The Filoque: Why is it important?

[Teflon93]

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

Sorry, sir, but we only accept Latin here. And a little Klingon.

 

[Pat_the_Cat]

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.

It seems that the problem here is that the term “proceeds rom the Father and the Son” does not traslate well from the Latin without causing magor Heresy?

If this is true can we not find a term that means the same thing, and does translate well?

No point throwing out the baby with the bath-water, don’t you think?

 

[clmowry]

Isn’t the language problem THE source of the issue?

What the Eastern Chruch “thought” the Western Church was saying was really a miscomunication caused by translating from Latin to Greek and (vice versa)?

Then they set down and figured out…no…that ain’t what were trying to say here, almost got it all fixed up and then an untimely death messed it all up again?

Chuck

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Isn’t the language problem THE source of the issue?

What the Eastern Chruch “thought” the Western Church was saying was really a miscomunication caused by translating from Latin to Greek and (vice versa)?

Then they set down and figured out…no…that ain’t what were trying to say here, almost got it all fixed up and then an untimely death messed it all up again?

Chuck

No, the ones who inserted the filioque all spoke Latin, even the Goths used it as their eccleastical languge.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Sorry, sir, but we only accept Latin here. And a little Klingon.

Credo in unum Deum,
Patrem omnipoténtem,
factórem cæli et terræ,
visibílium ómnium et invisibílium.
Et in unum Dóminum Iesum Christum,
Fílium Dei Unigénitum,
et ex Patre natum ante ómnia sæcula.
Deum de Deo, lumen de lúmine, Deum verum de Deo vero,
génitum, non factum, consubstantiálem Patri:
per quem ómnia facta sunt.
Qui propter nos hómines et propter nostram salútem
descéndit de cælis.
Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto
ex María Vírgine, et homo factus est.
Crucifíxus étiam pro nobis sub Póntio Piláto;
passus, et sepúltus est,
et resurréxit tértia die, secúndum Scriptúras,
et ascéndit in cælum, sedet ad déxteram Patris.
Et íterum ventúrus est cum glória,
iudicáre vivos et mórtuos,
cuius regni non erit finis.
Et in Spíritum Sanctum, Dóminum et vivificántem:
qui ex Patre procédit.
Qui cum Patre et Fílio simul adorátur et conglorificátur:
qui locútus est per prophétas.
Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam.
Confíteor unum baptísma in remissiónem peccatorum.
Et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum,
et vitam ventúri sæculi. Amen.

HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI

Sanctus Leo papa Romae erat.

 

[Teflon93]

Credo in unum Deum,
Patrem omnipoténtem,
factórem cæli et terræ,
visibílium ómnium et invisibílium.
Et in unum Dóminum Iesum Christum,
Fílium Dei Unigénitum,
et ex Patre natum ante ómnia sæcula.
Deum de Deo, lumen de lúmine, Deum verum de Deo vero,
génitum, non factum, consubstantiálem Patri:
per quem ómnia facta sunt.
Qui propter nos hómines et propter nostram salútem
descéndit de cælis.
Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto
ex María Vírgine, et homo factus est.
Crucifíxus étiam pro nobis sub Póntio Piláto;
passus, et sepúltus est,
et resurréxit tértia die, secúndum Scriptúras,
et ascéndit in cælum, sedet ad déxteram Patris.
Et íterum ventúrus est cum glória,
iudicáre vivos et mórtuos,
cuius regni non erit finis.
Et in Spíritum Sanctum, Dóminum et vivificántem:
qui ex Patre procédit.
Qui cum Patre et Fílio simul adorátur et conglorificátur:
qui locútus est per prophétas.
Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam.
Confíteor unum baptísma in remissiónem peccatorum.
Et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum,
et vitam ventúri sæculi. Amen.

HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI

Sanctus Leo papa Romae erat.

It’s better in the original Klingon.

 

[clmowry]

No, the ones who inserted the filioque all spoke Latin, even the Goths used it as their eccleastical languge.

Then why all the discusion about greek terminology?

Chuck

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Then why all the discusion about greek terminology?

Chuck

Because all the Bishops who wrote the Creed were Greek speaking, quoting the original Greek NT, in writing the Ecumenical Creed-in Greek.

