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

RayK,

As for your seeing this as an attempt to force Hellenized terms on others, first of all, I am not Hellenic at all, I am Armenian. It is rather a matter of trying to get to the truth and a somewhat common understanding of our belief about the Holy Trinity. I disagree with you, I think such discussion is good, necessary and valuable in that quest to reunite the ancient Churches. In addition, you mentioned you didn't read the previous posts. You may want to do this because I think most of what you have written has already been dealt with by others previously in the thread. It may help you understand the theologcial reasons why most of what you have written would not be acceptable to most the East.

reply: I don't think its a presumption at all. To my mind, the question doesn't just revolve around the word "proceed" but rather, as I said before, "When they say that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son as from one principle does that not imply that the Holy Spirit takes his origin from the Son as well as the Father?" How can the Holy Spirit take his origin from the Father alone when they are saying at the same time that He proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one Principal? What does this "one Principal" indicate then?

I don't claim to be an expert here on St. Photios' Mystagogy. I'm sure there are others on this thread who are. In fact I don't know why I chose to jump into this discussion at all. I was content just as an observer. All this technical stuff gives me a headache. I accept Old Rome's clarification and see no reason in this doctrine for us to be formally divided over. As long as neither side tries to force their theology on the others, I'm content with that (now that there's been a clarification).

But I don't agree with your argument. To say that not proceeding is a property, I don't think is corrrect. Their both (Son and Spirit) not doing something is not a positive affirmation of a property in my mind. Its rather an affirmation of their NOT having a property which I don't think was what St. Photios meant. Again, I'm not an expert. I thought the man made a good point on why in the East we don't use the Filioque. I'll defer to others more knowledgeable to further flesh this out.

Thanks for your reply,

Ghazar

reply: O.k. this post was humurous enough to merit a reply. I'll play along.

reply: I might be missing something here. Since when does hand pointing indicate "spiration?" Is this an authentic rule of Eastern Iconography? In the Icon of the Transfiguration, Soorp Bedros (St. Peter) points to Christ on the peak of Mt. Tabor. Does this also indicate that Christ is spirated?

reply: Actually the Icons of the Annunciation and the Asdovadzahaydnootiun (or Theophany -sorry I'm practicing my Armenian ) demonstrate the exact opposite to me. In both Icons, Christ is here on earth fulfilling His earthly ministry and as the Lord Himself once said, the Icons depict the "...the Spirit of truth... proceeds from the Father" (Soorp Hovhannes 15:26). The Holy Spirit is shown in both of these proceeding directly from the Father. Unless we are looking at two differing versions of the Icons in question.

reply: Yes but Jesus' promise was that He would send the Spirit who proceeds from the Father.

reply: I see no "double procession" at all here. Again, Christ is on Earth Manifesting His Glory, and the Father Speaks while the Spirit (the bright cloud) overshadows them. I don't think this Icon speaks to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit at all.

Besides all this, most of your argument is centered on the Sending of the Holy Spirit by Christ in time. The Orhtodox accept that Christ sent the Spirit into the world. They object to the idea that the Spirit Eternally proceeds (or takes His origin) from the Son. Again, the Latins have clarified this is not what they mean. So, I'll leave it up the experts to work out the theological jargon.

Thanks for the entertaining post,

Ghazar

Not necessarily. "Proceed" does not necessarily imply "origin". This was the point made by St. Maximos. To presume that it does is not valid. It is not completely clear to me, by the way, that some Latin theologians, at various times, have not suggested some secondary role for the Son in the origin of the Spirit. But the argument that "proceed" necessarily implies "origin" was vitiated 1300 years ago.

I take your point on a positive affirmation versus a negative one. That is why I suggested that the full text might provide a better "clarification". Nevertheless, the logic of "dual-sharing implies inequality" is fallacious, as it requires the restriction to particular properties that make the proposition true. This is the fallacy of victory by definition. Moreover, one could equally well advance the analogous claim that unique, unshared properties imply inequality. Indeed the idea has been presented in this thread that, being sole origin, the Father alone is God "in the strictest sense"; this notion strikes me as quasi-Arian. The implicated dichotomy here is said to be one that Orthdox theology loves. Fine. Other dichotomies are evidently not viewed so lovingly.

There are some transcripts of the minutes and canons on-line. I just haven't been able to find this quote.

Agreed. Totally.

"But the argument that "proceed" necessarily implies "origin" was vitiated 1300 years ago." -djs

reply:
Dear Djs,
Yes, you've said this a couple of times now. I get the point you're making. But I'll repeat once more, my question is primarily the "as from one principal" part. See my post above.

