www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology the Filioque

Hello,

I was thinking about the Filioque... on Wikipedia, it says this about it:

"Recently, theological debate about the filioque has focused on the writings of Maximus the Confessor. Siecienski writes that, "Among the hundreds of figures involved in the filioque debates throughout the centuries, Maximus the Confessor enjoys a privileged position." During the lengthy proceedings at Ferrara-Florence, the Orthodox delegates presented a text from Maximus the Confessor that they felt could provide the key to resolving the theological differences between East and West.[169]

The study published by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity[89] states that, according to Saint Maximus, the phrase "and from the Son" does not contradict the Holy Spirit's procession from the Father as first origin (ἐκπόρευσις), since it concerns only the Holy Spirit's coming (in the sense of the Latin wordprocessio and Saint Cyril of Alexandria's προϊέναι) from the Son in a way that excludes any idea of subordinationism.[170]

Orthodox theologian and Metropolitan of Pergamon, John Zizioulas, says: "For Saint Maximus the Filioque was not heretical because its intention was to denote not the ἐκπορεύεσθαι (ekporeuesthai) but the προϊέναι (proienai) of the Spirit."[171]

Metropolitan John Zizioulas also wrote:

"As Saint Maximus the Confessor insisted, however, in defence of the Roman use of the Filioque, the decisive thing in this defence lies precisely in the point that in using the Filioque the Romans do not imply a "cause" other than the Father. The notion of "cause" seems to be of special significance and importance in the Greek Patristic argument concerning the Filioque. If Roman Catholic theology would be ready to admit that the Son in no way constitutes a "cause" (aition) in the procession of the Spirit, this would bring the two traditions much closer to each other with regard to the Filioque."[172] This is precisely what Saint Maximus said of the Roman view, that "they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit – they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession".
In this regard, the letter of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity on "The Greek and the Latin Traditions regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit"[89] upholds the monarchy of the Father as the "sole Trinitarian Cause [aitia] or principle [principium] of the Son and the Holy Spirit" While the Council of Florence proposed the equivalency of the two terms "cause" and "principle" and therefore implied that the Son is a cause (aitia) of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, the letter of the Pontifical Council distinguishes
between what the Greeks mean by 'procession' in the sense of taking origin from, applicable only to the Holy Spirit relative to the Father (ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon), and what the Latins mean by 'procession' as the more common term applicable to both Son and Spirit (ex Patre Filioque procedit; ek tou Patros kai tou Huiou proion). This preserves the monarchy of the Father as the sole origin of the Holy Spirit while simultaneously allowing for an intratrinitarian relation between the Son and Holy Spirit that the document defines as 'signifying the communication of the consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father through and with the Son to the Holy Spirit'."[173]
Roman Catholic theologian Avery Dulles, writing of the Eastern fathers who, while aware of the currency of theFilioque in the West, did not generally regard it as heretical, said: "Some, such as Maximus the Confessor, a seventh-century Byzantine monk, defended it as a legitimate variation of the Eastern formula that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son."[34]

Michael Pomazansky and John Romanides[174] hold that Maximus' position does not defend the actual way the Roman Catholic Church justifies and teaches the Filioque as dogma for the whole church. While accepting as a legitimate and complementary expression of the same faith and reality the teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son,[49] Maximus held strictly to the teaching of the Eastern Church that "the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit"[175] and wrote a special treatise about this dogma.[176][177][178] And the Roman Catholic Church cites Maximus as in full accord with the teaching on the Filioque that it proposes for the whole Church as a dogma that is in harmony with the formula "from the Father through the Son",[89] for he explained that, by ekporeusis, "the Father is the sole cause of the Son and the Spirit", but that, by proienai, the Greek verb corresponding to procedere (proceed) in Latin, the Spirit comes through the Son.[89] Later again at the Council of Florence in 1438, the West held that the two views were contradictory.[179][not in citation given] The Council of Florence in fact declared that the Greek formula "from the Father through the Son" was equivalent to the Latin "from the Father and the Son", not contradictory, and that those who used the two formulas "were aiming at the same meaning in different words".[180][181][182][183][184]

The Filioque was originally proposed to stress more clearly the connection between the Son and the Spirit, amid a heresy in which the Son was taken as less than the Father because he does not serve as a source of the Holy Spirit. When the Filioque came into use in Spain and Gaul in the West, the local churches were not aware that their language of procession would not translate well back into the Greek.[citation needed] Conversely, from Photius to the Council of Florence, the Greek Fathers were also not acquainted with the linguistic issues.[citation needed]

While the Filioque doctrine was traditional in the West, being declared dogmatically in 447 by Pope Leo I, the Pope whose Tome was approved at the Council of Chalcedon,[33] its inclusion in the Creed appeared in the anti-Arian situation of seventh-century Spain. However this dogma was never accepted in the East. The Filioque, included in the Creed by certain anti-Arian councils in Spain,[194] was a means to affirm the full divinity of the Son in relation to both the Father and the Spirit.[195][196][197]

Ironically, a similar anti-Arian emphasis also strongly influenced the development of the liturgy in the East, for example, in promoting prayer to "Christ Our God", an expression which also came to find a place in the West,[198] where, largely as a result of "the Church's reaction to Teutonic Arianism", "'Christ our God' ... gradually assumes precedence over 'Christ our brother'".[199] In this case, a common adversary, namely, Arianism, had profound, far-reaching effects, in the orthodox reaction in both East and West.

Church politics, authority conflicts, ethnic hostility, linguistic misunderstanding, personal rivalry, forced conversions, large scale wars, political intrigue, unfilled promises and secular motives all combined in various ways to divide East and West.

As regards the doctrine expressed by the phrase in Latin (in which the word "procedit" that is linked with "Filioque" does not have exactly the same meaning and overtones as the word used in Greek), any declaration by the West that it is heretical (something that not all Orthodox now insist on) would conflict with the Western doctrine of the infallibility of the Church, since it has been upheld by Councils recognized by the Roman Catholic Church as ecumenical and even by those Popes who, like Leo III,[200] opposed insertion of the word into the Creed."

Sorry this is so long but I thought I'd include the whole quote.

My question is, - does anyone know, did a Council in the West ever say that the Father and the Son are two causes of the Holy Spirit? Or was it always acknowledged that there is one cause, the Father, - even with the Filioque? I read that there was an anathema on those who deny the Filioque, - but was it still acknowledged, and is it believed today, that the Father is the one cause? (as in the East)

thank you

None of this is the issue! A local Church (in Spain and then in 'Gaul') despite the protests of the Protothrone introduced a modification to the Ecumenical Creed. Later the entire West followed suit. Then the West began accusing the East of dropping the addition! The only fair solution is for the entire Catholic Church, East and West) to proclaim the faith in the words sanctioned by Nicea I and Constantinople I. See, that didn't hurt, did it now?

Here's more information:

"The Roman Catholic Church holds, as a truth dogmatically defined since as far back as Pope Leo I in 446, who followed a Latin and Alexandrian tradition, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.[33] It rejects the notion that the Holy Spirit proceeds jointly and equally from two principles (Father and Son) and teaches dogmatically that "the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles but as from one single principle".[98] It holds that the Father, as the "principle without principle", is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that he, as Father of the only Son, is with the Son the single principle from which the Spirit proceeds.[49]

It also holds that the procession of the Holy Spirit can be expressed as "from the Father through the Son". The agreement that brought about the 1595 Union of Brest expressly declared that those entering full communion with Rome "should remain with that which was handed down to (them) in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son."[49][91]

The Roman Catholic Church recognizes that the Creed, as confessed at the First Council of Constantinople, did not add "and the Son", when it spoke of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father, and that this addition was admitted to the Latin liturgy between the 8th and 11th centuries[33] When quoting the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, as in the 6 August 2000 document Dominus Iesus, it does not include Filioque.[99] It views as complementary the Eastern-tradition expression "who proceeds from the Father" (profession of which it sees as affirming that he comes from the Father through the Son) and the Western-tradition expression "who proceeds from the Father and the Son", with the Eastern tradition expressing firstly the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit, and the Western tradition giving expression firstly to the consubstantial communion between Father and Son; and it believes that, provided this legitimate complementarity does not become rigid, ìt does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.[49]

The monarchy of the Father is a doctrine upheld not only by those who like Photius speak of a procession from the Father alone. It is also asserted by theologians who speak of a procession from the Father through the Son or from the Father and the Son. Examples cited in the book The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy by A. Edward Siecienski[100] include Bessarion,[101] Maximus the Confessor,[102] Bonaventure,[103] and the Council of Worms (868),[104] The same remark is made by Jürgen Moltmann.[105] The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity also states that not only the Eastern tradition, but also the Latin Filioque tradition "recognize that the 'Monarchy of the Father' implies that the Father is the sole Trinitarian Cause (αἰτία) or Principle (principium) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."[89]

The Roman Catholic Church recognizes that, in the Greek language, the word used in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (ἐκπορευόμενον, "who proceeds") to signify the proceeding of the Holy Spirit cannot appropriately be used with regard to the Son, but only with regard to the Father, a difficulty that does not exist in other languages.[89] For this reason, even in the liturgy of Latin Rite Catholics, it does not add the phrase corresponding to Filioque (καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ) to the Greek text of the Creed containing the word ἐκπορευόμενον.[89]

Eastern Catholic Churches are in full communion with Rome, which accepts the Filioque in its liturgy as well as in its dogma, but they do not have to include the Filioque in their versions of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Indeed, the Holy See encourages even those Eastern Catholic Churches, not of Greek tradition, that in the past have incorporated the Filioque into their recitation of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed to omit it.[106]"

My question deals with something different... the quotes I provided show that the Filioque is not heretical in Latin, only the Greek translation, which is maybe why the East disagreed with it. There were Eastern Fathers who talked about the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son. Clearly there were a lot of other things going on too at the time, which influenced the Schism. But the Filioque (in Latin) just clarifies that the Father and the Son are equal, in response to a heresy that was spreading at the time.

