Why Filioque is heretical and not Aeriel toll houses?

[seashale76]

Peace and Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all~Amen!
I'm considering Catholicism or Orthodoxy, but I'm perplexed little bit concerning filioque issue. Some orthodox zealously defends the Aeriel toll houses as doctrine of the church because of few patristics attestation but in honest view--filioque has much support from patristics then latter as Latin fathers undeniably believed filioque as true.

Haven't read the thread here- only your response. I'm Orthodox. Nobody is taught to believe in aerial toll houses. It's an opinion some may have- but it is 100% just that- an opinion- and one can also hold the opinion they don't exist. One can be Orthodox with or without aerial tollhouses.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

As I already covered, Aquinas interprets "filioque" and "ex filio" as equivalent. Furthermore, the Catholic Church has dogmatically defined that either phrasing is acceptable, and moreover that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle, because the Son is one with the Father in all things except His sonship and the Father's fathership.

In addition, the Catholic Church has also acknowledged that you cannot rightfully add the Filioque in the Greek of the Creed, because of the unique connotations of "proceeds" in Greek and only Greek. And indeed, when the Pope has recited the Creed in Greek, he says it without the Filioque.

So, the real issue is whether "and the Son" can be accepted as an alternative phrasing of "through the Son," and whether the Pope had authority to add the phrase. As far as the latter goes, my research into the history leads me closer to concluding that it was imprudent, though not necessarily heretical per se.

No, the real issue is that Rome dogmatically defines that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as one principle, that is, one source and origin, one cause. This is a serious issue for us, because we do not see the Son as playing any part in causing the Spirit to exist, and the only way you can address this issue is to either delete the Filioque, or to make a proclamation that what you've been saying it means is wrong and heretical, and in fact you intend it to mean something else.

 

[Hamlet7768]

No, the real issue is that Rome dogmatically defines that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as one principle, that is, one source and origin, one cause. This is a serious issue for us, because we do not see the Son as playing any part in causing the Spirit to exist, and the only way you can address this issue is to either delete the Filioque, or to make a proclamation that what you've been saying it means is wrong and heretical, and in fact you intend it to mean something else.

As I have said twice before, Aquinas explains that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son as from one principle because the Son and the Father are one in all aspects except for Fatherhood and Sonship. The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 specified that "it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Spirit who proceeds."

Everything begins with the Father. Indeed, any explanation of this topic that strays from that is swaying dangerously close to ditheism or pseudo-Arianism.

 

[~Anastasia~]

And I think this is part of the difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

Many Catholics I have spoken with say that it does NOT mean the Son is in any way a principle (source). But I have been led to understand that was precisely what the Catholic Church meant at one time. If they are changing that, then perhaps they move closer to Orthodoxy.

But as Orthodox, we must simply affirm, as always, that the Father alone is the sole Source of all.

I'm not trying to argue, just outlining what I see as a distinction between us. But with all due respect, I don't understand a reason being sufficient that the Father and Son share all things - because they don't. The Son alone became Incarnate, for example. And His begotteness is from before all ages, so being begotten does not refer to the Incarnation.

But again, such things as the need for temporal punishment for sins which have been forgiven, the sole authority of the Pope and his potential to be infallible in himself, and differences in Marian dogmas, and the potential for doctrine to change and even swing back and forth a bit like a pendulum are matters which further separate us.

It is really no simple matter to compare our differences. And when overlaid, Orthodoxy in some cases DOES have nuances which can be similar to some things we seem different on. But on the other hand, we really seem to come from a fundamentally different position in regards to sin and salvation, for example.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

As I have said twice before, Aquinas explains that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son as from one principle because the Son and the Father are one in all aspects except for Fatherhood and Sonship. The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 specified that "it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Spirit who proceeds."

Everything begins with the Father. Indeed, any explanation of this topic that strays from that is swaying dangerously close to ditheism or pseudo-Arianism.

In Latin, principle IS beginning. So when you say the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as one principle, you (and Aquinas) are contradicting your statement that "everything begins with the Father". When you say one principle it literally means the Spirit originates from the Father and the Son; not beginning with the Father alone and proceeding through the Son, but beginning, originating with, and being caused by the Father and the Son both .

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

And I think this is part of the difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

Many Catholics I have spoken with say that it does NOT mean the Son is in any way a principle (source). But I have been led to understand that was precisely what the Catholic Church meant at one time. If they are changing that, then perhaps they move closer to Orthodoxy.

