OK, tell me what you think of this filioque formulation

[eOxy]

Explain the Words of our Holy Father, Pope St. Leo I:

I would first need the reference to the work, preferably with the link.

Another Witness: East: Bishop St. Basil the Great of Caesarea.

This great Cappadocian Father says in in 365 [Against Eunomius 3:1 in PG 29:655A]:
“Even if the Holy Spirit is third in dignity and order, why need He be third also in nature? For that He is second to the Son, having His being from Him and receiving from Him and announcing to us and being completely dependent on Him, pious tradition recounts; but that His nature is third we are not taught by the Saints nor can we conclude logically from what has been said.”

He was speaking about the nature of Holy Spirit, not about the procession. BTW, it is known that his exposition of dogma about Holy Trinity is not always accurate, since one could draw a conclusion from some of his works that Holy Spirit is not equal with the Father and Son. But that’s is not of greatest importance since those writings pretade 2nd Council which forged the dogma and Creed.

"Just to be fair, Metropolitan Mark Eugenikos of Ephesus, struck by the unmistakable Filioquism of this passage, which is not compatible with his narrow Photian theology, was forced to maintain that it is not genuine. However, he was wrong, according to the Rev. Reuben Parsons, D.D. of pious memory:

The only argument you presented is the authority of “Rev. Reuben Parsons, D.D. of pious memory” against the authority of St. Mark of Ephesus. I know about the latter, but since I hear about the former for the first time, I must kindly inform you that the authority of former means nothing to me.

How about Athanasius the Great anyone?

Proienai.

Bishop St. Epiphanios of Salamis

Irrelevant. Possibly proienai, certainly not ekporeusis, apparently vague.

Yeah, the Orthodox say…right.

LOL. Right.

Bishop St. Ambrose the Great of Milan (Doctor) 12/7
says in 381 [On The Holy Spirit 1:11:120 in PL 16:739AB],

“The Holy Spirit also, when He proceeds from the Father and the Son, is not separated from the Father nor separated from the Son. For how could He be separated from the Father Who is the Spirit of His mouth? Which is certainly both a proof of His eternity, and expresses the Unity of this Godhead.”

Proienai.

IS this enough??? I have more from Cyril and Athanasius and Both Gregories, Chrysostom…

LOL. Proienai, all of them.

 

[mardukm]

Of course it would employ the term further to denote the action of The One Bein Sent, namely, Holy Spirit, in addition to the action of The One Who Sends, namely Son, that has already been referred.

So, according to you, there is a manifestation of the Spirit by Himself, and then there’s a manifestation of the Spirit by the Son. Which one is eternal, and which one is temporal? Is there even such a thing as a manifestation of the Spirit by Himself, or is this some new development in modern EO’xy? Please explain, or give some sources to validate your claim that the Spirit manifests on His own.

It is obviously meant to describe procession through the Son both as an action of the Son and as an action of the Holy Spirit. I am puzzled how could anyone attribute the reference to eternal, while nobody referred that manifestation cannot be eternal unless we deny that there was when there was only God in existence, thus fundamentally denying everything in Christianity.

Eternal is eternal. I am puzzled at your mental gymnastics to deny the obvious. The Holy Spirit IS Love personified, Love that is eternal - no beginning, no end. Just because you are able to experience this love temporally is no reason for you to coop up God in the box of temporal reality.

Any interpretation that procession through the Son is eternal, in the meaning that it occurs before Jesus Christ sent Paracletos to us is not Orthodox and cannot be Orthodox, for the simple reason:"

Correction. It is not “modern Eastern Orthodoxy.”

The mode, the fashion of procession prior to Christ’s promise that he would send us Paracletos, has not been revealed to us.

Yet the Holy Spirit was active in the Prophets. And the Holy Spirit was active at the Creation of the world. Why are you trying to box up the Holy Spirit?

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

I would first need the reference to the work, preferably with the link.

He was speaking about the nature

of Holy Spirit, not about the procession.
So how do you distinguish between “receiving his Being” in the nature of the Holy Spirit from “receiving his Being” in the procession of the Holy Spirit? Looking forward to your answer, because I’m intrigued by this idea, which I’ve never heard of.

