filioque

[kimber1]

first, i come here in peace!!

i just wanted to understand what y'all's interpretation of this is and why it's one thing that seems to divide us since for the most part i see so many similarities in Catholics and Orthodax and personally consider you all my brothers and sisters in Christ. maybe i'm not understanding the termonology correctly so can someone explain why this is an issue between us?

thanks and peace be with you

 

[Rilian]

Here is a short article about the history of the Filioque. I think it's regarded as incredibly important because the Trinity is how we understand God, so to change our conception of the Trinity is to change our fundamental understanding of God. To me the inverted triangle created by the double procession creates a distorted picture of what the Trinity is, and I think has the effect of subordinating the Holy Spirit in the relationship. I think many in Orthodoxy would also say the Trinity is widely misunderstood and ignored in Western theology.

 

[kimber1]

thanks for the link maybe what i'm not understanding is since God=Jesus=Holy Spirit then why is it considered wrong to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from them Both since they're all 3 One? ugh the Trinity concept is so hard to understand. can someone help me out here or am i just off in my thinking?

 

[Philip]

thanks for the link maybe what i'm not understanding is since God=Jesus=Holy Spirit then why is it considered wrong to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from them Both since they're all 3 One?

For the same reason that is wrong to say that the Father is begotten of the Holy Spirit.

 

[kimber1]

okay now i'm really confused it's my understnading that the only one begotten is the Son right?

 

[twosid]

Kimberly,

The way I've always been taught and understand from studying is that its God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, three seperate entitys all God but all yet having their own unique qualities. Thats just me throwing it in 50 words or less. I've read some of the article in the link as I don't know yet how the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church view the trinity and still don't. I get really impatient with the verbage on the explanations. I mean why can't someone just speak plainly? Its like......In reference to the 43'rd council of the orange orangutan therefore biploar misfits of ecumenical spaghetti laity to the 43'rd parallel instead of divine rooster noodle over there in the potato's in the mailbox yesterday after the 2'nd sneeze of the twisted twine goober grape lunchbox. AAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGHHHH! Doesn't anyone in the Orthodox Church or Catholicism use footnotes. Somebody speak english before I go nuts.

 

[Philip]

Correct. The Logos is the Only Begotten Son of the Father. Likewise, the Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Father is the fountainhead of the Trinity.

 

[kimber1]

Kimberly,

The way I've always been taught and understand from studying is that its God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, three seperate entitys all God but all yet having their own unique qualities. Thats just me throwing it in 50 words or less. I've read some of the article in the link as I don't know yet how the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church view the trinity and still don't. I get really impatient with the verbage on the explanations. I mean why can't someone just speak plainly? Its like......In reference to the 43'rd council of the orange orangutan therefore biploar misfits of ecumenical spaghetti laity to the 43'rd parallel instead of divine rooster noodle over there in the potato's in the mailbox yesterday after the 2'nd sneeze of the twisted twine goober grape lunchbox. AAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGHHHH! Doesn't anyone in the Orthodox Church or Catholicism use footnotes. Somebody speak english before I go nuts.

ROFL!!! i know exactly what you mean. i get confused too that's why i don't understand this particular difference between us.

 

[kimber1]

Correct. The Logos is the Only Begotten Son of the Father. Likewise, the Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Father is the fountainhead of the Trinity.

okay so you're saying that the Son and the Holy Spirit both proceed from the Father right? so in Orhtodox thinking (i mean NOOOOOO offense, i'm jsut trying to understand if i've got it right) is that to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father in some way takes away from the Father? is that right?

 

[Philip]

There are two issues concerning the filioque between the Orthodox and the Catholic. One has to do with the meaning of the filioque -- is it a correct statement about the relationship of the Trinity. The other has to do with how the filioque was added to the Creed.

Which of these do you want to consider first?

 

[Philip]

okay so you're saying that the Son and the Holy Spirit both proceed from the Father right?

Yes, except we say the Son is begotten and that the Spirit proceeds. (For the moment, don't worry about the details of the difference.)

so in Orhtodox thinking (i mean NOOOOOO offense, i'm jsut trying to understand if i've got it right) is that to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father in some way takes away from the Father? is that right?

Basically. It confuses the role of the Father and the Son. Some Orthodox theologians accept the phrase "proceeds from the Father through the Son", but they still do not think the Creed should have been changed

 

[kimber1]

okay that makes sense, i can accept that. i've just always wondered why this is such a huge issue between us when the other similarities are so significant. i once asked an Orthodox if he could explain the schism to me and he gave me a link to read and for the most part i see the same things believed (for the most part) but just worded a little differently. but i'm glad y'all don't see me as the enemy! thank you!!

 

[Peter]

If we can, let's put theology to a side for a moment and try to look at this in a more simple manner.

1) The phrase was added outside a full council. Therefore the phrase is illegal.

2) The phrase runs contrary to scripture.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program.

Peace.

