Why wasn't the filioque ever removed?

[Daniel Peres]

My understanding is that the filioque is a Latin response to a Greek fudge - in terms of constructive ambiguity.

ὁμοούσιον was something of a new - made-up word.

(Shoot me down but this is what I remember.)

It literally slurred the words in an attempt to settle down competing sides. (re. consubstantial)

This relates to the filioque - in terms of the sending of the Spirit.

The filioque in Latin, fairly obviously, is or was controversial because it becomes more specific and definitive than this linguistic fudge. It states more definitively that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son. This challenges the Godhead of the Father - and redefines the Trinity.

The Greek could be more, 'from the Father and through the Son'.

That might be a bit confused, but the essence is that you disrupt the Godhead of the Father.

Please educate me if that is all wrong!!!!

xOliver

The filoque was added in the Latin Church to deal with the rise of new Arians in the west.

BTW, the Pope does not encourage or require that eastern Catholics include the filioque clause. Therefore, even if the East -West schism ended the Eastern Orthodox churches would not be required to recite it. The Eastern Orthodox are the ones trying to bully the Latin church.

 

[Daniel Peres]

That verse alone provides no reason for believing that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from both the Father and the Son. But this isn't a very helpful claim, because we have no reason to limit ourselves to a single verse or piece of evidence.

I think you misunderstood me. I cited this verse to show the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.

 

[Daniel Peres]

If the East added to the creed at the First Council of Constantinople on their own initiative, then why are they so upset that the Latin Church did the same. It’s hypocritical. The East’s addition to the creed wouldn’t even be universal if the Pope hadn’t approved the addition. The addition would just have been used in the East without papal approval, and that would have been ok.

But I am glad the pope approved the East’s addition to the creed. It’s a beautiful addition. Now, if they don’t want the filioque clause, that’s ok. From what I understand, it doesn’t fit grammatically in Greek.

However, it’s ridiculous to say the Filioque clause is theologically wrong. As Jesus said, “I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” If the Son is in the Father then logic dictates that when the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father he is also proceeding from the Son. There’s no way around it.

Furthermore, the purpose of the Filioque clause is not so much about the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son, it was to teach that the Son is one with the Father. The clause was added as a response to a new wave of Arians in the west (different from the original Arians in the east) that were again challenging the divinity of Jesus.

That said, the Catholic position is that the procession of the Holy Spirit does always start with the Father alone, but proceeds from both because of the relationship between the Father and the Son.

 

[Lukaris]

These verses

The verses you cited may appear to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds exclusively from the father, but even if you are correct about those verses, you are willfully ignoring John 20:22 where it is explicitly written that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the son.

Don’t misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that the Holy Spirit may proceed exclusively from the Son.

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father exclusively eternally whereas within creation the Son sends the Holy Spirit ( compare John 15:26 & John 20:22).

A same type of comparison ( I think) pertains to the Incarnation in which the Son is exclusively eternally begotten of the Father. Yet in the Incarnation, the Son is born of the eternally proceeding Holy Spirit ( conceived in the Ever Virgin Mary) per Matthew 1:18-25 etc.).

 

[prodromos]

you are willfully ignoring John 20:22 where it is explicitly written that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the son.

If that is the manner in which the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, it would be going out from Him every time He breathed out. You also confuse the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit with His eternal procession from the Father. The latter is the subject of the creed, not the former.

 

[Daniel Peres]

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father exclusively eternally whereas within creation the Son sends the Holy Spirit ( compare John 15:26 & John 20:22).

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be stating the Catholic position. The Catholic position is that the procession of the Holy Spirit first begins with the Father, but then the Son becomes involved through his relationship with the Father. That’s why the Catholic position is that both versions of the creed are correct. It is correct to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and it is also correct to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. It would be incorrect to say the Holy Spirit can proceed from the Son alone.

A same type of comparison ( I think) pertains to the Incarnation in which the Son is exclusively eternally begotten of the Father. Yet in the Incarnation, the Son is born of the eternally proceeding Holy Spirit ( conceived in the Ever Virgin Mary) per Matthew 1:18-25 etc.).

To me the incarnation of the Logos is a similar situation. The Logos first proceeds from the Father and then proceeds through the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Logos proceeded from the Father and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Daniel Peres]

If that is the manner in which the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, it would be going out from Him every time He breathed out.

