www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Filioque: Dogma, Theologumenon or Error?

Ukrainian Catholic: Thank you for that link. I think it's an excellent example of the Catholic Church's actual internal discussion of the matter.

Apotheoun,

Chalk up my lack of precision to an attempt to summarize everything as quickly as possible. Of course you are right. However, in some sense of "Trinitarian order," the essence that the Spirit receives from the Father is also the essence of the Son, and that's all I really meant in positing a filioque at the level of ousia. I think Metropolitan John of Pergamon uses this same language in his response to Rome's clarification on the filioque, and I also think this is exactly what St. Cyril means when he says, "The Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son; clearly, He is of the divine substance, proceeding (proion) according to the essence (ousiodos) in it and from it." But thank you for your needed clarification.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

Myles,

You say: The latter sentence here seems to be contrary to the facts. We need to establish a few things. First, Aquinas seems to take a principle from Augustine which is just that Persons are relations. This is why he says, in the Summa, that "a divine person signifies a relation as subsisting . . . such a relation is a hypostasis subsisting in the divine nature," and later that "there are several real relations in God . . . which means that there are several persons in God." Later, he even insists "relation must necessarily be the same as person." Then Aquinas asks how we can distinguish the Persons. His answer seems to go directly against what you have expressed. He says that "Some . . . have said that the divine hypostases are distinguished by origin . . . This opinion, however, cannot stand . . . Origin of a thing does not designate anything intrinsic, but means the way from something, or to something; as generation signifies the way to a thing generated, as proceeding from the generator. Hence it is not possible that what is generated and the generator should be distinguished by generation alone; but in the generator and in the thing generated we must presuppose whatever makes them to be distinguished from each other. In a divine person there is nothing to presuppose but essence, and relation or property. Whence, since the persons agree in essence, it only remains to be said that the persons are distinguished from each other by the relations." Then how is the Holy Spirit distinguished, according to Aquinas? "It must be said that the Holy Ghost is from the Son. For if He were not from Him, He could in no wise be personally distinguished from Him." So, is it true that the Persons are distinguished according to their origin from the Father, as you suggest? Or are they distinguished by their relations of opposition to one another, as I had suggested? I will let Aquinas finish this post with his answer (emphasis added):

"It must be said that the divine persons are distinguished from each other only by the relations. Now the relations cannot distinguish the persons except forasmuch as they are opposite relations; which appears from the fact that the Father has two relations, by one of which He is related to the Son, and by the other to the Holy Ghost; but these are not opposite relations, and therefore they do not make two persons, but belong only to the one person of the Father. If therefore in the Son and the Holy Ghost there were two relations only, whereby each of them were related to the Father, these relations would not be opposite to each other, as neither would be the two relations whereby the Father is related to them. Hence, as the person of the Father is one, it would follow that the person of the Son and of the Holy Ghost would be one, having two relations opposed to the two relations of the Father. But this is heretical since it destroys the Faith in the Trinity. Therefore the Son and the Holy Ghost must be related to each other by opposite relations. Now there cannot be in God any relations opposed to each other, except relations of origin, as proved above (28, 44). And opposite relations of origin are to be understood as of a 'principle,' and of what is 'from the principle.' Therefore we must conclude that it is necessary to say that either the Son is from the Holy Ghost; which no one says; or that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, as we confess."

The relations are the Persons. The relation of the Holy Spirit that makes Him a different Person from the Father and the Son is his relation of oppositional origin from the Father and the Son. This is precisely what I have posited as problematic.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

For relevant parts of the Summa, look here:

Does the word "person" signify relation? [newadvent.org]

Are there several persons in God? [newadvent.org]

Is relation the same as person? [newadvent.org]

Does the Holy Ghost proceed from the Father and the Son? [newadvent.org]

Yes, but I would simply point out that anything that is common to two of the hypostases within the Trinity is common to all three hypostases. Thus, the divine essence is the essence of the Holy Spirit, which He receives from the Father, who is the sole source, cause, and principle of divinity. In other words, the Son does not impart the divine essence -- which He has received from the Father -- to the Spirit in an existential manner.

I have no idea but I didn't say that it did. I was responding to Zenovia.

