filioque

[kimber1]

first, i come here in peace!! :)

i just wanted to understand what y'all's interpretation of this is and why it's one thing that seems to divide us since for the most part i see so many similarities in Catholics and Orthodax and personally consider you all my brothers and sisters in Christ. maybe i'm not understanding the termonology correctly so can someone explain why this is an issue between us?

thanks and peace be with you :prayer:

[Rilian]

Here is a short article about the history of the Filioque (http://www.antiochian-orthodox.co.uk/faith.htm#HISTORY%20OF%20THE%20FILIOQUE). I think it's regarded as incredibly important because the Trinity is how we understand God, so to change our conception of the Trinity is to change our fundamental understanding of God. To me the inverted triangle created by the double procession creates a distorted picture of what the Trinity is, and I think has the effect of subordinating the Holy Spirit in the relationship. I think many in Orthodoxy would also say the Trinity is widely misunderstood and ignored in Western theology.

[kimber1]

thanks for the link :) maybe what i'm not understanding is since God=Jesus=Holy Spirit then why is it considered wrong to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from them Both since they're all 3 One? :scratch: ugh the Trinity concept is so hard to understand. can someone help me out here or am i just off in my thinking?

[Philip]

thanks for the link :) maybe what i'm not understanding is since God=Jesus=Holy Spirit then why is it considered wrong to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from them Both since they're all 3 One?

For the same reason that is wrong to say that the Father is begotten of the Holy Spirit.

[kimber1]

okay now i'm really confused :confused: it's my understnading that the only one begotten is the Son right?

[twosid]

Kimberly,

The way I've always been taught and understand from studying is that its God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, three seperate entitys all God but all yet having their own unique qualities. Thats just me throwing it in 50 words or less. I've read some of the article in the link as I don't know yet how the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church view the trinity and still don't. I get really impatient with the verbage on the explanations. I mean why can't someone just speak plainly? Its like......In reference to the 43'rd council of the orange orangutan therefore biploar misfits of ecumenical spaghetti laity to the 43'rd parallel instead of divine rooster noodle over there in the potato's in the mailbox yesterday after the 2'nd sneeze of the twisted twine goober grape lunchbox. AAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGHHHH! Doesn't anyone in the Orthodox Church or Catholicism use footnotes. Somebody speak english before I go nuts. ;)

[Philip]

Correct. The Logos is the Only Begotten Son of the Father. Likewise, the Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Father is the fountainhead of the Trinity.

[kimber1]

Kimberly,

The way I've always been taught and understand from studying is that its God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, three seperate entitys all God but all yet having their own unique qualities. Thats just me throwing it in 50 words or less. I've read some of the article in the link as I don't know yet how the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church view the trinity and still don't. I get really impatient with the verbage on the explanations. I mean why can't someone just speak plainly? Its like......In reference to the 43'rd council of the orange orangutan therefore biploar misfits of ecumenical spaghetti laity to the 43'rd parallel instead of divine rooster noodle over there in the potato's in the mailbox yesterday after the 2'nd sneeze of the twisted twine goober grape lunchbox. AAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGHHHH! Doesn't anyone in the Orthodox Church or Catholicism use footnotes. Somebody speak english before I go nuts. ;)ROFL!!! :D :D i know exactly what you mean. i get confused too that's why i don't understand this particular difference between us.

[kimber1]

Correct. The Logos is the Only Begotten Son of the Father. Likewise, the Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Father is the fountainhead of the Trinity.okay so you're saying that the Son and the Holy Spirit both proceed from the Father right? so in Orhtodox thinking (i mean NOOOOOO offense, i'm jsut trying to understand if i've got it right) is that to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father in some way takes away from the Father? is that right?

[Philip]

There are two issues concerning the filioque between the Orthodox and the Catholic. One has to do with the meaning of the filioque -- is it a correct statement about the relationship of the Trinity. The other has to do with how the filioque was added to the Creed.

Which of these do you want to consider first?

[Philip]

okay so you're saying that the Son and the Holy Spirit both proceed from the Father right?

Yes, except we say the Son is begotten and that the Spirit proceeds. (For the moment, don't worry about the details of the difference.)

so in Orhtodox thinking (i mean NOOOOOO offense, i'm jsut trying to understand if i've got it right) is that to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father in some way takes away from the Father? is that right?