That is a non sequitur. Jesus breathes out the Holy Spirit when he chooses not constantly. My point is that the verse shows that the Son is involved in the procession of the Holy Spirit, and not that the procession begins with the Son, and not that the Spirit proceeds solely from the Son without the Father initiating the Spirit’s procession.

You also confuse the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit with His eternal procession from the Father. The latter is the subject of the creed, not the former.

If Jesus was speaking the truth when he said he is in the Father and the Father is in him then logic dictates that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also.

The Catholic position is that although the three personas/prosopons are distinct, within each of the three personas/prosopons, the other two are always fully present. Do you disagree with this?

 

[Daniel Peres]

So why it fine for the east to add, on their own initiative, to the Nicene Creed but when the west adds to the creed it’s so arrogant?

 

[Lukaris]

So why it fine for the east to add, on their own initiative, to the Nicene Creed but when the west adds to the creed it’s so arrogant?

I believe that the addition & clarification of the Holy Spirit was early on & it was accepted. The filioque was a problem for the Orthodox but grudgingly tolerated until 1054 ( there were previous disagreements but basic unity held).

The problem with 1054 is that it seems that the filioque was used coercively as Trinitarian doctrine. A later disproved writing of The Donation of Constantine was used a false resource for Papal authority ( & quoted from for centuries: innocently, but incorrectly by the likes of Aquinas for ex.).

There were dirty deeds done by both church communities so neither is the better or worse as sinners in need of repentance. Unfortunately, it seems that a genuine theological tension became politicized. This is an unfortunate reality. Still, I think in light of the prevailing world spirit, we cannot reunify but should cooperate as much as possible in proclaiming the Gospel to this world ( I rejoice if a non Christian becomes Orthodox, Catholic, & certain Protestant denoms that still at least believe in basic salvation by grace, the 10 commandments, the Apostles creed etc.),

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

I believe that the addition & clarification of the Holy Spirit was early on & it was accepted. The filioque was a problem for the Orthodox but grudgingly tolerated until 1054 ( there were previous disagreements but basic unity held).

The problem with 1054 is that it seems that the filioque was used coercively as Trinitarian doctrine. A later disproved writing of The Donation of Constantine was used a false resource for Papal authority ( & quoted from for centuries: innocently, but incorrectly by the likes of Aquinas for ex.).

Some examples include would be

Charlemagne's use of the filioque during his coronation as the Holy Roman Emperor partly because the Eastern empire was being ruled by the Empress Irene, and obviously, there couldn't be a woman on the throne. So Charlemagne was the major instigator of using theology to drive a wedge between East and West.

The Norman invasion of Sicily setting up the Council of Bari in 1098, Pope Urban II ordered Byzantine churches in Sicily to use the Filioque.

As for the complaint that the First Council of Constantinople was simply a local council is not a good one. The Council of Toledo (589), which formally added the fillioque to the Creed, added it to the N-C creed, which Chalcedon (451 had declared the N-C creed as unalterable).

 

[Daniel Peres]

I believe that the addition & clarification of the Holy Spirit was early on & it was accepted. The filioque was a problem for the Orthodox but grudgingly tolerated until 1054 ( there were previous disagreements but basic unity held).

The fact is that the First Council of Constantinople was convened as a local synod. The only reason it is considered an ecumenical council is because the pope liked and approved the local synod’s addition to the Nicene creed. The pope’s approval is the only reason the addition was accepted. He didn’t accept the canons of the synod and so they were worthless. So, if the pope’s approval made the additions to the Nicene creed about the Holy Spirit universally acceptable why can’t he approve the Filioque clause just for the west. The pope doesn’t force the Eastern Catholics to recite the Filioque. Why do the Eastern Orthodox want to force the west to remove the Filioque when the West has no intention of forcing the Eastern Orthodox to accept it?

There were dirty deeds done by both church communities so neither is the better or worse as sinners in need of repentance. Unfortunately, it seems that a genuine theological tension became politicized. This is an unfortunate reality. Still, I think in light of the prevailing world spirit, we cannot reunify but should cooperate as much as possible in proclaiming the Gospel to this world ( I rejoice if a non Christian becomes Orthodox, Catholic, & certain Protestant demons that still at least believe in basic salvation by grace, the 10 commandments, the Apostles creed etc.),

I agree both sides are guilty of dirty deeds. Lately, it seems all the heretical activity is coming from the Catholic Church. Thank God the bishops don’t have the authority to officially change church doctrine.

