filioque

[Sergius_Lucius]

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

I'm afraid the whole problem is from here. This is a good and well-known explanation but it is only explanation, it can't be used to proof any doctrine. That passage say "Love exists between two persons, therefore the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son" but we shouldn't apply our understanding of love to God. The Trinity is revelation, not logical development of the idea of God. St Gregory the Theologian in the end of his Homilies on Theology (c. 380 AD) warns that any analogy is limited and can be dangerous if we will derive our view on God from it.

Also the Orthodox Church teaches about distinction between essence and energies of God, which is rejected by the Catholic Church. Love is an energy of God, it is how He reveals Himself to us. It is not about His inner being.

I apologize if I explained not very clear, hope the other will add to this.

 

[The Prokeimenon!]

In Orthodoxy, The Father is unique, because from Him the Son is Begotten and the Spirit Proceeds.

The Son is unique because He was incarnate for us men and for our salvation.

The Holy Spirit is unique because He dwells with us and in us and in the Church.

All Three Persons are equal, and because of their perfect communion of Love, they are One God- Consubstantial, Holy, Life-Creating, and Undivided.

The Filioque destroys the uniqueness of the Persons. It subordinates the Holy Spirit, and confuses the Father and the Son.

(this is my understanding, and if it is incorrect, somebody please correct me.)

And even if the Filioque was accurate, the Latin Church had no business tampering with The Creed.

No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the splendor
of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish them than I am carried back to the
One …. When I contemplate the Three together, I see but one living flame,
And I cannot divide or measure out the Undivided Light!

- St Gregory Nazianzus

It's confusing. I'm confused. I've got a headache. I'm going to bed

Moses

 

[nikephoros_spatharios]

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

'knowledge' corresponds to gnôsis or epistêmê
logos has many meanings, but 'knowledge' as it is understood in English is not one of them.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=#63773

 

[prodromos]

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

The problem with this is that the Catholic dogma regarding the "filioque" is NOT that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

The Catholic Church has taught and declared that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as one source:

The 2nd Council of Lyons in 1274 makes it clear: "..we confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one; not by two spirations but by one."

The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."

First Vatican Council, 1869-1870 "Dogmatic Constitution on the Principal Mysteries of the Faith" states: "For from all eternity the Father generates the Son, not in producing by emanation another essence equal to his own, but in communicating his own simple essence. And in like manner, the Holy Spirit proceeds, not by a multiplication of the essence, but he proceeds by a communication of the same singular essence by one eternal spiration from the Father and the Son as from one principle."

The Roman Catechism (The offical Roman Catholic catechism, 1566-1994) I.8.6. states: With regard to the words immediately succeeding: "who proceeds from the Father and the Son," the faithful are to be taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds, by eternal procession, from the Father and the Son as from one principle. This is a truth taught to us by the rule of the Church from which the least departure is unwarrantable on the part of Christians.

Regardless of what the Catholic church teaches regarding the "filioque" today, the official Catholic dogma on the "filioque" has not been repudiated and is contrary to Orthodox belief. Until this dogma is "undeclared" there can really be no progress in discussions between our two churches.

John.

 

[Philip]

The problem with this is that the Catholic dogma regarding the "filioque" is NOT that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

Agreed.

Regardless of what the Catholic church teaches regarding the "filioque" today, the official Catholic dogma on the "filioque" has not been repudiated and is contrary to Orthodox belief. Until this dogma is "undeclared" there can really be no progress in discussions between our two churches.

Agreed.

 

[Rilian]

There has been some work though to bridge the gap - An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation.

 

[kimber1]

praying that peace can be restored

 

[MariaRegina]

Great post! This is the first time I really understood the differences.
Thanks for posting this information.

The problem with this is that the Catholic dogma regarding the "filioque" is NOT that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

The Catholic Church has taught and declared that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as one source:

The 2nd Council of Lyons in 1274 makes it clear: "..we confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one; not by two spirations but by one."

The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."

First Vatican Council, 1869-1870 "Dogmatic Constitution on the Principal Mysteries of the Faith" states: "For from all eternity the Father generates the Son, not in producing by emanation another essence equal to his own, but in communicating his own simple essence. And in like manner, the Holy Spirit proceeds, not by a multiplication of the essence, but he proceeds by a communication of the same singular essence by one eternal spiration from the Father and the Son as from one principle."

The Roman Catechism (The offical Roman Catholic catechism, 1566-1994) I.8.6. states: With regard to the words immediately succeeding: "who proceeds from the Father and the Son," the faithful are to be taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds, by eternal procession, from the Father and the Son as from one principle. This is a truth taught to us by the rule of the Church from which the least departure is unwarrantable on the part of Christians.

Regardless of what the Catholic church teaches regarding the "filioque" today, the official Catholic dogma on the "filioque" has not been repudiated and is contrary to Orthodox belief. Until this dogma is "undeclared" there can really be no progress in discussions between our two churches.

John.

 

[Matthias]

Thank you all for your posts! You are a wealth of information!

 

[Michael G]

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

The problem with the Philioque is two fold. Yes there is a big difference between the way the two churches understand the procession of the Holy Spirit. However, there is the less talked about second difference, which to me is much more serious. That problem is how the philoque was added to the creed. It was done so at a local council of Toledo, Spain somewhere arround 590 AD. At that time the Pope rejected the proclamation of that council and the philoque. The popes continued to reject the idea until Charlemagne (Karl der Grosse-for those of you Germanophiles out there) forced the Pope to do so under the threat of harm. When push came to shove, the Pope gave in. That is not how the Orthodox church makes such decisions. Such a decision as to totally change the faith by adding to the Nicene Creed can only be done by means of Ecumenical Council. As Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has recently said http://www.christianforums.com/t163983&page=1 if the philioque had not caused the schism, something else shortly after would have.