The filioque was bad and unnecessary additional (the original Latin translation didn’t have it, and didn’t have it in Rome until just before 1054). Translating it into the original (Greek) Creed, even the Latin church condemns the result as heresy, and won’t let it be translated into Greek.

 

[clmowry]

Because all the Bishops who wrote the Creed were Greek speaking, quoting the original Greek NT, in writing the Ecumenical Creed-in Greek.

The filioque was bad and unnecessary additional (the original Latin translation didn’t have it, and didn’t have it in Rome until just before 1054). Translating it into the original (Greek) Creed, even the Latin church condemns the result as heresy, and won’t let it be translated into Greek.

Which was my original point. You don’t get to the “heresy” part until you get to translating the creed into Greek.

Until then, the objector is just ticked off cause somebody else put it there, not because its “heresy”.

Chuck

 

[ERose]

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 ”

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

1. It should be pointed out that the Catechism is design to instruct the layman on basic teachings of the Church. It is not meant to look deep into the theology of those teachings so you really cannot use that as a reason for your rebuttal.
2. Theology in the church GROWS as our understanding of the mysteries of God GROWS. Our understanding of the trinity has evolved as our understanding of God has grown. We today have access to alot more knowledge than the early church did. That knowledge has grown over the ages through combating heresies and schizms which forced the church to evaluate the revelations deeper both theologically and philosophically. The filoque clause is a result of this growth. Since we have the Chair of St. Peter to back us on this I hate to inform you that you are on the wrong side of the coin in this discussion. Sorry
3. By the way send some theology my way for the only thing you are adding to this discussion is jabs. I need some meat my brother.

I am sorry to inform you but the Orthodox Churches are on the wrong side of this argument.

 

[ERose]

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

They didn’t.

The creed is a simplified proclamation of the doctrines of our faith. The creed’s purpose does not include what these doctrines mean.

 

[bobzills]

I am sorry to inform you but the Orthodox Churches are on the wrong side of this argument.

Maybe the insistence of Catholics that Orthodox are wrong on this issue is one reason why the prospects for reunion are so dim.

 

[ERose]

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

The filioque is not a change in doctrine it is an evolution of doctrine.

God reveal through Jesus and his Apostles & the prophets of the Old Testament Truths which are called Revealed Truths. From these truths our doctrines have been built upon. That is the reason for all of the Ecunemical councils held by our church. If you go back and read about these councils they were environments where the church could come together and discuss what these doctrines mean. I can probably be very sure that the Apostles did not understand the doctrine of the Trinity as well as we do today. This doctrine as well as most of the doctrine that we as well as your church holds came from many Theological battles on what is Orthodox teaching and what is heresy.

 

[ERose]

Maybe the insistence of Catholics that Orthodox are wrong on this issue is one reason why the prospects for reunion are so dim.

I believe that this insistence is a two way street my friend and there is good reason for this and that is truth.

There is only one truth. We can have many opinions or perspectives on this truth but there is one truth. Either the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is true or the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father is true. Not both.

I hate to say that the answer is very important because it impacts a lot more theologically than just 3 words in the creed. It impacts our understanding of the Holy Spirit and his ministery in our salvation.

This argument nor the split between the two churches will not be repaired in these threads, but what can be gained is a mutual understand on what we believe and why we believe it. For mutual understanding between both parties is the beginning of unity.

The Orthodox christians are my brothers and sisters in Christ there is no doubt and I love them because of the mutual Spirit we share and I pray for their success in delivering the message of God throughout the world and I have no doubt that one day there will no longer be anyone known as Orthodox or Roman Catholics in this world but rather just Christians.

But to do this we must get to know each other and that is one great thing about this forum for it supplies a means of doings so.

As Jesus says in the Gospel of John: Let them be one as you, Father, and I are one.

 

[clmowry]

I guess it’s a good thing I’m not Pope. If I thought taking “and the Son” out of the creed would reunite the Eastern and Western Churches, I’d do it in a heart beat.

How exactly does taking these words out of the creed change our understanding of the Holy Spirit and the Trinity?

It’s nothing but word smiting around something we can never fully understand any way.

Once God in Three Persons.

Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Eternal.

Never without the others.

The Father, creator of heaven and earth…

The Son, through whom all things are made…

The Holy Spirit, with them is worshiped and glorified.

