Why Does The Filioque Debate Matter?

[Anomaly]

For those who have stated that 'Truth' is and of itself is sufficient for the question and answer, I'd like to provide my 'opinion'.

If 'Truth' is the goal and summit and reason or purpose, doesn't that make 'truth' a 'God'? Yes, I realize God is 'Truth', but God is not Truth alone. God is also Love, and Creator, etc.

Even to say that God is Love and that alone is sufficient, would be wrong. Doesn't Jesus dismiss the love that is shown by saying to our brother, 'I know you are cold, go with the love of God'. That love without action or purpose in reality is meaningless, exactly the same as truth without purpose or meaining in our reality.

What is laudible about knowing the exact workings of disease if we don't work to use it for a cure? Even Nazi's sought 'Truth' when they experimented on humans. Was the knoweldge they gained good, bad, or neutral? Does the knowledge we know from some of those experiments about how the body is affected by extreme temperature evil knowledge because some scientists developed better clothing and learned how to manipulate the body by lowing the body temperature for medical proceedures?

One standard that Scripture reminds us to use when discerning the 'goodness' of something, is what are it's fruits? In that sense, I ask, what are the effects of the 'Filoque Controversy'? How has it bettered the Church and the people of God? How many people have come to know God's love? Since it is inarguably at least a partial cause of the Schism and continues to foster the Schism, what have the fruits been? Catholics well know the heirarchy of Truths. Is this a Truth that is/was so important that it need to be resolved in this decidely human fashion? Is this truth so necessary and important, equal to the truth of Jesus' Divinity, that it's okay to splinter the Church? Isn't this a classic case of straining at gnats about a nuance of Trinity Mystery and swallowing the camel of driving people away from a unified Church?

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1385142' date='Sep 13 2007, 07:03 PM']East and West.
and even protestant
Why does the issue of the filioque matter? I know that it is an issue between East and West and it is not understood by most of protestantism. But why does this matter? What is the practical gain we can have from working with this issue? What do we hope to gain in discussion? Are we trying to come to a common agreement, or just get to a point where we are talking?

Why is so much time spent discussing something that we might not have the revelation to know?[/quote]

When in doubt, G. K. Chesterton is always a good source:

"Last and most important, it is exactly this which explains
what is so inexplicable to all the modern critics of the history of
Christianity. I mean the monstrous wars about small points of theology,
the earthquakes of emotion about a gesture or a word.
It was only a matter of an inch; but an inch is everything
when you are balancing. The Church could not afford to swerve
a hair's breadth on some things if she was to continue her great and
daring experiment of the irregular equilibrium. Once let one idea
become less powerful and some other idea would become too powerful.
It was no flock of sheep the Christian shepherd was leading,
but a herd of bulls and tigers, of terrible ideals and devouring doctrines,
each one of them strong enough to turn to a false religion and
lay waste the world. Remember that the Church went in specifically
for dangerous ideas; she was a lion tamer. The idea of birth through
a Holy Spirit, of the death of a divine being, of the forgiveness of sins,
or the fulfilment of prophecies, are ideas which, any one can see,
need but a touch to turn them into something blasphemous or ferocious.
The smallest link was let drop by the artificers of the Mediterranean,
and the lion of ancestral pessimism burst his chain in the forgotten
forests of the north. Of these theological equalisations I have to
speak afterwards. Here it is enough to notice that if some small mistake
were made in doctrine, huge blunders might be made in human happiness.
A sentence phrased wrong about the nature of symbolism would have
broken all the best statues in Europe. A slip in the definitions
might stop all the dances; might wither all the Christmas trees
or break all the Easter eggs. Doctrines had to be defined within
strict limits, even in order that man might enjoy general human liberties.
The Church had to be careful, if only that the world might be careless."

Orthodoxy, Chapter 6 -- The Paradoxes of Christianity

I realy recommend reading this whole chapter, and of course, the whole book. But in that quotation, I feel, is the answer to the "Why?"

