OK, tell me what you think of this filioque formulation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gregory_I
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well then, Ghosty, I ask you: When explaining the Double Procession of the Father and the Son as from a single Principle, what do we answer those who object to the idea of relation of opposition by saying we should set up other relations between other Persons of the Trinity? How do we refute this claim? We cannot simply discard the Latin Fathers, especially Augustine…on the other hand, we cannot have OVER respect for any particular rite, for the infallibility of the church does not extend to every word of the Divine Liturgy or disciplines or even speculative theologies…

So what do we tell them?
 
I think that the controversy has more to do with semantics than on actual doctrinal differences. The filioque is understood as synonymous with the Greek Fathers’ expression “through the son” and that because the Spirit proceeds through the son then logically in a second mode of speaking one can also say he’s from the Son. But, the Spirit’s principle is the Father and not the Son’s. Also, the proper terminology as I understand it from my reading of the Council of Florence is that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son “in one single spiration.” As if to say that the Father breathes the Spirit and this one single breath of the Father comes through the Son and comes upon all of us as a guide to sanctify us.
 
I like your thinking Roman Army: SO it is like an hierarchial descent in your mind from the father to us?
 
I found this list of dogmatic beliefs De FIDE online, these should oblige every Catholic;

catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchdocuments/dogmas.cfm

Dogmatic Formulation and

Positive Foundation of the Dogma of the Trinity

The Antitrinitarian Heresies and the Doctrinal Decisions of the Church

In God there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Each of the Three Persons possesses the one (numerical) Divine Essence. (De fide.)

The Triple Personality of God

In God there are two Internal Divine Processions. (De fide.)

The Divine Persons, not the Divine Nature, are the subject of the Internal Divine processions (in the active and in the passive sense). (De fide.)

The Second Divine Person proceeds from the First Divine Person by Generation, and therefore is related to Him as Son to a Father. (De fide.)

The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from a Single Principle through a Single Spiration. (De fide.)

Speculative Explanation of the Dogma of the Trinity

Speculative Explanation of the Internal Divine Processions

The Son proceeds from the Intellect of the Father by way of Generation. (Sent. certa.)

The Holy Ghost proceeds from the will or from the mutual love of the Father and of the Son. (Sent. certa.)

The Holy Ghost does not proceed through generation but through spiration. (De. fide.)

The Divine Relations and Persons

The Relations in God are really identical with the Divine Nature. (De fide.)

The Three Divine Persons are in One Another. (De fide.)

All the ad extra Activities of God are common to that Three Persons. (De fide.)

The Father sends the Son: the Father and the Son send the Holy Ghost. (Sent. certa.)

The Relation of the Trinity to Reason

The Trinity of God can only be known through Divine Revelation. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
 
That list is certainly not a dogmatic document. It looks like it might be based on Ludwig Ott’s work, which is nothing more than the theological reflection of one man. That list can’t be used to settle any arguments on the matter, unfortunately.

Peace and God bless!
 
Harpazo said:
I think it is a fairly good primer on the subject, but the man must learn to pronounce “filioque” and “papal.” 😛

In Christ,
Andrew
Click to expand...
I concur. Someone should probably shoot him an email about that… that means I’m too lazy to do so. 😛
 
Sorry, my previous attitude was uncalled for. It just seems that there is some duplicity going on between those who characterize themselves as Catholics.

IT IS A MYSTERY!!!

I as a Catholic will simply accept the Teachings of the Greek and Latin Fathers, the constant teaching of the church’s leaders, and the opinion of her Popes.

What else can I do?

God bless you all.

Please forgive my hot blood. I am afraid that in an attempt to know the truth I may invest too much of myself and make it about me.

Blessed be Jesus Christ, true God, and true man.
 
Dear brother Gregory,
Gregory_I said:
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…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.

In God there are two Internal Divine Processions. (De fide.)

Well then, Ghosty, I ask you: When explaining the Double Procession of the Father and the Son as from a single Principle, what do we answer those who object to the idea of relation of opposition.
Click to expand...
I would strongly suggest that if you want to discuss the issue of Filioque with Easterns or Orientals, you remove the language of “double procession” from your vocabulary. That’s a heresy to Eastern and Oriental ears, and you’ve already lost the argument before it’s even begun.

I don’t know where Ludwig Ott gets his idea tha there are “two internal Divine Processions.” That’s clearly contrary to what Florence taught.

In any case, I am not aware of any issue about describing the Holy Spirit as “love.”

