Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Agrarian; Kolokotronis; kosta50
You need to read the Filioque article in its entirety, the link to which I already posted here. It has a Nihil Obstat imprimatur.

Filioque

I was wrong in one thing. Catholicism does teach that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son both externally (in the economy of salvation) and internally (in the Trinity):

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).
It also teaches that everything the Son has is from the Father, hence both "and from the Son" and "through the Son" mean the same thing.

But you will not see a rejection of the Ghost proceeding from the Son. Both formulas are valid.

Perhaps I should post the Filioque article separately, because this is a theological topic wholly separate from the issue of the appropriatemness and desirability of the Papal visit to Moscow.

82 posted on 04/05/2005 12:28:12 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies ]


To: annalex
Thank you for posting this. This is certainly what I have understood Catholic teaching to be, and it differs from Orthodox teaching.

What do you mean, BTW, by "both formulas are valid?" Where is there a Catholic formulation that is the same as the Orthodox understanding? And how could it be just as valid as an interpretation that is completely different? Or do you mean something else by that?

My objection to the Catholic lines of discussion on this point is that the claim is often made that "we mean the same thing." I just don't see that.

A similar claim is that "both interpretations are equally valid." In some points of theology this could certainly be true, but not in this one.

A final approach is the proposition that "well, we'll just take the filioque out to please the Orthodox but we won't reject the theological truthfulness of the filioque." This seems disingenuous.

When all the talking is done, this seems to be one where we have to agree to disagree, and understand that this is a key theological point that will keep us apart. There are other things for us to talk about in the meantime.

83 posted on 04/05/2005 1:29:08 PM PDT by Agrarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson