|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Dangers of Omitting the Filioque?
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
The Filioque isn't an issue I've spent much time considering. I know it was a late edition of the Creed. It was an important slight to the Orthodox. As far as I know, having it in the Creed has been Western tradition for centuries but it isn't a big issue now. As a matter of fact, TEC agreed to leave it out of the next prayerbook and it option in Enriching Our Worship. That's fine. I can go either way.
However...
A fellow priest upon coming to a new parish made a big deal about not using the filioque. Given her generally lax opinion of theological questions, I thought her even being interested in it at all was a positive development. Then, I started getting suspicious. Why does she care? What's the endgame? If the filioque is removed from our version of the Creed, what will those who favor removing it extrapolate from it no longer being there?
My concern is that sometimes you vote for something innocuous or positive and the next thing you know its been used to take you way out in left field. Some in TEC have taken a liking to Orthodox theology. Sometimes, not all the time, those interested draw conclusions from their reading of Orthodox theology that might come as a shock to the Orthodox theologian who put forth the idea in the first place.
What dubious theology can come from omitting the filioque? What ulterior motive could a person have for wanting to remove the filioque? Is it possible this really is just a quirky interest of my colleague?
[ 05. January 2015, 01:08: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
I suppose there is the risk of falling into the hertical beliefs that the filioque was put in to counter in the first place (Arianism). Of course, I don't happen to belive that this was ever a real risk, but I suppose that one might make that argument.
Otherwise, not sure what harm can come from returning to the original Creed, other than the risk of "admitting one was wrong". since the issue of the filioque become such an important issue in the schism, might it's removal also imply "and we were on the wrong side of the whole schism thing", alhtough I think taht's a pretty small risk, given that the real issue was about Papal power to unilatirally change the creed, at elast as much if not more than the change itself.
but would admitting the West was wrong in that debate be a bad thing? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
What bugs me about omitting the filioque is this: I don't understand a lot of theology. I have to assume that the Church knows what it's talking about when it tells me certain theological things are true. This includes the version of the creed I've recited all my life. So to have the Church say, "oh, never mind, this part isn't true after all" makes me wonder why I've been bothering all these years, and what else might they not actually know their ass from their elbow about either, but have been pretending they do know?
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
Getting rid of the filioque has been a idee fixee among some ecumencists, as if once the filioque is eliminated, everything will magically fall into place. I know lots of Anglo-Catholics who were philorthodox thought that way, but it was magical thinking then, and it certainly is magical thinking now.
I know that there have been certain ecumenical occasions at the Vatican where filioque has been omitted. But, to eliminate it wholesale would mean that much of the Latin Rite's sacred music would no longer be usuable. That is not a trivial consideration.
I would say that eliminating the filioque raises dangers of a return to Arianism in the West, but for the fact that there are so many people, including clergy who should know better, who cheerfully recite "We believe" without believing a word of it, as if reciting it were an act of mere ceremonial deism or churchy mumbo-jumbo without significance. The Arian ship has already sailed.
[ 24. March 2011, 17:16: Message edited by: Shadowhund ]
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
uffda
Shipmate
# 14310
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowhund:
The Arian ship has already sailed.
Considering that many of us have to live with a translation of the Apostles Creed like (I believe) "in Jesus Christ God's only son, our Lord. I do believe you are correct!
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Invincibly ignorant and planning to stay that way!
Posts: 1031 | From: Buffalo, NY | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What dubious theology can come from omitting the filioque?
A distinction between the Second and Third Person of the Trinity can then not be maintained anymore by reasonable argument. Of course, such a distinction can still be maintained in a non-reasoned way (e.g., by "simply following tradition") or by consciously defying reason. Or one can simply ignore the issue.
The reasonable argument is this:
- You can differentiate me from John by noting that he has black hair and I have brown hair. This leaves our essence (we are both human) untouched, it is an accidental feature (I could have blond hair and would still be human). However, there are no accidental features in God. One simple reason is that He is the Primary Cause. Thus nothing else is available logically before God to cause accidental features in God, whereas for example my hair color can be caused by the hair color of my parents, a random generic mutation or application of coloring. Since there are no accidental features in God, they cannot be used to differentiate the Divine Persons.
- I can be distinguished from a worm by my ability to reason. This is not accidental, but essential, it is what makes me a human and the worm not. Likewise, if only the Father was omnipotent, only the Son omniscient, and only the Holy Ghost omnipresent, then one could easily distinguish them. However, they then could not be considered as having the same Divine essence. But Christian belief requires one Essence in three Persons for God, hence this cannot be used to establish a difference between the three Divine Persons.
- Take me and my son - you know none of our accidental features (well, you know quite a few perhaps, like our gender, but for the sake of argument assume you didn't). So like with God, you cannot distinguish us by accidental features. Both of us have the same by essence, are human. There's no distinction in that either. Still, you know the difference instantly: since he comes from me, and not the other way around, I am the father and he is the son. This is the only way then by which we can establish distinct Divine Persons: relationship of origin.
- Now, if I say to you "A->B" (B originates from A) and "A->C", have I then established three entities? No. Because "B=C" (B is the same entity as C) is not excluded by any relationship so far, and hence "A->B" and "A->C" could just be stating the same relationship with different labels: one time I call it "B", the other time I "C", but it is just that same entity which happens to originate from A. What kind of statement do I need to establish three distinct entities? Well, "B->C" (or "C->B", but labels are for the moment arbitrary). If C originates from B, then it is not the same as B. Since both B and C originate from A, they are not the same as A. Thus A, B, and C are not the same.
- Now map the labels as such: "A=Father", "B=Son", "C=Holy Spirit". The same argument holds. What is needed is hence "Son->Holy Spirit" (B->C). Or indeed "Holy Spirit->Son" (C->B), but the latter does not change the principle (three entities by relationship) yet maps the labels against traditional language (which is confusing). So we stick with the former. Thus the filioque follows since both "Father->Holy Spirit" (A->C) and "Son->Holy Spirit" (B->C).
Does removing the filioque have serious consequences? If you analyze belief rationally, it would require either attacking my first two points or the applicability of logic to matters Divine in the first place. The latter is more common, unfortunately.
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What ulterior motive could a person have for wanting to remove the filioque?
Favoring the Orthodox over the Catholics is your most likely bet. A truly theo-logical motivation would be a nice surprise...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
A distinction between the Second and Third Person of the Trinity can then not be maintained anymore by reasonable argument.
There's a One True Scotsman fallacy waiting to happen.
The son is begotten; the Spirit proceeds.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Now, if I say to you "A->B" (B originates from A) and "A->C", have I then established three entities? No. Because "B=C" (B is the same entity as C) is not excluded by any relationship so far, and hence "A->B" and "A->C" could just be stating the same relationship with different labels: one time I call it "B", the other time I "C", but it is just that same entity which happens to originate from A. What kind of statement do I need to establish three distinct entities? Well, "B->C" (or "C->B", but labels are for the moment arbitrary). If C originates from B, then it is not the same as B. Since both B and C originate from A, they are not the same as A. Thus A, B, and C are not the same.
Now map the labels as such: "A=Father", "B=Son", "C=Holy Spirit". The same argument holds. What is needed is hence "Son->Holy Spirit" (B->C). Or indeed "Holy Spirit->Son" (C->B), but the latter does not change the principle (three entities by relationship) yet maps the labels against traditional language (which is confusing). So we stick with the former. Thus the filioque follows since both "Father->Holy Spirit" (A->C) and "Son->Holy Spirit" (B->C).
Your argument is good until you notice that there is more than one way in which B or C can originate from A. You could say that I originate from God, but the manner of my origin (I am created) is different from the manner of the Son's origin (he is eternally begotten).
Similarly, the Son is begotten of the Father, whereas the Spirit proceeds from the Father. These are not accidental properties, such as your example of hair colour, but are real distinctions between the Persons.
Probably.
[ETA: i.e. what mousethief said.]
[ 24. March 2011, 18:06: Message edited by: Adeodatus ]
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
You cannot cash out "begotten" in any other way than "proceed" here. These are both just terms from human experience used analogously to indicate a relationship of origin in God. There is neither "begetting" not "proceeding" in God in any direct sense, due to a complete lack of genitals, doors, and all other stuff in God. There is no time or space either, just God eternal. You have nothing to distinguish "manners of origination" from each other, since all such distinctions would be based on accidental or essential feature in God Himself, which we have already excluded. You can just attach different human labels, and that is mere word play as far as the argument I have given is concerned.