The Son who promised to send the Holy Spirit from the Father…

The Father who sent the Holy Spirit (through, for, or with the son)?

“through the Son”

“and the Son”

I’m still waiting for anyone on either side to explain to me how either of these statements “destroys” our understanding of the trinity.

To me, all we have here is proof positive that anyone can make a mistake, but it takes really smart people to mess something up royally.

Chuck

 

[Teflon93]

I guess it’s a good thing I’m not Pope. If I thought taking “and the Son” out of the creed would reunite the Eastern and Western Churches, I’d do it in a heart beat

Sure. The problem is, the Orthodox won’t reunite with the Catholic Church even were the filioque resolved because they will not accept papal authority. THAT is the reason for their continuing schism—the filioque is the fig leaf they use to cover it.

As we saw in another thread awhile back, were the filioque resolved this very instant, the Orthodox would come up with another demand.

The bottom line with schismatics is always, “Why can’t I be Pope?”

 

[Isa_Almisry]

1. It should be pointed out that the Catechism is design to instruct the layman on basic teachings of the Church. It is not meant to look deep into the theology of those teachings so you really cannot use that as a reason for your rebuttal.

So it can’t be all that importatn.

1. Theology in the church GROWS as our understanding of the mysteries of God GROWS. Our understanding of the trinity has evolved as our understanding of God has grown. We today have access to alot more knowledge than the early church did.

Modernism?

I think the Apostles did quite well at Pentacost.

The Fathers were not making it up at the Councils as they went along, thank you Dan Brown. They were only standing up for what the Church always believed.

That knowledge has grown over the ages through combating heresies and schizms which forced the church to evaluate the revelations deeper both theologically and philosophically. The filoque clause is a result of this growth.

The filioque was a bizarre cure for a heresy that had taken its last breath. The Fathers of the Second Council were combating real Arians, who in their vigor were trying to take over the Church. The Arians at Toledo were asked to be received into the Catholic Church on our terms.

Since we have the Chair of St. Peter to back us on this I hate to inform you that you are on the wrong side of the coin in this discussion. Sorry

Oh?

Pope St. Leo forbade the adition of “filioque” to Nicene Creed which was added by Franks in Aachen in 809. He also ordered that the Nicene creed be engraved on silver tablets on St. Peter’s doors so that his conclusion might not be overturned in the future. He wrote «HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI» (I, Leo, put here for love and protection of the Orthodox Faith)(VITA LEONIS, LIBER PONTIFICALIS (Ed.Duchene, TII, p.26).

Of course you can go with the pope whose legates excommunicated us: they claimed that we ommitted the filioque.

Wrong side of history.

Pope St. Gregory wrote that the Sees of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria were one Petrine see, one throne. Pope Theodore of Alexandria and Patriarch Ignatius of Peter’s original see both say the original Creed without filioque.

Btw read Galatians 2:11.

1. By the way send some theology my way for the only thing you are adding to this discussion is jabs. I need some meat my brother.

I’ll see what Hesychios has to say.

I am sorry to inform you but the Orthodox Churches are on the wrong side of this argument.

We’ll stand by the side of the Fathers, including those assembled in the East at New Rome who wrote the Creed, and Pope St. Leo at Old Rome who defended it.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Which was my original point. You don’t get to the “heresy” part until you get to translating the creed into Greek.

Until then, the objector is just ticked off cause somebody else put it there, not because its “heresy”.

Chuck

No, there ticked off because someone has muddled the Fathers’ clear thinking and precision in terminology.

The Latins went on to insist on their mistranslation in Bulgaria into Bulgar and Slavonic, as opposed to the original wording that the Greeks were providing. Then came the heresy to justify modifying the Creed, which the canons of the Councils forbid.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The creed is a simplified proclamation of the doctrines of our faith. The creed’s purpose does not include what these doctrines mean.

Actually the Fathers said what they meant and meant what they said: they composed the Creed in particular to smoke out heretics who liked fuzzy wording.

 

[clmowry]

Then came the heresy to justify modifying the Creed, which the canons of the Councils forbid.

You keep saying that. What is the heresy again?

In english please. I’m not really interested in hearing about the heresy you get if you translate the creed into klingon.

Chuck