www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Question Concerning Fillioque's Dogmatic Status

Dear Mary,

You've raised what I would call the "core issue" of this matter and although I want to share some thoughts, I have no definite conclusions.

On the score of the liturgical use of the Filioque, the UGCC is definitely moving to removing it, but there is definitely opposition to this, such as in my eparchy. And there is historical precedent that explains that opposition.

After 1596, the new EC's in Eastern Europe tended to oppose what was an enforced imposition of the Filioque into the Creed as a way to ensure their Eastern traditions and identity.

Over time, however, when the spectre of Russification came around, EC's in that same area tended to see the Filioque as a way to safeguard their specific Eastern Catholic identity in opposition to Russification. Wherever Russian imperialism wished to assimilate the EC's, the Russian Orthodox Church begana program of "De-Latinization" which began, of course, with the removal of the Filioque. The Creed without the Filioque became the herald not of "Easternization," but of the beginning of enforced assimilation to Russian Orthodoxy and Russophilism.

This attitude is also strong today in Eastern Europe where people, who have recently been part of the restoration of ECism, express a real anger toward their former oppressors by insisting not only on the Filioque in the Creed, but also on a whole series of practices that would probably shock even the most Latinized ECer in North America!

Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration is quite popular and one EC priest told me that his entire village takes turns for an hour at a time in Church, including small children. When I shook his hand, I noticed he wore a Rosary ring!

The Filioque, in that case, is not about theological perspectives - indeed the people who hang onto it would not be interested in theological argumentation in the least - they hang onto it as a tangible "emblem" of their Eastern Catholic identity, period. And that must be respected - in any case, they wouldn't care if we decried them for keeping the Filioque in the Creed.

The UGCC as a whole is not ready for an "across the board" removal of the Filioque, no matter how much preparation would go into that move.

The people in the pews would simply reject that.

My own views that I've expressed here on the Filioque are located within the context of Catholic-Orthodox dialogue and I believe that ultimately it would be a good thing if both sides to that dialogue can arrive at a common Creed and that is what is probably in the works in the long run.

However, there is no way I would argue with our people "in the pews" about this. Nor would I argue about people who spend twelve hours in Church at a time for Eucharistc Adoration, night-time Adoration, Holy Hours, Stations of the Cross and public Rosaries.

I've seen the expression of this tremendous piety and although the devotions aren't "Eastern," when I see these people at prayer, who am I to tell them they are wrong?

I am no one and I am pleased to join them in their devotions in thanking God for the return of the EC churches after years of oppression.

My two cents.

Alex

Mary,

Of course to read the Cappadocians in an Augustinian or Thomistic sense is impossible, while on the other hand St. Gregory Palamas (along with St. Maximos, St. John Damascene, et al.) is a part of the Cappadocian tradition.

I think it is best to admit that our disagreement is substantive, and leave it at that.

God bless,
Todd

Mary,

I do not accept the idea that there are "schools of thought" in Orthodoxy, there is only the Orthodox faith. The idea of "schools" in theology is a Latin creation (i.e., the Schoolmen or Scholastics) and is a modern innovation of the second millennium.

God bless,
Todd

Mary,

The anonymous theologians you constantly refer to in your posts prove nothing. That said, I do not agree with you on the doctrine of energies, nor do I agree with you on the Western theory of the "filioque."

In fact, I hold your positions on these issues to be incompatible with the Orthodox faith.

May God bless you,
Todd

We have seen three basic distinctions in terminology, which are analyzed even further by three other distinctions, which we encounter in the Cappadocian Fathers and especially in Saint Gregory the Theologian.

These distinctions are made, for the following reason. The Arians -and in fact the Eunomians - brought up the following issue with the Orthodox: Does the Son denote the essence, or the energy of God? If the Orthodox had replied that He denotes the essence, then they could not discern between the Son and the Father. If they had said that He is the name of an energy, then they were at risk of accepting the Son as a creation. Faced with this pressure, Saint Gregory stressed in his third homily that the Son is neither the name of an essence, nor of an energy; He is the name of a relationship. But it is interesting to see how these are discerned; how these three names are defined.

Saint Gregory the Theologian on this same point and these three distinctions gives us his own definition of each of these names. They are subtle philosophical meanings, however, these distinctions are very important.

He says that �essence� is that which is self-subsistent inside every single thing. It is that thing, which one can refer to uniquely, with regard to its own, unique existence. God�s essence can be understood in this sense, regarding His uniqueness. That is what is meant by �that which is self-subsistent in every single thing�.

He says that �energy� is �that which is perceivable in other things�; it is something that is understood and is found inside something else. One could also say that this thing that is observed �in others� (or, the �event� as we call it � as known in Hellenic Philosophy) leads us into the concept of �relationship� or association.

Despite all these things that refer to the persona or the hypostasis, which he calls �association�, he clearly distinguishes them from the essence and from the energy. The persona or the hypostasis is neither an essence, nor an energy. What is it then? In order to see what it is, we must see what it is NOT, with respect to the other two. We must see whether the essence is something self-existent and self-subsistent, in order to speak of the essence per se of a being. God is a divine essence. It is not compulsory, to relate the Divine essence �in our minds- with any other essence, in order for us to refer to the essence.

