The Filoque: Why is it important?

[Hesychios]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Hello Tef,

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?

Your point about the Emperors was not missed, but they sometimes dominated the church at Rome in the same way, and when that ended Rome was dominated by the Frankish kings, much later the French kings, sometimes the petty nobility of Rome, and for long periods by the greater nobility and merchant princes from all over central Italy. So I do not believe your own contrasting of papal power with imperial power is relevant or accurate. I will forget it.]

I appreciate your comment about not having it both ways, but it isn’t about what I want from a Pope. You make it sound as if the Popes who opposed the filioque but didn’t stop it’s spread were just being nice! How liberal of them…

I have two points to emphasize on this subject:

The first is that this is a clear demonstration of the lack of Universal Jurisdiction in the history of the western church. A REALLY BIG example.

The Pope then had no more control over the church in Spain than he had in Syria, which was pretty much zilch. Today of course, a Pope would be able to squash a novelty coming out of Spain pretty easily, if he wanted too. He could even replace Archbishops like the one in Seattle some years ago.

The second point is…and this is pretty important…the filioque was not prayed in the vicinity of Rome for one thousand years! Yet no one would argue that the church in the city of Rome, under it’s bishops…were any worse off, misguided or confused. The laity there simply knew the same Creed as the orthodox, and believed it.

In this I was responding to some general claims here that the filioque is really needed for a Catholic understanding of the Most Holy Trinity, I feel that the historical facts speak otherwise.

Pope Leo III had engraved the proper creed on silver tablets in Latin and Greek in Rome without the filioque, as a safeguard against it’s spread to Rome. I believe they may still be seen in the Lateran cathedral. They were placed prominently in reaction to the Franks adoption of the filioque containing Creed at Aachen. A rogue action by out of control Frankish Catholic bishops who did not yet know anything about the nature of Papal Universal Jurisdiction…

What explanation did Pope Leo give for placing these tablets on the walls of the mother church of all western Christendom? On those selfsame tablets he had engraved:
HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI

Can anyone here translate this for us?

In Christ Jesus…
Michael

 

[Hesychios]

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

You are right, Augustine.

He was mistaken to use such an analogy though, and it is a long way from being a doctrine of any church.

Rome will probably back away from it in some clarification someday, telling us it was never a formal teaching of the church

 

[Teflon93]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Hello Tef,
Your point about the Emperors was not missed, but they sometimes dominated the church at Rome in the same way, and when that ended Rome was dominated by the Frankish kings, much later the French kings, sometimes the petty nobility of Rome, and for long periods by the greater nobility and merchant princes from all over central Italy. So I do not believe your own contrasting of papal power with imperial power is relevant or accurate. I will forget it.]

Hello. Yes, the problem with the papacy in Avignon was Frankish dominance, and the Borgias are the historical millstone around the neck of the papacy with good reason. Let’s not forget that Avignon and the Borgias came well AFTER the Great Schism, though.

Not at all—my point is simply that the Orthodox sometimes make the Pope sound like a 20th century totalitarian ruler, and sometimes like a Keystone Kop. The Pope is a man, and the papal office is one heck of a lot weaker than the secular rulers the Orthodox and Protestants embraced at the time of their respective schisms. Reading back into history the modern papacy, which indeed is relatively more powerful than the early papacy without accounting for the difference in power between Pope and prince over the same period distorts things considerably.

I have two points to emphasize on this subject:

The first is that this is a clear demonstration of the lack of Universal Jurisdiction in the history of the western church. A REALLY BIG example.

The Pope then had no more control over the church in Spain than he had in Syria, which was pretty much zilch. Today of course, a Pope would be able to squash a novelty coming out of Spain pretty easily, if he wanted too. He could even replace Archbishops like the one in Seattle some years ago.

There was the little matter of the breakup of the Roman Empire, you know. This again goes to my point that either the Pope was a dictator or an irrelevancy, but could not be both simultaneously.

