www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Filioque clarification

Christteen, good answer!

One can even go so far as to say boths sides are right but both sides are wrong.

The original Greek form highlights the origin of the Spirit but ignores the activity of the Word in the sending of the Spirit. (I don't even like the formulation of "through the Son" as it implies that the Son is a passive conduit in the sending).

There is an additional potential error within the Greek formulation that I don't think the Fathers ever considered but became apparent after or about the time of Augustine. Why did the Father have to send the Spirit? Why not send the Son only as his communication to the World (after all, it was previously suggested that all members of the Trinity have Love as a common aspect?) What is unique about the Spirit's sending and what does this tell us about the Trinity? In other words, if the Son processes why did the Spirit have to? And what is unique about this procession?

The Latin form highlights the active role of the Son in the sending and, more importantly, proclaims the divinity of the Son, but assumes the Origin from the Father and thus also the equal divinity of the Spirit.

Perhaps the most correct formulation would be:

"...who originates from the Father and proceeds (or spirates) from the Father and the Son."

Vatican III anyone?

John

P.S. This is why the only correct position is the Eastern Catholic one since we embrace both sides of the issue.

"This is why the only correct position is the Eastern Catholic one since we embrace both sides of the issue. "

Amen !!!

+ Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner. Amen!

Dear Petrus,

Certainly, the Most Holy Mother of God is truly the Temple of the Holy Spirit, the Daughter of the Father, the Mother of the Son and the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.

To be in union with Her is to find the most sure and easy way to union with Her Son and the Holy Trinity.

The Spirit makes His abode in Her and, through Her and Her Son, in us. All this is contained in Eastern Orthodox theology and liturgy as well.

But the original point here is about the Filioque and so my original points stand.

Thank you for so beautiful a discourse, however.

Alex

Dear Petrus,

You raise a good point, but I think it speaks to the NT primarily, during which the Son ascends and the Spirit is poured out. Our Creed attempts to encapsulate belief over both OT and NT. In the OT, for example in Proverbs, wherever we find the Word acting we also find the Spirit blowing. They are seen working together in parallel. This is probably another reason why the fathers used the Nicene formulation as normative.

Learning from this exceptional discussion!

In Christ,

Has anyone done any research on Pope Leo I's teaching on the filioque?

The Catholic Catechism (section 247) notes that he had already confessed the filioque dogmatically in 447, (Quam laudabiliter (447): DS 284).

I would be very interested to see Eastern commentaries on this.

+ Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us - Amen!

Dear Administrator,

Bl. Seraphim Rose reviewed this and other instances of the use of the "Filioque" in the West prior to the "Troubles" in the ninth century.

He, and others, conclude that the teaching bore the stamp of the Economic Trinity, not the inner life of the Trinity.

In fact, "Filioque" is frquently used by Western Fathers considered Orthodox Saints by the East to this day in this connection - and the Orthodox theologians speaking with RC's on the matter admit that there is an "Orthodox Filioque" as long as it is applied to the Economic Trinity i.e. the sending of the Spirit into the world.

Later RC theologians surmised that if the Son has influence over the Spirit in temporal terms (ie. sending of the Spirit into the world) then this also reflects what happens in the Inner Life of the Trinity in terms of the Divine Relations.

That is what Orthodoxy disputes as being a rationalistic explanation for what cannot be known from the Fathers or the Scriptures.

Interestingly enough, Orthodoxy has never condemned the RC Filioque as heretical insofar as a private theological opinion is concerned, but only insofar as it is a docrine that Rome seeks to impose on the entire Church.

But this fact alone surely must mean that Orthodoxy doesn't see anything formally heretical in the Filioque per se.

For example, an Orthodox Christian could not hold Arianism or Nestorianism as "private opinions" without, at the same time, being deemed heretical and excommunicated from the Church.

Interestingly as well, the West has never formally defined the Filioque, even though Popes have used this expression.

The same is true for the Augustinian "stain of Original Sin." So a Catholic need not believe with divine faith in the Filioque or Augustine's view of Original Sin - and of course Orthodox in communion with Rome don't, to be true to their Particular theological traditions.

The Immaculate Conception thread here has highlighted yet another interesting point about RC theological history - doctrines can be made binding on Particular Churches and even geographical regions, without yet being binding on the entire Church.

So the empires of Portugal and Spain insisted that their subject Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception as an article of faith when Catholics elsewhere could not.

This fact alone is important in affirming and asserting the Particular theologies of the various Eastern Catholic Churches that could be at variance with RC theological a prioris, but are perfectly valid from a Catholic point of view nevertheless.

Have a great day!

Alex

+ Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us - Amen!

Dear Administrator,

Bl. Seraphim Rose reviewed this and other instances of the use of the "Filioque" in the West prior to the "Troubles" in the ninth century.

He, and others, conclude that the teaching bore the stamp of the Economic Trinity, not the inner life of the Trinity.