Of course, one can draw further analogies (say to the human intellect and will) that explain why we like to call only one particular procession "generation". Or one can simply point to the historical use of the term "Father" by Christ Himself. But this cannot abolish the need for a relationship of origin between the Son and the Holy Spirit, it can merely elucidate our specific naming scheme.
P.S.: Bringing in the relationship of origin we have to God is pointless, because it is essentially different. The argument is good only for relations from God to God, not even for the Incarnation (clearly Christ had accidental features that would allow to distinguish Him from other humans).
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
And here I was naive enough to think that it was a problem in scriptural exegesis:
e.g.
John 14:26 "the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name,"
John 15:26 "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
John 16:7 "if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you."
How precise is this language (especially in the original Greek)? Father will send Him. He Proceedeth from the Father. I will send Him... (Which is to say, He proceedeth from me as well?)
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
A distinction between the Second and Third Person of the Trinity can then not be maintained anymore by reasonable argument.
You seem to leave out the possibility that we might not need reasonable argument at all. If the second person of the trinity said "Hi. I'm Jesus" and the third said "Hi. I'm not" we'd know where we were.
Your argument seems to regard them as quantum particles without sentience that we need a theoretical framework to distinguish. I think they're less tame than that.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I don't think we should remove it because I actually believe it. Ordinarily one only makes concessions if one gets something in return. Maybe I'm just being pessimistic about the ecumenical relations between us and the Orthodox, but I really can't see this concession yielding anything worth the effort.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
I have a standing offer of a half dozen freshly baked cookies for anyone who omits it from the creed.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170
|
Posted
I have wondered why it is so important to some people, especially those who happily interpolate the words "the power of" into the same creeds they complain have interpolated words.
The Orthodox won't give a hoots what forms of expression individual Anglican provinces authorise or don't.
--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known
Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
I agree with IngoB's argument for the theological truth of the proposition. (I think Orthodox reliance on the monarchy of the Father to hold together the Trinity has poor theological consequences, as seen in a former regular poster on these boards.)
On the other hand, the 'filioque' clause was adopted by the Holy Roman Empire and resisted by Rome until Henry II was waging a war against the Byzantines in Italy. Under the circumstances, its inclusion in the creed has no authority to represent the faith of the catholic Church.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
During the 1970s, when the Episcopal Church was preparing to put out a new prayer book, there were a number of trial prayer books. At least one of these did not have the filioque.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Mama Thomas has it- what's the point of an ecumenical gesture if it doesn't move us one lick closer to the Orthodox recognizing the validity of our Christian experience?
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
well, I don't think it should be eliminated as an "ecumenical gesture" and certianly not if you belive it to be true. I think if it's to be removed by any particular Chruch it shoiuld be as the result of a recognition that it should never have been added in the first place, not because "well, we still think it's true, but we're willing to give it up to make you guy feel better". Becuase clearly, that isn't really going to make a huge difference to us Orthodox whether you use it or not (at least, not by itself).
it was added at a point in time (unilaterally, and well after the creed was accepted by the (then still One) Church. if you think it SHOULD have been added, then removing it would be wrong, in my view.. after all the Creed is your stateent of faith.. how can you have a statement of faith that you don't actually believe (as a Chruch.. I can see individuals not fully beliving, but taht's a different discussion). If you believe that it's addition was a mistake, then of course you should get rid of it (for the sae reason as above). the only condition under which you can approach it purely as an ecumenical gesture is if you (as a Chruch) dont' think it matters one way or the other (in which case, why bother with the Creed at all)
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
I thought it might be a creeping Arianism. However, the part of the Creed pertaining to Arianism isn't affected by removal of the filioque. It even contains the clause with the Father and the Son He is worshipped in glorified. If there is only one God and worship is only due God, then saying Holy Spirit is worthy of worship like the Father and the Son implies the Trinity.
Like I said, I can't believe the person really cares about ecumenical relations with the Orthodox or favoring them over Roman Catholics. I've seen others use ecumenical relations with the Orthodox to argue for getting rid of things they don't like. So far, this is the only reason I can figure for the person making a big deal of the issue and yet I can't figure out the underlying issue (which if discovered probably won't be of the least concern to the Orthodox). It just concerns me.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
John 15:26 "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
...
How precise is this language (especially in the original Greek)? Father will send Him. He Proceedeth from the Father. I will send Him... (Which is to say, He proceedeth from me as well?)
Pretty precise.
