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

I know that you think it is a "non-starter" because you accept the idea that the Spirit as hypostasis can proceed from the Son, while I do not. Clearly, we hold different doctrinal positions on this issue, and my position is founded upon the teaching of the Cappadocians, Maximos, Damascene, Gregory II of Cyprus, and Palamas; while yours is founded upon the teaching of the Latin Church as it is expressed at the Council of Florence.

Now as far as the text from the Gospel of John is concerned, clearly it is referring to the economic order, and that is why I said that it applied in "the temporal order," but St. Cyril of Alexandria, in referring to the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Christ at His baptism, held -- with many other Fathers -- that this temporal event reflected the eternal resting of the Spirit upon the Son mentioned by St. John Damascene (cf. "De Fide Orthodoxa," Book I, Chapters 7 and 8). The point I was trying to make was simply this, none of the Eastern Fathers ever speak of the Holy Spirit as hypostasis (i.e., person) proceeding or being manifested from or through the Son. They only speak of a manifestation of the Spirit through the Son as divine energy, and this manifestation is both temporal and eternal. Moreover, the manifestation of the Spirit as energy from the Son is intimately connected with Spirit's own glorification of the Son, and this glorification is both temporal and eternal. Thus, each of these realities within the economic order, i.e., the manifestation of the Spirit through the Son, and the glorification of the Son by the Spirit, reveal their eternal relationship within the immanent life of the Trinity.

That being said, the relationship between the Son and the Spirit is not one of hypostatic origin, or of hypostatic procession; rather, it is a relationship which expresses the communion of essence of the Son and Spirit with the Father, who is the sole font of divinity, and this eternal relationship is revealed and manifested in the divine energy.

Ok Jason your points on St Cyril have been duly noted.

I just wanted to ask why it is we're arguing? To be honest I forgot. It seems to me that nobody is objecting to the idea that the filioque works on the level of the essence, am I correct? So then what is the quarrel about? I really am trying to understand but I still dont get it.

The Western view is not modalist because principle is used in the substantive when applied to the filioque. Nor is Latin Triadology ditheist because the Father is the one from whom the Word and Spirit proceed. Only in the latter case we Latins say that the procession of will occurs from what the Father knows of Himself (a knowing done obviously via His Logos), which at best makes the Son a passive element in the procession of Love. So then what is our quarrel?

It seems to me that the only difference here on a fundamental level is that the West's Triadology employs psychological analogies and the East's does not. However, since what the West makes of use of psychological analogy does not change the fact that all procession in the Godhead has its origin from the Father then where do our swords cross?

This discussion seems to merely reflect a difference of approach rather than a question of heresy. In essence, it appears this whole debate rests solely on the fact that the West has no problem speaking of the inner relations of the Trinity--which is somewhat of a neccessity when you see God first as essence and then as persons--and the East disagrees with this idea. After all our discussions I have yet to see any clear cut case of modalism or ditheism in the writings of any major Western doctor, which is why on the other thread I said to ignore what Cyril says (or perhaps does not say ).

Barring the fact that Eastern Triadology neither approves nor needs to look at the Trinitarian relations as Western Triadology does what is the bone of contention here? According to the West the Father generates the Word and in the process of so doing the Father in His intellect (Word) loves Himself and so proceesses the Spirit. The Father thus is the sole cause of any activity in the Godhead (only He spirates through the Son), and the Godhead in Latin Triadology cannot be said to be composed of a dyad because the Son plays no active part. The Word's place is merely to be the understanding of the Father which in turn leads the Father to will the Spirit through love of Himself.

So minus the fact that the East's approach makes it unneccessary to speculate about the internal relations of the Godhead and many Eastern Fathers consequently hold this to be a less than wonderful idea. Is there any substance to this argument? Is there any heresy that results from the Western approach? I ask this honestly and openly imploring demonstration.

Personally, I think we've become distracted from the main issue which is not that the East and West have fundamentally differing ideas about essence and existence (and a whole lot of other things too). If you feel that the Eastern way is better than the Latin you have the right to. I have no problem with that. By all means be Eastern in thought and deed. However, thats not the issue here. The issue is whether or not Western theologians have for centuries been Triadological heretics. As much as I appreciate the tutorial in Eastern triadological theology it doesn't really matter to our discussion that the East sees the filioque as being energic and essential. What matters is the charge that the West's Triadology is heretical.

