in Greek requires the Genitive Case. Ex in Latin requires the Ablative Case (a case that is lacking in Greek).
Next we come to the trouble stop. Dia Yioy “through the son.”
Now we must remember what this means. We are not saying that the Holy Spirit comes out of the Father in a physical sense and pierces the Son’s back so he can come out of the Son’s chest. That makes no sense and is not what the Greek is trying to say. The preposition Dia is being used here with the “by means of” construction. This is possible because of the nature of the Greek verb.
However, even though procedit is a good match for the Greek verb it is not an exact match. The sense is a little different and the grammar that may and may not be used with the verb is a little different.
In Latin the preposition Per (which requires the accusative case) can be used to mean the “by means of” construction, and is used that way especially if the word that the prepostion governs is a person. However, if we were to use the preposition Per with Filium we have two problems. The first is that Per requires the Accusative case so it would be Filium not Filio, which would get us labeled as heretics by the Greeks since their preposition Dia uses the same case as Ex, the Genitive. The Greek would have Father and Son in the same case but the Latin would have them in different cases.
The second problem is far more practical and is not one that comes from the Greeks but from Latin speakers. If we use per in this relative clause it can’t take the “by means of” construction because the verb Procedit is a verb of motion. Per in Latin can only take the “by means of” construction with verbs that do not involve motion. Therefore, it would be Bad Latin. People would be assuming that this was just a purely physical motion and would not understand the “by means of” part which is neccessary because that is what the Greek means.
So what esle can we say?
We could say Ex Patre Filio, and use an Ablative of Means. This works. It is grammatically correct and Patre and Filio are in the same case. But, there is a problem here too. If we put these two words in the same case next to each other the apposition rule kicks in and it sounds like Father and Son are the exact same person.
We could say Ex Patre et/ac Filio. This would work but then people would automatically assume that Filio is governed by the preposition Ex the same as Patre. This could mean “from the Father by means of the Son” but the natural Latin idiom woud interpret this to mean “From the Father and From the Son”.
Now I will not get into this issue. A lot of people have defended this as an orthodox expression of faith but regardless of that, it is a bad translation that does not mean what the Greeks mean when they say Ex Patros Dia Yoiy. Plus it is complicated by the fact that the preposion is Ex, OUT OF, and not just a simple From. If it were a simple FROM with the Latin Verb Procedit than it is an orthodox expression of faith, no problem but that is not what it says and not what it is meant to say. Plus if we were to say From the Father and From the Son using the Greek verb it would be Grammatically wrong.
So moving on, we could say EX Patre Filioque. This sets Filio in its own clause with no preposition governing it. With no prepostion, it naturally slides into the “by means of” construction and the fact that we have a verb of motion reinforces this. This is Good Latin. So while it could be interpreted to mean “From the Father and From the Son” it does not mean that in normal Latin idiom.
Yet we are being attacked over it because the Greeks who could not understand it have interpreted it using the Greek idiom that sees Filio being governed by the the same prepostion as Patre. They are condemning something that the Latin Church has NEVER officially taught and something that the Latin itself does not mean. The Church has even said that “ex Patre Filioque” means “ex Patre per Filium”. The only way that these can mean the same thing is through the "by means of "construction, which is what the Greek means.
It really saddens me that all of this has caused argueing when if we just understood it, there would be no problem. Bad modern translations from Latin that ignore this are only adding fuel to the fire.
But I have a suggestion that could end all the controvercy.
We could alter the word order, which means almost nothing in a Latin sentence anyway, to reflect correct Latin Grammar. Since this is a relative clause, we should use standard Latin relative clause word order. This puts the verb last. Here is what we could do.
Qui Filio ex Patre procedit. Who “by means of” the Son “out of” the Father proceeds.
With this word order, non of the meaning has changed but it becomes impossible for anyone to say that Filio is governed by Ex. The entire problem here is that Greeks think Filio is governed by Ex and that is not true. We can take the missunderstanding away.
All the Greeks have to do is not accuse us of being heretics for changing the word order.
