OK, tell me what you think of this filioque formulation

[mardukm]

Just to be clear - If the Latins wish to remove it at some point in the future, then that’s great; that’s their decision to make. My whole point is that we should not make the subtraction of filioque from the Latin Creed a condition for reunion. It is perfectly orthodox in the Latin Creed.

Blessings

 

[jlhargus]

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

Mark

 

[eOxy]

Just to be clear -

LOL

 

[eOxy]

The deeper people delve into these mysteries the less correct they will be.

Exactly.

But filioque apologists seem to be inclined precisely towards it. They feature plenty of enthusiasm for it.

 

[mardukm]

But filioque apologists seem to be inclined precisely towards it. They feature plenty of enthusiasm for it.

Polemicists on BOTH sides of the issue have plenty of enthusiasim for it.

Blessings

 

[MGLechner]

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.

By “Greek Fathers” I assume you mean those who are in communion with the Pope…otherwise you would have to accept the Eastern Fathers who reject the filioque clause as part of the Creed; and then you go from mere paradoxical statements, to flat out contradiction. Choose this day whom you will serve. God Bless.

P.S.: I am a Catholic moving towards Orthodoxy. One of the reasons is because I cannot quote the Western version of the Creed in good conscience.

 

[Cluny]

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:

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!

What is being discussed here is “single spiration.”

 

[Ghosty]

What is being discussed here is “single spiration.”

I’m not sure what you mean.

What I’m referring to is the fact that “from the Father through the Son” is precisely “as from one principle”. One can’t contradict “from one principle” without also denying “through the Son”.

It is “through the Son” and “by one principle” precisely because it is a single Spiration and not two. If it were two it would not be “by one principle”. The Union of Brest, forumulated by the Ukrainian Church, attests to this teaching as being the Orthodox understanding they had received from their Fathers in the Faith; denial of it by Ukrainians today would be quite odd and unfitting.

Peace and God bless!

 

[gamesport]

My take on this Filique issue has been summarized by David Hart:

“…In truth the most unpleasant aspect of the current division between East and West, is the sheer inventiveness with which those ardently commited to that division, have gone about fabricating even profounder and more radical reasons for it…” LINK]

From my [Catholic] perspective (and maybe i’m too biased) , it would be the equivalent of western theologians pretending the somehow the Eastern formulation of “Three Hypostases” is heretical, just because our way (language) in communicating this issue, does not match perfectly with yours.

 

[Harpazo]

Dear brother Andrew,

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?

I understand that you feel this way about the filioque, however, I do not. You are correct that it was not the only reason. There are others, but I do not wish to get into them at this time.

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

I’m sure you know that from being a Catholic, you get irritated when Protestants point to one verse in Holy Writ that, in their eyes, condemns the Catholic faith. I can imagine that many Orthodox are just as irritated when Protestants do that, but also when Catholics do that with the Fathers. I’m sure you are familiar with the consensus patrum? From the best of my understanding, the Orthodox do not generally pull one Father and say “aha! This is it!” but rather take the whole of the Fathers in account, along with other factors taken into account be the political, historical, ecclesiastical, et al.

That’s all I think I will say on the matter. I don’t want to get in a tête-à-tête about this.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Gregory_I]

Let’s Be clear: The some of the greatest saints of the Orthodox Church (St. Ambrose of Milan, Pope St. Leo I and Pope Gregory the Dialogist, etc…) Explicitly say the Holy SPirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

It is not picking and choosing, upon close analysis virtually the whole Latin Patristic Tradition supports this, a tradition Shared by Orthodox, and NO Orthodox saint before Photius taught monopatrism.

If you really want a list I can make one, with the quotes in context, but I am sure it would just bore you.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Let’s Be clear: The some of the greatest saints of the Orthodox Church (St. Ambrose of Milan, Pope St. Leo I and Pope Gregory the Dialogist, etc…) Explicitly say the Holy SPirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

It is not picking and choosing, upon close analysis virtually the whole Latin Patristic Tradition supports this, a tradition Shared by Orthodox, and NO Orthodox saint before Photius taught monopatrism.

