Filioque

[Paul_theApostle]

Is it correct to say that the Filioque in the Creed-

If it is said in Greek is a heresy

But in the Latin version it is not a heresy

What do u think about this?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Non issue, often misunderstood. What do you think since you spend 21-years Catholic and 15 Orthodox?

Peace

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Non issue, often misunderstood. What do you think since you spend 21-years Catholic and 15 Orthodox?

Peace

My previous Orth Confessor/Priest told me i confessed the original Creed when saying it in Orthodox Baptism

And now going back to Catholics ,now i am saying a different Creed,and so i would have been lying to Christ when confessing the Orthodox creed

He believes the Filioque is heretical

I mentioned i read what it means in Latin is supposed not to be heretical,but he didnt believe it and said we cant listen or believe anything we hear and read on the internet these days about it

He was saying something like 1000 years ago the Bishops and Church fathers wouldve known what they were talking about and wouldve been correct in condemning the filioque being a current issue at the time

Hes sort of saying we may read rubbish these days about it whereas back then they dealt with it then and there and condemned it

Does anyone know some good websites where i can read about the filioque debate?

sorry as a catholic though i hardly went to Church or read about it,and in Orthodoxy mainly just focused on personal healing for my life as i have been a mess

but of course would hear all the time at Orth. that Catholics were wrong with all their practices and beliefs

 

[GaryTaylor]

I would use the search engine here. For example this titled thread will clarify for you.

Re: Filioque question in EC divine liturgy

Peace

 

[JRKH]

Is it correct to say that the Filioque in the Creed-

If it is said in Greek is a heresy

But in the Latin version it is not a heresy

What do u think about this?

The Devil is in the Details…So goes the old saying…

I ask this question - How does the filioque effect my walk in Christ?
My answer is that it does not effect my walk with Christ at all. Therefore it is a detail that I can take or leave.

As far as the issues surrounding the filioque, they seem to fall into two categories.

1. Theological. Is it theologically correct to say it this way? Well frankly I don’t know. It seems that there are language/translation issues involved. Since I am neither a theologian or a language expert, I figure it’s best to leave this for the brainiacs to figure out.
2. Political. The filioque evidently was added after the East/West Schism and partly for this reason it is seen as having not occurred properly (in council). Frankly I’m not up on the specifics, but it’s one of those things where East says that the West did not have the right to change it and the West says they did…Who’s right? Again I refer the matter to those charged by the two churches with working these matters out.

Personally I worship one God in Three persons, who came from whom and how, is of little consequence to me. If it would help reconcile East and West, I’d be perfectly happy to see it changed. But I don’t get a vote…

Peace
James

 

[Hail_Linus]

My previous Orth Confessor/Priest told me i confessed the original Creed when saying it in Orthodox Baptism

And now going back to Catholics ,now i am saying a different Creed,and so i would have been lying to Christ when confessing the Orthodox creed

He believes the Filioque is heretical

I mentioned i read what it means in Latin is supposed not to be heretical,but he didnt believe it and said we cant listen or believe anything we hear and read on the internet these days about it

He was saying something like 1000 years ago the Bishops and Church fathers wouldve known what they were talking about and wouldve been correct in condemning the filioque being a current issue at the time

Hes sort of saying we may read rubbish these days about it whereas back then they dealt with it then and there and condemned it

Does anyone know some good websites where i can read about the filioque debate?

sorry as a catholic though i hardly went to Church or read about it,and in Orthodoxy mainly just focused on personal healing for my life as i have been a mess

but of course would hear all the time at Orth. that Catholics were wrong with all their practices and beliefs

1. 
   *]The Nicene Creed is an altered version of a prior creed given to the Nicene Council by Alexander of Alexandria. So the no version of the Nicene Creed is really the “original creed.”
   
   *]Theologically there is no difference.
   
   *]There are many Eastern Catholics that say the creed in Greek. The Pope has asked them two not include the filioque clause but it is really up to the Patriarchs.
   
   *]The filioque clause is not heresy in Latin. It does not say anything heretical. It may add words but does not add any new theological principle.
   
   I would check out east2west.org/ This a great website by an eastern Catholic.

 

[Steven_John]

I dont follow how in greek or in latin the argument would change.
Some times i am a dull crayon so to speak so if you can help me understand what changes in translation it may help me.

for what is worth with me looking from English i am more comfortable with the Orthodox version given in mass along these lines is said.

**All **Glory honour and praise is to you Almighty Father now and for ever. and the people all say Amen

We say ALL to the “G-d personality FATHER” given we have just attempted a tweak of the transliteration here i now take the Catholic church to stand by these words.

If all goes to the Father than He must be the source of the spirit if it wer not so we would say the likes of
To G-d or Father son and spirit.

So in other prayers of Catholics when it be said Glory be to Father son and spirit i can only assume it is the Fathers Glory given to the son and spirit. That fits with my understanding of the bible narrations that the church has explained their traditions do trump.

I guess i am going on off you topic my question at the beginning of the post sought clarified.

Blessings to you and yours

 

[Paul_theApostle]

I dont follow how in greek or in latin the argument would change.
Some times i am a dull crayon so to speak so if you can help me understand what changes in translation it may help me.

I found something from

ericsammons.com/blog/2010/09/30/st-jerome-and-the-filioque/

It says -

When translating John 15:26 (“When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me”), Jerome used the Latin verb procedere to translate the Greek word εκπορευεται (“proceeds from”). This decision is not a bad one, as both mean “proceed” or “come forth from”. However, by the time of Jerome, this Greek word had come to take on a particular meaning in Greek theology – a meaning that was not there originally. It was used to designate the Holy Spirit’s unique mode of proceeding as opposed to the begetting of the Son in the Godhead. But the Latin term had no such meaning in the West; it could be used interchangeably for both processions.

For example, in John 8:42 (”Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and am here; I did not come on my own, but he sent me”) Jerome again uses the Latin verb procedere, yet the Greek term used is εξηλθον, which means “come forth”, but by Jerome’s time was not identical to εκπορευεται. So in the Latin, both the Son’s procession and the Spirit’s procession used the same broad term – procedere – but the Greeks used different terms for them. Both East and West agreed that both processions could not be identical, so in the West there developed an understanding that the Spirit’s procession was “from the Father and the Son“, a development that did not take hold in the East, which saw the begetting of the Son and the generation of the Spirit as distinct even though both were “from the Father.”

It is important to note that there is absolutely nothing wrong with Jerome’s translation; the fact is that the languages are just different and any translation sometimes has to use the best word available even if it is not an exact match. Furthermore, the Greek language, like every language, had developed, so the term εκπορευεται came to have a precise theological meaning in the East which it did not have at the time of the New Testament. Even without Jerome’s translation decisions the debate over the filioque might have erupted, but the human constraints of language surely played their part in this divisive phrase.

St. Jerome, pray for us!

---

There is more you can read about it on other sites,
I think in the Greek language it seems to mean that the Holy Spirit has two origins or sources

But in Latin it doesnt mean that
And the Latins agree that only the Father is the origin or source

not too sure

Peace

 

[JRKH]

I found something from

ericsammons.com/blog/2010/09/30/st-jerome-and-the-filioque/

It says -

When translating John 15:26 (“When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me”), Jerome used the Latin verb procedere to translate the Greek word εκπορευεται (“proceeds from”). This decision is not a bad one, as both mean “proceed” or “come forth from”. However, by the time of Jerome, this Greek word had come to take on a particular meaning in Greek theology – a meaning that was not there originally. It was used to designate the Holy Spirit’s unique mode of proceeding as opposed to the begetting of the Son in the Godhead. But the Latin term had no such meaning in the West; it could be used interchangeably for both processions.

For example, in John 8:42 (”Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and am here; I did not come on my own, but he sent me”) Jerome again uses the Latin verb procedere, yet the Greek term used is εξηλθον, which means “come forth”, but by Jerome’s time was not identical to εκπορευεται. So in the Latin, both the Son’s procession and the Spirit’s procession used the same broad term – procedere – but the Greeks used different terms for them. Both East and West agreed that both processions could not be identical, so in the West there developed an understanding that the Spirit’s procession was “from the Father and the Son“, a development that did not take hold in the East, which saw the begetting of the Son and the generation of the Spirit as distinct even though both were “from the Father.”

It is important to note that there is absolutely nothing wrong with Jerome’s translation; the fact is that the languages are just different and any translation sometimes has to use the best word available even if it is not an exact match. Furthermore, the Greek language, like every language, had developed, so the term εκπορευεται came to have a precise theological meaning in the East which it did not have at the time of the New Testament. Even without Jerome’s translation decisions the debate over the filioque might have erupted, but the human constraints of language surely played their part in this divisive phrase.

St. Jerome, pray for us!