RayK said:
"Getting the words of the filoque "right" will never join the two churches - the will to join must be there first. What the heart does not want - the intellect can keep in circles forever."

djs replied:
Agreed. Totally.

reply: I think if this were the case -that getting the words right didn't matter- Old Rome would've never wasted her time with a clarification. It obviously matters to many theologians and Church leaders of the ancient Apostolic Churches. They obviously don't all have bad will.

In Christ's Light,

Ghazar

Dear all,
The thread on this filioque clarification is getting interesting and I just want to share this.

The Western Fathers and three of the Greeks taught the Filioque; the whole Latin patristic tradition does, starting with Tertullian (in his Catholic period), down to Isidore of Seville, the last Father in the West, and three Eastern Fathers: Cyril of Alexandria, Didymus of Alexandria, and Epiphanius. The Greek Fathers taught "from the Father," and many of them "through the Son"; none of the Greeks taught "from the Father alone", which was the invention of Photius. Maximus the Confessor defended Pope Martin and the Latins from the charge of teaching that there were two causes of the Holy Spirit.

All these assertions, which are true historically, are made in response to the false generalization made by many Orthodox that only Augustine and none of the other Fathers taught the Filioque. There was no consensus of the Greek Fathers against the Filioque.

Tertullian (who gives the West its terminology), Ambrose, who knew Greek and the Cappadocians, and Hilary, the Western Athanasius, all preceded Augustine, and of the ones who followed, such names as Leo the Great, Jerome, and Gregory the Great, taught the doctrine. Moreover, Maximus the Confessor defends Pope Martin's teaching on the Filioque and answers the very objections of the Greeks, objections which the Orthodox still hold on to.

Maximus, himself, believed that the Spirit proceeded from the Father 'dia mesou tou Logou', (by means of the Logos). The Spirit proceeded, in his view ineffably from the Father and consubstantially through the Son.

Orthodox have to understand first the Latin Fathers' teaching on their own terms -- Something they are not often willing to do. Photius tried to understand the Filioque on his own terms, which, of course, will not work. One has to understand the other person first before one can evaluate another's position.

The Greek Fathers' start with the individual Divine Person as an absolute; the Unity of the Persons as One God then becomes the issue which they solve by reference to an Absolute Origin (the First Person). From that point of view (borrowed from Origen) there is no need to consider the differentiation of the Spirit from the Son in order to understand the Spirit as "individualized" right away; and when pressed to do so they come up with the formula "through the Son" which is not exactly the same notion as the Westerners, though it is equivalent.

Now, along in the 9th Cent. comes Photius, who contradicts all that. So guess who's wrong? He misreads the Eastern Fathers as a whole and contradicts all the Western ones; and of those he only knew that Augustine and Gregory the Great taught the Filioque. Instead of stopping and backing up at that discovery, he just plows ahead recklessly. His work, Mystagogia, smacks of the very logic- chopping for which Orthodox often criticize Western Scholastics: an either/or mentality that completely misses the point of the Western teaching.

Gregory the Great taught the Filioque and Photius was aware of this and tried to excuse him (in his Mystagogia); Leo the Great taught the Filioque and wrote to the Spanish Church about the teaching a few years before he wrote his definitive Tome on Christology to the East. (Letter: Quam laudabiliter in 447: DS284).

When we look at the Photius's career we see him as a layman, advanced to the Patriarchate for political reasons, who manages to be deposed twice and be in schism with the West for a while, as well as writing viciously against the legitimate diversity of Western customs. Requiring the same uniformity in non-essentials with which the Orthodox often charge Catholics. It certainly was not from spirituality that Photius wrote the Mystagogia, as anyone who reads this polemic work full of name-calling can see; it was from his superior sense of his Byzantine intellectualism carried over from his layman's life that this work arises.

Now, it may very well be that by the time he dies in exile he becomes a saint, but it is also obvious to the knowledgeable and objective observer that this saint was in error in his adding the concept of alone to the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father in his formulations, something he did not notice the Greek Fathers never do.

The thorough work in English on the council of Florence is The Council of Florence by Gill, which uses all the sources and has a back-up for everyone of its assertions.

In that work we discover that the Byzantine scholars, among whose party was Mark of Ephesus, were surprised to discover that all the Latin Fathers and three of the Greeks taught the Filioque; and when Mark of Ephesus challenged the texts which prove this the Latin theologians compared texts and proved they had the correct ones, and this reduced Mark to silence and he withdrew from the discussions. (He was several times asked for by his Latin interlocutors, but to no avail.)

