Filioque!

[bmb144]

Hi all,

I have a friend who is catholic, but does not believe in the Spirit proceeding from the Son.

I have to admit I lean that way myself [b]but[/b] as I have not studied it enough and do not have clear enough understanding of it so I am sitting on the fence about the issue.

She however is totally against it so much so that when the creed is recited, she clams up during that section. The priest knew how we both felt when he baptised us, I had more than a few doubts about certain doctrinal points [i]most of them settled now[/i], but I was willing to let God do the leading and over all I am happy.

She agreed also, but now she is rebelling for all she's worth and I have to admit I am feeling a certain amount of pressure.

I am discerning a call, she is not.

She seems to be going one way and I am just , I feel the call I have daily, I live it, breathe it, its a constant in my life. But there is a pressure I cannot explain. I am even limiting my contact with her, as we end up in theological arguments over it.

Any advice and information sources would be most welcome

In His Light

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

The Eastern Rites recite the Creed without the Filioque. It should not be a hindrance to unity with Rome:
[quote][b]CCC 248[/b] This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.[/quote]
I believe I have seen Patristic traditions for both formulations.

[chris]

the filoque was one of the catalysts to the schism of 1054.

I believe that the Father does proceed from the Son, along with the Holy Spirit. Because, they are the Trinity. They are all one in three. Being one they are all the same God. So logically if they are the same God, yet three in one. He has to proceed from from Father, and the Holy Spirit. And the Father proceeds from the Son and also from the Holy Spirit.

[mortify]

The Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son is biblical.

"Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. Exalted to the right hand of God, [b]he has [u]received[/u] from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has [u]poured[/u] out what you now see and hear[/b].

acts 2:33

[Aloysius]

the Father does not proceed from the son. the Vatican very recently issued a statement to re-emphasize the fact that we do believe in the principality of the God the Father in the godhead. the Son and Holy Spirit proceed from the Father. the Holy Spirit proceeds from the son insomuch as he proceeds from the Son to mankind, that much is certain and that alone justifies the phrase "filioque". but does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son as a response to the Father? I think that if it does not, a fourth person would be necessary in the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is the infinite love of the Father for the Son, and as such can be said to "begin" (insomuch as our finite and temporal minds can grasp this concept relating to an eternity wherein there is really no beginning/end) as the Father's begetting of the Son. The Father is the cheif source of the Trinity from which proceeds the other two persons. But the nature of the Holy Spirit must include the infinite love the Son has for the Father. thus while the Father is the principle cause for the Holy Spirit and the Son, the nature of the Holy Spirit is also to proceed from the Son to the Father as infinite overflowing love. The Father's infinite love for the Son is so powerful it is in itself another eternal person in the Trinity. The Son's infinite love for the Son, if they are co-equal as dogma requires, would then also be so powerful that it would be in itself another eternal person in the Trinity. These are both one in the same person, a shared love, but it proceeds from both. In different ways in which, impossible to grasp as it might be for temporal minds, the Father is the principal cause.

but in the relationship to mankind, I do not believe anyone argues against the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son to mankind. And as such, since Christ Himself uses active words saying He would send the Holy Spirit, it proceeds from He Himself to mankind. No one disputes that (ergo, no need to argue that, except to say that if that is all we mean then the filioque remains theologically correct even to eastern theology)

[Guest JeffCR07]

While this is quite the tricky topic, I think that Al has got it pretty much right. Perhaps it would be better to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds in [i]operation[/i] from the Father and the Son, though in [i]origin[/i] from the Father alone as the sole source of divinity. The problem with saying that the Holy Spirit "depends" in essence on both the Father and the Son is that such a statement would make the Son the co-origin of the Spirit's divinity, which we do not believe. Rather, we believe that the Spirit processes from the Father and the Son in operation or activity, for He is the Spirit of Love and the Spirit of Truth, and the Love and Truth of the Father is the same as the Love and Truth of the Son. However, in terms of the source of divinity within the Godhead, it is right to say that the Spirit processes from the Father, but not from the Son.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[quote name='Convert4888' post='1038086' date='Aug 5 2006, 07:46 AM']
the filoque was one of the catalysts to the schism of 1054.

I believe that the Father does proceed from the Son, along with the Holy Spirit. Because, they are the Trinity. They are all one in three. Being one they are all the same God. So logically if they are the same God, yet three in one. He has to proceed from from Father, and the Holy Spirit. And the Father proceeds from the Son and also from the Holy Spirit.
[/quote]

Whoah there. Like Aloysius said, as Catholics we do not believe that the Father proceeds from the Son. We believe that the Father is the sole, unbegotten, unprocessing source of all Divinity within the Godhead. The Son is begotten from the Father, while the Holy Spirit processes from the Father (in origin) and the Son (in operation or activity). Thats it.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

From the Father through the Son.