The Filioque Clause

[MoreCoffee]

"who proceeds from the Father and the Son"

So what's the alleged heresy?

 

[Pedrito]

Post #60:

If you favor the filioque clause, join a church that uses it. If you disapprove, join one that doesn't.

Unfortunately, the general Protestant arena within Christendom is pervaded by that style of thinking.

It can be fairly and accurately stated as:

"God's truth is unimportant. Pick a church that teaches what you want to hear, one where you think you'll feel warm and cosy. Go there."


And all the time, God is watching.

"...wood, hay, stubble..." 1 Corinthians 3:11-15

 

[Imalive]

What on earth is a filoque clause?
https://www.google.nl/amp/s/www.gotquestions.org/amp/filioque-clause-controversy.html
Huh? One text says from the Father. Other text says from the Son but hey that could also be theFather speaking in Jesus, cause Jesus only said what the Father said. Anyways.. who cares? My goodness.
Divisions in the church over the unity of God.
That they be one like We are one, then the world will know that You sent Me.

 

[MoreCoffee]

What on earth is a filoque clause?
https://www.google.nl/amp/s/www.gotquestions.org/amp/filioque-clause-controversy.html
Huh? One text says from the Father. Other text says from the Son but hey that could also be theFather speaking in Jesus, cause Jesus only said what the Father said. Anyways.. who cares? My goodness.
Divisions in the church over the unity of God.
That they be one like We are one, then the world will know that You sent Me.

filiqoue is Latin and it means "and the Son"

 

[Pedrito]

Post #61:

"who proceeds from the Father and the Son"

So what's the alleged heresy?

Once again, we can say (as was said of Post #55 by the same author):

Totally ignored was the clarification by the 1995 Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU), that means the Filioque Clause is actually heretical when expressed in English, the language commonly used in these CH forums.

==============================================================================================

One can assume that that Pontifical Council spoke with a degree of authority. The Council thought it was confining itself to linguistic principles pertaining to Latin and Ancient Greek. However, the linguistic principles it defined apply to all human languages.

"Who proceeds from the Father and the Son" was declared heretical in Greek because it denoted dual origin. A particular quirk of the Latin language, enables that label of heresy to be circumvented in Latin.

"Who proceeds from the Father and the Son" denotes dual orign in English, just like it does in Ancient Greek. Therefore "who proceeds from the Father and the Son" is a heretical expression in English – according to that 1995 Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU).

"Who proceeds from the Father and the Son" is a statement of heresy in other languages as well.

==============================================================================================

But why don’t we just ignore the findings of that Council – sweep them under the carpet – or maybe explain them away – just like any inconsistent (conflicting) proclamations made by other Church Councils?

We mustn’t let truths interfere with what we want to believe, must we?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Post #61:

Once again, we can say (as was said of Post #55 by the same author):

Totally ignored was the clarification by the 1995 Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU), that means the Filioque Clause is actually heretical when expressed in English, the language commonly used in these CH forums.

...

So what is the alleged heresy in English. In Latin it is not heretical. In English the clause says "who proceedeth from the Father and the Son" where is the heresy?

In 1995, the PCPCU pointed out an important difference in meaning between the Greek verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι and the Latin verb procedere, both of which are commonly translated as "proceed". It stated that the Greek verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι indicates that the Spirit "takes his origin from the Father ... in a principal, proper and immediate manner", while the Latin verb, which corresponds rather to the verb προϊέναι in Greek, can be applied to proceeding even from a mediate channel. Therefore, ἐκπορευόμενον ("who proceeds"), used in the NCC to signify the proceeding of the Holy Spirit, cannot be appropriately used in the Greek language with regard to the Son, but only with regard to the Father, a difficulty that does not exist in Latin and other languages.​

( see http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM)

 

[Pedrito]

Wow!

Remember Pedrito's previous warnings in various places to be on the look out for underhanded techniques?

And that the use of those techniques actually proves the very opposite of what those techniques are promoting or defending?

Well, a noteworthy example has been presented in this thread.