Basically. It confuses the role of the Father and the Son. Some Orthodox theologians accept the phrase "proceeds from the Father through the Son", but they still do not think the Creed should have been changed

[kimber1]

okay :) that makes sense, i can accept that. i've just always wondered why this is such a huge issue between us when the other similarities are so significant. i once asked an Orthodox if he could explain the schism to me and he gave me a link to read and for the most part i see the same things believed (for the most part) but just worded a little differently. but i'm glad y'all don't see me as the enemy! thank you!! :clap:

[Peter]

If we can, let's put theology to a side for a moment and try to look at this in a more simple manner.

1) The phrase was added outside a full council. Therefore the phrase is illegal.

2) The phrase runs contrary to scripture.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program.

Peace.

Peter,
Lover of The Theotokos

[Rilian]

The essential nature of the Trinity in Orthodoxy is that it is of one essence and undivided with the uncreated father as the source of the union. Even before the Filioque controversy there was a divergence of understanding that developed. Augustine began to describe the hypostatic union of the Trinity in terms of a relationship with the spirit as the “bond of love” between the father and son. This upset the balance of the Trinity because it subordinated the role of the spirit and created a view of the Trinity based not on a shared substance, but on a shared relationship. It also had the side effect of largely depersonalizing the spirit as an entity within the Godhead. That had a lasting effect in Western Christendom.

The issue then moved from being one of a differing understanding to a matter of authority as the Filioque grew in popularity in the West. Increasingly it was seen as part of the overall assertion of power in the medieval papacy spurred on in large degree by the Carolingians who favored the addition to the creed. It played a direct part in the breakdown of shared belief that precipitated the schism. It is currently an obstacle to reunion because I’m pretty sure the Filioque has been elevated to the level of dogma in the Catholic Church.

[Theresa]

thanks for the link :) maybe what i'm not understanding is since God=Jesus=Holy Spirit then why is it considered wrong to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from them Both since they're all 3 One? :scratch: ugh the Trinity concept is so hard to understand. can someone help me out here or am i just off in my thinking?

-I have a book, "Theology for Beginners" by Frank J. Sheed which speaks about this relationship very well, and it speaks about appropriation and such.

As such, the thought is that the Son is the Word of the Father, so the Son is begotten by the Father who knows Himself perfectly and infinitely, and the Holy Spirit is a person by them loving each other perfectly and infiitely. God's knowledge is a person and God's love is a person.

Not debating, just showing what understanding I've come to have, so then the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

So the distinction: Orthodox "And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father;"

Catholic:"who proceeds from the Father and the Son"

Both are technically correct as far as I can tell, but one is more technically clear, IMHO.

Some interesting thoughts for consideration:

"A sixth misunderstanding about love is the idea that “God is love” is unrelated to dogmatic theology, especially to the doctrine of the Trinity. Everyone can agree that “God is love”, it seems, but the Trinity is a tangled dogma for an esoteric elite, isn't it? No. If God is not a Trinity, God is not love. For love requires three things: a lover, a beloved, and a relationship between them. If God were only one person, he could be a lover, but not love itself. The Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father, and the Spirit is the love proceeding from both, from all eternity. If that were not so, then God would need us, would be incomplete without us, without someone to love. "

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/love.htm

[Photini]

One of the ways to understand it better, is to understand ourselves better. After all, we are in His Image. But to know ourselves and find that Image, we must remove the muck that taints it.

We try to dissect things with our minds, and that is so confusing.

[twosid]

One of the ways to understand it better, is to understand ourselves better. After all, we are in His Image. But to know ourselves and find that Image, we must remove the muck that taints it.
muck http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dmuck) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (mhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ubreve.gifk)
n.
A moist sticky mixture, especially of mud and filth.
Moist farmyard dung; manure.
Dark fertile soil containing decaying vegetable matter.
Something filthy or disgusting.
Earth, rocks, or clay excavated in mining.


Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. I'm so much worse than that so I've got a ways to go. Dictionary.com gets the credit for above definition.

[nikephoros_spatharios]

As such, the thought is that the Son is the Word of the Father, so the Son is begotten by the Father who knows Himself perfectly and infinitely, and the Holy Spirit is a person by them loving each other perfectly and infiitely. God's knowledge is a person and God's love is a person.


Is there any scriptural or patristic justification for the idea that the Son and Logos of God is "knowledge", or that the Holy Spirit is Love?

