The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: For the Orthodox

[ThuriferAcolyte]

what does it mean that the Holy Spirit “internally” proceeds from the Son?

I can understand “proceeds from the Father and the Son” if it’s understood as “proceeds from the Father through the Son”, as in, the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and is sent forth unto us by the Son, since that is Biblical.

 

[Nine_Two]

The Apostle’s Creed is largely used in the Latin West but an earlier formula for it can be traced as far back as AD200. Quasten’s book can be consulted for the text of the latter. The creed in its present form states, “He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.” If you’ve ever prayed the Rosary or attended some versions of the Ordinary Form of the Mass in English, you probably would have encountered this.

Edit: this link covers changes between 2nd and 7th century for the Apostles Creeed

We’re talking about the Nicene Creed. The Apostles Creed is not a formal creed in the same way as the Nicene Creed, and the offending statement does not exist in the Apostles Creed.

 

[mardukm]

The Holy Spirit comes from the Father through the Son.

And because the Spirit comes from the Father through the Son,
He comes from the Father and the Son.

If He only came from the Father, than He could not come through the Son,
and so He could not come from the Father and the Son.

But because He comes from the Father, through the Son,
Because the Son is the Person through whom the Spirit comes,
He comes from the Father and the Son.

I hope these words deepen your understanding of the Faith.

I’m sorry. Your explanation doesn’t make sense.

I don’t have time right now, but I hope someone else explains why this is so.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Harpazo]

The Holy Spirit comes from the Father through the Son.

And because the Spirit comes from the Father through the Son,
He comes from the Father and the Son.

If He only came from the Father, than He could not come through the Son,
and so He could not come from the Father and the Son.

But because He comes from the Father, through the Son,
Because the Son is the Person through whom the Spirit comes,
He comes from the Father and the Son.

I hope these words deepen your understanding of the Faith.

:banghead: Oh boy. If you have beef with the Orthodox on this subject, chances are you’ll have beef with the Eastern Catholics, too. And they’re in communion with you. Hmmm…

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[John_Larocque]

We’re talking about the Nicene Creed. The Apostles Creed is not a formal creed in the same way as the Nicene Creed, and the offending statement does not exist in the Apostles Creed.

Oh I’m well aware we’re talking about the Nicene Creed. If you’re talking about the “offending statement” being the filioque, I fully understand. I don’t want to get into that.

My post was a response to the “heresy” that the Son was begotten by the Spirit. And my response was, whenever a Latin-rite Catholic recites the Rosary or attends an Ordinary Mass (in Canada), that formula is recited: “conceived by the Holy Spirit.”

(A small critique of a larger problem- they don’t quite get the English right in the Mass text - “conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit”, and “he descended to the dead” replaces “conceived by the Holy Spirit” and “he descended into hell.” But I hope my point is not lost because of ICEL )

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

:banghead: Oh boy. If you have beef with the Orthodox on this subject, chances are you’ll have beef with the Eastern Catholics, too. And they’re in communion with you. Hmmm…

In Christ,
Andrew

Actually, I do not see how there is an issue with what he said. He is equating “Father and the Son” with “Father through the Son”.

 

[John_Larocque]

:banghead: Oh boy. If you have beef with the Orthodox on this subject, chances are you’ll have beef with the Eastern Catholics, too. And they’re in communion with you. Hmmm…

In Christ,
Andrew

I read recently that the Chaldean Catholic Church was ordered by Rome to remove the filioque on the wikipedia page for the church. This was in 2007. Also, the universal catechism lacks the phrase and it is absent in Greek texts used by the Catholic church. You can criticize a lot of the history behind the clause, but obviously they recognize this is a problem. I would prefer if people took an irenic approach - recognize the linguistic or doctrinal problems and proceed with a solution. Here are mine: in the short term, containing and restricting use of the filioque to the Latin-rite. In the long term essentially going back to the original formlua. I look forward to the day when filioque will become a footnote in history.

 

[Nine_Two]

Oh I’m well aware we’re talking about the Nicene Creed. If you’re talking about the “offending statement” being the filioque, I fully understand. I don’t want to get into that.

My post was a response to the “heresy” that the Son was begotten by the Spirit. And my response was, whenever a Latin-rite Catholic recites the Rosary or attends an Ordinary Mass (in Canada), that formula is recited: “conceived by the Holy Spirit.”