We return to the fact that the entire Latin patristic tradition taught the Filioque while the Church was undivided. Therefore it cannot be wrong. The fact is the first time the Greeks contradict the Latin teaching by a formula of their own is Photius' text, wherein he adds the word alone to the Greek formularies departing from the Greek Fathers and contradicting all the Latin ones. The conclusion is inevitable: Photius made an error in judgment, not the Latin Fathers; and all who follow Photius and not the Greek Fathers are likewise in error on the point.

A simple example illustrates this: it is like saying a) "the color blue is beautiful"; and another saying b) "yellow and green (constituents of blue) are also beautiful"; to which a third person says c) "only blue is beautiful". The third statement contradicts the second and narrows the first in an unacceptable way. That is not to say that statements a) and b) are the same; they are not, and both of them are true, but they mean slightly different things, since blue is not the same as yellow and green unmixed.

Photius' error was to completely miss the premise of the Latin tradition and to suppose the premise of the Greeks in understanding the Latins. The latter start with the insight into the unity of the Three, that each Person is all of the Divine Nature, so that there is no real distinction in fact between Person and Nature in God, but only between Person and Person in God. But distinction of Person to Person can only be by the opposition of their relations, when you consider the unity of Nature, and that means the Holy Spirit must be from both the Father and the Son or He wouldn't be distinct from either.

The Greeks start from the absolute distinction of Persons first and must account for Their unity in terms of origin (which approach they received from Origen, the first genius of the Church who was definitely subordinationist in his own thinking). Thus for the Greeks the Holy Spirit must proceed from the Father or the Father wouldn't be the absolute source, and if the Holy Spirit proceeded also from the Son, that would mean the Father ceased being the absolute source. Thus they use two different Greek words for "proceed from the Father": one word for the Son, and another for the Holy Spirit.

Latin has only one verb for "to proceed from," but gets the second idea of procession in Greek of the Holy Spirit (in order to safeguard the Father being absolute source) by adding the words: "as from one principle", and "principally from the Father". Thus there is no contradiction between the Latin and Greek Fathers' teaching as Maximus understood, but neither are the concepts exactly the same. There is no doubt that the Greeks saw themselves more individualistically and so started with the individual Person with his own absolute personal characteristics as the starting point, while the Latins saw themselves more socially (rationally) and so start from relational concept of person. Thus the Person in the Trinity for the latter is a subsistent relation, while for the East it is an absolute with personal characteristics.

When the Orthodox take the time to listen to the Western understanding, they usually see that it is valid, though it is not their preference. The Orthodox have now two ways of thinking: the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (a la the Fathers), and Photius' formula of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father alone. Perhaps that is the origin of the divergent reactions to the Western thought.

An appreciation of the Western Fathers destroys another mistaken generalization of the Orthodox antagonists to Rome: the conclusion that the Filioque teaching results in a downplaying of the Holy Spirit in Catholic life. If that were the case, then, during the patristic period one should have seen this. But the contrary is true. This misdiagnosis by some Orthodox neglects the sociological factors of the non-dogmatic causes of non-Mediterranean Europe culture at play in the development of Western Christianity after the Byzantine period. It may also result from an absolutizing of its own very particular Byzantine cultural development, such that anything non-Byzantine is suspect as non-Orthodox.

The conclusion of all the above is obvious: the doctrine of the Filioque ought not to divide the Churches from one another, as it is a different but equally valid emphasis in understanding the Trinity and is not harmful to spirituality as such. (This was the conclusion of the Council of Florence.) This conclusion has already been reach by eminent Orthodox scholars and theologians. :p

Magandang Umaga po.
ruel

Magandang umaga po to you too!

(Tagalog for "Good Morning" for all non-Tagalog speakers ).

But I think we should not think that if the Filioque issue were settled tomorrow, the Church would reunite etc.

It would be a good start, but the Filioque is not what originally broke the unity of the Church, or at least, it wasn't the only thing.

As this thread shows, whenever one mentions the Filioque, there is a plethora of theological views that are advanced . . .

And ultimately it is that tendency to theologize and then later to impose theologoumena on others that led to difficulties.

Let us follow St Mark of Ephesus' attitude and keep the Creed in its pristine state without the Filioque.

After that, let the theologizing continue in all humility . . .

