M
mardukm
Guest
When Latin Catholics profess the Faith, how do you understand the statement “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son”?
- Status
M
mardukm
Guest
THIS THREAD IS ONLY OPEN TO LATIN CHRISTIANS.
THIS THREAD IS ALSO OPEN TO PARTICIPATION BY CONFESSIONAL PROTESTANTS.
Thank you.
THIS THREAD IS ALSO OPEN TO PARTICIPATION BY CONFESSIONAL PROTESTANTS.
Thank you.
R
rtconstant
Guest
In my understanding it works like this: The Father gave all things that were of Him to the Son and indeed it was the Father who promised the Son. The Son promised to give all that was His to the Spirit and promised that He would come. So there is a double procession.
However, the Holy Spirit was not created by the Son or the Father. But His condescending to dwell in our souls finds its cause in the Son and by default the Father.
That is my understanding.
*edited for grammar
However, the Holy Spirit was not created by the Son or the Father. But His condescending to dwell in our souls finds its cause in the Son and by default the Father.
That is my understanding.
*edited for grammar
V
Verbum
Guest
Hi,
Essentially a false debate.
Theologians from East and West both agree that the originating principle of the Trinity is the Father alone. So an answer that does not say that is false.
Both sides agree that the only creed approved by a council of the universal church is the one without the Filioque. Eastern Catholics are free, in their liturgy, to use one or the other.
The filioque was added in the liturgy of the West to fight a heresy that denied the divinity of Christ.
Verbum
Essentially a false debate.
Theologians from East and West both agree that the originating principle of the Trinity is the Father alone. So an answer that does not say that is false.
Both sides agree that the only creed approved by a council of the universal church is the one without the Filioque. Eastern Catholics are free, in their liturgy, to use one or the other.
The filioque was added in the liturgy of the West to fight a heresy that denied the divinity of Christ.
Verbum
M
mardukm
Guest
OOPS! Please permit me to clarify.
THE POLL IS ONLY OPEN TO LATIN CHRISTIANS, while the THREAD is open to participation by anyone. Sorry if it seemed like I was restricting participation in the THREAD to only Latin/Western Christians.
THE POLL IS ALSO OPEN TO PARTICIPATION BY CONFESSIONAL PROTESTANTS.
M
mardukm
Guest
I am impressed by your understanding. Thank you.
I agree it is a false debate insofar as East, West and Orient actually teach the same thing, but there is still a lot of misunderstanding that needs to be resolved.
Blessings
T
tptram
Guest
sorry wrong thread
Tak
Tak
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
I feel that the poll questions entrap or force one into a category that is not itself orthodox.
There should be a line that reads exactly like we have it in our creedal prayer
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son, He is worshiped and glorified.
I feel the poll question attempts to draw a false dichotomy to divide the Trinity against The Godhead. I do not feel this is in the spirit of Apostolic Christian Unity but is in a spirit of division. Sorry - calling it like I see it.
James
There should be a line that reads exactly like we have it in our creedal prayer
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son, He is worshiped and glorified.
I feel the poll question attempts to draw a false dichotomy to divide the Trinity against The Godhead. I do not feel this is in the spirit of Apostolic Christian Unity but is in a spirit of division. Sorry - calling it like I see it.
James
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother James,
And why do you feel the clause “the Lord, the giver of life” has any bearing on this specific issue of filioque?
If you want to talk about the other Creedal statements on the Holy Spirit, perhaps taht can be done in another thread.
Blessings
Can you please explain your perception of a false dichotomy?
And why do you feel the clause “the Lord, the giver of life” has any bearing on this specific issue of filioque?
If you want to talk about the other Creedal statements on the Holy Spirit, perhaps taht can be done in another thread.
Blessings
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Because The Catholic Church prays as she believes & lives ( Lex orandi, lex credendi ).