God Bless,

Philip

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Lord Philip' post='1385452' date='Sep 14 2007, 11:30 AM']When in doubt, G. K. Chesterton is always a good source:

"Last and most important, it is exactly this which explains
what is so inexplicable to all the modern critics of the history of
Christianity. I mean the monstrous wars about small points of theology,
the earthquakes of emotion about a gesture or a word.
It was only a matter of an inch; but an inch is everything
when you are balancing. The Church could not afford to swerve
a hair's breadth on some things if she was to continue her great and
daring experiment of the irregular equilibrium. Once let one idea
become less powerful and some other idea would become too powerful.
It was no flock of sheep the Christian shepherd was leading,
but a herd of bulls and tigers, of terrible ideals and devouring doctrines,
each one of them strong enough to turn to a false religion and
lay waste the world. Remember that the Church went in specifically
for dangerous ideas; she was a lion tamer. The idea of birth through
a Holy Spirit, of the death of a divine being, of the forgiveness of sins,
or the fulfilment of prophecies, are ideas which, any one can see,
need but a touch to turn them into something blasphemous or ferocious.
The smallest link was let drop by the artificers of the Mediterranean,
and the lion of ancestral pessimism burst his chain in the forgotten
forests of the north. Of these theological equalisations I have to
speak afterwards. Here it is enough to notice that if some small mistake
were made in doctrine, huge blunders might be made in human happiness.
A sentence phrased wrong about the nature of symbolism would have
broken all the best statues in Europe. A slip in the definitions
might stop all the dances; might wither all the Christmas trees
or break all the Easter eggs. Doctrines had to be defined within
strict limits, even in order that man might enjoy general human liberties.
The Church had to be careful, if only that the world might be careless."

Orthodoxy, Chapter 6 -- The Paradoxes of Christianity

I realy recommend reading this whole chapter, and of course, the whole book. But in that quotation, I feel, is the answer to the "Why?"

God Bless,

Philip[/quote]
And so, as far as understand it, the fact that both the Filioque and, indeed, the phrase "God from God" were later "unofficial" additions to the Creed speaks to the fact that what we're talking about is a "gesture or a word" that is not insignificant in terms of our understanding of the Triune God.

Edited September 14, 2007 by kenrockthefirst

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1385270' date='Sep 13 2007, 11:58 PM']Rev, I don't care what anybody else says. You're so cool. [/quote]


Thats random, but thanks. Im not one of the cool guys yet. Just a neophyte.

apothoun, Im workin on a reply to you sir.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1385332' date='Sep 14 2007, 07:37 AM']One standard that Scripture reminds us to use when discerning the 'goodness' of something, is what are it's fruits? In that sense, I ask, what are the effects of the 'Filoque Controversy'? How has it bettered the Church and the people of God? How many people have come to know God's love? Since it is inarguably at least a partial cause of the Schism and continues to foster the Schism, what have the fruits been? Catholics well know the heirarchy of Truths. Is this a Truth that is/was so important that it need to be resolved in this decidely human fashion? Is this truth so necessary and important, equal to the truth of Jesus' Divinity, that it's okay to splinter the Church? Isn't this a classic case of straining at gnats about a nuance of Trinity Mystery and swallowing the camel of driving people away from a unified Church?[/quote]

Great point. This is what I am looking for. What exactly is the "fruit" of this debate. it their reveled truth that is essential for salvation, or is it a thought exercise gone wrong? I will never believe it is right to water down dogma for unity, that is false unity. But is this an issue that we have been granted dogmatic revelation? It seems like the east (thanks todd) can provide a strong reason against it. But where is the western argument of "why" they need it?

[N/A Gone]

Apothoun, I have learned a while ago that the more I can learn from you and L_D the better I am. In this issue this is seen even more than in others. You know I have been working on this project for roughly 18 months now and am coming near the end of my paper.