==============================================================================================

The technique used here is to repeatedly ignore telling evidence that has been presented, and pretend that no destructive evidence of any note has been presented. This stonewalling technique is not only diversionary, but also intimidatory – it is designed to demoralise the person bringing that evidence to light.

It is commonly used by large companies when malpractices they have been indulging in, are unveiled.

In this thread, the technique is being used to defend a psychologically and organisationally important later addition to the Nicene Creed. The addition must be defended to the hilt, otherwise many churches will have to admit they have been teaching heresy. And that situation cannot be permitted.

The tchnique is evidenced by the repeated asking of questions like: "where is the heresy?".

==============================================================================================

Once again, whenever a technique such as this is observed, a reader (or hearer) knows beyond doubt that the perpetrator is defending a personally important belief against evidence that they find irrefutable.

Readers who have been contributors and visitors to this forum for some time, may remember seeing this mechanism (which Pedrito believes can only be described as underhanded and disrespectful of the God of Truth), being used before.

God, being the all-knowing God, would not have inspired the development of, or inclusion of, any creedal clause that is heretical in any human language.

==============================================================================================

The Filioque Clause shows itself to be heretical.

As pointed out by the employer of that technique: 'In English the clause says "who proceedeth from the Father and the Son"’ – i.e. two stated direct sources, the very condition that the 1995 Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU) stated made the Greek version heretical.

He then directly followed that heretical statement with another instance of a “where is the heresy?” statement.

==============================================================================================

In closing, perhaps we should thank the Poster of Posts #61 and #66 (and other Posts) for demonstrating so clearly for us that he actually finds the evidence (showing that the Filioque clause is most definitely heretical), to be so conclusive.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Pedrito, the document you cited says

In 1995, the PCPCU pointed out an important difference in meaning between the Greek verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι and the Latin verb procedere, both of which are commonly translated as "proceed". It stated that the Greek verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι indicates that the Spirit "takes his origin from the Father ... in a principal, proper and immediate manner", while the Latin verb, which corresponds rather to the verb προϊέναι in Greek, can be applied to proceeding even from a mediate channel. Therefore, ἐκπορευόμενον ("who proceeds"), used in the NCC to signify the proceeding of the Holy Spirit, cannot be appropriately used in the Greek language with regard to the Son, but only with regard to the Father, a difficulty that does not exist in Latin and other languages.​

The alleged heresy exists in Greek not in Latin and I contend not in English either.

 

[Imalive]

The heresy is that it's Santa Claus, not filoque clause. That's his brother.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The heresy is that it's Santa Claus, not filoque clause. That's his brother.

:smirk:

 

[user1234]

The heresy is that it's Santa Claus, not filoque clause. That's his brother.

Contained within many contracts is a section known as the Sanity Clause.

Since the only ppl on this site who know what they're talking about are all nuts,
this contract is presumed null and void.

Hopefully this will become more confusing as the holidays approach.

Less.

Besides which, as Ima so astutely pointed out...
Everybody knows, there AIN'T no Sanity Claus! :spinningsmilie:

Jingle Bells :santas:Jingle Bells

 

[Albion]

Post #60:


Unfortunately, the general Protestant arena within Christendom is pervaded by that style of thinking.

It can be fairly and accurately stated as:

"God's truth is unimportant. Pick a church that teaches what you want to hear, one where you think you'll feel warm and cosy. Go there."

I wholeheartedly disagree with such a cynical view of the matter and saying that it can be "fairly and honestly" described as you did.

There are churches which take one view of the matter and there are also churches which take the other view. As a result, there is a church for everyone who sincerely holds one or the other POV. There is no reason, therefore, to argue the point as though 'all is lost' or that there is no recourse for the person who holds either view. And in no case, does the issue amount to "God's truth is unimportant. Pick a church that teaches what you want to hear...." There are good theological reasons for wanting the suppression...or OTOH the continued use...of the Filioque clause.

.

 

[Pedrito]

Post #72:

I wholeheartedly disagree with such a cynical view of the matter and saying that it can be "fairly and honestly" described as you did.

There are churches which take one view of the matter and there are also churches which take the other view. As a result, there is a church for everyone who sincerely holds one or the other POV. There is no reason, therefore, to argue the point as though 'all is lost' or that there is no recourse for the person who holds either view. And in no case, does the issue amount to "God's truth is unimportant. Pick a church that teaches what you want to hear...." There are good theological reasons for wanting the suppression...or OTOH the continued use...of the Filioque clause.

Let's have a closer look.

==============================================================================================

“There are churches which take one view of the matter and there are also churches which take the other view. As a result, there is a church for everyone who sincerely holds one or the other POV.”

One human view versus another human view. Obviously God did not clearly reveal His absolute truth to us in His Holy Written Revelation. What an oversight to accuse Him of.


Continued...

 

[Pedrito]

...Continued

From Post #72, continued:

“There is no reason, therefore, to argue the point as though 'all is lost' or that there is no recourse for the person who holds either view.”

The matter is simple.

If the Filioque clause is God's Truth, then those who oppose it are opposing God. If it is not God's Truth, then those who hold and propagate that belief are opposing God.

It is not a light matter to oppose God. That is probably an understatement. And teaching false doctrine fits the definition of heresy, does it not?

Besides, Pedrito did not comment on the fate of people committing heresy. The author of Post #72 took it upon himself to do that.

==============================================================================================

“And in no case, does the issue amount to "God's truth is unimportant. Pick a church that teaches what you want to hear...."”

That’s exactly what it amounts to. And not just regarding the current topic.

Otherwise, people would seek out God’s truth as He revealed it – as He revealed it in His Integrated Revelation to us (the Bible) – and as it was later progressively modified by those of the church councils that were demonstrably controlled by the Holy Spirit.

We would then not have the plethora of conflicting churches and doctrines that we are currently “blessed” with.

That seeking out (if undertaken honestly) would lead to true unity of belief and practice.

==============================================================================================

“There are good theological reasons for wanting the suppression...or OTOH the continued use...of the Filioque clause”

Once again it is a matter of one human view versus another human view. Therefore, God obviously did not clearly reveal His absolute truth to us in His Holy Written Revelation. Oh my! What an oversight to accuse God of!


It is theological reasoning that has led to the deplorable multiplicity of churches we are stuck with today, all claiming to represent God and His Truth.

Could that confusion really have originated from God? Or could its origin [i[]actually[/i] have been from the Evil One?

 

[Albion]

really[/i] have originated from God? Or could its origin [i[]actually[/i] have been from the Evil One?[/color]

Nether. It's simply in the nature of humans to be inquisitive and intellectually striving. Therefore, disagreements arise. Call it our lack of perfect wisdom, if you wish, or the consequence of sin, but it's not planned by God and not likely to be a particular strategy of Satan.

 

[kiwimac]

The filioque is largely not used in Old Catholic churches and has become optional recently in Anglican / Episcopal ones as well.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The filioque is largely not used in Old Catholic churches and has become optional recently in Anglican / Episcopal ones as well.

It is still present in Catholic English-language missals.

 

[atpollard]

“There are churches which take one view of the matter and there are also churches which take the other view. As a result, there is a church for everyone who sincerely holds one or the other POV.”

One human view versus another human view. Obviously God did not clearly reveal His absolute truth to us in His Holy Written Revelation. What an oversight to accuse Him of.

Romans 14:5-6 NASB One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.

 

[kiwimac]

We do not have to re-fight the filioque here on the board. It comes from a time when there was no completely united church and thus it is not a foundational statement rather it reflects the time and the politics of the societies in which it was formed and rejected. Really it is time for Christians to grow up and leave this kind of squabble behind. Recite it or not as your conscience takes you and leave to your fellow Christians the same freedom.

 

[Albion]

Your comment makes me think that (for example) the whole of the Lord's Prayer can be revised, as it was by the New Zealand church, making God our Father and our Mother--and much more besides that--and the response of most of the religious world is, well, modern language is a good thing.

But one word in the Creed that turns on a rather fine point and has been around for over a thousand years...is supposed to be a first rate controversy we have to face up to?? It seems like something is out of whack.