OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 02, 2014, 04:56:24 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: "Spirit of the Son" and the Filioque  (Read 1141 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Regnare
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA catechumen
Posts: 304



« on: September 11, 2013, 03:13:16 PM »

I've seen this issue regarding the Filioque touched on in other threads, but I never saw a response to it.

There are passages in the New Testament which refer to the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of the Son:
"God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts..." (Galatians 4:6)
"If you do not have the Spirit of Christ, you do not belong to him..." (Romans 8:9)
"...through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ..." (Philippians 1:19)

I understand the Orthodox idea of a temporal as opposed to an eternal procession, and also the logic about how the Son cannot inherit the Spirit's procession from the Father. While those arguments work well dealing with passages where Jesus says he will send the Spirit from the Father, the Father doesn't seem to be mentioned here. So, what is the Orthodox interpretation of these seemingly unequivocal passages?
Logged

"I give praise to your holy Nature, Lord, for you have made my nature a sanctuary for your hiddenness and a tabernacle for your holy mysteries, a place where you can dwell, and a holy temple for your Divinity." --Venerable St. Isaac of Nineveh
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,324


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2013, 03:53:06 PM »

"I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation (Eph 1:17)"

Does the Holy Spirit now hypostatically proceed from wisdom and revelation?
Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,126


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2013, 04:09:17 PM »

This thread could possibly be interesting  Grin
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,126


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2013, 04:11:36 PM »

"I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation (Eph 1:17)"

Does the Holy Spirit now hypostatically proceed from wisdom and revelation?

I see your point that you are trying to make. Yet what the OP presented is in no way remotely the same thing as what is being said in the verse you quoted. You know that.

BUT enough said by me.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2013, 04:19:25 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,415


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2013, 04:26:57 PM »

I understand the Orthodox idea of a temporal as opposed to an eternal procession, and also the logic about how the Son cannot inherit the Spirit's procession from the Father. While those arguments work well dealing with passages where Jesus says he will send the Spirit from the Father, the Father doesn't seem to be mentioned here. So, what is the Orthodox interpretation of these seemingly unequivocal passages?

What's so unequivocal about those passages?  The Spirit is spoken of as the Spirit of Christ, and that is what he is.  But if your idea is that this phraseology unequivocally indicates "procession" from the Son, I think you are reading that into the text.  It's not talking about procession, but "possession" --> the Spirit of Christ, or "Christ's Spirit" as opposed to some other spirit (e.g., "the spirit of this world").  If I call God "my God" or "the God of me", it doesn't indicate in any way that God proceeds from me, it simply clarifies "whose God" is being spoken of.

When the Scriptures speak of "procession" in relation to the Spirit, it is always a procession "from the Father".  The Son says as much.   
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,606



« Reply #5 on: September 11, 2013, 05:17:48 PM »

I've seen this issue regarding the Filioque touched on in other threads, but I never saw a response to it.

There are passages in the New Testament which refer to the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of the Son:
"God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts..." (Galatians 4:6)
"If you do not have the Spirit of Christ, you do not belong to him..." (Romans 8:9)
"...through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ..." (Philippians 1:19)

I understand the Orthodox idea of a temporal as opposed to an eternal procession, and also the logic about how the Son cannot inherit the Spirit's procession from the Father. While those arguments work well dealing with passages where Jesus says he will send the Spirit from the Father, the Father doesn't seem to be mentioned here. So, what is the Orthodox interpretation of these seemingly unequivocal passages?

The Holy Spirit belongs to the Son in the sense that the Son pours forth the Spirit naturally and not by grace (which is why the Spirit is said to proceed through the Son). It is one thing to indicate that the Spirit belongs to the Son (which we accept) and another to teach that the Spirit proceeds from the Son (which we reject). St. John of Damascus actually rather succinctly sums up the Orthodox understanding of this in Chapter 12 of Book 1 of his Exposition on the Orthodox Faith, writing, "And He is the Spirit of the Son, not as being from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father—for the Father alone is Cause."
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #6 on: September 11, 2013, 11:27:15 PM »

I've seen this issue regarding the Filioque touched on in other threads, but I never saw a response to it.

There are passages in the New Testament which refer to the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of the Son:
"God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts..." (Galatians 4:6)
"If you do not have the Spirit of Christ, you do not belong to him..." (Romans 8:9)
"...through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ..." (Philippians 1:19)

I understand the Orthodox idea of a temporal as opposed to an eternal procession, and also the logic about how the Son cannot inherit the Spirit's procession from the Father. While those arguments work well dealing with passages where Jesus says he will send the Spirit from the Father, the Father doesn't seem to be mentioned here. So, what is the Orthodox interpretation of these seemingly unequivocal passages?

