Author Topic: "Spirit of the Son" and the Filioque  (Read 1507 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Regnare

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 455
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
"Spirit of the Son" and the Filioque
« 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?

Online Cyrillic

  • Arbiter Elegantiarum
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,792
  • We must go back!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: "Spirit of the Son" and the Filioque
« 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?
"We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!"
-T.S. Eliot

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,564
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: "Spirit of the Son" and the Filioque
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2013, 04:09:17 PM »
This thread could possibly be interesting  ;D
"We shall steer safely through every storm, so long as our heart is right, our intention fervent, our courage steadfast, and our trust fixed on God"
-St. Francis De Sales

Venerable Benedict Daswa and Blessed Isidore Bakanja, Martyrs of Africa, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,564
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: "Spirit of the Son" and the Filioque
« 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 »
"We shall steer safely through every storm, so long as our heart is right, our intention fervent, our courage steadfast, and our trust fixed on God"
-St. Francis De Sales

Venerable Benedict Daswa and Blessed Isidore Bakanja, Martyrs of Africa, pray for the Church today

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • The Fourteenth Apostle and Judge of the Interwebs
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,789
  • "I pledge allegiance to the flag..."
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Czech Lands
Re: "Spirit of the Son" and the Filioque
« 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.   
"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Quote
Bartholomew, 270th Archbishop of Constantinople-New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch, is spiritual leader to 300 million Orthodox Christians throughout the world.

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,716
Re: "Spirit of the Son" and the Filioque
« 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."
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Shanghaiski

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,978
  • Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia
Re: "Spirit of the Son" and the Filioque
« 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.
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.

Offline lovesupreme

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,330
  • At Jacob's Well you were proved well named
Re: "Spirit of the Son" and the Filioque
« 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? ;)

The Fathers always set things straight. :police:

Offline TheTrisagion

  • The cat is back and its better than ever!
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,272
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: "Spirit of the Son" and the Filioque
« Reply #8 on: September 12, 2013, 11:31:19 AM »
Protestants prooftext Scripture.

Orthodox prooftext the Fathers.

Catholics prooftext Popes.

 ;D
Guys! They're not intercoursing. It's just an unfortunate angle.

Offline JoeS2

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,407
  • St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)
Re: "Spirit of the Son" and the Filioque
« Reply #9 on: September 12, 2013, 11:57:21 AM »
Protestants prooftext Scripture.

Orthodox prooftext the Fathers.

Catholics prooftext Popes.

 ;D

Sounds about right...!

Offline Justin Kissel

  • *
  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 32,236
Re: "Spirit of the Son" and the Filioque
« Reply #10 on: September 12, 2013, 12:03:05 PM »
Protestants prooftext Scripture.

Orthodox prooftext the Fathers.

Catholics prooftext Popes.

 ;D

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!

Offline TheTrisagion

  • The cat is back and its better than ever!
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,272
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: "Spirit of the Son" and the Filioque
« Reply #11 on: September 12, 2013, 01:10:48 PM »
Protestants prooftext Scripture.

Orthodox prooftext the Fathers.

Catholics prooftext Popes.

 ;D

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
Guys! They're not intercoursing. It's just an unfortunate angle.

Offline zekarja

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 747
  • O Holy Prophet Zechariah, intercede to God for us!
Re: "Spirit of the Son" and the Filioque
« 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. :)
« Last Edit: September 12, 2013, 03:54:03 PM by zekarja »

Offline Regnare

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 455
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: "Spirit of the Son" and the Filioque
« 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. :)
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.

Offline zekarja

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 747
  • O Holy Prophet Zechariah, intercede to God for us!
Re: "Spirit of the Son" and the Filioque
« 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. :)
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. :)

Online Cyrillic

  • Arbiter Elegantiarum
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,792
  • We must go back!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: "Spirit of the Son" and the Filioque
« Reply #15 on: September 12, 2013, 04:32:21 PM »
And that's one of the reasons why the Roman teaching is wrong  :)
"We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!"
-T.S. Eliot

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,716
Re: "Spirit of the Son" and the Filioque
« 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. :)
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. :)

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

Offline zekarja

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 747
  • O Holy Prophet Zechariah, intercede to God for us!
Re: "Spirit of the Son" and the Filioque
« 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. :)
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. :)

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.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,160
Re: "Spirit of the Son" and the Filioque
« 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. :)
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. :)

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.
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

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,716
Re: "Spirit of the Son" and the Filioque
« 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. :)
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. :)

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

Offline zekarja

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 747
  • O Holy Prophet Zechariah, intercede to God for us!
Re: "Spirit of the Son" and the Filioque
« 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. :)
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. :)

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. :)

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. :)
« Last Edit: September 13, 2013, 11:27:18 AM by zekarja »

Offline Apotheoun

  • "Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,431
  • St. John Maximovitch
    • The Taboric Light
Re: "Spirit of the Son" and the Filioque
« 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. :)
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 »
"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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,160
Re: "Spirit of the Son" and the Filioque
« 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. :)

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. :)
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."
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

Offline zekarja

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 747
  • O Holy Prophet Zechariah, intercede to God for us!
Re: "Spirit of the Son" and the Filioque
« 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. :)

Offline Apotheoun

  • "Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,431
  • St. John Maximovitch
    • The Taboric Light
Re: "Spirit of the Son" and the Filioque
« 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. :)
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 »
"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

Offline Napoletani

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
Re: "Spirit of the Son" and the Filioque
« 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. :)

Aristotle, get out of the body.
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

Offline zekarja

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 747
  • O Holy Prophet Zechariah, intercede to God for us!
Re: "Spirit of the Son" and the Filioque
« 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. :)

Aristotle, get out of the body.

I agree.  :laugh: