What's the Filioque controversy all about?

[~Anastasia~]

Basically your wiki article is saying that Rome translated "proceeds" from the Greek meaning into a Latin word, which did not meant the same thing, then justified adding the Filioque because the meaning wasn't the same?

Latin is a far less precise language than Greek.

IMO that is no justification. You can't just change the Creed set forth by the Council with such a justification.

I know it supposedly crept in contra a heresy but the heresy should have been dealt with directly, not by playing with the language of the Creed within a translated context.

 

[WadeTheophan]

Others will probably give you a more complete answer.

One thing is that Rome took it upon herself to modify something that shouldn't have been modified without a council led by the Holy Spirit. I think I heard that in St. Peter's Basilica the Creed (as we Orthodox recite it) is carved in stone along with a quote from one of the early Roman Popes forbidding (perhaps anathematizing) any change to it. Yet they did. And it was basically the definition of Christianity which they took upon themselves to modify arbitrarily.

The other main thing is the meaning. We say the Son was begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds - both from the Father and both in an eternal sense. It means (in the original Greek) that the Father is the absolute Source. Yes, the Son participates in sending the Holy Spirit, but He is not the source of the Holy Spirit. Rome has gotten a little fuzzy on what they mean, and sometimes say the Father sends the Spirit through the Son or some such, which can be technically true - but that sending is not what the Creed was meant to explain. It was meant to set forth our beliefs on the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity, and part of that was to establish the Father as the Source.

If the Father is the Source of both the Son and the Holy Spirit - that is good and correct. They are all God, and co-equal, however the Father is the Source.

If instead you say as the Filioque implies in that eternal sense that the Father is the source of the Son, and the Father and Son together are the Source of the Holy Spirit, you create a three-level hierarchy within the Holy Trinity that subjugated the Holy Spirit. And this simply is not what was revealed to the Church Fathers.

That's why it's a big deal to us.

Very well put dear lady.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Basically your wiki article is saying that Rome translated "proceeds" from the Greek meaning into a Latin word, which did not meant the same thing, then justified adding the Filioque because the meaning wasn't the same?

Latin is a far less precise language than Greek.

IMO that is no justification. You can't just change the Creed set forth by the Council with such a justification.

I know it supposedly crept in contra a heresy but the heresy should have been dealt with directly, not by playing with the language of the Creed within a translated context.

and had that been the only issue, it would have been resolved. but Rome defined it dogmatically very heretically,

 

[Jackson Cooper]

and had that been the only issue, it would have been resolved. but Rome defined it dogmatically very heretically,

Since the Orthodox have the original creed, why do Roman Catholics think their modified creed is true?

 

[Jackson Cooper]

Sounds like Roman Catholics equate 'send' with 'proceedeth'.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Since the Orthodox have the original creed, why do Roman Catholics think their modified creed is true?

because they have no understanding of their own history, aside from what the current Pope says. the current understanding is that we all say the same Creed, even though Rome's own councils say otherwise.

 

[Jackson Cooper]

Basically your wiki article is saying that Rome translated "proceeds" from the Greek meaning into a Latin word, which did not meant the same thing, then justified adding the Filioque because the meaning wasn't the same?

Latin is a far less precise language than Greek.

IMO that is no justification. You can't just change the Creed set forth by the Council with such a justification.

I know it supposedly crept in contra a heresy but the heresy should have been dealt with directly, not by playing with the language of the Creed within a translated context.

So 'send' and 'proceedeth' are different words in the original John 15:26? What are they?

 

[W2L]

Is this filioque backed by any scripture? I doubt it but am i wrong?

 

[~Anastasia~]

So 'send' and 'proceedeth' are different words in the original John 15:26? What are they?

Well you really should be asking about the words in the Creed since that's what the debate is over.

But Jesus sends the Holy Spirit ... πέμψω (pempso)

The Holy Spirit comes from the Father ... ἐκπορεύεται (ekporeuetai)

 

[~Anastasia~]

Is this filioque backed by any scripture? I doubt it but am i wrong?

Only if you change the meaning of the words as the Creed was originally written - which earlier in this thread it was quoted from Wiki saying that that's what Rome did when they translated it into Latin from Greek.

 

[W2L]

Only if you change the meaning of the words as the Creed was originally written - which earlier in this thread it was quoted from Wiki saying that that's what Rome did when they translated it into Latin from Greek.

