The Filoque: Why is it important?

[jimmy]

It doesn’t follow that the Holy Spirit is made inferior to the Son or that he proceeds from himself. The Son sends the Spirit just as he is from the Father.

Cyril of Alexandria:

"For although the Spirit is the same essence, yet we think of Him by Himself, as He is the Spirit and not the Son; but He is not unconnected with Him [the Son]; for He is called the Spirit of Truth and Christ is the Truth, and He is sent by Him just as He is from God the Father. …Since, therefore, He is the Spirit of the Power and Wisdom of the Father, that is, of the Son, He is evidently Wisdom and Power. (Epist., xvii, Ad Nestorium, De excommunicatione in P.G., LXXVII, 117)

"We must not say that the one Lord Jesus Christ has been glorified by the Spirit, in such a way as to suggest that through the Spirit He made use of a power foreign to Himself, and from the Spirit received the ability to work against unclean spirits, and to perform Divine signs among men; but must rather say that the Spirit, through Whom He did indeed work His Divine signs, is His own. [The Twelve Errors, Error 9, 430 A.D.]

There is no deficiency in the essence of the Son for being begotten of the Father,so there is no deficiency in the essence of the Spirit for proceeding from the Son. See the quotes in posts 201 and 225.

And the Son does not proceed from himself,so it does not follow that the Spirit should proceed from himself.

You argued that all was given to the Son therefore the Spirit proceeds from Him but this also implies that not all was given to the Spirit which means that He is inferior. Does the Spirit not have all that the Father has as the Son does?

 

[ERose]

God had not revealed that the Spirit has his origin from the Son. It’s conclusioin reached from directing our thoughts on Him, mediating and contemplating Him to strive and learn as much about Him as we can. And thus prying into the mystery of God, the human mind deceived itself into thinking that the Spirit has his origin from the Son.

Never said that the Spirit has His origin from the Son alone. He has his origin from both the Father and the Son.

If you want to use that line of argument then the term Trinity and the definition thereof came from the Church Fathers meditating on the teachings of Christ and His Apostles.

If you are using the Scriptures for your argument then it is very easily seen that the Doctrine of the Trinity is INFERRED not defined in the Scriptures.

There is no proof that the first Christians had a clear understanding of the Holy Trinity as we know it as of the Council of Nicea.

If you are looking for proof from the scriptures then I recommend reading the last chapter in Revelations where it gives an image of the Throne of God and the Lamb and the River of Life flowing from it. The symbolism of the Throne is the full divinity of God and upon that throne is the Father and the Son with the River of Life a.k.a. Holy Spirit proceeding or flowing from the Throne.

 

[ERose]

Be carefull with what you say. It sounds like you are making the Spirit inferior to the Son. So does the Spirit also have all that the Father and Son have? If so then you must conclude that He proceeds from Himself. If not then He is inferior. The arguementation you are employing is faulty.

Just as the Father and Son are one, so are the Father and the Spirit and the Son and the Spirit. The Spirit is included in the oneness of the Trinity.

Rose, I think Hesychios’ last post with the picture illustrates the meaning of definitions about God.

How does having the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son make Him inferior to the Son? God is God.

From your way of thinking then the Father is superior to the Son and the Holy Spirit in divinity. Is that what you are saying?

If I were you guys I would not use that line of argument again for that gets into alot of ugly situations.

It is doctrine for both Churches to say that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all completely, equally God; but not 3 gods only One God.

 

[jimmy]

How does having the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son make Him inferior to the Son? God is God.

From your way of thinking then the Father is superior to the Son and the Holy Spirit in divinity. Is that what you are saying?

If I were you guys I would not use that line of argument again for that gets into alot of ugly situations.

It is doctrine for both Churches to say that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all completely, equally God; but not 3 gods only One God.

In a sense the Father is superior because He is the source of the Trinity. But of course they are all equally God and they have the same essence. The Son has all that the Father has and the Spirit has all that the Father has. You want to say that the Son has recieved all from the Father including that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well. But you will not say that the Son is begotten by the Spirit though. You with hold from the Spirit. To say that the Father gives all to the Son but not to the Spirit is to make the Spirit inferior. Therefore the arguement that God gave all to the Son meaning that the Spirit proceeds from the Son is a false arguement. There may be other arguements that are true but this one is false.

 

[anthony022071]

The quotes do indeed say the Spirit is not inferior to the Son.

Only problem the quotes have nothing to do with the eternal procession from the Son according to filioque.

the quotes of 225 would imply subordination.

