Skip to comments.Filioque (before the Nicene Creed)
Posted on 02/16/2014 9:39:17 PM PST by restornu
Filioque is a theological formula of great dogmatic and historical importance. On the one hand, it expresses the Procession of the Holy Ghost from both Father and Son as one Principle; on the other, it was the occasion of the Greek schism. Both aspects of the expression need further explanation.
The dogma of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son as one Principle is directly opposed to the error that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, not from the Son. Neither dogma nor error created much difficulty during the course of the first four centuries. Macedonius and his followers, the so-called Pneumatomachi, were condemned by the local Council of Alexandria (362) and by Pope St. Damasus (378) for teaching that the Holy Ghost derives His origin from the Son alone, by creation. If the creed used by the Nestorians, which was composed probably by Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the expressions of Theodoret directed against the ninth anathema by Cyril of Alexandria, deny that the Holy Ghost derives His existence from or through the Son, they probably intend to deny only the creation of the Holy Ghost by or through the Son, inculcating at the same time His Procession from both Father and Son. At any rate, if the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was discussed at all in those earlier times, the controversy was restricted to the East and was of short duration.
The first undoubted denial of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost we find in the seventh century among the heretics of Constantinople when St. Martin I (649-655), in his synodal writing against the Monothelites, employed the expression "Filioque". Nothing is known about the further development of this controversy; it does not seem to have assumed any serious proportions, as the question was not connected with the characteristic teaching of the Monothelites.
In the Western church the first controversy concerning the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was conducted with the envoys of the Emperor Constantine Copronymus, in the Synod of Gentilly near Paris, held in the time of Pepin (767). The synodal Acts and other information do not seem to exist. At the beginning of nineth century, John, a Greek monk of the monastery of St. Sabas, charged the monks of Mt. Olivet with heresy, they had inserted the Filioque into the Creed. In the second half the same century, Photius, the successor of the unjustly deposed Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople (858), denied the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, and opposed the insertion of the Filioque into the Constantinopolitan creed. The same position was maintained towards the end of the tenth century by the Patriarchs Sisinnius and Sergius, and about the middle of the eleventh century by the Patriarch Michael Caerularius, who renewed and completed the Greek schism.
The rejection of the Filioque, or the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, and the denial of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff constitute even today the principal errors of the Greek church. While outside the Church doubt as to the double Procession of the Holy Ghost grew into open denial, inside the Church the doctrine of the Filioque was declared to be a dogma of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second council of Lyons (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438-1445). Thus the Church proposed in a clear and authoritative form the teaching of Sacred Scripture and tradition on the Procession of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity.
As to the Sacred Scripture, the inspired writers call the Holy Ghost the Spirit of the Son (Galatians 4:6), the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9), the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:19), just as they call Him the Spirit of the Father (Matthew 10:20) and the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:11). Hence they attribute to the Holy Ghost the same relation to the Son as to the Father.
Again, according to Sacred Scripture, the Son sends the Holy Ghost (Luke 24:49; John 15:26; 16:7; 20:22; Acts 2:33; Titus 3:6), just as the Father sends the Son (Romans 3:3; etc.), and as the Father sends the Holy Ghost (John 14:26).
Now the "mission" or "sending" of one Divine Person by another does not mean merely that the Person said to be sent assumes a particular character, at the suggestion of Himself in the character of Sender, as the Sabellians maintained; nor does it imply any inferiority in the Person sent, as the Arians taught; but it denotes, according to the teaching of the weightier theologians and Fathers, the Procession of the Person sent from the Person Who sends. Sacred Scripture never presents the Father as being sent by the Son, nor the Son as being sent by the Holy Ghost. The very idea of the term "mission" implies that the person sent goes forth for a certain purpose by the power of the sender, a power exerted on the person sent by way of a physical impulse, or of a command, or of prayer, or finally of production; now, Procession, the analogy of production, is the only manner admissible in God. It follows that the inspired writers present the Holy Ghost as proceeding from the Son, since they present Him as sent by the Son.