[prodromos]

I'm going to shamelessly copy something posted on another forum (not by me)

The Holy Spirit must proceed either from the Essence (Ousia) of God, which is shared in by the three Persons (Hypostases) of the Godhead, or from one of the Persons of the Godhead.*

That which is shared among the Persons is of the Essence, and must be shared in by all three Persons, not merely by two of the three.* Therefore, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, then He must proceed from the Divine Essence (from the Ousia of God).* In that case, if one speaks of this in terms of the Persons of God, He must proceed from each of them equally, including from the Holy Spirit Himself.* But, that is absurd; the Holy Spirit obviously cannot be said to proceed from Himself.

Therefore, the Divine cause of the Holy Spirit's procession is found, not in God's Essence, but is personal/hypostatic.* In other words, the cause of the Holy Spirit's procession must be a Person of the Godhead, not God's interpersonal Essence.* And the Scriptural witness and Tradition make it clear that, among the Persons, it is the Father from Whom the Holy Spirit most clearly proceeds.* To suggest otherwise would be to attack the monarchy of the Father within the Holy Trinity.

The Filioque was initiated to "ensure" the divinity of the Son, thereby saying that One had to be a Source of the Holy Spirit to be divine, that it was insufficient for the Father to merely "share an essence."
What, then, of the Holy Spirit?* If nothing proceeds from Him (as the RCC says is the case), is He not divine, or at least, AS divine as are the Father and the Son?

[Philip]

Is there any scriptural or patristic justification for the idea that the Son and Logos of God is "knowledge",

Logos can mean 'knowledge', but it is more than that.

[Sergius_Lucius]

A sixth misunderstanding about love is the idea that “God is love” is unrelated to dogmatic theology, especially to the doctrine of the Trinity. Everyone can agree that “God is love”, it seems, but the Trinity is a tangled dogma for an esoteric elite, isn't it? No. If God is not a Trinity, God is not love. For love requires three things: a lover, a beloved, and a relationship between them. If God were only one person, he could be a lover, but not love itself. The Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father, and the Spirit is the love proceeding from both, from all eternity. If that were not so, then God would need us, would be incomplete without us, without someone to love

I'm afraid the whole problem is from here. This is a good and well-known explanation but it is only explanation, it can't be used to proof any doctrine. That passage say "Love exists between two persons, therefore the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son" but we shouldn't apply our understanding of love to God. The Trinity is revelation, not logical development of the idea of God. St Gregory the Theologian in the end of his Homilies on Theology (c. 380 AD) warns that any analogy is limited and can be dangerous if we will derive our view on God from it.

Also the Orthodox Church teaches about distinction between essence and energies of God, which is rejected by the Catholic Church. Love is an energy of God, it is how He reveals Himself to us. It is not about His inner being.

I apologize if I explained not very clear, hope the other will add to this.

[The Prokeimenon!]

In Orthodoxy, The Father is unique, because from Him the Son is Begotten and the Spirit Proceeds.

The Son is unique because He was incarnate for us men and for our salvation.

The Holy Spirit is unique because He dwells with us and in us and in the Church.

All Three Persons are equal, and because of their perfect communion of Love, they are One God- Consubstantial, Holy, Life-Creating, and Undivided.

The Filioque destroys the uniqueness of the Persons. It subordinates the Holy Spirit, and confuses the Father and the Son.

(this is my understanding, and if it is incorrect, somebody please correct me.)

And even if the Filioque was accurate, the Latin Church had no business tampering with The Creed.

No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the splendor
of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish them than I am carried back to the
One …. When I contemplate the Three together, I see but one living flame,
And I cannot divide or measure out the Undivided Light!

- St Gregory Nazianzus

It's confusing. I'm confused. I've got a headache. I'm going to bed ;)

Moses

[nikephoros_spatharios]

Logos can mean 'knowledge', but it is more than that.
'knowledge' corresponds to gnôsis or epistêmê
logos has many meanings, but 'knowledge' as it is understood in English is not one of them.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2363773

[prodromos]

Basically. It confuses the role of the Father and the Son. Some Orthodox theologians accept the phrase "proceeds from the Father through the Son", but they still do not think the Creed should have been changed

The problem with this is that the Catholic dogma regarding the "filioque" is NOT that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

The Catholic Church has taught and declared that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as one source:

The 2nd Council of Lyons in 1274 makes it clear: "..we confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one; not by two spirations but by one."