The Spirit is sent from the Father and proceeds from the Father, but the Greek is emphatic that Jesus ("I will send..") does the sending too.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Like I said, I can't believe the person really cares about ecumenical relations with the Orthodox or favoring them over Roman Catholics. I've seen others use ecumenical relations with the Orthodox to argue for getting rid of things they don't like. So far, this is the only reason I can figure for the person making a big deal of the issue and yet I can't figure out the underlying issue (which if discovered probably won't be of the least concern to the Orthodox). It just concerns me.
My guess, like others, would still be that it is creeping ecumenism. I doubt it is part of some big conspiracy or has Orthodox relations in view - more likely it is part of a general 'let's ditch anything that divides us' mentality.
Ditching things that divides us is a good thing (ISTM), but not without thinking about it carefully first. I think you are right to question why this is happening.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
You cannot cash out "begotten" in any other way than "proceed" here. These are both just terms from human experience used analogously to indicate a relationship of origin in God. There is neither "begetting" not "proceeding" in God in any direct sense, due to a complete lack of genitals, doors, and all other stuff in God.
How about homoousios?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
You cannot cash out "begotten" in any other way than "proceed" here. These are both just terms from human experience used analogously to indicate a relationship of origin in God. There is neither "begetting" not "proceeding" in God in any direct sense, due to a complete lack of genitals, doors, and all other stuff in God.
Am I missing something? There is a fundamental difference between "begotten" and "proceed". "Begotten" = be fathered, i.e. be conceived, become incarnate in the womb of the Virgin and be made flesh. This is fundamental to being the Son. The Holy Spirit comes into the world and since Pentecost can indwell human hearts, but is not "begotten".
Going back to the main issue of this post though, there was some argument back in the 60s and 70s of the last century as to whether,
a. The Orthodox position could imply a Trinity that was assymmetric.
b. The Western position could be interpreted as downgrading the Holy Spirit, by implying that he was less significant than the Father and the Son, and that some of the weaknesses of Western Christianity followed from this.
As for me, I've never quite known what to think. That people have never been able to agree on it suggests that there might be an element of mystery about this. I repeat the normal CofE version without feeling I shouldn't. As it seems to me that Jesus's Ascension released the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost I think the formulation 'proceeds from the Father through the Son', which I think was one of those aired at the Council of Florence, might have quite a lot going for it.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
There is a fundamental difference between "begotten" and "proceed". "Begotten" = be fathered, i.e. be conceived, become incarnate in the womb of the Virgin and be made flesh.
Yes, but the "begotten" in the Creed refers to his being begotten "before all worlds", not to the Incarnation. At least AIUI anyway.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
You cannot cash out "begotten" in any other way than "proceed" here. These are both just terms from human experience used analogously to indicate a relationship of origin in God.
How about homoousios?
The Spirit is quite definitely homoousios with the Father. That's the point of including the Spirit in the Trinity: the Spirit is of the same kind and of the same substance as the other two persons.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
For me, "and the Son" is a statement of just how much the Son shares with the Being of the Father. After all, there isn't three holies, but one holy, as Athanasius sayeth. It's also a statement that the life of the Holy Ghost in the Church is also the life of Christ in the Church.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Going back to the main issue of this post though, there was some argument back in the 60s and 70s of the last century as to whether,
a. The Orthodox position could imply a Trinity that was assymmetric.
The Trinity *IS* asymmetric. The Father is the source or groundspring or origination or whatever you want to call it of the Son and the Spirit.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I can't believe the person really cares about ecumenical relations with the Orthodox or favoring them over Roman Catholics.
Maybe she cares about relations between them and read
An Agreed Statement of the
North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation.
In it's recommendations, it states
quote:
that the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
It is enough for me to know that the church thrashes out these thorny issues from time to time. The fact that they bother to do this shows me that it is important and they are trying to get it right.
I then relax and take part in the Liturgy knowing that the theologians have done the best they can, for the present age at least. Until the next time....
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I can't believe the person really cares about ecumenical relations with the Orthodox or favoring them over Roman Catholics.
Maybe she cares about relations between them and read
An Agreed Statement of the
North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation.
In it's recommendations, it states
quote:
that the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.
I doubt it.