Finally, St. John (16:13-15) gives the words of Christ: "What things soever he [the Spirit] shall hear, he shall speak; ...he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine." Here a double consideration is in place. First, the Son has all things that the Father hath, so that He must resemble the Father in being the Principle from which the Holy Ghost proceeds. Secondly, the Holy Ghost shall receive "of mine" according to the words of the Son; but Procession is the only conceivable way of receiving which does not imply dependence or inferiority. In other words, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.
The teaching of Sacred Scripture on the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was faithfully preserved in Christian tradition. Even the Greek Orthodox grant that the Latin Fathers maintain the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. The great work on the Trinity by Petavius (Lib. VII, cc. iii sqq.) develops the proof of this contention at length. Here we mention only some of the later documents in which the patristic doctrine has been clearly expressed:
Some of the foregoing conciliar documents may be seen in Hefele, "Conciliengeschichte" (2d ed.), III, nn. 109, 117, 252, 411; cf. P.G. XXVIII, 1557 sqq. Bessarion, speaking in the Council of Florence, inferred the tradition of the Greek Church from the teaching of the Latin; since the Greek and Latin Fathers before the ninth century were the members of the same Church, it is antecedently improbable that the Eastern Fathers should have denied a dogma firmly maintained by the Western. Moreover, there are certain considerations which form a direct proof for the belief of the Greek Fathers in the double Procession of the Holy Ghost.
It has been seen that the Creed of Constantinople at first declared only the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father; it was directed against the followers of Macedonius who denied the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. In the East, the omission of Filioque did not lead to any misunderstanding. But conditions were different in Spain after the Goths had renounced Arianism and professed the Catholic faith in the Third Synod of Toledo, 589. It cannot be acertained who first added the Filioque to the Creed; but it appears to be certain that the Creed, with the addition of the Filioque, was first sung in the Spanish Church after the conversion of the Goths. In 796 the Patriarch of Aquileia justified and adopted the same addition at the Synod of Friaul, and in 809 the Council of Aachen appears to have approved of it.
The decrees of this last council were examined by Pope Leo III, who approved of the doctrine conveyed by the Filioque, but gave the advice to omit the expression in the Creed. The practice of adding the Filioque was retained in spite of the papal advice, and in the middle of the eleventh century it had gained a firm foothold in Rome itself. Scholars do not agree as to the exact time of its introduction into Rome, but most assign it to the reign of Benedict VIII (1014-15).
The Catholic doctrine was accepted by the Greek deputies who were present at the Second Council of Florence, in 1439, when the Creed was sung both in Greek and Latin, with the addition of the word Filioque. On each occasion it was hoped that the Patriarch of Constantinople and his subjects had abandoned the state of heresy and schism in which they had been living since the time of Photius, who about 870 found in the Filioque an excuse for throwing off all dependence on Rome. But however sincere the individual Greek bishops may have been, they failed to carry their people with them, and the breach between East and West continues to this day.
It is a matter for surprise that so abstract a subject as the doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost should have appealed to the imagination of the multitude. But their national feelings had been aroused by the desire of liberation from the rule of the ancient rival of Constantinople; the occasion of lawfully obtaining their desire appeared to present itself in the addition of Filioque to the Creed of Constantinople. Had not Rome overstepped her rights by disobeying the injunction of the Third Council, of Ephesus (431), and of the Fourth, of Chalcedon (451)?
It is true that these councils had forbidden to introduce another faith or another Creed, and had imposed the penalty of deposition on bishops and clerics, and of excommunication on monks and laymen for transgressing this law; but the councils had not forbidden to explain the same faith or to propose the same Creed in a clearer way. Besides, the conciliar decrees affected individual transgressors, as is plain from the sanction added; they did not bind the Church as a body. Finally, the Councils of Lyons and Florence did not require the Greeks to insert the Filioque into the Creed, but only to accept the Catholic doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost.
THE CATHOLIC ANSWER:
Pulling out your Catechism of the Catholic Church, you explain to Theo that the Catholic Church has always acknowledged the Creed of Constantinople I from AD 381 since Pope Leo I ratified both the Council and the Symbol (the Creed) in AD 451. The addition of the filioque is a development of the Creed that in no way denies the earlier version any more than the development and subsequent change of the Creed between Nicea I and Constantinople I represented a corruption of the Creed then. Moreover, the Catholic Church acknowledges that the Father is the first origin of the Divine Life of the Trinity. As such, the Father is "the principle without principle." We agree with the Orthodox on this point. Together with Theo, you read the CCC 245-248:
The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381): "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father." By this confession, the Church recognizes the Father as "the source and origin of the whole divinity." But the eternal origin of the Spirit is not unconnected with the Son's origin... he is not called the Spirit of the Father alone. . . but the Spirit of both the Father and the Son....
The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque.)" 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."
The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447 (Quam laudabiliter) even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy between the eighth and eleventh centuries.
At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as He "who proceeds from the Father," it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason," for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle," is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, He is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.
Filioque is the word that was inserted in the Western version of the Nicene Creed to assert the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son as well as from the Father. This was an innovation in the Western Church and done without an Ecumenical Council. It was one of the central issues in the Great Schism of 1054. It is still a difference in doctrine between the East and the West.
Why is this change so significant?
It is precisely because it changes the nature of God. It upsets the balance of the three persons of the Holy Trinity. If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son then it puts the Son in a superior position to the Holy Spirit. Traditional thought about the Trinity is that for any given trait, it must be either common to all Persons of the Trinity or unique to one of them. Thus, Fatherhood is unique to the Father, while begottenness is unique to the Son, and procession unique to the Spirit. Godhood, however, is common to all, as is eternality, uncreatedness, and so forth. Positing that something can be shared by two Persons (i.e., being the source of the Spirit's procession), but not the other, is to elevate those two Persons at the expense of the other. Thus, the balance of unity and diversity is destroyed. Many view that this change undermines the role of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Thus, with the role Spirit being denigrated, his traditional ministries are effaced or replaced. The Church's unity becomes dependent on an office, spirituality becomes adherence to the letter of the law rather than its spirit, sacraments come to be understood in terms of validity, and a spirit of legalism prevails. This is the orientation that did develop in the Western church.
Ping you know the Trinity was adjusted a few times the Nicene Creed is a product of man trying to make sense of the Godhead so a group of clergy put together their version.
It did not come from an anointed servant of the Lord such as a prophet or an apostle it was those who had no authority, maybe good intentions, and some of among them had other designs?
Sorry about that in the title before Nicene Creed it was the western who insert Filioque into the Nicene Creed in
For a Mormon to talk about Catholic adjustment of dogma is kind of like a pot calling a kettle black.
Anyhow all Christendom really needs to stop majoring in the minors, and minoring in the majors. All this folderol nearly renders Christ invisible at times.
The Holy Spirit can minister both the Son and the Father and that’s about as far as anyone but a scholar needs to go.
Thank you for your input
If one believes this version of the Godhead fine my point was there were adjustments by lay folks who had to authority just like today Obama adjusted our constitution etc to fit his agenda.
Obama does not get to do that legally, nor does a hand picked clergy get to debate over the nature of the Godhead or issue a world version of spiritual things.
I mean this in all due respect if one is honest about what is going on here.
Now if someone want to embrace this concept knowing it is was agreed upon after a debate well each has their agency to believe what they want.
Myself I prefer taking counsel from the Lord sense he is the Creator of the Godhead.
“It did not come from an anointed servant of the Lord...”
It came from the Church. The Church was founded by Christ. The Church was sent by Christ. It had all the authority it would ever need from Christ to teach the faithful - unlike a latter day sect made up by a convicted con man (soon turned polygamist) in New York in the 1820s.
I cannot begin to make heads or tails out of your sentence structure in either this or the previous post!
It came from the Church. The Church was founded by Christ. The Church was sent by Christ. It had all the authority it would ever need from Christ to teach the faithful - ....
