www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Filioque problem...and how to fix it...

Dear Friends,

I would like to get some opinions on a post I made on another message board in which I sketch out the problem of the Filioque and what I propose on how to fix it:

In initially stated that:
Cappadocians do not have a problem in noting that the name Father designates a relationship between Him and the Son. The problem comes in equating a hypostasis as the essence in self-relation. If a person is an essence in self-relation, then that person is going to be reducible to that essence in some sense. Hence, you have a kind of determinism where persons are just instances of essences. This would confirm a compatibilistic idea where persons in their employment of acts are determined by their nature (Read: Calvinism). The whole idea of a person being an internal relation of an essence is buttressed by God being absolutely simple. Where this simplicity functions as an equal (=) sign for all predications of God. Hence, Being, Activity, Existence, and Will are wholly identical and indistinguishable in God. That�s problem the first problem. The second problem comes into play carrying over this definition of a hypostasis into Christology. If the Logos is an essence in self-relation and he has two natures, which relation of the essence is He? Two (Nestorian)? One (Monophysitism)?

Jonathan [a friend of mine] has gone over this problem [with me] quite thoroughly and understands what needs to be done. He knows that the filioque MUST be understood as ousia and not hypostasis, and here�s why. If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, then He (the Holy Spirit) must also participate in this act. Whatever is common to the Father and the Son is also common to the Spirit as well. To say that an act is proper to two and not also to the Spirit is to divide the essence of God or to affirm that the Spirit is of another essence. Natural faculties are proper to the whole Trinity. These are acts of will (energetic processions). A singular power denotes a singular common essence that is shared by the three persons. Acts of nature on the other hand, are hypostatic, which is why generation and procession are not contingent. They are proper to the Father alone. This is why acts are either proper to one hypostasis or to all 3. It is a proper distinction between nature and person on one hand and acts of nature and acts of will on the other hand. If acts of will are collapsible into acts of nature or that they are identical with each other, then you can not defend as Athanasius does the deity and uncreate Son along with the free-contingency of the world. Moreover, without these distinctions generation and procession are confused with natural faculties (or properties) of the essence.

Florence and Lyons must be understood on the level of ousia or the perichoresis. That�s how you make union and that�s how you have a coherent Triadology.

I then went on to state how this can be implemented when asked for clarification:

The best way to get an understanding of my Triadology is in Fr. Vladimir Lossky's book The Image and Likeness chapter 4 "The Procession of the Holy Spirit in Orthodox Trinitarian Doctrine." If you read carefully Lossky sketches out 3 types of procession of the Holy Spirit as follows:

1) Hypostatic existence: from the Father alone. The term used in the Nicene creed is εκπορεύεσθαι (ekporeuesthai), which denotes the origin of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit has no participation in this act, since it is proper to only one the Father. This was St. Photius's concern and he was right over against the Carolingians.

#2) ETERNAL energetic procession (also called eternal manifestation): from the Father through the Son. This is an act that is proper to all 3 persons. It is the common love expressed between the persons (energy): interpenetration and perechoresis. The best way to think of it is from the stand-point of God choosing not to create. Their would still be a manifestation of the Spirit through the Son that has an ontological and eternal aspect. This is an act of will (of love between the persons), so it is an act participated by all 3 persons.

Metropolitan John Zizoulas sums it up as follows in his critique of the Filioque Clarification [agrino.org] : Another important point in the Vatican document is the emphasis it lays on the distinction between επόρευσις (ekporeusis)and processio. It is historically true that in the Greek tradition a clear distinction was always made between εκπορεύεσθαι (ekporeuesthai) and προείναι (proeinai), the first of these two terms denoting exclusively the Spirit's derivation from the Father alone, whereas προείναι (proienai) was used to denote the Holy Spirit's dependence on the Son owing to the common substance or ουσία (ousia) which the Spirit in deriving from the Father alone as Person or υπόστασις (hypostasis) receives from the Son, too, as ουσιωδώς (ousiwdws) that is, with regard to the one ουσία (ousia) common to all three persons (Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor et al). On the basis of this distinction one might argue that there is a kind of Filioque on the level of ουσία (ousia), but not of υπόστασις (hypostasis).

