Episode 187 debuts on July 17, at 8:00 PM Eastern. Rebroadcasts will take place according to the Crusade Channel programming schedule (note: all times listed are Central time). The topic is Epiclesis and Filioque. Our guest is Mr. Erick Ybarra.
- Postings on the Filioque — by Erick Ybarra at erickybarra.org
- What’s the Filioque? — by Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M., at catholicism.org
- Trinitarian Processions — by Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M., at catholicism.org
- Protestantism and the Filioque, a Good Argument — by Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M., at catholicism.org
- Some Thoughts on the Epiclesis in the Divine Liturgy — by Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M., at catholicism.org
“Reconquest” is a militant, engaging, and informative Catholic radio program featuring interviews with interesting guests as well as commentary by your host. It is a radio-journalistic extension of the Crusade of Saint Benedict Center.
Each weekly, one-hour episode of Reconquest will debut RIGHT HERE on Wednesday night at 8:00 PM Eastern (7:00 PM Central). It will then be rebroadcast according to the Crusade Channel programming schedule (note: all times listed are Central time).
The link is not yet live.
Sorry about that. It’s fixed now. There is a transition to a new website for the Crusade Channel. You will notice that the link takes you to the new site.
Thank you, Brother! I’m glad you mentioned that it would be a new site, too.
Thank you, Brother! I think you hit on something interesting when you observed that both the epiclesis and Filioque issues deal with the Holy Ghost. Here are some thoughts I might develop on my own blog:
1.) In the case of both the epiclesis and the Filioque, we see one “wing” of the Church responding to local heresies by making additions to the liturgy. In the East, the Macedonian heresy prompted the local churches to institute (hah!) the epiclesis. They wanted to emphasize the participation of the Holy Spirit–truly the Third Divine Person–in the consecration of the Eucharist. The West didn’t add the epiclesis.
In the West, the Arian heresy prompted the local churches to add the Filioque to the Creed. They wanted to emphasize the participation of the Son–truly the Second Divine Person–in the procession of the Holy Ghost. The East didn’t add the Filioque.
Both times, mutual misunderstandings arose.
2.) James Likoudis, the late Catholic apologist and convert from Greek Orthodoxy, tied together the issues of the Filioque, the Papacy, and Palamism. As I understood him, Likoudis saw a common error underneath all three–a retreat from the incarnational mediation of the Son, toward a pneumatology where the spirit is almost autonomous of the Son. I’ll tease out Likoudis’ ideas a bit:
a.) Denial of the Filioque: The Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Incarnate Christ.
b.) Denial of the Papacy: The Holy Spirit animates the Church without bringing the Church under one visible head who serves as Christ’s Vicar. The Church is more “spiritual,” less “corporeal.”
c.) Palamism: During this life, mystics have immediate access to the divine energies, which is all we’ll ever achieve, even in Heaven. According to Catholic teaching, for the most part we’re limited to the Sacraments in this life, and in the next life, we’ll see the divine essence itself.
In all three, there’s an escape from a visible, incarnational order. The “autonomous Spirit” leads to autonomous local churches and autonomous navel-gazing mystics. https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1092
Thank you VERY much, Olaus, for your observations. I was looking for a connection between the two, and now I see it. I read on an Orthodox website that the Filioque detracted from the Son! I thought that the case here is actually the very opposite: to deny the Filioque is to deny something of the Son that is essential, that shows Him to be equal to the Father. I like your comment about the Incarnation. If the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father alone, and is not spirated by the Son also, then the temporal mission of the Paraclete would seem to have less to do with the incarnate economy of Christ’s Mystical Body. The denial of Christ’s Vicar makes sense in light of that, as does a certain brand of “Hesychast” mysticism.
I’ll try to give the Likoudis article a read.
Thanks again for the thoughtful comment.