How do Latin Catholics understand Filioque?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mardukm
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My choice: I do not understand the distinction between “originates” and “flows from”.

I accept the Trinity without understanding it. I guess I see it as not a big deal to accept something like The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from a single principle through a single spiration without understanding it. If the Church teaches it then I give my assent, regardless of whether or not I understand.

An explanation won’t make any difference to me. I’m perfectly ok with “It is a mystery.”
 
I just wanted to “BUMP” this thread/poll to see if I can get any more participation in the poll from my Latin Catholic brethren.

Since no one has explained it yet, permit me to explain the difference between “originates” and “flows from.” I shall do this by using two analogies. The first is one of water (which I submit I am plagiarizing from brother Ghosty - I’m sure many here recognize that handle name), and the second one is one of fire (which was utilized by St. John Damascene).

In the water analogy, think of a well from which a river flows which leads into a lake. Think of the well as the Father, the river as the Son, and the lake as the Holy Spirit. Here, one easily sees that the Father (the well) is the sole source of both the Son (the river) and the Holy Spirit (the lake). In relation to the lake, the river can also be seen as a “source,” but certainly not the origin of the water.

In the fire analogy (from the Damascene), think of a fire from a first torch. Someone uses this original fire to light a second torch, and then a third torch. Think of the first torch as the Father, the second torch as the Son, and the third torch as the Holy Spirit. Here, one easily sees that the Father (the first torch) is the sole source of both the Son (the second torch) and the Holy Spirit (the third torch). In relation to the third torch, the second torch can be seen as a “source,” but certainly not the origin of the fire.

In the language of the Church, we say that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father and flows from the Father and the Son. In the original languages, the Greek Creed asserts that the Holy Spirit ekporeusai (i.e., originates) from the Father, whereas the Latin Creed asserts that the Holy Spirit procedit (i.e., flows from) the Father and the Son. One sees that the Greeks and the Latins have historically understood the relevant phrase from the Creed in a slightly different way. However, BOTH understandings are EQUALLY patristic and orthodox.

In both analogies, there is a single essence common to all distinctive entities. Water is shared by the well, the river and the lake, and fire is shared by all three torches. This essence is the ousia of the Godhead, and it is this single essence by which we claim that there is ONE GOD. The other main point of the analogies is that there is ONE SOURCE for the essence that is shared by all three - namely the Father.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
There is one more thing I would like to add.

Though it is heresy to add filioque to a Latin term equivalent to the Greek ekproeusai which means “originates” (while it is orthodox to add filioque to the Latin procedit or the Greek proienai, which means “flows from”), there is in fact a Latin phrase that might be deemed acceptable to the Orthodox when used with the Greek ekporeusai - namely, per filium. The phrase translated in English is “through the Son.” So if one were to properly translate the relevant phrase in the original Greek, it would read “the Holy Spirit ORIGINATES from the Father THROUGH the Son.”

So acceptable English renderings of the Creeds would be:

The Holy Spirit originates from the Father
The Holy Spirit originates from the Father through the Son
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

It is heretical to state that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father AND the Son.

The Council of Florence attempted to mitigate the heretical nature of adding filioque to ekporeusai by adding the phrase “as from one principle.” IOW, the phrase read:
The Holy Spirit originates from the Father and the Son as from one principle.

The question is, is this phrase sufficient to preserve the Truth of the Father being the sole source of the Trinity? Is this phrase equivalent to the phrase “the Holy Spirit originates from the Father through the Son?”

On the theological level, I believe the explanation was helpful.
On the Credal level, however, the addition of the phrase “as from one principle” raises more questions than it answers (e.g.: In the act of Procession, are the Father and Son simply two halves of one whole? If the Father and Son share in the principle of Procession, doesn’t this demean the Holy Spirit?) I simply don’t believe such lingering quesitons should be permitted to creep in to the Creed which is intended to be a very clear exposition of Faith. In other words, filioque and ekporeusai can and should never be used in the same Credal statement.
On a practical level, the addition of the phrase “as from one principle” does not seem to have done any good, as there are apparently a lot of Catholics who still use the theologically dangerous phrase “double procession.”