Proienai.

Irrelevant. Possibly proienai, certainly not ekporeusis, apparently vague.

Proienai.

LOL. Proienai, all of them.

Since Greek proienai is equivalent to the Latin procedit, at least you are admitting to the orthodoxy of the Latin teaching on filioque.

Blessings

 

[Gregory_I]

Gregory I reaches up to High five mardukm but his hand passes by as he realizes he probably doesn’t fully agree with him anway…denied.

Is it proper do distinguish between nature and persons in each person of the trinity when each person is simple: Meaning the distinction would be a mental crutch for a cognitive backflip we can’t even begin to make?

Oooo, I smell ephesus and chalcedon in this question…

BUT as I was saying, the eastern fathers before and during and after the time of Augustine teach that the Holy Spirit (in some ineffable way) proceeds from the Father and the Son.

The proof is in the putting, and they put pen to paper.

WHICH FATHERS BEFORE PHOTIUS TEACH MONOPATRISM, AKA “Ex Sola Patris”?

The emphasis being SOLA. Don’t pull a Martin Luther on me by adding “alone” (like how he added “alone” to , the just shall live by faith [alone]."

Remember, the Trinity of Persons are distinguished by the relations of origin, as Patriarch St. Gregory Nazianzen the Great Theologian of Constantinople [PG 36:141C] and Bishop St. Gregory of Nyssa [PG 45:133BC] teach.

Since the Holy Spirit is a υπόστασις and given that He proceeds in some way from the Son, He must proceed as υπόστασις from the Son, which is to say His υπόστασις is from the Son. In other words, the υπόστασις of the Holy Spirit proceeds (is) from the Son eternally, but the primordial/unoriginate source of His divine hypostasis is the Father alone, for the Father alone is the (unoriginate) πηγή (source) and αἰτία (cause) of divinity. The Holy Spirit receives from the Son the being and oυσία (ousia = nature) of the Father, which the Son receives as Only-Begotten.

The Orthodox misinterpret the declarations of the μοναρχία (monarchy) of the Father, Who is the sole πηγαία Θεότης (Godhead-source), to exclude Filioque.

To be fair however, The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity stresses that Filioque ***deals not ***with the επόρευσις (ekporeusis) of the Holy Spirit from the Father as the sole ἀρχὴ-ἄναρχος (archê-anarchos = principle without principle) and πηγή (peghe = source) of the Godhead, but reveals the procession (Greek το προείναι = proienai; Latin processio) of the Holy Spirit in ***consubstantial communion from the Father and the Son, i.e., the communication of consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father, διά (through) and σύν (with) the Son, to the Holy Spirit. ***Is not such a procession implied when the Greek Fathers, e.g., Bishop St. Gregory the Wonderworker of Neocaesarea [PG 10:985A] and Hieromonk St. John Mansūr Chrysorrhoas of Damascus, call the Holy Spirit the Image of the Son? How could a divine person share the essence of a divine person (A) Who does not have existence from Him or (B) Who is not one from Whom He has existence?

SO I will make some concession to the above…If the Roman Catholic church does.

 

[Gregory_I]

HERE is the reference to the quote of Pope St. Leo I

Pope St. Leo I the Great of Rome

In his 447 letter 15:2 to Bishop St. Turibius of Astorga, the author of the Tome that defined the true doctrine of the two natures of Christ teaches the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son when he declares,

“Thus, in the first chapter it is shown what impious notions they hold concerning the divine Trinity, when they assert that there is one and the same person of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, as though the same God should at one time be named Father, at another time Son, at another time Holy Spirit; and as though there were not one Who begat, another Who is begotten, another Who proceeds from both.”

The Latin reads,

“primo itaque capitulo demonstratur quam impie sentiant de Trinitate divina, qui et Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti unam atque eandem asserunt esse personam, tamquam idem Deus nunc Pater nunc Filius nunc Spiritus Sanctus nominetur; nec alius sit qui genuit, alius qui genitus est, alius qui de utroque procedit.”

There ya go.

 

[mardukm]

SO I will make some concession to the above…If the Roman Catholic church does.