In a quick nutshell, would you be ok if the Roman Church said that they will revert back to the original creed of 381 in all dogmatic teaching liturgical practices, but they will continue to allow the filioque (and its variance) as a non-heretical theological possibility. But respecting that the mystery of God's inner workings are beyond our revealed dogma. Thus the filioque is just a thought exercise.

You cite that in Eastern thought the monarchy of the father is primary. I agree here, but what exactly is heretical about saying the son “could” participate in the spirit, and the spirit “participate” in the son? I understand if you say this is not something we “can” know, but for a thought exercise could that be seen as non-heretical from the east? Father is still primary as the source and the monarchy. I think in this we do not have a confusion of persons or of who the source is either. Remembering that for us to bind this theology to our language at all, even in your points, it is limiting.

Maybe if you could explain what you see as the difference in “generation” and “procession” from the father. To a laity it would seem you are saying the same thing. Or perhaps elevating the son to a level above the Spirit.

If the filioque is offensive because it is a theology that deals with the inner-working of the divine, why does the east have any theology of the inner workings? Wouldn't the concept of generation and procession be seen as theology of the inner working? Why doesn't the eastern side simply work in the economic and leave the inner workings as a mystery? Seems like a “eat your cake-keep it” situation. Are the eastern theologians not just as guilty of working in a theological realm we might have no place in?

In reading your quote, you cite this reason as why the east must reject the filioque
1-Son as co-principle do to Ditheism if it is 2 principles, and Sabellian modalism if the son and father are 1 principle., because of the blending of principles.

Now, with objection 1. What if we modeled the filioque in a way that the Father is still the monarchy. He is the only source of “life”(my language is not near as good as yours, so please bear with me) but that the father allows the son to “assist” him with the spirit, and he allows the spirit to assist him with the son? Without writing my entire paper out to support this could you tell me if that would help? The son is not a co-principle because the “source” is the father and from the Father. And there is not a ditheism because there are not 2 separate sources. The father is the source, the Son participates with the Father. (This is all a thought exercise, not trying to impose it as revelation or dogma) When the Son participates he is not blending characteristics with the father who is the source, he is just participating.

You said that in the east it would be heretical to say the Son assists the father in the origin of the spirit because the origin is the father's alone. Not to sound like a kid, but why? How do we know that the Father in acting as a trinity allows the other members to participate in the origin of the other members? Father as source, and the other members participating in each other as we see in the economic sense? What is the revelation the east has to make this statement?

The reason I cite Goltizin is due to citing Gregory in his struggle over the same issue Mateo cited Augustine struggling with. Also, for my paper, the fact that the Gregory quote has a different taxis (father-spirit-son) is interesting as well.

If a western understanding of the filioque was developed that did not involve Modalism. Would it be cool?

You cite that the members of the trinity are only known in their energies. (economic revelation, right?) then why are we even arguing this debate? Why is this a debate when it deals with the inner workings? And this isn't just blaming the west, but also the East. The east in working the theology itself is guilty of the same thing it is accusing the west of. Making claims about the inner working of the trinity when all we have the the economic revelation.

I agree that a major step will be in working the language of the spirit's energy and procession of Origin. But (correct me if I'm wrong please) if the east is mad at the west because it invokes the economic revelation as a mirror or sight into the inner workings, what does the east use to determine its inner-working theology? If the east states that we cannot use the economic revelation to determine inner workings, on what grounds do the eastern theologians make any doctrinal statements on the inner workings?

If the filioque could be understood in a way that it does not commit the sin of Sabellian Modalism, would that be ok? Acceptable as a non-dogmatic theological option.

what about the points I address in post 10. Am I on track?

Edited September 14, 2007 by Revprodeji

[N/A Gone]

L_D,

I addressed you personally for a reason. If you would rather answer in discuss the question in email or pm I understand that but I respect and desire your insight here. You have shown numerous times in the past to be blessed with a great insight. A light that I desire to learn more from.