If there is no scripture to base this filioque on then one would need to assume that the Spirit comes from the Father because Jesus said He would pray that His disciples get the Spirit. Who was Jesus praying to if not the Father? Its my opinion that Jesus is the Holy Spirit. We dont know Jesus in the flesh any more, as The apostle Paul said. Paul said also that the Lord is the Spirit. I dunno, i cant really understand it fully. Just my fallible opinion and limited understanding..

 

[Philip_B]

My understanding is that RCC churches who celebrate the liturgy in Greek do not include the filioque, as they have acknowledged that is heresy in Greek.

Does petrol come from a gas/petrol station or from a refinery? It is about the inference of procedes as in point of distribution or point of absolute origin.

I, as a western Christian, who has worked through this at some length am convinced that the clause should not be inserted and I have stopped saying it even though the congregation I am part of does. I just take a breath.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The Filioque is basic, easy stuff. When I was looking into Orthodoxy, I read about it online and in books from all sides—-East and West. The question has been asked and answered in here at least a thousand times. Search feature on CF and Hoogle will more than answer the question.

It's really not a good idea to learn from professor Google, unless you already know some.

Too many differing opinions.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

TAW isn’t the only place to read about the Filioque. Basic stuff.

Eh, lots of false stuff hiding behind the word Orthodox.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Search Results for Query: Filioque | Christian Forums

 

[buzuxi02]

Apparently, this is the biggest issue between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. I don't care for a debate, I'm just asking fellow Orthodox about this.
John 15:26 is cited by Roman Catholics.

If John 15:26 is cited by the Latins then I'm not sure why they would defend the fillioque.

The Fillioque downgrades the sole monarchy of God the Father. Both the Son and holy Spirit find their source in the hypostasis of the Father alone. There is no dual causality of the Holy Spirit nor a multitude of causalities within the Trinity.

 

[~Anastasia~]

If there is no scripture to base this filioque on then one would need to assume that the Spirit comes from the Father because Jesus said He would pray that His disciples get the Spirit. Who was Jesus praying to if not the Father? Its my opinion that Jesus is the Holy Spirit. We dont know Jesus in the flesh any more, as The apostle Paul said. Paul said also that the Lord is the Spirit. I dunno, i cant really understand it fully. Just my fallible opinion and limited understanding..

There is a great deal of discussion and documentation and history. I understand where you're coming from because Protestants today look to the Scriptures to try to understand everything (and we would agree that the Scriptures are the highest authority and cannot be contradicted). But they didn't come to us as a book in a vacuum. They were developed within the early Church, and within the understanding of all the Apostles received from the Holy Spirit and taught. There should be no controversies and misunderstandings and differences of interpretations, but there are, especially when the Scriptures are dissected after having been removed from the context of the teaching of the Apostles.

But I don't fault anyone for not knowing all of this. I have barely begun to scratch the surface myself. It isn't known about or taught in much of western Christianity, but I know there are many devout people who sincerely love God and never learned any of this. So no, I don't fault them, or deny their love for God.

But the information is there (though not all translated).

What I can say is that it is not correct to think that the Holy Spirit and Christ Jesus are the same Person ... though they are both the same Essence which is the One God. But just as the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, so the Holy Spirit is not Christ Jesus. All three are apparent at the baptism of Christ, for example, which is sometimes called "Theophany" because God was more fully revealed to us then.

 

[ArmyMatt]

it's also rooted in St Augustine wrongly defining procession and begotten way to similarly. so the Spirit had to proceed from both to be distinct from the Son (ironically, this blurs the distinction between the Father and the Son).

 

[Philip_B]

it's also rooted in St Augustine wrongly defining procession and begotten way to similarly. so the Spirit had to proceed from both to be distinct from the Son (ironically, this blurs the distinction between the Father and the Son).

I think it may be the way people dealt with Augustine. In the context of the heresy of the pneumatomachi Augustine sought to make sense of John 20. People who followed moved towards an inappropriate hierarchical understanding of the Trinity which as Photious pointed out in Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit as a significant error.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think it may be the way people dealt with Augustine. In the context of the heresy of the pnematomachi Augustine sought to make sense of John 20. People who followed moved towards an inappropriate hierarchical understanding of the Trinity which as Photious pointed out in Mystsgogy of the Holy Spirit is a significant error.

St Augustine's speculations were just that....speculations. he never intended for a lot of his stuff to be dogma, especially if it went against Church teaching.