? on the filoque

[RedTulipMom]

The more i try reading on the filoque the more confused i seem to get!! Could someone please explain in SIMPLE terms the difference of the way the Orthodox see the Holy Spirit vs. Roman Catholic view on the Holy Spirit? Also, in what way if any does it change the Trinity teaching? thanks!

 

[Momzilla]

As you no doubt know, the filioque is the phrase "and from the Son", referring to the procession of the Holy Spirit. This belief is also known as the "double procession" of the spirit.

The Orthodox Church has a number of problems with the filioque. Some are canonical, relating to the manner in which the filioque came to be incorporated in the creed. More importantly, however, we view the double procession as a misunderstanding of the trinitarian nature of God. As Jesus taught, God is the father and the source of the Godhead; Jesus, not being a source of the Godhead (although He is God), cannot be the source of the Spirit (which is also God). Jesus *sends* the Spirit, but it does not *proceed* from Jesus.

Orthodox theology views the triune God as rather like a triangle, with the Father at the point. The filioque turns the triangle 90 degrees, and places Jesus and the Father at the top, and the Holy Spirit at the bottom.

 

[Moros]

That's an interesting way of putting it. Theological views aside, the filioque is also unorthodox for other reasons:

A) The council at which the creed was 'completed,' (the third, I believe) forbade the 'finished' creed to be altered, with the exception of an ecumenical council, of course.

B) The filioque was added to the creed at the council of toledo, which was not ecumenical.

This happened around the same time the goths were being converted to Arianism.

 

[HandmaidenOfGod]

Is this where the phrase "Holy Toledo!" came from?

Sorry, couldn't resist...

 

[RedTulipMom]

As you no doubt know, the filioque is the phrase "and from the Son", referring to the procession of the Holy Spirit. This belief is also known as the "double procession" of the spirit.

The Orthodox Church has a number of problems with the filioque. Some are canonical, relating to the manner in which the filioque came to be incorporated in the creed. More importantly, however, we view the double procession as a misunderstanding of the trinitarian nature of God. As Jesus taught, God is the father and the source of the Godhead; Jesus, not being a source of the Godhead (although He is God), cannot be the source of the Spirit (which is also God). Jesus *sends* the Spirit, but it does not *proceed* from Jesus.

Orthodox theology views the triune God as rather like a triangle, with the Father at the point. The filioque turns the triangle 90 degrees, and places Jesus and the Father at the top, and the Holy Spirit at the bottom.

ok, i understand the triangle thing. How does it really make a big difference in the understanding of the Godhead though? All 3 are still God, correct? I guess i am having a hard time grasping why it makes a difference .

 

[Moros]

I think the filioque more or less insinuates a subordination within the Trinity.

 

[choirfiend]

This quote is from a discussion with an RC priest. Emphasis mine.
[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]
Just a couple of correctives on what the Catholic Church teaches.
"Filioque means "and the Son." The altered Creed that they use states "and in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son""
The problem with saying that Filioque means "and the Son" and leave it at that is that there are two ways to express "and the Son" in Latin "et Filio" and "Filoque". Both Catholics and Orthodox agree that "et Filio" ("and the Son" as if the Father gives 1/2 and the Son gives 1/2 of the Spirit's personality) is heretical.

"Filoque" is a word of motion it means that the Spirit proceeds wholly and fully from the Father as the Father's gift to the Son and then is given back to the Father. The Catholic Church teaches that this procession (from Father to Son and back to Father) is essential to the personality of the Spirit.
Doesn't Orthodoxy teach the same thing?

[/font]From this explanation, one can see some of the difference, hopefully. Orthodox dont believe that the Spirit is a "gift" of the Father, but is fully the Third Person of the Trinity. Here's what I replied...

