Procession vs. Origin/Cause

[Fuerza]

As a little bit of a spin-off from the current Filioque thread, I would like to get some insight on this matter from anyone with an opinion, RC, EC, OC, EO, and OO alike. As I understand it, the crux of the argument, even according to those who don’t believe the Filioque to be heretical, is that the original Creed used the word “ekpouresis” (spelling?), which is apparently also the word used in the original Greek Gospels. The Roman version of the creed would require the use of the word "proeinai (again, not sure of spelling) in order to be correct, or at least not heretical. Therefore, the Roman version of the Creed slighlty alters the original meaning, even if the altered meaning is not in and of itself wrong. All this essentially stems from the generality of the Latin “procedit”, which in no way indicates origin or cause as the Greek word does.

With that in mind, do you think it would be better to translate the Greek ekpouresis as originates/has His origin from rather than as proceeds.

example: …in the Holy Spirit, who originates/has His origin (eternally) from the Father or… who has His cause in the Father.

It seems to me that this translation would require removal of the Filioque from the Creed even according to Latin theology. Although, since the Filioque has become such an important part of Latin tradition, it could possibly be included somewhere else in the Mass as long as it were translated as proeinai in the Greek.

What do you think of this translation? Is the word “proceeds” absolutely required?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Fuerza,

Brother Isa and I discussed this issue in the Filioque thread. It is on this page of that thread -
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4007796#post4007796

• beginning with post#216.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

As a little bit of a spin-off from the current Filioque thread, I would like to get some insight on this matter from anyone with an opinion, RC, EC, OC, EO, and OO alike. As I understand it, the crux of the argument, even according to those who don’t believe the Filioque to be heretical, is that the original Creed used the word “ekpouresis” (spelling?), which is apparently also the word used in the original Greek Gospels. The Roman version of the creed would require the use of the word "proeinai (again, not sure of spelling) in order to be correct, or at least not heretical. Therefore, the Roman version of the Creed slighlty alters the original meaning, even if the altered meaning is not in and of itself wrong. All this essentially stems from the generality of the Latin “procedit”, which in no way indicates origin or cause as the Greek word does.

With that in mind, do you think it would be better to translate the Greek ekpouresis as originates/has His origin from rather than as proceeds.

example: …in the Holy Spirit, who originates/has His origin (eternally) from the Father or… who has His cause in the Father.

It seems to me that this translation would require removal of the Filioque from the Creed even according to Latin theology. Although, since the Filioque has become such an important part of Latin tradition, it could possibly be included somewhere else in the Mass as long as it were translated as proeinai in the Greek.

What do you think of this translation? Is the word “proceeds” absolutely required?

Hi Fuerza,

Good post.

For the moment, I’d just like to comment that I’m reminded of the filioque discussing in “Roman Presidency and Christian Unity in our Time” by Father Thomas Hopko. (See also this thread, if you’ll excuse the impoliteness of “plugging”. )

 

[Fuerza]

Dear brother Fuerza,

Brother Isa and I discussed this issue in the Filioque thread. It is on this page of that thread -
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4007796#post4007796

• beginning with post#216.

Blessings,
Marduk

Hi Marduk,

Now that you mention it I think I remember that. Perhaps that’s what put the idea in my head in the first place. Nevertheless, I’d like to keep this open and focus on this aspect as the other thread is becoming very bogged down with several different, albeit inter-related, discussions.

On that note, it’s good to see that both you and Isa agreed with such a translation. Since I already have an answer from you on the first part, what do you think of the idea of including a “proienai” type Filioque somewhere else in the Latin Liturgy, perhaps for example in an epiclesis? In this way the Latins would be able to keep the tradition as well as present it in a more obviously orthodox fashion.