The Filioque: Uh...help?

[Pax_et_Caritas]

What exactly does “proceeds” mean in this case? In normal language it would indicate that something happened in time; one thing existed then another came to exist because of the first thing. But God is eternal so all three persons of the trinity always existed. Do the Orthodox feel that saying the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is dissing the Father? I guess this is two questions.

If we consider the sun we can get an idea of the Trinity. Just as the light proceeds from the sun, so too the Son proceeds from the Father.

The sun can be compared to God the Father; the light, to God the Son (who is called “the light of the world”); and the heat to the Holy Ghost (who came down upon the apostles in the form of fire).

The light is not the heat, nor is the heat the light, yet the heat and the light together form one thing with the sun, in such a way that you cannot separate the light or the heat from the sun. So too is it with the Trinity.

So to answer your question, the Son proceeds from the Father as a ray of light proceeds from the sun. Just as the sun is the source from which the light comes forth, so too is the Father the source from which the Son proceeds.

 

[Hesychios]

What exactly does “proceeds” mean in this case?

Cannot be answered

Do the Orthodox feel that saying the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is dissing the Father? I guess this is two questions.

• It distorts the notion of a perfectly coequal Trinity by giving an impression of subordination of the Holy Ghost.
• It contradicts the monarchy of the Father.
• It confuses the heck out of many Roman Catholics sowing confusion when it should clarify.
• It is a forbidden change to the Creed, and would be no more than a gloss or commentary if found to be correct theologically.
  *Roman Catholic and Orthodox theologians agree in recognizing that a certain anonymity characterizes the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. While the names “Father” and “Son” denote very clear personal distinctions, are in no sense interchangeable, and cannot in any case refer to the common nature of the two hypostases, the name “Holy Spirit” has not that advantage. Indeed, we say that God is Spirit, meaning by that the common nature as much as any one of the persons. We say that He is Holy: The triple Sanctus of the canon of the Mass alludes to Three Holy Persons, having the common holiness of the same Godhead. Taken in itself, the term “Holy Spirit” thus might be applied, not to a personal distinction, but to the common nature of the Three. In that sense, Thomas Aquinas is right in saying that the Third Person of the Trinity has no name of His own and that the name “Holy Spirit” has been given to Him on the basis of Scriptural usage (accomodatum ex usu Scripturae; I, q. 36, a. 1)
• *We meet the same difficulty when we wish to define the mode of origin of the Holy Spirit, contrasting his “procession” with the “generation” of the Son. Even more than the name “Holy Spirit,” the term “procession” cannot be considered to be, in itself, an expression which exclusively envisages the Third Person. It is a general term, which could be applied, in abstracto, to the Son; Latin theology even speaks of duae processiones. We leave aside, for the moment, the question of the extent to which such an abstract way of dealing with the mystery of the Trinity is legitimate. The one point which we stress here is that the term "procession has not the precision of the term “generation.” The latter term, while preserving the mysterious character of the divine Fatherhood and Sonship, states a definite relationship between two persons. That is not the case with the term “procession” — an indefinite expression which confronts us with the mystery of an anonymous person, whose hypostatic origin is presented to us negatively: it is not generation, it is other than that of the Son. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 20, 11; P.G. 35, col. 1077C. Or. 31, 8; P.G. 36, col. 141B.

If we seek to treat these expressions positively, we find an image of the economy of the Third Person rather than an image of his hypostatic character: we find the procession of a divine force or Spirit which accomplishes sanctification. We reach a paradoxical conclusion: all that we know of the Holy Spirit refers to his economy; all that we do not know makes us venerate his Person, as we venerate the ineffable diversity of the consubstantial Three. Vlad, Lossky: *The Procession of the Holy Spirit

{continued in a post following}

 

[Hesychios]