What “concession” are you talking about? The Father ALONE is the Source of the Godhead, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. That has been the constant teaching of the Catholic Church from the beginning. Are you making a “concession” to this because you did not realize this before? If you claim to be Catholic, why do you need to make a “concession” to what the Catholic Church already teaches (and has always taught)?

Blessings

 

[Gregory_I]

NO, that’s not what I mean, I mean about επόρευσις (ekporeusis) vs proienai; Latin processio.

I understand under closer examination that the Roman Catholic Church when it talks about the filioque is talking about proienai, not processio, that’s all.

Sorry, concession is the wrong word, Defer is what I meant. I have no authority to grant concessions, I can only defer to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church in everything. I do not want to be an innovator…

eOXy, The ROman Church is only talking about proienai when it talks about the filioque apparently. THe Spirit receives his hypostases in a single spiration from the father, but he also receives his nature and being from the son (as well as the father). Hence the SPirit proceeds from the father hypostatically, and the son physically (physis, or ousia)

 

[Ghosty]

NO, that’s not what I mean, I mean about επόρευσις (ekporeusis) vs proienai; Latin processio.

I understand under closer examination that the Roman Catholic Church when it talks about the filioque is talking about proienai, not processio, that’s all.

Sorry, concession is the wrong word, Defer is what I meant. I have no authority to grant concessions, I can only defer to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church in everything. I do not want to be an innovator…

eOXy, The ROman Church is only talking about proienai when it talks about the filioque apparently. THe Spirit receives his hypostases in a single spiration from the father, but he also receives his nature and being from the son (as well as the father). Hence the SPirit proceeds from the father hypostatically, and the son physically (physis, or ousia)

Actually, He proceeds hypostatically from the Son as well. He can’t proceed by nature and being without proceeding as person (hypostasis).

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

It comes up often on these threads that the Latin Church should just remove the filioque, and most of the problem would be cleared up. The Eastern Orthodox response on this thread shows that such a notion is utterly short-sighted.

The real issue is the orthodoxy of the filioque, not necessarily its addition to the Creed. If the Latin Church dropped the filioque from the Creed, it would still remain the teaching of the Church, and would still remain the teaching of the “consensus of the Fathers”. Removing the filioque without resolving the theological question itself would be premature, and ultimately pointless so long as people remain who believe that the teaching has no place in the Faith.

Peace and God bless!

 

[stephraim]

It comes up often on these threads that the Latin Church should just remove the filioque, and most of the problem would be cleared up. The Eastern Orthodox response on this thread shows that such a notion is utterly short-sighted.

The real issue is the orthodoxy of the filioque, not necessarily its addition to the Creed. If the Latin Church dropped the filioque from the Creed, it would still remain the teaching of the Church, and would still remain the teaching of the “consensus of the Fathers”. Removing the filioque without resolving the theological question itself would be premature, and ultimately pointless so long as people remain who believe that the teaching has no place in the Faith.

Peace and God bless!

Truth.

 

[SonofMonica]

It comes up often on these threads that the Latin Church should just remove the filioque, and most of the problem would be cleared up. The Eastern Orthodox response on this thread shows that such a notion is utterly short-sighted.

The real issue is the orthodoxy of the filioque, not necessarily its addition to the Creed. If the Latin Church dropped the filioque from the Creed, it would still remain the teaching of the Church, and would still remain the teaching of the “consensus of the Fathers”. Removing the filioque without resolving the theological question itself would be premature, and ultimately pointless so long as people remain who believe that the teaching has no place in the Faith.

Peace and God bless!

But who’s really out there teaching this, one way or the other? I’ve said it before, but no one in the pews is hearing about procession and spiration. I don’t know if you guys are getting really exegetical homilies, but in the US, it ain’t happening. Why? Probably because it affects no one. People where I live are all concerned about whether their loved ones are going to be healed or whether they will have a job; they don’t spend time thinking about the details of the inner working of the Trinity. Homilies are based upon the scripture reading for the Sunday, and are usually prone to some practical application about how we are to live our lives. You live in Seattle. By and large, people there don’t believe anything. So for all intents and purposes, this is a purely hypothetical exercise for people still hung up about who has possession of what relics or who sacked what city a thousand years ago. I say, drop it from the creed, and you’ve pretty much got the solution to the problem you’re worried about.

