What is the teaching behind Filioque?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kima
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kima

Guest
Hi.

I wanted to know what the teaching behind Filioque is.
All since I became Catholic I have undoubtingly been accepting it, but now I would like to know why it´s a part of our Tradition all since the Great Schism.

I would also want to know how to argue about why the teaching is correct due to someone close to me considering Orthodoxy.

Thanks in advance 🙂
 
Last edited:
There is a lot… A LOT, that can certainly be written on the filioque, from whether the doctrine is correct, is supported by patristics, its inclusion in the creed, the difference in meanings of words in Latin and Greek… I’m going to kick things off with the basics.

The filioque is the teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, with the understanding that the Son is eternally begotten from the Father and receives everything he is (including the active spiration of the Holy Spirit) from the Father.

You find this teaching clearly described systematically in the Latin way in the writings of Saint Augustine, specifically, De Trinitate (On the Trinity), Book XV:
  1. And yet it is not to no purpose that in this Trinity the Son and none other is called the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit and none other the Gift of God, and God the Father alone is He from whom the Word is born, and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. And therefore I have added the word principally, because we find that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also. But the Father gave Him this too, not as to one already existing, and not yet having it; but whatever He gave to the only-begotten Word, He gave by begetting Him. Therefore He so begot Him as that the common Gift should proceed from Him also, and the Holy Spirit should be the Spirit of both.
Click to expand...
And a little later (with relation to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son):
He has, then certainly He has of the Father, that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from Him. But let no one think of any times therein which imply a sooner and a later; because these things are not there at all. How, then, would it not be most absurd to call Him the Son of both: when, just as generation from the Father, without any changeableness of nature, gives to the Son essence, without beginning of time; so procession from both, without any changeableness of nature, gives to the Holy Spirit essence without beginning of time? For while we do not say that the Holy Spirit is begotten, yet we do not therefore dare to say that He is unbegotten, lest any one suspect in this word either two Fathers in that Trinity, or two who are not from another. For the Father alone is not from another, and therefore He alone is called unbegotten, not indeed in the Scriptures, but in the usage of disputants, who employ such language as they can on so great a subject. And the Son is born of the Father; and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father principally, the Father giving the procession without any interval of time, yet in common from both [Father and Son].
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I can’t help but quote a little more from St. Augustine’s On the Trinity, because the Spirit’s eternal (and not just temporal) procession from the Son is often questioned:
Because not even the son of men proceeds at the same time from both father and mother; but when he proceeds from the father into the mother, he does not at that time proceed from the mother; and when he proceeds from the mother into this present light, he does not at that time proceed from the father. But the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father into the Son, and from the Son proceed to sanctify the creature, but proceeds at once from both; although the Father has given this to the Son, that He should proceed, as from Himself, so also from Him. For we cannot say that the Holy Spirit is not life, while the Father is life, and the Son is life: and hence as the Father, while He has life in Himself, has given also to the Son to have life in Himself; so has He given also to Him that life should proceed from Him, as it also proceeds from Himself.
Click to expand...
 
I believe they should quit prying into God’s interior, private life.
Isn’t He entitled to some privacy ? They should forgettabout this
& carry out reunion !
 
So it seems it would be accurate to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father-or from the Father and the Son. The Son can do nothing without the Father and yet Scripture tells us that the Son sends the Spirit.

I can’t help but wonder why Rome thought it necessary to address this at all though-apparently altering the Nicene Creed anyway? Or is that an accurate way to look at it?
 
Last edited:
Thank you all for being so helpful!

What you say makes sense. Could you quote where Scripture says so? I would just like to know 🙂 @fhansen
 
Last edited:
TechieGuy said:
40.png
Wesrock:
You find this teaching clearly described…
Click to expand...
Clearly described?
Click to expand...
It’s not a middle school reading level having been translated from fifth century vernacular Latin into 19th century English (free online translation), but yes, the Latin teaching is clearly in there.
 
Last edited:
Kima said:
Could you quote where Scripture says so? I would just like to know 🙂 @fhansen
Click to expand...
"Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you." John 16:7
But probably more often than not Jesus says that He will ask the Father and He will send the Spirit. In any case it’s a conjunctive effort.
 
Last edited:
I’ll need to browse for scriptural references to the Spirit as gifts of Christ or the Spirit of Christ, which is how many of the scripture passages go.
 
I have always thought about it in this way.
God has the faculties of intellect and will, by which he knows and loves. Disregarding external creation, what does He know?
First, he knows himself. His knowledge of himself is so complete that it lacks nothing of the original, not even the aspect of personhood. Thus it is the divine Logos, the Word, the Second Person of the Trinity.

God’s will is to love, but love is reciprocal between and proceeds from two persons, in this case, the Father and the Son, whose love is so infinitely perfect that it too has the aspect of personhood, the Holy Spirit, the complete expression of the love between Father and Son.

Thus the Son can be seen as the perfect expression of the divine intellect, and the holy spirit as the perfect expression of the divine will. Though distinct persons, they are one Being, each wholly possessing the One Divine Nature.
 
Last edited:
The “Arius gang” were continuing to cause trouble. The word “proceed” in Latin and Greek doesn’t mean exactly the same so Filioque was needed in Latin.

Was it Pope John Paul II (or some other pope) and the patriarch at the time that came up with a good description where they agreed on what it means?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top