But as Orthodox, we must simply affirm, as always, that the Father alone is the sole Source of all.

I'm not trying to argue, just outlining what I see as a distinction between us. But with all due respect, I don't understand a reason being sufficient that the Father and Son share all things - because they don't. The Son alone became Incarnate, for example. And His begotteness is from before all ages, so being begotten does not refer to the Incarnation.

But again, such things as the need for temporal punishment for sins which have been forgiven, the sole authority of the Pope and his potential to be infallible in himself, and differences in Marian dogmas, and the potential for doctrine to change and even swing back and forth a bit like a pendulum are matters which further separate us.

It is really no simple matter to compare our differences. And when overlaid, Orthodoxy in some cases DOES have nuances which can be similar to some things we seem different on. But on the other hand, we really seem to come from a fundamentally different position in regards to sin and salvation, for example.

No, the Son is principle for Rome. This is explicitly stated in the Council of Florence, and quoted in Rome's official catechism.

 

[Hamlet7768]

In Latin, principle IS beginning. So when you say the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as one principle, you (and Aquinas) are contradicting your statement that "everything begins with the Father". When you say one principle it literally means the Spirit originates from the Father and the Son; not beginning with the Father alone and proceeding through the Son, but beginning, originating with, and being caused by the Father and the Son both .

The Son is not a separate principle from the Father. I already quoted the Fourth Lateran Council which specified that it is the Father alone who generates.

Rather illuminating for me in the process of checking my work on this topic has been a tract prepared by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity at the request of Pope John Paul II. One thing it notes is that the Western Church did not actually have the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed until around the time of the Council of Chalcedon, and their Trinitarian theology therefore developed independently, and most importantly, in Latin.

The Latin word processio does not refer to taking origin as the Greek word ekporeusiV (I copied this from another source, so apologies if it's misspelt) does, but rather it refers to consubstantiality, which, indeed, the Father and the Son have in common with the Holy Spirit, and the Father in common with the Son, and so forth.

When the NCC was translated into Latin, ekporeusiV was translated with processio, thus unintentionally conflating the two ideas. To the Latins, it was wholly necessary to emphasize the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, precisely to avoid the subordination of the Holy Spirit. Ironically, when the Byzantine Church heard the translated NCC, they heard a clear subordination, as illustrated in our dialogues even today. Oops!

Perhaps a good takeaway is that East and West developed their theologies in response to different problems, and consequently have different trains of thought. For the West, the importance is not double-procession or subordination, but consubstantiality. For the East, the importance is the Father as origin of both other Persons.

Which brings me to...

And I think this is part of the difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

Many Catholics I have spoken with say that it does NOT mean the Son is in any way a principle (source). But I have been led to understand that was precisely what the Catholic Church meant at one time. If they are changing that, then perhaps they move closer to Orthodoxy.

But as Orthodox, we must simply affirm, as always, that the Father alone is the sole Source of all.

I'm not trying to argue, just outlining what I see as a distinction between us. But with all due respect, I don't understand a reason being sufficient that the Father and Son share all things - because they don't. The Son alone became Incarnate, for example. And His begotteness is from before all ages, so being begotten does not refer to the Incarnation.

Yeah, a full-out debate about the Filioque may be more suited for the St Justin Martyr Hall. I'm mostly here to explain and defend the Catholic understanding of the Filioque, because I saw a lot of Orthodox folk on here, but not many Catholic folk.

I cut the rest of your comment for space, because that stuff is also more suited for the St Justin Martyr hall, or perhaps for PM. I would like to clarify Thomas's position on whether the Son alone became Incarnate: yes, he says later, the Word (which he uses as a synonym for the Son) alone became Incarnate, and in fact that the Word became Incarnate is most fitting. You can read his full thought process on it in the Summa, Third Part, Question 3, Article 8.

Ultimately, as I think I mentioned before, I think adding the phrase to the Creed was imprudent, but not necessarily heretical in light of linguistic and theological differences between East and West (even before the schism). I think it'd be best to remove it provisionally, especially if such will effect a better union between our Churches, then look at it with fresh eyes from both East and West.

But, what do I know.

 

[~Anastasia~]

No, the Son is principle for Rome. This is explicitly stated in the Council of Florence, and quoted in Rome's official catechism.

I'm not quite sure why you're disagreeing. Perhaps I wasn't clear, so maybe it is my fault.

From what I hear, the understanding of the laity seems to be shifting, and some Catholic theologians seem to now emphasize "through the Son" ... but that was not the intent of the Filioque when introduced, and as quoted here earlier Catholic theology was specific that Father and Son represent a single principle (origin).

But maybe I wasn't clear enough, and if I caused any confusion, I apologize. I'm still trying to be as brief as possible and I'm not good at that.




(Bit of subject change)

To draw it out a bit more, it doesn't even really matter if you say they are together one principle, or two principles. The fact is that either way you slice it, that makes the Son (an) origin of the Holy Spirit, and we (Orthodox) of course cannot affirm that.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The Son is not a separate principle from the Father. I already quoted the Fourth Lateran Council which specified that it is the Father alone who generates.

Rather illuminating for me in the process of checking my work on this topic has been a tract prepared by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity at the request of Pope John Paul II. One thing it notes is that the Western Church did not actually have the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed until around the time of the Council of Chalcedon, and their Trinitarian theology therefore developed independently, and most importantly, in Latin.

The Latin word processio does not refer to taking origin as the Greek word ekporeusiV (I copied this from another source, so apologies if it's misspelt) does, but rather it refers to consubstantiality, which, indeed, the Father and the Son have in common with the Holy Spirit, and the Father in common with the Son, and so forth.

When the NCC was translated into Latin, ekporeusiV was translated with processio, thus unintentionally conflating the two ideas. To the Latins, it was wholly necessary to emphasize the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, precisely to avoid the subordination of the Holy Spirit. Ironically, when the Byzantine Church heard the translated NCC, they heard a clear subordination, as illustrated in our dialogues even today. Oops!

Perhaps a good takeaway is that East and West developed their theologies in response to different problems, and consequently have different trains of thought. For the West, the importance is not double-procession or subordination, but consubstantiality. For the East, the importance is the Father as origin of both other Persons.

Which brings me to...



Yeah, a full-out debate about the Filioque may be more suited for the St Justin Martyr Hall. I'm mostly here to explain and defend the Catholic understanding of the Filioque, because I saw a lot of Orthodox folk on here, but not many Catholic folk.

I cut the rest of your comment for space, because that stuff is also more suited for the St Justin Martyr hall, or perhaps for PM. I would like to clarify Thomas's position on whether the Son alone became Incarnate: yes, he says later, the Word (which he uses as a synonym for the Son) alone became Incarnate, and in fact that the Word became Incarnate is most fitting. You can read his full thought process on it in the Summa, Third Part, Question 3, Article 8.

Ultimately, as I think I mentioned before, I think adding the phrase to the Creed was imprudent, but not necessarily heretical in light of linguistic and theological differences between East and West (even before the schism). I think it'd be best to remove it provisionally, especially if such will effect a better union between our Churches, then look at it with fresh eyes from both East and West.

But, what do I know.

I was typing while you were and had not seen this ...

It is indeed all "above my pay grade" as well. I don't get to decide. And st this point, I'm not even inclined to original research. And doubt I ever will be. There are aspects to my spiritual walk that are FAR more pressing that sorting out many-centuries-old nuances (not to mention, thinking I could do so better than those who have come before us an attitude also not good for my spiritual state, lol).

No argument intended.

 

[Hamlet7768]

I was typing while you were and had not seen this ...

It is indeed all "above my pay grade" as well. I don't get to decide. And st this point, I'm not even inclined to original research. And doubt I ever will be. There are aspects to my spiritual walk that are FAR more pressing that sorting out many-centuries-old nuances (not to mention, thinking I could do so better than those who have come before us an attitude also not good for my spiritual state, lol).

No argument intended.

Bolded to highlight the part I wanted to reply to specifically. I find it slightly amusing, because a priest told me very similar things! Or, more specifically, that I need to think less about the questions that dog me re: Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and pray more.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Bolded to highlight the part I wanted to reply to specifically. I find it slightly amusing, because a priest told me very similar things! Or, more specifically, that I need to think less about the questions that dog me re: Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and pray more.

I have good oversight, which reels me in frequently, and pushes me along when I need it. I had incredibly strong tendencies to study and classify everything when I first started searching into Orthodox, rather than LIVE it, which was a fault of mine. My SFs quickly, gently, and firmly addressed it, and baptism helped as well. So I hear alarm bells when I start that way.

It may be the calling of some - I'm sure it is. That's not my place to discern. I only know that devoting myself to such things is good to a point, but possible to be overdone as well.

So I'm not criticizing. But such wisdom (tailored to each of us) is a good thing.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

The Latin word processio does not refer to taking origin.

It does when you're talking about procession from a principle