And this is what we now believe and profess:
***We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son, He is worshiped and glorified. ***
The creadal line about the Holy Spirit brings together all in one indivisible statement an equivalence of the Holy Spirit with “The Lord” as the Godhead who happens to have a distinct role as “giver of life” in the Holy Spirit. Just because we read and parse left to right, front to back, start to end (“alpha to omega”) does not mean we should give precedence to the front matter over the middle or the end matter - we need it all together whole to have the sentence and the full concept of truth. The sentence is one holistic indivisible statement just as the God head is one complete holistic God with 3 parts which includes The Word.
That said I have other thoughts as an aside topic - I will italicize them so others can skip the dialog if they so wish. It’s related to the OP but not mainline to the poll information:
I am angry that The Church went down the path of (essentially) politicizing its prayers in the first place. Except in broad concepts the inner relationships of God with Himself are too sublime for men to ever intimately know this side of beatitude and just not at all important to the common Christian man’s salvation. This knowledge of double-procession is more an academic curiosity than anything else. It perhaps only benefits some very few theologians and perhaps some advanced mystics and contemplative monastic monks etc. It was the undisciplined and in some cases irresponsible rogue scholasticism of trying put God into the box of human comprehension that lead to the heresies of Arianism in the first place. It was this intellectual voyeurism that promoted the insertion of the filioque clause into the Old Creed to defend against it. This defensive move is of course a well intended thing but ironically it leads to a complete schism between Latin and Eastern Church’s over mere politics (that at its core was bruised pride) that was much greater than the harm the clause was intending to repair (Arianism). I can’t know the tenor and tone of the period since I am no historical scholar but it sure seems to me like Rome opportunistically put its finger in the eye of the Eastern Church to make a point – and the point was “Rome is in charge of the church and its time to start toeing the line”. Clearly there had to have been long establised bucking of authority and it was coming to a head. I must assume too that the difficult logistics and slow bureaucracy of Council Meetings to resolve major issues were forcing Rome’s hand to act decisively and quickly as well.
As I see it, The Church essentially added the filioque clause to express an anathema against Arianism in a postive inclusionary language of “true believers” through a concisly formed sentence; a sentence that sums up a highly technical theological expression of the inner relational workings of God. I think it was setting bad precedence for little gain. In fact that sentence cost us more dearly than any heresy ever did. We alienated a lot of “poorly catechised” Christians unnecessarily.
The common Christian man was more worried about fasting and doing penance and saving his bacon from hell. He could have cared less about the details of God’s inner workings.
If we were to credalize every major anathema by placing new sentences into the Creed for each heresy our Creed would become a book and take an hour to pray. Can anyone imagine what it would look like if we used the Eastern tradition of defining God and His mysteries by what He is not and re-wrote our Creed? To get an example just look at how we would have to define love by what it is not – e.g. Love is not jealous, does not brag, is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly, not self seeking, not provoked, takes no wrong, does not rejoice in unrighteous etc.
We could have just left the Creed alone and done the traditional thing and anathematised Arianism and let it whither away and die on the vine. We sure wern’t consistent here. After the Protestant heresy why didn’t we put verbiage into our Creed that pushed them out with an new sentance that conveyed the essence of : Heaven is not a forensic right for “believers” living in grave sin and there is no concept of single-event-salvation through the magic works of the tongue (i.e. “I believe”)?
By placing a less important and highly technical theological concept into the common Christian’s prayer as a new dogmatic belief (e.g. double-procession as an inner working of God) it cost The Church dearly and arguably gained us nothing. I see Arianism as a Satanic diversion. Satan did the old bait-and-switch where Arianism was used as a diversion to get the true target - to extricate the entire Orthodox lung of the faith. And we played right into it. Satan used the scalpel of pride and hubris to do cut away the East (e.g. hurt feelings by the Orthodox - who then pull out all their old unforgiven baggage against Rome held from centuries earlier that they kept in the closet for just such a rainy day to split). I could go on for pages more here but wont’t.*
BACK TO OP:
Maybe I am making a mountain out of a molehill on my criticism of the survey question. But may I ask what is your objective out of doing this poll? Are you trying to prove that the Latin Church is wrong or the laity are all poorly Catechized or are you looking for a way to justify keeping the East seperated etc.? Just curious.
James
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother James,
BTW, can you quote a Magisterial document that uses the term “double-procession?” It is the cause of much misunderstanding between East and West, and I am wondering if there is any magisterial authority to support the use of that statement.
Blessings
I still don’t understand your point, I’m afraid. If you want to give due consideration to that line, then fine. I don’t see how it affects the question. Unless you can point out how the emphasized clause affects the question, then your notions here don’t really have relevance to the poll.
It could be interpreted that way, depending on the poll results. In the same manner, they can also be interpreted in the exact opposite terms.
BTW, can you quote a Magisterial document that uses the term “double-procession?” It is the cause of much misunderstanding between East and West, and I am wondering if there is any magisterial authority to support the use of that statement.
Blessings
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
I know the data can be interpreted in anyway one wants. But I am asking what you personally had it mind here? What is YOUR objective? Is this an academic exercise, a personal curiosity, an opportunity for you to demonstrate a superior understanding of the docrine and correct those who answered your “test” wrong or it is some other unapparent means by which we could could reach toward a goal of greater unity?
I have not scoured the entire body of Vatican documents personally. As you know Vatican documents are originally in Latin and not all are translated to English so the term double-procession is not likely to come up in organic church literature. It is a useful label for the concept of Filioque however.
But I can point you to New Advent’s Filioque discussion. It uses this expression quite a lot and the page bears an Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. September 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
If that’s not good enough then you will have to go do your own research.
James
S
Scoobyshme
Guest
Just a slight aside… I saw a TV program with an Eastern Orthodox Greek priest and a Roman Catholic priest, who were discussing the committee that was meeting to try to find language common to both parties for things that seemed to divide them. Fillioque was one of them, but I believe the Orthodox priest said that they had already found langauge acceptable to both in that regard. He also said, though, that the bigger problem from his end would be cultural/psychological. I just thought it was interesting.
M
mardukm
Guest
That’s very interesting and not an “aside” at all. Do you recall the “acceptable” term used? The Greek term that most closely equates with “procedit” is “proienai,” a term commonly used by the early Eastern/Oriental Fathers and sometimes used with the clause “and the Son.” Neither “Procedit” nor “proieniai” is equivalent to the Greek “ekporeusai,” which is the term utilized by the original Greek text of the Creed.
So, though Latins may have historically had a different understanding of the statement in the Creed (translated in English as) “proceeds from the Father,” that understanding is still wholly orthodox and patristic.
Blessings
M
mardukm
Guest
It’s just a poll. The objective is to gather information. I can’t draw any conclusions until I feel enough participation has been obtained.
95% of my reading before coming into the Catholic Church was based only on Magisterial documents. I’ve never found that phrase in Magisterial documents, so it is strange why Latins use it so popularly. If I found that term “double-Procession” in Magisterial documents, I admit I may have given a second thought to becoming Catholic.
Blessings
D
dzheremi
Guest
This is one issue that I have really, really tried to understand, and I am afraid that I am not any closer to grasping the truth of it then I was when it was first presented to me as a problem. I have asked several priests, read statements from various councils, etc. I am about ready to give up on it, honestly. Better for the Holy Trinity to remain a mystery to me than to be driven into doubt by the seemingly endless controversy surrounding one Latin phrase. Theologians on both sides of the debate have acknowledged that the lack of a common language between eastern and western Christianity has exacerbated the problem, and since these linguistic and cultural issues are not going to be resolved in any of our lifetimes, there is a limit to the usefulness of these kinds of discussions.
