OK, tell me what you think of this filioque formulation

[Benadam]

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

No. I believe the original is the Father who extends His Person by generating Cognizance and Cognizance ofGod is the Father’s Cognizance of self a self that is the Son and because it is God’s knowing God’s self it’s all knowing all and relating eternally All knowing All extends another Person identicle to the Father in that relating in that way spirates another Person. The pattern is reflected in the revelation of Eve of whom Adasm say’s bone of my bone. Knowing is a union. and the Oneness of perfect divine knowing is a unity of Oneness that spirates another Person identicle to the Father . The original identity of the father is disinguished in three persons of God. Like a man is the generating force and a woman recieves what is generated. Like out of her but not originating in her but born of her is an offspring in His likeness and image. . I must go Brother mardukm. May the Lord continue in blessing you

 

[NoWings]

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…

Easy to understand when you say the rest of what follows.

Light of Light, True God of True God, Begotten, not created, of one essence with the Father.

It means Jesus is 100% God just like the Father is 100% God. Ensures that there’s no way Arianism can be interpreted through the Creed. Arianism stated that Jesus was lesser than God, but more than man, which is technically a tertium quid, and there was a time when the Word was not.

 

[SonofMonica]

Easy to understand when you say the rest of what follows.

Light of Light, True God of True God, Begotten, not created, of one essence with the Father.

It means Jesus is 100% God just like the Father is 100% God. Ensures that there’s no way Arianism can be interpreted through the Creed. Arianism stated that Jesus was lesser than God, but more than man, which is technically a tertium quid, and there was a time when the Word was not.

If that’s all that it means, it sorta seems redundant. Light of Light and True God of True God, I mean. Why put in both?

 

[NoWings]

If that’s all that it means, it sorta seems redundant. Light of Light and True God of True God, I mean. Why put in both?

To make sure there was no way Arianism could be interpreted, which the Church was fighting vehemently at that point in time.

 

[SonofMonica]

To make sure there was no way Arianism could be interpreted, which the Church was fighting vehemently at that point in time.

Ah, I get it, they had to put in TWO expressions of Christ’s divinity, “Light from Light” AND “True God from True God” in order to emphasize that Christ had TWO natures.

 

[Ghosty]

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

Proienai does not mean “temporally”, it simply means proceeds in the same way that the English and Latin does. In other words it means “to go forth from”, while ekporeusis carries the additional nuance of “from the source” (it literally means “out of the mouth”).

In all the early Greek speaking Fathers who discuss the procession of the Spirit from/through the Son they are speaking of eternity, not of temporal matters. I honestly have no idea where this “temporal manifestation” business crept it to the discussion over the years, as it has no relevance to what was taught at all.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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.

I think I am not alone when I say that we serve Christ.

Can you show us where this teaching is a De fide of the Faith from an actual Church Document rather than from the writings of a theologian?

The Filioque as double procession, which is how most Catholics understand it, is not what most Eastern Catholics can consent to.

The Filioque was added to the Creed outside of a Council by the Latin Church, this was improper and is a big reason why there is an issue. Not only that it was added due to the pressure of the Holy Roman Emperor.

 

[stephraim]

Proienai does not mean “temporally”, it simply means proceeds in the same way that the English and Latin does. In other words it means “to go forth from”, while ekporeusis carries the additional nuance of “from the source” (it literally means “out of the mouth”).

That is true. I therefore have no problem with Filioque, though I am a nobody.

I have read and re-read the writings of ECF’s and I do not see any contradiction between East and West theological expression. Still, perhaps per Filium would be a better explanatory tool and go a long way in re-establishing unity (though removing the *Filioque *all together would be more to the liking of the East, I believe).

I find it interesting that we Latins still renew our baptismal promises using the interrogative form of the Roman Symbol, the Apostles’ Creed. Perhaps the Latin Church would do well to recite that Symbol instead and maybe this conflict could be avoided (I know that is an option during Lent and Easter in the Missale Romanum editio typica tertia, at least in English speaking countries). That too, perhaps could cause more conflict than good, though.

I think more prayer is necessary. May God bring us together.

 

[Roy5]

Theology has been such a pain in the neck over the centuries. Think of all the schisms and all the burnings and other killings that have been committed in the name of ‘the truth’. I couldn’t care less about the filioque controversy, and I dare say that Jesus would have little concern about it, also.

We all are called upon to walk by faith and not by knowledge. Frankly, I have come to the conclusion that none of us knows all that much when it comes to the refinements of doctrine. Centuries ago Christians believed in the three-tier concept of the universe - hell beneath, heaven above. They didn't have good telescopes so we can't blame them. Think of the trouble Galileo got himself into, and Copernicus didn't dare publish his findings until near death for fear of being branded a heretic. They didn't know about germs either, and blamed plagues on sinfulness or an angry god or maybe the Jews.