 

[Aramis]

But who’s really out there teaching this, one way or the other? I’ve said it before, but no one in the pews is hearing about procession and spiration. I don’t know if you guys are getting really exegetical homilies, but in the US, it ain’t happening. Why? Probably because it affects no one. People where I live are all concerned about whether their loved ones are going to be healed or whether they will have a job; they don’t spend time thinking about the details of the inner working of the Trinity. Homilies are based upon the scripture reading for the Sunday, and are usually prone to some practical application about how we are to live our lives. You live in Seattle. By and large, people there don’t believe anything. So for all intents and purposes, this is a purely hypothetical exercise for people still hung up about who has possession of what relics or who sacked what city a thousand years ago. I say, drop it from the creed, and you’ve pretty much got the solution to the problem you’re worried about.

When I taught 6th grade CCD, my sixth graders did discuss the nature of the trinity. It is abut that age that they start to realize that Holy Mysteries are able to be examined… if the teacher is knowledgeable.

The problem is multi-fold, however.

1. Many latins are poorly catechized, and don’t genuinely know what the CHURCH teaches
2. many outside the church believe the misunderstandings of a few are the norm
3. the concept of the Holy Mystery of the Trinity is difficult
4. language barriers have lead to repeated misunderstandings
5. the concept of local vs universal creeds: the Roman Credo is a local creed; Nicean-Constanopolitan and Apostolic Creeds are universal when not translated
6. Greek is no longer a common lanugage, so translated creeds are essential, and functionally, local.

 

[marymol]

’ We believe in the Holy Spirit , the Lord , The Giver of Life , who proceeds from The Father and The Son ’ - so has The Spirit led the people of God to proclaim the truth of the source of the eternal superatnatuaral life , for who the recipients of such life , through the Son .

ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/JP2giver.HTM - this encylclical by Pope John Paul11 ( today , the 31 st anniv. of his election as Pope ) on The Holy Spirit ,as The Lord and Giver of life may have been read by many of the veteran posters here and yet this thread could be the motivator for others ; if so , well and good .

A careful read of the above can only clarify what The Church is trying to state - the inseparable role of The Son , in the granting of suprenatural life to the faithful, through The Spirit .

And such an understanding is possiblly critical and essential in our times !

saintmichael.net/index2.htm

It is good to see the convergence of truths , esp. in the area of secular psycholgy ( even as all truth is from The Father !) in the all important area of forgiveness .

The two articles at the above site , on hatred as a force against life itself and how easy it is to hold onto same and how difficult forgiveness can be - these are posibly issues that many deal with , in the history of persons , of even Churches …

Our own 'original sin ’ brought on by the agent of hatred against God and life itself , is it not easy to see its workings still - the hidden self hatred that then masquerades as excessive self indulgences and pride …our incapacity to trust … hatred of the self and one’s own sexual identity that comes out as perversions …as hidden hatred against the other sex as rebeliion against The Church and so on …

Has not our Lord’s mission been to set us free from this - to help us to see that inspite of our hatreds directed against Him , (being God and thus eternal , we too were there on Calvary , every time we hated ourselves or the other, we too putting that crown of thorns on Him !) ; Yet , He did not hate us - He , being filled with love from and for The Father, in The Spirit , He who could behold our own worth as His belovedchildren , even in the midst of our wickedness …and carries the wounds of that victory …to tell us too that such is The Way for our own peace …

Thus , as the encyclical points out , the Son too , as an integral source of that eternal life for us is a proclamation that we can never recite enough , esp. in our times which could be drowned in a sea of hatred , if not for the presence of this Spirit of mercy and forgiveness that gushed forth at The Cross !

What is puzzling is , why the resistance ,to proclaim this truth , even enough to cause such longstanding divisions !

Is it again due to the pervading effect of the traders of fear , who were allowed to be given life in these lands …and have ever been set to undermine the role of The Son , who alone is the agent of freedom from hatreds and thus a despoiler of the powers who primarily has this tool of the enemy , to sustain them !