Here is the issue as regards the Filioque clause: Greeks don’t understand it and therefore they think it somehow must be wrong.
In order to translate (forgive my typing of Greek here) “Ekporeetai ex patros dia yioy” we must consider what this actually means.
The first thing to notice is that this phrase breaks the normal Greek word order. Adverbial phrases normally (though they do not have to) but normally go before the verb in a Greek sentence and especially in a relative clause (which is what this is). Relative clauses in Greek are almost always Verb Terminal in normal speech.
Why is this important? Because it tells us that this as many things in Christianity are put into words, follows the word order of Syriac. Greek is flexible in word order so it is no problem. That is an advantage that Greek has over Syriac in my opinion.
Also, the verb here is in the Middle Voice. (seeing as how it is depondent it implies an active, yet intransitive action).
Are you all still with me? I know, big linguistic words, but hold on.
Now, if we translate this into Latin we have a lot of choice in how to do it.
First the verb. We could use one of four Latin verbs. Incepit (non motion) orditur (non motion) oritur (motion) and procedit(motion).
When the context and the sense of each of these is considered we must come to the conclusion that procedit is the best verb to translate the Greek verb because of what the Greek verb is being used to mean.
The Greek does not imply a simple motion in the strict sense but a figurative motion that is beyond our understanding. This motion begins in the Father and comes out of the Father. Now, this does not mean that the Holy Spirit burst out of the Father’s chest like a moster in a horror movie. Such nonsense needs to be rejected out right. Which is why Orditur and Incepit are not suitable verbs to use.
Similarly, oritur implies that the Father dies and the Holy Spirit is born out of that death. Again, not acceptable.
Procedit implies motion, but not physical motion, figurative motion. You can proceed in a physical sense from house 1 to house 2 but you can also proceed from Math homework to Science homework. This verb works for both, usually more often in the figurative sense.
Now the preposition. We have the choice of Ab, Ex and De. These all work but each gives a little bit of a different idea. Since a direct, almost translitteration of the Greek works here, we will go with EX. EX in Greek requires the Genitive Case. Ex in Latin requires the Ablative Case (a case that is lacking in Greek).
Next we come to the trouble stop. Dia Yioy “through the son.”
Now we must remember what this means. We are not saying that the Holy Spirit comes out of the Father in a physical sense and pierces the Son’s back so he can come out of the Son’s chest. That makes no sense and is not what the Greek is trying to say. The preposition Dia is being used here with the “by means of” construction. This is possible because of the nature of the Greek verb.
However, even though procedit is a good match for the Greek verb it is not an exact match. The sense is a little different and the grammar that may and may not be used with the verb is a little different.
In Latin the preposition Per (which requires the accusative case) can be used to mean the “by means of” construction, and is used that way especially if the word that the prepostion governs is a person. However, if we were to use the preposition Per with Filium we have two problems. The first is that Per requires the Accusative case so it would be Filium not Filio, which would get us labeled as heretics by the Greeks since their preposition Dia uses the same case as Ex, the Genitive. The Greek would have Father and Son in the same case but the Latin would have them in different cases.
The second problem is far more practical and is not one that comes from the Greeks but from Latin speakers. If we use per in this relative clause it can’t take the “by means of” construction because the verb Procedit is a verb of motion. Per in Latin can only take the “by means of” construction with verbs that do not involve motion. Therefore, it would be Bad Latin. People would be assuming that this was just a purely physical motion and would not understand the “by means of” part which is neccessary because that is what the Greek means.
So what esle can we say?
We could say Ex Patre Filio, and use an Ablative of Means. This works. It is grammatically correct and Patre and Filio are in the same case. But, there is a problem here too. If we put these two words in the same case next to each other the apposition rule kicks in and it sounds like Father and Son are the exact same person.
We could say Ex Patre et/ac Filio. This would work but then people would automatically assume that Filio is governed by the preposition Ex the same as Patre. This could mean “from the Father by means of the Son” but the natural Latin idiom woud interpret this to mean “From the Father and From the Son”.