(A small critique of a larger problem- they don’t quite get the English right in the Mass text - “conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit”, and “he descended to the dead” replaces “conceived by the Holy Spirit” and “he descended into hell.” But I hope my point is not lost because of ICEL )

Ahh, my mistake on that response, seems I need to be a bit more thorough in my reading of posts.

I read recently that the Chaldean Catholic Church was ordered by Rome to remove the filioque on the wikipedia page for the church. This was in 2007. Also, the universal catechism lacks the phrase and it is absent in Greek texts used by the Catholic church. You can criticize a lot of the history behind the clause, but obviously they recognize this is a problem. I would prefer if people took an irenic approach - recognize the linguistic or doctrinal problems and proceed with a solution. Here are mine: in the short term, containing and restricting use of the filioque to the Latin-rite. In the long term essentially going back to the original formlua. I look forward to the day when filioque will become a footnote in history.

(Sort of) Recently Pope Benedict celebrated a liturgy (not sure if it was a Mass or Divine Liturgy) with the Ecumenical Patriarch, when they did the Creed they skipped the filioque. I believe there is hope for reconciliation on this matter, unfortunately while it may have been the catalyst to the Schism so long ago, it is not the only, nor the biggest issue facing an Ecumenical agreement between the two bodies.

I pray that our two bodies may one day concelebrate the Eucharist together, but that will happen in God’s time, not mine.

 

[Harpazo]

Ahh, my mistake on that response, seems I need to be a bit more thorough in my reading of posts.

(Sort of) Recently Pope Benedict celebrated a liturgy (not sure if it was a Mass or Divine Liturgy) with the Ecumenical Patriarch, when they did the Creed they skipped the filioque. I believe there is hope for reconciliation on this matter, unfortunately while it may have been the catalyst to the Schism so long ago, it is not the only, nor the biggest issue facing an Ecumenical agreement between the two bodies.

I pray that our two bodies may one day concelebrate the Eucharist together, but that will happen in God’s time, not mine.

I believe it was a Vespers service.

 

[Eucharisted]

Actually, I do not see how there is an issue with what he said. He is equating “Father and the Son” with “Father through the Son”.

Correct!

 

[Hesychios]

Actually, I do not see how there is an issue with what he said. He is equating “Father and the Son” with “Father through the Son”.

Two different concepts.

Does petroleum come from the ground and through a pipe, or does it come from the ground and a pipe?

If you mean THROUGH, say through! Don’t let your pride prevent you from correcting a flawed term of translation. If your church is bold enough to defy a dictum of the ancient church and introduce new things to the Creed, at least be bold enough to correct your mistakes and stop sweeping the problem under the rug with Sophistry.

Someone very important to us all once said: “Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no”.

[SIGN]Say “NO” to Sophistry.[/SIGN]

 

[Ghosty]

I’m going to need a bit more than that.

I don’t know the quote that Eucharisted is talking about, but I can give you three Greco-Eastern Saints who taught that the Holy Spirit is eternally “through the Son”.

First, St. Gregory of Nyssa:

If, however, any one cavils at our argument, on the ground that by not admitting the difference of nature it leads to a mixture and confusion of the Persons, we shall make to such a charge this answer—that while we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another—by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another by that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the interposition of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father.

Then St. Maximos the Confessor:

With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit–they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession–but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence.

and finally, St. John of Damascus:

Think of the Father as a spring of life begetting the Son like a river and the Holy Ghost like a sea, for the spring and the river and sea are all one nature.

Think of the Father as a root, and of the Son as a branch, and the Spirit as a fruit, for the substance in these three is one.

The Father is a sun with the Son as rays and the Holy Ghost as heat.

This “through the Son” was taught by Eastern Fathers, and not only in the temporal manifestation of the Holy Spirit. This is why the Ukrainians, when joining with Rome, said this:

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.

The talk of “temporal manifestation” by others completely misses the point, and the genuine teaching of the filioque.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

Does petroleum come from the ground and through a pipe, or does it come from the ground and a pipe?

Both ways of saying it are equally valid, though the latter example is less common in modern English usage.

Peace and God bless!

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Both ways of saying it are equally valid, though the latter example is less common in modern English usage.

Peace and God bless!

Agreed, it’s saying the same thing, when correctly understood. This reminds me of the discussions I have had on “mother of God and Theotokos”. The Protestants always say, “you should just say what it actually means instead of confusing people!”