But, how much closer to the Orthodox does that really bring us? Other things divide us as well. I doubt the person in question would support compromising on those. My suspicion is closer relations with the Orthodox is a ruse for an agenda that has nothing to do with the Orthodox.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
The argument has been made that the filioque should properly be interpreted as proceeding from the Father through [the intercession of] the Son ("I will pray the Father and He will send the Comforter"),or IOW procession of the Spirit from the Father, through the Son.
I'm not completely sure I buy that argument, as the filioque in any understanding tends to create an imbalance in the trinitarian godhead, arguably. However, the foregoing interpretation of the filioque in which the procession of the Spirit originates in the Father and is mediated through the agency of the Son might be seen as a better solution than the idea that the Spirit is conjointly sent forth by the other two Persons.
Actually, this all sounds mumbo-jumbo... ![[Confused]](confused.gif) ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
I 've always thought that the Spirit is the bond of love between the Father and the Son and that such bond is so real that it creates the third person of the Trinity. If this be true, how can the Sprit proceed from the Father alone? The Spirit proceeds from the bond of the Father and the Son.
My two cents.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
So thought Augustine.
The Orthodox aren't as fond of Augustine as Catholics or Protestants.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I 've always thought that the Spirit is the bond of love between the Father and the Son and that such bond is so real that it creates the third person of the Trinity.
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
So thought Augustine.
The Orthodox aren't as fond of Augustine as Catholics or Protestants.
According to Diarmaid MacCulloch, Gregory Palamas reused the idea. He didn't actually acknowledge that he was using Augustine, and Augustine would have disagreed with some of the use he was being put to, but the idea is in Palamas apparently.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
All I understand is that there are many argments for and against the filioque; I do not understand the subtleties of all of those arguments. About the limit of my understanding is that there is real difference between the begetting of the Son and the proceeding of the Spirit. Some of the posts above give me additional insights into these differences, for whch I am grateful.
The Nicene Creed was adopted at an ecumenical council, one of the councils accepted as valid by vitually all denominations today of West, East and Oriental. The original did not have the filioque and aiui the filioque started to be used in Rome in the 8th century. From there, it spread throughout the West and was well in place there by 1054, before Barbarossa, and was one of the given reasons for the Great Anathemas.
I don't say it myself, not from any philorthodoxy, but because it has not been incorporated into the Creed by an ecumenical council.
[ 25. March 2011, 21:10: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
But, how much closer to the Orthodox does that really bring us?
How much closer do you want to be? If there's no conception of that, then I agree simply dropping the alteration of the creed doesn't do much.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The original did not have the filioque and aiui the filioque started to be used in Rome in the 8th century. From there, it spread throughout the West and was well in place there by 1054, before Barbarossa, and was one of the given reasons for the Great Anathemas.
The filioque was first added to the creed in Spain in the 7th century (as an anti-Arian measure). It was adopted by Charlemagne's court in Aachen in the 9th century, and from there spread throughout the West. Rome was actually pretty much the last place in the West to adopt it at the beginning of the 11th century.
Byzantium had always objected to it - not entirely from purely religious motives. The Holy Roman Emperors were setting themselves up as replacement Roman Emperors, so Byzantium would object to anything they were sponsorting. Likewise, the reason Rome finally adopted it was that they were pressured to do so while the Holy Roman Emperor was in town warring against the Byzantines. Byzantium pretty much objected to anything it could find to object to: the dispute that precipitated the Great Schism was whether the Eucharist should use leavened or unleavened bread.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Byzantium pretty much objected to anything it could find to object to: the dispute that precipitated the Great Schism was whether the Eucharist should use leavened or unleavened bread.
This makes it out that Rome had nothing to do with it; it was just those uppity Greeks who wouldn't just agree to disagree. This is somewhat problematic to reconcile with actual history. I'll just remind all that Humbert was a Latin, and it was he who "excommunicated" the Patriarch of Constantinople, not the other way around. For using yeast. It's not just those poor, harassed Westerns being bickered with just for spite by the benighted Easterners.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Byzantium had always objected to it - not entirely from purely religious motives. The Holy Roman Emperors were setting themselves up as replacement Roman Emperors, so Byzantium would object to anything they were sponsorting. Likewise, the reason Rome finally adopted it was that they were pressured to do so while the Holy Roman Emperor was in town warring against the Byzantines. Byzantium pretty much objected to anything it could find to object to: the dispute that precipitated the Great Schism was whether the Eucharist should use leavened or unleavened bread.
