The Filioque

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1636597' date='Aug 24 2008, 09:28 AM']So I just got two answers.
Which is it? Do the Eastern Catholics include it or not?[/quote]

They have to believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but they don't have to say the word "Filioque" when they pray the Creed at Mass (though, if I recall correctly, do not some Eastern Catholics say the word during the Creed in the Divine Liturgy).

[Vincent Vega]

I see. Thanks.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote][b]Athanasian Creed[/b] (373AD - 440AD)
"Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio: non factus, nec creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens." (The Holy Spirit is not made, nor created, nor generated, but proceeds from the Father and the Son.)
[url="http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Symbola/Quicumque.html"]http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Sy.../Quicumque.html[/url][/quote][quote][b]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/b] (Catechism of John Paul II)
[b]247[/b] The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447, even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.
[url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/247.htm"]http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/247.htm[/url]

[b]246[/b] The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)". The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."
[url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/246.htm"]http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/246.htm[/url]

[b]248[/b] At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason", for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle", is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.
[url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/248.htm"]http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/248.htm[/url][/quote]Saint John Vianney ( [url="http://saints.sqpn.com/saintj18.htm"]http://saints.sqpn.com/saintj18.htm[/url] ) I think once commented, paraprhased, that there are people who belive in the existance of God but yet fail to learn who that God is. Then on another occasion said if he asked someone if they loved God they would most likely without hesitation answer yes, but yet they fail to prove it by their actions. To know, to love, and to serve God.

[kenrockthefirst]

John 20:22 states, "And when He [Jesus] had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit.'"

What are we to make of this vis-a-vis the Filioque debate and the persons of the Trinity from Whom the Holy Spirit emanates?

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1636571' date='Aug 24 2008, 10:35 AM']However, if an Eastern Christian is Catholic, he does profess the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son as from a single principle.[/quote]

I don't know that this is the case. I used to think so; however, the Melkite church (at least) pretty much holds the same stance as the Orthodox and yet is recognized as sharing in communion with the pope.

[Apotheoun]

I have written about the [i]filioque[/i] before:

[url="http://sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/filioque"][u]The [i]Filioque[/i] Controversy[/u][/url]

[Formosus]

According to the Union of Brest, the document which is the basis for the Communion of my Church with the Church of Rome, Ukrainian Greek Catholics are not required to believe the Filioque as defined by the Latin Church.

[CatherineM]

I like St. Augustine's view of the Holy Spirit as love. If so, then the Holy Spirit must surely flow from the Son as Well as the Father.

[kafka]

I hold the theological view that the Spirit proceeds primarily from the Father and secondarily from the Son.

The love between the Father and the Son is first dependent on the Father since the Son proceeds from the Father, therefore the Holy Spirit primarily proceeds from and depends upon the Father. The love of the Son for the Father depends first on the Father's love for the Son, therefore the Spirit secondarily proceeds from and depends upon the Son.

The procession of the Trinity is One Divine Eternal Act and in this sense the procession of the Holy Spirit is equally of the Father and the Son, yet the procession of the Spirit is ordered within the Father 'first' Son 'second' relationship.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='kafka' post='1846285' date='Apr 24 2009, 05:52 PM']I hold the theological view that the Spirit proceeds primarily from the Father and secondarily from the Son.

The love between the Father and the Son is first dependent on the Father since the Son proceeds from the Father, therefore the Holy Spirit primarily proceeds from and depends upon the Father. The love of the Son for the Father depends first on the Father's love for the Son, therefore the Spirit secondarily proceeds from and depends upon the Son.

The procession of the Trinity is One Divine Eternal Act and in this sense the procession of the Holy Spirit is equally of the Father and the Son, yet the procession of the Spirit is ordered within the Father 'first' Son 'second' relationship.[/quote]

Hmm. This seems like a good "compromise".

;-)

[kafka]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1846332' date='Apr 24 2009, 06:48 PM']Hmm. This seems like a good "compromise".

;-)[/quote]
Yes! It does take into account both the Eastern and Western traditions.

This thread made me think of the topic of the 'immanent' and 'economic' Trinity. I should start a thread on that topic.

Edited April 25, 2009 by kafka

[Aloysius]

yes, that'd be a good discussion topic... it's something I always get confused on the terminology about. I always want to go into intelligent discussions about the Trinity and talk about the "economy" and "oikonomos" of God but I always get confused as to which is which (and as to whether or not I just posted an English and Greek word that mean the same thing asking which is which, I feel like there's one word often said in Greek and the other one is usually just said as "economy" and I thought I remembered them being similar, but in any event, I'm thinking of the two terms that mean the inner workings of the Trinity and then the Trinity's relation to humanity..)

[Resurrexi]

I just love the way "Filioque" sounds when chanted in the Creed

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='kafka' post='1846285' date='Apr 24 2009, 03:52 PM']I hold the theological view that the Spirit proceeds primarily from the Father and secondarily from the Son.[/quote]
This would be unacceptable to the East, because it turns the Son into a cause within the Trinity, albeit a secondary cause, but a cause nonetheless, and that idea leads to the heresy ditheism (i.e., positing two causal principles in the Trinity).

The Father alone is cause within the Godhead ([i]monarchia[/i]), and that is why there is only one God. Moreover, the Western attempt to avoid the problem of ditheism by speaking of the Father and the Son as a "single cause" is unacceptable because it confounds the hypostatic distinction that necessarily exists between the Father and the Son, which involves the heresy of Sabellianism.

[quote name='kafka' post='1846285' date='Apr 24 2009, 03:52 PM']The love between the Father and the Son is first dependent on the Father since the Son proceeds from the Father, therefore the Holy Spirit primarily proceeds from and depends upon the Father. The love of the Son for the Father depends first on the Father's love for the Son, therefore the Spirit secondarily proceeds from and depends upon the Son.[/quote]
Love is a common divine energy of the Holy Trinity, i.e., it is common to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Therefore, one cannot refer to the Holy Spirit as the love between the Father and the Son without confusing the real distinction between person ([i]hypostasis[/i]) and energy ([i]energeia[/i]) within the Godhead.

[quote name='kafka' post='1846285' date='Apr 24 2009, 03:52 PM']The procession of the Trinity is One Divine Eternal Act and in this sense the procession of the Holy Spirit is equally of the Father and the Son, yet the procession of the Spirit is ordered within the Father 'first' Son 'second' relationship.[/quote]
No, procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) is not an eternal [i]act[/i] of the Father and the Son, and this is so for two reasons: (1) this idea makes both the Father and the Son causes or it turns them into a single co-cause within the Godhead, and this false notion ultimately leads to the heresy of ditheism or to the heresy of Sabellianism – depending upon which causal terminology is used; and (2) it reduces the person ([i]hypostasis[/i]) of the Spirit to a common divine energy of the Father and the Son. Now, of course, it is important to remember that the energies of the Trinity, which are both natural and enhypostatic, are common to all three persons of the Trinity, and so this theory would involve positing the strange notion that the Spirit as person ([i]hypostasis[/i]) proceeds from Himself, which is nonsense.

Finally, the doctrine of the Eastern Fathers holds that: (1) the Holy Spirit as person ([i]hypostasis[/i]) takes His origin ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) solely from the Father, who alone is the font of Godhead; while (2) the Holy Spirit as energy (and here the Eastern Fathers are using the term Holy Spirit equivocally to stand for the enhypostatic energy that is common within the Godhead, and not hypostatically which is unique to the person of the Spirit) progresses ([i]proienai[/i]) from the Father through the Son, and this manifestation ([i]phanerosis[/i]) of the Spirit has nothing to do with His personal origin, but concerns only the movement of God's common energies within the world, which sustain the world, while also making His (i.e., the Triune God's) presence experientially known.

Edited April 25, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[i]One of Laudate_Dominum's posts of a few years ago is an excellent summary of the Eastern Christian position:[/i]

[size=3]The problem with the [i]filioque[/i] doctrine as it is expressed in the Roman creed (as far as Orthodoxy is concerned) is that it implies that the Son is cause [[i]aitia[/i]] or co-cause of the [i]hypostasis[/i] of the Holy Spirit. Latin doctrine puts forth an interpretation of [i]procedere[/i] as [i]ekporeusis[/i] which effectively destroys the [i]monarchia[/i] of the Father and results in an understanding of [i]homoousios[/i] that is essentially Sabellian.

According to Orthodox theology the Holy Spirit can be said to proceed from the Father through/and the Son according to the term [i]proienai[/i] which refers to the (eternal and uncreated) energetic manifestation of the Spirit and/or the sending of the Spirit in the [i]oikonomia[/i].[/size]