Why not remove the filioque?

[ConstantineTG]

Can you please give a quote from an Ecumenical Council for this? I asked this previously, but there was no response. Maybe you can do so now?

Blessings,
Marduk

You can find it in the Filioque entry on Wikipedia.

 

[mardukm]

You can find it in the Filioque entry on Wikipedia.

It’s not there. Do you have another source? Also, why don’t you quote it directly? Judging from our other conversations, you have a tendency to read things into what is written. You may have done the same thing here, and only imagined that there was actually a decree from an Ecumenical Council that specifically states something to the effect that “only another ecumenical council can modify the Creed.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

By your reasoning-
Since the Son is begotten by the Father and the Father and the Holy Spirit are one, the Son BY DEFINITION and LOGIC HAS to be begotten from the Holy Spirit too.

See the trouble you’ve gotten yourself in? First principle- the Persons of the Trinity are never divided two against one.

Well said.

On the other hand, I hope you realize that what brother Jerry-Jet stated is not actually the Catholic teaching on the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[marlo]

Because the creed we are using today is a different creed than that in the Nicene Constantinople creed which is written in Greek. The one we use is based on the Universal Creed, in which we have our Latin Universal Creed where there is a filioque clause in it. It was ratified by an Ecumenical Council during the time that the Orthodox has already separated from us. Although the usage of filioque probably started by a local council in spain and gradually used by other western cities, it was finally ratified as valid by an Ecumenical council defining the procession as from one principle from Father to the Son.

These Ecumenical Council was sometimes called Western Ecumenical councils even by Eastern Catholics and Orthodox due to the fact that the Orthodox was not included when these councils happened.

I would see the inclusion of the filioque as addition as valid from this standpoint, that’s why it will not be removed unless an ecumenical council say so or through the Pope’s Motu Proprio.

I’m learning more about Eastern Orthodoxy in another thread, and our discussion led me to wonder why, in the recent changes to the Mass and the creed, we did not exclude the filioque.

If the Eastern Catholics’ English version of the creed deliberately excludes the filioque, and if the pope found it appropriate to exclude the filioque when he recited the creed in Greek, why is it necessary to keep it in the Nicene creed that was already being changed?

It seems like this had the potential to be a gesture of good will toward our Orthodox brothers and sisters.

When I posed the question in the other thread, a Coptic Orthodox Christian said he has asked the same question, and was told it has to do with fighting Arianism, specifically in Spain. Except I’m not talking about changing it for the entire church, just that it could have been included in the changes for the English version, which was already being revised. Changes to the English version are not really relevant to the Arian situation in Spain. I will come back with his exact quote in another post, in case I misunderstood.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Let met try again: I don’t know exactly what the Catholic church’s teaching on the Trinity is in all of its respects–just tell me if this would be true or false?

Since you can’t pit two against one when it comes to the Trinity–would it be true or false that the Holy Spirit could proceed from the Father, Son, AND the Holy Spirit BECAUSE wherever there are two there must be three?

Would it be true or false to say that the Son was begotten of the Father, Holy Spirit, AND the Son?

I’m not saying that this is Catholic teaching–I’m asking WHY the last assertions would be false?

Jesus said about his second coming that the ONLY one who knew when that would be was the Father. Scripture says “NOR the Son”.

Could it be that it is wrong to extrapolate human logic onto the relationships of the persons of the Trinity? Could such extrapolations–while SEEMING to be logical–wouldn’t be wisdom but as the scriptures say “the foolishness of men”?

P/S. I’m not advancing such propositions–I have no axe to grind–I’m just ignorant and would like to know. You know it is possible that the Trinity is bigger than our comprehension is capable of understanding–I guess that’s why it is referred to as the ultimate mystery. In any event feel free to correct me–WHATEVER the Catholic Church teaches I fully embrace as revealed by God.

 

[Ignatius]

Let met try again: I don’t know exactly what the Catholic church’s teaching on the Trinity is in all of its respects–just tell me if this would be true or false?

