The Filioque: Uh...help?

[Huiou_Theou]

Within the Trinity, the only distinction truly possible is that of the relationship of persons (hypostasi). Whenever they do something, the act is carried out together: eg:

John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Amen, Amen, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do: because whatever he does, the Son also does likewise.

Anything else spoken of God as Trinity is something of a fiction.
But, Jesus is an exception since on earth it is his Person (hypostasis = rational substance) which became en-fleshed by the action of the whole Trinity. Therefore, Jesus lowered himself and became able to speak of his human nature as less than God, and allowing his acts/experience to be spoken of distinct from those of the Trinity since flesh has separable parts.

The Trinity, and the filioque are really a meditation on the meaning of the titles revealed in scripture.

For the trinity, then, we have three names from Moses and also three in the new testament. In the OT the names are veiled as variations on “being”, and divinity, and action/might,
but in the NT we are given relational names.

Father
Son
Spirit ( Pneuma=breath, and also Paraclete=advocate)

The word Paraclete can be set aside for this discussion,
because that relates to his (Paraclete=masculine) relationship
to us before the Father, and not to the inner life of the Trinity
(AFAICT).

God is beyond male and female, and there is no seperate female principle in God – who is one. We are made in a nearest copy of God having pieces, as male and female – married. (andro-gynus).
So, the words revealing the nature of God have to be looked at
as analogies to what the common image of human being would
say regarding the names given.

The doctrine of the Trinity rests on the relationship of the three words given as the fullest revelation of the persons:
Father, Son, and Spirit (Breath)

Clearly, Father signifies the one who begets the Son – and hence the origin of the Son is the Father. But what about the Spirit (literally the BREATH / PNEUMA ) of God?

The word itself signified life universally to both Hebrews and Greeks, and therefore it belongs to whomever is “alive”.

One can’t say Father and Son are equal if one is alive and the other is not. The filioque, then, boils down to whether or not the emphasis should be on the fact that the Son would have no life if God the Father had not begotten him and therefore the Breath ultimately comes from the Father (Both eastern and Latins accept this), or whether one notices that both the Father and Son are alive (breathe/spirate) and hence the Spirit must exist and therefore come from both of them (But there is only one Spirit).

… because, whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise – the Breathing of the Father mysteriously implies that the Son breathes the same breath (same act).

The word “through” or “and” is irrelevant, really, since there
can only be one Spiration, but somehow the East got to be
really picky about it… and I have never fully understood why except on political grounds.

 

[jco2004]

At The thing is, developments in the East have been historically binding in the West (eg the entire Creed sans the filioque),

That’s not a “development”, that’s the original Creed. Joe

 

[jco2004]

Clearly, Father signifies the one who begets the Son – and hence the origin of the Son is the Father. But what about the Spirit (literally the BREATH / PNEUMA ) of God?
The word itself signified life universally to both Hebrews and Greeks, and therefore it belongs to whomever is “alive”.
One can’t say Father and Son are equal if one is alive and the other is not. The filioque, then, boils down to whether or not the emphasis should be on the fact that the Son would have no life if God the Father had not begotten him and therefore the Breath ultimately comes from the Father (Both eastern and Latins accept this), or whether one notices that both the Father and Son are alive (breathe/spirate) and hence the Spirit must exist and therefore come from both of them (But there is only one Spirit).
… because, whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise – the Breathing of the Father mysteriously implies that the Son breathes the same breath (same act).

That is faulty logic. No one, east or west, would deny that the Son is alive and intimately connected with the Spirit. Some Patristic statements expressed this by saying that the Spirit porceeds from the Father and “rests” on the Son. But it does not follow from that the Spirit proceeds also from the Son. One statement has to do with relationship and participation, and the other has to do with origin. Quite different.
And whenever you say that the Son, but not the Spirit, does “whatever the Father does”, you in effect set up a ditheistic system, with the Spirit as subordinate to the Father and Son. This is reflected in the fact, acknowledged by many western Catholics, that for centuries the role of the Holy Spirit was neglected in the west. Joe

 

[jco2004]

Phooey on all this Greek philosophy stuff! Let’s just go back to the Apostles’ Creed and be done with it.
Matthew

I am sympathetic, but that ship has already sailed. Joe

 

[Hesychios]

Phooey on all this Greek philosophy stuff! Let’s just go back to the Apostles’ Creed and be done with it.

Matthew

A misnomer!

The Apostles Creed cannot be demonstrated as coming from the Apostles. However I sympathize with you, the higher speculation on the mysteries of the Holy Trinity does no one any good, since we are quite incapable of really understanding it.