{continued from above}

Orthodox do not regard the teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father to be one which they can accept. This teaching is opposed to the monarchy of the Father and to the equality of the Spirit to the Father and the Son as a hypostasis or person distinct from both, as expressed by the original Creed. On the other hand, Orthodox may accept the teaching of the “double procession” of the Spirit from the Father and the Son in the patristic sense that the Spirit is sent from the Father through/and the Son in the mystery of our salvation in Christ. The relation of the Son to the Spirit in the context of salvation (oikonomia) is not the same with their relation in the eternal Trinity (theologia). Thus for Orthodox the dispute over the Filioque can be narrowed down to accepting or rejecting the distinction between how the Trinity is eternally in themselves and how they appear in Christ. That the Holy Spirit eternally comes forth from the Son, so as to depend for his being and his possession of the one divine nature on the Son as well as on the Father, is a teaching which Orthodox uniformly oppose. Common Statement on Faith in the Holy Trinity 1998

…The three Divine Persons are also conjoined through their special relations. Thus the Son is eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and abides in the Son, in ineffable ways that are beyond all time (achronos), beyond all origin (anarchos), and beyond all cause (anaitios). The generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit are unknowable mysteries which cannot be explained by recourse to human or creaturely images…Agreed statement on the Holy Trinity 1992

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Interesting,

The generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit are unknowable mysteries which cannot be explained by recourse to human or creaturely images…Agreed statement on the Holy Trinity 1992

The very notion of Father and Son is a creaturely image which signifies the relationship. It is the fact that God made man in his image which allows Father, Son, and Spirit to describe him in any way at all accessible to human reason. The above quote is either nonsense, or out of context.

There are multiple words in Greek with different senses, but the main one of interest is:

εκπορευομαι (ek - poreue - tai ) : out – travel : refers to a location from which something came out ( a source ) while focusing on the direction of travel.

The candle-lamp (minorah) of the temple had candlesticks radiating out from a central post : Exodus 25:33

Typically, the word is used for groups of people leaving cities and re-entering it (en - poreue - tai ) for reasons of war and commerce.

I need to check a few other manuscripts, but I believe that word is often used in John 15:26, which is central to the earlier historical arguments.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

A second word used variously is of importance to the discussion:
`ιεν(t)αι as in αφ-ιεν( t)αι ( departing ), eg: the soul in Genesis 35:18
or προ-ιεναι processing. The word itself means to set in motion, and so is compounded to mean processing. Since motion rather than origin or direction is the focus, the word appears to emphasize the temporal aspect of something. I believe this is used in Eastern descriptions of the Economy (time based procession) of the Son and Spirit here in our world – communicated to us. (Any Easterners like to verify that?)

 

[Isa_Almisry]

A second word used variously is of importance to the discussion:
`ιεν(t)αι as in αφ-ιεν( t)αι ( departing ), eg: the soul in Genesis 35:18
or προ-ιεναι processing. The word itself means to set in motion, and so is compounded to mean processing. Since motion rather than origin or direction is the focus, the word appears to emphasize the temporal aspect of something. I believe this is used in Eastern descriptions of the Economy (time based procession) of the Son and Spirit here in our world – communicated to us. (Any Easterners like to verify that?)

For what my opinion is worth , correct.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Joe,

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

If no one would deny it, then it is obvious that they both breathe.
Filioque, in Latin, does not imply an absolute origin. The English word proceed which comes ultimately from the Latin, does not either.

So how is it possible to say the son breathes (spirates) without saying a breath proceeds from him? Resting is clearly not the same as breathing and so one act is totally different from the other – rather than complementary aspects of the same act.

To beget (verb) implies a begotten (noun),
Likewise – breathing (verb) implies breath exists ( noun ).
or, alternately, processing (verb) implies a processor ( noun ).

Yet if the Father breathes, (an act), so must the son do likewise.
Whether the son breathes in from the father, and back out to the father, or any other such notion – he breathes.

There is nothing ditheistic or subordinate in what I have said.
If the father begetting and the son being begotten (two aspects of the same act) does not subordinate the son to the father – then neither does breathing and being the breathed subordinate the spirit to the father, and hence saying the exact same thing of the son could not subordinate the spirit to the son.

Again:

What scriptural example of this “resting” can be found which is not itself an appeal to the logic that Jesus’ “mission” or acts reflect the inner life of the trinity?

If anyone tries to argue the inner life of the trinity is reflected by the mission or activities of Jesus on earth – in support of the eastern view, it will obviously end up badly: Jesus breathed on the apostles saying: receive the holy spirit.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Joe,

If no one would deny it, then it is obvious that they both breathe.
Filioque, in Latin, does not imply an absolute origin. The English word proceed which comes ultimately from the Latin, does not either.

So how is it possible to say the son breathes (spirates) without saying a breath proceeds from him? Resting is clearly not the same as breathing and so one act is totally different from the other – rather than complementary aspects of the same act.

To beget (verb) implies a begotten (noun),
Likewise – breathing (verb) implies breath exists ( noun ).
or, alternately, processing (verb) implies a processor ( noun ).

Yet if the Father breathes, (an act), so must the son do likewise.
Whether the son breathes in from the father, and back out to the father, or any other such notion – he breathes.

There is nothing ditheistic or subordinate in what I have said.
If the father begetting and the son being begotten (two aspects of the same act) does not subordinate the son to the father – then neither does breathing and being the breathed subordinate the spirit to the father, and hence saying the exact same thing of the son could not subordinate the spirit to the son.

Again:

What scriptural example of this “resting” can be found which is not itself an appeal to the logic that Jesus’ “mission” or acts reflect the inner life of the trinity?

If anyone tries to argue the inner life of the trinity is reflected by the mission or activities of Jesus on earth – in support of the eastern view, it will obviously end up badly: Jesus breathed on the apostles saying: receive the holy spirit.

Either the Spirit is breathed out of the Son as He is out of the Father,

Or if the Father is the only source, then He is subordinate to the Son, and He is not in direct contact with His source, but the Son intervenes.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Isa,

Either the Spirit is breathed out of the Son as He is out of the Father,

yes, but he does so because the Father breathes (inheritance).

Or if the Father is the only source, then He is subordinate to the Son, and He is not in direct contact with His source, but the Son intervenes.

I didn’t follow that, do you have a physical analogy?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Isa,

yes, but he does so because the Father breathes (inheritance).

I didn’t follow that, do you have a physical analogy?

Let’s say, by comparison, a hypothetical, that Christ taught that the Son is Begotten of the Father, and because of the clause “Incarnate of the Holy Spirit” some Arians decided that the Spirit begets the Son. Either the Father and the Spirit both beget Him, in which He would have two sources, and if the Father is the only source, then the Spirit would be a secondary source. Like a grandfather begetting a grandson through a son: the grandfather is the sole source (we’ll grandma out of this!), but only through the son, to whom the grandson is subordinate.

 

[Artfulldodger]

What is the Catholic view of the Filioque? I understand that Catholics believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but does the Father send the Holy Spirit through the Son, or do the Father and the Son act together in sending forth the Paraclete? As a 15 year old, I’m confused.

The official teaching is that the Holy Ghost proceedith from the Father and the Son. ( Now that is as I understand it to be,and i would be gratefull is anyone would correct me )

The only thing in my poor mind is, " doesn’t this make the Holy Ghost subservient to the Other Two and not an equal ? "

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Let’s say, by comparison, a hypothetical, that Christ taught that the Son is Begotten of the Father, and because of the clause “Incarnate of the Holy Spirit” some Arians decided that the Spirit begets the Son. Either the Father and the Spirit both beget Him, in which He would have two sources, and if the Father is the only source, then the Spirit would be a secondary source. Like a grandfather begetting a grandson through a son: the grandfather is the sole source (we’ll grandma out of this!), but only through the son, to whom the grandson is subordinate.

Not exactly a physical analogy, but a hybrid which doesn’t help.