They do have to do with eternal procession from the Son.
The church fathers do not distinguish between the manner of eternal procession and temporal procession. It is on earth as it is in heaven – through the Son. And that is what the filioque recognizes. It is not a matter of ultimate origin of the Spirit. The church fathers recognized that the Holy Spirit is eternally connected to the Son;that the Son has the Holy Spirit as his own from eternity;that the Son eternally receives of the Spirit,and that the Spirit eternally goes forth from the Son.

 

[anthony022071]

From your way of thinking then the Father is superior to the Son and the Holy Spirit in divinity. Is that what you are saying?

Jesus did say that the Father was greater than he. The Father is greater than the Son in that he is the uncaused cause from whom the Son receives all that the Father has.

 

[bobzills]

Never said that the Spirit has His origin from the Son alone. He has his origin from both the Father and the Son.

If you want to use that line of argument then the term Trinity and the definition thereof came from the Church Fathers meditating on the teachings of Christ and His Apostles.

If you are using the Scriptures for your argument then it is very easily seen that the Doctrine of the Trinity is INFERRED not defined in the Scriptures.

There is no proof that the first Christians had a clear understanding of the Holy Trinity as we know it as of the Council of Nicea.

If you are looking for proof from the scriptures then I recommend reading the last chapter in Revelations where it gives an image of the Throne of God and the Lamb and the River of Life flowing from it. The symbolism of the Throne is the full divinity of God and upon that throne is the Father and the Son with the River of Life a.k.a. Holy Spirit proceeding or flowing from the Throne.

Here are some thoughts from:
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx
"So then the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils believed and taught in accordance with the words of the Gospel that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father; but in the West, even from the ninth century, the holy Creed, which was composed and sanctioned by Ecumenical Councils, began to be falsified, and the idea that the Holy Ghost proceeds ‘also from the Son’ to be arbitrarily promulgated. And certainly Pope Leo XIII is not ignorant that his orthodox predecessor and namesake, the defender of orthodoxy, Leo III, in the year 809 denounced synodically this anti-evangelical and utterly lawless addition, ‘and from the Son’ (filioque); and engraved on two silver plates, in Greek and Latin, the holy Creed of the first and second Ecumenical Councils, entire and without any addition; having written moreover, ‘These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the orthodox faith’ (Haec Leo posui amore et cautela fidei orthodoxa’). [8]

Likewise he is by no means ignorant that during the tenth century, or at the beginning of the eleventh, this anti-evangelical and lawless addition was with difficulty inserted officially into the holy Creed at Rome also, and that consequently the Roman Church, in insisting on her innovations, and not coming back to the dogma of the Ecumenical Councils, renders herself fully responsible before the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ, which holds fast that which has been received from the Fathers, and keeps the deposit of the faith which was delivered to it unadulterated in all things, in obedience to the Apostolic injunction: ‘That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us’; 'avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith.""

 

[bobzills]

And some thoughts from: orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx
"The new doctrine, that “the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son,” is contrary to the memorable declaration of our LORD, emphatically made respecting it: which proceedeth from the Father (John xv. 26), and contrary to the universal Confession of the Catholic Church as witnessed by the seven Ecumenical Councils, uttering “which proceedeth from the Father.” (Symbol of Faith).

i. This novel opinion destroys the oneness from the One cause, and the diverse origin of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity, both of which are witnessed to in the Gospel.

ii. Even into the divine Hypostases or Persons of the Trinity, of equal power and equally to be adored, it introduces diverse and unequal relations, with a confusion or commingling of them.

iii. It reproaches as imperfect, dark, and difficult to be understood, the previous Confession of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

iv. It censures the holy Fathers of the first Ecumenical Synod of Nice and of the second Ecumenical Synod at Constantinople, as imperfectly expressing what relates to the Son and Holy Ghost, as if they had been silent respecting the peculiar property of each Person of the Godhead, when it was necessary that all their divine properties should be expressed against the Arians and Macedonians.

v. It reproaches the Fathers of the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh Ecumenical Councils, which had published over the world a divine Creed, perfect and complete, and interdicted under dread anathemas and penalties not removed, all addition, or diminution, or alteration, or variation in the smallest particular of it, by themselves or any whomsoever. Yet was this quickly to be corrected and augmented, and consequently the whole theological doctrine of the Catholic Fathers was to be subjected to change, as if, forsooth, a new property even in regard to the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity had been revealed.

vi. It clandestinely found an entrance at first in the Churches of the West, “a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” that is, under the signification not of procession, according to the Greek meaning in the Gospel and the Creed, but under the signification of mission, as Pope Martin explained it to the Confessor Maximus, and as Anastasius the Librarian explained it to John VIII.

vii. It exhibits incomparable boldness, acting without authority, and forcibly puts a false stamp upon the Creed, which is the common inheritance of Christianity.

viii. It has introduced huge disturbances into the peaceful Church of God, and divided the nations.

ix. It was publicly proscribed, at its first promulgation, by two ever-to-be-remembered Popes, Leo III and John VIII, the latter of whom, in his epistle to the blessed Photius, classes with Judas those who first brought the interpolation into the Creed.

x. It has been condemned by many Holy Councils of the four Patriarchs of the East.

xi. It was subjected to anathema, as a novelty and augmentation of the Creed, by the eighth Ecumenical Council, congregated at Constantinople for the pacification of the Eastern and Western Churches.

xii. As soon as it was introduced into the Churches of the West it brought forth disgraceful fruits, bringing with it, little by little, other novelties, for the most part contrary to the express commands of our Savior in the Gospel—commands which till its entrance into the Churches were closely observed. Among these novelties may be numbered sprinkling instead of baptism, denial of the divine Cup to the Laity, elevation of one and the same bread broken, the use of wafers, unleavened instead of real bread, the disuse of the Benediction in the Liturgies, even of the sacred Invocation of the All-holy and Consecrating Spirit, the abandonment of the old Apostolic Mysteries of the Church, such as not anointing baptized infants, or their not receiving the Eucharist, the exclusion of married men from the Priesthood, the infallibility of the Pope and his claim as Vicar of Christ, and the like. Thus it was that the interpolation led to the setting aside of the old Apostolic pattern of well nigh all the Mysteries and all doctrine, a pattern which the ancient, holy, and orthodox Church of Rome kept, when she was the most honored part of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

xiii. It drove the theologians of the West, as its defenders, since they had no ground either in Scripture or the Fathers to countenance heretical teachings, not only into misrepresentations of the Scriptures, such as are seen in none of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, but also into adulterations of the sacred and pure writings of the Fathers alike of the East and West.

xiv. It seemed strange, unheard of, and blasphemous, even to those reputed Christian communions, which, before its origin, had been for other just causes for ages cut off from the Catholic fold.
continued

 

[bobzills]

continued:
xv. It has not yet been even plausibly defended out of the Scriptures, or with the least reason out of the Fathers, from the accusations brought against it, notwithstanding all the zeal and efforts of its supporters. The doctrine bears all the marks of error arising out of its nature and peculiarities. All erroneous doctrine touching the Catholic truth of the Blessed Trinity, and the origin of the divine Persons, and the subsistence of the Holy Ghost, is and is called heresy, and they who so hold are deemed heretics, according to the sentence of St. Damasus, Pope of Rome, who says: “If any one rightly holds concerning the Father and the Son, yet holds not rightly of the Holy Ghost, he is an heretic” (Cath. Conf. of Faith which Pope Damasus sent to Paulinus, Bishop of Thessalonica). Wherefore the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, following in the steps of the holy Fathers, both Eastern and Western, proclaimed of old to our progenitors and again teaches today synodically, that the said novel doctrine of the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son is essentially heresy, and its maintainers, whoever they be, are heretics, according to the sentence of Pope St. Damasus, and that the congregations of such are also heretical, and that all spiritual communion in worship of the orthodox sons of the Catholic Church with such is unlawful. Such is the force of the seventh Canon of the third Ecumenical Council.

1. This heresy, which has united to itself many innovations, as has been said, appeared about the middle of the seventh century, at first and secretly, and then under various disguises, over the Western Provinces of Europe, until by degrees, creeping along for four or five centuries, it obtained precedence over the ancient orthodoxy of those parts, through the heedlessness of Pastors and the countenance of Princes. Little by little it overspread not only the hitherto orthodox Churches of Spain, but also the German, and French, and Italian Churches, whose orthodoxy at one time was sounded throughout the world, with whom our divine Fathers such as the great Athanasius and heavenly Basil conferred, and whose sympathy and fellowship with us until the seventh Ecumenical Council, preserved unharmed the doctrine of the Catholic and Apostolic Church. But in process of time, by envy of the devil, the novelties respecting the sound and orthodox doctrine of the Holy Ghost, the blasphemy of whom shall not be forgiven unto men either in this world or the next, according to the saying of our Lord (Matt. xii. 32), and others that succeeded respecting the divine Mysteries, particularly that of the world-saving Baptism, and the Holy Communion, and the Priesthood, like prodigious births, overspread even Old Rome; and thus sprung, by assumption of special distinctions in the Church as a badge and title, the Papacy. Some of the Bishops of that City, styled Popes, for example Leo III and John VIII, did indeed, as has been said, denounce the innovation, and published the denunciation to the world, the former by those silver plates, the latter by his letter to the holy Photius at the eighth Ecumenical Council, and another to Sphendopulcrus, by the hands of Methodius, Bishop of Moravia. The greater part, however, of their successors, the Popes of Rome, enticed by the antisynodical privileges offered them for the oppression of the Churches of God, and finding in them much worldly advantage, and “much gain,” and conceiving a Monarchy in the Catholic Church and a monopoly of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, changed the ancient worship at will, separating themselves by novelties from the old received Christian Polity. Nor did they cease their endeavors, by lawless projects (as veritable history assures us), to entice the other four Patriarchates into their apostasy from Orthodoxy, and so subject the Catholic Church to the whims and ordinances of men.""