Alex

Ruel (Elexeie) said:

The conclusion of all the above is obvious: the doctrine of the Filioque ought not to divide the Churches from one another, as it is a different but equally valid emphasis in understanding the Trinity and is not harmful to spirituality as such. (This was the conclusion of the Council of Florence.) This conclusion has already been reach by eminent Orthodox scholars and theologians.
******

I think these are the points that must be pondered:*

What does it mean to add something to the creed?
(Does it mean to add words or meaning?)

Can one refute the filioque and be in heresy?

Can one accept the filioque and be in communion with the Church Fathers and the Councils?

John

*Karl Rahner maintained that most Christians' understanding of Trinitarian theology was so rudimentary, that the Trinity could be replaced with the "One God" concept without it disrupting their sensibilities at all. Yet, the Christian calling specifically compels us into this Mystery. This is why the discussion on the filioque is important. It is not what you "say" during a particular time of the liturgy, but what you understand in your heart, mind, and soul.

Dear Petrus,

According to Meyendorff (+ memory eternal!), St Mark of Ephesus came to Florence as a unionist initially, maintaining that unity can be achieved if ONLY the Latin West removed the Filioque.

He regarded it as a heresy and believed that God would heal it over time.

However, this may be, no one has ever proclaimed the Filioque as an infallible doctrine.

The real issue is not so much with the Filioque, since it is a Latin response to a Latin theological issue.

That issue is how one is to differentiate the Son from the Spirit since both emanate from the Father.

The East and the Fathers have always maintained that the distinction is made in terms of the distinctiveness of their manner of proceeding. The West has a problem with that, although it shouldn't have.

Again, as long as the Filioque is not imposed on the universal Church, and is left out of the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, it poses no threat to future unity.

Alex

Dear Brothers,

When discussing Andrei Rublev's icon of the "Trinity" we should remember that it is not widely accepted as such in the Eastern Churches. The original title used and still used for this scriptural event is "the Hospitality of Abraham." The traditional icons depicted Sarah and Abraham behind the three visitors. The most traditional interpretations of this icon are of Abraham and Sarah hosting a visit from the Lord and two of his angels. If we read forward in the Genesis account, we see that "the two men" then proceeded toward Sodom and Gomorah' which God subsequently torched.

Angels are messengers. Some are incorporeal and some are corporeal. The corporeal ones can thus be anthropoi (men). Wasn't John the Forerunner referred to as an "angel of the Lord?"

Any trinitarian interpretation onto this scriptural event and subsequently into an iconographic representation was highly suspect amongst the professional iconographers who lectured at the Orthodox seminary where I studied.

With love in Christ,

Dear Andrew,

With all due respect to the seminary where you studied, your teachers do NOT represent the traditional view of this Old Testament event by any means.

There are Catholic teachers today who basically deny most of the prophecies concerning Christ in the Old Testament, and often add their own comments to the "Christian colouring" of New Testament events.

The liturgical fact of the matter is that the Icon of the Hospitality of Abraham (and this name or any other has no impact on the interpretation of the event or icon)is celebrated as one of four Icons of the Holy Trinity by the Euchologion of the Orthodox Catholic Church or Trebnyk. A special blessing is required for such an icon, with or without Sts. Abraham and Sarah present, as you know.

Despite the rather vague discussion of the two men later on, the Lord God does refer to Himself in the plural. The modern argument that this is the "Royal We" is just nonsense, and I say this is as someone who is a monarchist and has studied the evolution of these titles over time. It is like calling King Henry VIII "His Majesty" when he himself would not have recognized this title when all his subjects would have called him "Your Grace."

Again, a case of modern(ist) reinterpretation of history - and it would seem that Orthodox seminaries appear not to be impervious to such influences (or so I've heard).

Although I've never been in a seminary (not always something to blame oneself for), it seems to me that the scripture relating to this sacred event can easily be given the interpretation the Church and her liturgy always has:

"And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre, and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day: And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him; and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground. And said, My Lord . . ." (Genesis, 18:1-3 KJV).

Now, remembering that I have no theological expertise whatever, and am wholly ignorant in the ways of contemporary biblical scholarship and the like, it would seem to me that Abraham doubted not that he was in the Presence of the Lord when he saw the Three Men and called out to them "Lord" and gave them the worship of Latreia by bowing his head to the ground.

Can you show even one other instance where someone bows before an Angel in Scripture and is not immediately reprimanded for false worship?

The Lord was present and two of His Angels, your professors say? And how did Abraham tell the difference since all Three appeared similar to him? And thus are they represented in all iconography.