However, as the document points out, the distinction between εκπορεύεσθαι (ekporeuesthai) and προείναι (proeinai) was not made in Latin theology, which used the same term, procedere, to denote both realities. Is this enough to explain the insistence of the Latin tradition on the Filioque? Saint Maximus the Confessor seems to think so. For him the Filioque was not heretical because its intention was to denote not the εκπορεύεσθαι (ekporeuesthai) but the προείναι (proeinai) of the Spirit.

This remains a valid point, although the subsequent history seems to have ignored it. The Vatican statement underlines this by referring to the fact that in the Roman Catholic Church today the Filioque is omitted whenever the Creed is used in its Greek original which contains the word εκπορεύεσθαι (ekporeuesthai).�John Zizoulas, One Single Source: An Orthodox Response to the Clarification on the Filioque [orthodoxresearchinstitute.org]

I also note that St. Gregory Palamas solved this problem in the Greek-speaking Fathers, and this aspect in Triadology has been often ignored or forgotten among Orthodox theologians as the article [usccb.org] between the North American Catholic and Orthodox document points out: Greek theologians, too, have often struggled to find ways of expressing a sense that the Son, who sends forth the Spirit in time, also plays a mediating role of some kind in the Spirit's eternal being and activity. Gregory of Nyssa, for instance, explains that we can only distinguish the hypostases within the Mystery of God by believing that one is the cause, the other is from the cause; and in that which is from the cause, we recognize yet another distinction: one is immediately from the first one, the other is through him who is immediately from the first one. It is characteristic of the mediation (mesiteia) of the Son in the origin of the Spirit, he adds, that it both preserves his own unique role as Son and allows the Spirit to have a natural relationship to the Father. (To Ablabius: GNO III/1, 56.3-10) In the thirteenth century, the Council of Blachernae (1285), under the leadership of Constantinopolitan Patriarch Gregory II, took further steps to interpret Patristic texts that speak of the Spirit's being through the Son in a sense consistent with the Orthodox tradition. The Council proposed in its Tomos that although Christian faith must maintain that the Holy Spirit receives his existence and hypostatic identity solely from the Father, who is the single cause of the divine Being, he shines from and is manifested eternally through the Son, in the way that light shines forth and is manifest through the intermediary of the sun's rays. (trans. A. Papadakis, Crisis in Byzantium [St. Vladimir's, 1996] 219) In the following century, Gregory Palamas proposed a similar interpretation of this relationship in a number of his works; in his Confession of 1351, for instance, he asserts that the Holy Spirit has the Father as foundation, source, and cause, but reposes in the Son and is sent � that is, manifested � through the Son. (ibid. 194) In terms of the transcendent divine energy, although not in terms of substance or hypostatic being, the Spirit pours itself out from the Father through the Son, and, if you like, from the Son over all those worthy of it, a communication which may even be broadly called procession (ekporeusis) (Apodeictic Treatise 1: trans. J. Meyendorff, A Study of Gregory Palamas [St. Vladimir's, 1974] 231-232).

This is why St.Gregory Palamas can say that: The Spirit of the Word is like a love of the Father for the mysteriously begotten Word, and it is the same love that the beloved Word and Son of the Father has for the one who begot him. That love comes from the Father at the same time as it is with the Son and it naturally rests on the Son.--St. Gregory Palamas, Chapters, 36 (PG 150:1144D-1145A). But in no way is this hypostatic existence of the Spirit since he participates in this act as well.

This interpretations seems to have some traction even if it runs counter to Carolingian and Medieval understandings of Triadology: Constantinople accused Pope St. Martin of believing that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, a statement the Pope allegedly wrote in a synodical letter. Knowledge of this event comes from a fragment of a letter by Maximus the Confessor to the priest Marinus. If this letter is authentic, which is here assumed, it is most noteworthy. Maximus writes that the "synodical letter of the present Pope" was challenged by Constantinople on two issues, one of which concerned the Pope's statement that "the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son." When Maximus questioned the Latins about this, they appealed to the Latin Fathers and "even to St. Cyril of Alexandria's Commentary on the Gospel of John." Maximus, however, does his best to interpret the Latin doctrine of the Filioque along Greek patristic lines, claiming that the Latins were "far from making the Son the cause of the Spirit, for they recognize the Father as the one cause of the Son and of the Spirit; the former by generation, the latter by procession." Maximus then states that the Latin Filioque was an attempt to "express the Spirit's going forth through the Son" and thus to establish the oneness and inseperable unity of their substance. (PG 91, 136) Maximus also states that he admonished the Romans to be more cautious in the future.--Richard Haugh, Photius and the Carolingians, pp. 32-33.

