[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/lit/ - Literature


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: filioquediagr.jpg (25 KB, 482x435)
25 KB
25 KB JPG
I need Orthobros to comment on this information I found regarding the Filioque (in good faith).
I know one of the main differences between the Western church and the Eastern church is the believe of the filioque. The western church believes the Holy spirit proceeds from both the Father AND the Son; whereas the Eastern Church believes the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father.
First I will start with Biblical references that seems to suggest that the Spirit does also come from the son
>Galatians 4:6 "And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the SPIRIT OF HIS SON into your hearts, which crieth, Abba, Father."
>Romans 8:9 "9 Now ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, because the spirit of God dwelleth in you: but if any man hath not the SPIRIT OF CHRIST, the same is not his."
>John 20:21-22 "Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father sent me, so send I you. And when he had said that, he breathed on them, and said unto them, Receive the holy Ghost. "
>Revelation 22:1 "And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God, and of the Lamb."

I will also reference the statements of the Early Church Fathers
>St. Athanasius, 1st letter to Serapion; "The spirit has the same relation of nature and order with respect to the son that the son has with respect to the father"
>St. Athanasius, Discourse III Against the Arians, Chap 25; "For He (the Son), as has been said gives to the Spirit, and whatever the Spirit has, He has from the Word"
>St Cyril of Alexandria, Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34; "The Holy Spirit, when he is in us, effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and the Son"
>Pope St. Leo I, Letter 15; "they (heretics) affirm that the person of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one and the same as if the same God were named now Father, now Son, and now Holy Spirit; and as if he who begot were not one, he who was begotten, another he who proceeded from both"

Again I say this all in Good faith, I am just looking for commentary from orthodox
>>
>>23478508
this shit is just bait for autistic people
all this bullshit was justification for political schism
no one actually cared, there was probably some linguistic thing where the idea translated into different languages has slightly different vibes but no one had serious disagreement
if you want a political schism you'll just pounce on some linguistic issues to justify it
all it's ever been
>>
>>23478558
Yea I agree with you to an extent. Any philosophy or theology can mince words for their POV. With that being said, however, if there are mistranslations, I would like an explanation form Orthodox on why they view it that way, where they get that stance, the real root and meaning of the word, etc ,etc
>>
File: AugustineFilioque.png (843 KB, 1246x687)
843 KB
843 KB PNG
>>23478580
Orthodox here, I don't like to comment personally on this issue as it just becomes a saint quote war as well as Bible extracts that could be interpreted one way or another. It breeds a need to be correct that distracts from the humility we aspire to as followers of Christ.

A short and simple answer is that we don't believe in the Filioque due to our belief in the Monarchy of the Father model of the Trinity, which is the context in which the Creed of Nicaea is born (Ever wonder why we say "I believe in One God the Father Almighty"?)
This is further elaborated on by the Cappadocian Fathers, whom the Orthodox place great emphasis on.

These quotes are you pointed to are usually explained by quotes similar to pic related. They are either misunderstandings or a case in which a saint may have been mistaken.
Christ and the Holy Spirit are said to be the two hands of the Father, some theologians even go so far as to say they are inseparable though distinguishable.

Here's one of many articles that hopefully can explain this point of view:
afkimel.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/the-importance-of-the-monarchy-of-the-father-according-to-john-zizioulas/
>>
>>23478638
Gosh, I got put the wrong article in twice, and I don't want to go through the embarrassment of deleting the post again.
I meant this one and the ones that follow it:
https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/st-gregory-the-theologian-and-the-one-god/
>>
This guy at my church died the other week. At the pearly gates God asked him whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father or from the Father and the Son. He answered wrong, and now he's in Hell, but he was allowed to send this message to me before he went. Be careful or you could end up like him. Repost this 5 times or you will get the question wrong.
>>
>>23478648
What did he answer???? Hello please respond
>>
>>23478508
I'm only a layman in theology, but to me, it seems like it's a three-fold problem:
>terms used to describe the Holy Trinity like person, nature/essence, extension, etc., are poorly defined and need philosophical rigor
>each person of the Holy Trinity needs to be understood uniquely and yet is understood only through verbs/properties/etc. that are virtually synonymous (generates, proceeds, etc.)
>each person of the Holy Trinity needs to be separate yet equal, to put it humorously. yet if you accept or reject filioque, you either create a binity between Father & Son vs. Holy Spirit, or you create a binity between Father vs. Son & Holy Spirit, respectively.
If you have to ask me what makes the most sense, it's the Orthodox position. Why? Because generation and procession/spiration seem mostly synonymous to me, in that they describe forms of creation. So, we have to view the Holy Trinity in terms of what is created (Son, Holy Spirit) and what is uncreated.