The second point is…and this is pretty important

…the filioque was not prayed in the vicinity of Rome for one thousand years! Yet no one would argue that the church in the city of Rome, under it’s bishops…were any worse off, misguided or confused. The laity there simply knew the same Creed as the orthodox, and believed it.

Wow, you must have pretty compelling historical evidence for those claims. We can’t even claim today that all Catholics believe the Creed!

In this I was responding to some general claims here that the filioque is really needed for a Catholic understanding of the Most Holy Trinity, I feel that the historical facts speak otherwise.

Pope Leo III had engraved the proper creed on silver tablets in Latin and Greek in Rome without the filioque,

as a safeguard against it’s spread to Rome. I believe they may still be seen in the Lateran cathedral. They were placed prominently in reaction to the Franks adoption of the filioque containing Creed at Aachen. A rogue action by out of control Frankish Catholic bishops who did not yet know anything about the nature of Papal Universal Jurisdiction…

Or maybe simply disobedient clergy. The Pope’s powers don’t extend to mind control…wait, he told me not to finish this sentence.

What explanation did Pope Leo give for placing these tablets on the walls of the mother church of all western Christendom? On those selfsame tablets he had engraved:
HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI

Can anyone here translate this for us?

In Christ Jesus…
Michael

My quick and dirty translation of the Latin is, “Whatever you do, don’t bring up the Filioque with the Orthodox unless you’ve got a lot of time on your hands.”

[/QUOTE]

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Let’s see if this takes care of your problem. Does “from” always mean “source” or “origin”? A simple “yes” or “no” will do so I can answer the rest of your post.

The problem isn’t in the ek, it’s in the eporeuomai.

 

[ERose]

You are right, Augustine.

He was mistaken to use such an analogy though, and it is a long way from being a doctrine of any church.

Rome will probably back away from it in some clarification someday, telling us it was never a formal teaching of the church

Considering that St Augustine is one of the doctors of the church and had a very huge impact on developing the theology of the Divine Trinity, his word probably carries much more weight than anyone of ours. Remember that God is Love.

Sorry, but that is will be quite impossible since it is doctrine and once the church determines something as doctrine that don’t change.

 

[Montalban]

Umm…nope.

Chuck

Umm… yep

Montalban

 

[Montalban]

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?

The Holy Spirit is not a child. But, God!

 

[Hesychios]

Considering that St Augustine is one of the doctors of the church and had a very huge impact on developing the theology of the Divine Trinity, his word probably carries much more weight than anyone of ours. Remember that God is Love.

Sorry, but he did not hold infallible teaching authority, AND he made some mistakes in his published writings.

I will not argue with the point that he had a huge influence on the western church!

“Rome will probably back away from it in some clarification someday, telling us it was never a formal teaching of the church ”

Sorry, but that is will be quite impossible since it is doctrine and once the church determines something as doctrine that don’t change.

I was being a bit facetious but my point remains the same. The theory that the Holy Ghost is the Love between the Father and the Son is nothing more than an imaginitive attempt at analogy, and it does not work for a Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity.

That particular theory is not, as far as I can tell, an actual part of the Roman Catholic dogma on the Trinity, it is one of many possible analogies, but it heavily influenced western thought.

It is becoming apparent that there are a lot of little things like this in RC teaching, not really formal dogma but repeated often. This theory of yours actually is repeated in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, BUT IT IS NOT PRESENTED AS DOGMA, merely St Augustines opinion so I suppose it’s our fault if we don’t question it…the newest Catechism of the Catholic Church does not seem to express the idea from what I can tell.

Michael

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

Were it so, the Fathers who wrote the Creed would have done so.

They didn’t.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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?

And what structure would that be?

Father Son
Holy Spirit

Father
Son
Holy Spirit

?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Considering that St Augustine is one of the doctors of the church and had a very huge impact on developing the theology of the Divine Trinity, his word probably carries much more weight than anyone of ours. Remember that God is Love.