So please rather than pointing our East-West Triadological differences, which are quite obvious, please show me how the Western view results in heresy.

Thank you
Myles

Myles... not to change the subject�

I just wanted to say how much I enjoy Jason and Apotheoun.

Sincerity, conviction� and debate in a gentlemanly way.

I am sure beyond a doubt that you feel the same way. I just thought I would here take the opportunity to say it publicly.

A good debate needs intelligent and sincere people. A good debate exercises all involved (and the Good Lord knows my brain needs exercise!).

So here is my note � of appreciation � for the high quality of both. Well � all three � you too!

-ray

It's all straw (to quote a notable theologian).

Joe

Not that there's anything wrong with that (to quote another one ).

Straw has many uses, after all. At worst, you can stuff a mattress with it and get a good night's sleep. :rolleyes:

And at best - it can be the starting point of a really big fire.

Just a few quick things, as I'm fairly certain that this thread has just about run down.

First, to Myles:

I don't really look at this as "arguing," and I try very often not to use that word. We're just discussing things and getting clear about them, that's all. Some of us have stronger opinions than others and may express them more forcefully, but when it comes down to it, we're all Catholics -- well, most of us anyway. And on that note I would just like to add again that I do not think that the West is in heresy or that their viewpoint necessarily results in heresy (which more or less would amount to the same thing); all I think is that there are reasons to be wary of it from the Eastern perspective, and that there may be tendencies that (in my very humble and often not very weighty opinion) might be more easily misconstrued or lead toward inappropriate opinions. That's all.

To Ray:

Thank you very much for your kind words. There have been times when my responses to you have been a bit less than gentlemanly, but it only speaks to your generosity for you to still be so kind as to say as much. I appreciate your presence as well.

To Joe and Theist Gal:

Well, indeed all of these words do tend to amount to little more than straw, that's for sure (although I won't say that all of them do, considering especially that we've drawn upon the wordings of Ecumenical Councils, and, beyond that, Scripture), but, as Theist Gal has aptly pointed out, straw can sometimes serve a purpose. I am, after all, nothing more than mere dust and ashes, and yet somehow, mysteriously, dust and ash amounts to something. I think the point is this: these dust and ashes are only really worth anything when they are filled with the Spirit. I would want to say the same for our "straw." If, by the grace of God, these words are helpful to others here or serve in some way to aid ecumenical discussion, then to God goes the glory. It is in that Spirit -- and not as, in and of themselves, any more than "straw" -- that I offer them here.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

Oh, well...fine That I have no problem with. Obviously the filioque is unneccessary in the Eastern presentation of the immanent Trinity. I was under the impression that the Western view was being accused of being modalistic or positing two causes in the Trinity. Since that is not the case and you're simply stressing the independence of Byzantine thought and the lack of neccessity for the filioque to appear therein: no problem.

My sole reason for posting on this thread was to vindicate the West from the charges of ditheism and modalism. If I was wrong in interpreting your posts and others as bringing those charges against Latin Triadology I apologise for being so defensive. From the way the thread was progressing thats just how it looked to me.

I have no problem with Byzantines being Byzantines and presenting the dogma of the Trinity in Eastern framework. I dont think the filioque clause in the creed is particularly neccessary and I dont think every particular church in the world need use it. However, from a Roman vantage point it works and as a Latin I felt the need to give an apologetic presentation in the face of what I thought were accusations of heresy.

Again I apologise for misinterpreting your aims.

God Bless
Myles

How would we Latins ever sing the Credo in Latin if the Filioque was cut out?
There would never be any way that Rome would agree that the "Filioque" clause was a heretical understanding of the Trinity.It has never had a heretical understanding in the Latin Church.
Stephanos I

The Vatican itself published the Nicene Creed without the "filioque" addition in the magisterial document Dominus Iesus [vatican.va] back in August of 2000; so, if it wants to, it certainly can remove the "filioque" from the creed in the Roman liturgy.

