The Trinity and the Filioque

[MariaRegina]

I don't believe there is really an issue of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit as distinct from the sending of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and I don't believe the Eastern Fathers saw such a distinction . .

Peace in Him!

Dear Therese:

Two questions:

Isn't it true that the Eternal Procession of the Holy Spirit has everything to do with God's Essence (Nature) while Pentecost deals with God's Uncreated Energy (Grace) imparted to God's creatures?

Didn't the Western Father St. Ireneaus say that we become by grace what God is in His Essence (Nature)? I forgot his precise quote but it is often translated: God became man so that man might become god. In the East, this is called "theosis".

Yours in Christ our God,
Elizabeth

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

I think its kind of cute seeing devoted Christians arguing over the Filioque.

Compare these debates with those between Christians and non-believers, and see how irrelevant it is for us to fight over the Filioque.

 

[prodromos]

I'm sorry you think something which played a major role in causing schism in the body of Christ irrelevant . Great saints of the church have struggled over this issue. Can we, mere laymen, pass judgement on them?

I'm afraid that all I hear from Catholics on this issue is how unimportant it is. It is always downplayed instead of being faced and dealt with, but then that would require admission of guilt and repentance, not easy for something that has resulted in such division over so long a period.

I'm sorry if such words offend, it is not my intention, but I am often left wondering how Catholics can look at Orthodoxy and say we're almost the same, yet when Orthodox look at Catholicism we see a myriad of differences.

I am also still at a loss as to what was lacking in the original creed regarding the Son that required the addition of the filioque in the first place. Perhaps someone could present a description of the heresies being dealt with at the time, and how they got around the language and interpretation of the original creed, thus requiring the change. Any relevant links would also be appreciated.

John.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

I'm sorry you think something which played a major role in causing schism in the body of Christ irrelevant . Great saints of the church have struggled over this issue. Can we, mere laymen, pass judgement on them?

I think it is irrelevant today. I don't think it was irrelevant at the time, nor am I "passing judgement" on anyone. Not sure where that idea came from?

A side note is that the Orthodox may accept it now anyway...

Dialogue on this and other subjects is continuing. The filioque clause was the main subject discussed at the 62nd meeting of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, which met at Hellenic College/Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology June 3-5, 2002, for their spring session. As a result of these modern discussions, it has been suggested that the Orthodox could accept an "economic" filioque that states that the Holy Spirit came "through the Son", but this has not been universally accepted in the Orthodox Church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque_clause

I am also still at a loss as to what was lacking in the original creed regarding the Son that required the addition of the filioque in the first place. Perhaps someone could present a description of the heresies being dealt with at the time, and how they got around the language and interpretation of the original creed, thus requiring the change. Any relevant links would also be appreciated.

In order to fight the heresies like Arainism, the Filioue was added to the Creed. This heresy almost took over the Church. Its not like we messed with the Creed for fun.

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

I think we are done.

Thank You,
JeffreyLloyd
CF Moderator: One Bread, One Body - Catholic Discussions
Team Faithfulness