I am going to try and understand your statement. Remembering that in all modesty, you are light-years ahead of me in your intelligence and should be writing books and a cardinal by the age of 40 with your own show on EWTN.

By saying [quote]“Pragmatism is extremely ugly to me, especially when directed towards questions about God. “[/quote] Are you saying that the fact that we divide is wrong, ugly and the fact that it is over a question of God makes it even more wrong and ugly? Or, could you provide a different meaning for pragmatism if I am wrong? Please ignore the immaturity of this comment but could we rap this up like this

Arian---Jesus is just a person, he isn't divine

Roman---Yea he is, he even participated in the origin of the Spirit with the father

Arian---oh, ok. I will go die now

(Roman goes and tells eastern)
Roman-----look, we stopped the arians and show how the son is divine

Eastern----How did you do that?

Romans----We explained that the Son participates in the origin of the Spirit with the father

Eastern----say what?

Roman—yea, we changed the creed

Eastern-----Why didnt you ask us about that? We dont agree with you

Roman---dude, we stopped a heresy, its party time!!!

Eastern----you cant re-write the creed. You did not talk to us.


Then they break up, west grabs his records and Easter her DVD's and they never talk again. They dont sort out the mess, they dont bother with exploring the filioque rather they complain among themselves about how big of a jerk the other one is.

The west did not consult the east, thats why this issue is eccesiological as much as theological. And right now we might be buying flowers and chocolates, but we need to get to the point where we talk about the mistake we made before we can be a couple again. (making out in an eccesiological analogy seems funny- but shared communion would be cool.)

So in the same way a couple breaks up over an issue, and never resolves it. Are you citing the issue of the filioque?

You said -[quote]Truth is beautiful and does not need purpose to have value. Utility or practical applicability "for me" is hardly a foundation for meaning, values or existence.-[/quote]

You might need to baby-step this with me. I believe that there is value and beauty in seeking God and our mind will do this in theology and if the filioque is just a thought, a doctrinal option than I'm fine with it. I think binding it as a dogmatic over others is wrong because we have not been given the revelation or the consent of the East to do that. But I dont think we should avoid truth. The reason I ask for the meaning is because we have attached so much passion to this issue when in fact it does very little for any of our mutual faiths. It isn't about the knowledge, but enforcing the knowledge we have on others.

You wrote

[quote]In all seriousness I do experience nausea at the extent to which reality is judged on the basis of pragmatism in our culture. Perhaps I am somewhat classically minded in that my own bias seems to assume that knowledge which is precisely lacking in practical import is intrinsically higher than that which exists to serve some pragmatic end. Knowledge which does not depend on me or my day-to-day environment for meaning transcends, and perhaps grounds, that which is reducible to some purpose. I am speaking in absolutes (I assure you, I'm not a Sith), but this distinction applies in a general way to real life.

If you are bored I can carry on about this endlessly. My only intention here was to interject with a bit of needless but mild sarcasm. Perhaps that's just my way of indicating that I'm following the discussion but I'd prefer to sit back and watch you go at it with the other folks.[/quote]

Please continue. Right now I am not grasping this.

[N/A Gone]

I think the idea behind Chesterton's quote is good, but I do not think it can be understood in light of the filioque issue. I agree that the Church should never back down from Doctrine when faced with Heresy, but the East is not heresy. The East is not the ones who changed. We were. When you think of "the Church" remember that in Ut Unum Sint JPII said the east and the west are 2 lungs, we are the Church together.

Perspective is important in this issue.

[jeffpugh]

Well, this is a sweet thread. That's all I gotta say first of all. I'm finding some of it hard to grasp, but I share a bit of enthusiasm in the subject because it primarily has to do with unity. Plus, I like to learn stuff about the East .
[quote name='Dismas' post='1385234' date='Sep 13 2007, 10:33 PM']Well, there are a few possibilities.

First, should differences and prides be subsumed for the sake of Christ, "solving" this debate would be a means to save face for the parties involved in re-communing.