Is it the ever clearer proclamation of the role of The Son , in this giving of life to the faithful that has helped , in leading those who have used their Godly freeedom to do so , to become more hopeful , more merciful and trusting , in and for the fruits of the Spirit , such as unity …

The Creed clearly states about the relation of the Holy Spirit , in relation to those whom He gives life through The Son , not about the more mysterious (and thus conflictual ) relations between The Three Persons !

Our Triune God who does want to reveal Himself , even to the not so learned …an image of the Goodness and love possesd within , in The Three persons , an image that then invites us to be able to love and accept ourselvesand others, inspite of the effects of the agent of hatred in our lives , that we invited in through misuse of our precious gift of freedom …

And such being possible when we can see our weaknesses were also moments of grace , through Him …who helped us to rise up again …thus giving hope that He would continue to sustain us … lead us …as He has The Church …that we can use our freedom , to trust that He has not allowed her foot to slip …She has not taught errors …

May the yearnings and prayers of many set the hearts free from unneeded fears , to be able to see the goodness and worth we have been given in and through The Son so that The Spirit would help us in turn , to even be grateful for our wounded pasts that are being healed through Him !

Peace !

 

[marymol]

may be a small apology owed ; Oct 16th is the anniv . of the election of
Pope John Paul 11 ; true , in some of the East , it is already Oct .16th !

May the prayers of many, esp. of Pope John Paul 11 of Blessed memory and many other martyrs and of our Mother , help to bring stunning victory to the soon upcoming
( ? 77th ) meeting to be held for the cause of unity !

 

[Ghosty]

But who’s really out there teaching this, one way or the other? I’ve said it before, but no one in the pews is hearing about procession and spiration. I don’t know if you guys are getting really exegetical homilies, but in the US, it ain’t happening. Why? Probably because it affects no one. People where I live are all concerned about whether their loved ones are going to be healed or whether they will have a job; they don’t spend time thinking about the details of the inner working of the Trinity. Homilies are based upon the scripture reading for the Sunday, and are usually prone to some practical application about how we are to live our lives. You live in Seattle. By and large, people there don’t believe anything. So for all intents and purposes, this is a purely hypothetical exercise for people still hung up about who has possession of what relics or who sacked what city a thousand years ago. I say, drop it from the creed, and you’ve pretty much got the solution to the problem you’re worried about.

The same could be said about almost all ancient heresies.Monophysitism and Monothelitism are pretty much “dead issues” as well in modern times, but it doesn’t mean their definitions and anathemazations don’t matter; ignorance about theology is not that much of a problem, but wrong theology is a very big problem. The definitions are in place because a ) they’ve come up before and DO affect the Faith, even if they’re not an immediate issue now, and b ) even if the finer details of theology don’t reach the masses (and needn’t reach them, most of the time) they do affect the catechisms and theology courses used by those who do teach the masses, and c ) they represent Truth about God, and even when Truth is not widely known it can’t simply be contradicted safely. Old errors can always creep up again when we’re not vigilant, and it’s better not to have to fight the same battle of hammering out exact definitions while splitting the Church over a matter that was settled 1600 years ago.

Just remember that it’s not so much about the personal affect of these teachings on people in the pews, but on the relationship of the Church with Truth, and ultimately her orientation towards God.

Peace and God bless!

 

[SonofMonica]

The same could be said about almost all ancient heresies.Monophysitism and Monothelitism are pretty much “dead issues” as well in modern times, but it doesn’t mean their definitions and anathemazations don’t matter; ignorance about theology is not that much of a problem, but wrong theology is a very big problem. The definitions are in place because a ) they’ve come up before and DO affect the Faith, even if they’re not an immediate issue now, and b ) even if the finer details of theology don’t reach the masses (and needn’t reach them, most of the time) they do affect the catechisms and theology courses used by those who do teach the masses, and c ) they represent Truth about God, and even when Truth is not widely known it can’t simply be contradicted safely. Old errors can always creep up again when we’re not vigilant, and it’s better not to have to fight the same battle of hammering out exact definitions while splitting the Church over a matter that was settled 1600 years ago.