 Why, even such brilliant church fathers as Origen and Tertullian were branded as heretics. Jan Hus and a host of other protesters were burned at the stake, along with hundredsm even thousands, of 'witches'. More recently John Paul II silenced Kung and Boff, as I recall, because they were writing 'dangerous stuff''. Fiddlesticks! See what silliness results when humankind pretends to understand the mysteries of this majestic and mammoth and magnificent creation.

  St. Paul spoke of 'faith, hope and love, and the greatest of these is love." My own personal 'theology' centers in those three words and their application and certainly not on filioque and other such excuses to excommunicate and/or alienate fellow Christians. These theological battles usually were facades behind which power and personality conflicts raged. They had little to do with the scriptures or the essentials of Christ's teachings. Human beings are human, even bishops, archbishops and - yes, pontiffs.

  God bless all creeds, colors and countries. Let's spend more time and energy working toward peace and reconciliation and less focusing on minor matters. As one of my professors used to say: "It's time to stop majoring in minors."

 

[Formosus]

Proienai does not mean “temporally”, it simply means proceeds in the same way that the English and Latin does. In other words it means “to go forth from”, while ekporeusis carries the additional nuance of “from the source” (it literally means “out of the mouth”).

In all the early Greek speaking Fathers who discuss the procession of the Spirit from/through the Son they are speaking of eternity, not of temporal matters. I honestly have no idea where this “temporal manifestation” business crept it to the discussion over the years, as it has no relevance to what was taught at all.

Peace and God bless!

I was a bit confused by his post as well. St. Gregory Palamas speaks of an eternal manifestation and not a temporary one

@Byzcath

 

[eOxy]

I was a bit confused by his post as well. St. Gregory Palamas speaks of an eternal manifestation and not a temporary one

To whom would manifestation be manifested before the time, consequently, before heavens and earth etc. came into the existence?

Or, do you claim that St. Gregory Palamas stands that it is possible to manifest something to nothing, to nobody, to no one?

One cannot accept that God created everything, including time, simultaneously claiming tha manifestation of anything can be eternal. The manifestation presumes something that is manifested and someone to whom it is being manifested.

Consequently while there was only God, and nothing else, there could have been no manifestation.

 

[Formosus]

To whom would manifestation be manifested before the time, consequently, before heavens and earth etc. came into the existence?

Or, do you claim that St. Gregory Palamas stands that it is possible to manifest something to nothing, to nobody, to no one?

One cannot accept that God created everything, including time, simultaneously claiming tha manifestation of anything can be eternal. The manifestation presumes something that is manifested and someone to whom it is being manifested.

Consequently while there was only God, and nothing else, there could have been no manifestation.

This where I think the Augustinian love apology may hold some water and I say this here because St. Palamas also used Augustine’s view of the Spirit being a divine eros between the Father and Son. So that is what is being eternally manifested. Love.

But, perhaps you should be asking these questions of your own church? As the Orthodox Church fully endorsed the eternal manifestation in the council of Blachernae.

“Indeed, the very Paraclete shines form and is manifest eternally through the Son, in the same way that light shines forth and is manifest through the intermediary of the sun’s rays; it further denotes the bestowing, giving, and sending of the Spirit to us.” -Synod of Blachernae (geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/tomos1285.html)

Edit.

But I don’t pretend that I am an authority on the subject. Just an undergrad student with a little extra time on his hands. If you think you can explain Gregory Palamas and Gregory of Cyprus in a better way then please show me.

 

[eOxy]

This where I think the
But, perhaps you should be asking these questions of your own church? As the Orthodox Church fully endorsed the eternal manifestation in the council of Blachernae.

“Indeed, the very Paraclete shines form and is manifest eternally through the Son, in the same way that light shines forth and is manifest through the intermediary of the sun’s rays; it further denotes the bestowing, giving, and sending of the Spirit to us.” -Synod of Blachernae (geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/tomos1285.html)

To me, it is obvious that the term is used in the meaning “forever”, or “everafter”. Otherwise, why the term “Paracletos”? That is the word used by Jesus Christ when he said he would send the Spirit of relief. Paracletos = the Spirit of Relief.

Son hadn’t already sent Paracletos when GodMan/embodied Son promised He would send it.

This where I think the Augustinian love apology may hold some water and I say this here because St. Palamas also used Augustine’s view of the Spirit being a divine eros between the Father and Son. So that is what is being eternally manifested. Love.