In fact, "Filioque" is frquently used by Western Fathers considered Orthodox Saints by the East to this day in this connection - and the Orthodox theologians speaking with RC's on the matter admit that there is an "Orthodox Filioque" as long as it is applied to the Economic Trinity i.e. the sending of the Spirit into the world.

Later RC theologians surmised that if the Son has influence over the Spirit in temporal terms (ie. sending of the Spirit into the world) then this also reflects what happens in the Inner Life of the Trinity in terms of the Divine Relations.

That is what Orthodoxy disputes as being a rationalistic explanation for what cannot be known from the Fathers or the Scriptures.

Interestingly enough, Orthodoxy has never condemned the RC Filioque as heretical insofar as a private theological opinion is concerned, but only insofar as it is a docrine that Rome seeks to impose on the entire Church.

But this fact alone surely must mean that Orthodoxy doesn't see anything formally heretical in the Filioque per se.

For example, an Orthodox Christian could not hold Arianism or Nestorianism as "private opinions" without, at the same time, being deemed heretical and excommunicated from the Church.

Interestingly as well, the West has never formally defined the Filioque, even though Popes have used this expression.

The same is true for the Augustinian "stain of Original Sin." So a Catholic need not believe with divine faith in the Filioque or Augustine's view of Original Sin - and of course Orthodox in communion with Rome don't, to be true to their Particular theological traditions.

The Immaculate Conception thread here has highlighted yet another interesting point about RC theological history - doctrines can be made binding on Particular Churches and even geographical regions, without yet being binding on the entire Church.

So the empires of Portugal and Spain insisted that their subject Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception as an article of faith when Catholics elsewhere could not.

This fact alone is important in affirming and asserting the Particular theologies of the various Eastern Catholic Churches that could be at variance with RC theological a prioris, but are perfectly valid from a Catholic point of view nevertheless.

Have a great day!

Alex

I would tread lightly here. I think it is inaccurate to speak of an "Orthodox filioque" even as a private theological opinion. I know that this list is especially fond of quoting isolated Orthodox writers and "proving" that the Orthodox Church "really allows" this or that theological opinion. But, let's be honest. We are speaking of the Creed, the Profesion of Faith. We're not speaking about some theological opinion. The creed is dogmatic theology par excellance. Although both Ware and Rose may use this language, this is indeed "their opinion" and is not the proclamation of the Church itself. Several encyclicals and local councils, fully recognized by the Church, have condemned the filioque as a heresy. They never made a distinction between God's work and God's essence in relation to this doctrine.

Although the scriptures (and Orthodox theology) teach that the Holy Spirit "abides" or "rests" in the Son, Orthodox theology is also very careful to ascribe to the Father the unique attribute of the procession of the Holy Spirit, and the begetting of the Son.

St. Gregory the Theologian set forth a very important Orthodox theological principle: "There is one God because there is one Father." Yes, the Son and the Spirit are what God the Father is, but they are not who He is.

I beg your indlugence (no pun intended!) in quoting a lengthy passage from Fr. Thomas Hopko's unforunately out-of-print book, "The Spirit of God" in my next post. (I have to scan it first.) Hopefully this will show you the uniqueness of God the Father role as the foutainhead of the Son and the Spirit, and that the filioque, no matter how you parse the words, destroys that, whether you understand it economically or essentially.

With respect,

Priest Thomas Soroka
St. Nicholas Orthodox Church
McKees Rocks, PA
http://www.stnicholas-oca.org

+ Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Who sent the Holy Spirit, the Consoler, Who proceeds from the Father, have mercy on us - Amen!

Bless me a sinner, Father Thomas,

I apologise for giving the impression that I quote isolated instances to somehow prove they are universal in Orthodoxy!

That is not my intention at all!

When I use the term "Filioque" within the Orthodox context, I only mean it in the "Economic" sense.

Do you deny that Orthodox Fathers and theologians do not admit that the Spirit is SENT into the world by both the Father AND the Son?

That is what Rose meant by "Orthodox Filioque" and nothing more.

And I never compared Rose to Ware in this respect as the two of them would not agree here.

IF the Filioque is teaching that there are two Origins of the Spirit in the Trinity - then, yes, it is heretical and the Roman Catholic Church teaches that this is a heresy as well.

But if the RC Church differentiates the "Active" versus "Passive" Spiration of the Spirit with regards to the Father and the Son respectively, this is qualitatively and theoretically quite different from the heresy of two origins of the Spirit.

My views and the way I express them are my own and not those of the Forum - I apologise to the Forum's Administrator if that is how what I said was construed.

If I were askd (and I wouldn't be) to present on this subject before an Orthodox Ecumenical Council as a sympathetic outsider, I would put these questions:

1) Does the Orthodox Church deny that an Orthodox Christian can hold the RC view of the Filioque in good faith as a private opinion without being deemed heretical?

2) Could not the Orthodox Church not re-examine afresh the RC teachings on the procession of the Spirit and review its historical condemnation of them as teaching the heresy of two origins of the Spirit within the Trinity?