The Holy Spirit belongs to the Son in the sense that the Son pours forth the Spirit naturally and not by grace (which is why the Spirit is said to proceed through the Son). It is one thing to indicate that the Spirit belongs to the Son (which we accept) and another to teach that the Spirit proceeds from the Son (which we reject). St. John of Damascus actually rather succinctly sums up the Orthodox understanding of this in Chapter 12 of Book 1 of his Exposition on the Orthodox Faith, writing, "And He is the Spirit of the Son, not as being from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father—for the Father alone is Cause."

Once again, St. John Damascene leaves no question unanswered.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
lovesupreme
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 961



« Reply #7 on: September 12, 2013, 01:01:18 AM »

Yeah, why are we throwing Scripture verses at each other like a bunch of flippin' Protestants? Wink

The Fathers always set things straight. police
Logged

I am prone to bouts of sarcasm. Please forgive me if my posts have offended you.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,362



« Reply #8 on: September 12, 2013, 11:31:19 AM »

Protestants prooftext Scripture.

Orthodox prooftext the Fathers.

Catholics prooftext Popes.

 Grin
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,129


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #9 on: September 12, 2013, 11:57:21 AM »

Protestants prooftext Scripture.

Orthodox prooftext the Fathers.

Catholics prooftext Popes.

 Grin

Sounds about right...!
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,980


black metal cat


« Reply #10 on: September 12, 2013, 12:03:05 PM »

Protestants prooftext Scripture.

Orthodox prooftext the Fathers.

Catholics prooftext Popes.

 Grin

The best, most authoritative, and earliest proof texts pointing towards which proof texts should be used were patristic, therefore the Orthodox win. Papists have can prove their approach only from texts rather late in the life of the Church, while Protestants must rely on vague Scriptural passages and a terrible interpretation for theirs. Only the Orthodox have early, solid, verifiable circularity to their scheme. Checkmate!
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,362



« Reply #11 on: September 12, 2013, 01:10:48 PM »

Protestants prooftext Scripture.

Orthodox prooftext the Fathers.

Catholics prooftext Popes.

 Grin

The best, most authoritative, and earliest proof texts pointing towards which proof texts should be used were patristic, therefore the Orthodox win. Papists have can prove their approach only from texts rather late in the life of the Church, while Protestants must rely on vague Scriptural passages and a terrible interpretation for theirs. Only the Orthodox have early, solid, verifiable circularity to their scheme. Checkmate!
Or you can look at it this way.  Protestants prooftext Scripture directly, Orthodox prooftext Church Fathers who prooftexted Scripture, and Papists prooftext Popes who prooftext Church Fathers who prooftext Scripture.  The way I see it, the Protestants win. lol
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
zekarja
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 745


O Holy Prophet Zechariah, intercede to God for us!


« Reply #12 on: September 12, 2013, 03:46:43 PM »

This is a long read but it does give a new and multi-dimensional view to the Filioque as opposed to the same old stuff: http://www.catholic-legate.com/apologetics/thechurch/articles/filioque.aspx Whether one considers it heresy or not, it is certainly food for further thoughts. Smiley
« Last Edit: September 12, 2013, 03:54:03 PM by zekarja » Logged

Regnare
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA catechumen
Posts: 304



« Reply #13 on: September 12, 2013, 03:58:52 PM »

This is a long read but it does give a new and multi-dimensional view to the Filioque as opposed to the same old stuff: http://www.catholic-legate.com/apologetics/thechurch/articles/filioque.aspx Whether one considers it heresy or not, it is certainly food for further thoughts. Smiley
I actually take issue with his characterisation of the Trinity. Although I get the point about "proceeds" meaning something entirely different in the Latin Creed than it did in the Greek, I strongly disagree with the idea that the Spirit must always proceed from the Son, as in a game of catch where two players are necessary. The Father can send the Spirit on His own, as He did at Jesus' baptism. Saying otherwise does sound vaguely subordinationist, like a more moderate version of the idea C.S. Lewis promoted where the Spirit is the embodiment of the love between Father and Son.
Logged

"I give praise to your holy Nature, Lord, for you have made my nature a sanctuary for your hiddenness and a tabernacle for your holy mysteries, a place where you can dwell, and a holy temple for your Divinity." --Venerable St. Isaac of Nineveh
zekarja
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 745


O Holy Prophet Zechariah, intercede to God for us!