I wouldn’t completely agree, although there is the resemblance, but I don’t think it is related to the topic.

 

[Ghosty]

To me, it is obvious that the term is used in the meaning “forever”, or “everafter”. Otherwise, why the term “Paracletos”? That is the word used by Jesus Christ when he said he would send the Spirit of relief. Paracletos = the Spirit of Relief.

If it just meant “forever” or “ever after”, then the same passage wouldn’t have said this at the end:

it further denotes the bestowing, giving, and sending of the Spirit to us.

It is obviously referring to two different things, as the Council specifically differentiates and distinguishes between them.

No matter how one defines it, it is clear that traditionally the Eastern Orthodox understood that there is an eternal relationship of the Holy Spirit “through” or “manifesting from” the Son. The term ekporousai was not used to describe this relationship, but proinai (the equivalent to the Latin procedere and the English proceed) was used over and over again to describe this. That ekporousai is translated into English (and Latin) as proceed (procedere) is because those languages lack a term that specifically means exactly the same thing.

Since the Latins were familiar with the teaching, shared with the Greeks, that the Holy Spirit “proceeds” from the Son (both ekporousai and proinai are necessarily translated with the same Latin word, procedere, just as they’re both translated with the English word proceed) they didn’t understand the problem with expressing the Faith the way they did. It didn’t help that when the Latin procedere was translated back into Greek it was almost always translated as ekporousai and not proinai.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Benadam]

If it just meant “forever” or “ever after”, then the same passage wouldn’t have said this at the end:

It is obviously referring to two different things, as the Council specifically differentiates and distinguishes between them.

No matter how one defines it, it is clear that traditionally the Eastern Orthodox understood that there is an eternal relationship of the Holy Spirit “through” or “manifesting from” the Son. The term ekporousai was not used to describe this relationship, but proinai (the equivalent to the Latin procedere and the English proceed) was used over and over again to describe this. That ekporousai is translated into English (and Latin) as proceed (procedere) is because those languages lack a term that specifically means exactly the same thing.

Since the Latins were familiar with the teaching, shared with the Greeks, that the Holy Spirit “proceeds” from the Son (both ekporousai and proinai are necessarily translated with the same Latin word, procedere, just as they’re both translated with the English word proceed) they didn’t understand the problem with expressing the Faith the way they did. It didn’t help that when the Latin procedere was translated back into Greek it was almost always translated as ekporousai and not proinai.

Peace and God bless!

Excuse me for butting in. I’ve been reading up on the terms used in theology. One of your posts, I think it was yours, said something about the word originating or ‘origin’ .I realized I’m using a couple of terms incorrectly. Anyway adopting a wrong term to express an idea or concept can develope into expressions that a theologian would find absurd. Thanks for educating me about that.

One of my word discoveries just so happened to be the word ‘proceeding’. I read that the idea being expressed was ‘to send forth’ but the term to express that idea couldn’t imply the usual sense when used that also implied a rank of some sort. One who is sent in the power and authority of another would usually not be an equal to the one who is sending. The word ‘proceed’ was the best found to express someone sent forth by another without harming the equality of the Son and the Spirit.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Formosus,

This where I think the Augustinian love apology may hold some water and I say this here because St. Palamas also used Augustine’s view of the Spirit being a divine eros between the Father and Son. So that is what is being eternally manifested. Love.

But, perhaps you should be asking these questions of your own church? As the Orthodox Church fully endorsed the eternal manifestation in the council of Blachernae.

“Indeed, the very Paraclete shines form and is manifest eternally through the Son, in the same way that light shines forth and is manifest through the intermediary of the sun’s rays; it further denotes the bestowing, giving, and sending of the Spirit to us.” -Synod of Blachernae (geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/tomos1285.html)

That was a great quote. The highlighted portion above is key. The manifestation has a “FURTHER” aspect that is temporal, but it is primarily eternal in its nature. IOW, it has a temporal EFFECT, but its NATURE is eternal. [EDIT: I see brother Ghosty touched upon that, as well]

As stated in another thread, I believe this is the best hope of reconciliation on the matter as far as the theology is concerned. As an Oriental, I couldn’t accept such an eternal ontological distinction within the Godhead - i.e., distinguishing between an eternal hypostatic procession from an eternal energetic procession.

The question is - do Eastern Byzantines regard God’s Energy as an inherent and inseparable “aspect” of the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit? If not, it would separate the Eastern Orthodox from their Oriental brethren. If so, it would give Eastern Orthodox a greater hope for reconciliation with their Western brethren.