This was not my intent
but sense you brought it up...
if this were true, the apostle Peter would have made known the nature of the Godhead!
...and ongoing dispute between the Romans Catholics and the Orthodox which started over 300 AD years later, and after the Christian wars, all through this time there were revisions made to the Trinity along the way until 1438 AD
Excerpt from- The Filioque Controversy
These formulas would probably be acceptable opinions within the realm of catholic orthodoxy, but should they be accepted in a dogmatic Creed? Most Eastern Orthodox would reject any idea of modifying the Creed of 381, sometimes for the wrong reasons1, but also for very good ones.
There are two primary reasons for which the Orthodox insist that the Creed of 381 should not be modified, and these should be carefully considered by Roman Catholics. The first one is that the Creed of Nicea- Constantinople did become the common confession of faith, so much that Pope Leo III had it engraved on two plaques on silver and mounted in Rome.
By altering the common Creed, even without evil or heretical intent, the West created what became a dogmatic difference in the very proclamation of Faith. The Arian menace was soon defeated, and the pastoral need for the filioque had disappeared long before the Great Schism.
The second reason is that the filioque addition goes beyond what was written in the Scriptures and by the honored Fathers of the Second Council.
There can be no doubt that the Spirit proceeds from the Father as is taught by our Lord in John 15:26, but this is as far as the Scriptures will go.
Thomas Valentine (EO) offers a reflection worthy of consideration: Unless one asserts that either the Lord Jesus Christ spoke a superfluous repetition or that Saint John distorted the Lords words and created a superfluous repetition, it is not possible to claim, as have some supporters of the Filioque, that has the same meaning as . Not only are the words etymologically different with distinct meanings, but the phrase who from the Father proceeds uses in the present tense indicating the proceeding of the Holy Spirit is not a future event, but a present reality having begun in the past and still in progress.
Moreover, the fact that Saint John only uses one other time (5:9) should make the reader-interpeter aware that Saint John may be indicating something special or unusual.
The combination of these facts makes clear that the proceeding of the Holy Spirit is something quite different than the sending of the Holy Spirit. Most English translations of the Holy Scriptures make the distinction between the Sons promise that he will send the Holy Spirit from the Father and that the Holy Spirit is proceeding from the Father quite clear. The notable exception is the Vatican-approved New American Bible which badly distorts the passage.
1 A wrong reason would be to invoke canon 7 of Ephesus, as Mark Bonocore demonstrates in his previously cited article.
King James Version
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
New American Standard
When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me
New International Version
When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.
Youngs Literal Translation
And when the Comforter may come, whom I will send to you from the Father the Spirit of truth, who from the Father doth come forth, he will testify of me
New Jerusalem Bible
When the Paraclete comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who issues from the Father, he will be my witness.
New American Bible
When the Paraclete comes, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father and whom I myself will send from the Father he will bear witness on my behalf. Hence, the reason of the Orthodox insistence that the filioque be removed from the Creed is in fact to foster ecclesial unity and to uphold of Scriptural terminology of the Ecumenical text. 5. Revisionist theology?
There is another valid reason for which Orthodox are loath to concede to an acceptable (or even positive) interpretation of the filioque, and that reason is the great difficulty in reconciling Romes insistence that [the HIS BROKEN BODY 334 Father] is the sole origin (arche, aitia) of the ekporevsis of the Spirit with the constant affirmation that the Spirit proceeds by a communication of the same singular essence by one eternal spiration from the Father and the Son as from one principle. Even though the Vulgate translated ekporevomenon by procedit, the official Clarification explains that in these affirmations, procedit does not means ekporevsis but proienai, so that something different than causal origination is being discussed.
This is a very subtle nuance, often lost on the masses, as we can imagine. The consistent wording of Latin theology is as follows: The Father is from no one; the Son is from the Father only; and the Holy Spirit is from both the Father and the Son equally. The 4th Lateran Council, 1215, A definition against the Albigenses and other heretics [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 2nd Council of Lyons, 1274, Constitution on the Procession of the Holy Spirit The Father is not begotten; the Son is begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Council of Florence, 1438- 45, Decree for the Jacobites
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. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 246 The confusing and objectionable aspect of these dogmatic statements is that the Monarchy of the Father as sole origin (arche, aitia) of the Son and Spirit is never mentioned. Roman Catholic theologians assure us that there is a good reason for this: what is being discussed in those documents is not ultimate causality (since the issue is settled), it is the collective or shared dimension of the Spirits origin.
As St. Maximos explained, the orthodox filioque is not about the ekporevsis but the proienai. The Eastern Orthodox concern, as we have seen in John Zizioulas, is that the distinction between and was not made in Latin theology, which used the same term, procedere, to denote both realities.
This is obvious in popular Roman Catholic defenses of the filioque, where the strong affirmation of the unique causality of the Father is absent and where no mention is made of the difference between and
A typical example is the Catholic Answers tract on the filioque: THEOLOGY 335 Scripture reveals that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The external relationships of the persons of the Trinity mirror their internal relationships. Just as the Father externally sent the Son into the world in time, the Son internally proceeds from the Father in the Trinity.
Just as the Spirit is externally sent into the world by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, Acts 2:33), he internally proceeds from both Father and Son in the Trinity. This is why the Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6) and not just the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20).
With such a presentation, it not surprising that the Orthodox reject that version of filioque as confusing and heretical. On the other hand, the recent high-level clarifications are useful and constructive. The Orthodox impression is that historically, principle (principium) was presented as equivalent to aitia, and proceed (procedit) equivalent to ekporevsis. This seems to have been the intent of the council of Florence, where the Greeks were asked to recognize the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son as from one principium (arche) and from one cause (aitia).1 As a result, the Latin insistence on the filioque, affirming both the single cause and the common or collective cause seemed somewhat schizophrenic. It can certainly be admitted that Photios simple pyramid scheme, which admittedly seems to ignore the unity of Father and Son in the Spirit, did not lead to such acrobatics of theologial nuancing.
6. But what are we talking about? At this point in our study, if the reader has not yet decided to give up on understanding this controversy altogether, we can offer Jaroslav Pelikans witty ponderings: If there is a special circle of the inferno described by Dante reserved for historians of theology, the principal homework assigned to that subdivision of hell for at least the first several eons of eternity may well be the thorough study of all the treatises--in Latin, Greek, Church Slavonic, and various modern languages--devoted to the inquiry: Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father only, as Eastern Christendom contends, or from both the Father and the Son (ex Patre Filioque), as the Latin Church teaches? Perhaps one reason for the mystery and abstract complexity of this issue is that few people understand what (or better who) the Holy Spirit is all about. In the Book of Acts, we read: 1 CE, Entry: Council of Florence HIS BROKEN BODY 336 Paul said to them, Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed? And they replied, No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit! And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began to speak with tongues and to prophesy.
1 Todays problem is not that Christians do not know that there is a Holy Spirit, the problem is that few would be able to explain who the Spirit is and what he accomplishes. Indeed, very few theologians or apologists who discuss the issue of the filioque engage the question of what we mean by Father, Son and Holy Spirit. St. Augustine (whose work in progress De Trinitate was published against his will) was among those who, for better or worse, attempted to understand the trinitarian mystery of the Godhead with imaginative and controversial analogies. I would like to suggest, carefully and without any doctrinal claim, that the scriptural descriptions of the Holy Spirit points to the following definition: The Holy Spirit is the divine-uncreated, hypostasis, power2 and mind that manifests what is true and existing. This definition makes sense when we consider the role of the Holy Spirit at the Lords baptism, the epiclesis of St. Basil and the fact that no one can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.
3 Hence, the Spirit of Truth is the revealer of what is true, the One who knows the deep things of God.
4 The relationship of the Spirit with God (or the Father, in an absolute sense) and the Word seems clear: the Father is the primordial and causal mind with the purpose and identity of love and communion.
The Word or Son is the expression, the self-aware agent that executes and communicates the Fathers transcendent mind. This is the theology of the New Testament: In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made time and space. The Son is the radiance of Gods glory and the exact representation of his person, sustaining all things by his powerful word.
5 1 Acts 19:2, 6 2 This is the dynamic and kenotic aspect to the Spirit in the sense that His mission is not to impose His hypostasis but to reveal and glorify what He indwells. See Zechariah 4:14 NJB (Not by might and not by power, but by my spirit' -- says Yahweh Sabaoth) 3 1 Corinthians 12:3
4 1 Corinthians 2:10
5 Hebrew 1:1-3 THEOLOGY 337
This is why the Orthodox and patristic tradition insists, as Fr. Romanides often repeats, that the Angel-Messenger of YHWH is the preincarnate Logos.
The incarnate Word is the spoken mind of the Father who is love and who calls us to communion. But the Word is revealed to other minds as such (Lord and Savior) only by the work of the Holy Spirit.
In summary, the Trinity expresses the idea of message, messenger and revealer, or mind, word and meaning. Within this framework, we can say that the meaning proceeds from the mind and rests in the word, but the meaning truly originates from the mind, and does not depend on the word. Yet, the meaning proceeds from the mind through the word. Even more importantly, this approach does not subordinate the meaning to the word and allows for the symmetry that is often lacking in Western theology: the word also proceeds from the mind according to the meaning1.
The Word and Spirit are intertwined and complementary in their ontology and economy: the Spirit manifested the anointed Word and likewise the Word pours out the Spirit.
This is why the Eastern tradition insists on the invocation of the Holy Spirit after the words of institution are recited. The supremacy of the conscious Father- Mind is thus established, as well as the co-inherence or mutual indwelling (perichoresis) of the Word and Spirit.
Hence, meaning proceeds (ontologically) from the mind only, independently of the word; this is the Photian intuition. Moreover, meaning proceeds from the mind to rest in the word and through the word. If there is a certain collective origination of the meaning from the mind and word, isnt there also a collective origination of the word from the mind and meaning? This is what the idea of perichoresis suggests.
We should also consider the implications of the gift of tongues on the relationship between meaning and word, spirit and mind. Augustines presentation of the Spirit as bond of love between Father and Son was expressed in his Father-Mother-Child analogy, which was used to defend the idea of a principal cause (Father) and a collective origination for the Child-Spirit. Of course, this very problematic analogy would need to be balanced with the more Biblical one: Spirit (ruah) is feminine in Hebrew2 1 This is a very Semitic concept.
2 Likewise, sophia is feminine is Greek, and we notice that Irenaeus for instance talked about the Word (Son) and Wisdom (Spirit) of God.
In the New Testament, the Wisdom of God is normally associated with Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 1:24). This theme of a feminine Spirit has been developed and popularized in Roman Catholic circles by Scott Hahn.
See also Acts of Thomas in ANF and the Child would seem to be Jesus, not the Spirit1. In summary, we have to be extremely careful with any terminology or imagery that does not faithfully echo the biblical and patristic presentation. There is also a subtle distinction that - God is merciful! - can only be a daring opinion: if the Spirit manifests God to other minds (us), does He also manifest God to God Himself in a reflexive way? If so, the economy of God to our minds would be analogous to the ontology of God to his own mind, a theologoumenon that cannot be dogmatized in any way.
7. The fear of Arianism Before reaching a conclusion and summary, I would like to mention that the shadow of Arianism and the fear thereof - may be more of a factor than we realize. For whatever reason, what we call the Western tradition has tended to theologize on the opposite extreme of Arianism. As we have mentioned, the early tendencies of the Roman Church were on the Modalistic side, and it is in Reformed / Protestant Western Christianity that we find such aberrations as Oneness theology and the triple autotheos of John Calvin.
It is revealing that the issue of Arianism is addressed several times in Mark Bonocores extensive Response to Eastern Orthodox Objections. At one point, the Roman Catholic apologist writes: [The filioque] was included in the Creed by the Western fathers at Toledo in order to counter the claims of the 6th Century Spanish (Germanic) Arians. These Arians were of course denying this essential and orthodox truth that is, the Sons eternal participation in the Spirits procession.