Sorry, but that is will be quite impossible since it is doctrine and once the church determines something as doctrine that don’t change.

It already did. That’s how the filioque GOT there.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

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

I’ve wondered about the purpose of the Holy Spirit on a different thread. You’ve just explained it. Thank you.

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

Hi Hesychios,

I’m afraid you are being too harsh on ERose (posts # 111 and 112).

I agree with ERose 100% (and Pat the Cat, post # 107)! Why? Because I read something very similar to that in Frank Sheed’s book, Theology for Beginners. I can only encourage you to read it. And there is no point in telling ERose “you should not repeat it”, because it’s already out there.

Once again, I encourage you to read the book. It’s fascinating.

 

[tdgesq]

The problem isn’t in the ek, it’s in the eporeuomai.

Houston, we have a problem. You said:

It doesn’t preclude perichoresis, hence procession THROUGH the Son.

(Emphasis added).

Since now you admit that it is not the term “from” the Son that you have a problem with, then neither can you claim that procession “from” the Son in any possible sense is precluded by ekporeuomai. In fact, you explicitly affirm that procession of the Spirit through the Son is not absolutely precluded by it, so long as it is not understood in the sense of ekporeuomai.

Guess what? Catholics don’t believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Son in the sense of ekporeuomai either. But that doesn’t preclude them from believing that He proceeds in some other manner from the Son. I mean, the Orthodox believe he proceeds through the Son in some other manner.

Now you might claim that there is a contradiction between what Catholicism teaches and what I’ve just stated it teaches. You will almost certainly claim that the Orthodox understanding of procession between the Spirit and the Son is totally different from how Catholics understand it. But don’t claim that ekporeuomai as found in the creed precludes procession of the Spirit from the Son in any sense.

Also, don’t tell me that isn’t what you’ve been arguing.

I stated:

But neither does procession from the Son change the meaning of procession from the Father, unless you presuppose that the council meant that the Spirit proceeds solely from the Father. But the council doesn’t state that.

You stated in reply:

ekporeuomai, the term used by the Fathers, does.

Admit that the creed does not prohibit the Spirit proceeding from the Son in any sense. I would like to answer some of your other questions, but what’s the point if you can’t even admit this much?

 

[Pat_the_Cat]

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

The filioque is much more than just a line in the prayer of the creed, it is a whole theological understanding of the mystery of the trinity. Just because it wasn’t in the creed before hand doesn’t mean we didn’t believe it.

The EO creed (as far as I know) doesn’t state that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father ALONE. It states that the HS proceeds from the Father. We RCs agree with you on that point. But as Roman Catholics we believe that that the HS also proceeds from the Son.

To say that the HS ***Proceeds ***from…is the same as saying that the HS is proceeding from… It was not a one off action that began some time in the past. It is a continual process.

Now we could Argue / debate this topic until we are blue in the face, so before we get any more sarcastic or facetious remarks about “Our church is right and you’re Church is wrong” let’s firstly remember that we’re supposed to be on the same side. We’re here to share our beliefs with each other and to try and understand each other better.

So lets just stick to the OPs question ***“The Filoque: Why is it important?” ***
In a nutshell; the filoque is important to RCs because without it our understanding of theology and the mystery of the inner life of the Trinity changes.

The filoque shows us more fully that God is not stuck in linear time, and somehow everything about the Trinity needs to be in some sort of chronological order.

The filoque shows us more fully that God is a Family of persons, equal and loving.

The filoque shows us that more clearly that the Father does everything through the Son with the Son and in the Son. (As in the Doxology)

The filoque re-enforces what Jesus said when he stated

**“I and the Father are one.” Jn 10:30 **and " "***All things ***have been committed to me by my Father." LK10:22

And there’s a whole load of other theological truths that would be effected if the filoque were not a belief of the RC Church. And remember that’s what the filoque is to us RCs; a theological truth, not JUST a line in a prayer. We’d still believe it even if it were not explictly stated in the prayer of the Creed. Just like we believe many other theological truths that are not explictly stated in the prayer of the Creed.

Hope this help’s answer the OPs original question, in light of what has already been shared.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

For academic types:

I’m posting all the occurences of ἐκπορευόμενον our key term, in the NT of the Byzantine majority text that I could find (if their are other occurences, and I know their are in other text types, please post).
biblos.com/john/15-26.htm

For starters, the proof text:

Joh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me
οταν δε ελθη ο παρακλητος ον εγω πεμψω υμιν παρα του πατρος το πνευμα της αληθειας ο παρα του πατρος εκπορευεται εκεινος μαρτυρησει περι εμου
ܡܐ ܕܝܢ ܕܐܬܐ ܦܪܩܠܛܐ ܗܘ ܕܐܢܐ ܡܫܕܪ ܐܢܐ ܠܟܘܢ ܡܢ ܠܘܬ ܐܒܝ ܪܘܚܐ **ܕܡܢ ܠܘܬ ܐܒܝ ܢܦܩ **
ܗܘ ܢܤܗܕ ܥܠܝ

The Syriac I add as some indication of the Aramaic Vorlage. The word npaq appears translates our term nearly always (Luke 3:7 being the exception). Latin procedit does NOT translate our term in all our uses, so even the Latin testifies to John 15:26 as the proof text of the procession of the Spirit.

In the rest of John:

Joh 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
και εκπορευσονται οι τα αγαθα ποιησαντες εις αναστασιν ζωης οι δε τα φαυλα πραξαντες εις αναστασιν κρισεως

And the Johannine corpus:

Re 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
και εχων εν τη δεξια αυτου χειρι αστερας επτα και εκ του στοματος αυτου ρομφαια διστομος οξεια εκπορευομενη και η οψις αυτου ως ο ηλιος φαινει εν τη δυναμει αυτου

Re 4:5 And **out **of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.
και εκ του θρονου **εκπορευονται **αστραπαι και φωναι και βρονται και επτα λαμπαδες πυρος καιομεναι ενωπιον του θρονου αυτου αι εισιν επτα πνευματα του θεου

Re 9:17 And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone.
και ουτως ειδον τους ιππους εν τη ορασει και τους καθημενους επ αυτων εχοντας θωρακας πυρινους και υακινθινους και θειωδεις και αι κεφαλαι των ιππων ως κεφαλαι λεοντων και εκ των στοματων αυτων εκπορευεται πυρ και καπνος και θειον

Re 9:18 By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which **issued out **of their mouths.
απο των τριων πληγων τουτων απεκτανθησαν το τριτον των ανθρωπων απο του πυρος και του καπνου και του θειου του εκπορευομενου εκ των στοματων αυτων

Re 11:5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.
και ει τις αυτους θελει αδικησαι πυρ εκπορευεται εκ του στοματος αυτων και κατεσθιει τους εχθρους αυτων και ει τις θελει αυτους αδικησαι ουτως δει αυτον αποκτανθηναι

Re 16:14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.
εισιν γαρ πνευματα δαιμονιων ποιουντα σημεια α εκπορευεται επι τους βασιλεις της οικουμενης ολης συναγαγειν αυτους εις τον πολεμον της ημερας εκεινης της μεγαλης του θεου του παντοκρατορος

Re 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
και εκ του στοματος αυτου εκπορευεται ρομφαια διστομος οξεια ινα εν αυτη παταξη τα εθνη και αυτος ποιμανει αυτους εν ραβδω σιδηρα και αυτος πατει την ληνον του οινου του θυμου της οργης του θεου του παντοκρατορος

Re 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
και εδειξεν μοι ποταμον καθαρον υδατος ζωης λαμπρον ως κρυσταλλον εκπορευομενον εκ του θρονου του θεου και του αρνιου

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The rest of the Gospels:

Mt 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
τοτε εξεπορευετο προς αυτον ιεροσολυμα και πασα η ιουδαια και πασα η περιχωρος του ιορδανου

Mt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that **proceedeth out **of the mouth of God.
ο δε αποκριθεις ειπεν γεγραπται ουκ επ αρτω μονω ζησεται ανθρωπος αλλ επι παντι ρηματι εκπορευομενω δια στοματος θεου

Mt 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
ου το εισερχομενον εις το στομα κοινοι τον ανθρωπον αλλα το **εκπορευομενον **εκ του στοματος τουτο κοινοι τον ανθρωπον

Mt 15:18 But those things which **proceed out **of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
τα δε εκπορευομενα εκ του στοματος εκ της καρδιας εξερχεται κακεινα κοινοι τον ανθρωπον

Mt 17:21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
τουτο δε το γενος ουκ εκπορευεται ει μη εν προσευχη και νηστεια

Mt 20:29 And as they departed from Jericho, a great multitude followed him
και εκπορευομενων αυτων απο ιεριχω ηκολουθησεν αυτω οχλος πολυς

Mr 1:5 And there **went out **unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.
και εξεπορευετο προς αυτον πασα η ιουδαια χωρα και οι ιεροσολυμιται και εβαπτιζοντο παντες εν τω ιορδανη ποταμω υπ αυτου εξομολογουμενοι τας αμαρτιας αυτων

Mr 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when **ye depart **thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
και οσοι αν μη δεξωνται υμας μηδε ακουσωσιν υμων εκπορευομενοι εκειθεν εκτιναξατε τον χουν τον υποκατω των ποδων υμων εις μαρτυριον αυτοις αμην λεγω υμιν ανεκτοτερον εσται σοδομοις η γομορροις εν ημερα κρισεως η τη πολει εκεινη

Mr 7:15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which **come out **of him, those are they that defile the man.
ουδεν εστιν εξωθεν του ανθρωπου εισπορευομενον εις αυτον ο δυναται αυτον κοινωσαι αλλα τα εκπορευομενα απ αυτου εκεινα εστιν τα κοινουντα τον ανθρωπον

Mr 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
οτι ουκ εισπορευεται αυτου εις την καρδιαν αλλ εις την κοιλιαν και εις τον αφεδρωνα εκπορευεται καθαριζον παντα τα βρωματα

Mr 7:20 And he said, That which **cometh out **of the man, that defileth the man.
ελεγεν δε οτι το εκ του ανθρωπου εκπορευομενον εκεινο κοινοι τον ανθρωπον

Mr 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
εσωθεν γαρ εκ της καρδιας των ανθρωπων οι διαλογισμοι οι κακοι εκπορευονται μοιχειαι πορνειαι φονοι

Mr 7:23 All these evil things **come from **within, and defile the man.
παντα ταυτα τα πονηρα εσωθεν εκπορευεται και κοινοι τον ανθρωπον

Mr 10:17 And when he **was gone forth **into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
και εκπορευομενου αυτου εις οδον προσδραμων εις και γονυπετησας αυτον επηρωτα αυτον διδασκαλε αγαθε τι ποιησω ινα ζωην αιωνιον κληρονομησω

Mr 10:46 And they came to Jericho: and as he **went out **of Jericho with his disciples and a great number of people, blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the highway side begging.
και ερχονται εις ιεριχω και εκπορευομενου αυτου απο ιεριχω και των μαθητων αυτου και οχλου ικανου υιος τιμαιου βαρτιμαιος ο τυφλος εκαθητο παρα την οδον προσαιτων

Mr 11:19 And when even was come, he **went out **of the city.
και οτε οψε εγενετο εξεπορευετο εξω της πολεως

Mr 13:1 And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!
και εκπορευομενου αυτου εκ του ιερου λεγει αυτω εις των μαθητων αυτου διδασκαλε ιδε ποταποι λιθοι και ποταπαι οικοδομαι