Peter,
Lover of The Theotokos

 

[Rilian]

The essential nature of the Trinity in Orthodoxy is that it is of one essence and undivided with the uncreated father as the source of the union. Even before the Filioque controversy there was a divergence of understanding that developed. Augustine began to describe the hypostatic union of the Trinity in terms of a relationship with the spirit as the “bond of love” between the father and son. This upset the balance of the Trinity because it subordinated the role of the spirit and created a view of the Trinity based not on a shared substance, but on a shared relationship. It also had the side effect of largely depersonalizing the spirit as an entity within the Godhead. That had a lasting effect in Western Christendom.

The issue then moved from being one of a differing understanding to a matter of authority as the Filioque grew in popularity in the West. Increasingly it was seen as part of the overall assertion of power in the medieval papacy spurred on in large degree by the Carolingians who favored the addition to the creed. It played a direct part in the breakdown of shared belief that precipitated the schism. It is currently an obstacle to reunion because I’m pretty sure the Filioque has been elevated to the level of dogma in the Catholic Church.

 

[Theresa]

thanks for the link maybe what i'm not understanding is since God=Jesus=Holy Spirit then why is it considered wrong to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from them Both since they're all 3 One? ugh the Trinity concept is so hard to understand. can someone help me out here or am i just off in my thinking?

-I have a book, "Theology for Beginners" by Frank J. Sheed which speaks about this relationship very well, and it speaks about appropriation and such.

As such, the thought is that the Son is the Word of the Father, so the Son is begotten by the Father who knows Himself perfectly and infinitely, and the Holy Spirit is a person by them loving each other perfectly and infiitely. God's knowledge is a person and God's love is a person.

Not debating, just showing what understanding I've come to have, so then the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

So the distinction: Orthodox "And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father;"

Catholic:"who proceeds from the Father and the Son"

Both are technically correct as far as I can tell, but one is more technically clear, IMHO.

Some interesting thoughts for consideration:

"A sixth misunderstanding about love is the idea that “God is love” is unrelated to dogmatic theology, especially to the doctrine of the Trinity. Everyone can agree that “God is love”, it seems, but the Trinity is a tangled dogma for an esoteric elite, isn't it? No. If God is not a Trinity, God is not love. For love requires three things: a lover, a beloved, and a relationship between them. If God were only one person, he could be a lover, but not love itself. The Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father, and the Spirit is the love proceeding from both, from all eternity. If that were not so, then God would need us, would be incomplete without us, without someone to love. "

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/love.htm

 

[Photini]

One of the ways to understand it better, is to understand ourselves better. After all, we are in His Image. But to know ourselves and find that Image, we must remove the muck that taints it.

We try to dissect things with our minds, and that is so confusing.

 

[twosid]

One of the ways to understand it better, is to understand ourselves better. After all, we are in His Image. But to know ourselves and find that Image, we must remove the muck that taints it.

muck ([font=verdana, sans-serif] P [/font]) Pronunciation Key (m

k)
n.

1. A moist sticky mixture, especially of mud and filth.
2. Moist farmyard dung; manure.
3. Dark fertile soil containing decaying vegetable matter.
4. Something filthy or disgusting.
5. Earth, rocks, or clay excavated in mining.

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. I'm so much worse than that so I've got a ways to go. Dictionary.com gets the credit for above definition.

 

[nikephoros_spatharios]

As such, the thought is that the Son is the Word of the Father, so the Son is begotten by the Father who knows Himself perfectly and infinitely, and the Holy Spirit is a person by them loving each other perfectly and infiitely. God's knowledge is a person and God's love is a person.

Is there any scriptural or patristic justification for the idea that the Son and Logos of God is "knowledge", or that the Holy Spirit is Love?

 

[prodromos]

I'm going to shamelessly copy something posted on another forum (not by me)

The Holy Spirit must proceed either from the Essence (Ousia) of God, which is shared in by the three Persons (Hypostases) of the Godhead, or from one of the Persons of the Godhead.*

That which is shared among the Persons is of the Essence, and must be shared in by all three Persons, not merely by two of the three.* Therefore, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, then He must proceed from the Divine Essence (from the Ousia of God).* In that case, if one speaks of this in terms of the Persons of God, He must proceed from each of them equally, including from the Holy Spirit Himself.* But, that is absurd; the Holy Spirit obviously cannot be said to proceed from Himself.

Therefore, the Divine cause of the Holy Spirit's procession is found, not in God's Essence, but is personal/hypostatic.* In other words, the cause of the Holy Spirit's procession must be a Person of the Godhead, not God's interpersonal Essence.* And the Scriptural witness and Tradition make it clear that, among the Persons, it is the Father from Whom the Holy Spirit most clearly proceeds.* To suggest otherwise would be to attack the monarchy of the Father within the Holy Trinity.

The Filioque was initiated to "ensure" the divinity of the Son, thereby saying that One had to be a Source of the Holy Spirit to be divine, that it was insufficient for the Father to merely "share an essence."
What, then, of the Holy Spirit?* If nothing proceeds from Him (as the RCC says is the case), is He not divine, or at least, AS divine as are the Father and the Son?

 

[Philip]

Is there any scriptural or patristic justification for the idea that the Son and Logos of God is "knowledge",

Logos can mean 'knowledge', but it is more than that.