Since you can’t pit two against one when it comes to the Trinity–would it be true or false that the Holy Spirit could proceed from the Father, Son, AND the Holy Spirit BECAUSE wherever there are two there must be three?

Would it be true or false to say that the Son was begotten of the Father, Holy Spirit, AND the Son?

I’m not saying that this is Catholic teaching–I’m asking WHY the last assertions would be false?

Jesus said about his second coming that the ONLY one who knew when that would be was the Father. Scripture says “NOR the Son”.

Could it be that it is wrong to extrapolate human logic onto the relationships of the persons of the Trinity? Could such extrapolations–while SEEMING to be logical–wouldn’t be wisdom but as the scriptures say “the foolishness of men”?

P/S. I’m not advancing such propositions–I have no axe to grind–I’m just ignorant and would like to know. You know it is possible that the Trinity is bigger than our comprehension is capable of understanding–I guess that’s why it is referred to as the ultimate mystery. In any event feel free to correct me–WHATEVER the Catholic Church teaches I fully embrace as revealed by God.

Schism hater gave a very good illustration of why this is a very bad approach. This approach is full of pitfalls and will not help.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jerry-Jet,

Thank you for the questions

Since you can’t pit two against one when it comes to the Trinity–would it be true or false that the Holy Spirit could proceed from the Father, Son, AND the Holy Spirit BECAUSE wherever there are two there must be three?

Would it be true or false to say that the Son was begotten of the Father, Holy Spirit, AND the Son?

The answer would be false to both your questions. The Catholic and Orthodox position has always affirmed that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one EXCEPT in one sense and one sense only - their relations. Thus, it is not by virtue of the oneness that any of these relations flow.

As pointed out, the explanation you proffered was the explanation of St. Anselm of Canterbury, but that has never been the dogmatic position of the Catholic Church. If one reads any of the magisterial documents of the Catholic Church (Lyons, Florence, the Official Clarification), one will not find any reference to the rationale that the Holy Spirit procedit from the Father and Son by virtue of the idea that the Father and Son are one.

The reason that the magisterial documents of the CC propose as the reason that the Holy Spirit procedit from the Father and Son (or ekporeusai from the Father through the Son) is in fact for the hypostatic properties that they do not share - i.e., the Father as one and only Source, and the Son as agency.

Earlier (perhaps in this thread or another recent filioque thread) an EO poster mistook the Catholic position as the Father giving the power of procession to the Son. That statement is similar to St. Anselm’s notion of the Procession being based on the oneness of Father and Son. On this premise, the Father must be giving the power of procession to the Son, thereby making the Father and Son “ONE” in the Procession. But that is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. As noted, it is not by virtue of their oneness that the Father and Son share in the principle of the Holy Spirit’s procession; rather, they share in it by virtue of their own unique hypostatic properties - i.e., the Father as one and only Source, and the Son as agency. Using the terminology of the EO poster spoken of, the Catholic position would be correctly stated thus:

The power of Procession from the Father flows through the Son, not that the power of Procession is given to the Son.

Does that help?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Jerry-Jet]

That makes perfect sense.

Answer me this–did Jesus ever tell the disciples that He was sending them the Comforter or did He just say that the Comforter (referring to the Holy Spirit) would come?

I know that there is a verse in the Holy Scriptures about the Holy Spirit being sent or proceeding by or from he Father–is that where the Orthodox get their idea that the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father?

Is it is the official teaching of the Catholic Church that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son?

When Jesus said about his second coming that “no one knows the day or the hour not man NOR the Son but the Father only” did He mean that He knew the day and the hour in His divine nature but not in His human nature?

I have heard that some translations of the scriptures omitted “NOR the Son” because the copy writers didn’t think that “NOR the Son” squared with the doctrine of the Trinity. Is this true?

I believe in the Trinity–is my explanation of “Nor the Son” being known by Jesus only in His Divine nature a correct explanation?

One last thing–if this is true answer me this–what is the big problem that the Orthodox have with the Holy Spirit proceeding FROM the Father THROUGH the Son? Do they have a problem if the doctrine is stated in this way? Is it just “Father AND Son” instead of “Father THROUGH the Son” that they have a problem with?

Forgive my elemental questions–I only became a Catholic in Easter of 2011 and don’t know the full history of the filioque controversy.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jerry-Jet,

I don’t have a lot of time right now and will be busy for the next several days. I can only give quick answers, and if they are not sufficient and you need more clarification, perhaps one of our many able apologists here can help. I’ll take it up again if no answers have been forthcoming before I return.

That makes perfect sense.

Very glad I could help.

Answer me this–did Jesus ever tell the disciples that He was sending them the Comforter or did He just say that the Comforter (referring to the Holy Spirit) would come?

In Scripture, Jesus said he would SEND the Comforter (John 15:26). Jesus’ sending of the Comforter, however, only indirectly applies to the issue of the hypostatic origination of the Holy Spirit (i.e., it is not a direct statement on the hypostatic origination of HS, but of the economic procession, though it can imply something about the eternal relations).

I know that there is a verse in the Holy Scriptures about the Holy Spirit being sent or proceeding by or from he Father–is that where the Orthodox get their idea that the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father?

Scripture (John 15:26) states that Jesus will send the Holy Spirit from the Father, and that the Spirit proceeds (ekporeusai in Greek) from the Father. Yes, this is where Orthodox get the teaching that the Holy Spirit ekporeusai alone from the Father. It should be noted that the CC also teaches that the Holy Spirit ekporeusai alone from the Father (see the Official Clarification), but procedit from the Father and the Son. As I hope you can see, ekporeusai and procedit don’t mean exactly the same thing.

Is it is the official teaching of the Catholic Church that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son?

Yes. The most prominent Eastern sources for the teaching that the Spirit ekporeusai from the Father through the Son are Patriarch St. Tarasius of Constantinople and St. John Damascene. One of the Eastern Catholic Churches that re-established communion with Rome affirmed this very teaching in their act of union.

When Jesus said about his second coming that “no one knows the day or the hour not man NOR the Son but the Father only” did He mean that He knew the day and the hour in His divine nature but not in His human nature?

I have heard that some translations of the scriptures omitted “NOR the Son” because the copy writers didn’t think that “NOR the Son” squared with the doctrine of the Trinity. Is this true?

I believe in the Trinity–is my explanation of “Nor the Son” being known by Jesus only in His Divine nature a correct explanation?

I’ve encountered two explanations - one is the one you proposed; the other is that the Son was asserting the monarchy of the Father (that the Father is the source of everything, even the knowledge that the Son has).

One last thing–if this is true answer me this–what is the big problem that the Orthodox have with the Holy Spirit proceeding FROM the Father THROUGH the Son? Do they have a problem if the doctrine is stated in this way?

There should be no problem, but the EO rhetoric has undergone development. Way back even until the time of the Council of Florence, the only issue was that the Latins seemed to make the Son an origin or source of the Holy Spirit (either with the Father as a separate source, or by making the Father dependent on the Son for the Father to be the source). The problem was solvable because the Latins did not actually teach that the Son is an origin or source of the Spirit. More modern EO rhetoric however has added to the original argument by claiming the Son has absolutely nothing to do with the Holy Spirit coming into being - i.e., they even deny that “through the Son” is orthodox. There are, of course, many EO who still only maintain the patristic argument against filioque (not the more modern argument), and are thus not as condemnatory of filioque.

Is it just “Father AND Son” instead of “Father THROUGH the Son” that they have a problem with?