« Reply #14 on: September 12, 2013, 04:20:33 PM »

This is a long read but it does give a new and multi-dimensional view to the Filioque as opposed to the same old stuff: http://www.catholic-legate.com/apologetics/thechurch/articles/filioque.aspx Whether one considers it heresy or not, it is certainly food for further thoughts. Smiley
I actually take issue with his characterisation of the Trinity. Although I get the point about "proceeds" meaning something entirely different in the Latin Creed than it did in the Greek, I strongly disagree with the idea that the Spirit must always proceed from the Son, as in a game of catch where two players are necessary. The Father can send the Spirit on His own, as He did at Jesus' baptism. Saying otherwise does sound vaguely subordinationist, like a more moderate version of the idea C.S. Lewis promoted where the Spirit is the embodiment of the love between Father and Son.

I have read the article. The author speaks of a game of catch and the Son's "necessary Presence" with regard to the Roman teaching of procession which is understood in a collective sense rather than to be understood in the monarchy of the Father sense. He does not deny the Eastern teaching of the monarchy of the Father. He is just saying that, in the collective sense of the Roman teaching, the Son is necessary. Smiley
Logged

Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,324


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #15 on: September 12, 2013, 04:32:21 PM »

And that's one of the reasons why the Roman teaching is wrong  Smiley
Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,606



« Reply #16 on: September 12, 2013, 05:37:00 PM »

This is a long read but it does give a new and multi-dimensional view to the Filioque as opposed to the same old stuff: http://www.catholic-legate.com/apologetics/thechurch/articles/filioque.aspx Whether one considers it heresy or not, it is certainly food for further thoughts. Smiley
I actually take issue with his characterisation of the Trinity. Although I get the point about "proceeds" meaning something entirely different in the Latin Creed than it did in the Greek, I strongly disagree with the idea that the Spirit must always proceed from the Son, as in a game of catch where two players are necessary. The Father can send the Spirit on His own, as He did at Jesus' baptism. Saying otherwise does sound vaguely subordinationist, like a more moderate version of the idea C.S. Lewis promoted where the Spirit is the embodiment of the love between Father and Son.

I have read the article. The author speaks of a game of catch and the Son's "necessary Presence" with regard to the Roman teaching of procession which is understood in a collective sense rather than to be understood in the monarchy of the Father sense. He does not deny the Eastern teaching of the monarchy of the Father. He is just saying that, in the collective sense of the Roman teaching, the Son is necessary. Smiley

Instead he denies the Council of Florence which decreed that the Son is the cause of the Holy Spirit's subsistence. It is good to see that Roman Catholics are abandoning the teachings of Florence. If they were to formally repudiate the teachings of that council (instead of doing so only vaguely with their "clarifications") and then next formally repudiate the teachings of Vatican I, our ecumenical dialogue with them would make tremendous progress.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
zekarja
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 745


O Holy Prophet Zechariah, intercede to God for us!


« Reply #17 on: September 12, 2013, 05:51:26 PM »

This is a long read but it does give a new and multi-dimensional view to the Filioque as opposed to the same old stuff: http://www.catholic-legate.com/apologetics/thechurch/articles/filioque.aspx Whether one considers it heresy or not, it is certainly food for further thoughts. Smiley
I actually take issue with his characterisation of the Trinity. Although I get the point about "proceeds" meaning something entirely different in the Latin Creed than it did in the Greek, I strongly disagree with the idea that the Spirit must always proceed from the Son, as in a game of catch where two players are necessary. The Father can send the Spirit on His own, as He did at Jesus' baptism. Saying otherwise does sound vaguely subordinationist, like a more moderate version of the idea C.S. Lewis promoted where the Spirit is the embodiment of the love between Father and Son.

I have read the article. The author speaks of a game of catch and the Son's "necessary Presence" with regard to the Roman teaching of procession which is understood in a collective sense rather than to be understood in the monarchy of the Father sense. He does not deny the Eastern teaching of the monarchy of the Father. He is just saying that, in the collective sense of the Roman teaching, the Son is necessary. Smiley

Instead he denies the Council of Florence which decreed that the Son is the cause of the Holy Spirit's subsistence. It is good to see that Roman Catholics are abandoning the teachings of Florence. If they were to formally repudiate the teachings of that council (instead of doing so only vaguely with their "clarifications") and then next formally repudiate the teachings of Vatican I, our ecumenical dialogue with them would make tremendous progress.