---

There is more you can read about it on other sites,
I think in the Greek language it seems to mean that the Holy Spirit has two origins or sources

But in Latin it doesnt mean that
And the Latins agree that only the Father is the origin or source

not too sure

Peace

Thanks for the link and the explanation.
To me this just reinforces what I said earlier…Better to leave it to the theological brains of the Church(es) to figure it all out…It just makes me dizzy…:hypno:

Peace
James

 

[Steven_John]

I found something from

ericsammons.com/blog/2010/09/30/st-jerome-and-the-filioque/

It says -

When translating John 15:26 (“When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me”), Jerome used the Latin verb procedere to translate the Greek word εκπορευεται (“proceeds from”). This decision is not a bad one, as both mean “proceed” or “come forth from”. However, by the time of Jerome, this Greek word had come to take on a particular meaning in Greek theology – a meaning that was not there originally. It was used to designate the Holy Spirit’s unique mode of proceeding as opposed to the begetting of the Son in the Godhead. But the Latin term had no such meaning in the West; it could be used interchangeably for both processions.

For example, in John 8:42 (”Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and am here; I did not come on my own, but he sent me”) Jerome again uses the Latin verb procedere, yet the Greek term used is εξηλθον, which means “come forth”, but by Jerome’s time was not identical to εκπορευεται. So in the Latin, both the Son’s procession and the Spirit’s procession used the same broad term – procedere – but the Greeks used different terms for them. Both East and West agreed that both processions could not be identical, so in the West there developed an understanding that the Spirit’s procession was “from the Father and the Son“, a development that did not take hold in the East, which saw the begetting of the Son and the generation of the Spirit as distinct even though both were “from the Father.”

It is important to note that there is absolutely nothing wrong with Jerome’s translation; the fact is that the languages are just different and any translation sometimes has to use the best word available even if it is not an exact match. Furthermore, the Greek language, like every language, had developed, so the term εκπορευεται came to have a precise theological meaning in the East which it did not have at the time of the New Testament. Even without Jerome’s translation decisions the debate over the filioque might have erupted, but the human constraints of language surely played their part in this divisive phrase.

St. Jerome, pray for us!

---

There is more you can read about it on other sites,
I think in the Greek language it seems to mean that the Holy Spirit has two origins or sources

But in Latin it doesnt mean that
And the Latins agree that only the Father is the origin or source

not too sure

Peace

Bless you a bunch and some more, much appriciated

 

[Paul_theApostle]

The Devil is in the Details…So goes the old saying…

I ask this question - How does the filioque effect my walk in Christ?
My answer is that it does not effect my walk with Christ at all. Therefore it is a detail that I can take or leave.

If it were in fact a heresy then perhaps it may affect ones walk with Christ…

As we need the Church also and to unite with it along with our love or belief in Christ…

Heresy is a deviation from truth…

So if we follow Heresy than i would say we werent following the Truth or True Church…

The Orthodox believe its a heresy…

So whattya do…

im trying to learn if it really isnt a heresy which will make me ignore some Orthodox priests who breath down my neck claiming it to be a heresy and so i can more comfortable in the Catholic Church knowing i AM following and believing in the TRUTH

Peace

 

[CopticChristian]

Is it correct to say that the Filioque in the Creed-

If it is said in Greek is a heresy

But in the Latin version it is not a heresy

What do u think about this?

I ran across this awhile back and I believe it answers the question.

catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/TheChurch/Articles/Filioque.aspx

ekporeusis" implies (i.e., procession from a single source, principal, or cause),

the Latin translation of the Constantinopolitan Creed carried a notable difference. For, the Greek term for “proceeds” (ekporeusis – “ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon”) was translated into Latin as “procedit” (“ex Patre procedentum”) – a term that, unlike the Greek, does not imply procession from a single source, principal, or cause.

the Catholic Church does not deny the Constantinopolitan Creed as originally written. This is why our Byzantine Catholic Churches recite the Creed without the Filioque, and why even we Romans are able to recite the Creed without the Filioque when participating in Byzantine Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Liturgies.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The problem seems to be that in Greek, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, has a different meaning from qui ex Patre Filioque procedit. Ἐκπορευόμενον refers only to the procession of the person (ὑπόστᾰσις) of the Holy Spirit. The Romans attempt to justify the filioque by saying that qui ex Patre Filioque procedit refers to how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit share the same essence (οὐσία), an inclusion which is claimed to have been used to defeat the Arian Heresy in the West. The problem with that is then the Creed is not understood in the same way (referring only to the procession and begetting of the persons in the Greek, not the essence of the Holy Spirit and the Son). I’m really unsure as to how this difference can be reconciled.

 

[campeador]

If it were in fact a heresy then perhaps it may affect ones walk with Christ…

As we need the Church also and to unite with it along with our love or belief in Christ…

Heresy is a deviation from truth…

So if we follow Heresy than i would say we werent following the Truth or True Church…

The Orthodox believe its a heresy…

So whattya do…

I’m trying to learn if it really isn’t a heresy which will make me ignore some Orthodox priests who breath down my neck claiming it to be a heresy and so i can more comfortable in the Catholic Church knowing I AM following and believing in the TRUTH.