3) What does "through the Son" really mean in the light of what St John of Damascus and St Maximos the Confessor wrote? Is it limited solely to the Economic Trinity?

4) Prof. John Meyendorff (+memory eternal!) wrote that union could have been theoretically achieved at Florence if Rome removed the Filioque and both sides agreed to the term "Through the Son." Does that stand today?

Alex

Alex,

May the Lord God bless you!

Both procession and begetting (the distinction is there, but not always clear) require a "source." We cannot use the language of procession in relation to the Son unless we imply that the Son is the source of the procession. Some other language would have to be used. Now when we begin to talk about the Spirit "abiding" in the Son, or even being sent "through" the Son, we're no longer talking about the source of the procession - we're talking about something else.

Getting back to my scanning....

Priest Thomas

+ Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner!

Bless, Father Thomas!

Yes, and I agree totally.

I have always argued that the Filioque is simply bad theological language, nomatter what your Kallistos Ware says .

(I know some of you think he is a pain sometimes!)

Some would argue that procession need not have a source if it is "passive procession" or "passive spiration" i.e. "Through." But whatever . . .

The Filioque can, at best, leave one with the impression that there are two Sources for the Spirit in the Trinity.

"Through the Son" is the more dynamic expression that encapsulates also the entire salvific action of the Holy Trinity for humankind.

If we can agree on that, then I'll see you in Church!

(What are you scanning - none of my business, right?)

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

Well, as an Orthodox Christian, I would not be so accomodating. How can I use the same word "procession" in regards to the Father and the Son, but mean two differnt things? I agree that it should be taken out for the sake of renunion. But replace it with nothing. The scriptures are clear that the Son sends the Spirit. And it is my understanding that this is not what the addition to the creed was trying to bolster in Spain anyway. The issue was the divinity of the Son, or the equality of the Son with the the Father. (I may be wrong on this - I'm sure you'll let me know! ) And these issues are already addressed in the creed. "Light of (from) light, true God of (from) True God."

Priest Thomas

Dear Father Thomas:

The idea that "procession" requires a "source" and therefore implicates "origin" might be clear in the Greek, but is apparently not clear in the Latin and is certainly not at all clear in English, as Christeen pointed out. (This is why I posted my original question on this thread to Anastasios; I don't think that the tomos was written using Latin.)

Of several definitions (American Heritage) of "proceed" in English there is one (4) that implicates a fundamental origin.

1) To go forward or onward, especially after an interruption; continue: proceeded to his destination; paused to clear her throat, then proceeded.
2) To begin to carry on an action or a process: looked surprised, then proceeded to roar with laughter.
3) To move on in an orderly manner: Business proceeded as usual.
4) To come from a source; originate or issue: behavior proceeding from hidden motives.
5) Law. To institute and conduct legal action: proceeded against the defaulting debtor.

Definitions involving a continuing action (1 & 3), or an action from a selected reference point in time (2 & 5) are certainly more common in English. This issue was discussed in the "Clarification" and has been further discussed in some responses to it.

Given the common usages of this word, I wonder why the Orhtodox translation of the Creed into English uses the word "proceeds"? (I like Petrus' idea.)

djs

P.S. In all definitions "proceed" is an intransitive verb. Although I like Anastasios' sentence, "If he is a simple essence that proceeds a Spirit...". I fear that such an innovation will only lead to a further round of argumentation.

+ Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us - Amen!

Bless, Reverend Father!

First of all, I would NEVER argue with you, Father, or contradict you.

That is not the kind of Forum we have here.

(We only beat up on Latins . . . ).

DJS has said what I have heard others say at conferences regarding the differences in the Greek and Latin.

But your points are perfectly valid, the Filioque should be removed, many RC theologians (and Anglicans) agree on this.

We should leave it at that and then rejoice that we have a common Creed, once again . . .

We can leave all the theologizing for the those who are paid to do so . . .

And to Petrus and djs . . .

Alex

The word proceed itself may not be, but to me (I am no Greek scholar) "proceed from" implies a source.

If I say "I'm going to proceed down the street" no source is indeed implied. If I say, "I'm going to proceed from the corner of Grant and Fifth" then I think a "beginning" point (or source) is clearly implied.

There is another issue here. There is a parallelism between "procession" and "begetting" (or generation). The actions are very similar, in fact so similar that theologians cannot agree on what the differences are, accept to say this: The Spirit proceeds and the Son is begotten. But both words are clearly used in such a way as to imply (even state!) that their source is from the Father, which is the Fountainhead of the Holy Trinity. The Son is "begotten of the Father" and the Spirit "proceeds from the Father." There was clearly an attempt here to communicate a parallel action. That's why even as early as St. Ignatius, the Son and Spirit are identified as the "hands of the Father."

Almost done with that scan. My apologies to the Administrator is it is too long. I'm unsure of the list guidelines in this area.

Priest Thomas