Second, should ecumenical efforts fail on the large scale, yet for reasons only known to our Lord, individual parishes or dioceses return, "solving" this debate would be seen as an argument for doing so.

Third, should even this level of ecumenism fail, the strength of argument and expression of charity may draw individuals back to an Eastern Rite or Anglican Use Rite that mirrors the given Orthodox or Protestant, yet hold fidelity to Rome.

Fourth, should even this be lacking in the Will of God, that He must join us together with a persecution in every corner of the world, that we may find some small comfort in whispering our joy of solving this matter as we hide in tomorrow's catacombs.

There is hope, though I wonder the price we must pay for our pride. I suggest we pray to Our Lady, Help of Christians, for Christian Unity.

I firmly believe that if we do not make every effort to find common cause with our separated brethren in the world now, the world shall give us one in catacombs, camps, and crematoriums.[/quote]
This is a good point. I like what you're saying at the end. Unity is a delicate, but urgent task. We could be facing chaos soon enough...

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1385270' date='Sep 13 2007, 11:58 PM']Rev, I don't care what anybody else says. You're so cool. [/quote]
Yeah. Glad to see you around again.

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1385309' date='Sep 14 2007, 02:14 AM'][...]
If you are bored I can carry on about this endlessly. My only intention here was to interject with a bit of needless but mild sarcasm. Perhaps that's just my way of indicating that I'm following the discussion but I'd prefer to sit back and watch you go at it with the other folks.[/quote]
The way I show that I'm following discussions is by making comments on small snippets of posts. Otherwise I have no other use except to say "I'm following this so I can learn something".

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1385470' date='Sep 14 2007, 01:07 PM']Thats random, but thanks. Im not one of the cool guys yet. Just a neophyte.

apothoun, Im workin on a reply to you sir.[/quote]
Well, if you're a Neophyte, then I'm pretty much a sub-neophyte Catholic. You're blowing me away here... especially after the fact that I became a Catholic about 5 years ago, and I became a serious Catholic 2 years ago. But anywho, keep up the good work. You are strong willed and very zealous. I admire that immensely.

[N/A Gone]

Careful, I might make you write a letter of recommendation for me to FUS. You guys are making me blush. I just read a ton thats all.

I have this thread up and I am "refreshing" it every 20min or so hoping L_D or Apothuon teach me more.

Ironic cause Im writing the paper as we talk/type.

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1385573' date='Sep 14 2007, 03:27 PM']I think the idea behind Chesterton's quote is good, but I do not think it can be understood in light of the filioque issue. I agree that the Church should never back down from Doctrine when faced with Heresy, but the East is not heresy. The East is not the ones who changed. We were. When you think of "the Church" remember that in Ut Unum Sint JPII said the east and the west are 2 lungs, we are the Church together.

Perspective is important in this issue.[/quote]

I agree with you the the East is not in heresy. Chesterton is not so much making out that the Church struggles with those outside itself in matters of doctrine, but that rather those inside (East and West in this case) and their battles and tremendous zeal concerning a single word should not be criticized by modern man who is trying to find fault with religion.

Chesterton states that there is a very important reason for these battles: the issue of balance. As he says, if one gives too much weight to one idea, the entire structure could topple and destroy the world.

When balancing magnificent pillars of truth it takes great care and the filioque is certainly something the consequences of which matter immensely (the nature of the Son in relation both to the Father and to the Holy Spirit). Mess this up and you end up with something just as bad as Arianism.

God bless,

Philip

[kafka]

this is an interesting discussion. I will post here maybe tommorrow or Sunday with some insights. I am going to wait since I am not familiar enough with the history of the differences between East and West.

[N/A Gone]

c'mon western catholics. How does the filioque effect you?

