Filioque Clause

[kafka]

here are two very good blogs analyzing the procession of the Trinity by Conte:

Part One:

God is One. There cannot be many Gods for the following reason. Suppose a theological belief that there are several Gods. The first God is not only perfect, but infinitely perfect, lacking in absolutely nothing, and existing unbounded by time and place. So what would a second God be like? He could not be the same as the first, but in a different place, or a different time, for any God by His Nature must be unlimited by time and place. A second God cannot be distinguished from the first God by being more perfect, or less perfect. A second God cannot be distinguished from the first God by having different qualities, since any God must be infinitely perfect in all that is Good; He must be Goodness Itself. There is nothing left for the Nature of the second God. So not only can there not be many Gods, there cannot be more than one God. . .
http://ronconte.wordpress.com/2010/09/29/the-filioque-clause/

Part Two

Biblical Basis

The Son proceeds from the Father. The Father does not proceed. Therefore, the Son does not send the Father to the world to be incarnate. Rather, the Father sends the Son into the world to be incarnate. It is fitting that the Father send the Son because the Father also ‘sends’ the Son in the sense of procession.

The Spirit is sent by the Father and by the Son. This is fitting because the Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. If the Spirit proceeded only from the Father, then only the Father could send the Spirit.

[John]
{14:16} And I will ask the Father, and he will give another Advocate to you, so that he may abide with you for eternity:

(continued)
http://ronconte.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/filioque-clause-2/

[Ioannes]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1285885411' post='2177055']
here are two very good blogs analyzing the procession of the Trinity by Conte:

Part One:

God is One. There cannot be many Gods for the following reason. Suppose a theological belief that there are several Gods. The first God is not only perfect, but infinitely perfect, lacking in absolutely nothing, and existing unbounded by time and place. So what would a second God be like? He could not be the same as the first, but in a different place, or a different time, for any God by His Nature must be unlimited by time and place. A second God cannot be distinguished from the first God by being more perfect, or less perfect. A second God cannot be distinguished from the first God by having different qualities, since any God must be infinitely perfect in all that is Good; He must be Goodness Itself. There is nothing left for the Nature of the second God. So not only can there not be many Gods, there cannot be more than one God. . .
[url="http://ronconte.wordpress.com/2010/09/29/the-filioque-clause/"]http://ronconte.word...ilioque-clause/ [/url]

Part Two

Biblical Basis

The Son proceeds from the Father. The Father does not proceed. Therefore, the Son does not send the Father to the world to be incarnate. Rather, the Father sends the Son into the world to be incarnate. It is fitting that the Father send the Son because the Father also 'sends' the Son in the sense of procession.

The Spirit is sent by the Father and by the Son. This is fitting because the Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. If the Spirit proceeded only from the Father, then only the Father could send the Spirit.

[John]
{14:16} And I will ask the Father, and he will give another Advocate to you, so that he may abide with you for eternity:

(continued)
[url="http://ronconte.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/filioque-clause-2/"]http://ronconte.word...ioque-clause-2/ [/url]
[/quote]

Debating the filioque in clause loses a lot of historical and theological significance and really does not capture the essence of the argument. Perhaps the biggest issue surrounding the Filioque clause is the question of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and altering an ecumenical council decree.

"[size="3"]Οταν ἔλθῃ ὁ παράκλητος ὃν ἐγὼ πέμψω ὑμῖν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας [i][b]ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς[/b][/i] ἐκπορεύεται, ἐκεῖνος μαρτυρήσει περὶ ἐμοῦ:"

I'll provide a better answer when I get more time
[/size]

[kafka]

[quote name='Ioannes' timestamp='1287115875' post='2179705']
Debating the filioque in clause loses a lot of historical and theological significance and really does not capture the essence of the argument. Perhaps the biggest issue surrounding the Filioque clause is the question of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and altering an ecumenical council decree.

"[size="3"]Οταν ἔλθῃ ὁ παράκλητος ὃν ἐγὼ πέμψω ὑμῖν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας [i][b]ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς[/b][/i] ἐκπορεύεται, ἐκεῖνος μαρτυρήσει περὶ ἐμοῦ:"

I'll provide a better answer when I get more time
[/size]
[/quote]
look forward to your better answer, but I dont think I agree about the historical and theological significance assertion. The truth of the Procession revealed in God's deeds and words, wrought and written in the history of salvation transcends human developments. The essence we are seeking is the truth of the proceesion of God drawn from what God does and says in the world. This search for truth is guided by the inspired acts of Magisterium of the Popes and Bishops, drawing from the Divinely revealed deeds and words of God. So any sort of historical and theological arguments or controversies of humans is part of the process in the search for truth, but not essential to it in my opinion.