He does not deny the Council of Florence and even speaks about it in support of his viewpoint. A quick page search of the word Florence, shows this. He also does speak on "subsistence" which I have directly quoted here:

This is the context in which the The Catechism of the Catholic Church is speaking (as quoted above by Cyril Quattrone) when it asserts that the Spirit "has His nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son.  He proceeds eternally from both as from one principal and through one spiration".  That one Principal of the Spirit is the Father, and the Father alone.  It is only in the collective sense of the Personal, consubstantial communion between Father and Son that the Spirit proceeds from both.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,866



« Reply #18 on: September 12, 2013, 07:24:15 PM »

This is a long read but it does give a new and multi-dimensional view to the Filioque as opposed to the same old stuff: http://www.catholic-legate.com/apologetics/thechurch/articles/filioque.aspx Whether one considers it heresy or not, it is certainly food for further thoughts. Smiley
I actually take issue with his characterisation of the Trinity. Although I get the point about "proceeds" meaning something entirely different in the Latin Creed than it did in the Greek, I strongly disagree with the idea that the Spirit must always proceed from the Son, as in a game of catch where two players are necessary. The Father can send the Spirit on His own, as He did at Jesus' baptism. Saying otherwise does sound vaguely subordinationist, like a more moderate version of the idea C.S. Lewis promoted where the Spirit is the embodiment of the love between Father and Son.

I have read the article. The author speaks of a game of catch and the Son's "necessary Presence" with regard to the Roman teaching of procession which is understood in a collective sense rather than to be understood in the monarchy of the Father sense. He does not deny the Eastern teaching of the monarchy of the Father. He is just saying that, in the collective sense of the Roman teaching, the Son is necessary. Smiley

Instead he denies the Council of Florence which decreed that the Son is the cause of the Holy Spirit's subsistence. It is good to see that Roman Catholics are abandoning the teachings of Florence. If they were to formally repudiate the teachings of that council (instead of doing so only vaguely with their "clarifications") and then next formally repudiate the teachings of Vatican I, our ecumenical dialogue with them would make tremendous progress.

He does not deny the Council of Florence and even speaks about it in support of his viewpoint. A quick page search of the word Florence, shows this. He also does speak on "subsistence" which I have directly quoted here:

This is the context in which the The Catechism of the Catholic Church is speaking (as quoted above by Cyril Quattrone) when it asserts that the Spirit "has His nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son.  He proceeds eternally from both as from one principal and through one spiration".  That one Principal of the Spirit is the Father, and the Father alone.  It is only in the collective sense of the Personal, consubstantial communion between Father and Son that the Spirit proceeds from both.
same old heresy: "as from one principal" is not the same as "from one principal," that "collective sense" subordinating the Spirit and denying Him consubstantial communion with the Father and the Son.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,606



« Reply #19 on: September 12, 2013, 07:39:54 PM »

This is a long read but it does give a new and multi-dimensional view to the Filioque as opposed to the same old stuff: http://www.catholic-legate.com/apologetics/thechurch/articles/filioque.aspx Whether one considers it heresy or not, it is certainly food for further thoughts. Smiley
I actually take issue with his characterisation of the Trinity. Although I get the point about "proceeds" meaning something entirely different in the Latin Creed than it did in the Greek, I strongly disagree with the idea that the Spirit must always proceed from the Son, as in a game of catch where two players are necessary. The Father can send the Spirit on His own, as He did at Jesus' baptism. Saying otherwise does sound vaguely subordinationist, like a more moderate version of the idea C.S. Lewis promoted where the Spirit is the embodiment of the love between Father and Son.

I have read the article. The author speaks of a game of catch and the Son's "necessary Presence" with regard to the Roman teaching of procession which is understood in a collective sense rather than to be understood in the monarchy of the Father sense. He does not deny the Eastern teaching of the monarchy of the Father. He is just saying that, in the collective sense of the Roman teaching, the Son is necessary. Smiley

Instead he denies the Council of Florence which decreed that the Son is the cause of the Holy Spirit's subsistence. It is good to see that Roman Catholics are abandoning the teachings of Florence. If they were to formally repudiate the teachings of that council (instead of doing so only vaguely with their "clarifications") and then next formally repudiate the teachings of Vatican I, our ecumenical dialogue with them would make tremendous progress.

