The Filioque

[Joseph Hazen]

Truefiction, with all due respect, surely you must see that putting forth personal ideas about how Trinitarian theology was formed is best left to a thread specifically dealing with that subject, or something in General Theology, rather than confusing inquirers. If people are asking about Orthodox teachings it is best to give them those teachings, rather than present one's own opinions as if they were, in fact, taught by Orthodoxy. Contemporary neuroscience is not how Orthodox theology is formed.

 

[truefiction1]

Truefiction, with all due respect, surely you must see that putting forth personal ideas about how Trinitarian theology was formed is best left to a thread specifically dealing with that subject, or something in General Theology, rather than confusing inquirers. If people are asking about Orthodox teachings it is best to give them those teachings, rather than present one's own opinions as if they were, in fact, taught by Orthodoxy. Contemporary neuroscience is not how Orthodox theology is formed.

Joseph, if my personal ideas did not agree with Orthodox Trinitarian theology and increase our insight with regard to how such theology was revealed, then I wouldn't bother taking the time to share them.

Fact is, as both contemporary neuroscience and the holy fathers show, you are a replica of the Holy Trinity. Hence, if left to your own devices, you will tend to see the Trinity as you are.

 

[Joseph Hazen]

Whether or not they agree, the question is whether they are presented as official Orthodox teaching, which is what inquirers are going to be interested in. If you believe they are Orthodox teaching, I would ask you to support that statement, for the benefit of those who are reading, possibly in another thread (as defenses of that sort are long). Its not a question of whether it's a possible theologoumenon, but whether it's official, or dogma, or what have you.

All I could add to such a discussion is that no one here at Seminary that I have spoken to seems to have encountered these ideas before.

 

[Leevo]

actually that is very inaccurate. Rome actually accused the East of leaving out the filioque intentionally. if from the Father and the Son meant through the Son, they would not have had earlier councils that said that they proceed eternally from BOTH as from one principle. had they always clarified that from the Son means through the Son, there really would not have been an issue. a lot of modern stuff from Rome has them backtracking a LOT.

But in terms of the modern day church, if they recognize both as meaning the same thing, then what is the problem? Seem to me that people just seem to "want" this to be an issue rather than it actually being one...

Im learning things through this thread, I thank you guys for it.


Also, Acts 2:33 seems to put it quite nicely.


" 33. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear."

It seems to me there, that he is saying that Christ received the Holy Spirit from the Father, and the poured it out over the people. I.E. proceeded from Christ to the people.

 

[Lukaris]

But in terms of the modern day church, if they recognize both as meaning the same thing, then what is the problem? Seem to me that people just seem to "want" this to be an issue rather than it actually being one...

Im learning things through this thread, I thank you guys for it.


Also, Acts 2:33 seems to put it quite nicely.


" 33. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear."

It seems to me there, that he is saying that Christ received the Holy Spirit from the Father, and the poured it out over the people. I.E. proceeded from Christ to the people.

The problems, as have been mentioned, is that the Orthodox never accepted the filioque but originally tolerated to avoid schism. The issue festered & tensions increased to a point where we could never accept this doctrine without compromising our faith. It became an issue attached to other matters when tensions arose in times when like the Normans were suppressing Orthodox communities in southern Italy in the 11th c. etc. etc. Both Catholics & Orthodox did bad things to each other so this is not to point fingers.

 

[Leevo]

The problems, as have been mentioned, is that the Orthodox never accepted the filioque but originally tolerated to avoid schism. The issue festered & tensions increased to a point where we could never accept this doctrine without compromising our faith. It became an issue attached to other matters when tensions arose in times when like the Normans were suppressing Orthodox communities in southern Italy in the 11th c. etc. etc. Both Catholics & Orthodox did bad things to each other so this is not to point fingers.

But in terms of the Church's today, it seems to be "the filioque" doesen't need to be as divisive as some people make it out to be. Especially since both church's now are coming to more and more agreements about this issue and several others.

These are just my thoughts that I have gathered from reading arguments from both sides... I still get that both sides disagree with some other, waaay more important doctrines. Papal Infallibility and Authority, for example.

 

[ArmyMatt]

But in terms of the modern day church, if they recognize both as meaning the same thing, then what is the problem? Seem to me that people just seem to "want" this to be an issue rather than it actually being one...

Im learning things through this thread, I thank you guys for it.


Also, Acts 2:33 seems to put it quite nicely.


" 33. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear."

It seems to me there, that he is saying that Christ received the Holy Spirit from the Father, and the poured it out over the people. I.E. proceeded from Christ to the people.

they only say this now, because modern Popes say this now. the issue is that their message is not the same thing. if Rome truly is THE Church of Christ, they would not always change their own definitions.

and your first sentence of your last paragraph shows the error of Rome. Rome says that the Spirit is not from the Father to/through the Son, but from the Son as well. that is the issue. the Spirit's origin is not in the Son but ONLY in the Father.

