Author Topic: Semantics of the Filioque  (Read 1011 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Amatorus

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,105
Semantics of the Filioque
« on: August 30, 2015, 09:12:06 PM »
http://vox-nova.com/2007/07/30/the-semantics-of-the-filioque/

Quote
In Latin, there are four ways in which to convey the conjunction “and” (unfortunately, English only has one): ac, atque, et and que. The first two of these are emphatic, pointing to a close and proportional relationship between two entities: Sonny atque Cher; pater atque mater (father and mother).

The third of these conjunctions, et, expresses association but is less emphatic than atque or ac. We use et for anything from association, such as in civitas et patria (state and country) and stellae et caelum (stars and sky), to dependent clauses: Et in Spiritum Sanctum… .

The fourth of these conjunctions, -que, is even less emphatic than et and simply indicates a connection or relation between two entities or clauses. When connecting nouns, -que is tagged onto the end of the second term, which immediately follows the first term: ex Patre Filioque (Filio + -que). This indicates a mere connection between the Father and the Son in the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Father and the Son do not have an equal or proportional function according to this clause.

If the Latin churches wanted to emphasis the Son’s role in the procession of the Holy Spirit, or even to point toward the Son playing a major role in this procession comparable to that of the Father, then the Latin Creed most certainly would have read: ex Patre et Filio. And if the Catholic Church wanted to point to the Son’s equal role in the procession of the Holy Spirit, the Latin Creed would have read: ex Patre atque Filio.

Thoughts?
« Last Edit: August 30, 2015, 09:12:27 PM by Amatorus »

Offline scamandrius

  • A man of many, many turns
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,376
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: DOWAMA of AANA
Re: Semantics of the Filioque
« Reply #1 on: August 30, 2015, 11:31:16 PM »
http://vox-nova.com/2007/07/30/the-semantics-of-the-filioque/

Quote
In Latin, there are four ways in which to convey the conjunction “and” (unfortunately, English only has one): ac, atque, et and que. The first two of these are emphatic, pointing to a close and proportional relationship between two entities: Sonny atque Cher; pater atque mater (father and mother).

The third of these conjunctions, et, expresses association but is less emphatic than atque or ac. We use et for anything from association, such as in civitas et patria (state and country) and stellae et caelum (stars and sky), to dependent clauses: Et in Spiritum Sanctum… .

The fourth of these conjunctions, -que, is even less emphatic than et and simply indicates a connection or relation between two entities or clauses. When connecting nouns, -que is tagged onto the end of the second term, which immediately follows the first term: ex Patre Filioque (Filio + -que). This indicates a mere connection between the Father and the Son in the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Father and the Son do not have an equal or proportional function according to this clause.

If the Latin churches wanted to emphasis the Son’s role in the procession of the Holy Spirit, or even to point toward the Son playing a major role in this procession comparable to that of the Father, then the Latin Creed most certainly would have read: ex Patre et Filio. And if the Catholic Church wanted to point to the Son’s equal role in the procession of the Holy Spirit, the Latin Creed would have read: ex Patre atque Filio.

Thoughts?

Interesting.  In the Latin Creed following "Ex patre filioque procedit" comes "qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur."  I would assume that since the Spirit is equally God and equally worshipped along with the Father and the Son so why did the Latin fathers not use atque to stress that relationship.  I think this is grasping at straws.  It's nice to see that the defenders of the Filioque are trying more creative, though just as futile, attempts to justify it and that they seem to be moving from ex=per.  I think the more likely explanation is that the enclitic, -que, is the most common word in the Latin language. 
Da quod iubes et iube quod vis.

Offline genesisone

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,906
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: Semantics of the Filioque
« Reply #2 on: August 31, 2015, 08:59:32 AM »
http://vox-nova.com/2007/07/30/the-semantics-of-the-filioque/

Quote
In Latin, there are four ways in which to convey the conjunction “and” (unfortunately, English only has one): ac, atque, et and que. The first two of these are emphatic, pointing to a close and proportional relationship between two entities: Sonny atque Cher; pater atque mater (father and mother).

Thoughts?
The writer is apparently unfamiliar with common English expressions. For example, you might be offered chocolate cake as well as pumpkin pie for dessert. And what about "along with" and "plus". Yes, there are slight shades of meaning: "as well as" is perhaps closer to "and/or" than simply "and". But the author is trying to make the point that there are nuances in the available choices.

If the writer is mistaken like that about English, I am somewhat less than confident about his ability to describe to an English-speaking person the intricacies of Latin conjunctions. I agree with scamandrius' point about grasping at straws.