The whole Bruhaha is all a mistake anyway. It only came up because the western church normally did NOT recite the Creed during Mass from the beginning, although the Greek East did. When bishops in the Frankish kingdom started to use a Creed in the Mass, the text that they borrowed was being used in the Gothic kingdom of Spain, a flawed text.

This alarmed the Papacy, which opposed the text but was ignored, never able to suppress it. Later (MUCH later), the Frankish faction was able to dominate the Papacy and introduced the Frankish-Gothic Creed into the Mass at the Lateran cathedral of Rome, and throughout the diocese. Subsequent Popes became pro-filioque, being raised and trained in an environment which accepted it.

So it was not so much a deliberate spreading of the filioque theology through the church at that slow pace, but the spread of the practice of reciting the Creed, which had that flaw. The Franks could not admit to have adopted a flawed Creed…the later Popes could not admit to have adopted a flawed Creed.

Roman Catholic apologists have been vigorously defending what started off as a mistake ever since.

Michael

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

Michael would it still be a mistake if it was said “Through the Son”, as Juan Carlos stated earlier, instead of “From the Son” ?
Does latin have a word equivalent to “through” in it?

 

[ERose]

Michael would it still be a mistake if it was said “Through the Son”, as Juan Carlos stated earlier, instead of “From the Son” ?
Does latin have a word equivalent to “through” in it?

I will Micheal answer this. The answer is yes.

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The best way to look at this is the following:

The Son who is begotten of the Father is the Object of the Father’s Love.

The Father who begot the Son is the Object of the Son’s Love.

This perfect, eternal, infinite, etc Love is the Holy Spirit Who is the Love between the Father and the Son. Many times through the NT the Holy Spirit is referred to a the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of Christ who will come to dwell in you.

Look at the missions of the Blessed persons: The Father is the Creator, the Son was born of a Women through the power of the Holy Spirit (God’s Love), at Pentecost the Apostles and those with them were filled with the Holy Spirit (God’s Love).

Remember what the Blessed Apostle wrote: God is Love. There is not a more powerful statement in the Bible. He doesn’t say that God is a loving God as the old testament teaches but he goes one step further he says that God is Love! When the Holy Spirit fills us we are filled with God’s Love. Christ died on the cross because God is Love. In my opinion this statement is the foundation stone of all Christian Theology. Everything God has done it is because God is Love!

To Summarize the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, the Church teaches that:

1. The Father is not begotten nor does He proceed.
2. The Son is begotten of the Father but he does not proceed.
3. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son and He is not begotten.

If you want to know more about the Holy Spirit, John Paul II wrote an encyclical(?) On the Holy Spirit in the Church and in the World.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

The Orthodox accepted the council of Florent (1438 - 1445) and came back into union with Rome. The following is the teaching of the Dogmatic Council of Forence, which, as was said, the Orthodox accepted.

Council of Florence, Bull Cantata Domino: “The sacrosanct Roman Church, founded by the voice of our Lord and Savior, firmly believes, professes, and preaches one true God omnipotent unchangeable, and eternal, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; one in essense, three in persons; Father unborn, Son forn of the Father, Holy Ghost proceeding from Father and Son. … the Holy Ghost alone proceeds at the same time from the Father and Son.… For the fact that the Son is of the Fathers and without beginning, and that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. … Whoever, therefore, have adverse and contrary opinions the Church disapproves and anathematizes and declares to be foreign to the Christian body which is the Church.” (Denz. 703, 704, page 225-226).

Now we know what to believe: That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. To those who do not believe this doctrine “the Church disapproves and anathematizes and declares to be foreign to the Christian body which is the Church”.

 

[jco2004]

The Orthodox accepted the council of Florent (1438 - 1445) and came back into union with Rome. The following is the teaching of the Dogmatic Council of Forence, which, as was said, the Orthodox accepted.

.

The Orthodox never accepted the decrees of Florence. Some Orthodox leaders there initially accepted it, under the duress of the imminent Muslim threat against Constantinople, but Mark of Ephesus did not, and the others renounced the Council when they returned. The rest of the clergy and laity of the East soundly repudiated it. So your “gotcha” moment doesn’t work. Joe

 

[Turtullian]

The Orthodox never accepted the decrees of Florence. Some Orthodox leaders there initially accepted it, under the duress of the imminent Muslim threat against Constantinople, but Mark of Ephesus did not, and the others renounced the Council when they returned. The rest of the clergy and laity of the East soundly repudiated it. So your “gotcha” moment doesn’t work. Joe

So?