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif] No, it doesn't. We believe that what the Catholic Church teaches concerning this subjects the Holy Spirit and is an erroneous description that diminishes the role of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity, making Him a dependant upon the God the Father and God the Son, dimishing His nature as God the Holy Spirit. We believe that the personality of the Holy Spirit is essentially more than a "gift." Your description actually makes that quite clear, and makes it very easy to reply that no, that is not what we believe or teach, nor was it what the writers of the Creed believed or taught or they would have put it in the Creed. [/font]

 

[Marjorie]

karenmarie,

It helps for me to look back on Catholic and Orthodox history and to see how they viewed the Holy Spirit after the filioque. The Orthodox Church has what Western Churches call a "high pneumatology," meaning we have a lot of emphasis on the Holy Spirit as opposed to the Western Churches. I believe that subordinating the Holy Spirit and making Him sort of an afterthought in the Trinity led to such things as the modern charismatic movement... since the Church didn't provide enough emphasis on the Spirit, people felt stifled and cold, and moved to extreme expressions of the Spirit which sometimes are nothing more than emotionalism. I remember when I was growing up (Jewish) I would always ask any Christian person I knew to explain what the Holy Spirit was, and none of them really was able to do it... there's a strong lack of the Holy Spirit in mainstream Western Christianity. That, I think, is one major reason why the filioque matters.

Another reason is because (as others have pointed out), it means that one person's decision can replace or even overrule the role of an ecumenical council. In pre-schism Christianity, one never lost "the mind of Christ" because it was necessary to constantly look back on what has traditionally been taught, constantly look at what the Fathers said, constantly think within the context of the Fathers, but as soon as one makes the sole criterion for the truth "what the Church says NOW" as opposed to "what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all," it becomes extremely difficult to keep the patristic worldview.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

 

[Maximus]

For some reason the word filioque always makes me think of something that should be inside a quesadilla, or maybe what one should answer when asked if he wants a cheesesteak sandwich.

"Philly?"

"Okay!"

 

[choirfiend]

hahahahahhaha

 

[RedTulipMom]

Thanks choirfiend and marjorie for such great explanations! I think i understand it a bit more now!!

 

[ExOrienteLux]

For some reason the word filioque always makes me think of something that should be inside a quesadilla, or maybe what one should answer when asked if he wants a cheesesteak sandwich.

"Philly?"

"Okay!"

Are you already forgetting about the real cause of the Schism, as explaine by Prof. Yerislav Penguin, professor at St. Toucan's Roadside Icon Shoppe and Theological Seminary? The controversy caused by a simple miscommunication across Latin-Hellenic lines?

"Phyllo? Que?"



Ducking and running,
-Philip.

 

[Greg the byzantine]

"Phyllo? Que?"



Ducking and running,
-Philip.

MMMMMmmmmm, I'm in the mood for some spanakopita.

 

[ExOrienteLux]

Mmmm. Spanakopita....... Baklava..........

 

[joyfulthanks]

So how is filioque pronounced, anyway? I always assumed FIL-e-oh-kay. My sister says FIL-e-oh-kway.

Anybody know the correct pronounciation? This is one of those areas where my knowledge of something comes entirely from books and websites, which don't tell me how to pronounce things correctly!

As a matter of fact, before attending my first Divine Liturgy, I had always assumed that "Theotokos" was pronounced "Thee-AW-tawk-os" (with the o's like in the Greek word logos). I know now it's with long O's and the accent on the Tokos part. Shows you what I know.

 

[joyfulthanks]

misposted

 

[choirfiend]

Isn't Logos pronounced with long O's too? Low-go's. You will find (especially midwesterners) who pronounce Theotokos with the open "aw" o vowel...I've had some training in pronunciation of several languages through my education as a voice/singing major, so it makes me squirm to hear bad pronunciations...I shudder...

In Latin-latin pronunciation, it is fee-lee-O'-kway. All the vowels are pronounced, including the U, unlike in spanish or other languages where the "que" would be pronounced "Kay."

 

[joyfulthanks]

Actually, it's log-ahs (short o's). I used to think it was low-go's (long O's) too, until I started my short-lived study of Koine Greek. I do hear a lot of people saying it with long O's, though.

Of course, it is ancient Greek, so who knows how it was really pronounced yea, so many millenia ago.

 

[choirfiend]

Huh, who'da thunk!? I wonder how current greeks say it...Theophorus? Podromos?

 

[joyfulthanks]

My Greek textbook gives English equivalent pronounciations for the 'o' in logos. It says to pronounce it as in "nod" "moth," or "on."

The long O sound is made by a different letter altogether.

Unfortunately, I don't know how to type Greek characters on my keyboard, or I would show you what they look like.