The schism makes me sad just as the separation of the Protestants and their spinoffs makes me sad. Christianity is under attack and I sincerely believe the world would be better off if Christians were all one as Jesus desires. However, I admit the Catholic Church does get some of the blame for the disunity. The emperor Constantine would have never allowed this disunity to occur. But unfortunately we have no Constantine to protect the church today.

 

[zippy2006]

I think you misunderstood me. I cited this verse to show the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.

Well then you expressed yourself poorly, but if that is what you meant it isn't much better. Citing a single verse to try to settle one of the most complex theological disputes in the history of Christianity is at best naive.

 

[Daniel Peres]

Well then you expressed yourself poorly, but if that is what you meant it isn't much better. Citing a single verse to try to settle one of the most complex theological disputes in the history of Christianity is at best naive.

Maybe I did express myself poorly. I’m happy to take the blame if it makes you feel better.

Anyway, I don’t cite that single verse as if one should only look at that verse. I cited that verse to point out that the other verses cited must be read in light of the verse I cited.

You can list as many verses you want to make a case that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, but it makes no sense to ignore the verse I cited which explicitly describes the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father. If one reads all relevant verses together accepting that they don’t contradict each other, then one has to accept that while the Father initiates the procession of the Holy Spirit, the Son is involved in the procession. You must read all of the relevant verses and it seems to me that you are picking and choosing instead of reading all of the relevant verses in harmony so that they all make sense together. You seem to have a dogmatic view about this issue that is causing you to read a verse where the Holy Spirit is explicitly described as proceeding from the Son, and your dogmatic is causing you to say, “ The Holy Spirit didn’t proceed from the Son in that verse,” even though it clearly did. When Christians use the word “proceed” in regards to the present issue, the word means “to go or come forth from.” In the verse I cited, when Jesus breathed, the Holy Spirit “came forth” from him, and that is a fact.

Again, I’m not suggesting the Holy Spirit proceeds solely from the Son without the Father initiating the procession. However, the Son, as a result of his relationship to the Father, is clearly involved.

 

[Lukaris]

Some examples include would be

Charlemagne's use of the filioque during his coronation as the Holy Roman Emperor partly because the Eastern empire was being ruled by the Empress Irene, and obviously, there couldn't be a woman on the throne. So Charlemagne was the major instigator of using theology to drive a wedge between East and West.

The Norman invasion of Sicily setting up the Council of Bari in 1098, Pope Urban II ordered Byzantine churches in Sicily to use the Filioque.

As for the complaint that the First Council of Constantinople was simply a local council is not a good one. The Council of Toledo (589), which formally added the fillioque to the Creed, added it to the N-C creed, which Chalcedon (451 had declared the N-C creed as unalterable).

Some examples include would be

Charlemagne's use of the filioque during his coronation as the Holy Roman Emperor partly because the Eastern empire was being ruled by the Empress Irene, and obviously, there couldn't be a woman on the throne. So Charlemagne was the major instigator of using theology to drive a wedge between East and West.

The Norman invasion of Sicily setting up the Council of Bari in 1098, Pope Urban II ordered Byzantine churches in Sicily to use the Filioque.

As for the

 

[Lukaris]

Please note in post #29:

My post originally rendered “Protestant demons” I had typed originally typed “Protestant denoms” as In denominations.! The spell check must have “corrected” me. Please forgive any mistake on my part. I meant DENOMS not anything otherwise.

 

[zippy2006]

Anyway, I don’t cite that single verse as if one should only look at that verse. I cited that verse to point out that the other verses cited must be read in light of the verse I cited.

Why would merely citing a verse show that other verses need to be read in its light? That isn't reasonable.

You can list as many verses you want to make a case that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, but it makes no sense to ignore the verse I cited which explicitly describes the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father.

If the verse you cited explicitly describes the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father then it doesn't favor the Catholic view.

You must read all of the relevant verses and it seems to me that you are picking and choosing instead of reading all of the relevant verses in harmony so that they all make sense together.