If you really want a list I can make one, with the quotes in context, but I am sure it would just bore you.

The biggest thing that you seem to either not understand or refuse to acknowledge is the differences between Latin and Greek.

To say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son in Latin is different than when it is said in Greek. This is because the Latin for proceeds means more than what the Greek means.

I also have not seen your response to the joint document put out by the USCCB and the Orthodox that they are in dialogue with.

I would think that what they have to say would trump any formulation that you might come up with.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Andrew,

I understand that you feel this way about the filioque, however, I do not. You are correct that it was not the only reason. There are others, but I do not wish to get into them at this time.

Don’t worry, brother. I’m usually pretty good about sticking to the topic. Here, it’s filioque.

I’m sure you know that from being a Catholic, you get irritated when Protestants point to one verse in Holy Writ that, in their eyes, condemns the Catholic faith. I can imagine that many Orthodox are just as irritated when Protestants do that, but also when Catholics do that with the Fathers. I’m sure you are familiar with the consensus patrum? From the best of my understanding, the Orthodox do not generally pull one Father and say “aha! This is it!” but rather take the whole of the Fathers in account, along with other factors taken into account be the political, historical, ecclesiastical, et al

1. Yes, the consensus patrum supports the belief that while the Spirit ekporeusai from the Father alone, the Spirit procedit or proienai from Father and Son. While the consensus patrum on the first part is accepted by EO’xy today, it seems the consensus patrum on the second part is not. Why? As an overreaction against the Latins?
2. Yes, it is irritating when I hear EO quote “We do not say the Spirit is from the Son” from the Damascene, yet completely neglects his other statements on the ontological relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, such as his descriptions of their ontological relationship as one of spring, river, sea, or of three torches being progressively lit from the first. As you said, it is irritating when someone thinks they can prove something just by one quote.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Let’s Be clear: The some of the greatest saints of the Orthodox Church (St. Ambrose of Milan, Pope St. Leo I and Pope Gregory the Dialogist, etc…) Explicitly say the Holy SPirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

It is not picking and choosing, upon close analysis virtually the whole Latin Patristic Tradition supports this, a tradition Shared by Orthodox, and NO Orthodox saint before Photius taught monopatrism.

Patriarch Photius was certainly correct in his teaching that there is only ONE origin or source of the Spirit (i.e., the Father). In this, he joins all the Orthodox and Catholic Fathers who went before him. His only mistake was that he thought the Latins taught otherwise - which is understandable since he did not understand Latin.

As noted earlier, your attachment to the “double procession” is what drives the Orthodox away. TBH, I don’t blame them. It only upsets me because that is not what the Catholic Church teaches.

Blessings

 

[Gregory_I]

First of all, allow me to say that I appreciate the eastern traditions. I was near Orthodox for over a year. The reason I did not convert was that, having Converted from Protestantism to Roman Catholicism, it seemed to be unfaithful to the first calling of Christ out of Protestantism into Catholicism.

That said: I ACKNOWLEDGE the legitimate varieties of expressions of an eternal truth.

Being eternal, there is undoubtedly an infinite number of ways to express it.

The greeks “Through the Son” is just as valid in the eyes of ROme as “from the son.”

There is only one single spiration. There is only One Monarchy of the Father.

What I DO NOT UNDERSTAND is that, legitimate theological expression aside, why those who call themselves Catholic are so eager to NOT embrace the Roman teaching, which is De fide and BINDING on the consciences of all Catholics.

You don’t have to recite Filioque. You need only assent to its truth and move on. Yet virtually all those who are eastern Catholics here are giving me flak for this.

Catholic or Orthodox? Choose you this day whom you will serve.

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO A DIFFERENT EXPRESSION OF TRUTH.

But truth is not eastern or western. It is absolute, and as absolute, it is absolutely binding.

Why is this not acknowledged by the Eastern Catholics here?

 

[Benadam]

But that is not what Orthodox are saying. It seems to be the message you expect to see.

 

[eOxy]

I don’t think someone who refuses to taste is qualified to say the taste is not good.

The point is exactly in the method employed to “develop” the understanding.

