OK, tell me what you think of this filioque formulation

[Gregory_I]

OKAY, I think I may have found the answer, bear with me: (I spent the evening in prayer, asking God to help reveal to me the answer to the relations of opposition question raised by the Orthodox. i.e. Why can they not ultimately be ad infinitum?)

The Orthodox objection (one anyway) to the Prinicipaly Singular double procession of the Holy Spirit, is that setting up relations of opposition between the Father and Son necessitates a question: Why not set up relations between the Spirit and Father and the Spirit and Word that produce 4th and 5th persons?

HERE IS THE ANSWER: Because it is an error to separate the persons of the Trinity!

“BUt how do we separate them?”

Because you say each Person must love one and not another with a singular love: The Father must love the Son apart from the Spirit. The Son must love the Spirit apart from the Father. The Spirit loves the Son apart from the Father. Not SO!

The Trinity is One. The Persons are distinct, but not separate. Therefore, when ONE Person loves, he loves BOTH of the others with a singular love! BOTH interpenetrate one. The Father loves the Son and the Spirit with a singular love! The Spirit loves the Father and the Son (Since he is “the emmissary of love” proceeding principally from the Father, and by the Fathers gift, from the Son) with a singular love, and the Son Loves the Father and the Spirit, since the Spirit proceeds principally from the Father as “the emissary of His love” for the Son!

SO, here is how I envision it, and I believe the Catholic Church does too (correct me if I am wrong):

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from a single principle. (De fide for Catholics)

Proceeding principally from the Father, he bears the Fathers love as his own for the Son. The Son eternally loves the Father and the Spirit receiving the love of both as one, and the Spirit in turn proceeds from the Son through the gift of the Father (as per St. Augustine, the Son having received all things from the Father save being unbegotten) to the Father bearing the love of the Son. The Father Eternally loves the Spirit and the Son and receives the love of both as one and loves both with a singular love.

And yet both these processions are as from a single principle, For the Father is still the fountain of the Trinity, and the Spirit proceeding from the Son is only by the Fathers gift, therefore, we preserve the Monarchy of the Father. Likewise, each person loving the other two with a singular love and singular attention keeps us safe from opposition ad infinitum.
Bear in mind that all these actions, though described in time, are timeless, without succession. They are eternally, NOW.

This is intimately bound up with the belief that each person within the Most Blessed Trinity penetrates the other. Where the Word is, there is the Father and Spirit, where the Spirit is, there is the Father and Word and where the Father is, there is the Word and Spirit.

A relative human example: A father loves his newborn son not apart from from the mother, but because the mother has given him a son; and he does not love the wife apart from the son, because it is on account of his son that his love is aflame, thus he loves both with a single love. Likewise, the mother does not love the son apart from the father, for she received him from the father; neither does she love the father apart from her son, because it is on account of her bearing a son that she is filled with love toward the father. Thus she loves both with a single love.
Granted this may be unfallen humanity, but you get the point

 

[Hesychios]

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

 

[Gregory_I]

YEah, RIght michael. lol. You and I both know it won’t go away, so I just wanted to point out that I believe ONE objection the Orthodox have (Relations of opposition ad infinitum) could be explained in this way which is consonant with the latin patristic tradition (Like St. Leo I, St. Gregory The Dialogist, St. Augustine, St. Hilary of Poitiers, etc…) and the Latin General Councils of Lyons and Florence.

I KNOW I AM NOT THE FIRST TO DO THIS…but what the heck, God works in mysterious ways…

More important things? Truth is one; some truths are higher up in the hierarchy, but all truth is important, because all truth is a manifestation of Christ.

 

[Cluny]

<<
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from a single principle. (De fide for Catholics)>>

I know this proposition is NOT accepted by Melkites or Ukrainian Catholics.

Would you like to try again?

 

[Gregory_I]

Ukranians and Melkites have no right to pick and choose.

They can formulate their belief differently as long as it does not contradict or deny the Roman Councils.

Otherwise let them be Orthodox.

 

[Formosus]

The only definition of the Filoque that is acceptable to Byzantine Christianity is that the Spirit’s energies are eternally manifested through the Son. The Spirit proceeding from the Father and Son as if by one principle is not part of our doctrine and if Latins wish to hold such a thing then so be it but Eastern Churches in communion with Rome have been called on by Rome to return to our own venerable traditions, theology, and spirituality.

 

[Gregory_I]

Yes, and that is GOOD, I AM ALL FOR THAT:

But they cannot deny the truth of the Latin Confessions: ASK YOUR BISHOP. I HAVE READ UP ON THIS.

Otherwise, why be Catholic? Just be Orthodox and join like-minded individuals: Either the Pope and the Roman Church are correct in their expressions, or you are Orthodox. Which is it?

 

[Formosus]

I do not believe the Latin church is in heresy if that is what you are asking. I do think that using the Filoque causes more trouble then its worth and is problematic even within Latin theology to an extent. Removal of the clause would do far far more good for Orthodox-Latin relations then any clarification could ever do.

I am Orthodox and I do not deny that the Pope is right in his expression. That’s is what being an Eastern Catholic is. Perhaps you should just calm down as nothing in my previous post was implying that Latins were heretical.