[Ioannes]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1287146900' post='2179744']
look forward to your better answer, but I dont think I agree about the historical and theological significance assertion. The truth of the Procession revealed in God's deeds and words, wrought and written in the history of salvation transcends human developments. The essence we are seeking is the truth of the proceesion of God drawn from what God does and says in the world. This search for truth is guided by the inspired acts of Magisterium of the Popes and Bishops, drawing from the Divinely revealed deeds and words of God. So any sort of historical and theological arguments or controversies of humans is part of the process in the search for truth, but not essential to it in my opinion.
[/quote]
[size="2"]
Perhaps the biggest problem the Eastern Church was with the 'filioque' clause is that is violates the canons of the Third Ecumenical Council in 431AD. The council forbade and anathematized any additions to the creed, a prohibition which was reiterated at the Eighth Ecumenical Council. The Eighth Ecumenical Council was originally accepted and fully endorsed by the Bishop of Rome, who sent legates to the council, but the Western Church in the 11th century repudiated this.

[/size]

[size="2"][quote="Third Ecumenical Council Canon VII"][/size][size="2"]When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.[/size]

[size="2"]But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.[/size]

[size="2"][/quote]

Theologically, the filioque clause makes the Holy Spirit a subordinate member of the Holy Trinity. Orthodox Triadology is the notion that for any given trait, it must be either common to all persons of the Trinity or unique to one of them. Fatherhood is unique to the Father, Begottenness is unique to the Son, and Procession is unique to the Holy Spirit. Eternality, uncreatedness, and other similar attributes are common to all members. To say that the Father and the Son are the source of the Holy Spirits procession is to elevate both the Father and the Son at the expense of the Holy Spirit. It is a distortion of unity and diversity.

The Filioque clause is not necessary to bolster the divinity of the Son or emphasize the unity of the Trinity as I have heard some argue. It is already taken care of beautifully in the original Nicene Creed. The Son is described as "light of light, very God of very God..." The Spirit also receives attention as the creed states "with the Father and Son together is worshiped and glorified." Additionally, the Creed begins with the words, "Πιστεύω εἰς[b] ἕνα Θεόν[/b]."

Scriptually, the Filioque clause is not all that sound.

"[/size][size="2"]Οταν ἔλθῃ ὁ παράκλητος ὃν ἐγὼ πέμψω ὑμῖν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς [b]ἐκπορεύεται[/b] (procession) , ἐκεῖνος μαρτυρήσει περὶ ἐμοῦ:"

Word for Word Translation of the Greek

"Whenever coming the parakletos whom I will-be-sending to you beside the Father, the spirit of truth which beside the Father is-going-out that one will-be-witnessing concerning me."

Lastly, the Greeks have always made a clear distinction between εκπορεύεται (Ekproeuetai) και προείναι (proeinai). The first term is used denoting exclusively the Spirit's derivation from the Father. On the other hand προείναι was used for the Holy Spirit's dependence on the Son. The distinction between εκπορεύεσθαι (Ekporeuesthai) και προείναι (proeinai) was not made in Latin theology which uses the same term, procedere, in place of the two. This isn't such a strong argument for those against the inclusion of filioque because the Western Church always omits the filioque clause when saying the Creed in the original Greek, for example at the Solemnity of St. Peter and Paul when Patriarch Bartholomew attended the celebration. I am not sure but I believe the Western Church has recently made this distinction.

Out of all these contentions, the violation of the Ecumenical Council Canons and the Orthodox understanding of Triadology are the strongest I believe.
[/size]

Edited October 15, 2010 by Ioannes

[kafka]

o.k. well I am not too familiar with the history of the debate. My rough understanding is that a Creed is an expression of the Faith and not a Divine Revelation in itself. So the Canon not to alter the Creed would be a decision of the temporal authority of the Church which is fallible and reformable. If not if the Council Fathers intended the Creed to be an infallible teaching, future popes and bishops have the authority to clarify the teaching further by drawing from Divine Revelation and teaching in a clearer more profound way.