Now I will not get into this issue. A lot of people have defended this as an orthodox expression of faith but regardless of that, it is a bad translation that does not mean what the Greeks mean when they say Ex Patros Dia Yoiy. Plus it is complicated by the fact that the preposion is Ex, OUT OF, and not just a simple From. If it were a simple FROM with the Latin Verb Procedit than it is an orthodox expression of faith, no problem but that is not what it says and not what it is meant to say. Plus if we were to say From the Father and From the Son using the Greek verb it would be Grammatically wrong.
So moving on, we could say EX Patre Filioque. This sets Filio in its own clause with no preposition governing it. With no prepostion, it naturally slides into the “by means of” construction and the fact that we have a verb of motion reinforces this. This is Good Latin. So while it could be interpreted to mean “From the Father and From the Son” it does not mean that in normal Latin idiom.
Yet we are being attacked over it because the Greeks who could not understand it have interpreted it using the Greek idiom that sees Filio being governed by the the same prepostion as Patre. They are condemning something that the Latin Church has NEVER officially taught and something that the Latin itself does not mean. The Church has even said that “ex Patre Filioque” means “ex Patre per Filium”. The only way that these can mean the same thing is through the "by means of "construction, which is what the Greek means.
It really saddens me that all of this has caused argueing when if we just understood it, there would be no problem. Bad modern translations from Latin that ignore this are only adding fuel to the fire.
But I have a suggestion that could end all the controvercy.
We could alter the word order, which means almost nothing in a Latin sentence anyway, to reflect correct Latin Grammar. Since this is a relative clause, we should use standard Latin relative clause word order. This puts the verb last. Here is what we could do.
Qui Filio ex Patre procedit. Who “by means of” the Son “out of” the Father proceeds.
With this word order, non of the meaning has changed but it becomes impossible for anyone to say that Filio is governed by Ex. The entire problem here is that Greeks think Filio is governed by Ex and that is not true. We can take the missunderstanding away.
All the Greeks have to do is not accuse us of being heretics for changing the word order.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
who?
this does not logically follow.
As Ignatius points out, this is a delayed procession from the Son, and hence separating the Spirit from the Father and the Son.
C
Claudius
Guest
Another problem I suppose comes from the latest translation into modern languages from the Latin.
Since most modern languages have dropped the inflection of nouns the Filioque is easy to misinterpret (which is why we should listen to how the Church interprets it).
English especially does not translate Latin well. Also, in English, both “OUT” and “By Means” constructions require the Genitive just like the Greek. English speakers don’t like to use their defective Genitive so they instead readily use the Genitive preposition OF. The Holy Spirit came Out OF the Father By Means Of the Son. In this, English idiom follows the Greek more closely than the Latin.
It probably would make more sense to translate the Creed from the Greek into modern languages than from the Latin since there is this huge propensity to misinterpred the Latin. That doesn’t make the Latin wrong, just the Greek is better for making translations. By the way, the Vatican has been saying for the last 8 years that translation should be made from the Greek.
The Greeks really need to understand what Filioque means and stop saying it means something that it is not supposed to mean. Latins as well need to understand what it means and stop misinterpreting it to mean what it is not supposed to mean.
The Greeks also need to stop trying to force Latin to translate things the way they like it. Latin is not Greek. It isn’t like Filioque means something different from what the Greeks mean by Dia Yioy. They are supposed to mean the same thing, so leave us to do the translating into our language the way that it will make sense.
Now we could cave in and say, “ok, you Greeks please translate this into a language that you don’t know” and we could come out with “the Holy Spirit who proceee tehee tahoo ha ha.” At that point, we might as well say let’s not worry about doing a translation at all. Let’s just translitterate the Greek and not care if anyone ever understands.
I bring this up because I know that even if a Greek understands what Filioque means (and notice we never talk about ex filioque, just filioque) they will still not give this arguement up.
The question I ask is why?
I suspect it has something to do with thinking they are better than Latins. That somehow by speaking Latin someone is just not able to be a Christian. They didn’t like the fact that on some occations the Eastern bishops had to look to the Pope for leadership. So they want to create a situation where they are automatically right (regardless of objective reality) and Latins are automatically wrong. This is racism the same as the guy putting on white sheets and burning crosses in my front lawn.