He does not deny the Council of Florence and even speaks about it in support of his viewpoint. A quick page search of the word Florence, shows this. He also does speak on "subsistence" which I have directly quoted here:

This is the context in which the The Catechism of the Catholic Church is speaking (as quoted above by Cyril Quattrone) when it asserts that the Spirit "has His nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son.  He proceeds eternally from both as from one principal and through one spiration".  That one Principal of the Spirit is the Father, and the Father alone.  It is only in the collective sense of the Personal, consubstantial communion between Father and Son that the Spirit proceeds from both.

In that case, we cannot agree with him, because if the Son is cause of the subsistence of the Spirit, then this violates the monarchy of the Father, for the Father alone is cause according to numerous saints and doctors.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2013, 07:41:00 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
zekarja
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 745


O Holy Prophet Zechariah, intercede to God for us!


« Reply #20 on: September 13, 2013, 11:26:01 AM »

This is a long read but it does give a new and multi-dimensional view to the Filioque as opposed to the same old stuff: http://www.catholic-legate.com/apologetics/thechurch/articles/filioque.aspx Whether one considers it heresy or not, it is certainly food for further thoughts. Smiley
I actually take issue with his characterisation of the Trinity. Although I get the point about "proceeds" meaning something entirely different in the Latin Creed than it did in the Greek, I strongly disagree with the idea that the Spirit must always proceed from the Son, as in a game of catch where two players are necessary. The Father can send the Spirit on His own, as He did at Jesus' baptism. Saying otherwise does sound vaguely subordinationist, like a more moderate version of the idea C.S. Lewis promoted where the Spirit is the embodiment of the love between Father and Son.

I have read the article. The author speaks of a game of catch and the Son's "necessary Presence" with regard to the Roman teaching of procession which is understood in a collective sense rather than to be understood in the monarchy of the Father sense. He does not deny the Eastern teaching of the monarchy of the Father. He is just saying that, in the collective sense of the Roman teaching, the Son is necessary. Smiley

Instead he denies the Council of Florence which decreed that the Son is the cause of the Holy Spirit's subsistence. It is good to see that Roman Catholics are abandoning the teachings of Florence. If they were to formally repudiate the teachings of that council (instead of doing so only vaguely with their "clarifications") and then next formally repudiate the teachings of Vatican I, our ecumenical dialogue with them would make tremendous progress.

He does not deny the Council of Florence and even speaks about it in support of his viewpoint. A quick page search of the word Florence, shows this. He also does speak on "subsistence" which I have directly quoted here:

This is the context in which the The Catechism of the Catholic Church is speaking (as quoted above by Cyril Quattrone) when it asserts that the Spirit "has His nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son.  He proceeds eternally from both as from one principal and through one spiration".  That one Principal of the Spirit is the Father, and the Father alone.  It is only in the collective sense of the Personal, consubstantial communion between Father and Son that the Spirit proceeds from both.

In that case, we cannot agree with him, because if the Son is cause of the subsistence of the Spirit, then this violates the monarchy of the Father, for the Father alone is cause according to numerous saints and doctors.

I never suggested that any of you would agree with him. This is what I said:

This is a long read but it does give a new and multi-dimensional view to the Filioque as opposed to the same old stuff: http://www.catholic-legate.com/apologetics/thechurch/articles/filioque.aspx Whether one considers it heresy or not, it is certainly food for further thoughts. Smiley

I have not been defending the article or even the Filioque. My replies have been to those that directly misrepresent the author of that article. I find the article to be a more thorough explanation and context of the Roman teaching than the typical Bible verse proof-texting. Smiley
« Last Edit: September 13, 2013, 11:27:18 AM by zekarja » Logged

Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 13, 2013, 02:16:48 PM »

I have not been defending the article or even the Filioque. My replies have been to those that directly misrepresent the author of that article. I find the article to be a more thorough explanation and context of the Roman teaching than the typical Bible verse proof-texting. Smiley
I find the conclusions of the author of the article to be problematic, because as I see it he is reading the later Western filioque into earlier Greek Fathers. He also seems to buy into the false notion that the later (i.e., medieval) Western filioque can be found in the Alexandrian tradition, but that really is not the case. In fact, the Alexandrian tradition itself, like that theological tradition of the Cappadocians, distinguishes between procession and progression, and so there is no causal filioque in the writings of the Alexandrian Fathers. This modern attempt to advocate for the Western filioque is usually founded upon poor translations, i.e., translations that fail to make the proper distinction between ἐκπόρευσις and προϊέναι (and the various other terms used to speak of the Spirit's progression or manifestation).
« Last Edit: September 13, 2013, 02:17:33 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,866



« Reply #22 on: September 13, 2013, 03:01:37 PM »