 

[ERose]

In a sense the Father is superior because He is the source of the Trinity. But of course they are all equally God and they have the same essence. The Son has all that the Father has and the Spirit has all that the Father has. You want to say that the Son has recieved all from the Father including that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well. But you will not say that the Son is begotten by the Spirit though. You with hold from the Spirit. To say that the Father gives all to the Son but not to the Spirit is to make the Spirit inferior. Therefore the arguement that God gave all to the Son meaning that the Spirit proceeds from the Son is a false arguement. There may be other arguements that are true but this one is false.

I am not saying that the reason for the Spirit proceeding from the Son comes from the quote that the Son has all that the Father has. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son because the Spirit is the eternal perfect LOVE between the Father and the Son, which is so perfect that He is God. Remember the claim by St John that God is Love. Look at some of my previous comments on this thread for more information about where I am coming from.

Now concerning your argument above. The problem I think you guys are having is trying to establish the origins of the Son & Spirit in a time frame. Remember God is eternal so there was at no point in time that the Son did not exist or the Spirit did not exist. So it is better to view the Begottenness of the Son and the Procession of the Spirit as how the Persons RELATE to each other.

Now when you are referring to the concept that The Son has all that the Father has it is referring to His Divinity so you could also say the the Spirit has all that the Father and the Son have which is Divinity. It is easy to see when it comes to creation that it was a shared action of the Trinity which it could not be anything but.

 

[ERose]

Jesus did say that the Father was greater than he. The Father is greater than the Son in that he is the uncaused cause from whom the Son receives all that the Father has.

Anthony,

That is not a true statement and quite honestly neither side of this argument would agree with you. Both the RC and EO teach the equality of Persons in the Trinity.

What Jesus is doing here is explained by St Paul: " Being in the Form of God, Jesus did not deem equality with God something to be grasped at. Rather He emptied Himself taking the form of a slave."

This means that even though the Son is Equal to the Father in Divinity, He does not deem Himself equal in the Father/Son relation. This is called humility based out of Love. This is the perfect example of humility given to us by the Son.

 

[jimmy]

Anthony,

That is not a true statement and quite honestly neither side of this argument would agree with you. Both the RC and EO teach the equality of Persons in the Trinity.

What Jesus is doing here is explained by St Paul: " Being in the Form of God, Jesus did not deem equality with God something to be grasped at. Rather He emptied Himself taking the form of a slave."

This means that even though the Son is Equal to the Father in Divinity, He does not deem Himself equal in the Father/Son relation. This is called humility based out of Love. This is the perfect example of humility given to us by the Son.

What Anthony said was true. The Father is superior in as much as He is the source of the Trinity. They are equal in essence though.

I am not saying that the reason for the Spirit proceeding from the Son comes from the quote that the Son has all that the Father has. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son because the Spirit is the eternal perfect LOVE between the Father and the Son, which is so perfect that He is God. Remember the claim by St John that God is Love. Look at some of my previous comments on this thread for more information about where I am coming from.

Now concerning your argument above. The problem I think you guys are having is trying to establish the origins of the Son & Spirit in a time frame. Remember God is eternal so there was at no point in time that the Son did not exist or the Spirit did not exist. So it is better to view the Begottenness of the Son and the Procession of the Spirit as how the Persons RELATE to each other.

Now when you are referring to the concept that The Son has all that the Father has it is referring to His Divinity so you could also say the the Spirit has all that the Father and the Son have which is Divinity. It is easy to see when it comes to creation that it was a shared action of the Trinity which it could not be anything but.

I have no problem with identifying begottenness and procession within time. If I were to identify them with time I would be a heretic because it would mean that the Son and the Spirit were created.