The Spirit is not the Father, so the word begetting is not appropriate with respect to the Spirit. It is true that the Spirit is doing (acting) in the incarnation with the father and Son – it is the power of the Spirit to bring life to the clay (σπερμα).
The act is the same though ( incarnation ) as the son being begotten temporally by the Father.

Notice, we don’t say that by the power of the Father, Jesus was born of the virgin – but by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Nice confusing analogy…

Tell me, Isa, what category of religion is yours?

 

[Artfulldodger]

So what is so difficult about the Will of the Father, th Respect of the Son to His Will and the Power of the Holy Ghost in providing the Love of God to the Immaculate One for the production of Flesh which was added to Divinity ?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Not exactly a physical analogy, but a hybrid which doesn’t help.


The Spirit is not the Father, so the word begetting is not appropriate with respect to the Spirit. It is true that the Spirit is doing (acting) in the incarnation with the father and Son – it is the power of the Spirit to bring life to the clay (σπερμα).
The act is the same though ( incarnation ) as the son being begotten temporally by the Father.

Notice, we don’t say that by the power of the Father, Jesus was born of the virgin – but by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Nice confusing analogy…

Tell me, Isa, what category of religion is yours?

I’m under the omophorion of Patriarch Ignatius IV, on loan as it were from Pope Theodore II, if that’s what you mean.

The filioque to us is just as confusing: the Latins have confused the economic procession for the eternal procession from His source. Either He proceeds from the Father alone as source, in which case the procession from the Son could be only secondary or subordiate, or from both, in which case the Fathe is not the source.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Artfulldodger,

One for the production of Flesh which was added to Divinity ?

I don’t know why you were banned, but ‘added’ to divinity?
All of creation is made out of nothing.

And the word ‘became flesh’ is amazingly mysterious.

There was a joining where something with parts became divine,
like the visible part of the Eucharist (an Ikon like thing) which remains after transubstantiation – but the bread itself is no-more.
God himself supports the sign, no longer just his power.

And Jesus says, my flesh is meat indeed – and the bread that I will give is my flesh.

The words are simple, but the idea is very hard to grasp with any certainty beyond simple trust that God can do what he says – and the trust that the Catholic Church has preserved that meaning as promised. Amen.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I’m under the omophorion of Patriarch Ignatius IV, on loan as it were from Pope Theodore II, if that’s what you mean.

So, the phrase suggests you are clergy – as I don’t usually hear laypeople claim to be under the omophorion themselves.
Ignatius IV and Ignace Pierre are not in communion with Rome.

I am having a difficult time believing Pope Theodore II has much to do with this other than shock value ( Photius! ).

The filioque to us is just as confusing: the Latins have confused the economic procession for the eternal procession from His source. Either He proceeds from the Father alone as source, in which case the procession from the Son could be only secondary or subordiate, or from both, in which case the Fathe is not the source.

I don’t find the filioque confusing (mysterious yes).

I asked for a physical analogy to explain your position about sources, and instead you gave me an economic procession as example (eg. the incarnation). Now Latins are being blamed for this?

A normal single human body comes with a pair of lungs – but only one breath (spiration) comes out. Even though there are two lungs, it would be improper to say that there is no source, and that either lung wasn’t breathing.

Again:
The minorah has a single stem, and several branches and it is of this that the Greek word ( εκ- πορευ- ομεν- οις ) PROCESSIONS is used ( although there is only one source ) because even in Greek the word is emphasizing the thing proceeding over the source.

Even more perfectly so, God had no parts before the incarnation to have multiple sources – he is one God & Divinity ( substance ) and two relational actions – to beget and to spirate.

The son as a person of the Trinity (the divinity) can’t be subordinate to the father – he is not a creature (ordained) until after he became flesh (and then he is a hypostatic union). Before that, it is not possible for him to be a subordinate source of the Holy spirit.

If the son does not spirate, what relationship does he have with the Spirit at all? ( I would love some un-economic scripture or a universal consensus of the fathers. ).