And since both the Son and the Holy Spirit have been there since the beginning, but the Son didn't fully realize Himself until the life and resurrection of Christ, we cannot do anything to "demote" the Holy Spirit by placing the Son on the same level as the Father or else we jeopardize the Holy Spirit's existence prior to the resurrection.

In other words, if we have to pick a binity from the two positions, it makes the most sense to pick the Orthodox's uncreated Father versus the created Son and Holy Spirit. But all this does is expose the problem of the Holy Trinity and the potentially unequal status of its members (hence the need for better clarity that I mentioned earlier).

But this binity isn't resolved by the Catholic Filioque because it creates yet another binity at the expense of making revelation and scripture make less sense. It's a superficial fix in theology that comes at the cost of other theological and religious aspects and thus is the worse solution.
>>
>>23478902
>That comes at the cost of other theological and religious aspects and thus is the worse solution.

Please explain to me how the religion of the filioquists is affected by saying the words "and the son' during the Creed.
>>
>>23478508
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
>>
>>23478508
I enjoy these topics, but there really needs to be a religion & spirituality board.
>>
>>23478990
infinity i suppose
>>
>>23478907
Did you not read the whole post? Or did you forget the middle by the time you got to the end?
>we cannot do anything to "demote" the Holy Spirit by placing the Son on the same level as the Father or else we jeopardize the Holy Spirit's existence prior to the resurrection.
>>23478990
This was never discussed by any Scholastics but was rather a boneheaded, self-refuting question asked by early moderns who couldn't think outside of material reality.
>>
>>23479078
But can there be an infinite number of separated substances, or is their number necessarily limited? And if it is limited, what is that number? Aristotle answers this in Metaphysics 12 btw.
>>
>>23479093
You didn't answer my question. No filioquist denies the Holy Spirit's existence prior to the resurrection, that has literally never been a problem for Catholics. I don't think you're really writing, you're just sort of stringing words together. And why? Because you think orthodox, with the robes and such, are "based", and you have to justify this aesthetic judgment with bogus theological quibbling.
>>
How come Eastern Catholics get to recite the Creed without the filioque?
>>
>>23479093
the pins question is a joke, it was never seriously discussed by anyone, scholar or otherwise. the point is that a lot of these theological differences are quibbling over minutia that has no bearing on your salvation.
>>
>>23478508
Ok so imagine you're like Goku or some shit, then you got the Kamehameha but you got the Kamehameha from your father Gokkun who already had it in himself and Kamehameha'd in your mom so she can birth you, then you can Kamehameha on people but he also can even though he's in the sky now, so you both have the same access to Kamehameha.
>>
>>23479111
Because Catholics recognize that it's not a real dispute. Saying filioque is true in one way, not saying it is true in another, just as the road from Athen to Thebes and the road from Thebes to Athens are one and the same road. A flilioquist who misunderstood the meaning of the filioque would be falling into heresy; same on the other side, regardless of what words you use at mass. But we keep the filioque basically because it's tradition and the see of Peter isn't going to change its practices just to satisfy jackasses like >>23479093
>>
>>23479127
What? sorry I never watched Pokemon
>>
>>23478558
>all this bullshit was justification for political schism
This
The non-Catholics basically reverted to a "national" religion each, contrary to the message of Jesus
Just look at them today, ALL orthodox countries are corrupt to the very core
>>
>>23479103
I'm neither Catholic nor Orthodox. I'm not even baptized. I like both, but both denominations have problems, so I can't tell which one to pick. I kind of lean more towards Orthodoxy but it's virtually impossible to be a practicing Orthodox Christian outside of major metropolitan areas. Catholics have better theologians most of the time, too.
>No filioquist denies the Holy Spirit's existence prior to the resurrection, that has literally never been a problem for Catholics.
I never said that filioquists deny the Holy Spirit existences. But they don't fully explain how Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor do they ever explain the difference between generation and procession without being tautological. Do you even know the circumstances by which the Filioque came to be? It was written into doctrine to fight Arianism by reinforcing the divinity of the Son. However, it came at the cost of demoting the Holy Spirit.