As far as St. Photios is concerned, the Franks had not yet conquered the Roman Patriarchate so I highly doubt that the Carolingian interpretation of the filioque was accepted by Pope John VIII. I believe the Frankish Church was still even in schism from Rome because of its refusal to accept the 7th ecumenical council. At any rate, the Latins at that time had the good sense to condemn the filioque clause and so St. Photios felt justified communing with them.

Of course we know that 1054 is somewhat of a myth date; the Pope of Rome was removed from the dyptchs of the Church in Constantinople in 1014 I believe when the filioque was introduced into the creed there, but full intercommunion did not cease until 1204.

That Peter III of Antioch accepted communion with Leo IX was obviously a mistake on his part. Eventually all the patriarchs condemned the filoque and hence here we stand.




The book I referenced above answers your point about the previous pastristic texs of St Cyril and others being "laced" with the filioque.

St. Photios and St. Mark of Ephesus are Fathers of the Church, and the fathers of the Council of Blachernae in 1274 condemned the filioque, and all Orthodox hierarchs in council from this time have condemned the filioque, and after imperial pressure ceased with the Turkish yoke, no Orthodox bishop confessed the filioque (and remained an Orthodox bishop).

I feel Jason has more adequately addressed your points on Thomas Aquinas (who I will be the first to admit I am not well versed in but am not so much interested in him as in the official RC doctrines) but I can't see that the Latin Church and the Orthodox Church agree on this issue. I think some positive steps towards solving the dilemma have been made but the Orthodox still see enough problems with the RC teaching to refrain from accepting it.

Anastasios

Right; communicating of essence is a hypostatic property of the Father alone.

Anastasios

Hey Jason

As I said I dont think the Summa expresses things best in this issue which is why I had recorse to De rationibus fidei contra Saracenos, Graceos et Armenos ad Cantorem Antiochenum. Which is basically what Aquinas says after the quoted passage you gave from Prima Pars Q36 a2.

St Thomas' discussion of procession from the Father and the Son and from the Father through the Son need to be read in light of one another rather than isolated from each other. It is why they have been grouped together. What Aquinas means by his treatment of relations is that the relation of the procession of love is explained when he speaks about how one comes to love something, that is via knowledge. For Aquinas the relational difference between the Father and Son is because of their consubstantiality. As one loves through knowledge of something, Aquinas holds that the filioque is a logical neccessity since God apprehends Himself through His word and loves Himself accordingly.

It is because of the consubstantiality of the Son that Aquinas teaches what he teaches not simply because he doesn't know how to differentiate between the persons by any other manner--if that were the case he wouldn't have bothered to write the rest of article 2 or article 3 for that matter. The relations of origin as Aquinas posits them make the filioque a logical neccessity in that being of one essence it is impossible at any time for Father not to perfectly apprehend Himself. This procession of intellect thus gives rise to the procession of love as what God understands and by His hyper perfection cannot fail to understand: Himself. He also loves timelessley and eternally by procession of love in the person of the Spirit.

Hence Thomas says in article 3: The filioque clause in Aquinas' thought is the consequence and clarification of the consubstantiality of the Godhead. As God cannot ever not understand Himself it makes the procession of love impossible in Him to take place without the Son playing a mediating role. Since its logically impossible for any love nevermind the procession of the Spirit as Love to take place without knowledge of the object of love and its equally impossible for God not to know the object of anything nevermind the object of His own actions. The Word does not give the Spirit anything rather the Word is the Fathers' understanding and from that understanding does the Spirit proceed eternally in the Father's all-loving all-understanding of His own being.

The Augustinian and Scholastic attempt to define the nature of generation and procession within the Godhead in psychological terms is foreign to Eastern Triadology. In other words, the generation of the Son is not seen as a procession of intellect and the procession of the Spirit is not seen as a procession of love or will; instead, the Eastern Fathers hold that generation and procession are distinct hypostatic properties of the Father, but exactly how it is that they are different is unknown, for as St. John Damascene has indicated, ". . . the Father is without cause and unborn: for He is derived from nothing, but derives from Himself His being, nor does He derive a single quality from another. Rather He is Himself the beginning and cause of the existence of all things in a definite and natural manner. But the Son is derived from the Father after the manner of generation, and the Holy Spirit likewise is derived from the Father, yet not after the manner of generation, but after that of procession. And we have learned that there is a difference between generation and procession, but the nature of that difference we in no wise understand. Further, the generation of the Son from the Father and the procession of the Holy Spirit are simultaneous." [St. John Damascene, "De Fide Orthodoxa," Book I, Ch. 8] Clearly, the East does not try to solve the mystery of the Trinity, nor does it apply psychological categories to the intimate life of God; and that is why it will not reduce the generation of the Son's hypostasis to a type of intellection, nor will it reduce the Spirit's hypostasis to the energy of love. The Father is the sole cause within the Godhead; and as such, He alone gives hypostatic origin to the Son and Spirit, and He alone shares His nature with them.