This is a long read but it does give a new and multi-dimensional view to the Filioque as opposed to the same old stuff: http://www.catholic-legate.com/apologetics/thechurch/articles/filioque.aspx Whether one considers it heresy or not, it is certainly food for further thoughts. Smiley

I have not been defending the article or even the Filioque. My replies have been to those that directly misrepresent the author of that article. I find the article to be a more thorough explanation and context of the Roman teaching than the typical Bible verse proof-texting. Smiley
What misrepresenations?
Dear Chrisb,

You have gone to much trouble to assemble your quotes although you responded so quickly I would wonder if you have appropriated material from someone's website?   But I find myself lacking the energy to address them,    As you know we have traversed this ground in great depth several times on CAF and we have never reached a solution.  If CAF had not obliterated all the very valuable archives which held these discussions, we could have simply taken material from there, but alas, it was all destroyed.  Some of it was the fruit of much labour and research and it was sad to loose it in just one instant.

It was always Apotheoun who provided the best evidence for the Eastern view of the filioque.  I hope that he will see this thread and participate.  It is much more convincing to Catholics such as yourself when it is a fellow Catholic explaining trinitarian theology and the filioque.


Yes, this is very lamentable for it is true I have labored over this issue a great deal on CAF with you and many others but so often I am met with the polemic rejection off-hand. Intellectually, I can't accept that as an answer in good conscience Father.

The paper I linked to is one that very thoroughly makes the Western case for the filioque's legitimacy. Do you, or anyone, have something more substantial besides the kinds of polemical argument that I tend to find in Orthodox Apologetic materials?

The fact that the Vatican forbids the Filioque to be inserted into the Creed in the original Greek, because the result is heretical even by the Vatican's standards, signals that it is illegitimate.

IF you can come up with a patristic or scriptural argument that you can say τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς Καὶ  τοῦ υἱοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον, then you have a defense.  If not, Bonocore (who is know to have his name attached to several dumb things, e.g. claiming that Theodotius gave the title EP to the patriarch of Constantinople because Gratian gave the pagan title pontifax maximus to the Pope of Rome) can multiply the development of papers until the second coming: the Church says "NO."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
zekarja
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 745


O Holy Prophet Zechariah, intercede to God for us!


« Reply #23 on: September 13, 2013, 03:37:16 PM »

One misrepresentation was that the author denied the Council of Florence.

Another misrepresentation is that the ideA the the Holy Spirit must always proceed from the Son. The author makes it clear that it is only required when speaking of the collective sense not while speaking of the monarchy of the Father. Smiley
Logged

Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #24 on: September 13, 2013, 06:41:39 PM »

One misrepresentation was that the author denied the Council of Florence.

Another misrepresentation is that the ideA the the Holy Spirit must always proceed from the Son. The author makes it clear that it is only required when speaking of the collective sense not while speaking of the monarchy of the Father. Smiley
The author of the article fails to properly distinguish between the progression of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, which only concerns the manifesting energies of the Spirit, and His (i.e., the Holy Spirit's) existential procession, which is from the Father alone. This idea of a "collective sense" where the Son is still seen as a cause - i.e., according to the decree of Florence - of the Spirit's subsistence, and a distinct or non-collective monarchy of the Father, has no foundation in the patristical tradition of the East. There is no collective procession (ἐκπόρευσις) of the Spirit.

The Holy Spirit receives His existence as person from the Father alone by procession (see St. Maximus' Letter to Marinus), and can be said to progress or be made manifest - which is not to be confused with His eternal origin - through the Son as grace (i.e., as the divine energies).
« Last Edit: September 13, 2013, 06:46:19 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #25 on: September 14, 2013, 04:07:06 AM »

One misrepresentation was that the author denied the Council of Florence.

Another misrepresentation is that the ideA the the Holy Spirit must always proceed from the Son. The author makes it clear that it is only required when speaking of the collective sense not while speaking of the monarchy of the Father. Smiley

Aristotle, get out of the body.
Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
zekarja
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 745


O Holy Prophet Zechariah, intercede to God for us!


« Reply #26 on: September 14, 2013, 07:33:27 AM »

One misrepresentation was that the author denied the Council of Florence.

Another misrepresentation is that the ideA the the Holy Spirit must always proceed from the Son. The author makes it clear that it is only required when speaking of the collective sense not while speaking of the monarchy of the Father. Smiley

Aristotle, get out of the body.

I agree.  laugh
Logged

Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.127 seconds with 54 queries.