Blessings
 
Gregory_I said:
Sorry, my previous attitude was uncalled for. It just seems that there is some duplicity going on between those who characterize themselves as Catholics.

IT IS A MYSTERY!!!

I as a Catholic will simply accept the Teachings of the Greek and Latin Fathers, the constant teaching of the church’s leaders, and the opinion of her Popes.

What else can I do?

God bless you all.

Please forgive my hot blood. I am afraid that in an attempt to know the truth I may invest too much of myself and make it about me.

Blessed be Jesus Christ, true God, and true man.
Click to expand...
God forgives. 🙂 Forgive this sinner.
 
Dear brother Andrew,
Harpazo said:
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.
Click to expand...
I realize you probably have other reasons to leave the Catholic communion, but I find it hard to believe that the issue of filioque is one of them. This distinction in Latin and Eastern theologies existed when the Church was still united. On what patristic basis do you make the Eastern theology on the matter so dogmatic that it becomes a basis for separation?

St. Maximos the Confessor, the greatest Eastern Saint of his day, he to whom even Eastern bishops were submitting their confessions of Faith (though he prudently informed them he had no authority to accept them), actually foresaw that the issue was a matter of theological terminology, but that the Faith of both West and East were actually identical on the matter.

Again, on what patristic basis do you make this matter a basis for separation?

Blessings
 
mardukm said:
St. Maximos the Confessor, … actually foresaw that the issue was a matter of theological terminology, but that the Faith of both West and East were actually identical on the matter.
Click to expand...
Actually, St. Maximos based his remark on what has been mispresented to him as linguistical interpretation of filioque, and the belief behind it.

Had he know what is really the belief, as presented in Lyons and Florence, he would either have to condemn it, or he would have to repudiate his excellent work “On Knowledge”, since it is an excellent refutation of the method used by Latins to justify filioque.

P.S. Please don’t give me your blessings.
 
eOxy said:
Actually, St. Maximos based his remark on what has been mispresented to him as linguistical interpretation of filioque, and the belief behind it.

Had he know what is really the belief, as presented in Lyons and Florence, he would either have to condemn it, or he would have to repudiate his excellent work “On Knowledge”, since it is an excellent refutation of the method used by Latins to justify filioque.
Click to expand...
Or maybe you are basing your remarks on the misrepresentations given to you about what the Latins teach.😃
P.S. Please don’t give me your blessings.
Click to expand...
But God tells us to pray even for those who have no love for us. And that’s what I do when I ask for blessings on people.

Besides, I have no authority to bless. I am just a poor sinner. It is God who blesses, according to our prayers. If you do not want God to bless you, then that is your choice, but I am bound by his word, not yours, to pray for others, even if they do not return the blessing, or even if they curse it.

Blessings
 
The Son in the Spirit is originating love for the Father The Spirit knows God the Father because He knows God the Son. He knows the Son because He loves the Son Because He is the Spirit of the Father and loves the Son with the Father’s love. That perfectly disinterested gift of self for other is the Spirit of God knowing God. The God that is like water to us, primordial element of life. If God is The Father and The Son and the Holy Spirit then it is necessary that a true window into that divine life would reveal The Holy Spirit as proceeding with the Father’s love for the Son and the Son’s love for the Father. That God’s Spirit would communicate that disinterested love to creation and be the love of Adam for Eve in the garden. That’s how it as one principle but proceeding from the Father and the Son. A firm monotheistic faith had to be established in Our elder brethren in order to Incarnate the Son who reveals the Father. That is the footprint of the filioque. The Spirit is being One God proceeding in the love of the Son for the Father and the love of the Father for the Son. Without the Incarnation We couldn’t know the Father and the Son. Except we could know divine love that waters creation because the Spirit of God hovers over it.

By the way a little history, my mom was born in Greece, was raised as Greek Orthodox, my dad, Roman Catholic. My mom really wasn’t aware of the strength of her orthodox sensitivities when she became Roman Catholic when she married my dad. There were discussions. I think she was swayed more by her father’s distrust of authority and the orthodox disinterest in Purgatory. Also this disposition I read from the orthodox here ," ok , so what if it’s true ? why make everybody have to believe it? It only causes problems" cracks me up because I grew up with that theological debate swirling about. I got the greatest Mom and Dad. I can never live up to them.
 
Benadam said:
…this disposition I read from the orthodox here ," ok , so what if it’s true ? why make everybody have to believe it? It only causes problems" cracks me up…
Click to expand...
But that is not what Orthodox are saying. It seems to be the message you expect to see.