Filioque embraces both the meaning of ekporeusis (originating - eternally) and proienai (manifesting - temporally). While the latter is obvious, the former is heretical.

No one relevant in the Church of the first millennium professed ekporeusis, except Blessed Augustine.

While we know the Holy Spirit is sent by Jesus Christ, who is Son embodied as GodMan, since it’s been revealed to us in the New Testament, we have not seen the proof about Holy Spirit “ekporeusing/originating” from Son. Since we believe only in God that has been revealed to us, we flatly refuse any addition. Perhaps you developed “a deeper understanding” as some claim, but definitely not the understanding of the same Holy Trinity. Of course we refuse “to taste it”.

Consequently, what’s all the fuss about unity, if we don’t believe in the same God?

 

[Benadam]

The point is exactly in the method employed to “develop” the understanding.

Filioque embraces both the meaning of ekporeusis (originating - eternally) and proienai (manifesting - temporally). While the latter is obvious, the former is heretical.

No one relevant in the Church of the first millennium professed ekporeusis, except Blessed Augustine.

While we know the Holy Spirit is sent by Jesus Christ, who is Son embodied as GodMan, since it’s been revealed to us in the New Testament, we have not seen the proof about Holy Spirit “ekporeusing/originating” from Son. Since we believe only in God that has been revealed to us, we flatly refuse any addition. Perhaps you developed “a deeper understanding” as some claim, but definitely not the understanding of the same Holy Trinity. Of course we refuse “to taste it”.

Consequently, what’s all the fuss about unity, if we don’t believe in the same God?

What about the earliest references that seem to apply no distinction between the Spirit being the Father’s or the Son’s? When the fathers spoke of the Father’s Spirit or the Spirit of the Father wasn’t that the same Spirit when they spoke of the Son’'s Spirit or the Spirit of the Son? Jesus is given and recieves from the Father and the Spirit recieves from what belongs to the Son. The Filoque is implicit in the Scriptures. We never learn of the Spirit sending the Son and according to scripture only Jesus reveals the Father. The pattern in scripture is consistent with the Spirit originating in the unity of God knowing God.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Benadam,

What about the earliest references that seem to apply no distinction between the Spirit being the Father’s or the Son’s? When the fathers spoke of the Father’s Spirit or the Spirit of the Father wasn’t that the same Spirit when they spoke of the Son’'s Spirit or the Spirit of the Son? Jesus is given and recieves from the Father and the Spirit recieves from what belongs to the Son. The Filoque is implicit in the Scriptures. We never learn of the Spirit sending the Son and according to scripture only Jesus reveals the Father. The pattern in scripture is consistent with the Spirit originating in the unity of God knowing God.

Though I think brother EOxy is a bit confused on what the Latins teach, I am also, from your words, confused about what you believe. Do you believe that the Father and Son are both the Source/Origin of the Holy Spirit?

Blessings

 

[SonofMonica]

Dear brother Benadam,

Though I think brother EOxy is a bit confused on what the Latins teach, I am also, from your words, confused about what you believe. Do you believe that the Father and Son are both the Source/Origin of the Holy Spirit?

Blessings

Let me just clue you in: most Catholics don’t understand it to mean anything other or more than what it says. That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. It says WHAT he does, not how He does it. It doesn’t even say how the Father and the Son are related. The most anyone ever thinks about the subject is “Hmm, well I suppose all this God from God business must have been to settle some sort of dispute back in the day.” I would say that pew-sitting Catholic knows that he is supposed to believe the words, but has no idea about what any dispute behind them entailed, sources and origins of the Spirit and whatnot.

Another example, take me, I’m sitting here after years of being on this site and reading tons of apologetics and early church fathers, and I don’t have a clue what “Light from Light” means AT ALL. Never even seen it discussed. It sounds nice, but it doesn’t really affect me. No one has ever denied that Light is from Light. So… Same with the filioque. It’s only a hot topic because people make it one. I can imagine no discussion with less bearing on a Christian’s life than understanding “spiration.” I’m sure someone, somewhere died for it, but we live in an increasingly atheistic world, and we better get our act together.