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

After this post I'm afraid I'll be cutting back significantly in my attention to these forums. Any responses can be sent to my PM, however, as it sends to my e-mail

Ecce Jason:

Yes, it's exactly the doctrine expressed at Florence, it's just that you are reading "receives its being" in too literal a fashion. That is why the Latins stressed that the Father is source of all deity, the source of the Holy Spirit. The only reason he has His Essence and Subsistent Being from the Son is because He does not pass through the Son "short-changed" on Essence or Subsistent Being. If they had meant that the Son was the source of the Essence or Subsistent Being of the Son, they would have said so, but their language actually excludes your interpretation.

Not quite, because that analogy rules out the Father as the "principal and proper" processor of the Holy Spirit. In the above analogy, the principal and proper processor is the Father and Son working in tandem, and nothing is passing "through" the Son at all. Thomas Aquinas deals with this explicitely in I.36.3 (especially Reply 1). The Holy Spirit must proceed immediately from the Father, and if He proceeds immediately from the Father then His whole Essence and Person must derive solely from the Father, not from the Father and Son in tandem. By listing the Father and the Son together as the immediate cause of the bullet being fired, you've not presented the Latin proposition.

Apotheoun: In the first quote, St. Basil doesn't seem to be speaking of Energies at all, which relate to the Divine Essence in that it is shared by all, but to Hypostasis, which relate to the Trinity. Energies can be partaken in, but what is being described here is the direct unity of the Trinity. After all, Chrysostom points out that the Son has the Energy of the Spirit from the Father, but here it is talking about the Spirit being joined with the Father through the Son.

If it is the communication of the Energy only, then the Holy Spirit would not be said to be joined to the Father "through the Son", because the Holy Spirit receives the Divine Energy from the Father in His procession and in sharing the Divine Essence, and has no need for the Son in order to be joined to the Father in that way. In St. Basil's description, the Son is a "link" between the Holy Spirit and the Father in some fashion.

Again, this quote is expressly describing the immanent Trinity of Persons, and says as much. It can't be refering to a temporal relationship, nor can it be said to be a relation of eternal Divine Energy since the Holy Spirit receives that directly from the Father, and indeed the Son receives the energy of the Holy Spirit. If the Son receives the Energy of the Spirit from the Father, how is it that the Spirit is conjoined to the Father through the Son by way of Divine Energy?

Regardless of what St. Basil's quote means, we still don't have any examples of the Spirit as Energy, but rather the Spirit's Energy. I've looked in as many sources as I can find, and I've seen countless references to the Divine Energy, the Energy of the Spirit (which would be the Divine Energy), ect, but I've yet to see anything saying that the Spirit is an Energy. My sources aren't the best, however, so if you know of any online I'm happy too look at them. PM them to me if you like, you may yet convince me of your argument

Peace and God bless!

Sadly you continue to read St. Basil while wearing Western spectacles, and so you continue to confuse essence (ousia) and hypostasis in God.

The energetic manifestation of the Spirit through the Son reveals the communication of the incomprehensible divine essence as it flows out from the Father through the Son to the Spirit, but since you do not properly distinguish between the divine hypostases and the unknowable divine essence (ousia), you continue to confuse the energetic manifestation of the Spirit with His hypostatic procession. I will simply reiterate what I have said before, the energetic manifestation of the Holy Spirit is not a hypostatic procession, because the hypostatic procession of the Spirit, like the hypostatic generation of the Son, is a property of the hypostasis of the Father alone.

The one thing that our continuing disagreement has shown, is that East and West understand the nature of the Trinity differently. That being said, I cannot subscribe to your position without falling into either ditheism or Sabellianism.

If you want to read about the energies of the Spirit, and of the Spirit described as energy, I suggest that you read the "One Hundred and Fifty Chapters" of St. Gregory Palamas.

The Spirit has a unique role in the dispensing of the divine energies to the saints, and that is why they are often called the "gifts of the Spirit."

Once again, the problem with your idea that the Spirit as hypostasis processes through the Son, is that you are in fact describing a hypostatic procession and not an energetic manifestation. In other words, your position on this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the divine energies.

Let me ask you this: When Christ, in the temporal order, breathed upon the Apostles and gave them the Holy Spirit (cf. John 20:21-23), did He give them the Spirit as hypostasis or as energy? Now, based on your own comment quoted above, you have indicated that you agree with the Eastern tradition that it is not possible for a man to receive the Holy Spirit as hypostasis, so how was the Holy Spirit received by the Apostles when Christ breathed upon them?

There are three possible answers to these questions: (1) the Apostles received the Holy Spirit essentially from Christ when He breathed upon them, but this is clearly contrary to the Eastern tradition because the essence of God is incommunicable; (2) they received the Holy Spirit as hypostasis, but this is also contrary to the Eastern theological tradition because there is only one hypostatic union and that took place through the incarnation of the eternal Logos; or (3) the Apostles received the Holy Spirit as energy through Christ when He breathed upon them after His resurrection.

