Saturday, October 16, 2010

A Sixth Century Roman Deacon on the Filioque


For the Father indeed begets, and begotten He is not; and from someone else He is not, as from Him others are; the Son truly is begotten, and nothing co-eternal does He beget ; and the Holy Spirit from the Father proceeds, and nothing co-eternal proceeds from or is begotten by Him. Some of the very ancient to these properties have also added, that just as the Spirit together with the Father does not eternally beget the Son, neither does the Spirit proceed from the Son as from the Father. To tell you the truth, that indeed the Spirit does not eternally beget the Son, this I confess ( for neither do we speak of two Fathers ); but whether He truly proceeds from the Son in the same manner as from the Father, this I haven't yet perfectly figured it out.


Rusticus, Disputation Against the Acephali, page 36 (1237).

1 comments:

maximus said...

Lvka,

Check out this PDF from the appendix of the Eastern Orthodox Bible: http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/filioque.pdf

It is one of the best articles I've ever read in reference to the Filioque. The EOB is awesome and you can also download it for free.

www.orthodoxanswers.org/eob

This is what the West used to mean by Filioque:

St. Maximus the Confessor: "For the procession they [those at Rome] brought the witness of the Latin Fathers, as well, of course, as that of St Cyril of Alexandria in his sacred study on the Gospel of St John. On this basis they showed that they themselves do not make the Son Cause (αίτία) of the Spirit. They know, indeed, that the Father is the sole cause of the Son and of the Spirit, of one by generation and of the other by procession (ἐκπόρευσις) — but they explained that the latter comes (προϊέναι) through the Son, and they showed in this way the unity and the immutability of the essence.” -Letter to Marinus

Notice the two different Greek words? Herein lies the problem of later Latin theology long seperated from the East:

"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 εκπορεύεσθαι and προείναι was not made in Latin theology, which used the same term, procedere, to denote both realities'.”

Thanks so much for all your labors...it's much appreciated!

POPULAR POSTS

TOPICS

FOLLOWERS

There was an error in this gadget

THUS SAITH THE LORD

Christian Gifts


LORD JESUS CHRIST,
SON OF GOD,
HAVE MERCY ON US,
THE SINNERS.

MONTHLY ARCHIVE

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...