That's what I meant when I said "given reasons". There was a series of alleged departures from true teaching, and the claims abouth the insertion of the filioque happened to
be true. Some of the others were less so.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
And here I was naive enough to think that it was a problem in scriptural exegesis
I think it is important to realize that only theology makes definitive exegesis possible. Listing a number of "directly applicable" verses usually does not provide a clear answer, allowing several (often many) interpretations. Behind the argument I've given stand a number of key assumptions about God, and those again can be related to a quite different set of "directly applicable" verses. Thus theology is the medium through which exegesis can be harmonized across scripture. If you nevertheless want some "direct" argument from scripture, here's Aquinas again, and here are a bunch of quotes from the Fathers for good measure.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
You seem to leave out the possibility that we might not need reasonable argument at all. If the second person of the trinity said "Hi. I'm Jesus" and the third said "Hi. I'm not" we'd know where we were. Your argument seems to regard them as quantum particles without sentience that we need a theoretical framework to distinguish. I think they're less tame than that.
That's a strange and somewhat insulting comment, given that I illustrated all steps of the argument with human beings, not quantum particles. The idea of the Father and the Son (as God) saying "hi" to each other like this is of course painfully anthropomorphic. However, it certainly poses no challenge to the philosophical analysis.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
How about homoousios?
Historically, that's a problematic word. Taking it in the now agreed upon sense, it was Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers combating the Pneumatomachi who established that the Holy Spirit is one in essence with the Father and the Son, and the Pneumatomachi heresy was specifically condemned by the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD in the First Canon.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Am I missing something? There is a fundamental difference between "begotten" and "proceed". "Begotten" = be fathered, i.e. be conceived, become incarnate in the womb of the Virgin and be made flesh. This is fundamental to being the Son. The Holy Spirit comes into the world and since Pentecost can indwell human hearts, but is not "begotten".
Sure, you are missing that we are talking about God in His Godhead, not about God as Creator or God as Incarnate. It is standard Christian doctrine that the former can be thought of independent of the latter, i.e., God is not defined by His creation and it is not necessary for God to create. Thus we were talking about God (logically, not temporally) before there was anything but God. Otherwise we would be saying that God as such is undifferentiated, but becomes a Trinity by virtue of the Son incarnating and the Holy Spirit indwelling. That's an interesting form of Modalism. However, I would agree that the differentiation into Persons that exists in God as God, while logically prior to creation, maps in a specific way to creation. It is no accident that the Second Person (not the First or the Third) incarnates, and that the Third Person (not the First or the Second) indwells. All this is very interesting indeed, but it does not directly touch the argument I've given.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The Trinity *IS* asymmetric. The Father is the source or groundspring or origination or whatever you want to call it of the Son and the Spirit.
Indeed, but modern Orthodox talk about the Trinity is not asymmetric enough. The Holy Spirit must arise somehow differently from the Son, and it is not sufficient to just use a different verb for their origination. Labels are arbitrary. One has to say how these verbs mean something different (and they mean something different precisely because the Holy Spirit originates also through the Son, but in one principle of origination with the Father, and logically second to that of the Father).
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I'm not completely sure I buy that argument, as the filioque in any understanding tends to create an imbalance in the trinitarian godhead, arguably. However, the foregoing interpretation of the filioque in which the procession of the Spirit originates in the Father and is mediated through the agency of the Son might be seen as a better solution than the idea that the Spirit is conjointly sent forth by the other two Persons.
There really is no contradiction between these statements, just a shift of viewpoint. Firstly, for a nice summary of the agreement of Latin and Greek fathers on this see here, subsection "The same truth has been constantly held by the Fathers".
The basic point can be illustrated graphically. Latins and Greek Fathers agree that
Father -> Son,
Father -> Holy Spirit,
Father -> Son -> Holy Spirit.
If one now asks, who is the ultimate source, then the answer is the Father, because all of these start with "Father ->". If one however asks where the Holy Spirit comes from, then it is Father and Son, because one has both "Father -> Holy Spirit" and "Son -> Holy Spirit".
Thus the answer to the filioque problem is indeed simply to say "from the Father and through the Son", i.e., to add a further word. That does justice to all and in fact comes closest to the language of the Greek fathers.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's not just those poor, harassed Westerns being bickered with just for spite by the benighted Easterners.