This also fits well with the Patristic idea of perichoresis.

I emphasize again this is an act that is participated in by all 3 persons.

#3) Is ECONOMIC energetic procession: from the Father through the Son.
This is also an act that is participated in by all 3 persons, but is with respect to sending a divine person in time. It also presupposes creation, which distinguishes it from #2. #2 is independent from God�s act of creating.

I take all 3 NOT to be optional theology.

The reason why Augustinian and Carolingian Triadology needs to be chucked is because it understands persons as relations which is under girded by a simplicity that makes all of the things we say about God identical: all the attributes of God are identical with each other and identical with the essence of God. Using Aristotle�s notion of a relation is how Augustine can move from the absolutely simple one to plurality, but it is a very thinned out metaphysic that doesn�t compromise God being absolutely simple. The problem with Augustine�s definitional simplicity is that acts of generation cannot logically be distinguished from acts of creation. See Christopher Hughes�s book A Complex Theory of a Simple God for a critique of Aquinas�s view (which is Augustine�s). Notre Dame is aware of this problem, Oxford and Cambridge are aware of this problem, St. Louis is aware of this problem, and of course Cornell University is aware of this problem. This Neo-Platonic notion of simplicity was first inherited by Origen and then passed on up through the Church until the 7th century when Maximus finally broke its back in the Monothelite controversy. What motivated the monothelites to root the will in the hypostasis was this metaphysic. The key text was Gethsemane Mt 26:39 My Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me. Nevertheless, not as I will but as thou wilt. The monenergists believed a true human volition would be in opposition to God. Thus the objects of willing must be singular and simple: going to the Cross. A true human volition in Christ for the self-preservation of his life would be viewed as sinful. Hence, rooting the will in the hypostasis and his humanity being solely moved by the Word. It is precisely at this point that predestinarianism is seen as a Christological problem and not a soteriological or anthropological one. As Maximus is the culmination of this break up of the Origenist problem, it first falls to Athanasius in the Arian controversy with the distinction between acts of nature (generation and procession) and acts of will (creation). Later still, with the Cappadocians with the Semi-Arian Eunomians with the process of epionoia/ennoia.

One further note on Augustine: He discovered Cappadocians when he was writing De Trinitate which is why he rewrote the last 3 chapters. These last 3 were all the Orthodox ever had in the Medieval period which is why Photius thought the Carolingians had probably tampered with Augustine. This is also why they never condemned Augustine since they took him always to be orthodox on the question of the Holy Spirit.

Back to the Filioque, the latest Clarification by the Vatican is great and should be a good starting point for dialogue. Although, I don�t believe it goes quite far enough. Metropolitan John Zizoulas in his critique �One Single Source� is quite admirable of it, but I think he and I would both agree that the Document still confuses properties of a nature with generation and procession in a few places. This is a symptom of �definitional� simplicity.

I think from a Byzantine Catholic perspective, specifically those who are Palamites and Hesychasts, not only should they adopt this interpretation but MUST to be consistent with their own tradition. I have spoken with one Byzantine Catholic priest who agrees with me. On the Latin side of the coin, there is nothing wrong with just admitting that we got off track in the Medieval period along with the uncritical acceptance of Augustine�s metaphysic. The decrees at Lyons and Florence are affirming a truth even if the decree doesn�t seem to be the logical out-working from the Latin metaphysic. I just don�t think there is any reason necessary to read those decrees as talking about hypostatic existence. It seems to me anyway, that the decree could fit in with #2 above quite easily, and if Maximus�s analysis of the West Romans is correct, this was the original intent anyways, even if the Latins during Maximus's day weren�t making a explicit distinction between essence and energy (which #2 requires).

For those that don't know me, I'm a graduate student at the University of Dallas, with my focus on Byzantine Theology. I'm currently a Roman Catholic, but am attending Church at a local Byzantine Catholic Church St. Basil the Great, and [probably] will be joining the Byzantine Church. I won't lie, going to Orthodoxy has been very appealing for me as well, but I have a few pauses that I won't go into here at the moment.

I welcome all criticisms and suggestions to the above. I would also like to know, especially from Byzantine clergy who are Hesychasts, how they feel about what I have stated.

Daniel Jones, aka Augustini

It would not be exact to say, as some Orthodox polemicists have, that the procession dia Huiou signifies solely the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit. In the case of the temporal mission of the persons of the Son and the Holy Spirit, a new factor is involved: that of will. This will, as we know, can only be the common will of the Trinity. The temporal mission is a specific case of divine manifestation in the economy, i.e. in relation to created being. Generally speaking, the divine economy in time expresses the eternal manifestation; but the eternal manifestation is not necessarily the basis of created beings, which could have not existed. Independently of the existence of creatures, the Trinity is manifested in the radiance of its glory. From all eternity, the Father is "the Father of glory" (Eph. 1:17); the Word is "the brightness of His glory" (Heb. 1:3); and the Holy Spirit is "the Spirit of glory" (I Peter 4:14).

Poverty of vocabulary sometimes makes it hard to recognize whether it is the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit or the procession of manifestation to which a writer is
alluding: both are eternal, though having a different point of reference. Very often the Fathers simultaneously employ expressions referring to the hypostatic existence of the Holy Spirit and to the eternal manifestation of the divine nature in the Holy Spirit, even when defining His personal qualities or distinguishing His person from the other two. Nevertheless, they well distinguished between the two different modes of hypostatic
subsistence and of manifestation. In evidence, we can cite this passage from St. Basil: "From the Father proceeds the Son, through whom are all things, and with whom the Holy Spirit is ever inseparably known, for none can think of the Son without being enlightened by the Spirit. Thus on one hand the Holy Spirit, the source, of all good things distributed to created beings, is linked to the Son, with whom He is inseparably conceived; on the other hand His being is dependent on the Father, from whom He proceeds. Therefore the characteristic mark of His personal quality is to be manifested after the Son and with Him, and to subsist in proceeding from the Father." (Ep. 38, 4; P.G. 32, col. 329C-332A. See also two passages in St. Gregory of Nyssa, Adversus Eunomium I; P.G. 45, cols. 369A and 416C.) Many other patristic texts could be cited, in which the writer is concerned simultaneously with the eternal manifestation of the Divinity in the Holy Spirit and with His personal existence. (For example, the pneumatological formula of the Synodicon of St. Tarasius, read at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, in which the distinction between the plane of subsistence and that of eternal manifestation is not noticed; Mansi, vol. 12, col. 1122.) Lossky, In the Image and Likeness, pp. 94-95

The idea of eternal manifestation seems to be forgotten from Maximus and Gregory Palamas amongst many Orthodox theologians that I have read as I indicated above regarding the joint document between North American Catholic and Orthodx Bishops. This idea also would seem to calm the worries of the Latins, who intiutively at least, realize their seems to be an eternal aspect to the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son. The questions seems to become: Can this idea of eternal manifestation be read from Lyons and Florence?

I was hoping to get a little more interaction on this then a goose egg.

Daniel

Oh my gosh. I have not yet read your whole post... but I may because you obviously wish this problem would go away.

My own position (not that it matters) has been that each is right within the context of its own theology expressed in proper ways to the people and culture appropriate to each church. One is based upon words from an old Greek cultrure and the other is based upon greek words adopted from an old greek culture. Once the Latin adaptation was accepted - a coule of the Greek words has a further development in meaning for the Greeks and they now no longer accepted what they had approved before. The Latins saw no reason to change as they lived in Rome and not Greece. And bingo.

I did not want to let you long post with much thought - go unanswered.

Since the unity of the two churches has already taken place in your own heart... your part is accomplished and others will have to answer for the division - not you.

