Filioque??

[Nicholas82]

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.

I seriously doubt a protestant or muslim that you invite into your home is going to ‘smash’ your icons. Keep an eye on the silverware though.

 

[Claudius]

I pulled this Greek from a source on the internet so someone can please check if it really does come from the 7th oecumenical council.

το　εκ　 του　 πατρος　δια　του　υιου　εκπορευομενον

The TO is a relative pronoun whose substantive is

το Πνευμα το Αγιον

TO turns into QUI in Latin.

EK turns into EX in Latin

TOU could have been translated but as the definite article in Latin is more often used as a third person pronoun we don’t translate this.

PATROS is of course in the genitive and is governed by EK.

In Latin we use PATRE, which is an ablative, and is governed by EX.

Then DIA means through and would be translated as PER in Latin but the Ablative if Means works just as well.

This relative clause it interesting in that I have seen the creed in Greek where the verb was not at the end but it is here. This is important in a relative clause.

Also, I noticed that the word KAI was not between EK TOU PATROS and DIA TOU UIOU.

In Latin since this is a relative clause -que is what lets us know that Filio is not governed by the preposition that governs Patre. We kind of need it unless we put Filio before EX PATROS.

If I were doing the translation I would put it as

Qui Filio ex Patre procedit.

Then I would just hope that people didn’t try to say that I was giving more honor to the Son by mentioning him first.

Qui ex Patre per Filium procedit

works just as well if we explain that we are forcing the “by means” construction regardless of the verb of motion. Most modern people should have no problem with this, only the Latin Grammaterians.

Does anyone else have a better source?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I pulled this Greek from a source on the internet so someone can please check if it really does come from the 7th oecumenical council.

Can you specify what part it is claimed it was from (I don’t doubt it, btw, I just don’t know it offhand, nor would it, since the phrase is common, attract my attention in reading the Acts and Definition of the Seventh Council).

The TO is a relative pronoun whose substantive is

TO turns into QUI in Latin.

EK turns into EX in Latin

TOU could have been translated but as the definite article in Latin is more often used as a third person pronoun we don’t translate this.

PATROS is of course in the genitive and is governed by EK.

In Latin we use PATRE, which is an ablative, and is governed by EX.

Then DIA means through and would be translated as PER in Latin but the Ablative if Means works just as well.

I’m not sure -QVE allows that.

This relative clause it interesting in that I have seen the creed in Greek where the verb was not at the end but it is here. This is important in a relative clause.

The reason is that the verb is being modified by an adverbial prepositional phrase.

Also, I noticed that the word KAI was not between EK TOU PATROS and DIA TOU UIOU.

It wouldn’t, according to sense. -QVE is a different story.

In Latin since this is a relative clause -que is what lets us know that Filio is not governed by the preposition that governs Patre. We kind of need it unless we put Filio before EX PATROS.

You have something in Lane, Smyth, Wheelock, etc. to back this up?

If I were doing the translation I would put it as

Qui Filio ex Patre procedit.

Then I would just hope that people didn’t try to say that I was giving more honor to the Son by mentioning him first.

Qui ex Patre per Filium procedit

works just as well if we explain that we are forcing the “by means” construction regardless of the verb of motion. Most modern people should have no problem with this, only the Latin Grammaterians.

Does anyone else have a better source?

I recall that supposedly the Council of Frankfurt had a faulty translation of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Did it say “a Patre per Filium procedit”?

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.

 

[JohnVIII]

The Son is begotten of the Father and the Virgin Mary, and from these two he has his divine and his human nature. Therefore, to be consistent, if you believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son you must believe also that the Holy Spirit has divine nature from the Father and both divine and human nature from the Son. But just like the son is not 50% human and 50% divine but rather 100% divine and 100% human, likewise you must conclude that the Holy Spirit is 100% divine and 100% human. But where in any of the writings of any of the Church Fathers or for that matter any of the Pope’s or any teaching in Christianity has there ever been a teaching that the Holy Spirit is human? But to be consistent you must come to this conclusion if you believe in the filioque.