Just a clarification about my post, - I was wondering, if the Catholic Church agreed in any Council that the Father is the ultimate 'cause', - from the second quote I found, it seems to be saying this, but I'm looking for more information

I don't accept that that is a solution at all. The Filioque WAS used for centuries in the era in which Rome was united with the Orthodox Churches. To ask Rome to drop something that was not a problem for several hundred years in a united Church is not tenable (indeed it wasn't a problem for the Patriarch dealing with Cardinal Humbert or for the Pope at that time). Rather, both Orthodoxy and Catholicism have to both admit that they erred in making this such a big issue, admit that they have not always attempted to understand each other, and allow the diversity that characterised the united Church of the first millenium to be its model for a united future.

Actually "Rome" did not use the Filioque for hundreds of years before it became an issue. Rome did not use the Filioque liturgically until 1014. Prior to that, the Holy See steadfastly refused to add the clause to the Creed, knowing the extent to which the Eastern Churches found it objectionable. Only with the advent of Frankish Popes in the late 10th/early 11th centuries, who knew nothing of the Eastern Churches and who believed the Filioque to have been part of the original text, did the dual procession of the Holy Spirit become an element of Latin doctrine.

That said, the 1996 Clarification effectively acknowledges the Orthodox were right all along. End of problem.

No, Arianism was not spreading at the time. It was breathing its last breath at Toledo, when its last major believers-before a revival centuries later (people don't learn from the mistakes of others)-were seeking reception by the Catholic Church which confessed the Orthodox Faith.

Even if it were, muddling what the Fathers made clear is not the proper response.

The issue of the filioque became an issue in Moravia and Bulgaria, neither Greek nor Latin speaking areas.

It became a problem as soon as the non-Latin Churches learned what the Latins were saying. It was a problem, as St. Maximus writes (and writes that he would try to induce the Latins to mend their speach). It was a problem during the papacy of Leo III of Old Rome (who set up silver tablets on the doors of St. Peter and and the crypt of St. Paul-outside-the-Walls with the Orthdoox Creed in Latin and Greek, with the ascription «HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI» (I, Leo, put here for love and protection of the Orthodox Faith). It was a problem in the evangelization of Moravia. It was a problem in the evangelization of Bulgaria. EP St. Photios the Great found it a major problem, enough to call a Council to depose Pope Nicholas I of Old Rome. It was a problem when the Pope of Old Rome did the bidding of the Frankish emperor and inserted it into the liturgy at Rome (Caesaropapism?), and was struck from the diptychs as a consequence in 1019. It was a problem when Old Rome demanded to be commemorated again in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church. It was a problem for Card. Umberto, his supreme pontiff, and EP Michael Cerularius-I dont' know how you go the impression it wasn't a problem.

If it is not a big deal, then drop it. Problem solved.

"The Catholic Church acknowledges the conciliar, ecumenical, normative, and irrevocable value, as expression of the one common faith of the Church and of all Christians, of the Symbol professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the Second Ecumenical Council. No profession of faith peculiar to a particular liturgical tradition can contradict this expression of the faith taught and professed by the undivided Church."

What more do people need?

It's such a silly topic, it's been settled for a while now.

Implementation.

It is implimented.

If that confuses you, I'd guess you haven't actually read what you are calling to be implimented.

The North American Orthodox-Catholic Consultation has called for the Filioque to be suppressed in vernacular celebrations of the Roman rite in order to bring liturgical usage into line with the Church's teaching on the subject. The matter of how to do that has been hung up in the USCCB for some time. Frankly, I doubt its suppression would cause much of a stir, but one can see how the bishops would want to prepare the ground, and, not being particularly bold by nature (especially in herds) would prefer to take their time about it.

In my understanding, neither the Pope nor the Church Fathers seemed to be saying that the Filioque is theologically incorrect, when they argued against it being inserted into the Creed, they were arguing in terms of how it might affect relations with other churches etc, (from a practical side), they were not saying it's heretical. For example, St Maximus even said "they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit – they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession". There are Eastern Church Fathers who spoke of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son as well. As to whether the Creed should have been changed, etc, that is not for us to decide, - but it doesn't seem that it was seen as introducing any heresy.

Does anyone know, did a Council in the West affirm that the Father is the only cause? (this was my original question :))