I keep getting the feeling what this is really about has nothing to do with the Filioque but instead is just an attack on Latin, the Latin Church and especially the Papacy. They really will not be satisfied untill the Papacy is done way with, the Latin Church stops existing and all Latin Catholics are dead in the grave. Then the Greeks will feel justified. They will then rejoice because it allows them to increase their “cannonical territory”. (a term the Church rightly refuses to recognize.)
I will ask the Greeks and anyone here:
If what I have written about the Filioque is true, that it is supposed to mean and indeed does mean exactly the same as what is written in Greek, will you continue with this as an issue?
I bet the answer is yes, which tells me every thing about the Greeks that I need to know. That to me would be a Greek admitting that they really are no better than a protestant, and big surprise, as so many ‘orthodox’ hang out with protestants in America.
Ok, that may seem really harsh but I really am at the point now where I am ready to just write them off. I used to pray for reunion but I find that to become really hard if they can not accept this.
In order to convert to Christianity, I had to walk away from my family and be completely cut off. I had to sever every family tie that I had, and it was not without Violent revenge being enacted upon me.
Today is my younger brother’s birthday and I can not call him on the phone because I am a Christian. I look down at my hands and my arms and I see before me the scars that still exist.
I love my family and I continue to pray for them and support them though I have made a new family in a new country.
Yet, I could walk away and cut myself off completely from my family in order to be a Christian, I can certainly cut myself off from the Greeks with out even much thought of it.
Since most modern languages have dropped the inflection of nouns the Filioque is easy to misinterpret (which is why we should listen to how the Church interprets it).
English especially does not translate Latin well. Also, in English, both “OUT” and “By Means” constructions require the Genitive just like the Greek. English speakers don’t like to use their defective Genitive so they instead readily use the Genitive preposition OF. The Holy Spirit came Out OF the Father By Means Of the Son. In this, English idiom follows the Greek more closely than the Latin.
It probably would make more sense to translate the Creed from the Greek into modern languages than from the Latin since there is this huge propensity to misinterpred the Latin. That doesn’t make the Latin wrong, just the Greek is better for making translations. By the way, the Vatican has been saying for the last 8 years that translation should be made from the Greek.
The Greeks really need to understand what Filioque means and stop saying it means something that it is not supposed to mean. Latins as well need to understand what it means and stop misinterpreting it to mean what it is not supposed to mean.
The Greeks also need to stop trying to force Latin to translate things the way they like it. Latin is not Greek. It isn’t like Filioque means something different from what the Greeks mean by Dia Yioy. They are supposed to mean the same thing, so leave us to do the translating into our language the way that it will make sense.
Now we could cave in and say, “ok, you Greeks please translate this into a language that you don’t know” and we could come out with “the Holy Spirit who proceee tehee tahoo ha ha.” At that point, we might as well say let’s not worry about doing a translation at all. Let’s just translitterate the Greek and not care if anyone ever understands.
I bring this up because I know that even if a Greek understands what Filioque means (and notice we never talk about ex filioque, just filioque) they will still not give this arguement up.
The question I ask is why?
I suspect it has something to do with thinking they are better than Latins. That somehow by speaking Latin someone is just not able to be a Christian. They didn’t like the fact that on some occations the Eastern bishops had to look to the Pope for leadership. So they want to create a situation where they are automatically right (regardless of objective reality) and Latins are automatically wrong. This is racism the same as the guy putting on white sheets and burning crosses in my front lawn.
I keep getting the feeling what this is really about has nothing to do with the Filioque but instead is just an attack on Latin, the Latin Church and especially the Papacy. They really will not be satisfied untill the Papacy is done way with, the Latin Church stops existing and all Latin Catholics are dead in the grave. Then the Greeks will feel justified. They will then rejoice because it allows them to increase their “cannonical territory”. (a term the Church rightly refuses to recognize.)
I will ask the Greeks and anyone here:
If what I have written about the Filioque is true, that it is supposed to mean and indeed does mean exactly the same as what is written in Greek, will you continue with this as an issue?