 

[Allyson]

The Son is begotten of the Father and the Virgin Mary, and from these two he has his divine and his human nature. Therefore, to be consistent, if you believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son you must believe also that the Holy Spirit has divine nature from the Father and both divine and human nature from the Son. But just like the son is not 50% human and 50% divine but rather 100% divine and 100% human, likewise you must conclude that the Holy Spirit is 100% divine and 100% human. But where in any of the writings of any of the Church Fathers or for that matter any of the Pope’s or any teaching in Christianity has there ever been a teaching that the Holy Spirit is human? But to be consistent you must come to this conclusion if you believe in the filioque.

An interesting thought. However, since the Incarnation happens as a result of the economic action of the Trinity, and the origin of the Son and Holy Spirit is within the immanent Trinity, your conclusion need not be made.

Your post does bring to mind a few minority opinions held by living/ dead members of the Latin Church.

1. That Mary the Mother of God is a Quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit.
2. I picked up a book at the library once-the title and author I can not think of right now- that argues for both the filioque and that the Holy Spirit participates in the generation of the Son.
   I have to run and leave the legitimacy of these opinions within the Latin Church inexamined.

God Bless,
R.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

An interesting thought. However, since the Incarnation happens as a result of the economic action of the Trinity, and the origin of the Son and Holy Spirit is within the immanent Trinity, your conclusion need not be made.

Your post does bring to mind a few minority opinions held by living/ dead members of the Latin Church.

1. That Mary the Mother of God is a Quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit.
2. I picked up a book at the library once-the title and author I can not think of right now- that argues for both the filioque and that the Holy Spirit participates in the generation of the Son.
   I have to run and leave the legitimacy of these opinions within the Latin Church inexamined.

God Bless,
R.

Yes, I thought John VIII had put the filioque in a corner, but not the one he thought: given the arguments for the filioque being based on the union between the Father and Son, there’s the problem of the Father not being Incarnated.

 

[8eofilos]

Matthew 1:20
“…for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.”

Not from or through the Son clearly in this verse.

Luke 1:35
“And the angel answered her, The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.”

Again clearly not through the Son.

The Holy Spirit is the Life Barer

 

[Taboric_Light]

Ignatios,

I am sorry for the great delay in responding to the rest of your comment. I sorely underestimated how long it would be before I had an opportunity to get on the internet that would allow me sufficient time to give you an answer. I hope it is worth the wait.

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.

Romans, not me, actually do use John 15:26 to support the filioque because Jesus says, “whom I will send unto you from the Father.” Personally, I think that interpreting this as meaning that the Spirit eternally processes from the Son is a stretch. I think it makes much more sense (and is definitley the literal meaning) to interpret the Spirit being sent by the Son as refering to an economic procession.

1. 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.

No argument from me. I completely agree that we must only go by what God has revealed as it has been handed down to us through the Church. However, disagreements concerning the content of Revelation force us to give a clearer articulation of that content (the 7 ecumenical councils are a very good example of this). In giving a clearer articulation our reason - expressed through philosophy, logic, and many of other ways - is a great help. We’re not fideist. By this, I’m not suggesting you are. I definitely do not think that; I am just making sure that their isn’t any confusion between what we are both saying about this.

1. 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.

As I mentioned above Romans could point to John 15:26 when Jesus says, “whom I will send.” Also, any verses that refer to the Holy Spirit as the “Spirit of Truth,” “Spirit of Adoption,” Giver of Life, etc. etc. I don’t think these are at all strong in scripturally defending the filioque; rather, I think that they testify to the intimate relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which definitely does not necessarily mean the filioque.

In Christ through Mary

 

[Ignatios]

Ignatios,

Romans, not me, actually do use John 15:26 to support the filioque because Jesus says, “whom I will send unto you from the Father.” Personally, I think that interpreting this as meaning that the Spirit eternally processes from the Son is a stretch. I think it makes much more sense (and is definitley the literal meaning) to interpret the Spirit being sent by the Son as refering to an economic procession.