There is actually no problem, patristically speaking, with the statement “procedit from the Father and the Son.” This is based on the realization that the Latin procedit is not perfectly equivalent to the Greek ekporeusai. The Latin procedit is more analogous to the Greek proienai, and there are several Eastern and Oriental Fathers who teach that the Spirit is proienai from the Father and the Son. The problem was that for the longest time, even into the 20th century, Catholics and Orthodox were thinking that the Latin procedit was equivalent to the Greek ekporeusai. While it is perfectly orthodox to say “the Holy Spirit procedit/proienai from the Father and the Son,” it is, on the other hand, perfectly heterodox to say “the Holy Spirit ekporeusai from the Father and the Son” (though it is orthodox to say “the Holy Spirit ekporeusai from the Father through the Son”).

Forgive my elemental questions–I only became a Catholic in Easter of 2011 and don’t know the full history of the filioque controversy.

No problem. I’m only sorry I don’t have time for a fuller explanation.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jerry-Jet,

I just remembered something, and I wanted to make a quick clarification to forestall any objections:

There should be no problem, but the EO rhetoric has undergone development. Way back even until the time of the Council of Florence, the only issue was that the Latins seemed to make the Son an origin or source of the Holy Spirit (either with the Father as a separate source, or by making the Father dependent on the Son for the Father to be the source). The problem was solvable because the Latins did not actually teach that the Son is an origin or source of the Spirit. More modern EO rhetoric however has added to the original argument by claiming the Son has absolutely nothing to do with the Holy Spirit coming into being - i.e., they even deny that “through the Son” is orthodox. There are, of course, many EO who still only maintain the patristic argument against filioque (not the more modern argument), and are thus not as condemnatory of filioque.

The Greek St. Palamas (14th century) makes an argument of separating the Son from the Holy Spirit’s coming into existence, but he does not go as far some modern EO apologists who deny even “through the Son.” Here is the statement from St. Palamas:

“The Holy Spirit is Christ’s, because [Christ is] God, both according to energy and according to essence. But on the one hand, according to essence and according to hypostasis, [the Holy Spirit] is His [Christ’s], but not from Him, and on the other hand, according to energy, [the Holy Spirit] is both His and from Him.”

Here, it is obvious that St. Palamas is expressing the Traditional Greek concern of making the Son the ORIGIN or SOURCE (i.e., the principle of being “from”) of the Spirit’s hypostasis. As far as I know, he does not make any actual objection to the Latin teaching that the Son is the agency (i.e., the principle of being “through,” or the philosophical “second cause”) of the Holy Spirit’s existence. The reason is easy to quess - it is because the Greek ekporeusai was misunderstood by all at the time to be perfectly equivalent to the Latin procedit. With that mistaken premise, it is easy to understand that the Greeks thought that when the Latins professed that the Holy Spirit procedit from the Father and the Son, then this meant the Latins believed that the Son was a source or origin of the Holy Spirit like the Father.

All Traditional Eastern sources arguing against filioque up until, and including, Mark of Ephesus are only concerned with the idea that filioque makes the Son a source or origin of the Holy Spirit. The more modern EO rhetoric, as mentioned earlier, has added to the Traditional Eastern concerns about filioque, and argues even against the Son’s role as merely the agency (or the principle of being “through”) of the Father’s power of Procession. This has conceivably made rapprochement on the matter more difficult. But, as mentioned, not all EO are like this, but adhere to the patristic concerns regarding filioque. With the understanding that the Latins don’t actually teach that the Son is a source or origin of the Holy Spirit, these latter EO do not condemn filioque like the former who have adopted the more modern EO arguments against filioque.

COMMENT: If you haven’t caught it, St. Palamas’ argument is actually very interesting. St. Palamas argues that one can say that the Son is SOURCE of the the Spirit’s Energy (i.e., in terms of Essence, the Spirit is not from the Son, but in terms of Energy, He is from the Son). This actually goes beyond the Catholic position. The Catholic position does not claim that the Son is source in any sense, only AGENCY. Contrary to St. Palamas’ position (which I don’t think is dogmatized by the Eastern Churches - one of my Eastern brethren please correct me if I’m wrong), the Catholic Church would only assert that the Energy is through the Son, not from the Son.

Blessings,
Marduk