Anyway, I chose “The Holy Spirit originates from the Father alone and flows from Father & Son”, as this seems closest to what the majority of Catholic (Eastern and Western) priests have told me, though my asking a few Latins and a Ukranian in no way adds up to a representative sample. The one thing I have been told quite strongly over and over again is that the filioque in no way constitutes “double procession”, which is a charge I have heard more than once from our Orthodox brothers and sisters. I’m not quite sure how it does or doesn’t, but I do know, as this post from an Orthodox Christian on this very board shows, that much is made over its lack of specificity. I suppose this very poll is more evidence of that.
Anyway, I chose “The Holy Spirit originates from the Father alone and flows from Father & Son”, as this seems closest to what the majority of Catholic (Eastern and Western) priests have told me, though my asking a few Latins and a Ukranian in no way adds up to a representative sample. The one thing I have been told quite strongly over and over again is that the filioque in no way constitutes “double procession”, which is a charge I have heard more than once from our Orthodox brothers and sisters. I’m not quite sure how it does or doesn’t, but I do know, as this post from an Orthodox Christian on this very board shows, that much is made over its lack of specificity. I suppose this very poll is more evidence of that.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother dzheremi,
Here is what the Council of Florence explicitly stated regarding the idea of a double Procession:
The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, NOR THAT THEY POSIT TWO PRINCIPLES OR TWO SPIRATIONS; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto.
Session 6, Council of Florence.
Perhaps some Latins feel that there is a way to interpret the term “double procession” in an orthodox manner, though I don’t know what that is. It seems the very use of that term is rejected by Florence, so I don’t know why Latins (though certainly not all) are so fond of using the term.
Though I agree with the EO brother you linked to that filioque permits an interpretation of double-procession - and more, that the term is erroneous and extremely problematic - I don’t agree with him at all that the matter is an insurmountable barrier to reunion with the EO on the matter. I’ve read a lot of magisterial documents, and there are none I’ve seen that use the term, or even pretend that it can be utilized in an orthodox manner. At best, you’ll get it from lay Latin theologians or from a book here and there with an imprimatur and nihil obstat. The “double procession” is by no means a teaching of the Catholic Church by which one can judge her.
I think the EO brother’s concern is a case of trying to impose EO ecclesiological standards on the CC. The EO are more “bottom-up” than the CC, while the CC is more “top-down,” in its ecclesiology. If it does not have magisterial approval in the CC, then it is at best a theologoumenon (though as far as the term “double procession” is concerned, I would put it even beneath a theologoumenon, given the inherent theological danger in using the term). This is different for the most part from the EO mentality where the lay Church is often (always?) considered an even better gauge of Tradition than the magisterial hierarchy of the Church. So an EO finding an objectionable teaching in a book written by a lay person with an imprimatur or nihil obstat may wrongly assume that such books always represent the de fide teaching of the Catholic Church (having a bottom-up mentality). Unfortunately, a lot of non-Catholic polemicists like to nitpick at the Catholic Church through the statements of her lay apologists or theologians, forgetting that Catholic ecclesiological principles are different from EO ecclesiological principles.
Stick to magisterial writings, brother, and you can’t go wrong.
Blessings,
Marduk
I sympathize with you.This is one issue that I have really, really tried to understand, and I am afraid that I am not any closer to grasping the truth of it then I was when it was first presented to me as a problem. I have asked several priests, read statements from various councils, etc. I am about ready to give up on it, honestly. Better for the Holy Trinity to remain a mystery to me than to be driven into doubt by the seemingly endless controversy surrounding one Latin phrase. Theologians on both sides of the debate have acknowledged that the lack of a common language between eastern and western Christianity has exacerbated the problem, and since these linguistic and cultural issues are not going to be resolved in any of our lifetimes, there is a limit to the usefulness of these kinds of discussions.