Send is NOT Proceed if it was than again this where we would have seen it. But it is not.

Let me ask you this, if the Pope or ANYBODY added " and the SON" (Filioque) to the bible text in john15:26 where it is says “…From the FATHER…” would you accept it???

Now, if the verse read only" whom I will send unto you" than there would have been something that worth looking at but it didnt, we cannot take things out of context.
Reading it within context, would leave no place for anything other than what It says.

No argument from me. I completely agree that we must only go by what God has revealed as it has been handed down to us through the Church. However, disagreements concerning the content of Revelation force us to give a clearer articulation of that content (the 7 ecumenical councils are a very good example of this). In giving a clearer articulation our reason - expressed through philosophy, logic, and many of other ways - is a great help. We're not fideist. By this, I'm not suggesting you are. I definitely do not think that; I am just making sure that their isn't any confusion between what we are both saying about this.

ok, without going into analysing the word articulation … what you have mentioned in the above it can be true to some extent in some places in the Bible, BUT not everything in the bible, there is verses in the Bible that it is what it reads, and others that one must stick to how the Fathers explained them and agreed on them and were put forth in a major Creed through the E.C. such as the N.Creed.
We use Philosophy and some temporal means and some ways to explain what we already have, or what already has been presented. but not to make up things.

As I mentioned above Romans could point to John 15:26 when Jesus says, "whom I will send." Also, any verses that refer to the Holy Spirit as the "Spirit of Truth," "Spirit of Adoption," Giver of Life, etc. etc. I don't think these are at all strong in scripturally defending the filioque; rather, I think that they testify to the intimate relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which definitely does not necessarily mean the filioque.

OUR LORD and SAVIOR the CHRIST JESUS, indeed He said that HE will send the Holy SPIRIT but HE also “explained” whom our LORD the HOLY SPIRIT proceed from !!! by saying this, the chance is cut off for anything else.

Very well then, If I am not mistaking, I see that we agree, that the Filioque does not exist in the Bible, and if it is not in the Bible then it is no more than an Idea, for what we beleive and follow is the word of GOD and not that of men

GOD Bless †††

 

[bobzills]

Let me ask you this, if the Pope or ANYBODY added " and the SON" (Filioque) to the bible text in john15:26 where it is says “…From the FATHER…” would you accept it???

I would say that such an interpolation should not be accepted since it is a mistranslation.

 

[Ghosty]

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.

I’m not a Roman, but I can provide a better Scriptural reference than John 15:26. John 16 has this to say:

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.

This is the passage that I’ve typically seen used in classic Latin writings, as opposed to modern apologetics. The Holy Spirit receives “what is the Son’s”, and therefore Glorifies the Son. This is taken to mean that the Holy Spirit doesn’t only receive from the Father, but in fact receives in some way from the Son as well, at least in a manner that can’t be said in reverse. For example, no one says that the Son “takes what is the Holy Spirit’s” by receiving from the Father, so there is an indication of a relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Son in which the Holy Spirit receives, and the Son is the giver.

Peace and God bless!

 

[chrisb]

This is the passage that I’ve typically seen used in classic Latin writings, as opposed to modern apologetics. The Holy Spirit receives “what is the Son’s”, and therefore Glorifies the Son. This is taken to mean that the Holy Spirit doesn’t only receive from the Father, but in fact receives in some way from the Son as well, at least in a manner that can’t be said in reverse. For example, no one says that the Son “takes what is the Holy Spirit’s” by receiving from the Father, so there is an indication of a relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Son in which the Holy Spirit receives, and the Son is the giver.