I disagree that Scripturally the filioque is not sound. One can see in more than a few verses that the Spirit is sent forth by the Father and the Son. The sending forth is an expression of the springing forth or procession of the Spirit primarily from the Father and secondarily from the Son as from one principle.

As far as the equality of the Divine Nature and inequality of Persons, I stated my rough opinion in another thread focusing on the relation of Father and Son:

The Father-Son-Spirit are equal in Nature. They are the One Divine Nature:

“I and the Father are one.” (Jn 10:30)

Yet are the Persons equal in person, in order, in procession, in dependency, in relation? My theological opinion would be not they are not:

“….for the Father is greater than I.” (Jn 14:28).

“Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise.”(Jn 5:19)

The Council of Florence officially defined that in God "everything is one (equal) where there is no distinction by relative opposition" (Denzinger 703).

So it seems based on Jesus in the Gospel of John and elsewhere that where there is distinction by relative opposition, there is inequality inherent in the distinction of Persons. This distinction is based on procession and nothing else.

When a human person says so and so is greater than I, he is not referring to human nature, for it is clear we all share an equal human nature, but he is referring to the uniqueness we call person. So there are distinct degrees of greatness from person to person in the human race due to the uniqueness inherent to personhood. Yet Jesus is a Divine Person, so when he says:

“….for the Father is greater than I.” (Jn 14:28).

He is referring to the uniqueness of Personhood. The Person of the Father is in some sense greater than the Person of the Son yet the Father and the Son are One, equal, or share the Divine Nature. The distinction of the Son proceeding from the Father or begotten of the Father sets the distinction by relative opposition. And thus there is a seeming inequality in some sense. So there is inequality in equality which is really beyond human comprehension, yet this is reflected in the distinct degrees of greatness found in the human race where one human person is greater than another because of his role or position or unique deeds in the order set up by the will and plan of God for the human race.

Edited October 15, 2010 by kafka

[Ioannes]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1287167164' post='2179806']
o.k. well I am not too familiar with the history of the debate. My rough understanding is that a Creed is an expression of the Faith and not a Divine Revelation in itself. So the Canon not to alter the Creed would be a decision of the temporal authority of the Church which is fallible and reformable. If not if the Council Fathers intended the Creed to be an infallible teaching, future popes and bishops have the authority to clarify the teaching further by drawing from Divine Revelation and teaching in a clearer more profound way.
[/quote]

I'd encourage you to look more into ecumenical councils and the theology behind them. Your view is different from the view of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologians. What is generally held is that councils may be regarded as ecumenical and infallible because they accurately teach the truth handed down in tradition from the Church Fathers.

"Since the authority here claimed is associated with the doctrine of Apostolic Succession and is founded on Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, it is also not entirely foreign to the Orthodox Churches. However, the Orthodox Church believes that the bishops are responsible for preserving the faith, the dogmatic truths and traditions. This does not equate however to them being individually infallible but that, in consensus, in combined agreement, they are charged with the Universal faith. Thus, the Orthodox churches, even though they may not use the same terminology, would generally accept the Catholic views of the infallibility of bishops in an ecumenical council, with the important reservation that not every council that proclaims itself ecumenical is so in fact. The Orthodox would not accept the infallibility of the ordinary and universal Magisterium."

"The dogmatic definitions (dogma means official teaching) and the canon laws of the ecumenical councils are understood to be inspired by God and to be expressive of His will for men. Thus, they are essential sources of Orthodox Christian doctrine." - V. Rev. N. Patrinacos

At the end of your post you said, " If not if the Council Fathers intended the Creed to be an infallible teaching, future popes and bishops have the authority to clarify the teaching further by drawing from Divine Revelation and teaching in a clearer more profound way. "

The Eastern Orthodox Church as well as the Oriental Orthodox would contend that an ecumenical council would be needed to clarify the issue. This is not something the Orthodox is not opposed to. This should have been done way before this got out of hand in the 11th century.

But enough of that, we're moving into the theology of ecumenical councils and Dogmatic Development.

Edited October 15, 2010 by Ioannes

[kafka]

Ioannes,

hopefully the Eastern Orthodox and others will reunite with the Roman Catholic Church and there can be a new Ecumenical Council where the reunited bishops teach together with the Pope and everyone, more or less will be happy in so much as we can in this first world-age. That is one of my many hopes, and Christ prayed that his Body be one like he and the Father are one, so I think it is just a matter of time because his prayer cannot fail. Grace and peace to you.