 

[Harpazo]

Yes, and that is GOOD, I AM ALL FOR THAT:

But they cannot deny the truth of the Latin Confessions: ASK YOUR BISHOP. I HAVE READ UP ON THIS.

Otherwise, why be Catholic? Just be Orthodox and join like-minded individuals: Either the Pope and the Roman Church are correct in their expressions, or you are Orthodox. Which is it?

I became Orthodox for these reasons. I could not take the mental and spiritual acrobatics necessary to be an Eastern Catholic. If Melkites et al who are communion with Rome and do not accept the same beliefs, then for what reason are they in communion with them? It’s illogical, IMO.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Ghosty]

<<
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from a single principle. (De fide for Catholics)>>

I know this proposition is NOT accepted by Melkites or Ukrainian Catholics.

Would you like to try again?

Actually, under the terms of the Union of Brest this formula IS accepted by the Ukrainian Church (from the Father through the Son means a single principle by definition). Here’s the relevant quote:

1. 
   *]Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another - we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.

1. 
   This is the very meaning of “single principle”, as it explicitely rules out “double procession”.
   
   As for the Melkite Church, there have been no claims made against the filioque as properly understood, at least not theologically speaking. Believe me, I’ve spoken to our Bishop on this very issue.
   
   So, would you like to try again?
   
   Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

The only definition of the Filoque that is acceptable to Byzantine Christianity is that the Spirit’s energies are eternally manifested through the Son. The Spirit proceeding from the Father and Son as if by one principle is not part of our doctrine and if Latins wish to hold such a thing then so be it but Eastern Churches in communion with Rome have been called on by Rome to return to our own venerable traditions, theology, and spirituality.

As I pointed out above, it is precisely the “by one principle” that was put forth by the Ukrainians at the Union of Brest as acceptable. There was nothing about the Holy Spirit’s “energies being eternally manifested”, which is understandable since such a formulation is non-sensical; the Holy Spirit and the Son have the very same, singular Divine Energy. There are not “Holy Spirit energies” and “Son energies”, because if there were they would not be sharing the singular Divine Nature (energy is a property of nature).

I’ll address the OP after Divine Liturgy.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Aramis]

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from a single principle. (De fide for Catholics)

Not de fide.

The Catholic teaching, when explained in detail, is that the Spirit originates in the father and flows forth both from the father and through the son.

But you seem so focused upon accusing catholics of heresy that you can’t accept that you are in error about what the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[John92]

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

I’d second the fact that people worry too much about this.

“On Judgment Day we will be asked by God not what books we have read, but what deeds we have done.” - Thomas a Kempis

The filioque is an important part of the Latin Rite and it’s been shown before that this dispute is really making a lot over nothing: the Greek word for “process” is different from the Latin word: in Latin it’s a sound response to an Arian heresy, in Greek it is a heresy.

I know this is a cliche but . . . there are more important problems facing the Apostolic Church, East and West, than the filioque.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I wonder as to the reasons behind the recent activities here at the CAF Eastern Catholicism forum to redefiine or “clarify” things that the Church has already spoken on.

What about this document?

An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation

This addresses the filioque.

 

[Gregory_I]

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?

 

[Ghosty]

To address the OP: I would say that any formulations based on “Love” aren’t going to float in discussions with non-Latins. The whole “procession of Love” thing is almost entirely a Latin construct, and is completely unfamiliar to Byzantine traditions as I’ve seen it. It’s best to stick with what is common to both traditions, namely that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father as Source, and proceeds through the Son in a single Spiration.

Bringing Love into it raises a whole host of other issues, and it represents something that was drawn up purely through theological speculation for illustrative purposes. It’s certainly not a defined aspect of any dogma, including the filioque.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Gregory_I]

I understand, maybe you are right…But on the other hand the Popes have said in as many words that the theology of Aquinas is to be made the theology of the Latin Church…What does that imply for the Eastern Catholics?

 

[trophybearer]

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?

“The Schismatics”… nice. You can keep your formulation. If you want an acceptable formulation, look at the pre-schism Creed; that is the only acceptable one. Take it or leave it.

 

[Ghosty]

I understand, maybe you are right…But on the other hand the Popes have said in as many words that the theology of Aquinas is to be made the theology of the Latin Church…What does that imply for the Eastern Catholics?

You won’t likely find a bigger advocate for St. Thomas Aquinas on these forums than myself (I read the Summa every day, in fact), but some of his approach just doesn’t fit into the Byzantine tradition. In this particular case he following on St. Augustine in developing a Latin theological approach. Aquinas is perhaps the best theologian Apostolic Christianity, East and West, has ever seen (and this was the opinion of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople who rejected Florence), and he was favored and taught in Eastern Orthodox seminaries for several centuries, but some of his work is pretty exclusively Latin and this is one of those cases.

There’s nothing wrong with this, mind you, just that it can be very difficult to translate such things across traditions. If he remains the poster child of Latin theology, it really doesn’t have much effect on the Byzantine tradition, other than that we should become very familiar with his work in order to understand the Latin approach better, and see how it doesn’t contradict our own.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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.

So you formed this yourself through your own understanding of the Latin Fathers but then you ignore the Church when it says that no one can be born into schism?

This Church is more than just the Latin Fathers.