>I don't think you're really writing, you're just sort of stringing words together.
The irony of that, considering that I highly doubt you'll be able to clearly tell me the difference between generation and procession (or any other theological buzzword for a special kind of activity), nor are you personally doing anything other than projecting some bizarre fictional character onto me instead of reading my argument for what it is. Calm down and have a proper discussion.
>>23479122
It just sounds like the people in question struggle with abstract thinking. If you read just one Platonic dialogue, you can see how these questions cohere together if you try to explain anything beyond a surface level.
>>23479111
>>23479132
It's not a real dispute because the words being used are semantically empty, which is what I explained earlier. Persons, essences, extensions, generations, processions, spirations, etc., are all extremely vague, "vibe-y" words that are synonymous or near synonymous when they're being grouped with each other to explain differences to the point where nobody can tell what is what, who's doing what, and how it all coheres together. So, in that semantic vacuum, it becomes a canvas for anybody to project what they want into.
>But we keep the filioque basically because it's tradition
Non-Filioque is older than Filioque. Insisting on the Filioque it for any reason is needlessly and arrogantly schismatic. Especially since here you are admitting that it's a meaningless word. Well, why schism over something meaningless?
>>
>>23478558
this. its literally how many angels can dance on the pin of a needle tier
>>
>>23478558
You're not wrong and this whole debate is just a front for the real issue behind the schism, which was that the Byzantines were butthurt at the Papacy declaring the HRE as the successors of Rome over them.
>>
>>23479111
The filioque isn't "essential"; it was added to the Western Creed because of Arianism. Arianism wasn't a problem in the East.
>>
>>23479599
>this. its literally how many angels can dance on the pin of a needle tier
Not a real question. Nobody asked that question, nobody felt the need to answer that question. And the answer to that question is one, but it's so elementary and trivial that it demonstrates that the person asking the question is incapable of appreciating abstract thought of any kind.
>>
>>23479696
exactly thats what im saying, the filioque is just a meme excuse using language tricks to cope with east vs. west seething. makes things look more official and proper as a """""theologicial""""" issue when in reality it has always been administrive and political disagreements
>>
>>23479702
The Filioque touches on the nature of the Holy Trinity, which isn't clear and well-defined, so it's not a vapid question in the sense that asking about how immaterial beings would have material properties (because they by definition don't have material properties).
>>
>>23479702
Are the disagreements invalid because they are administrative and political?
The Great Schism occurred against the backdrop of the Saeculum Obscurum, the time in history when grievances concerning the corruption and abuse of the papal office were more biting than perhaps any other period. Sure, maybe excommunicating the Latins went too far, but downplaying legitimate issues with the Papacy and telling those who seek reprieve to suck it up and kiss the ring wasn't the right move either.
>>
>>23478508
Bro you literally could have simplified this by saying Christian vs Protestant beliefs. I don’t believe in Jesus Christ and feel like it’s the worship of man. I get the symbolic interpretations of what Jesus represents I however feel things get lost in translation. And people worship Jesus more rather than the creator.
>>
>>23480045
>Christian vs Protestant
Not really. Protestants hold the filioque belief as well
>>
>>23480074
Why? they should just reject it for extra Prot cred
>>
>>23479639
To be fair, that would be the equivalent of the 200 years from now Papacy declaring the Germans the Mexicans the successors to the old United States and the Independent Republic of Virginiastan, which has maintained the same constitutional framework since the time of America's founding, getting rightfully mad over it.
>>
>>23480622
I wouldn't go that far, Charlemagne was able to united Europe and Protect the Papacy. Something that the Eastern couldn't do (excluding Justinian for a brief moment)



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.