Anyway, I chose “The Holy Spirit originates from the Father alone and flows from Father & Son”, as this seems closest to what the majority of Catholic (Eastern and Western) priests have told me, though my asking a few Latins and a Ukranian in no way adds up to a representative sample. The one thing I have been told quite strongly over and over again is that the filioque in no way constitutes “double procession”, which is a charge I have heard more than once from our Orthodox brothers and sisters. I’m not quite sure how it does or doesn’t, but I do know, as this post from an Orthodox Christian on this very board shows, that much is made over its lack of specificity. I suppose this very poll is more evidence of that.
Here is what the Council of Florence explicitly stated regarding the idea of a double Procession:
The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, NOR THAT THEY POSIT TWO PRINCIPLES OR TWO SPIRATIONS; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto.
Session 6, Council of Florence.
Perhaps some Latins feel that there is a way to interpret the term “double procession” in an orthodox manner, though I don’t know what that is. It seems the very use of that term is rejected by Florence, so I don’t know why Latins (though certainly not all) are so fond of using the term.
Though I agree with the EO brother you linked to that filioque permits an interpretation of double-procession - and more, that the term is erroneous and extremely problematic - I don’t agree with him at all that the matter is an insurmountable barrier to reunion with the EO on the matter. I’ve read a lot of magisterial documents, and there are none I’ve seen that use the term, or even pretend that it can be utilized in an orthodox manner. At best, you’ll get it from lay Latin theologians or from a book here and there with an imprimatur and nihil obstat. The “double procession” is by no means a teaching of the Catholic Church by which one can judge her.
I think the EO brother’s concern is a case of trying to impose EO ecclesiological standards on the CC. The EO are more “bottom-up” than the CC, while the CC is more “top-down,” in its ecclesiology. If it does not have magisterial approval in the CC, then it is at best a theologoumenon (though as far as the term “double procession” is concerned, I would put it even beneath a theologoumenon, given the inherent theological danger in using the term). This is different for the most part from the EO mentality where the lay Church is often (always?) considered an even better gauge of Tradition than the magisterial hierarchy of the Church. So an EO finding an objectionable teaching in a book written by a lay person with an imprimatur or nihil obstat may wrongly assume that such books always represent the de fide teaching of the Catholic Church (having a bottom-up mentality). Unfortunately, a lot of non-Catholic polemicists like to nitpick at the Catholic Church through the statements of her lay apologists or theologians, forgetting that Catholic ecclesiological principles are different from EO ecclesiological principles.
Stick to magisterial writings, brother, and you can’t go wrong.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Several pollsters have indicated that they do not understand the difference between “originates from” and “flows from.” I have to go and will not be back for about 4 or 5 days. Can someone please offer an explanation? Thank you. If no one has done so by the time I return, I will attempt to do so.
Blessings
Blessings
S
Scoobyshme
Guest
Well, he didn’t go into all the details. They were just talking in general and said there was hope that one day, we may be reunited. They also asked for prayers to that end.
J
JimG
Guest
My understand of the filioque clause is this: First, God is uncreated, and none of the Persons of the Trinity are created. The Son “proceeds from” the Father by way (analgously) of operation of the divine intellect. The Father “knows” himself, and in knowing himself generates the Word. (This is not creation, it happens from all eternity.)
Father and Son, as divine persons, love each other, and in doing so, the love is so perfect as to generate the Holy Spirit, the perfect expression of that interpersonal love.
The Father can be thought of as “source” of the son and spirit. It is only in thinking about the operation of the divine intellect and will that we think about the procession of persons.
Finally, there is only one God, one divine nature, so each person of the Trinity fully and wholly possesses the one divine nature.
Father and Son, as divine persons, love each other, and in doing so, the love is so perfect as to generate the Holy Spirit, the perfect expression of that interpersonal love.
The Father can be thought of as “source” of the son and spirit. It is only in thinking about the operation of the divine intellect and will that we think about the procession of persons.
Finally, there is only one God, one divine nature, so each person of the Trinity fully and wholly possesses the one divine nature.
- Status