The Filoque: Why is it important?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mschrank
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If there was no change in doctrine, in the West’s view, but there was in the opinion of the East, why offend them and deliberately tear the Church asunder?

And today, you can find those on both side who say “different wording, same meaning”;

Oops is Cold comfort for those of us who live daily in a “ecclesiastic war zone”.

Was it heresy, or a sibling fight that got out of hand?
I don’t think it was either of these.
Those are two things the Church has always recovered from, even if a majority went astray.

This thing, was and still is, a sin against Charity, and Christ himself…the Church is His Body, (no metaphors here, we are not protestants) and a sin against “His Brethren” (reread Matthew 25, it’s not about random acts of kindness and seeing Christ in others-a perversion of the interpretation that came about post-reformation, when the understanding about the nature of the Church was lost)…we will be judged by how we treat the only True Manifestation of Christ on Earth…the Church, the members that make up is body.

When a Roman Catholic looks at an Eastern Orthodox (and vice versa) and doesn’t recognize Christ, and abuses, ridicules them with words, with the same lightness and carelessness that they use as if they were arguing over some sports rivalry, and can walk away and not give it another thought, and do the same thing the next day…something I see happen here every day, the words “Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty”…come to mind.

To me, it sheds light on the Mysterious sin against the Holy Spirit.
Actions were taken that had cosmic results…yes, the Church survived, but whatever happened, it almost seems to have echoes of what happened in Eden…but there is a difference, the final victory has been won, our Salvation is assured and we are living in “the little while”; however,
the Incarnation did not give us immunity to another catastrophic cosmic occurrence.

Christ warned about it, prayed about it ( John 17 seems more agonizing than Gethsemane) the apostles and church fathers went to great pains to prevent it, they knew it was in our power to destroy almost everything.
Christ’s promise about the gates of Hell not prevailing against the Church, have given us a smugness that makes us feel indestructible; If only two peopl in all creation are saved, Christ’s promise still holds-does that ever enter our minds?

Like the person who abuses his own body to the point of irreversible damage, until the physician says “cancer” or “stroke”; repentance may prevent further damage, but it cannot heal what is.
We are like the idiots who turn off our oxygen machines, and just have another smoke.

Woe to those who were responsible for this, and woe to those of us who walk in the ripped open wounded way that remains in it’s wake.
And there are many here on this forum, and Orthodox forums who, rather than put a garment over the shame of their fathers, imitate and outdo Ham in his sin; advertise the shame and sin of our fathers for the world to see and read over and over.

The Unforgivable Sin is an enigma, but my experience with what goes on between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox has the aroma of what the unforgivable sin might actually be.
Talk of millstones, wishes of never being born are no longer such cruel and enigmatic phrases…but in a strange kind way, contain a terrible mercy in them.

filioque…such a small word.
Thousands of word written to defend it, or condemn on both sides, on this forum, and millions of other places.

Friendly banter? Can I see the hands of those who have not shed tears at one time or another over this friendly banter, have gone home/offline to lick their wounds, and come back for more…hoping tomorrow would be different?. I do; though I cannot bear to come here daily.
And I don’t think I can bear to return much longer.

Half of me is Roman Catholic, half of me is Eastern Orthodox: my own body through my marriage is in schism; It bears the scars, real scars and wounds of what many dismiss as a “stupid” thousand year sibling squabble, that they pronounce, without the least bit of horror, will never be resolved; we bleed everyday, and instead of moving towards healing, are wounded anew by each other and others in our respective corners; those who do not see that it is Christ we tear to pieces with our words.
I am weary of all your wounding words that you cloak with your smilies, and claim it’s all done to help us understand each other better. I understand very clearly.
If my salvation didn’t depend on living in this house divided, I would wipe the dust from my feet and say " A plague o’ both your houses".

filioque-why is it important?
because it may damn us all.

Lord have mercy on us all.
 
The Catholic doctrine is that Jesus is the start/origin of the Holy Spirit. He is eternally from the Son.
Could you show me where the Church actually makes the profession you claim?

Sections 247-248 of the Catechism quite simply say nothing of the sort.

I see where the Catechism says: “God is the first origin of everything.”

I see where it says: “the Church recognizes the Father as "the source and origin of the whole divinity”

I see where it says: “the Son is consubstantial with the Father, that is, one only God with him”.

I see where it says: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"

I see where it says: “He is eternally Father in relation to his only Son, who is eternally Son only in
relation to His Father: “No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”

But to see what you see, you really need to do one heck of a hatchet job on the text.

Now Section 244 does say the following:

244 The eternal origin of the Holy Spirit is revealed in his mission in time. The Spirit is sent to the apostles and to the Church both by the Father in the name of the Son, and by the Son in person,
once he had returned to the Father. The sending of the person of the Spirit after Jesus’ glorification reveals in its fullness the mystery of the Holy Trinity.

I guess you could try and make a case that by using the word “both” the Church is trying to claim two origins, but given all of the other statements pulled from Sections 238-248 that seem a highly implausible conclusion.

To me, section 244 clearly reads no different than “From the Father through/and the Son.”

You seem to be making a distinction where there is no difference.

Chuck
 
Please forgive the emotional, heart-heated rather than level-headed response.

Teflon93 is right, that all the threads on the filioque and the schism go in circles, and I am sure that is because whenever one of these discussions start we fall into one of Dante’s infernal circles (word associations fly about in my mind-almost OCD-can’t stop them), there must be a special one by now, well populated, for those who think that we can come fix things by coming to an understanding of what each side means by it.
I am not apologetically challenged, and could argue with the best of you. I just reread Photius’ Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit this week, and I regularly comb through the Summa like other people look through the TV guide.
But I see the progress you have all made with that method.
And don’t want to play, but one statement won’t leave me alone, and I see someone else is also bothered, and will not leave it unchallenged.

CLMOWRY,

Your perception of the problem with Montalban’s statement:

**The Catholic doctrine is that Jesus is the start/origin of the Holy Spirit. He is eternally from the Son
**
should send up red flags, but the best explanation that corrects many of the misunderstandings I had reading his comments are better explained elsewhere (maybe he is correct, but not clear and I misunderstand and the fault is mine, please forgive me).

I feel the best explanation, if you have the patience to stick with it, is to read through Photius’ “Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit”. It is well worth the time and effort.
You will find it ttp://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/mystagogy.html
here:h

Intuitively,** saying that the source of anything is not the Father, does and should disturb the mind.
**
an aside:

Teflon93 is also right that Hesychios quarrel is with Christ, but he also cannot hide behind the Pope and pretends he has no dog in this fight; he is a self appointed apologetics pit bull. His team even has a name-The Tiber Swim Team. When he quarrels with “the least of these, my brethren”, he too, quarrels with Christ, as do I, far too often.
 
filioque-why is it important?
My understanding is that Eastern Orthodox theologians see it as one among many serious theological issues and until this and other theological diferences are resolved satisfactorily, there is no chance of a union between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics.
 
Teflon93 is also right that Hesychios quarrel is with Christ, but he also cannot hide behind the Pope and pretends he has no dog in this fight; he is a self appointed apologetics pit bull. His team even has a name-The Tiber Swim Team. When he quarrels with “the least of these, my brethren”, he too, quarrels with Christ, as do I, far too often.
Hi Lucy-

I don’t hide behind the Pope in the filioque discussion—I merely point out that the filioque is a fig leaf for the Orthodox unwillingness to accept papal authority of any sort. I don’t have a dog in the fight simply because I, a Catholic as my profile clearly indicates and as I regularly state, believe what the Catholic Church teaches regarding the doctrine of the Trinity. I have not had any personal revelation from God that this is false, so I believe the Vicar of Christ, whom Christ appointed.

Tiber Swim Team is simply a tongue-in-cheek reference to Catholic converts. The Tiber is a major river marking the boundary of Rome; therefore we in a metaphorical sense swam it in becoming Catholic—the thought of a Swim Team as something to be feared is pretty comical.

I wish I were able to claim to be an apologetics pit bull; unfortunately, charity forbids such things, as you’ve correctly noted. You’ve incorrectly mistaken quarreling with someone’s argument with quarreling with them, however.

As I’ve mentioned in this very thread, I love my Orthodox brothers in sisters, I consider them to be Christians, and I have a great respect for their history and the trials they have borne.

I simply think they’re wrong when it comes to the importance of the filioque and wish they’d more willingly discuss their real issue, which is they simply will not follow the Pope no matter what. The argument over the filioque invariably runs aground on this issue, because it is the real issue. Until it is resolved, there will be no healing of the Great Schism.

But God bless you and keep you.
 
I am surprised with the OC’s attitude on the filioque. I think that neither way is completly covers what the term is trying to express.
The problem is…we shouldn’t be trying to express this at all.

The term is confusing, most RC don’t even know what it means, (See… 1 ] 2 ] ) and many Roman Catholics will argue with each other over it. The Creed should, if anything, clarify.

This phrase does not!

The Creed was based upon Baptismal formulae. It was always designed to be clear from the start, and carefully worded so as to avoid any possible ambiguities or double meanings.

Remember, the original composition of the Creed is yours by right. It is what your predecessors in the faith used (and still not heretical, ever) before a few renegade bishops introduced it far from Rome. Popes opposed it for centuries, and were blatently ignored by the bishops in Frankish lands, then eventually one Pope capitulated.
How about “proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son”?
I have made this very same suggestion several times at CAF, in fact within the last few days on another thread.

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. If the phrase does not precisely describe what you believe, get rid of it (better to not venture there), or at least rephrase it. But the Roman Catholic church somehow cannot, why? It continues to honor an awkward phrase that confuses, divides and has outlived it’s original stated purpose.

I frequently have seen posters here at CAF (usually newer ones) insist that it means double-procession of the Holy Ghost, most recently on a thread in the Traditionalist section of the forums. They come here misinformed from all over the internet world. The filioque confuses!
And to argue about such is counter-productive.
Just rephrase it as you suggested, and see how Holy Orthodoxy responds, it is one of the major roadblocks to reconciliation. It could help and could not possibly hurt.
Don’t we both, OC and RCC, believe in the Trinity and that it always was in the beginning, now, and through all ages.?

griz
Yes, supposedly.

But Truth be told we don’t even know what the nature of ‘Procession’ is! How can we build further theology on such a nebulous beginning? This is a mystery of God.
 
The Filoque is important because it is at the very nub of our understanding, of the relationship of the persons within the God-head. An understanding (or Mis-understanding) of it will change your whole perception of Theology. It opens to us, in a deeper way, the Mystery of the most holy Trinity.
(A mystery doesn’t mean that we cannot understand it. It means that we can never FULLY grasp it, but we can, by God’s grace, be brought into a deeper understanding of it.)

Pope JPII’s “Theology of the body” describes the Marital act as an ICON of the Trinity, one which can help us understand the relationship of the Trinity. A child is born from the loving union of the Father AND the Mother. Even if the father is the instigator of this union, it requires both of them to become ***one *** in this union, in order for a child to be concieved. The love between the two lovers is so real that it becomes another person.

The Holy spirit ***is ***the love between the Father and the Son. The love between the lovers is so real that it IS another person. And because this happens in Eternity and not in time, it has always been the case.
If the only begotten Son did not return the love of the Father, there would be no Holy Spirit. But as we all know, this is impossible! because God cannot and will not reject Himself.

I’m no theologian, but THAT makes sense to me!
 
Originally Posted by Pat the Cat:

Pope JPII’s “Theology of the body” describes the Marital act as an ICON of the Trinity, one which can help us understand the relationship of the Trinity. A child is born from the loving union of the Father AND the Mother. Even if the father is the instigator of this union, it requires both of them to become ***one ***in this union, in order for a child to be concieved. The love between the two lovers is so real that it becomes another person.
The child is inferior in authority to the mother and the father. The child submits to the father and mother, who are the superiors. Would you say the same of the Holy Spirit?
 
Pat the Cat is on target. Maybe another way of viewing it is through the eyes of John.

P1) John stated very simply that God is Love.

P2)Perfect love as defined by Christians is to give one’s life to another or is directed perfectly towards another person.

P3)God is a necessary Being which means that God fulfills Himself or needs nothing outside of Himself.

C) As such there is a necessity that there be multiple persons in the Godhead.

The Son is the target of the Father’s Love and the Father is the target of the Son’s Love. The Love between the Father and the Son is so great, so holy, so infinite, so eternal… that this Love can only be God. So the Holy Spirit completes the Godhead.

Without the filoque clause there is no reason for the existance of the 3rd Person of the Trinity.

Now concerning the argument that the filoque clause leads to the inferiority of the Holy Spirt to the Father and the Son is ludicrous for two reasons:
  1. If we follow the argument that because the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and the Son that He is inferior to the Father & Son then you can say that the Son is inferior to the Father because he is begotten from the Father. This obviously leads to heresy.
  2. God is God. The holy spirit proceeds from the Father & the Son which means that He shares in the Divine Substance. I am using this only figuratively but a third of infinity is still infinity, a third of eternal is still eternal. The truth to be told a billionth of infinity is still infinity.
My point is that the filoque clause supplies the Doctrine that explains the existance of the Holy Spirit and closes the Circle of the Holy Trinity.
 
Without the filoque clause there is no reason for the existance of the 3rd Person of the Trinity.
With all respect (and I do mean it 😦 ), this comment is not Christian and you should not repeat it. Please revisit this topic in your readings or consult your local pastor. Such a sentiment is dangerous.
The Son is the target of the Father’s Love and the Father is the target of the Son’s Love. The Love between the Father and the Son is so great, so holy, so infinite, so eternal… that this Love can only be God. So the Holy Spirit completes the Godhead.
You will not find THIS in the Creed! :nope: Is this a scholastic era theory?

Michael
 
Was the EO/Catholic split really about this doctirine?

I mean, why was it so important, why did they just for the interests of unity say we don’t really know, it’s vague, etc.

Why is it so important to pin every little thing down like that? Did a lot of theology which the respective Churches were built on depend on their own interpretation of the way the Holy Spirit proceeds?

Confused,

Matthew
Here is a good link that might help my sister:

catholic.com/library/Filioque.asp
 
The child is inferior in authority to the mother and the father. The child submits to the father and mother, who are the superiors. Would you say the same of the Holy Spirit?
It is equal in the fact that it is a person.
It is equally Human.
It is equally part of the family.
It is equal in dignity with the parents.
It is also equally loved by God.
The only in-equallity would be one of Authority! And yes I believe within the God-head there is a hierarchical structure. And that is another way in which a family is an Icon of the Trinity.
But that, my friend, is a whole other topic.
Or is it?🤷
 
Originally Posted by Pat the Cat:

It is equal in the fact that it is a person.
It is equally Human.
It is equally part of the family.
It is equal in dignity with the parents.
It is also equally loved by God.
The only in-equallity would be one of Authority! And yes I believe within the God-head there is a hierarchical structure. And that is another way in which a family is an Icon of the Trinity.
But that, my friend, is a whole other topic.
Or is it?🤷
What about economic management of the household? 🙂

Also, just a thought, but the child’s existence depends on the prior existence of the mother and the father. The existence of the mother and the father does not depend on the existence of the child.

Unless the kid is adopted, the icon presented can lead to an adoptionist attiude in relation to the Spirit. 👍
 
What about economic management of the household? 🙂

Also, just a thought, but the child’s existence depends on the prior existence of the mother and the father. The existence of the mother and the father does not depend on the existence of the child.

Unless the kid is adopted, the icon presented can lead to an adoptionist attiude in relation to the Spirit. 👍
3 Persons - 1 family
If ANY of those persons are missing it would be an entirely different family.

3 persons - one God
If ANY of those persons are missing it would not be God.

As I said; we are an Icon, it’s not perfect. but is is 1 way in which we fulfil the promise that we are made in His image and likeness, but we are NOT Him. No Image is exactly like the original thing.

Sorry for rushed post, am just leaving.
I’ll tune in 2moro.

God Bless.
 
The Filoque is important because it is at the very nub of our understanding, of the relationship of the persons within the God-head.
I suppose then, that since your church did not have the filioque for more than 500 years in Spain and not in Rome until the early eleventh century, that there was a lack of understanding in those places!

Poor misguided Roman Christians, to have been denied the special revelation of anonymous Spanish and Frankish bishops for so long…Could the church at Rome have been in error all that time?..it must have been Orthodox 🙂

Michael
 
I suppose then, that since your church did not have the filioque for more than 500 years in Spain and not in Rome until the early eleventh century, that there was a lack of understanding in those places!

Poor misguided Roman Christians, to have been denied the special revelation of anonymous Spanish and Frankish bishops for so long…Could the church at Rome have been in error all that time?..it must have been Orthodox 🙂

Michael
Michael-

You can’t have it both ways. The Pope is either an autocrat or he is not. Isn’t the fact that the Church doesn’t arbitrarily define and enforce dogma an indication of the latter?

How is the Pope an iron-fisted tyrant while the Byzantine Emperor is a soft and cuddly patron of the Orthodox?
 
With all respect (and I do mean it 😦 ), this comment is not Christian and you should not repeat it. Please revisit this topic in your readings or consult your local pastor. Such a sentiment is dangerous.
You will not find THIS in the Creed! :nope: Is this a scholastic era theory?

Michael
This is St Augustine of Hippo in his thesis On the Trinity.

Let’s rephase the that the comment is NOT Eastern Orthodox with all respect.

Look at the ministries of the Trinity. The Father sent the Son to be born of a Woman so that there is no doubt to anyone that Jesus is the Son of God. The Holy Spirit was sent by both the Father and the Son as per John to fill God’s people with Sanctifiying grace which is God’s free gift or Love to us.
 
Originally Posted by Pat the Cat:

3 Persons - 1 family
If ANY of those persons are missing it would be an entirely different family.

3 persons - one God
If ANY of those persons are missing it would not be God.
Pope JPII’s “Theology of the body” describes the Marital act as an ICON of the Trinity, one which can help us understand the relationship of the Trinity. A child is born from the loving union of the Father AND the Mother. Even if the father is the instigator of this union, it requires both of them to become ***one ***in this union, in order for a child to be concieved. The love between the two lovers is so real that it becomes another person.
Just hope the parents don’t have sextuplets. You know, one marital act resulting in six children.

Hey, wouldn’t that make for an Octinity? 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top