Since the persona is not an essence, it must therefore be something that cannot be understood as existing on is own; it is not self-subsistent. If it was self-subsistent, it would have been an essence. Thus, since it is not an essence, it cannot be understood on its own. We cannot isolate it. When you want to speak of a persona, you need to simultaneously refer to another being. You cannot refer to it alone. Whereas with the essence, you can refer to one, single essence, on its own. With a persona or a hypostasis, you cannot. On the other hand though, it is not an energy either. And why isn�t it an energy? Because it is not in communion with other beings, so that we can find it elsewhere. Let�s take a look at this mysterious fabrication.

On' the one hand, the persona cannot exist without any communion with other beings, without an association. On the other hand, that which is a persona cannot be found in another persona, whereas an energy can. And an energy can be common to both. Nature and essence are both common; however, the essence can also logically be defined on its own. This is what denotes the essence.

Thus, the persona �the hypostasis- denotes an identity, a being, which, albeit unable to exist on its own, cannot be perceived on its own, yet at the same time cannot be found elsewhere. While it cannot exist on its own, at the same time, it cannot be found elsewhere, except in its self. In other words, its self is so unique, so unprecedented, so much itself, that nobody else can be what it is. The Father cannot be the Son, or the Spirit. The Son cannot be the Father, or the Spirit. The terms: �Father�, �Son� and �Spirit� denote different hypostases or personae; they are so unique and unprecedented, that the paradox and most significant thing about them is that they cannot be found in those entities with which they have no association: they simply do not exist. Because, if the Father is not in a relationship with the Son, He ceases to exist. And even so, He still is not the Son.

That is the persona, i.e., it is the identity that is born of a relationship - of a communion with another entity - which results in non-communing, entities, in the sense that the one entity cannot be found within the other; neither can it be found, if not in any association with the other, because if that relationship is interrupted, then the existence of that persona is also interrupted. So, if the persona or the hypostasis is neither an essence nor an energy, then it must not be self-subsistent either; in other words, one cannot refer to the persona singly, without relating it to something else, nor refer to it as an energy, in the sense that it can be found inside something else.

For example, the energy of God. Let�s examine one of His energies: His power. His power as an energy can be found in all three Personae, and it is indeed found in all three Personae. It can also be found outside of God; it can act outside of God. This is called an �event�, i.e., that which we can also find outside of the essence (which essence possesses the energy), while the essence is distinguished from the energy, in that we cannot find it outside of the essence. We cannot find God�s essence inside creation. We can however find God�s energy inside creation. The energy is that which can be communed, even outside the essence. The essence cannot be communed; it denotes self-subsistence; it cannot be categorized outside itself, because it will cease to be the essence of that being.

So, can the persona be communed? Well, yes and no. The persona cannot exist, if there is no communion and relationship � in other words, if it doesn�t associate with other personae. One persona equals no persona. One essence, yes. And one energy, yes (when referring to its results). But one persona, one hypostasis, equals no persona. Hence, there needs to be a communion of more than one, in order to have personae.

But in this communion, each persona does have its so-called hypostatic features (its personal characteristics), which cannot be communed. The Father cannot impart His paternity to the Son, nor His features. These hypostatic features - of the �Father�, the Son� and the �Holy Spirit�, or, �non-birth�, �birth� and �procedure from� - none of them can be communed, or imparted. Why? Because each one of the Personae is a unique and singular identity. If it is substituted by something else, then it ceases to be that unique identity. That is why, in regard to this association, which denotes the hypostasis or the persona, the Fathers or the Cappadocians used the expression �selfsame�.

Dear Mary,

I once bought my wife an outdoor kneeler on which were written the words:

"A woman can do much good for herself by spending an afternoon weeding in a garden . . ."

I'm the one who does the weeding however.

Talk about energies . . .

Alex

The energies and personae are not equivalencies.

It is the teaching of the Church: "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from a single Principle through a single spiration." This is a de fide teaching of the Church.
Now we know that the "Filioque" inserted in the Creed of the West is not binding on the East. And can be left out of the Creed without doing damage to the faith. This is clear.
What cannot be accepted and I think many Orthodox Clergy and Theologian will aggree that given the correct understanding of the West, it cannot be said to be heretical if properly understood.
It would seem in my opinion just to be a clarification of those Eastern Fathers who speak of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son.

While we can and probably should drop the "filioque" from the Oecumenical Creed, we can never deny its theology. As it was understood in the first 1000 years of undivided Christianity.
St. Basil, St Gregory, Nazianzus, St Gregory of Nyssa all teach, that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father through the Son."
And the shinning Father among the Orthodox, St John of Damascus theaches that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son and that He proceeds through the Son from the Father" (De Fide Orthodoxis 18,12)
And St Didymus of Alexandria, St Epiphianius of Salmis and St cyril of Alexandraia "the Holy Spirit is from the same Essence of the Father and of the Son."
Stephanos I