Ghosty,

Wasn’t the Son ‘conceived’ of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man? At the Baptism of Our Lord was he Glorified by the Holy Spirit? I believe there are a few periods that the Holy Spirit gives to the Son. I know this is a temporal example and not particularly targeted toward the ‘Logos’ per se but if we are speaking about the God/Man Jesus Christ then we do see the Holy Spirit ‘giving’ to the Son.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Ghosty,

Wasn’t the Son ‘conceived’ of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man? At the Baptism of Our Lord was he Glorified by the Holy Spirit? I believe there are a few periods that the Holy Spirit gives to the Son. I know this is a temporal example and not particularly targeted toward the ‘Logos’ per se but if we are speaking about the God/Man Jesus Christ then we do see the Holy Spirit ‘giving’ to the Son.

Perichoresis strikes again!

 

[Ghosty]

Ghosty,

Wasn’t the Son ‘conceived’ of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man? At the Baptism of Our Lord was he Glorified by the Holy Spirit? I believe there are a few periods that the Holy Spirit gives to the Son. I know this is a temporal example and not particularly targeted toward the ‘Logos’ per se but if we are speaking about the God/Man Jesus Christ then we do see the Holy Spirit ‘giving’ to the Son.

Those would be economic examples, as you say, and have no more application to the procession of the Holy Spirit and the Son than the “sending” of the Holy Spirit by Christ. If we’re following the rule of distinguishing between economy and eternity, then those examples clearly fall into economy, and don’t deal with the question at hand.

Peace and God bless!

 

[chrisb]

Those would be economic examples, as you say, and have no more application to the procession of the Holy Spirit and the Son than the “sending” of the Holy Spirit by Christ. If we’re following the rule of distinguishing between economy and eternity, then those examples clearly fall into economy, and don’t deal with the question at hand.

Yep but while I have your attention are you positing that the distinction between the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son is a novelty?

I’m sure you’ve read a lot of the posts in this thread and noticed that many have offered criticism of the Filioque particularly because there is the belief that it creates a kind of sub-nature shared between the Father and the Son which is not present between the Father or the Son with the Holy Spirit.

Does the ability to “spirate” the Holy Spirit come from the Godhead or from a specific Person? If a specific Person, which one?

Thanks.

 

[Ignatios]

I’m not a Roman, but I can provide a better Scriptural reference than John 15:26. John 16 has this to say:

Yes we know that you go under the Melkites , but we know the Duck not only from the way she flies or walk or swim or her beak but also from the way she sounds, and likewise we know the Melkite when we hear one.

This is the passage that I’ve typically seen used in classic Latin writings, as opposed to modern apologetics. The Holy Spirit receives “what is the Son’s”, and therefore Glorifies the Son. This is taken to mean that the Holy Spirit doesn’t only receive from the Father, but in fact receives in some way from the Son as well, at least in a manner that can’t be said in reverse. For example, no one says that the Son “takes what is the Holy Spirit’s” by receiving from the Father, so there is an indication of a relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Son in which the Holy Spirit receives, and the Son is the giver.

Peace and God bless!

You are speaking about Receiving, the subject at hand is the “PROCESSION” according to the Bible, and NOT receiving …receiving is not proceeding.
Besides tell me what does the Holy Spirit receives from the SON in this verse you have mentioned, it is obvious in this Verse that the LORD JESUS CHRIST is not reffering to the Procession of the Holy Spirit, because He said that,"… That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.".

So as you see it is not about the Procesion or of the Holy Spirit.

But it is about the Teaching of Christ to them
and to correct you further the HOLY SPIRIT and according to the Bible HE didnt Receive from JESUS CHRIST but HE “TAKES”…

And then Note the word “will” in the Blue that is reffering to a future term, So, if this verse is about the procession of the Holy Spirit, according to you, you can tell me now if you make your calculation how old is the H.S.

 

[JohnVIII]

I’m not a Roman, but I can provide a better Scriptural reference than John 15:26. John 16 has this to say:

This is the passage that I’ve typically seen used in classic Latin writings, as opposed to modern apologetics. The Holy Spirit receives “what is the Son’s”, and therefore Glorifies the Son. This is taken to mean that the Holy Spirit doesn’t only receive from the Father, but in fact receives in some way from the Son as well, at least in a manner that can’t be said in reverse. For example, no one says that the Son “takes what is the Holy Spirit’s” by receiving from the Father, so there is an indication of a relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Son in which the Holy Spirit receives, and the Son is the giver.