Apotheoun,

Right, and it goes back even further than St. John of Damascus (as you of course know). Even the Cappadocians were cautious about delving into the mystery; in fact, I suspect -- if it is not too inappropriate to say -- that St. Gregory of Nazianzen might have chastised Aquinas, using something like these very words of his: God bless,
Jason

Dear Anastasios you said:

"It's not just a matter of semantics but one which touches upon our faith; semi-Arianism was opposed by the church becuase of the term homoiousios instead of homoousios--even little words matter because of the spiritual effect of heresy. We can't know God if we don't know who he is, and any incorrect notion of him detracts from our union with him. The Church has seen fit therefore to engage in such "nonsense."

I say:

Gregory Palamas said that it is not the intellect that matters, but rather the heart. Certainly we Orthodox have had many saints that were illiterate and they would not even know what you are talking about. By the same token, the Catholics also have had many saints, yet they said the Creed with the Filioque...so it doesn't seem to matter to God.

Maybe these things are simply above us...and maybe when we perceive that 'our' minds must comprehend something 'correctly', it comes down to 'pride'...thus limiting the 'heart' from being able to understand what God is telling us.

I think when it comes to 'heresy', it is the individual 'pride' within the leaders of those encompassing the heresy, that leads others astray. I can only speak from my personal experiences. I know many within a 'correct' Church, that seem to follow some rather 'prideful' leaders with the end result of a 'church' in apostasy.

So taking this into account, we cannot specify that only one thing or another is heretical, but rather the 'persona' of the individuals involved and their effect on a community as a whole. It is the fruits that we must look at...and by fruits I mean the amount of compassion and charity among us.

Zenovia

Zenovia,

With all due respect, I fear that your post may be motivated by a mistake that has become quite prevalent these days. I don't blame you for it, as it is all too common. But I think it is this: you seem to almost imply that "heart" and "mind" are inevitably opposed, as if there is some unbreakable dichotomy between strident intellectual endeavor and prayerful and heartfelt reverence. There are at least two reasons that I believe this is false.

The first: the very meaning of the term "Orthodoxy." Etymologically, as you may be aware, it comes from the Greek words orthos, typically meaning "right" or "correct," and doxa meaning "doctrine" or, derivatively, "glory" or "worship." The potential double-meaning perhaps conveys exactly the point I would like to make: right-doctrine and right-worship are often connected. There is something to both doctrinal discussion, then, and also to prayerful ascetism. The two are not necessarily opposed, and perhaps neither should be relied on solely, to the detriment of the other.

This leads to my second reason: the early Church councils. As Anastasios notes, there was heated debate over even a single Greek letter, the iota in the word homoiousios. There was a reason for this, and part of it was related directly to what I said above. The doctrinal definitions were not ends in themselves, but they were sorts of "signposts," pointing the way toward right doctrine, because right doctrine itself pointed the way toward deification. The early Councils were not ends in themselves; they were almost medical clinics, in a sense (I believe John Romanides uses such language somewhere), in that they "cut off" those who had heretical understandings in order to protect the Church. How did doctrinal formulations protect the Church? By setting the path toward deification, toward glorification, and blocking the way toward error and false worship. So reasoned deliberation was highly prized at even the early councils, all of course under the larger umbrella of our struggle for salvation.

This is why I am very wary every time someone suggests on these boards that we ought to stop discussing such things, or suggests that such discussions are frivolous or purely prideful, or suggests that desire for and deliberation over correct belief is in some way even the cause of heresy. On the contrary, it is a precondition of heresy's destruction. This is not to say that the heart is not of crucial importance as well, it is just to say that the two are not necessarily opposed. Christ saves the whole man, heart and mind.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

Oh no, Romanides "Frankish Filioque" non-sense is coming up now? Word to the wise: NEVER put so much trust in an academic.

There's a reason I abandoned academics, and it's that there's too much emphasis on novelty of theory rather than soundness of it. Romanides wouldn't know Latin theology if it smacked him in the face, and his works remain the best cited, yet WORST presentations of the subject I've ever had the mispleasure of reading.

This "Frankish interpretation" really needs to be relegated to the dust-bin of history where it belongs, right next to Marx's "Dialectic Materialism" theories of political development. :rolleyes:

"Frankish Filioque" is where I officially bow out of any conversation on the subject.

Peace and Love!

Whoa Ghosty,

I only mentioned Romanides because he might have used the metaphor of the Church as a "medical clinic," and so I wanted to give credit for that metaphor alone where it may have been due. No one's saying anything about the Frankish filioque, or even putting trust in any of his work here.

By the way, yes, Romanides does go off the deep end at times, and his work is often full of rhetoric and unsympathetic presentation of the opposing side. However, this is neither an engagement of his arguments nor a fair characterization of everything he presents. For example, he is Byzantine Orthodox, but his work on the Council of Chalcedon is amazingly sympathetic to the non-Chalcedonian position, and actually goes so far as to say that Dioscorus was in some sense right(!). In fact, I believe some of his historical work here has been very important in Chalcedonian/non-Chalcedonian dialogue, and he was (from what I understand) even one of the people who, I believe, pushed for the lifting of the anathemas. Also, his book, The Ancestral Sin, though also full of rhetoric and an unfair presentation of the Latin side, does present an interesting and well-defended thesis regarding the Greek view. Let us not overreact and inadvertently end up being just as dismissive as we accuse him of being.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

Oh, and by the way, not all of that "Frankish filioque" stuff is nonsense either. Some of it is well-supported by historical research, including Professor Richard Haugh's Photius and the Carolingians.

EDIT: Yes, in fact, if one wants to find some of Romanides' work for the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Consultation, including discussions of his papers by both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian orthodoxy, they can be found here: Orthodox Unity [orthodoxunity.org]

Romanides went over the top some times but he makes a lot of good points that are often ignored by others. Since you seem to dismiss him so out of hand, why don't you instead take a few moments to point us to rebuttals of Romanides or take a few minutes to sketch out what is wrong with his discussion of the filioque controversy.

While we're on the subject, what did you think about his book The Ancestral Sin and his review of Fr John Meyendorff's work on Palamas? I thought the later was brilliant but found the former somewhat confusing. Perhaps I will give it another read.

Anastasios

Don't get me wrong, I don't dismiss Romanides out of hand. I don't even dismiss his historical works. My only problem with him is that he takes his histrical examination of Frankish influence on European ecclesiastical and political development and tries to run it into theological analysis. In doing this he takes a very myopic view of Latin theological expression and development, IMO. In other words, he's a great historian, but mediocre theologian when it comes to Latin expressions, often substituting myopic polemics for genuine analysis.

Again, when it comes to history the man is actually rather brilliant, IMO. I wouldn't dream of knocking him generally, just on the "Frankish Filioque" issue and other theological matters that are peculiar to the West. Sorry if that wasn't clear enough before

As for why I don't trust his theological premises, it really has a lot to do with simply being a Latin Catholic and knowing that a lot of what he says Latins believe (due of course to Frankish influence) is flatly wrong. In fact, most of his work on the subject has been made obsolete by the various "clarification" documents released in the past ten years by both Orthodox and Catholics. The clarification link on page three of the "Essence/Energies..." thread is a good example of this. He also seems to have over looked the fact that much of the problem he attributes to the Latin theology, namely that it makes the Procession and Generation a trait of God's Essence, was actually explicitely condemned at the Fourth Lateran Council, circa 1215. If you're gonna be polemical, at least accuse us of a heresy we actuall subscribed to at least at SOME point, rather than one we unilaterally condemned 800 years ago, and 70 years before the birth of Gregory Palamas

Anyway, hope that clears it up. It's the "Frankish Filioque Theory", not Romanides or his work in general, that irk me. Ecce Jason's reference to Romanides didn't even trip my radar, honestly, it was the mention of the "Carolingian" influence on the filioque that got my beeper going :p

Peace and Love!