I think the Council of Florence, on the matter of the filioque, did not do enough to settle the matter. Granted, there did not seem to be any indication that the Fathers at Florence even considered or understood that there is a basic difference between the Latin procedit and the Greek ekporeusai. As with many of the differences between different theological Traditions (whether between Oriental and Western, Oriental and Eastern, or Eastern and Western), the problem was one merely of language.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. I would once again urge more of my Latin Catholic brethren to participate in the poll.
 
Your explanation is quite detailed and I appreciate it.

As soon as you add it as an option, I will change my vote from not understanding to “I agree with whatever the Church means by the choice of the phrase proceeds from the Father and the Son” 🙂
 
I voted in the Poll before realizing it was just for Latin Catholics, but I suppose that since I’m still Canonically Latin I can slip through on a loop-hole. That being said, my answer of “originates in the Father, flows from the Father and Son” was what I held when I was practicing as a Latin as well.

I would like to point out to my friend Mardukm that “my” example of the well, river, and lake is actually also adapted from St. John of Damascus, though he used the spring, river, and ocean. :o

I like to use it as an example because it is from a Byzantine Father who is often cited as opposing the filioque, yet even while “opposing” it (he may have had the same mistaken understanding of it as modern Eastern Orthodox, I don’t know) he expressed the correct meaning of the filioque as the orthodox belief. He was, perhaps inadvertently, an ardent defender of the filioque, ironically against what he THOUGHT was the filioque. 😛

Peace and God bless!
 
I didn’t vote, but I would have if “From the Father through the Son” had been a choice. 😉 That is a more familiar phraseology to Latins. 🙂
 
Here is a diagram that from my perspective seems completely wrong:

F… S
…| … |
…|… |
…|…|
…HS

Those are supposed to look like two arrows one pointing from the Father and one pointing from the Son. I had to use all those dots to make the computer keep the spacing. That is **not **how I view that line from the Creed. The Father in my eyes is first, like where it all starts. The word “flows” seems like an okay word. Mostly I just consider the Trinity a mystery. I don’t know anything.

I am a Latin.
 
AmbroseSJ said:
I didn’t vote, but I would have if “From the Father through the Son” had been a choice. 😉 That is a more familiar phraseology to Latins. 🙂
Click to expand...
That’s a good point, but I didn’t use that option for three reasons:
  1. It seems to me that “originates from the Father alone and flows from the Father and the Son” would project the same idea, n’est pas?
  2. Many argue that if “through the Son” is the intention of filioque, then the Latin Church should have used per filium in the first place, which would have saved everyone a lot of heartache. I’m just trying to work with what we have already, trying to preserve the Traditions of the Churches, while working for understanding.
  3. IMO, the real problem is not filioque, but the different meanings of ekporeusai (“originates”), on the one hand, and procedit (“flows from”), on the other.
I hope my explanation persuades you to put in a vote. :gopray2: 🙂

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Ghosty said:
I voted in the Poll before realizing it was just for Latin Catholics, but I suppose that since I’m still Canonically Latin I can slip through on a loop-hole. That being said, my answer of “originates in the Father, flows from the Father and Son” was what I held when I was practicing as a Latin as well.

I would like to point out to my friend Mardukm that “my” example of the well, river, and lake is actually also adapted from St. John of Damascus, though he used the spring, river, and ocean. :o

I like to use it as an example because it is from a Byzantine Father who is often cited as opposing the filioque, yet even while “opposing” it (he may have had the same mistaken understanding of it as modern Eastern Orthodox, I don’t know) he expressed the correct meaning of the filioque as the orthodox belief. He was, perhaps inadvertently, an ardent defender of the filioque, ironically against what he THOUGHT was the filioque. 😛
Click to expand...
👍 👍 👍

Abundant blessings
 
Oh my! I see, now, what I wrote…I’ll have to keep that one tucked away in case I need to make a fellow Catholic laugh in the future. :cool:🙂
 
mardukm said:
When Latin Catholics profess the Faith, how do you understand the statement “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son”?
Click to expand...
I could be totally off in my thinking here (I’m not a theologian although I know my faith pretty well)- but the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have existed since before the beginning of time- none existed before the other, because all three of them have always been. In salvation history, however, the Father was revealed first, then the Son, and then the Holy Spirit (though, since they are all God, their actions have been going on since before time.