The energetic manifestation of the Spirit from the Father through the Son reveals the consubstantial communion of the three divine hypostases in the immanent life of the Trinity. Nevertheless, this energetic manifestation is distinct from the hypostatic generation of the Son and the hypostatic procession of the Spirit, both of these things being accomplished by the Father alone, as the sole source, principle, and cause, of divinity.

Where things went astray was when Semitic soteriology was exchanged for Greek ontology. Trinitarianism hasn't been the same. What would the Filioque mean to a First Century Palestinian Jew?

Joe

Joe,

Without addressing the entirety of your point -- and I do think there's something to it, although we shoudn't go too far; a "hypostatic union of two natures in one hypostasis" might not have meant anything to a first century Jew either, but it was necessary for defending the True and Saving Faith against heresies -- there is at least some evidence of "Greek" ontology even in the pages of the New Testament. St. Paul in particular uses "energy" language (using the Greek word energeia) to express his point, which is language that draws on a history of "Greek" ontological thought. If you're interested, see David Bradshaw's Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

Dear Joe..

(a wandering muse - directed at no one - and as I often do - when I use 'you' it is not in a personal sense by in a wide philosophical sense)

Recently it has come to my mind that the separation - was and is - a scholastic invention. A wedge - put into the church - by theologians and scholars and perpetuated by - historians. Some of it intentional and some portions unintentional ( condition of human nature).

Indeed - that there is any real problem that separates the churches is - a myth - fashioned by those who deal with semantics and intellect. If one desires the myth (wants a separation) or one hates the myth (wants union) - these are two sides of the same coin. Which-ever side someone hold too dear - he makes the coin - his. He - legitimizes the myth.

In a real way - this myth (that there is a problem between the churches) infects those who - believe it. And as much as they try to span the bridges (intellectually) using the same methods which gave birth to the myth (semantics of languages and terminology) the more they go into the labyrinth of the myth.

The myth, born of semantics and intellectual pride, certainly can not be �fixed� by using the same methods which gave it life.

If I had hands big enough, I would gather up from around the world - every single book and publication by theologians and scholars and historians - having to do with the �schism� - and toss them into the sea. Because if nobody believed there was a separation - quite simply - there would be no separation.

The separation is an invention of man - and not an invention of God. Therefore - it has no real existence - except in them who believe it. A - voodoo. A curse which effects only them that believe that are effected by it.

It is like a young man or woman who comes to grips with leaving his teen years and maturing into adult. What our environment has done to us (our parents) is never perfect. It is always flawed. And regression to �dig up the problem� only works so much and no more. In fact - someone who regresses into his own history to find and fix problems (overly done) risks never rising about his problems - risks believing entirely that he is the sum total of his history.

Those who breath with two lungs - have within them the church united (�That they may be one as you and I are one.�).

Most (not scholars and not theologians and not historians) in which the church is united - face hardship for their simplicity. Those who repeat - scholars and historians and theologians - ignore (or place hardship) upon the childlike ones. I have no quibble with learning and scholarship. None. It is a great aide when used to discover the glories of the church. But when the student (we are all students) jumps ahead - and takes the role of the teacher (�Listen to me and how smart I am!�) scholarship (most in the form of quoting others) becomes a tool - a means to obtain and end - and no longer a thread to follow.

In the recent past - I have made efforts to fight (by dissolving away) the myths that keep members of the church separated. But now - I have come to know that even that - fight - perpetuates the myth. That fight (and research necessary) proves to myself - that it is all a myth (an invention of scholars) - and - what a hold we let these scholars have over us!

Christ wrote no books. He certainly could have! But he left no personal writing. Certainly this was by design. So here we have one man (Jesus) overheard by another man who wrote about it (an apostle) saying �Make them - ONE - as you and I are one�. The gates of hell (war) shall not prevail (and split my church)� - and in the scales we have hundreds of books published about - how the church has been split. Who shall we believe? The man who wrote no bookks? Or the hundreds who gain from every book sold?
And so it seems to me - that one - can not fight - the myth. For even fighting the myth - give it life.

In those in whom the church is united (the sons of God) it is united and that - is that. In those in whom the church is separated (those who desire to be sons of God) they - are separated (not the church).

Q: If a man believes a myth - does it make that myth - true?
A: No.

But the man who believes the myth - lives by the myth that he believes.

(the end of my muse).
-ray

Dear Ray,

As usual, you are quite profound.

Thank you for your post. It is quite philosophical, and gives one much to ponder.

I believe, as you do, that in the hearts of some of us, schism has never happened, and all this theological talk is of very little real importance.

