OK, tell me what you think of this filioque formulation

[eOxy]

To eOXy: Wow, I get to explain greek terms to an eastern orthodox!
…
To deny this is to deny the distinctiveness of each person of the trinity.

I wanted to quote everything else in your post, but the remainder disappeared.

Contrary, you deny the distinctiveness of each person of the Holy Trinity within themselves.

 

[Benadam]

I wanted to quote everything else in your post, but the remainder disappeared.

Contrary, you deny the distinctiveness of each person of the Holy Trinity within themselves.

Is God exist with boundaries of inside and outside?

 

[Benadam]

I can’t see anything wrong here, as long as it doesn’t imply the manifestation within the Holy Trinity, because that would assume they are not only Three in hypostasies (persons), but also three in Being.
Thank you eOXY. I understand something about my brother’s I never knew before. Peace

 

[Leo_The_Great]

eOXy, are the hypostases aware of each other as individuals? Remember, hypostases MEANS individually subsisting…

If no, then how can the Son Point to the Father and Spirit?

If yes, then How does it not follow that the Father Manifests the Spirit to the SOn, with the SOn reciprocating, being the image of the Father, save for being unbegotten.

EXPLAIN why it cannot work.

using logic.

 

[Benadam]

eOXy, are the hypostases aware of each other as individuals? Remember, hypostases MEANS individually subsisting…

If no, then how can the Son Point to the Father and Spirit?

If yes, then How does it not follow that the Father Manifests the Spirit to the SOn, with the SOn reciprocating, being the image of the Father, save for being unbegotten.

EXPLAIN why it cannot work.

using logic.

Leo, this seems to get difficult. They are aware of one another as being ‘in’ one another. God generates cognizance of Himself. So, the generated ‘in’ the generator knows ungeneratedness ?The generated ‘in’ the generator knows generating ?

Admittedly it gets a little wierd and I know what was meant now earlier in the thread about the problems of trying to get too deep into the Trinity.

Can the Son know what it is to be the Father generating the Son? If not then there is a state of ‘being’ not shared? Can the Son only know the Father ‘in’ Himself? Knowing the Father in Himself , is that knowing what it is to know Himself in Himself?

 

[collin_nunis]

My intent in posting was not that *** I Suddenly*** have the answer to the problem, but I believe the way that I formulated the above (IN accord with the Latin Fathers and the Councils of Lyons/Florence and Aquinas with a little of my very meager two cents) could address the objection that the Schismatics make when they make much ado about multiple relations of opposition between The Father and the Spirit, OR the Spirit and the Son.

I just want to know if the formulation I wrote answers that question in a way consistent with Catholic Theology.

I AM NOT looking to bait any bears…or hawks for that matter.

Formosus: I like how careful you are to not accuse the Pope of Heresy, that is good.

Would you say the whole of the west was in error in Defining precisely the terms you object to in the councils Lyons and Florence?

Yes. Definitely so. The Filioque was never meant to be there in the first place. Many Latin-Rite Catholics still do not recite the Filioque and in fact, the Pope during the time of this controversy rebuffed the filioque as heresy. The addition of the filioque was the work of political warlords (Charlemagne’s camp) and never really died down; resurging after the death of said Pope.

The filioque did not exist until the 9th century or so. The Cappadocian Fathers explained it quite well centuries before this happened, and I’d take their teachings more seriously than the teachings of those who decided that the filioque be in the Creed. The teachings of the Fathers take precedence in this case.

1. The creed is what I believe to be “dynamic” theology; dynamic yet unchanging in essence. TRUTH NEVER CHANGES. Tampering with the original Creed means tampering with the doctrine, ecclesiology, and, experience of the Church. In other words, a flawed Creed leads to flawed things.

 

[Ghosty]

The filioque did not exist until the 9th century or so. The Cappadocian Fathers explained it quite well centuries before this happened, and I’d take their teachings more seriously than the teachings of those who decided that the filioque be in the Creed. The teachings of the Fathers take precedence in this case.

The filioque existed LONG before the 9th century. In fact, it existed and was used before the Council of Chalcedon. You might be thinking of when it was added to the Nicene Creed in Rome, but as a teaching it was in use before the Nicene Creed was even established as we use it today.

As for the Cappadocian Fathers, they taught the filioque themselves as has been shown on this thread. It was a universal theological teaching, and was defended as such by St. Maximos the Confessor. This is all irrelevant to whether or not it should have been added to the Creed, of course, but it does show that it is theologically correct.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Leo_The_Great]

I am responding For this Sole Reason: Ghosty is awesome at maintaining balance.

you are IT Ghosty.