 

[Matthias]

Let's not cry over little things and look past the differences and hug and sing as one people!

 

[Michael G]

Let's not cry over little things and look past the differences and hug and sing as one people!

If it were such a little thing, the Ecumenical Councils of Nicea and Constantinople would not have proclaimed Anathema on anyone who added to or subtracted from the creed which they set in writing without first calling an Ecumenical Council to do so.

 

[MariaRegina]

Most definitely. The Catholic understanding of the Filioque is supported by Holy Scripture.

John 14:26 - But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you.

John 15:26 - When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf.

John 16:7 - 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.

The problem with the filioque doctrine in the Latin Church is this:

The Latin Catholics are confusing the Eternal Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father

with the Temporal Procession of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles at Pentecost.

So looking at nyj's bibical quotes:

he forgets to underscore one important point, which I will do.

John 14:26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, [Pentecostal proceeding forth] will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you.

John 15:26 - When the Advocate comes, [Pentecostal proceeding forth] whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father [Eternal Procession], he will testify on my behalf.

John 16:7 - 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. [Pentecostal sending forth of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles]

Notice: The scriptures do not say that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and The Son. This is not found anywhere in the Holy Scriptures.

That the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father is scripturally based. This is what the Orthodox Church believes and professes. This is the Holy Faith of the Orthodox. This we will die for.

 

[MariaRegina]

PLease see John's post of this thread (#24) which is reprinted in full here:

"The problem with this is that the Catholic dogma regarding the "filioque" is NOT that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

The Catholic Church has taught and declared that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as one source:

The 2nd Council of Lyons in 1274 makes it clear: "..we confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one; not by two spirations but by one."

The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."

First Vatican Council, 1869-1870 "Dogmatic Constitution on the Principal Mysteries of the Faith" states: "For from all eternity the Father generates the Son, not in producing by emanation another essence equal to his own, but in communicating his own simple essence. And in like manner, the Holy Spirit proceeds, not by a multiplication of the essence, but he proceeds by a communication of the same singular essence by one eternal spiration from the Father and the Son as from one principle."

The Roman Catechism (The offical Roman Catholic catechism, 1566-1994) I.8.6. states: With regard to the words immediately succeeding: "who proceeds from the Father and the Son," the faithful are to be taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds, by eternal procession, from the Father and the Son as from one principle. This is a truth taught to us by the rule of the Church from which the least departure is unwarrantable on the part of Christians.

Regardless of what the Catholic church teaches regarding the "filioque" today, the official Catholic dogma on the "filioque" has not been repudiated and is contrary to Orthodox belief. Until this dogma is "undeclared" there can really be no progress in discussions between our two churches."

****

John's post needs to be read.

 

[Photini]

Thanks Elizabeth. That actually clears up a lot for me.


Here's a snippet from An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. by St. John Damascene.

Likewise we believe also in one Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life: Who proceedeth from the Father and resteth in the Son: the object of equal adoration and glorification with the Father and Son, since He is co-essential and co-eternal(2): the Spirit of God, direct, authoritative(3), the fountain of wisdom, and life, and holiness: God existing and addressed along with Father and Son: uncreate, full, creative, all-ruling, all-effecting, all-powerful, of infinite power, Lord of all creation and not under any lord(4): deifying, not deified(5): filling, not filled: shared in, not sharing in: sanctifying, not sanctified: the intercessor, receiving the supplications of all: in all things like to the Father and Son: proceeding from the Father and communicated through the Son, and participated in by all creation, through Himself creating, and investing with essence and sanctifying, and maintaining the universe: having subsistence, existing in its own proper and peculiar subsistence, inseparable and indivisible from Father and Son, and possessing all the qualities that the Father and Son possess, save that of not being begotten or born. For the Father is without canst and unborn: for He is derived from nothing, but derives from Himself His being, nor does He derive a single quality from another(6). Rather He is Himself the beginning and cause of the existence of all things in a definite and natural manner. But the Son is derived from the Father after the manner of generation, and the Holy Spirit likewise is derived from the Father, yet not after the manner of generation, but after that of procession. And we have learned that there is a difference(7) between generation and procession, but the nature of that difference we in no wise understand. Further, the generation of the Son from the Father and the procession of the Holy Spirit are simultaneous.

 

[kimber1]

i guess i'm still confused. i'm still thinking God and Jesus and Holy Spirit are one so why is this an issue?

 

[MariaRegina]

i guess i'm still confused. i'm still thinking God and Jesus and Holy Spirit are one so why is this an issue?

This is the most important point. Our God is a Triune God. One God in three divine persons. The Father is God, The Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. The Trinity is One Godhead without confusion of the Divine Persons.

The Holy Trinity is beyond our comprehension.

Trying to solve this Holy Mystery only leads to pride.

Are you familiar with the story about the boy on the shore who was trying to pour the entire ocean into a litle hole he had dug? One of our Holy Saints tried to reason with the little boy and told him that he was trying to do the impossible. The little boy (an angel in disguise) remarked: "It is also impossible to try to figure out the Mystery of the Holy Trinity."

Hope this helps.

 

[MariaRegina]

Does anyone remember who that saint was? St. Augustine, St. Jerome?

 

[Kripost]

i guess i'm still confused. i'm still thinking God and Jesus and Holy Spirit are one so why is this an issue?

The issue is regarding the three distinct Persons, a single Essence, and the tendency to confuse between Persons and Essence. Although the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one, each of them have a special, distinct role in the universe.

 

[kimber1]

yea i understand that. i'm jsut not getting why if God and Jesus are the same and the Holy Spirit is the same as to why it's wrong to say that the Holy Spirit came from them both? they're all the same :scrathc: just ignore me i'm not usually up this late