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Ghosty,

Both ways of saying it are equally valid…

I disagree.

The lack of precision introduces ambiguity, which is contrary to the purpose of a Creed. So for my money the latter option (using “and”) is less valid, regardless of the Latin church’s longstanding position.

The very fact that the church is unwilling to use more precise language on this point is disturbing. It suggests that there is something more behind this argument, which I have begun to think may be rooted in pride.

The number of Latin Catholics who do not understand the filioque is enormous. The interpolation long ago outlived it’s usefulness and is overdue for retirement.

 

[Hesychios]

Agreed, it’s saying the same thing, when correctly understood.

Well that’s my point in a nutshell. What lengths do we have to go through to make sure this thing is correctly understood?

The Creed is a catechetical tool. It has it’s origins in baptismal formulae. It should be easily understood!

The Creed is supposed to be a clear and unambiguous guide, but the filioque is not.

One possible understanding of the filioque is OK, another possible understanding is seriously heretical (and the latter understanding seems to have been held by the Franks of Charlemagne’s day), yet this is what has happened to the Creed for all Christians?

It still confuses many Catholics and raises the ire of Orthodox.

It is a serious problem.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Well that’s my point in a nutshell. What lengths do we have to go through to make sure this thing is correctly understood?

The Creed is a catechetical tool. It has it’s origins in baptismal formulae. It should be easily understood!

The Creed is supposed to be a clear and unambiguous guide, but the filioque is not.

One possible understanding of the filioque is OK, another possible understanding is seriously heretical (and the latter understanding seems to have been held by the Franks of Charlemagne’s day), yet this is what has happened to the Creed for all Christians?

It still confuses many Catholics and raises the ire of Orthodox.

It is a serious problem.

Bottom line is: The Pope added the clause “and the Son” aka Filioque officially to the Creed.

The only room for argument is: Does the Pope have the Authority to act Infallibily on matters of Faith and Morals which would allow him to change the Creed?

Catholics of all Catholic Rite Churches say a resounding: “YES!”

Orthodox Churches say: “NO!”

Let’s skip the argument caused by the heart of the true issue: Filioque and jump straight to the heart of the issue itself: Authority of the Pope.

If the Pope does have Infallibility in matters of Faith and Morals, then he can certainly change the Creed which is our statement of Faith and therefore our understanding of the Triune God.

 

[AdrianP]

So I think that at least a Popes fought against filioloque and one Pope sanctioned the Creed without filioloque , now some Popes agree with Filioloque.

I want to add that Early Church and Orthodox position match. I would say that Acts books where Apostles solve matters of faith in the Bible would show the Authority of Holy Synod.

 

[Harpazo]

Bottom line is: The Pope added the clause “and the Son” aka Filioque officially to the Creed.

The only room for argument is: Does the Pope have the Authority to act Infallibily on matters of Faith and Morals which would allow him to change the Creed?

Catholics of all Catholic Rite Churches say a resounding: “YES!”

Orthodox Churches say: “NO!”

Let’s skip the argument caused by the heart of the true issue: Filioque and jump straight to the heart of the issue itself: Authority of the Pope.

If the Pope does have Infallibility in matters of Faith and Morals, then he can certainly change the Creed which is our statement of Faith and therefore our understanding of the Triune God.

It looks to me like you are reading things into history that simply are not there. I can name several Eastern Catholic Rites that reject the Pope’s “ability” to meddle with creed or any of their affairs for that matter. Only the Latins would unanimously say what you are saying.

How did he add it validly? Did not one of the Ecumenical Councils centuries beforehand say that only an Ecumenical Council could alter the Creed? Did not Pope John VIII fight against the Filioque from being added to the Creed? Wasn’t there a Pope that before 1000 had the creed permanently etched in stone without the Filioque?

Hmmm…

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[John_Larocque]

Time to bone up on Dogmatics!
oodegr.com/english/dogmatiki1/D2d.htm

This covers the theological aspects of the arguments. Actually covers both Catholic and Reform viewpoints on the filioque along with Orthodox. This drives it home:

for Eastern Theology – the Theology of the Cappadocian Fathers – the one God is the Father; the one God is not a faceless Essence. It is the Persona of the Father.

And this is the Cappadocian response to the Muslims and the Jews who claim Christians worship three Gods. The concept of the “monarchy of the Father” is a bulwark against those who level charges of polytheism against the Christians.