Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Religion debate from Kit's thoughts
#71
(30 Oct 2015, 21:47:36)PavlvsAemilivs Wrote: One question. Why does the Eastern Church refuses the Filioque?

Because it's a) non-scriptural, b) non-traditional, and c) theologically incorrect.

a) First off, it contradicts scripture. John 15:26: "But when the Counsellor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me." The Spirit may be sent by Christ in time, but He proceeds from the Father in eternity.
b) It's an innovation in doctrine, and that's just historical fact - nobody could claim that it's part of the Apostolic Faith. There's really no attestation to any Christian anywhere believing that the Spirit proceeded from the Son in the first few hundred years of Christianity. It started off as a fringe belief (which may even have been caused by a sloppy translation of the creed) which gradually grew in Spain (where the Church was in constant doctrinal conflict with the Arians, the latter of whom claimed Christ wasn't God) because it helped to emphasise the divinity of Christ by placing him above the Holy Spirit. It got more and more popular in the west as communication broke down with the other four patriarchates, but even the Popes fought against the filioque up until 1014, when Pope Benedict VIII was forced by the Holy Roman Emperor Henry II to add it to the Creed (literally forced - Henry had just restored him to power and his troops were all over Rome); before then, even the Popes (while some had been sympathetic to it theologically) had categorically denied that it could be unilaterally added without a new Ecumenical Council. Indeed, the canons of the Second Ecumenical Council explicitly forbid any change to the Creed made without a new one.
c) It messes up the "balance" of the Trinity. Anything done by God is done either by one Person of the Trinity or by all three: all three are eternal, all three are omnipotent, but only the Son was incarnate - that sort of thing. Now, without the filioque, the Father is unoriginate, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. Simple enough. But with the filioque, the Father is unoriginate, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son, and that makes the Spirit really more of a "power" or a "force" than one of the three Persons of the Trinity. One can see how this has even influenced language, with many western Christians calling the Spirit an "it".


I'd also recommend St Photius the Great's "On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit" for a more detailed refutation of the filioque.
His Imperial Majesty
Jonathan I
(Imperator Caesar Jonathan Augustus)
By the Grace of Christ our God faithful Austenasian Emperor and Autocrat of the Romans
[Image: 8hcAM4h.png]
Reply
#72
I really don't want to get in a debate on this right now, but as Jonathan has given the Eastern Orthodox position, I will state that the confessional Presbyterian position, which reflects historical Protestant thought, is that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

In short - the Son sends the Spirit from the Father, so in this manner we receive the Spirit from the Son, and by the Spirit we are in fellowship with the Father and the Son. So with the Spirit's proceeding from the Father and the Son, the unity of the Godhead, and our relation to each person of the Godhead, is upheld.

http://www.kuyperian.com/should-we-drop-the-filioque/ - summarizing the importance of the filioque.
Reply
#73
(31 Oct 2015, 09:54:57)EarlPenda Wrote: In short - the Son sends the Spirit from the Father, so in this manner we receive the Spirit from the Son

I think we may be using a different definition of the word "proceed", Sean. To say that the Spirit proceeds "from the Father and through the Son" would be considered theologically correct by the Orthodox, as it is indeed the Son who has sent the Spirit from the Father.

But you wouldn't say that the Spirit proceeds through the Son in eternity, though, right? Or am I misunderstanding your position?
His Imperial Majesty
Jonathan I
(Imperator Caesar Jonathan Augustus)
By the Grace of Christ our God faithful Austenasian Emperor and Autocrat of the Romans
[Image: 8hcAM4h.png]
Reply
#74
I would say the Son is eternally begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son.

But it would seem that because the eastern and western churches have a different framework of understanding, it is difficult to compare and contrast their positions and terms.
Reply
#75
(31 Oct 2015, 10:16:17)EarlPenda Wrote: I would say the Son is eternally begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son.

Ah, right. :/
Well, that's the same as the Roman Catholic position, really, unless you don't mean that the Spirit actually has His origins in the Son as much as He does in the Father.
His Imperial Majesty
Jonathan I
(Imperator Caesar Jonathan Augustus)
By the Grace of Christ our God faithful Austenasian Emperor and Autocrat of the Romans
[Image: 8hcAM4h.png]
Reply
#76
I've read you lot debate the Filioque a few times now, and I'm just wondering how I should be pronouncing Filioque? I read it as "filly-oak", but that seems a bit clumsy. The more Latiny "filly-oak-way" seems even clumsier.
[Image: buy_email_lists_21819162.jpg]
In the words of  Bill Clinton
I did was not affiliated or part take in the actions of the hackers, Dreamlight Hackerz
Reply
#77
(31 Oct 2015, 13:12:33)frix Wrote: I've read you lot debate the Filioque a few times now, and I'm just wondering how I should be pronouncing Filioque? I read it as "filly-oak", but that seems a bit clumsy. The more Latiny "filly-oak-way" seems even clumsier.

Try http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...h/Filioque

(31 Oct 2015, 10:33:58)Austenasia Wrote:
(31 Oct 2015, 10:16:17)EarlPenda Wrote: I would say the Son is eternally begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son.

Ah, right. :/
Well, that's the same as the Roman Catholic position, really, unless you don't mean that the Spirit actually has His origins in the Son as much as He does in the Father.

So, in Orthodox belief, the Spirit can't proceed from the Father and the Son, but it can proceed from the father through the Son? Because, as a Roman Catholic, that's pretty much my opinion. (I'm a very traditional form of Catholic).
PAULUS AEMILIUS I, DUX TREBIAE
Paolo Emilio I, Caudillo of Trebia
DEUS, PATRIA, REX
Reply
#78
(31 Oct 2015, 14:01:20)PavlvsAemilivs Wrote: So, in Orthodox belief, the Spirit can't proceed from the Father and the Son, but it can proceed from the father through the Son?

That's correct, yes.

The Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father, just as the Son is eternally begotten of the Father. However, at Pentecost, the Son sent the Spirit upon the Church, and so while it is through the Son that we have the Spirit, the Spirit does not have His actual origin in the Son.

As Christ said (John 15:26), "the Counsellor [...] I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father."
His Imperial Majesty
Jonathan I
(Imperator Caesar Jonathan Augustus)
By the Grace of Christ our God faithful Austenasian Emperor and Autocrat of the Romans
[Image: 8hcAM4h.png]
Reply
#79
Brilliant! Does anyone else see what I see? Man, but we have to spread this idea around!
 
Reply
#80
Indeed we have to. But since we have no active priests in EOST, I don't see ourselves influencing the Catholic Church.
PAULUS AEMILIUS I, DUX TREBIAE
Paolo Emilio I, Caudillo of Trebia
DEUS, PATRIA, REX
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)