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."

First Vatican Council, 1869-1870 "Dogmatic Constitution on the Principal Mysteries of the Faith" states: "For from all eternity the Father generates the Son, not in producing by emanation another essence equal to his own, but in communicating his own simple essence. And in like manner, the Holy Spirit proceeds, not by a multiplication of the essence, but he proceeds by a communication of the same singular essence by one eternal spiration from the Father and the Son as from one principle."

The Roman Catechism (The offical Roman Catholic catechism, 1566-1994) I.8.6. states: With regard to the words immediately succeeding: "who proceeds from the Father and the Son," the faithful are to be taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds, by eternal procession, from the Father and the Son as from one principle. This is a truth taught to us by the rule of the Church from which the least departure is unwarrantable on the part of Christians.

Regardless of what the Catholic church teaches regarding the "filioque" today, the official Catholic dogma on the "filioque" has not been repudiated and is contrary to Orthodox belief. Until this dogma is "undeclared" there can really be no progress in discussions between our two churches.

John.

[Philip]

The problem with this is that the Catholic dogma regarding the "filioque" is NOT that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

Agreed.

Regardless of what the Catholic church teaches regarding the "filioque" today, the official Catholic dogma on the "filioque" has not been repudiated and is contrary to Orthodox belief. Until this dogma is "undeclared" there can really be no progress in discussions between our two churches.


Agreed.

[Rilian]

There has been some work though to bridge the gap - An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation (http://www.usccb.org/seia/filioque.htm).

[kimber1]

praying that peace can be restored :prayer:

[MariaRegina]

Great post! This is the first time I really understood the differences.
Thanks for posting this information.

The problem with this is that the Catholic dogma regarding the "filioque" is NOT that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

The Catholic Church has taught and declared that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as one source:

The 2nd Council of Lyons in 1274 makes it clear: "..we confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one; not by two spirations but by one."

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."

First Vatican Council, 1869-1870 "Dogmatic Constitution on the Principal Mysteries of the Faith" states: "For from all eternity the Father generates the Son, not in producing by emanation another essence equal to his own, but in communicating his own simple essence. And in like manner, the Holy Spirit proceeds, not by a multiplication of the essence, but he proceeds by a communication of the same singular essence by one eternal spiration from the Father and the Son as from one principle."

The Roman Catechism (The offical Roman Catholic catechism, 1566-1994) I.8.6. states: With regard to the words immediately succeeding: "who proceeds from the Father and the Son," the faithful are to be taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds, by eternal procession, from the Father and the Son as from one principle. This is a truth taught to us by the rule of the Church from which the least departure is unwarrantable on the part of Christians.

Regardless of what the Catholic church teaches regarding the "filioque" today, the official Catholic dogma on the "filioque" has not been repudiated and is contrary to Orthodox belief. Until this dogma is "undeclared" there can really be no progress in discussions between our two churches.

John.

[Matthias]

Thank you all for your posts! You are a wealth of information!

[Michael the Iconographer]

first, i come here in peace!! :)

i just wanted to understand what y'all's interpretation of this is and why it's one thing that seems to divide us since for the most part i see so many similarities in Catholics and Orthodax and personally consider you all my brothers and sisters in Christ. maybe i'm not understanding the termonology correctly so can someone explain why this is an issue between us?

thanks and peace be with you :prayer:

The problem with the Philioque is two fold. Yes there is a big difference between the way the two churches understand the procession of the Holy Spirit. However, there is the less talked about second difference, which to me is much more serious. That problem is how the philoque was added to the creed. It was done so at a local council of Toledo, Spain somewhere arround 590 AD. At that time the Pope rejected the proclamation of that council and the philoque. The popes continued to reject the idea until Charlemagne (Karl der Grosse-for those of you Germanophiles out there) forced the Pope to do so under the threat of harm. When push came to shove, the Pope gave in. That is not how the Orthodox church makes such decisions. Such a decision as to totally change the faith by adding to the Nicene Creed can only be done by means of Ecumenical Council. As Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has recently said http://www.christianforums.com/t163983&page=1 if the philioque had not caused the schism, something else shortly after would have.

[Matthias]

Let's not cry over little things and look past the differences and hug and sing as one people!