Can your professors provide even one historical witness that indicates the Church EVER considered the Hospitality of Abraham icon to be other than an Icon of the Holy Trinity?

And your professors regard their own private view, influenced as it most certainly is by modernist scriptural scholarship, more than the Church's liturgical and scriptural Tradition?

All Orthodox Christians celebrate the Feast of the Holy Trinity at Pentecost with greenery to recall nothing other than the Oaks of Mamre where the Holy Trinity first appeared to our Father Abraham.

This is a quote from the Orthodox Akathist to the Holy Trinity, Kontakion 8:

Mysteriously and wonderfully Abraham saw Thee at the Oak of Mamre in the form of three persons, though he conversed as with one, saying: My Lord, if I have found favor in Thy sight, do not pass Thy servant by. Then to he three who appeared to him in three Persons, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, yet to God as one Being, he bowed to the earth, crying: Alleluia!

If your professors were to have said their nonsense on such a feast in a parish such as mine, they would be turned out of the church in short order, diplomas, degrees and academic resumes notwithstanding.

We may not be learned in theology and scripture, but we know heresy when we hear it.

Consider me and my kind ignorant if you will, but I stand with the Church's Tradition rather than with modernist interpretation.

Perhaps your professors would feel more at home with the Jesus Seminar?

Alex

Dear Elexeie,

The idea that the Greek Fathers taught the filioque is not true. At the Council of Blachernae, "through the Son" was shown to mean a different thing in the Greek Fathers than the Latins take it to mean. Please read the work, "Crisis in Byzantium: The Filioque Controvery in the Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus" by Aristeides Papadakis to see how.

Basically, some Fathers taught "through the Son" and St. Photios argued that they were forgeries. The Council of Blachernae recognized them not to be forgeries but rather taught that "through the Son" referred to the economic sending of the Holy Spirit by the Son (economic in the sense of dealing with God's actions [energies]) while the Spirit proceeded from the Father ALONE in eternity and in his inner life (essence).

To argue that the Greek Fathers taught filioque in the sense of an eternal spiration in the essence as Augustine taught is a misrepresentation of their works.

In Christ,

anastasios

Dear Alex,

I attend the Orthodox seminary that Andrew attended and while we don not have the same visiting iconographer here now, what my one professor said was that just as each period of people in the OT reinterpreted previous history in a way that God spoke to their generation, so the icon of the Trinity is a valid reinterpretation of the hospitality of Abraham. Rublev et al reinterpreted the visitation to Abraham to speak to them, Trinitarians that they were, in a way the people would understand: the Angels that visited Abraham WERE the Holy Trinity (although Andrew points out that two of the Angels later left the one behind in the biblical account). I think the iconographer might have said something a little too harshly but really if we look at the event in a reinterpreted way it is pretty clear that the Holy Trinity visiting Abraham is an Orthodox belief (as you showed rightly in the Akathist).

In Christ,

anastasios

Anastasios:

When did the differentiation of energies and essence emerge: in the Cappadocian Fathers? In Augustine? ... ?

djs

Dear Anastasios,

It is good you don't have that fellow at St Vlad's any more!

If you did, I'd begin a cheerleading chorus here to get you to go to another seminary.

Certainly, the Light of Christ in the New Testament interpreted the Old Testament in that Light.

If I were a Jew of those times, I might see God as a single Person with His Word and His Holy Spirit as (impersonal) emanations from Him.

Or, as some Orthodox have said, (and I believe they are correct), Abraham did not worship a Unipersonal God, but a Multipersonal God. He may not have known about the Nicene Creed, but neither did the Apostles when they first learned to worship God in Three Persons in response to their EXPERIENCE of salvation in Christ by the Spirit to the glory of God the Father.

Some say that even the Cross itself in the form of the Tau was known and honoured by OT Judaism, the Tree of life etc. . . . What Christianity 'added on' was very little, when you come right down to it.

And experience is difficult to codify, measure and analyze. I think that's why scholars today would have preferred if Abraham would have articulated the particular perspective of historical exegesis his biographers intended to use to report his experiences.

And who said God made man in His own image and man (or theologians) returned the favour?

Social scientists have reductionists and debunkers too. Happily, they aren't entrusted with teaching Divine truths.

Scripture is about revelation. And revelation is a journey, to be sure.

The more you travel its path, the more enlightened you become by grace and faith.

We then see more clearly what was always there to begin with.

Do they need a religious sociologist at St Vlad's? I think I would have a thing or two to contribute . . .

Alex