 

[Leevo]

they only say this now, because modern Popes say this now. the issue is that their message is not the same thing. if Rome truly is THE Church of Christ, they would not always change their own definitions.

and your first sentence of your last paragraph shows the error of Rome. Rome says that the Spirit is not from the Father to/through the Son, but from the Son as well. that is the issue. the Spirit's origin is not in the Son but ONLY in the Father.

But both Church's are starting to accept both ways of saying the creed AND Rome states that everything the Son has is from the Father... Therefore, if the Holy Spirit were proceeding from the Son, it would also be proceeding from the Father, because the Father would first give it to Christ, and then Christ would pour it out onto the people. Just like in John 20.

22. And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”



Is that not the Holy Spirit coming out from/proceeding from the Son right there?

 

[truefiction1]

But both Church's are starting to accept both ways of saying the creed AND Rome states that everything the Son has is from the Father... Therefore, if the Holy Spirit were proceeding from the Son, it would also be proceeding from the Father, because the Father would first give it to Christ, and then Christ would pour it out onto the people. Just like in John 20.

22. And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”



Is that not the Holy Spirit coming out from/proceeding from the Son right there?

Forgive me Leevo, but the Holy Spirit is not coming out from/proceeding from the Son right there. Using mere intellect in the interpretation of such passages would rationally lead us to such a conclusion. A "mindful" stance, however, which is a state of spiritual, or psychological being acquired by Theologians of the Orthodox Christian Tradition, produces a wholly different take on the relationship between the Son (Logos) and the Spirit in this Scriptural passage. Praying the Jesus Prayer while using the proper breathing is the most common means by which we are able to acquire mindfulness. From within such a mode of being we clearly recognize that the Spirit is not coming from the Son, but rather from within the Father. We also see that neither the Son nor the Spirit are subject to the Father. Being begotten or proceeding from the Father is not meant to imply subjugation. Nor is the Spirit subject to the Son. Since, however, the three agree in one there is a unity in the movement of the Trinity toward us:toward our creation and toward our deification. Hence, while it may appear as though the Spirit is acting in response to the Word, the Two are actually entirely diverse entities, each equal in their importance, and acting in unison because they are equally important parts of God.

 

[truefiction1]

To help make this more clear, we are, as stated above, replicas of the Holy Trinity. The more we near the Trinitarian perfection of ourselves, the more clearly it is that we understand what that perfection consists of. To make a long story short: our perfection is to be found in an equilateral agreement, a healthy balance, between our thoughts and our feelings, wherein our meta-cognitively aware self (the Father) , our verbalized thoughts (the Son), and our affective feelings and energies (the Spirit) all agree in one. In a human who has achieved such chastity and holiness, neither the intellect nor the feelings, both entirely different in what they are, are subject to one another. Rather, they find unity and agreement, and especially equality, in the highly aware human being. This equality, however, can only be found -- in and through the acquisition of virtue, especially Love.

 

[truefiction1]

22. And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit."



Is that not the Holy Spirit coming out from/proceeding from the Son right there?

Just to be perfectly clear: The Son is not commanding the Holy Spirit. He is only commanding His disciples to receive the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is not subject to the Son. The Spirit is not following instructions given by the Father through the Word. The Spirit is doing what the Spirit does within an entirely non-conflicted Trinitarian God. The Word and the Spirit are interacting in unison in this and in every other instance. The Spirit does not wait for instruction from the Son. In an imperfect trinitarian schema that is found within imperfect human beings, there exists tension and conflict between what one knows to be proper and what one desires, or feels. In such a mode of conflicted being one must subjugate one's feelings and desires to one's morally informed thoughts. Thus, a Trinitarian model that shows the Holy Spirit proceeding from or through the Word, is actually a projection of the imperfect trinitarian model usually found within humans, who tend to be conflicted. God, the Trinity, is not conflicted. Each of the Divine persons know one another intimately and perfectly, and agree intimately and perfectly. The Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son.

 

[truefiction1]

Also, Acts 2:33 seems to put it quite nicely.


" 33. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear."

It seems to me there, that he is saying that Christ received the Holy Spirit from the Father, and the poured it out over the people. I.E. proceeded from Christ to the people.

Seeing this passage being used to support the idea that the Spirit proceeds from Christ, I need to point out the obvious: that this is clearly stated strictly in regard to the "humanity" of God the Word. It was the humanity of Christ that was exulted. God the Word is "with God" in the beginning, and "was God". Christ, by means of the very "transference" by means of which all human beings live, pours out the Spirit by virtue of His exulted humanity. It is another whole discussion to illustrate exactly how this works. I won't get into that now.