I understand that, and that makes sense, but one of the arguments against the filioque is that it wasn’t an “officially approved addition” to the Creed. But then again neither was “God of God.” Can we have one unilateral addition condemned and not the other?It doesn’t really matter why. In the Church, theological issues are only issues if someone objects. If no one does, then there is no issue - the mind of the Church is satisfied.
As an example - as far as we can tell, in the very earliest years of Christianity adult baptism was the norm. As time went on, the situation changed, and most of the people to be baptized in established Christian communities were infants. And so they baptised infants. There was no objection, everyone recognized this as the logical expresion of Christian belief about baptism.
But if a group had stood up and said “well, we think that is not a good idea” then it would have to have been discussed by all.
This is also why many practices can differ in different areas, but be ok, and local councils can work. A local counsel makes decisions for their area, but the decision can be debated at a higher level if other parts of the Church see it as being a problem. Or, on the other hand, the results of the local counsel could be accepted by everyone and so considered important for the whole Church. That is why historically some local counsels are important for everyone, but others are not.
The reason there is an issue is because the filioque, which became an issue of contention, never was discussed by the whole Church. It doesn’t matter really if the East or West is right, or it’s just a mis-understanding - we can’t say, because the whole Church never came to a decision when the issue was raised. Instead, Rome tried to force the issue with a claim of authority and through political manipulation. That claim of authority was not accepted by the other patriarchs, and the political manipulation was resented.
So, as of yet, there has been no resolution and can be no resolution.
Yes, that is my point. It is not a matter of being fair. Fair to whom? The addition? THere is no call to treat an inanimate object fairly.I understand that, and that makes sense, but one of the arguments against the filioque is that it wasn’t an “officially approved addition” to the Creed. But then again neither was “God of God.” Can we have one unilateral addition condemned and not the other?
The problem with that comparison is that, “God of God,” doesn’t change the meaning of the creed, “qui ex Patre Filioque procedit,” does.I understand that, and that makes sense, but one of the arguments against the filioque is that it wasn’t an “officially approved addition” to the Creed. But then again neither was “God of God.” Can we have one unilateral addition condemned and not the other?
Or even if it didn’t, some people thought it did.The problem with that comparison is that, “God of God,” doesn’t change the meaning of the creed, “qui ex Patre Filioque procedit,” does.
Right, and it all depends on what is meant by “qui ex Patre Filioque procedit.”Or even if it didn’t, some people thought it did.
I understand John 14:28 not to refer to the human nature of Christ, but to the relations among the Godhead. The Father is, in a sense, greater than both the Son and the Spirit because the Father alone is Unoriginate, while both the Son and the Spirit originate from the Father. That is not to say that the Son or the Spirit is not equal with the Father in the sense of not being consubstantial. My position is in agreement with that of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, who, in his Fourth Theological Oration stated, “For that the same thing should be at once greater than and equal to the same thing is an impossibility; and the evident solution is that the Greater refers to origination, while the Equal belongs to the Nature; and this we acknowledge with much good will.”Sounds good except the “greater” part. Are you greater than your son? You may be wiser, accomplished more, been around longer. However one is the same.
Your referring to John 14:28 which is Christ speaking in the present Biblically.
Jesus Christ stated this to John, not because He is not God, but because He became man. When He become man He was in a state lower than the Angels. For the Angels came and ministered to Him. Jesus did not deny He was God in John, He simply acknowledged He was Flesh and man.
So in this sense we would need to revert to other Bible verse.
Hebrews 2:9, “But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.”
So we see in this verse Jesus is lower than the Angels. We do not state the Angels are greater than Christ after His death.
Colossians 2:9, “For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily”
Here we see that one in not greater than the other but the same.
And of course it goes on and on Biblically.
Of course the real question is how the Holy Spirit proceeds for we also know and see the HS proceed from God the Father at the Annunciation, Burning Bush. We know what all the scholars have stated, early church fathers etc. However this is still much of a mystery Biblically speaking.
The only questionable evidence we have to date is the Seer of Fatima who seen the Trinity together. Here one is left with the distinct impression that all three are one as stated in the Doctrine of the Trinity.
Of course we can go on and on and try to resolve the mystery of Christ re-appearing to the apostles. Which brings another point up. Without a doubt its complex.
Interesting though without a doubt. Whats most clear is John…In the beginning was the Word and the Word became Flesh. So we see the Son of God existing before Flesh.
Peace