I agree with your last paragraph and I was trying to get at that point.

 

[clmowry]

In the Syriac the prepositions “from” and “through” would be the same.

So if we write a shared statement in Syriac then we can all agree?

Well let’s get at it then.

Chuck

 

[Hesychios]

So if we write a shared statement in Syriac then we can all agree?

No.

 

[ERose]

What Anthony said was true. The Father is superior in as much as He is the source of the Trinity. They are equal in essence though.

I have no problem with identifying begottenness and procession within time. If I were to identify them with time I would be a heretic because it would mean that the Son and the Spirit were created.

I agree with your last paragraph and I was trying to get at that point.

What Anthony said was not true for God is God. They are the same Being. The Father is not more God than the Son or the Holy Spirit. That was the argument of Arian about the Son being subordinate to the Father for Christ owed his existence to the Father.

Considering that the revealed Christian view of God cannot be anything but Trinity then there is no way for one to be greater than the other in Godness since they are the same God.

The only way One of the Three can be subordinate to the Other(s) in the Godhead through their Action. When St Paul said that “Jesus being in the Form of God, did not deem equality to God something to be grasped at.” The Father did not make His Son subordinate to Him, rather it was the Son Who make Himself subordinate the the Father through humility.

 

[jimmy]

What Anthony said was not true for God is God. They are the same Being. The Father is not more God than the Son or the Holy Spirit. That was the argument of Arian about the Son being subordinate to the Father for Christ owed his existence to the Father.

Considering that the revealed Christian view of God cannot be anything but Trinity then there is no way for one to be greater than the other in Godness since they are the same God.

The only way One of the Three can be subordinate to the Other(s) in the Godhead through their Action. When St Paul said that “Jesus being in the Form of God, did not deem equality to God something to be grasped at.” The Father did not make His Son subordinate to Him, rather it was the Son Who make Himself subordinate the the Father through humility.

Actually, it is exactly what Anthony said. The fathers of the Church would agree as well. In essence they are the same, but in as much as the Father is the source the Father is superior. This does not deny their equality of essence. What it says is that there is one source and that is the Father.

God is God? What does that mean? So do they all proceed and do all three persons beget and are all three persons begotten? No, the Father is the only begeter and the Son is the only begotten and the Spirit is the only one who proceeds.

The problem I have with the idea that the Spirit is the love between the Father and the Son is because it makes the Trinitarian relationships solely defined between the Father and the Son. The Spirit is only the relationship between the other two.

 

[anthony022071]

Anthony,

That is not a true statement and quite honestly neither side of this argument would agree with you. Both the RC and EO teach the equality of Persons in the Trinity.

What Jesus is doing here is explained by St Paul: " Being in the Form of God, Jesus did not deem equality with God something to be grasped at. Rather He emptied Himself taking the form of a slave."

This means that even though the Son is Equal to the Father in Divinity, He does not deem Himself equal in the Father/Son relation. This is called humility based out of Love. This is the perfect example of humility given to us by the Son.

I didn’t deny that the Son is equal to the Father in divinity. I just pointed out that Jesus said that the Father was greater than he.
The Father is unbegotten,and the Son is begotten by the Father.
In that sense,the Father is greater than the Son.

 

[StMarkEofE]

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

aggreen.net/filioque/filioque.html

 

[ERose]

I didn’t deny that the Son is equal to the Father in divinity. I just pointed out that Jesus said that the Father was greater than he.
The Father is unbegotten,and the Son is begotten by the Father.
In that sense,the Father is greater than the Son.

Is Adam greater than Jesus? Is Adam a greater human being than any other human being? Remember Adam is unbegotten and from Adam all men have descended. In the argument being used that the Father is greater than the Son because He is unbegotten then Adam is greater than all of his descendants (including Jesus) because he is unbegotten.

Jesus humbles himself to the Father and the Father exalts Him. (Philippians 2:6-11). Humility is a property of Love. The Son so loves His Father that He humbles Himself before Him and the Father so loves His Son that He exalts Him.

 

[anthony022071]

Is Adam greater than Jesus? Is Adam a greater human being than any other human being? Remember Adam is unbegotten and from Adam all men have descended. In the argument being used that the Father is greater than the Son because He is unbegotten then Adam is greater than all of his descendants (including Jesus) because he is unbegotten.

It was through the Son that Adam was created.

Jesus humbles himself to the Father and the Father exalts Him. (Philippians 2:6-11). Humility is a property of Love. The Son so loves His Father that He humbles Himself before Him and the Father so loves His Son that He exalts Him.

That’s true. But the Father does not humble himself before the Son.