Peace

This might help:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque#Views_of_Roman_Catholic_saints_of_East_and_West

 

[Paul_theApostle]

The problem seems to be that in Greek, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, has a different meaning from qui ex Patre Filioque procedit. Ἐκπορευόμενον refers only to the procession of the person (ὑπόστᾰσις) of the Holy Spirit. The Romans attempt to justify the filioque by saying that qui ex Patre Filioque procedit refers to how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit share the same essence (οὐσία), an inclusion which is claimed to have been used to defeat the Arian Heresy in the West. The problem with that is then the Creed is not understood in the same way (referring only to the procession and begetting of the persons in the Greek, not the essence of the Holy Spirit and the Son). I’m really unsure as to how this difference can be reconciled.

Cavaradossi,what is that pink thing next to your name?

Is it like a ghost from pacman?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Cavaradossi,what is that pink thing next to your name?

Is it like a ghost from pacman?

It’s Domo-kun!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domo-kun

I recently won one as a prize at the OC fair while I was visiting some family in California, and I thought that it would make a funny avatar.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

It’s Domo-kun!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domo-kun

I recently won one as a prize at the OC fair while I was visiting some family in California, and I thought that it would make a funny avatar.

He looks angry

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cavaradossi,

The problem seems to be that in Greek, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, has a different meaning from qui ex Patre Filioque procedit. Ἐκπορευόμενον refers only to the procession of the person (ὑπόστᾰσις) of the Holy Spirit. The Romans attempt to justify the filioque by saying that qui ex Patre Filioque procedit refers to how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit share the same essence (οὐσία), an inclusion which is claimed to have been used to defeat the Arian Heresy in the West. The problem with that is then the Creed is not understood in the same way (referring only to the procession and begetting of the persons in the Greek, not the essence of the Holy Spirit and the Son). I’m really unsure as to how this difference can be reconciled.

The problem I see with your explanation is that it does not take into account the purpose of the Second Ecumenical Council in adding the phrase “proceeds from the Father.” The primary purpose of the Council was to defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit. EVERYONE understood that this was the main impetus for the convention of the Council. The purpose of the phrase at issue was not to primarily teach the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father, because the Pneumatomachi believed just as much. Nor was it the purpose of the Second Ecumenical Council to teach that the Father is the arche of the Trinity, a teaching that was also shared by both the Pneumatomachi and the Arians. The purpose of the Council was to defend the DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. This was the thing that the Pneumatomachi, and certain Arians were denying, so this was the matter that needed to be addressed.

Having this understanding, when the Latins received the Creed of Constantinople, and they utilized procedit to translate ekporeusai, they knew, correctly, that they were preserving the actual and true intent of the Fathers of the Second Ecum.

So even though the language, and even meaning, of the phrase was different between the Greeks and Latins, the phrase - IN EITHER LANGUAGE - perfectly preserved the original intention of the Fathers of the Second Ecum - which was to defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

It was only later that certain Easterns, perhaps due to the widening cultural chasm where fewer and fewer Greeks understood Latin and vice-versa, began to insist on what is actually only a secondary meaning of the phrase at issue (at least as far as the Fathers of the Second Ecum were concerned). To repeat, the phrase “proceeds from the Father” was not added by the Fathers of the Second Ecum to insist on the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father, nor to insist on the arche of the Father (for neither of those teachings were challenged by the Pneumatomachi). Rather, they used the phrase to insist on the DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. This true and original meaning has ALWAYS been preserved by the Latin phraseology.

So, from the perspective of the Fathers of the Second Ecum, what is this “difference” that needs to be reconciled?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cavaradossi,

To be more succinct, what I’m saying is that if we all focus on the original intention of the Fathers of the Second Ecum, then there will no longer be any “difference.”

A non-Christian can go to a Latin Church and ask, “Why did the Second Ecum add these extra words about the Holy Spirit to the Nicene Creed?” The Latin responds, “It was to defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit.” The same non-Christian can go to a Greek Church and ask the same question, and he/she will get the same response, “It was to defend the divnity of the Holy Spirit.”

If the non-Christian notices a difference in the language, anyone in either Church can unanimously say, “we each have our different ways of expressing it, but we are all expressing the same thing - that the Holy Spirit is God.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[GaryTaylor]

I suppose we shall be chasing this rabbit around the track from time to time though.

“It was to defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit.”

Is the correct Jeopardy answer, “a defense against heresy”. Which in 2011 is mis-interpreted as heresy.

Peace