[Michael the Iconographer]

Let's not cry over little things and look past the differences and hug and sing as one people!

If it were such a little thing, the Ecumenical Councils of Nicea and Constantinople would not have proclaimed Anathema on anyone who added to or subtracted from the creed which they set in writing without first calling an Ecumenical Council to do so.

[MariaRegina]

Most definitely. The Catholic understanding of the Filioque is supported by Holy Scripture.

John 14:26 - But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you.

John 15:26 - When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf.

John 16:7 - Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

The problem with the filioque doctrine in the Latin Church is this:

The Latin Catholics are confusing the Eternal Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father

with the Temporal Procession of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles at Pentecost.

So looking at nyj's bibical quotes:

he forgets to underscore one important point, which I will do.

John 14:26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, [Pentecostal proceeding forth] will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you.

John 15:26 - When the Advocate comes, [Pentecostal proceeding forth] whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father [Eternal Procession], he will testify on my behalf.

John 16:7 - Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. [Pentecostal sending forth of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles]

Notice: The scriptures do not say that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and The Son. This is not found anywhere in the Holy Scriptures.

That the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father is scripturally based. This is what the Orthodox Church believes and professes. This is the Holy Faith of the Orthodox. This we will die for.

[MariaRegina]

PLease see John's post of this thread (#24) which is reprinted in full here:

"The problem with this is that the Catholic dogma regarding the "filioque" is NOT that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

The Catholic Church has taught and declared that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as one source:

The 2nd Council of Lyons in 1274 makes it clear: "..we confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one; not by two spirations but by one."

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."

First Vatican Council, 1869-1870 "Dogmatic Constitution on the Principal Mysteries of the Faith" states: "For from all eternity the Father generates the Son, not in producing by emanation another essence equal to his own, but in communicating his own simple essence. And in like manner, the Holy Spirit proceeds, not by a multiplication of the essence, but he proceeds by a communication of the same singular essence by one eternal spiration from the Father and the Son as from one principle."

The Roman Catechism (The offical Roman Catholic catechism, 1566-1994) I.8.6. states: With regard to the words immediately succeeding: "who proceeds from the Father and the Son," the faithful are to be taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds, by eternal procession, from the Father and the Son as from one principle. This is a truth taught to us by the rule of the Church from which the least departure is unwarrantable on the part of Christians.

Regardless of what the Catholic church teaches regarding the "filioque" today, the official Catholic dogma on the "filioque" has not been repudiated and is contrary to Orthodox belief. Until this dogma is "undeclared" there can really be no progress in discussions between our two churches."

****

John's post needs to be read.

[Photini]

Thanks Elizabeth. That actually clears up a lot for me.


Here's a snippet from An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. by St. John Damascene.




Likewise we believe also in one Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life: Who proceedeth from the Father and resteth in the Son: the object of equal adoration and glorification with the Father and Son, since He is co-essential and co-eternal(2): the Spirit of God, direct, authoritative(3), the fountain of wisdom, and life, and holiness: God existing and addressed along with Father and Son: uncreate, full, creative, all-ruling, all-effecting, all-powerful, of infinite power, Lord of all creation and not under any lord(4): deifying, not deified(5): filling, not filled: shared in, not sharing in: sanctifying, not sanctified: the intercessor, receiving the supplications of all: in all things like to the Father and Son: proceeding from the Father and communicated through the Son, and participated in by all creation, through Himself creating, and investing with essence and sanctifying, and maintaining the universe: having subsistence, existing in its own proper and peculiar subsistence, inseparable and indivisible from Father and Son, and possessing all the qualities that the Father and Son possess, save that of not being begotten or born. For the Father is without canst and unborn: for He is derived from nothing, but derives from Himself His being, nor does He derive a single quality from another(6). Rather He is Himself the beginning and cause of the existence of all things in a definite and natural manner. But the Son is derived from the Father after the manner of generation, and the Holy Spirit likewise is derived from the Father, yet not after the manner of generation, but after that of procession. And we have learned that there is a difference(7) between generation and procession, but the nature of that difference we in no wise understand. Further, the generation of the Son from the Father and the procession of the Holy Spirit are simultaneous.

[kimber1]

i guess i'm still confused. i'm still thinking God and Jesus and Holy Spirit are one so why is this an issue?

[MariaRegina]

i guess i'm still confused. i'm still thinking God and Jesus and Holy Spirit are one so why is this an issue?

This is the most important point. Our God is a Triune God. One God in three divine persons. The Father is God, The Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. The Trinity is One Godhead without confusion of the Divine Persons.

The Holy Trinity is beyond our comprehension.

Trying to solve this Holy Mystery only leads to pride.

Are you familiar with the story about the boy on the shore who was trying to pour the entire ocean into a litle hole he had dug? One of our Holy Saints tried to reason with the little boy and told him that he was trying to do the impossible. The little boy (an angel in disguise) remarked: "It is also impossible to try to figure out the Mystery of the Holy Trinity."

Hope this helps.

[MariaRegina]

Does anyone remember who that saint was? St. Augustine, St. Jerome?

[Kripost]

i guess i'm still confused. i'm still thinking God and Jesus and Holy Spirit are one so why is this an issue?

The issue is regarding the three distinct Persons, a single Essence, and the tendency to confuse between Persons and Essence. Although the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one, each of them have a special, distinct role in the universe.

[kimber1]

yea i understand that. :) i'm jsut not getting why if God and Jesus are the same and the Holy Spirit is the same as to why it's wrong to say that the Holy Spirit came from them both? they're all the same :scrathc: just ignore me ;) i'm not usually up this late :P

[MariaRegina]

As one little boy stated, "the whole thing is incomprehensible."

[nikephoros_spatharios]

yea i understand that. :) i'm jsut not getting why if God and Jesus are the same and the Holy Spirit is the same as to why it's wrong to say that the Holy Spirit came from them both? they're all the same :scrathc: just ignore me ;) i'm not usually up this late :P
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not the same. If they were exactly the same then they would all be exactly the same person. All three share in the divine essence, but they are also differentiated from each other. Each of the three persons has his own individuality:

The Father is the head and origin of the divinity and has no cause.

The Son was begotten from the Father.

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

Note that the Son and the Spirit differ in the way they are related to the Father, by begetting and by procession respectively.

We don't try to understand what "begetting" or "proceeds" means, because we can't rationalize about God.

[MariaRegina]

The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not the same. If they were exactly the same then they would all be exactly the same person. All three share in the divine essence, but they are also differentiated from each other. Each of the three persons has his own individuality:

The Father is the head and origin of the divinity and has no cause.

The Son was begotten from the Father.

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

Note that the Son and the Spirit differ in the way they are related to the Father, by begetting and by procession respectively.

We don't try to understand what "begetting" or "proceeds" means, because we can't rationalize about God.

Good post.

[Michael the Iconographer]

I thought the whole Filioque was started over Cardinal Humbert's dislike of Philo dough?

[nikephoros_spatharios]

I thought the whole Filioque was started over Cardinal Humbert's dislike of Philo dough?
The Filioque started when the Visigoths tried to combat the Arian heresy which denied the divinity of Christ. They thought that by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Son that they exalted the Son, making him even more divine. The Patriarchs of Rome forbade the use of the filioque in their church, but didn't condemn its use by the various Germanic peoples. When the Franks took control of the patriarchal throne of Rome from the Romans (in the 11th century), they introduced the filioque to Rome, and then via Cardinal Humbert tried to impose it on the eastern church, but they failed. Ever since then, the western church follows the Franko-Latin doctrine of the filioque which is rejected by the Orthodox, and so they are outside the Church.

[Michael the Iconographer]

The Filioque started when the Visigoths tried to combat the Arian heresy which denied the divinity of Christ. They thought that by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Son that they exalted the Son, making him even more divine. The Patriarchs of Rome forbade the use of the filioque in their church, but didn't condemn its use by the various Germanic peoples. When the Franks took control of the patriarchal throne of Rome from the Romans (in the 11th century), they introduced the filioque to Rome, and then via Cardinal Humbert tried to impose it on the eastern church, but they failed. Ever since then, the western church follows the Franko-Latin doctrine of the filioque which is rejected by the Orthodox, and so they are outside the Church.


I know the origins of the filioque, and all of the historical peculiarities which are tied into it. Interesting that when push came to shove, the Pope accepted the filioque into the Creed rather than tell Charlemage that he was unwilling to do so. I was quoting an essay from theOnionDome.com from a few weeks ago which equated the filioque with greek pastry! :D