[Dismas]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1385726' date='Sep 14 2007, 11:14 PM']c'mon western catholics. How does the filioque effect you?[/quote]
I am no scholar. My biblical studies are shoddy and my knowledge of the Catechism is far from encyclopedic. At best, this seems closest to my understanding of performing mathematics on infinite quantities and sets. While there is purpose to it, the mind-bending nature of it is rather taxing. Even so, I have been known to reach some level of Truth through intuition based on what little I know.

Quite frankly, I know little about the situation, and far too little to be satisfied with any treatise on the Western Theological use of the Filioque.

I do know, however, that words have great meaning. Sure, a dictionary can capture much of that meaning. Even so, there are subtleties and allusions that prevent any word from truly being translated between two languages, or two cultures. This can be exacerbated by preexisting feelings of distrust and insult.

As stated, I have no formal theological training. Please bear with me, as I am forced to use mono- and disyllabic words. The Father loves His Son. The Son loves His Father. From that loves springs the person of the Spirit. Does this make God the Son in equal standing as His Father? No, and nobody here is presuming that. Does this make the Father less a source or confused as a mere mode of the Son? No. The Father is the Father.

I admit, much of this is new territory. I suppose Apotheoun can further explain his theological stance, that I may understand. Specifically, when I hear the arguments involving energy and other such, I am greatly confused. Are not all Three Persons Eternal, Perfect, and Immutable? How can energy, which is a product of time and matter be used? Even source and cause demand movement, progression, and time, which directly contradicts immutability. Principle, however, that I can understand, and that I accept.

[Dismas]

Are the only attributes involving a Person of the Trinity involve "person" and "essence"?

What if the West was inferring neither of these per se when including the Filioque?

As I have stated before, translation is not a perfect thing, and ideas get shunted, twisted, tweaked, shifted or expanded inappropriately at times to fit the words. We see that to this day when regarding why Latin Rite Catholics eat fish on Fridays, thanks to the implication of the word "carnis". What is the possibility that such is the case in this matter as well?

[Dismas]

I've done some digging. My intuition proved more correct than I had hoped. I'll give other Latin Rite brethren time to reply as well.

[kafka]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1385726' date='Sep 14 2007, 11:14 PM']c'mon western catholics. How does the filioque effect you?[/quote]

Without getting into a long post this is what it means to me:

The First Person of the Trinity does not proceed from the Second Person of the Trinity or the Third Person of the Trinity.

The Second Person of the Trinity proceeds from the First Person of the Trinity.

The Third Person of the Trinity proceeds primarily from the First Person of the Trinity and secondarily from the Second Person of the Trinity.


The Act of the Father Existing and the Act of the Son proceeding from the Father and the Act of the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son is One Divine Eternal Act.

[N/A Gone]

yup. I know some know the theology. but how does that effect you.? Is jesus less divine without the filioque? It the identity of the Son and Spirit kind of less clear without the filioque?

For lack of better terms I dont want the company line. I want to know what this does for you and why the west should keep it.

btw, Kafka, in your analogy you commited heresy. The Spirit can not proceed from two acts. That is Ditheism. Unless you are citing the father and the son as one act, but then you need to re-set your language.

[kafka]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1386012' date='Sep 15 2007, 03:32 PM']btw, Kafka, in your analogy you commited heresy. The Spirit can not proceed from two acts. That is Ditheism. Unless you are citing the father and the son as one act, but then you need to re-set your language.[/quote]

I didnt commit heresy. I just need to explain more in depth and I will later. The Spirit proceeds once yet He proceeds primarily from the Father and secondarily from the Son. He could not proceed primarily from the Son as the Son proceeds primarily from the Father, since without the Father there is no Son.

More later I dont have enough time now.

[kafka]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1386012' date='Sep 15 2007, 03:32 PM']yup. I know some know the theology. but how does that effect you.? Is jesus less divine without the filioque?[/quote]

I dont understand the question. Filioque simply means "and the Son." It is used in the Creed to profess that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. This statment doesnt make Christ less Divine. All three Persons of the Trinity share the One and same Divine Nature.