 

[calthrope]

from my experience, many Orthodox, realize that the Filioque was added to spiritually combat Arianism.However, they feel the Creed had to be altered by a True Ecumenical Council, not just a "local area,western, council…May I inquire as to the rational, for permitting a change to a Creed, of an Ecumenical council? thank you, as I appreciate this forum even though I do not always respond

 

[eOxy]

Now, you said that God is a single being and you are correct. You said the Hypostases (Persons) are self aware and you are also correct.

However you did not say they were aware of each other, and that is the key. Each Person in the Trinity is fully aware of the Other,
…

Exactly what I mean.

But each person is aware of the other two not by means of manifestation , but by means of self-awareness. If manifestation is needed, they would not be one being, but three separate beings. Just as Benadan already noted:

f revealing themselves to the others is part of the life of God a kind of blindness is implied, a divine person that is hidden from another. It seems to deny omniscience and it seems to construct a state of being that seperates one from the other.

Moreover, it leads to a multitude of additional non-sense conclusions, such as that there can be nothing between the Son and Holy Ghost except by means of the Father (therefore Christ would have been conceived by Theotokos and Father, not by Theotokos and Holy Ghost), etc., etc., etc.

I won’t go further, it really becomes weird, like Benadam has already said.

There also remains the issue of manifestation when there was nothing but God. One Being needs not anything outside to be aware of itself, something the manifestation presumes.

 

[Leo_The_Great]

The manifestation of the Spirit to the Son does not occur for enlightenment, implying ignorance, nor does it mean that the Father is Filling up anything lacking in the SOn, or Vice Versa:

The Manifestation spoken of does not occur on human terms and in a sequential manner:

We are using sequential terms to describe an ineffable moment of eternal NOW-ness.

Does the Son being Begotten imply a Time when he was not begotten? Does it not make him subordinate to the Father? Subordinationsim is the Soil in which Arianism arose, and is obviously wrong:

THerefore, trying to apply human relations to a non-human subject will inevitably lead to a misrepresentation of said subject, especially when the subject in question is GOD and transcends all other subjects.

Now, to describe the Roman Theology of the FIlioque as Human Relations imposed on a non-human subject is wrong. Love is a transcendental, for God is love and the Traditional latin theology of the Filioque is based on/in the mutual Love of Father and Son, a Fruitful Love that Gives Birth to the Single Spiration of the Spirit. (How alliterative).

To describe it otherwise is either complementary (i.e. through the Son) or Contradictory.

A little Slice of Roman triumphalism anyone? Or perhaps a nice side-dish of Aquinas?

 

[Benadam]

The manifestation of the Spirit to the Son does not occur for enlightenment, implying ignorance, nor does it mean that the Father is Filling up anything lacking in the SOn, or Vice Versa:

The Manifestation spoken of does not occur on human terms and in a sequential manner:

We are using sequential terms to describe an ineffable moment of eternal NOW-ness.

Does the Son being Begotten imply a Time when he was not begotten? Does it not make him subordinate to the Father? Subordinationsim is the Soil in which Arianism arose, and is obviously wrong:

THerefore, trying to apply human relations to a non-human subject will inevitably lead to a misrepresentation of said subject, especially when the subject in question is GOD and transcends all other subjects.

Now, to describe the Roman Theology of the FIlioque as Human Relations imposed on a non-human subject is wrong. Love is a transcendental, for God is love and the Traditional latin theology of the Filioque is based on/in the mutual Love of Father and Son, a Fruitful Love that Gives Birth to the Single Spiration of the Spirit. (How alliterative).

To describe it otherwise is either complementary (i.e. through the Son) or Contradictory.

A little Slice of Roman triumphalism anyone? Or perhaps a nice side-dish of Aquinas?

Leo, what about their experiencial realtionships? Can any one know what it is to be the Son in the same way as the Son knows what it is to be Himself? Does the Son know what it is to be His Father in the same way the Father knows?

 

[Raider_Red]

I’m out of my league here and I need some simplification amidst the more technical jargon. I read through this thread and got some really good stuff. I’m going to put out there the gist of what I’ve processed so far and hopefully some of you can help me out where you feel I’m off in my thinking. I looked up the greek word εκπορευόμενον in BDAG and it seems as though the two sides are looking at this by translating in the same way but with two different meanings behind it. It appears as thought the Orthodox position lies in the fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds (originates or begins a course of action) from the Father while it seems the Latin Church sees that the Holy Spirit proceeds (continues a course of action) from the Father and the Son. Would either side deny the validity of the other’s view in respect to this if this is truly their understanding of εκπορευόμενον in the original Creed? Am I wrong in my understanding of either side’s position here? I know I might be making this too simple but it seems to make sense to me. Any thoughts or clarifications would be helpful.

 

[Hesychios]

… Filioque itself doesn’t mandate a double origin, and therefore isn’t heretical in and itself, properly understood.

But the gloss on the Filioque by the Councils of Lyons and Florence mandate a double origin when they say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son “eternally” and equally" and “as from one prinicple”.