Just remember that it’s not so much about the personal affect of these teachings on people in the pews, but on the relationship of the Church with Truth, and ultimately her orientation towards God.

Peace and God bless!

I’ve never been taught the importance of learning from whence the Holy Spirit “proceeds.” The Holy Spirit is co-equal with the Father and the Son. That’s always been the main point, it seems. What is the consequence of an incorrect understanding of the “source” of the Holy Spirit? What error does it cause, and what danger does it do to the souls of men? Because honestly, until I started studying Church history, I’d never thought about the Holy Spirit proceeding from anywhere; I’d always thought about the Holy Spirit existing from beginning of time with the rest of the Godhead, not really having a source in either the Father or the Son. The only time I’d ever thought about the Holy Spirit being sent is when Jesus says the Father will send another paraclete in My name. Nothing confusing there.

 

[scapularkid8]

Too much ink has been spilled, and too much bandwidth has been wasted on this problem.

I would like to forget about it, but it keeps coming up like a bad lunch!

The best solution is to stop using it altogether, like (supposedly) the Catholic church in Greece, eventually everyone will forget about it and we can all concentrate on more important things

Honestly I agree. I mean it doesn’t diminish my faith in the Pope by removing it and I go to Melkite Catholic churches where they don’t even say it and you don’t see me or anyone else caring.

 

[Benadam]

I believe since we are created in the image of God it is the Trinitarian image of God that we are created in. When we come to a deeper understanding of God a deeper understanding of ourselves can follow. This is an important dynamic of knowing God that Jesus brought to us.

 

[Ghosty]

I’ve never been taught the importance of learning from whence the Holy Spirit “proceeds.” The Holy Spirit is co-equal with the Father and the Son. That’s always been the main point, it seems. What is the consequence of an incorrect understanding of the “source” of the Holy Spirit? What error does it cause, and what danger does it do to the souls of men? Because honestly, until I started studying Church history, I’d never thought about the Holy Spirit proceeding from anywhere; I’d always thought about the Holy Spirit existing from beginning of time with the rest of the Godhead, not really having a source in either the Father or the Son. The only time I’d ever thought about the Holy Spirit being sent is when Jesus says the Father will send another paraclete in My name. Nothing confusing there.

The importance is simply that it is revealed by God about the Trinity. The Holy Spirit receives of the Son and shares that with humanity; that is how we come to know Christ and how we can testify to the Word. It is why the Holy Spirit is called the “Image of the Son”.

So the Holy Spirit’s relationship to the Son is as important as the Son’s relationship with the Father; the Spirit points to the Son, who points to the Father. To distort this reality gives a distorted understanding of the Trinity, and of God’s relationship with humanity. It’s not as severe an issue as, say, Nestorianism, but it is a significant matter theologically speaking.

Peace and God bless!

 

[marymol]

An interesting time line perspective related to the possibly providential addition of the honor given to The Son , in the Creed - it is reported to have been first said in the Council of Toledo, in 589 , at the conversion of the king at his renunciation of arianism , under the directive of the local Bishop , thus an example of the earthly authority submitting to Godly wisdom,and the return of a repentant sinner , may be an occasion of penance for his previous arian heresy , by honoring The Son .

One year earlier, in Constantinople there was the council set against the authority of the Pope , with the latter suppoesedly warning about anti Christian powers being around -
Mohammed 18 y.o at the time .

What had started out as little leaven from those times having grown …

Is the fury and hatred of the enemy against the dignity of the human being , against the bearers of life - women , revealed through the Incarnation , in The Woman , is it any less in our times …

Pope John Paul 11’s mission , through his seminal works on the integral dignity of the human person , would it too not be related , to The Church’s role to proclaim and uphold the underlying God revealed truths in these areas !

For a world that has grown callous and uncaring , it might take the maternal comforting presence of The Mother , to take in these aspects better …and thus the need to uphold the role of The Son , in such a relationship .

Yet, The Church , in imitation of The Father , respecting the freedom of persons and their history, granting the liberty to those who want to stay with what is familiar and less threatening .

And would that not be too a sign of the freedom in The Spirit !

We have much to be thankful for !