In Christ,
Alice

I wouldnt throw all the books into the sea Ray but I think it might be neccessary to look at them more without a prejudiced eye. Personally, I think the schism is real but that the 'heresy' that 'necessitates' it is imaginary. Both sides can accept that on the level of essence the filioque is true, accordingly we should just shakes hands and close the door on this issue allowing any other assertions to be held as theologumenon. St Cyril of Alexandria equates the immanent trinity with the economic trinity in his commentary on John (e.g. Jn 16:15) and his Thesaurus (34, 576ab; 585a) in much the same way the Latins do, with precisely the same conclusions. That is, that the Spirit exists being caused by the Father but through the Son. His statements are explicit in the references given and leave no doubt about this fact. In the former of them from his commentary of John 'the seal of the Fathers' writes:

I've come to hate posting on this topic because I think its fruitless and only serves to establish the obvious. We have different ways of looking at the immanent and economic Trinity's. The Latins follow what could be called an African model e.g. Sts Augustine and Cyril of Alexandria and the Greeks follow a Cappodacian model. Neither is wrong. Since we agree on the filioque on the level of essence why dont we just permit differences of perspective of immanence and economy and just move on. That was what the thrust of the article that started this thread was all about. Thats why I posted it. Dr Stylianopolous made the incisive point that our traditions can legitimately co-exist without doing violence to either sides view. Why is it so hard to accept this?

Dear Myles,

By no means are Ray or myself, because of our own feelings, belittling your post, your research, or your inquisitiveness.

You are young and you want to learn and study everything, and that is good. Speaking for myself, I have done the same, and I am quite sure that Ray has done the same. For the record, I do like the conclusions you gave in your previous post. I agree with them, but, I don't think that others will and therefore, the matter will never be settled between our churches. History has hyped up the Filioque way too much.

I think that is what Ray's post may have intended to express, and it certainly is what my post intended.

I am certainly in a place, (and I presume that Ray may be too) where after many, many years, I am tired and weary of hearing 'this is the correct Church' or 'that is the correct Church' when the Church is really one, and all that matters is that we follow the avenues afforded us in our respective traditions in an orthodox way, and allow it to help transform us into better human beings and souls that are farther along the path of divinization.

By all means, continue your posting and sharing your brilliant young mind, thoughts and conclusions with us!

With much love in our Christ,
Alice

Thank you Auntie A . Although I think if I have to go one more round of argument on the filioque 'issue' I'm going to go crazy. So I may stick to other threads for the moment.

I just cant see why such a minor difference, a legitimate difference that is far from being as clear cut as East vs West given St Cyril's own language (written in Greek), makes for 6 pages of debate. Its madness and, as I said, if I have to argue further that the Roman Church isn't heretical I'm going to go mad myself.

In my mind and I dont wish to offend Apoutheon or Jason or any one else who has done lots of study seeking to understand the roots of this debate. The only thing more unneccesary than further talks on the filioque is the schism between the Latin and Greek Churches. Is it really necessary to call St Cyril of Alexandria 'seal of the Fathers' and the whole Latin West with him heretics because we dare to read into the immanent Trinity from the economy?

Its a theologumenon, just a theologumenon, why fight over a theologumenon...

*sighs*

...discussing the filioque has got to be a recipe for depression.

Myles and others,

For my part, I don't believe I've called the filioque heresy or said that the West is heretical. My goal has been to present the Eastern view on the filioque and explain why it seems wrong from that perspective. Much of the discussion here lately, by the way, has not revolved centrally around whether the filioque is wrong so much as it has revolved around whether the Latin view really is the Latin view. (I know I'm begging the question there, but it's a joke.)

More on Cyril later though, Myles.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

Dear Alice...

You have expressed my sentiments better than I could have! Someone has whispered into your heart. Thank you for helping me.

Myles: please trust her.

Dear Alice�
Today I gave up the day for the personal holiness of all priests. And I must tell you - it was not - an easy day. I had to drag this old body around - all day. It was as if I was 90 years old! I had not offered up a day for others in a long time. And so God loaded me up � with just this one tiny offer! He must have a great need for victim souls if he takes me up on my offer!

But I did it. And I was patient. Each mundane and boring thing I had to do - I spent the little extra effort to do it better than I felt like doing it. Each of the virtues that Providence forced me to have today - gained just a little bit - for the personal holiness of those priests who are asking for personal holiness.

It is easier to be a victim if we keep sight of those we wish to gain grace for.

There is a long chain of people in front of me � that pulls me into heaven � and there is a long chain of people behind me who will be pulled into heaven. We are all � but an individual link in that procession which Christ drags behind him into the City of God.

A funny thing. When one offers to carry a tiny cross for others � it makes ones own crosses lighter� more of them � but actually lighter.

-ray

God bless you for your selflessness, Ray.

It is true, that when one steps out of themselves in honor of praying for another, they receive a great blessing.

Respectfully and lovingly in Christ,
Alice

Dear Jason...

I am not aware that anyone here really has any problems with the discussion. While I, myself, might have thrown a few things in - sideways - I do so because - the discussion goes well and all involved are very thoughtful and well intentioned.

Post (written) have no tone so my casual musings may seem - blunt. But they remain just my comments (thoughts and such) in a discussion. Nothing special. Not a teacher or any type of authority. I do nothing more important than mechanical maintenance work at the local YMCA. I have studied and read a lot in the past � but that is so long ago now some of it fades.

-ray