True, it was not so. However, it sure looks to me like it is so now. The RCC sure seems a lot more ready to me to solve this particular issue now than the various Orthodox actors are.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's not just those poor, harassed Westerns being bickered with just for spite by the benighted Easterners.
True, it was not so. However, it sure looks to me like it is so now. The RCC sure seems a lot more ready to me to solve this particular issue now than the various Orthodox actors are.
You have to at least admit there's a hell of a lot more going on in relations between the churches than just the filioque. Also I would say that Rome's method of "solving issues" tends to be very "my way or the highway" so accusing the Orthodox of being stubborn is only saying we're like you.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You have to at least admit there's a hell of a lot more going on in relations between the churches than just the filioque. Also I would say that Rome's method of "solving issues" tends to be very "my way or the highway" so accusing the Orthodox of being stubborn is only saying we're like you.
On this specific issue, I really believe that to be incorrect. In fact, I expect Rome to declare unilaterally some compromise in the not too far future. (If I were pope, I would declare the "through" solution as the new standard for the liturgy; and leave the other two possibilities - Orthodox omitting or the current RC "and" - as options that anybody can adopt as they see fit, provided this is understood as compatible with "through".)
As you know, I believe that no possibility of reunification exists, since the Orthodox understanding of the sacrament of matrimony is fundamentally incompatible with the RC one and a reversal of doctrine on that seems practically impossible on both sides. Hence I see no particular reason why the "filioque" controversy should not be laid to rest as the theological proxy for mutual ecclesiastic fuckwittery that it really is.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
I'm sure this might sound simplistic, but for me whether or not the Filioque is theologically correct or not is a completely different issue to whether or not it should have been inserted. I think it's theologically correct, but I think it was unwise to add it. And it's better to acknowledge that now and remove it rather than dig our heels in and keep it.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If I were pope,
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Just trying to imagine what that world would be like ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I 've always thought that the Spirit is the bond of love between the Father and the Son and that such bond is so real that it creates the third person of the Trinity. If this be true, how can the Sprit proceed from the Father alone? The Spirit proceeds from the bond of the Father and the Son.
My two cents.
As I understand it, the problem with this idea from the Eastern view is that it depersonalizes the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit is just the bond between Father and Son, then it isn't really a person and is thus inferior to the Two persons.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I 've always thought that the Spirit is the bond of love between the Father and the Son and that such bond is so real that it creates the third person of the Trinity.
That's how I remember learning it. Father is perfect; he has knowledge of himself; that knowledge is also perfect, thus a person (Son). Father and Son love each other; that love is also perfect, thus a person (Spirit).
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
In fact, I expect Rome to declare unilaterally some compromise in the not too far future.
!!! ???
Am I the only person for whom there is something wrong with this concept?
One can imagine how such a way of doing things might be received at Esphigmenou. It's about as persuasive an approach as Regnans in Excelsis.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I 've always thought that the Spirit is the bond of love between the Father and the Son and that such bond is so real that it creates the third person of the Trinity. If this be true, how can the Sprit proceed from the Father alone? The Spirit proceeds from the bond of the Father and the Son.
My two cents.
As I understand it, the problem with this idea from the Eastern view is that it depersonalizes the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit is just the bond between Father and Son, then it isn't really a person and is thus inferior to the Two persons.
The bond is so strong that a person exists from it.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Sounds like the twin-seed-in-the-Spirit heresy.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
This idea (of the spirit being the manifestation as a person of the love between Father and Son) just really seems extremely contrived to me. Is there ANY sort of support for tis other than someone's imagination? I mean, I'm FAR from one to turn to scripture as the ultimate support for any concept, but it seems like there should be SOMETHING either in scripture or in the teaching of the very early Church or somewhere to make this more than speculation. At least can someone explain to me the logic behind it (other than just "it's God, so all things are possible"). I suppose this is certainly a possibility, but is it one with any sort of support to it?
I have to admit that the personhood of the Spirit has always been a hard concept for me to grasp (meaning that while I accept it as a given, I don't really see much to support it other than pure faith), this idea of the personhood being purely a result of the relationship between father and Son stretches the conept even more for me.
To me the filioque seems to put the Spirit in a tertiary role in the Trinity and that seems to me to be counter to the basic premise of single Godhood. While I can see the need for a single "source" even within a coequal unity, that is taken to a whole other level when you talk about the third person springing FROM the second (even if WITH the first). Takes it from a triangle into a line.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