But Arianism2 had nothing to do with the question of the Spirits procession: the only truth debated with the Arians was the uncreated nature and eternality of the Logos. What Bonocore calls an essential and orthodox truth so dear to the West is in fact a complex and delicate subject of discussion. His Response continues:
It is of course quite disturbing (from the Western perspective) that modern Eastern Orthodox (i.e., Photian) theology comes very close to advocating this same Arian view by refusing to incorporate the Sons participation in the Spirits eternal procession in any way.
1 See, for instance, the last prayer of St. Polycarp: O Lord God Almighty, Father of thy beloved and blessed Child, Jesus Christ, through Whom we have received full knowledge of thee 2 At least in the East. It is possible that the Spanish Arians emphasized other aspects of the Sons non-eternality.
I cannot begin to make heads or tails out of your sentence structure in either this or the previous post!
Being hostile is not answer when one disagrees...
Correction- there was a mistake in the title
Which should have read “Before” not after the Nicene Creed.
Excuse me again I met to say after not before the Nicene Creed there is an error in the Title of the thread.
Because the insertion of Filioque into the Nicene Creed 325AD had to take place afterwards as well a other revisions until 1438 AD
Not sure it’s fair to call God his own Creator, that’s really getting out there on an academic limb with endless conundrums, but He certainly does get to be what He is. And when it’s possible to avail ourselves of His promises in order to be blessed... well, this academic stuff is like doing everything with an infinite bank account except actually draw out money. God’s chief fame is in His blessings.
“if this were true, the apostle Peter would have made known the nature of the Godhead!”
Prove he didn’t. Oh, you can’t. When your heretical sect was founded by the polygamist conman Joseph Smith it originally believed some things about the Trinity that he later changed:
What exactly is this "counsel from the Lord" you are referring to? Where does it come from?
IMO, taking on the meaning of the "Godhead" as a mormon who believes in multiple "gods" is a ridiculous errand.
Also,your post #2,
"you know the Trinity was adjusted a few times the Nicene Creed is a product of man trying to make sense of the Godhead so a group of clergy put together their version."
It did not come from an anointed servant of the Lord such as a prophet or an apostle it was those who had no authority, maybe good intentions, and some of among them had other designs?
You seem to posit that the "product of man" by Joseph Smith is held out to be superior to "a group of clergy putting together their version".
In addition, in post #2 the statement of "an anointed servant of the Lord such as a prophet or an apostle" is mormon-speak, for in mormon doctrine, such "anointment of the Lord" is only given to mormons.
IMO, this ridiculous argument from a mormon point of view is totally lacking in "discernment" and a common mormon attempt to disavow the Trinity.
The original topic of this thread is about gossip and IMO not a place to proselytize for mormonism nor to bad mouth the Trinity.
Question? Did you actually read what you posted?
Resty as you know the Trinity is mentioned in the Bible..
God the Father is the First Person of the Trinity
God the Son, the Word, the LORD Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Trinity..
God the Holy Ghost, the Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Trinity..
no man could have dreamed the Trinity up...
after all no Mormon leader has ever been able to explain the Trinity of God...
that’s why Mormons have denied God from Joey Smith on down...
he is the Creator of the Godhead.
No Resty He is God...
God was not created..
He has always been
The LORD Jesus Christ is God and He is the Creator..
You know that if you read their stuff, the Spirit of Apostasy will be nagging at your heels; don't you?
The Articles of Faith outline 13 basic points of belief of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The Prophet Joseph Smith first wrote them in a letter to John Wentworth, a newspaper editor,
in response to Mr. Wentworth's request to know what members of the Church believed.
They were subsequently published in Church periodicals.
They are now regarded as scripture and included in the Pearl of Great Price.
THE ARTICLES OF FAITH
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
History of the Church, Vol. 4, pp. 535541
You going into politics???