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Semantics of the Filioque
« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2015, 09:12:25 AM »
Too far fetched, and it is unlikely that the Carolingians would 'get' such subtleties in a language not their own.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2015, 09:32:15 AM by Cyrillic »

Offline vamrat

  • Vamratoraptor
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,471
  • Faith: Serbian Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of New Gracanica
Re: Semantics of the Filioque
« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2015, 09:26:59 AM »
And it still doesn't address the root cause of the problem: you don't go around changing the Creed unilaterally, willy-nilly.  If the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (because I can at least see justification for it being a question) had been brought to an Ecumenical Council, discussed, and a conclusion reached guided by the Holy Spirit there would have been no problem unless the ones who were doing it wrong got butthurt afterwards and went into heresy.  The filoque showed the problem with what the papacy had become.  The Pope never had the power to change doctrine on his own, and the filoque was just that.  He overstepped his bounds and decided that splitting the Church of Christ was more important him losing any dignity.  Pride led to Cain killing Abel and here we are.
Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.

Offline Amatorus

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,105
Re: Semantics of the Filioque
« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2015, 05:33:58 PM »
Too far fetched, and it is unlikely that the Carolingians would 'get' such subtleties in a language not their own.

I've looked at a lot of medieval manuscripts and I'd say some monks are just as skilled if not more eloquent with Latin than Cato or Virgil.

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Semantics of the Filioque
« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2015, 05:38:46 PM »
Too far fetched, and it is unlikely that the Carolingians would 'get' such subtleties in a language not their own.

I've looked at a lot of medieval manuscripts and I'd say some monks are just as skilled if not more eloquent with Latin than Cato or Virgil.

Examples?
« Last Edit: August 31, 2015, 05:40:37 PM by Cyrillic »

Offline Amatorus

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,105
Re: Semantics of the Filioque
« Reply #7 on: August 31, 2015, 05:48:14 PM »
Too far fetched, and it is unlikely that the Carolingians would 'get' such subtleties in a language not their own.

I've looked at a lot of medieval manuscripts and I'd say some monks are just as skilled if not more eloquent with Latin than Cato or Virgil.

Examples?

St. Bede for starters...the many Irish monks who made their own neologisms and poetry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiberno-Latin); these are the first that come to mind. Also Boethius even though that's more very Late Antiquity.

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: Semantics of the Filioque
« Reply #8 on: August 31, 2015, 06:06:49 PM »
It seems very far-fetched, and not well substantiated beyond the writer's wish for it to be so. If my memory serves me correctly, several Latin Fathers render that formula as 'ex Patre et Filio' instead of 'ex Patre Filioque', and St. Maximus accordingly rendered it into Greek as "εκ του Πατρός κακ του υιου" in his letter to Marinus, using the conjunction και, which unquestionably means and.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline scamandrius

  • A man of many, many turns
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,376
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: DOWAMA of AANA
Re: Semantics of the Filioque
« Reply #9 on: August 31, 2015, 06:37:07 PM »
Too far fetched, and it is unlikely that the Carolingians would 'get' such subtleties in a language not their own.

I've looked at a lot of medieval manuscripts and I'd say some monks are just as skilled if not more eloquent with Latin than Cato or Virgil.

Examples?

St. Bede for starters...the many Irish monks who made their own neologisms and poetry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiberno-Latin); these are the first that come to mind. Also Boethius even though that's more very Late Antiquity.

Bede is LATER than Boethius.
Da quod iubes et iube quod vis.

Offline Amatorus

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,105
Re: Semantics of the Filioque
« Reply #10 on: August 31, 2015, 07:00:04 PM »
Too far fetched, and it is unlikely that the Carolingians would 'get' such subtleties in a language not their own.

I've looked at a lot of medieval manuscripts and I'd say some monks are just as skilled if not more eloquent with Latin than Cato or Virgil.

Examples?

St. Bede for starters...the many Irish monks who made their own neologisms and poetry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiberno-Latin); these are the first that come to mind. Also Boethius even though that's more very Late Antiquity.

Bede is LATER than Boethius.

That's what I meant, I was talking about medieval manuscripts but some people don't consider medieval period to be until around 7th ~ 9th century AD

Offline scamandrius

  • A man of many, many turns
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,376
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: DOWAMA of AANA
Re: Semantics of the Filioque
« Reply #11 on: August 31, 2015, 08:53:04 PM »
Too far fetched, and it is unlikely that the Carolingians would 'get' such subtleties in a language not their own.

I've looked at a lot of medieval manuscripts and I'd say some monks are just as skilled if not more eloquent with Latin than Cato or Virgil.

Examples?

St. Bede for starters...the many Irish monks who made their own neologisms and poetry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiberno-Latin); these are the first that come to mind. Also Boethius even though that's more very Late Antiquity.

Bede is LATER than Boethius.

That's what I meant, I was talking about medieval manuscripts but some people don't consider medieval period to be until around 7th ~ 9th century AD

I would be so bold, following Peter L. Brown, as to say that Late Antiquity progressed well into the 7th and 8th centuries.
Da quod iubes et iube quod vis.