Catholics argue that it was taught not just by their fathers (after St Augustine), but our very own. Amongst which are St Cyril, St. Gregory, St Basil and St. Athanasius.
Here is the following site:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Filioque.aspI find this issue stressing, can someone help me out. Thanks.
Comments
Catholics argue that it was taught not just by their fathers (after St Augustine), but our very own. Amongst which are St Cyril, St. Gregory, St Basil and St. Athanasius.
Here is the following site: http://www.catholic.com/library/Filioque.asp
I find this issue stressing, can someone help me out. Thanks.
I just read it also. Im actually in shock. These are our Orthodox Patriarchs and our Orthodox sons being quoted as if they too encourage the heresy of the Filoque.
This is worrying.
There was a point in time that I thought this difference (if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father or the Son, or both, and if it is THAT important), but yes, it is important.
Council of Nicaea II
"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, proceeding from the Father through the Son" (Profession of Faith [A.D. 787]).
That counsil was not a ecumenical council. and here they counterdict with the first counsil of Nicaea where the Filioque was challenged and they added the Holy Spirit part.
what do u mean exactly.
Mina,
what do u mean exactly.
am saying they're just denying what was said before as we all know.
and as Pope Dioscoros said during all what happend for the counsil of Chalcodone, if the faith was set up allready from our previous fathers during the previous counsil, why would we change that.
if we allready have the best and totally accurate rule book to follow as a One Holy church of God. why would we try to change that to fit our own thoughts.
I've read some of the quotes from these Church Fathers, and I don't see a problem with them at all. They do not support the filioque in any way whatsoever. The Filioque states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. That is to say, He comes from two sources. That is not what the fathers are saying. If you note the language, they are saying that the Source of the Holy Spirit is the Father. We receive the Holy Spirit through the Son, which is perfectly valid. Recall what Christ Himself said:
"I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever" (John 14:16);
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you" (John 14:26);
"When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,"(John 15:26).
We all receive the Holy Spirit through Christ from the Father. So, if the Creed were to read, "Yes, we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Lifegiver, Who proceeds from the Father through the Son. Who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified...", I believe, that would be equally valid.
[coptic]+ Iryny nem `hmot>[/coptic]
I've read some of the quotes from these Church Fathers, and I don't see a problem with them at all. They do not support the filioque in any way whatsoever. The Filioque states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. That is to say, He comes from two sources. That is not what the fathers are saying. If you note the language, they are saying that the Source of the Holy Spirit is the Father. We receive the Holy Spirit through the Son, which is perfectly valid. Recall what Christ Himself said:
"I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever" (John 14:16);
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you" (John 14:26);
"When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,"(John 15:26).
We all receive the Holy Spirit through Christ from the Father. So, if the Creed were to read, "Yes, we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Lifegiver, Who proceeds from the Father through the Son. Who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified...", I believe, that would be equally valid.
Im quite close with Anba Angaelos actually. The next time they organise an ecumenical meeting with the churches, i'll recommend that they send u!! (I TRULY MEAN THAT!!)
The Catholic Apologist writes:
[center]The quotations below show that the early Church Fathers, both Latin and Greek, recognized the same thing, saying that the Spirit proceeds "from the Father and the Son" or "from the Father through the Son."
These expressions mean the same thing because everything the Son has is from the Father. The proceeding of the Spirit from the Son is something the Son himself received from the Father. The procession of the Spirit is therefore ultimately rooted in the Father but goes through the Son. However, some Eastern Orthodox insist that to equate "through the Son" with "from the Son" is a departure from the true faith. [/center]
Hence, these Catholics at least seem to have the same understanding as us! At the end of the day it is semantics. I mean though we believe saying "proceeds from the Father and Son" to mean two eternal sources", the point is that they don't. Hence, it isn't heresy- but it would be heresy if we profess it because it would mean something different entirely.
I fail to see how the words 'proceeds from the Father and the Son' and 'proceeds from the Father through the Son' mean the same thing. I don't think it is a problem of semantics at all. We are talking about two different phrases with two completely different meanings. Unfortunately for the Catholics, their attempt at equating these two statements is wrong. They are not equivalent. Here's an analogy to illustrate the discrepancy. Say we have a glass of water with a straw in it. We go to take a sip of water from the cup. The water, which originates in the cup, enters our mouth through the straw. The water does not originate from the straw itself. The straw is the means by which we can receive the water, but it does not provide the water itself. Extending this analogy to the Trinity, the cup is the Father, the straw is the Son and the water is the Holy Spirit. We receive the Holy Spirit, who originates from the Father, through the Son. In the case of procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, in the case of my analogy, that would be equivalent to removing the straw and saying that the cup is the Father and the Son, and we all know that the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father. They are two distinct hypostases within the Godhead.
But the thing is Catholics explain thus: The procession of the Spirit is therefore ultimately rooted in the Father but goes through the Son.
There is still a distinction between the Father and the Son.
The problem with your analogy is what is said above does not say what will happen if you remove the straw. It is not saying that the Cup is the Father and Son- that is your logical extension! Instead you can see that the water is proceeding from the cup and the straw, though it originated from the Cup.
It is semantics- our idea of procession is that what is proceed from is the ultimate source.
The implications you perceive is due to our conceptual bias of what certain words mean.
Actually your Cup, straw and water analogy best describes what I believe the Catholics are saying- it actually, I believe, works in their favour.
If you remove the straw- can we have the water? Such question doesn't exist because the cup eternally had a straw and water.
I'm still not seeing where you're coming from or how the logic I illustrate above hints at any sort of bias. I think anyone who reads the phrase 'proceeds from the Father and the Son' and 'proceeds from the Father through the Son' will see that those statements are not the same. The Catholics can twist the meaning and wording all they want to equate them, but that does not make them the same. If, in fact, they are the same, then why not just settle with the latter phrase instead of the former. Or, if it's not such a big deal, why not drop the Filioque entirely. I don't see what it adds to the Creed if, in fact, it is an equivalent statement to what the Orthodox Creed states.
In the case of my analogy, I don't think it supports the Catholic view at all. The second example, where there is no straw, and there is only the cup is more an accurate depiction (I feel) of what is implied by the Filioque. You ask, how then would we get the water? Simply by drinking directly from the cup. But again, that would imply that the cup is the Father and the Son. We cannot know the Father except through the Son. That is one of the cornerstones of our faith. And yet, here, we say that we can 'drink from the Father' directly, which is certainly not the case. We can only know the Father through the Son, and we can only receive things from the Father through the Son. Does that make any sense?
Matt,
Are you sure about that? I was looking at the original Nicean Creed and that 'logic' would still be faulty. Here's the Creed:
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten (γεννηθέντα ), not made, being of one substance (ὁμοούσιον, consubstantialem) with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead. And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost. And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not (ἤν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν ), or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion—all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.
The concept that the Son was of one essence with the Father is found in the original.
However, I do take issue with your analysis of the metaphysical. Metaphors, similes and imagery is all well and good to describe what is, but it should not be used to describe what could be by some sort of "logical extension". I say this, not only because metaphors, symbols and the like were not exact simulations of the reality described, but since this is metaphysics, further limitations are put into place.
Where am I going with this?
Firstly, you gave an impressive analogy of the cup, the straw and the water. Let me such for a minute describe my take on the analogy.
In a room I have entered, I found a cup, a straw and water. Obviously all three has been there before I came into the room (time). For imagination purposes, the straw is glass, the same material as the cup, and from the cup was the straw. All this came about before I entered the room (the beginning of time).
I am thirsty. So I take a sip from the cup. The water proceeds from the cup, it enters through the straw, and it then pours into my mouth. However, even before I came to the room, water was in the straw that was left in the cup. So when I started drinking, the water was proceeding also from the straw.
What I am trying to say, as we are talking about something where time is a huge issue here, some eternal, both proceeding from the Father, and proceeding from the Son can occur simultaneously.
The thing is before time, everything that the Son have been and has been and will be given by the Father, and thus whilst it is proceeding from the Father from eternity, and has and will always be through the Son, it also proceeds from the Son, and yet is rooted in the Father.
That was really complicated, and I am pretty sure I did a lousy job at trying to explain that. I will try again tomorrow after I recollect my thoughts.
Likewise, when Christ was begotten from the Virgin Mary by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, this was something that took place in time.
Neither of these refer to the eternal relationship between the three Persons of the Holy Trinity.
However, when the Creed speaks of the Son being begotten from the Father, and the Spirit proceeding from the Father, it is speaking precisely of this eternal relationship.
It should also be noted that the Popes of Rome originally resisted the addition to the Creed, only later accepting it when it had become dominant in Europe through popular usage.
That is exactly what I was trying to say!
AH HA!! In that context, it makes perfect sense. I forgot about the separation of the temporal versus the eternal sense of time. It didn't even cross my mind. In that case, I fully understand what you mean. Orthodox11, thank you very much for pointing out the differences.
In Latin theology, the Divine Persons were considered as the simple inner relations of the unique essence of the Godhead: hence, if the very existence of the Spirit is determined by its relations to the Father and the Son, the doctrine of the Filioque - or procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son - becomes a logical, dogmatic necessity, for the Spirit cannot be said to be distinct from the Son if he does not proceed from him.
Fr. John Mayendorff, the famous EO theologian, explained the difference thus: So there is a very real difference here. The filioque suggests two causes for the existence of the Spirit, and may be taken as implying a principle of subordination within the Adorable Trinity. If the RCs would admit that the Son in no way constitutes a cause of the Spirit, then we would be on the road to somewhere worth going. But as things stand, the late addition to the Creed runs counter not only to Tradition, but to our understanding of the economy of the Trinity.
In Christ,
Anglian