Where have I picked and chosen? You are making things up.

You seem to have a dogmatic view about this issue...

How so? You don't even know what my view is. You seem to have a constant need to opine on things you know nothing about, including the filioque controversy.

When Christians use the word “proceed” in regards to the present issue, the word means “to go or come forth from.” In the verse I cited, when Jesus breathed, the Holy Spirit “came forth” from him, and that is a fact.

Orthodox have always distinguished between an ontological procession and an economic procession (or else "eternal manifestation"). Although the latter has been described in different ways, it always accounts for the sort of verses you referenced. The Orthodox haven't overlooked that verse for the last 1600 years.

 

[prodromos]

The fact is that the First Council of Constantinople was convened as a local synod. The only reason it is considered an ecumenical council is because the pope liked and approved the local synod’s addition to the Nicene creed. The pope’s approval is the only reason the addition was accepted.

This is ultramontanist nonsense. The Council had representatives from Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople, among others, so it was hardly convened as a 'local council'. It is considered "Ecumenical" because it was recognised as such by the Council of Chalcedon, although it is also recognised as Ecumenical by the non-Chacedonians. Rome was not the only Western bishopric that signed off on the council.

 

[prodromos]

That is a non sequitur. Jesus breathes out the Holy Spirit when he chooses not constantly. My point is that the verse shows that the Son is involved in the procession of the Holy Spirit, and not that the procession begins with the Son, and not that the Spirit proceeds solely from the Son without the Father initiating the Spirit’s procession.

Thus Jesus sending out the Holy Spirit is not the subject of the Creed, which is the ontological nature of God. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, eternally, always, not just when Jesus sends Him.

If Jesus was speaking the truth when he said he is in the Father and the Father is in him then logic dictates that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also.

The Holy Spirit is no less in the Father, so I guess the Holy Spirit must also proceed from himself? God's nature cannot be determined by logic, only by revelation, after all logic dictates that three cannot be one.

The Catholic position is that although the three personas/prosopons are distinct, within each of the three personas/prosopons, the other two are always fully present. Do you disagree with this?

Of course! They are one in essence and undivided, but neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit took on flesh and became man. Neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit were crucified and died and rose back to life. By your interpretation of Scripture as quoted above, the Father must have also become man, been crucified, died and was buried and rose again.

 

[Daniel Peres]

This is ultramontanist nonsense. The Council had representatives from Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople, among others, so it was hardly convened as a 'local council'. It is considered "Ecumenical" because it was recognised as such by the Council of Chalcedon, although it is also recognised as Ecumenical by the non-Chacedonians. Rome was not the only Western bishopric that signed off on the council.

The Council did have many representatives, but it still was, in fact, a local synod. Additional proof that it was merely a local synod was that none of its canons were accepted by the church. Furthermore, even with the Pope's approval of the synod's additions to the Nicene Creed, the Third Council of Ephesus which took place in 431 (long after the First Council of Constantinople) did not recognize the additions to the original Nicene creed and in fact confirmed only the original Nicene Creed.

 

[Daniel Peres]

Thus Jesus sending out the Holy Spirit is not the subject of the Creed, which is the ontological nature of God. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, eternally, always, not just when Jesus sends Him.

I am not in disagreement with this. Even when Jesus sends the Holy Spirit, the procession starts from the Father.

The Holy Spirit is no less in the Father, so I guess the Holy Spirit must also proceed from himself? God's nature cannot be determined by logic, only by revelation, after all logic dictates that three cannot be one.

1) Logic cannot be used to completely understand God's nature, but it is very useful. In fact, it's clear the doctrine of the Trinity was established, not solely by looking at tradition, but also by using logic to interpret the Bible.
2) Logic does not dictate that three cannot be one. I am a son, a husband, a father, a guitarist, a lawyer, etc.. I have many personas/posopon/faces, and all of them make up my one being. Does that sound illogical to you?

Of course! They are one in essence and undivided, but neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit took on flesh and became man. Neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit were crucified and died and rose back to life. By your interpretation of Scripture as quoted above, the Father must have also become man, been crucified, died and was buried and rose again.

I am not saying the Father was crucified. However, the Father did not separate himself from Jesus at his crucifixion. Do you deny this?