I will confess that this verse in Scripture, at one time, convinced me that the filioque is true. Of course I erred in my interpretation.

What brought me back to the Orthodox point of view was a matter of morality rather than of faith. Scriptures can be argued (as a Protestant may argue Scripture) - some may be persuaded. But for me the more important issue is morality. Is it right or is it wrong for a more modern Pope to change what prior popes have said cannot be changed? Is it right or is it wrong to insist that a more modern Pope is right no matter what even if his “rightness” causes millions of people to go into schism?

The filioque wasn’t even “officially” added to the Roman Creed until the reign of Benedict VIII (1012-1024)! It’s addition created a new faith. If you read the life of Saint Maximus the confessor you’ll see that the basis by which he considered a heresy of his day was simply that what was being taught now was not what used to be taught in the Church. The Catholic faith was established firm an absolute by the original Nicene Creed.

 

[Ghosty]

Ignatios:

Yes we know that you go under the Melkites , but we know the Duck not only from the way she flies or walk or swim or her beak but also from the way she sounds, and likewise we know the Melkite when we hear one.

There is nothing Melkite about calling the Latin view heretical, and there’s nothing unMelkite about defending the members of my own Communion. Your accusations are both rude and groundless. I understand the Latin theology, and I’m happy to present it, and that’s what I’m doing.

So as you see it is not about the Procesion or of the Holy Spirit.

There is no difference between the Holy Spirit proceeding, and the Holy Spirit taking or receiving. You’re splitting hairs that aren’t even existent.

And then Note the word “will” in the Blue that is reffering to a future term, So, if this verse is about the procession of the Holy Spirit, according to you, you can tell me now if you make your calculation how old is the H.S.

The future tense is often used in Scripture to describe things that have already occurred. For example, in 2 Samuel 7, God says to David, regarding the future Messianic King:

14] I will be his father, and he shall be my son.

It’s not said “I am His Father, and He is my Son”, but rather “will be”. The future tense doesn’t indicate that the event isn’t true now, but that the revelation has not yet occurred.

Besides, if you take it to mean that the Holy Spirit will receive what is the Father and the Son’s in the future, then you are saying that there was/will be a change in the Holy Spirit’s nature, which is heretical; Christ was certainly not speaking of a future change in the Holy Spirit.

JohnVIII: Your questions are different from those dealing with the theological legitimacy of the filioque. The filioque (properly understood) was certainly taught prior to the time of St. Maximos, by both Latin Fathers (all of them who wrote on the subject, in fact) and Greek Fathers (including such a “Trinitarian Luminary” as St. Gregory of Nyssa). The filioque is theologically legitimate and ancient; the question of whether it was legitimately added to the Latin-use of the Creed is something else entirely, and is a question I think is open for debate even within the Catholic Communion.

Peace and God bless!

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace to everyone,

Could I just say that I would like to express my appreciation to CA and the individuals on both sides of this discussion for having a forum where we can hash these weighty topic out with the care and concern they are due. I really honestly appreciate being able to just grapple with this topic without being locked or called a heretic or what have you.

Thank you all and God Bless us.

 

[8eofilos]

I’m not a Roman, but I can provide a better Scriptural reference than John 15:26. John 16 has this to say:

This is the passage that I’ve typically seen used in classic Latin writings, as opposed to modern apologetics. The Holy Spirit receives “what is the Son’s”, and therefore Glorifies the Son. This is taken to mean that the Holy Spirit doesn’t only receive from the Father, but in fact receives in some way from the Son as well, at least in a manner that can’t be said in reverse. For example, no one says that the Son “takes what is the Holy Spirit’s” by receiving from the Father, so there is an indication of a relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Son in which the Holy Spirit receives, and the Son is the giver.

Peace and God bless!

[13] the verse is talking about the Paraklitos “Παρακλητος” Is the Paraklitos (for many the Comforter) The Holy Spirit?