Yes...Another Filioque Discussion!

[trulytheone]

One of the points Roman Catholics bring out in support for the Filioque doctrine was that St Gregory of Nyssa apparently supported it:

"...that while we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another — by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another by that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the interposition of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father."

And apparently this letter from St Gregory of Nyssa didn't espouse the the view that the Son merely temporarily sends the Holy Spirit:

Thus, since on the one hand the idea of cause differentiates the Persons of the Holy Trinity, declaring that one exists without a Cause, and another is of the Cause; and since on the one hand the Divine nature is apprehended by every conception as unchangeable and undivided, for these reasons we properly declare the Godhead to be one, and God to be one, and employ in the singular all other names which express Divine attributes.



http://newadvent.org/fathers/2905.htm

 

[ArmyMatt]

this doesn't support the Filioque at all.

 

[dzheremi]

I don't get it. I don't see the support for the Filioque in those passages, either. Please explain.

 

[Not David]

I don't want to go into a really old thread nor starting a new one but:

A friend asks what is wrong with this statement "according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit"?

And he says that "through the Son" and "And the Son" are the same (I guess in Latin)

Also can I get a link to the Orthodox Forth Council of Constantinople?

 

[AMM]

I was able to find this link which is the 869-870 (RCC) council... Adrian II  Constantinople-4

And this is part of the 879 (EO) council from the Rudder: So-called First-and-Second Council

 

[ArmyMatt]

I don't want to go into a really old thread nor starting a new one but:

A friend asks what is wrong with this statement "according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit"?

And he says that "through the Son" and "And the Son" are the same (I guess in Latin)

Also can I get a link to the Orthodox Forth Council of Constantinople?

the problem is that "from the Son" and "through the Son" were not always the same, and Rome condemned us for not saying "from."

 

[Not David]

I was able to find this link which is the 869-870 (RCC) council... Adrian II Constantinople-4

And this is part of the 879 (EO) council from the Rudder: So-called First-and-Second Council

Thanks! I wonder why I can't find the complete council.

 

[Not David]

the problem is that "from the Son" and "through the Son" were not always the same, and Rome condemned us for not saying "from."

Is it the same nowadays?

 

[AMM]

Thanks! I wonder why I can't find the complete council.

It's probably available in greek somewhere, but hasn't been translated yet. I'd also be interested to read it if someone were able to find it.

Is it the same nowadays?

I've heard some EO folk say that "through" is always acceptable, and "from" is sometimes acceptable (theologically, not canonically). So I think they're still different but they could be understood the same way.

Like if your friend sends you a letter. It's from your friend. Is it also from the mailman who brought it to you? Well, kinda. But the letter definitely came through the mailman to you. Imperfect analogy, probably, but that's how someone explained it to me when I was looking into the filioque

 

[ArmyMatt]

Is it the same nowadays?

they say it is, but they haven't condemned their Councils which condemn us.

 

[Not David]

they say it is, but they haven't condemned their Councils which condemn us.

Which council Father?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Which council Father?

2 Lyons does I believe, in the 13th century.

 

[dzheremi]

Here's Lyons II of 1274, just in case anyone is curious.

The part that best corresponds to what Fr. Matt is talking about is probably this:

We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike. But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one.​

Lord have mercy.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Here's Lyons II of 1274, just in case anyone is curious.

The part that best corresponds to what Fr. Matt is talking about is probably this:

We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike. But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one.​

Lord have mercy.

yep, that be the one.

 

[Not David]

What does "not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration." mean?

 

[ArmyMatt]

What does "not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration." mean?

that the Father and the Son are the single source of the Spirit. unlike us, who say the Father is the single source of the Spirit.

 

[buzuxi02]

Isnt that the st. Gregory verse which has controversial translations?
Regardless the Spirit is not subservient to the Son but sends the Son just as much as the Son sends the Spirit (Isaiah 48:16)

 

[trulytheone]

For the plea will not avail them in their self-defense, that He is delivered by our Lord to His disciples third in order, and that therefore He is estranged from our ideal of Deity. Where in each case activity in working good shows no diminution or variation whatever, how unreasonable it is to suppose the numerical order to be a sign of any diminution or essential variation! It is as if a man were to see a separate flame burning on three torches (and we will suppose that the third flame is caused by that of the first being transmitted to the middle, and then kindling the end torch ), and were to maintain that the heat in the first exceeded that of the others; that that next it showed a variation from it in the direction of the less; and that the third could not be called fire at all, though it burnt and shone just like fire, and did everything that fire does. But if there is really no hindrance to the third torch being fire, though it has been kindled from a previous flame, what is the philosophy of these men, who profanely think that they can slight the dignity of the Holy Spirit because He is named by the Divine lips after the Father and the Son?

CHURCH FATHERS: On the Holy Spirit, Against the Macedonians (Gregory of Nyssa)

Just curious about this: how does this passage from St. Gregory of Nyssa not explain the filioque?

 

[ArmyMatt]

it's not the error of the Filioque.

 

[Lukaris]

I have posted in other threads on the filioque a situation faced by St. Augustine. He was hearing people say that the Son has the Father & the Holy Spirit as “fathers”. How distorted is that? The same sort of error, I think, could be applied to confusing our Trinitarian faith via the filioque. See how St. Augustine guards against this misconception in his work: The Enchiridion (chptr 12 on the link):St. Augustine, Enchiridion: On Faith, Hope, and Love (1955). English translation

Note at the end of the 1st paragraph St. Augustine affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. This work is of basic Christian doctrine written late in Augustine’s life. He confessed the Trinity by Orthodoxy so I fail to see how anything else written by St. Augustine could be used to support the filioque.

St. Thalassios (7th c. AD) summed up our Orthodox Trinitarian faith in stating that only the Father is unoriginate (not begotten of or proceeding from)& that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father and that the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. All persons are one God, eternal, & equal but only the Father is unoriginate.

St. Thalassios can be found in vol.2 of the Philokalia and is a saint in Rome also.