I believe the filioque was added to the creed because the latin bishops felt it was necessary to emphasize that Jesus, while truly man, is truly God.
 
mardukm said:
When Latin Catholics profess the Faith, how do you understand the statement “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son”?
Click to expand...
When it comes to the nature of the Trinity, I always look at the fire analogy of St. Thomas Aquinas to understand it. 👍

There are two things that come from fire: light and warmth.

Fire = the Father
Light = the Son
Warmth = the Holy Spirit

Remember that all three of these exist at the same time, and so far as fire exists so do the rest.
1
Analogy
If there was an eternal Flame:
the Fire, the Light, and the Warmth would exist co-eternally

Reality
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are co-eternal
2
Analogy
the Fire produces the Light and we can see the Fire because of the Light

Reality
the Father begot the Son and we know the Father through the Son
3
Analogy
the Warmth originates from the Fire but we feel it through the Light
(this is actually how heat travels in the vacuum of space)

Reality
the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son
 
mardukm said:
3) IMO, the real problem is not filioque, but the different meanings of ekporeusai (“originates”), on the one hand, and procedit (“flows from”), on the other.
Click to expand...

In that case, I would prefer proceeds (not flows, nor originates.) Although flows is a very similar word, to my Latin mind, proceeds is better. Maybe that is why we say proceeds from the Father and the Son. 🙂
 
The Fathers, even Augustine, are unanimous that the Father alone is the fons divinitas.
 
From what I have been taught, it seem that the generation of the Persons within the Trinity is a ‘result’ of the operation of the divine intellect and the divine will. The operation of the intellect fully expresses God’s self-knowledge as the person of the Word. The operation of the divine will in an expression of love generates the holy spirit as the fullest expression of that divine love. Because love is expressed as the mutual operation of two persons, that is why we say the holy spirit is generated by the father and the son (i.e. through the movement of the divine will.)

But since there is really only one divine will, we can truly say that the generation, though from two person, is from a single source.

Seeing the Trinity as a full expression of the operation of the one divine intellect and the one divine will, to me at least, more fully explicates the filioque phrase.
 
JimG said:
From what I have been taught, it seem that the generation of the Persons within the Trinity is a ‘result’ of the operation of the divine intellect and the divine will. The operation of the intellect fully expresses God’s self-knowledge as the person of the Word. The operation of the divine will in an expression of love generates the holy spirit as the fullest expression of that divine love. Because love is expressed as the mutual operation of two persons, that is why we say the holy spirit is generated by the father and the son (i.e. through the movement of the divine will.)

But since there is really only one divine will, we can truly say that the generation, though from two person, is from a single source.

Seeing the Trinity as a full expression of the operation of the one divine intellect and the one divine will, to me at least, more fully explicates the filioque phrase.
Click to expand...
The Father and Son are not together the Source; there is only one Source of Divinity, and that is the Father (Council of Florence).

Peace and God bless!
 
Dear brother JimG,
JimG said:
From what I have been taught, it seem that the generation of the Persons within the Trinity is a ‘result’ of the operation of the divine intellect and the divine will. The operation of the intellect fully expresses God’s self-knowledge as the person of the Word. The operation of the divine will in an expression of love generates the holy spirit as the fullest expression of that divine love. Because love is expressed as the mutual operation of two persons, that is why we say the holy spirit is generated by the father and the son (i.e. through the movement of the divine will.)

But since there is really only one divine will, we can truly say that the generation, though from two person, is from a single source.

Seeing the Trinity as a full expression of the operation of the one divine intellect and the one divine will, to me at least, more fully explicates the filioque phrase.
Click to expand...
Forgive me for saying so, but that sounds a bit modalist to me. I don’t think the Church Fathers ever expressed the Trinity in quite such specific terms. It’s always been about their relations simply as Father, Son and Holy Spirit - Arche, the One Who is Begotten, and the One Who originates from the Father through the Son. That’s it. End of story. There can’t be a better, or fuller expression of the Mystery than that.

Having said that, I don’t oppose theological speculation. However, I do have a big question mark on the idea that such theological speculation can be “more fully” descriptive of the Mystery of the Trinity than what the Fathers have given us.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Ghosty said:
The Father and Son are not together the Source; there is only one Source of Divinity, and that is the Father (Council of Florence).

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
I quite agree. My only point is that an act of love can be thought of as mutual love between two Persons, yet using the same single divine will. My only use of the word “source” was in affirmation that there is but a single source.

I don’t expect to fully comprehend the Trinity even in heaven.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top