I bet the answer is yes, which tells me every thing about the Greeks that I need to know. That to me would be a Greek admitting that they really are no better than a protestant, and big surprise, as so many ‘orthodox’ hang out with protestants in America.
Ok, that may seem really harsh but I really am at the point now where I am ready to just write them off. I used to pray for reunion but I find that to become really hard if they can not accept this.
In order to convert to Christianity, I had to walk away from my family and be completely cut off. I had to sever every family tie that I had, and it was not without Violent revenge being enacted upon me.
Today is my younger brother’s birthday and I can not call him on the phone because I am a Christian. I look down at my hands and my arms and I see before me the scars that still exist.
I love my family and I continue to pray for them and support them though I have made a new family in a new country.
Yet, I could walk away and cut myself off completely from my family in order to be a Christian, I can certainly cut myself off from the Greeks with out even much thought of it.
S
StRaphael
Guest
Please don’t copy and paste ca. 291 words from T.R. Valentine’s Filioque Revised 2nd Edition page without citing your source: geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/filioque.html. I’ll try to respond to the rest of your post sometime this weekend. Thanks and God bless you and yours!
A
anthony022071
Guest
Oh,the heresy!
You’ll have to explain my logic to me.
The Spirit receives of the wisdom and power of the Son,when the Spirit is sent to men. But the Son does not give life to the Spirit.
Because Photios denied that there is an eternal,personal relationship between the Son and the Spirit.
< "Photius …believed that the Persons were distinguished by personal properties that could not be communicated. Their properties were, in his opinion, sufficient to characterize them. The Father was Anarchos, without principle or beginning. The Son was begotten, and this referred Him to the Father as such. The Spirit proceeds from the Father as Aitia, the cause and the only cause both of the Spirit and of the Son.
Photius regarded the monarchy of the Father as the principle both of the Spirit and of the monogenous One, and as the principle of their consubstantiality. Whereas the Greek Fathers saw this monarchy as moving dynamically in a straight line, from the Father through the Son in the Spirit, however, Photius adopted a scheme consisting of two branches:
in the eternal coming of the Spirit to consubstantial being.
In his view, there were only two possibilities --an activity that is common to the three Persons and goes back to their nature, or one that is strictly personal. To admit, as the Latins did, that the procession of the Spirit came both from the Father and from the Son, as from a single principle, was to withdraw that procession from the hypostases and to attribute it to their common nature. In those conditions, it would be wrong to dissociate the Spirit from that common nature, because he also possesses the same nature as the Father and the Son --thus he would proceed from himself, which would be clearly absurd.
The Latin construction is only tenable if the Persons are distinguished by an opposition in relationship, but the spiration does not allow for such an opposition in relationship between the Father and the Son. It can therefore be common to them. We do not, for that reason, do an injustice to the hypostatic order and favor the Divine nature, because that nature is hypostatic in its existence and the hypostases are constituted by their subsistent relationships – the Father is Fatherhood and the Son is Sonship or Begottenness. What is more, in that unity of the principle of active spiration, the Father is the first principle (Principaliter). It is necessary to admit that this is not sufficiently apparent – the word ‘procession’ is not clear. The Father and the Son seem to be at the same level, whereas they are in fact not, since ‘the Father is greater than I’. The Father is the absolute and primordial origin.
It cannot be denied that the teaching of the Fathers and of John Damascene was narrowed down and hardened in the theology of Photius. Although, as Sergey Bulgakov has pointed out, ‘there is no unanimous and homogeneous patristic doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit’, and there are openings in the direction of a procession per Filium and even Filioque."
(Congar, “I Believe in the Holy Spirit,” vol. 3, p. 57-60). >
A
anthony022071
Guest
Edited:
The Spirit receives of the wisdom and power of the Son,when the Spirit is sent to men. But I don’t think the Son gives life to the Spirit. The Son’s own life,power and wisdom are from the “Spirit of the Father”. The Spirit both gives and receives to the Son. In this way,he is both “of the Father” and “of the Son”.