Does this not give the impression that the Latin Catholic position, properly understood, has reversed itself since Florence?

 

[Ghosty]

Does this not give the impression that the Latin Catholic position, properly understood, has reversed itself since Florence?

No, because as has been shown time and time again, Alethiaphile is completely wrong about his understanding.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Leo_The_Great]

Raider Red:

I would say your insights are helpful, but for the two understandings of procession to be understood properly, they must be understood conjointly and in union with each other.

The Father is the Sole unoriginated source and first cause of all things. He is the Monarch of the Trinity. Because of this, the Holy Spirit has His origin in Him First and foremost. He is sent, or proceeds, or is manifested or is in a sense extended from the Father in a different way than the Son. This procession is originated, ontologically FIRST in the Father, and therefore he is the Principle cause of the Holy Spirit’s procession. But the Spirit “continues” in Procession “toward” the Son, who is the Fathers image and has received all from the Father save his being generated.

Now the holy Fathers of the Church refer to the Spirit as the Image of the Son and explicitly say that he receives his being from him (being meaning nature and person, which is an artificial separation, God, being simple).

Therefore Since the Spirit is the Image of the Son, and receives his being from him, the Son must be ontologically PRIOR to the Spirit, meaning that the SPirit “continues” toward the Son, to the Son, in the Son, and reciprocated by the Son “toward” the Father. It is after this Action that the Spirit receives the Fullness of his Person and Nature, i.e. his BEING.

The reason we break things down in sequential order is to understand the mechanics which help us to know God. The first thing to know is that we know nothing apart from what he has revealed.

THe Second thing to know is that, Sequential processes are for our mind’s assistance, but ultimately, they do not convey the entire reality, only fragments. But the Fragments are true and can be truly known.

Third, All acts outside of Time (where the Trinity dwells) are…outside of time. They have no logical sequence of progression or duration. The acts I described occur in an ineffable unkowable NOW. A Moment without duration, a time without time; a second that is both smaller than the smallest measurement, longer than the longest of ages, and neither of the two.

In a frail comparison, but demonstrative: Do you thing of all the actions that go into the production of light when you switch on a light bulb? No, the activites, though several, are instantaneous, in a single instant, so much so that it is hard for us to really discern a “beginning, and arrival” in this process.

Nevertheless, this is a physical process subject to time, but it is similar to God’s own actions outside of Time.
SO, your understanding of the differences of this word 'proceeds' are correct, but these differences do not belong apart from each other, rather each understanding has its place in knowing the Single Spiration of the Spirit.

 

[Benadam]

Leo, what about their experiencial realtionships? Can any one know what it is to be the Son in the same way as the Son knows what it is to be Himself? Does the Son know what it is to be His Father in the same way the Father knows?

Of course the three divine persons can fully experience being each other.

 

[Leo_The_Great]

Actually the three divine persons can experience being God, but they cannot experience being each Other.

The Son will Never BE the Father,

The Spirit Will never BE the Son,

And the Father will never BE the Spirit.

Yet they are one in all things but that which distinguish them: The Father being the Prime Monarch, The Son being begotten, or generated, and the Spirit proceeding from Father and Son in a single Spiration from as from a single principle.

AND They (each hypostases) interpenetrate each other WITHOUT confusion, division, change mingling or separation.

He who is begotten can never be the unbegotten,
He who proceeds can never be begotten,
And he who is Father can never be begotten or proceed.

THere was a guy named Sabellius about the 3rd century…

 

[Freeway4321]

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

img20.imageshack.us/img20/6061/postz.jpg

 

[Palamas]

One major problem for the Orthodox Church concerning the filioque clause is the way it was added to the Nicene creed. The original creed is binding on all Orthodox Catholic Christians. Since it was formulated in an ecumenical council, it can only be changed in an ecumenical council. At the end of the formulation in the council, an anathema is placed on anyone who changes the creed. Pope Leo III agreed with this when confronted with the filioque clause in the 8th-9th century. He refused to accept or use it. To emphasize how adamant he was about his position, he had the original creed inscribed on silver plates and fixed to the doors of the then existing cathedral in Rome ( I am not against calling it the Vatican; I just do not what the cathedral church building in Rome was called in 800 A.D.) . After the creed, he also placed an anathema on any one who would try to change the creed in any way. The filioque clause did not become a normal part of the creed or the divine liturgy in Rome for another 200 years.

More recently, I read back in the 1990’s in the “Our Sunday Visitor” Roman Catholic Church weekly magazine a quote from then Cardinal Ratzinger. Cardinal Ratzinger stated that the Nicene Creed, without the filioque clause, is the norm for the Church.

It seems to me that before get carried away with trying to create an explanation of the filioque clause that will sit well with the Orthodox Church, we should decided whether the filioque clause should have ever been allowed in the creed in the first place. Seems to me,
two Popes would say no.