The rest of the eastern clergy and layity repudiated Nicaea I, yet we hold that Council to be ecumenical. Just becuase some bishops and laymen reneg doesn’t make the council anyless valid.

Council of Lyons-

1. On the supreme Trinity and the catholic faith{5}

1**. We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration.** This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike. But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one.

 

[jco2004]

So?
The rest of the eastern clergy and layity repudiated Nicaea I, yet we hold that Council to be ecumenical. Just becuase some bishops and laymen reneg doesn’t make the council anyless valid.
Council of Lyons-

Reread the first post. He said the Orthodox accepted the decrees of Florence. I showed that they didn’t. What is it about that that you don’t understand?

And actually both Popes Paul VI and Benedict XVI have indicated that the post-schism western councils don’t have the same status as the first millenium Ecumenical Councils. Joe

 

[Turtullian]

Reread the first post. He said the Orthodox accepted the decrees of Florence. I showed that they didn’t. What is it about that that you don’t understand?

The Orthodox by signing the decrees, canons, and taking oaths did indeed accept this council as ecumenical. It’s only when the Mohhamedans replace the Patriarch of Constantinople with an anti-western patriarch do we see the great repudiation of Florence. Don’t sit here and tell me the Orthodox did not recognize Florence. To say anything else wouuld be egregiously false.

And actually both Popes Paul VI and Benedict XVI have indicated that the post-schims western councils don’t have the same status as the first millenium Ecumenical Councils. Joe

I would like to see some evidence for that. The Church recognizes 21 ecumenical councils, from Nicaea to Vatican II.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

The Orthodox never accepted the decrees of Florence. Some Orthodox leaders there initially accepted it, under the duress of the imminent Muslim threat against Constantinople, but Mark of Ephesus did not, and the others renounced the Council when they returned. The rest of the clergy and laity of the East soundly repudiated it. So your “gotcha” moment doesn’t work. Joe

Those at the council who were the authorized representatives for the Orthodox did accept the Council documents.

But what is important about the quote from the council of Florence is not whether or not certain heretics and/or schismatics accepted it, but that it teaches what Catholics are bound to accept. In other words, it clears the matter up for those true Christians who want to know the truth.

That is the great thing about the clear teaching Councils. One may not agree with what they say, but at least they know what is being taught. And for those true Christians (the ones who do want to know the truth), they find such clear and unambiguous teachings to be very refreshing.

If the Orthodox do not accept the doctrine, it has absolutely no effect on the truth. But they need to realize that if they reject it, “the Church disapproves and anathematizes” them, declaring them “to be foreign to the Christian body which is the Church.”

 

[jimmy]

The Orthodox by signing the decrees, canons, and taking oaths did indeed accept this council as ecumenical. It’s only when the Mohhamedans replace the Patriarch of Constantinople with an anti-western patriarch do we see the great repudiation of Florence. Don’t sit here and tell me the Orthodox did not recognize Florence. To say anything else wouuld be egregiously false.

I would like to see some evidence for that. The Church recognizes 21 ecumenical councils, from Nicaea to Vatican II.

You seem to think that a few theologians who attended the council could accept the council for the entire EO church. That is not how their ecclesiology works. They believe in conciliarity which means the whole church must agree on it. Further they believe that the lay people are a part of the process of the acceptance of the truth and it is not simple imposed on them from above. The fact is that they rejected the council. There was opposition to the council from the time the Greeks returned home.

 

[jco2004]

Those at the council who were the authorized representatives for the Orthodox did accept the Council documents.

The Eastern Church not being as legalistic as the western church, no one patriarch or bishop has the authority to bind everyone else. That’s a Roman concept.

But what is important about the quote from the council of Florence is not whether or not certain heretics and/or schismatics accepted it

That’s a great way to refer to 90% of the Eastern Christians at the time. Hilarious.

If the Orthodox do not accept the doctrine, it has absolutely no effect on the truth. But they need to realize that if they reject it, “the Church disapproves and anathematizes” them, declaring them “to be foreign to the Christian body which is the Church.”

Funny, then, that the western church admits the validity of the Orthodox orders and sacraments, and calls them a sister church. That’s strange language for people who are “foreign to the Christian body…” Joe

 

[Hesychios]

Michael would it still be a mistake if it was said “Through the Son”, as Juan Carlos stated earlier, instead of “From the Son” ?

I think that can be accepted as a possible but unnecessary gloss. I am fairly certain that some Eastern Fathers made this point, at least approximately.