I’m keeping the Lucan corpus together…cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Lu 3:7 Then said he to the multitude that **came forth **to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
ελεγεν ουν τοις εκπορευομενοις οχλοις βαπτισθηναι υπ αυτου γεννηματα εχιδνων τις υπεδειξεν υμιν φυγειν απο της μελλουσης οργης

Lu 4:22 And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which **proceeded out **of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph’s son?
και παντες εμαρτυρουν αυτω και εθαυμαζον επι τοις λογοις της χαριτος τοις εκπορευομενοις εκ του στοματος αυτου και ελεγον ουχ ουτος εστιν ο υιος ιωσηφ

Lu 4:37 And the fame of him **went out **into every place of the country round about.
και εξεπορευετο ηχος περι αυτου εις παντα τοπον της περιχωρου

And the Rest of the Lucan corpus:

Ac 9:28 And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem.
και ην μετ αυτων εισπορευομενος και εκπορευομενος] εις ιερουσαλημ και παρρησιαζομενος εν τω ονοματι του κυριου ιησου

Ac 25:4 But Festus answered, that Paul should be kept at Caesarea, and that he himself would depart shortly thither.
ο μεν ουν φηστος απεκριθη τηρεισθαι τον παυλον εν καισαρεια εαυτον δε μελλειν εν ταχει εκπορευεσθαι

And from Paul:

Eph 4:29 Let no corrupt communication **proceed **out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
πας λογος σαπρος εκ του στοματος υμων μη εκπορευεσθω αλλ ει τις αγαθος προς οικοδομην της χρειας ινα δω χαριν τοις ακουουσιν

 

[Pat_the_Cat]

For academic types:
For starters, the proof text:

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom ***I will send ***unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me

Here in your own text it states that Jesus (God the Son) sends the Holy Spirit from the Father.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Houston, we have a problem. You said:

(Emphasis added).

Since now you admit that it is not the term “from” the Son that you have a problem with, then neither can you claim that procession “from” the Son in any possible sense is precluded by ekporeuomai. In fact, you explicitly affirm that procession of the Spirit through the Son is not absolutely precluded by it, so long as it is not understood in the sense of ekporeuomai.

Guess what? Catholics don’t believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Son in the sense of ekporeuomai either. But that doesn’t preclude them from believing that He proceeds in some other manner from the Son. I mean, the Orthodox believe he proceeds through the Son in some other manner.

Now you might claim that there is a contradiction between what Catholicism teaches and what I’ve just stated it teaches. You will almost certainly claim that the Orthodox understanding of procession between the Spirit and the Son is totally different from how Catholics understand it. But don’t claim that ekporeuomai as found in the creed precludes procession of the Spirit from the Son in any sense.

Also, don’t tell me that isn’t what you’ve been arguing.

I stated:

You stated in reply:

Admit that the creed does not prohibit the Spirit proceeding from the Son in any sense. I would like to answer some of your other questions, but what’s the point if you can’t even admit this much?

I’ve just posted all the occurences of ekporeuomai in the Majority Text (I didn’t look in the Septugint), and noted in passing that although translated in Syriac/Aramaic almost consistently by a single term (npaq), the Latin Vulgate does not translate it by a single term procedit, so if the Latin wants to use that term from that proof text (John 15:26) then it will have to use it in that sense. Again, that the filioque can’t be translated into Greek without heresy according to present Latin teaching brings out the problem. That procedit can cover procession by perichoresis is irrelevant in this context.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Here in your own text it states that Jesus (God the Son) sends the Holy Spirit from the Father.

Send in time, into creation, to creatures.

Deals with the economic Trinity.

Not the theological Trinity that the Creed is dealing with on procession.

As you posted:

In a nutshell; the filoque is important to RCs because without it our understanding of theology and the mystery of the inner life of the Trinity changes.

The filoque shows us more fully that God is not stuck in linear time, and somehow everything about the Trinity needs to be in some sort of chronological order.