Blessings

 

[Gregory_I]

Ok, some one of our Orthodox neighbors posted the statement that no one of significance (even though the Authority of witness is not dependent on personal significance) in the Fourth-Fifth Century except “Blessed” Augustine posited that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

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

“II. (1) The Priscillianists’ denial of the Trinity refuted.
And so under the first head is shown what unholy views they hold about the Divine Trinity:
they affirm that the person of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is one and the same, as if the same God were named now Father, now Son, and now Holy Ghost: and as if He who begot were not one, He who was begotten, another, and He who proceeded from both, yet another; but an undivided unity must be understood, spoken of under three names, indeed, but not consisting of three persons. This species of blasphemy they borrowed from Sabellius, whose followers were rightly called Patripassians also: because if the Son is identical with the Father, the Son’s cross is the Father’s passion (patris-passio): and the Father took on Himself all that the Son took in the form of a slave, and in obedience to the Father. Which without doubt is contrary to the Catholic faith, which acknowledges the Trinity of the Godhead to be of one essence (?µ???s???) in such a way that it believes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost indivisible without confusion, eternal without time, equal without difference: because it is not the same person but the same essence which fills the Unity in Trinity.”

No Greek Fathers teach SOLA PATRIS (Latin) or Monopatrism (Greek).

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.”

"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 archbishop of Nicea tells us that out of six codices of St. Basel's works brought by his countrymen to Florence, five gave this passage in its entirety; while the one that wanted it "was defective in some parts, and had many additions, according to the pleasure of the corrupter." When he returned to Constantinople, Bessarion searched the libraries, and he found some new codices, written after the Council of Florence had terminated, and in which the above passage was wanting; whereas in other ancient MSS. which he consulted it was given.' "   (Source not certain)

How about Athanasius the Great anyone?
He says that the Father and the Son are the one principle of the Holy Spirit

On the Incarnation of the Word Against the Arians 9 in PG 26:1000A: "David sings in the psalm [35:10], saying: ‘For with You is the font of Life;’ because jointly with the Father the Son is indeed the source of the Holy Spirit."

OR…

Bishop St. Epiphanios of Salamis (Doctor of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church) 5/12
21. In 374 The Well-Anchored Man 71 in PG 43:148B, the great shepherd of the faithful of Salamis states,

“But someone will say, ‘Therefore we are saying that there are two Sons. And how then is He the Only-begotten?’ Well then. ‘Who art thou that repliest against God?’ [Rom 9:20]. For if he calls the one Who is from Him the Son, and the one Who is from both (παρ᾽ ἀμφοτέρων) the Holy Spirit, which things we understand by faith alone, from the saints— full of light, givers of light, they have their operation full of light…”

Yeah, the Orthodox say he is a saint because of his pastoral work, but not a Father…right. Ancient witness is Authority, Father or not, because it is a testimony of Christian belief…

This particular quote is especially important because he is a Middle Eastern Persian, and their thought was not formed inside the Roman Empire, and their testimony bears a certain type of simultaneous indifference and impartiality.

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.”

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

 

[Aramis]

Double Procession, as understood by my Latin friends, does not include double origin.

The double origin is heretical.

The latin of the creed only implies flowing forth, not origination in; adding the filioque (and the comparable “ex patris et filios” of the mozarabic creedal construction) speaks only of the spirit, as in scripture, answering to the person of Christ, not originating in Christ.

Tho, in scripture, Christ does speak sending forth of His Spirit. If the spirit of Christ is not the Holy Spirit, then we have a 1900 year heresy…

 

[Gregory_I]

That is correct Aramais, There is One Spiration and One Principle, The Father and the Son. This is because the Father and the Son are one in everything except being begotten and unbegotten, So the Son posses spiration through the gift of the Father. Nevertheless, Since the Father and Son are one and all actions of God are done with a single will and energy, there are not two spirations but one, From the Father and the Son in se (in all eternity). The spiration of the Son however is not immediate, but mediate. Thus the Monarchy of the Father is preserved, because he is the ultimate fount of Divinity of the other two persons, and him alone (In the communication of the divine essence).

 

[eOxy]

Ghosty;5818841:

f it just meant “forever” or “ever after”, then the same passage wouldn’t have said this at the end:

it further denotes the bestowing, giving, and sending of the Spirit to us.

It is obviously referring to two different things, as the Council specifically differentiates and distinguishes between them.

No matter how one defines it, it is clear that traditionally the Eastern Orthodox understood that there is an eternal relationship of the Holy Spirit “through” or “manifesting from” the Son.

…

Excuse me for butting in.

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.

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.

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:

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