It certainly would be in keeping with the Latin church’s strongest argument. I would not consider it heretical, but we need to recognize that this topic is about the *Eternal Procession *of the Holy Spirit.

It can just as easily be argued (though no one does, apparently) using the same logic that the Son is *Eternally Begotten *through the Holy Spirit! But what point is there in asserting that? It is unnecessary and the fathers of Constantinople and Nicea chose not to contemplate it. They were probably very wise to not do so!

I would say that if the Latin church is not going to drop the filioque at any point soon, changing the wording to actually say “through” would probably cool the passions over this considerably, and enable us all to breathe again.

It should be noted though, that I am no theologian.

Michael

 

[drafdog]

As long as these *@#%$! are going to keep the filioque clause, let’s be completely honest philosophically. To do so, we posit that the Father proceeds from the Spirit and the Son; the Son proceeds from the Father and the Spirit and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
But let us again push for honesty. Nothing can be said of God without erring by defect or omission. It is a limitation of language itself and not the intent of the speaker.

Matthew

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

JCO2004:

Funny, then, that the western church admits the validity of the Orthodox orders and sacraments, and calls them a sister church. That’s strange language for people who are “foreign to the Christian body…” Joe

Neither heresy nor schism nullify the validity or orders or of the sacraments.

With respect to the term “sister Church”, you said it is “strange language for people who are ‘foreign to the Christian body’.” This we agree on.

I think it is a mistake to use that term to refer to a church that is not part of the one True Church. Why do I think it is a mistake? For the same reason I think it was a mistake for John Paul II to repeatedly say that the old Covenant “was never revoked by God”. In my opinion, it is a misleading statement.

How easy is it for a Jew (or a Catholic) to hear that statement and conclude that the old Covenant will save a Jew, contrary to what the Catholic Church infallibly teaches? Likewise, how easy is it for an Orthodox to hear the term “sister church” and conclude that they are not completely separated from the one True Church?

The term “sister church” may cause them to think that they are somehow part of the one truth Church, but that is totally false.

In order to be part of the True Church, it is necessary to submit to the Roman Pontiff and to adhere to the doctrines that have been revealed by God, such as the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff (under limited conditions), and the Primacy of the Roman Pointiff.

Anyone who rejects any dogma that has been revealed by God, or refuses to acknowledge the Pope as the visible head of the Church, immediately becomes a heretics or schismatic and is cut off from the Church.

Mortal sin destroys the life of the soul, but does not cut one off from the Church. On the other hand, heresy and schism, not only destroy the life of grace, but cut a person off from the Church.

Pope Pius XII: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.” (Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943)

Council of Florence, Cantate Domino: “Therefore the Holy Roman Church condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the Body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views.”

We don’t hear this clearly taught anymore, but it is true none-the-less; and using terms of affection to refer to various groups does not change the truth. And what is the truth? In the same document quoted earlier from the Council of Florence, Contate Domino, we are told what the truth is with respect to those who are outside of the Roman Catholic Church:

Council of Florence, Contate Domino: "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

In my opinion, it is no act of charity to use affectionate terms that mislead people. Charity is speaking the truth with kindness, considering the other person; not avoiding the truth and misleading people for fear of offending someone, or for the sake of a false unity.

How could anyone who believes what the Council of Florence teaches with respect to salvation, be so uncharitable as to mislead heretics, schismatics, Jews, etc, into believing that they will attain ever lasting life? Such a person either lacks faith in what the Church teaches, or they lack of charity for others.

 

[Walking_Home]

As long as these *@#%$! are going to keep the filioque] clause, let’s be completely honest philosophically. To do so, we posit that the Father proceeds from the Spirit and the Son; the Son proceeds from the Father and the Spirit and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
But let us again push for honesty. Nothing can be said of God without erring by defect or omission. It is a limitation of language itself and not the intent of the speaker.

Matthew​

Seems you’ve fallen off the edge.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

As long as these *@#%$! are going to keep the filioque clause, let’s be completely honest philosophically. To do so, we posit that the Father proceeds from the Spirit and the Son; the Son proceeds from the Father and the Spirit and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
But let us again push for honesty. Nothing can be said of God without erring by defect or omission. It is a limitation of language itself and not the intent of the speaker.

Matthew

Are you saying it is impossible for God to reveal a truth about Himself to us without erring?

Using your logic, how can you be sure there are really three persons in the One God? And if He can reveal to us that truth to us, why can’t He also reveal to us that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son?