The deeper people delve into these mysteries the less correct they will be. The interpolation has caused confusion within the Catholic church (consistently… even among some of it’s most ardent defenders) and division all around. It is imprecise in Latin and heretical in Greek. (In English the traditional translation from Latin does not even come close to what is supposedly meant by it, and many armchair apologists… who really do care about these things… get it wrong.) The interpolation does not deserve a place in the Creed of all Christians, which is first and foremost a catechetical instrument… the interpolation fundamentally degrades the Creed by it’s very presence.

Add this to the fact that the Latin church had no right to introduce this amplification in the first place and it just raises the ire of many eastern Christians, causing further… deeper division.

Screwtape and Wormwood could not have done better than this to divide us.

The very fact that Latin Catholics have to go to such great lengths to defend it is more an indication of misplaced pride than anything else. It is hard to admit when one has blundered, but the Latin church did, and the sooner it admits this the better off we all will be.

If it doesn’t want to admit it’s mistake, it could quietly just drop it from the Creed and after a few years, the largely disinterested and usually confused Latin Catholic population will have more or less forgotten all about it.
 
Benadam said:
…this disposition I read from the orthodox here ," ok , so what if it’s true ? why make everybody have to believe it? It only causes problems" cracks me up…
Click to expand...
But that is not what Orthodox are saying. It seems to be the message you expect to see.

The deeper people delve into these mysteries the less correct they will be. The interpolation has caused confusion within the Catholic church (consistently… even among some of it’s most ardent defenders) and division all around. It is imprecise in Latin and heretical in Greek. (In English the traditional translation from Latin does not even come close to what is supposedly meant by it, and many armchair apologists… who really do care about these things… get it wrong.) We are still reading new posts and threads by Latin Catholics who hope they can rationalize and relativize this thing into acceptance after more than 1000 years of conflict over it.

A turn of phrase in the Creed cannot be just partly right, or mostly right, or right if one has had extensive additional bench time studying the theology behind it. It needs to be clear, concise and easy enough for a child to grasp. The interpolation does not deserve a place in the Creed of all Christians, which is first and foremost a catechetical instrument… the interpolation fundamentally degrades the Creed by it’s very presence. Screwtape and Wormwood could not have done better than this to divide us.

Add this to the fact that the Latin church had no right to introduce this amplification in the first place and it just raises the ire of many eastern Christians, causing further… deeper division. The church dividing change was adopted in the west… the onus is on the Latin church to make the changes that will bring us together.

The very fact that Latin Catholics have to go to such great lengths to defend it is more an indication of misplaced pride than anything else. It is always hard to admit when one has blundered, but the Latin church did, and the sooner it summons up the courage to admit this and reverse itself the better off we all will be.

If it doesn’t want to admit it’s mistake, it could quietly just drop the interpolation from the Creed and after a few years, the largely disinterested Latin Catholic population will have more or less forgotten all about it.
 
Dear brother Michael,
Hesychios said:
The very fact that Latin Catholics have to go to such great lengths to defend it is more an indication of misplaced pride than anything else. It is always hard to admit when one has blundered, but the Latin church did, and the sooner it summons up the courage to admit this and reverse itself the better off we all will be.
Click to expand...
It might also be the case that it is misplaced Eastern Orthodox pride that prevents resolution of this matter.

As an Oriental, I could just as easily say that the late Medieval Eastern Fathers were wrong to impose an ontological distinction into the Godhead in their reaction against filioque. I could just as easily suppose that the issue would not be as divisive as it is today if only the Easterns maintained the primordial patristic teaching on Essence and Energy… But I’m not going to.

I believe we can be united without giving up the developments in each of our Traditions. I believe that understanding is a better - the best - remedy for the situation between the Churches. And the only thing getting in the way of that understanding is pride – from all sides.

Further, it is clear from Mark of Ephesus’ letter against the Council of Florence that he thought the Latins were imposing filioque on the universal Church. And Patriarch Photius did not even touch upon the ecclesiological propriety of making a clarification in the Creed locally (i.e., not universally) - he simply attacked filioque theologically (based on a misunderstanding of the Latin teaching, at that; he didn’t even understand Latin).

That the Latin Church cannot use this clarification in their Creed restricted to the Latin Church is a novel argument created by polemicists in modern times. Isn’t it possible that it is this novel argument that is the real cause of lingering tensions over the filioque issue?

Blessings
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top