The Spirit receives of the wisdom and power of the Son,when the Spirit is sent to men. But I don’t think the Son gives life to the Spirit. The Son’s own life,power and wisdom are from the “Spirit of the Father”. The Spirit both gives and receives to the Son. In this way,he is both “of the Father” and “of the Son”.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
You are aware that Bulgakov was condemned for heresy, specifically his Sophiology creating a fourth hypostais?
E
East_and_West
Guest
I am now officially a fan of Anothony. He is a great defender of the faith, does not pretend that false teachings should be accepted for the sake of “unity”, and in this thread he has shown that he really knows his stuff.
C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
Same here.
keep up the good work brother Anthony.
A
anthony022071
Guest
I feel so special.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
I
Ignatios
Guest
WOW !!! thanks Isa very much brother for this link, Very interesting:thumbsup: GOD bless you for your wonderfull work also †††
A
anthony022071
Guest
Spiration,or breath,is common to the persons in the sense that the Father and Son breath forth,and the Spirit is breathed. But the Spirit doesn’t breath forth himself.
It isn’t confusing to Catholics. Anyone who can accept the doctrines of consubstantiality and “one in being” can understand that the Father and Son breath forth the Spirit as one.
Christians don’t believe God is beyond being,will,activity,or thought.
Augustine didn’t believe that.
The Jews also said that God is one. Since God is eternal spirit,God is not partitioned.
Augustine didn’t teach those beliefs.
It’s true that the Son is like the Father in all ways and equal to him. And Basil says that God is one in nature and is simple.
Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures 4:7 [A.D. 350]):
“Believe also in the Son of God, the one and only, our Lord Jesus Christ, who is God begotten of God, who is life begotten of life, who is light begotten of light, who is in all things like unto the begetter, and who did not come to exist in time but was before all the ages, eternally and incomprehensibly begotten of the Father. He is the Wisdom of God”.
Council of Rome, Tome of Pope Damasus, Canon 12 (A.D. 382):
“If anyone does not say that the Son of God is true God just as [His] Father is true God [and] He is all-powerful and omniscient and equal to the Father, he is a heretic.”
Basil, To the Caesareans, Epistle 8 (A.D. 360):
“Against those who cast it in our teeth that we are Tritheists, let it be answered that we confess one God not in number but in nature. For everything which is called one in number is not one absolutely, nor yet simple in nature; but God is universally confessed to be simple and not composite.”
A
anthony022071
Guest
I’ll have to drop in on that conversation.
C
Claudius
Guest
So everyone, happy feast day for St. John Chrysostom. Let us continue our dicussion of the complete orthodoxy of the Filioque remembering him.
Yah, I already know I will be called a heretic for celebrating the feast day of St. John Chrysostom on a different day.
However, going back, have the orthodox been able to recongize the fact that the 7th oecumenical council upheld the Filioque and that the Bishops at that council were in communion with Rome?
They do recognize that it was oecumenical don’t they. They always say they are the Church of the 7 oecumenical councils right. They accept the denouncements of iconoclasm. Surely they accept the teaching of this council that supports the Filioque.
Yah, I already know I will be called a heretic for celebrating the feast day of St. John Chrysostom on a different day.
However, going back, have the orthodox been able to recongize the fact that the 7th oecumenical council upheld the Filioque and that the Bishops at that council were in communion with Rome?
They do recognize that it was oecumenical don’t they. They always say they are the Church of the 7 oecumenical councils right. They accept the denouncements of iconoclasm. Surely they accept the teaching of this council that supports the Filioque.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
How did it support the Filioque, in particular as the council of Frankfurt denouncded the Seventh Council and promoted the Filioque and was denounced for both by Pope Leo III of Rome?
C
Claudius
Guest
It said that the Holy Spirit proceeds From the Father through the Son.
Again, as I have said before, that is what qui procedit ex Patre Filioque, is supposed to mean.
And the Pope was right to uphold the 7th oecumenical council. After all, there is something almost islamic about icon smashers. I have icons in my home. I know that muslims and protestants want to, for lack of a better word, smash them so I have to be careful who I let in.
- Status