Dear Friends,

Whenever a debate on the filioque breaks out, I have the same thought come to mind. That is: All of the discussion is human in nature. We have chased our tails in this circle for too long. The Holy Trinity cannot be "defined" by men. The closest thing we could do to come to a true "definition" would be to take all the mystics in the world, east and west, and send them on retreat with the purpose of putting it all into words. Even then, though they experience the mystery, they could not supply adequate words. The wordage is exhausting to me. I understand the human desire to have theological definitions that sound official, but at some point we must place this need behind the need for unity. Please do not take this post as belittling much worthwhile theological study, for that is not what I mean. What I mean is that, for all our chasing our tails, we must stop to recall the holy mystery, in an utter refulgence of blinding light. This is where truth is found.

Peace in Christ,
Tammy

Stephanos-

Addressing your second point first:

Agreed. That's never going to happen; if my reading of the SCOBA-USCCB-agreement is correct, the Orthodox should not ask this either (anymore than Rome should ask for the right to appoint Orthodox- or, if they were united, Eastern Catholic - bishops)

Well, that depends. Hijacking this thread from theology to practical matters........

Scholars have identified, I believe, around 300 different Credos (Credi?) written in various chant books from 1000-1400 or so.

Happily for our purposes, the Graduale Romanum only has 6 of them (of which I have only heard 3 ever sung), and they are generally recitative pieces. In Credo I (which I hear every once in awhile), "filioque" can IMHO be expunged without almost no change to the music, as is the case with II, IV, V and VI.

I will admit that something definitely sounds amiss musically if the word's removed from Credo III. But I don't think it's really a big deal.

The problem is that there are several Mass settings in Roman Rite musical history that would definitely sound awkward without "filioque" (I am particularly thinking of beautiful "filioque" in Palestrina's Missa Papae Marcelli).

My solution? Assuming we can get everyone to agree that the word isn't a heresy, I say:

1. since the creed came from an ecumenical council, it should not have been put in the creed by a local Church or even a Patriarchate in the first place.

2. it should be removed from the missal, and from the recited creed.

3. it should be removed from the Graduale Romanum.

4. Nevertheless, its should be retained when the celebrant/music director chooses a preexisting Mass setting that uses the word.

Dear Friends,

May I make a suggestion here?

Yes?

I trust the RC and Orthodox theological commissions to build upon their successes in bringing this matter to a positive conclusion.

I do believe they are way ahead of us here on the Forum.

When they do come up with an agreed statement on the Filioque, I trust there will be no one here who will oppose it?

This sort of reminds me of an exchange between St Thomas More and Cardinal Wolsey, as recorded in the "Man for all Seasons:"

Wolsey: More, the king wants a son. What do you propose to tell him he should do about it?

More: I hardly think the king needs advice from me on what to do about it . . .

Cheers,

Alex

Dear Ecce Jason,


could you explain please what and why is the connection Philip Sherrard makes between the western mentality employed in the way Filioque is understood in West with the atheistic materialism in West, in his book "Greek East and Latin West"?


I found it very interesting when I read him...


greetings

Arbanon,

To be quite frank, no, I cannot. That would be a rather large task for a bulletin board post, not to mention that Sherrard does it in his book to begin with, and you seem to be familiar with it. Beyond that, I'm also no expert on Sherrard's book. If there are specific points you'd like to bring up and address, though, I'd be more than willing to do so with you.

As for Sherrard's reading of the West, however, do be careful. Scholars are engaging his work, and here is the opinion of one scholar that I do not think is very far off: "[Philip Sherrard's] The Greek East and the Latin West fully equals [Martin] Jugie for both its bitter tone and its apparent determination to misread the texts and authors it purports to analyze" (Anna Williams, The Ground of Union: Deification in Aquinas and Palamas). Williams is a religion scholar at Cambridge, and I share her caution about being too "polemical" and about painting over these issues with much too broad of a brush.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

In the following days, if none does, I will bring some passages from his book related to this point.


Actually, as much as I can understand him (and what he writes), I find Philip Sherrard a very good scholar. Not to forget, he notes from the begining of his book, that the way he has built up his entire argument, is not simply by a historical judgement of facts, rather by starting from the way how things should have been, in a Platonic way, I would say, by judging the formal matter based on its perfect model (ideas).


I do believe, as you, dear Ecce Jason, have pointed somewhere in you threads, that Dogmatic formulations are there as signposts to show use the way, or to protect us from deviating. That is that wrong or flase formulations of doctrine could easely affect an entire system of thought resulting, in our case, even in materialism.