The Orthodox are not in unity over rejecting the Latin church use of it. Some accept it and understand its uses and meaning within the theology of the Latin church - and some Othodox do not. No one is forced to use it not even the Latins (it is habit in the Latin church not forced).

The main block seems to be that some in the Orthdox (not all) demand it be recinded and pronouned heretical... which is not gonna happen just because that would make them happy... as if one could just sweep away all the Catholic saints for centuries as holding a hertical item.

The blockage is a matter of the heart and head. Not words on paper.

Can you imagine the explanation

-ray

BTW - I FULLY intend to read your entire post. Such energy of thought deserves a hearing.

You may not get many replies as this is a constantly re-occuring thread. Many have already talked in blue in the face in the past.

-ray

Thought that the position of one of the greatest Orthodox theologians of all time, St. Gregory Palamas might interest you...

(In other words, he does NOT seem to be averse to the interpretation of the Filioque clause)

Also, Augustini, there is presently a thread that is discussing this, so this may be redundant, but my church's (Greek Orthodox Archdiocese) Orthodox newspaper wrote that the understanding between our respective theologians has all but been settled.

It has been settled! There are just those who do not want any reconciliation and refuse any statement.
The West does not hold that it absolutely necessary to be included for an orthodox understanding of faith, as exhibited in the Eastern Catholic usuage.
The Pope in recent times has NOT inculded it in the use of the Creed in his documents.
Like you said there are some who want it declared herectical, which aint gonna happen.
So lets just leave it at that.
And besided how are we going to sing the Credo in latin without it.

Augustini,

I read your post and was very impressed. What do you think of the above statements that this problem has already been solved? I know many Orthodox who seem to be under the impression that it hasn't Also, I am like you, currently Catholic, but still investigating things. I was wondering about your reasons for rejecting Orthodoxy. If you would rather not post them here you can email me at maverickud@yahoo.com. Thanks for the stimulating post.

Dear Friends,

Thank you for the comments. I'll try to address everyone as follows:

I understand that this is a recurring thread, and I am sensitive to that--which is also why I felt like I needed to share this information. As a theologian, it is my duty also to fix this issue and make it coherent to both parties without ad hoc appeals to "mystery" (i.e. I want to build real bridges). What I mean by "mystery," in this since, is when theological grids run out of explanatory gas and the term "mystery" is endorsed that serves as a fudge factor by theologians rather than a coherent concept or having a principled reason for doing so. This is different then the Orthodox/Byzantine Catholic use of "mystical" theology, where our knowledge of God is grounded experientially as well as epistemically. On an individual level I think much unity has been made, although, I don't feel like it is strong enough on a world-wide ecumenical level. Such will not come probably until we have another ecumenical council with Orthodoxy. It is also my duty to address the BEST arguments Orthodoxy puts forward and to tackle them head on. I firmly feel that those who have put forward the best arguments, have much pause still. I do not brush those pauses aside, but rather engage them head on. That is required if one is going to analyze an argument (no matter how polemically charged it is). What I think I can offer to this is something that can be stated that you can build unity without having any ambiguity at all. Lord knows we do not want unity based on ambiguous statements and decrees. Florence should be an example of that for us.

You'll notice that I argue mostly from an Eastern perspective, and I take the best arguments that Photius, Mark of Ephesus, Palamas, Maximus, et al. have to offer and show how there is an ontological and eternal aspect of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son, but which is not on the level of hypostatic existence; so that there is no worry in compromising these great men and at the same time not compromising dogma. All it takes is a rethinking of the Latins from God as, in the words of St. Thomas, "pure being or pure act" to God as "beyond Being" or "on the other side of Being." The ideas of God being subsumable under the categories of Being in Augustinian thinking is no where Latin dogma, even if that is the majority of the opinion in Latin theology. My thesis addresses how you can have a coherent Triadology (for both parties) with being able to also coherently maintain the uncreate deity of the Son and Spirit(acts of generation and procession) and the free-creation and contingency of the cosmos (acts of will).

Daniel

Matt,
The recent statements of the Latin Church should make it clear as to its understanding about the Trinity.
That being, the Spirit Procedes from the Father as the sole source.
Stephanos I
PS and I think that that is in agreement with Photius, Mark of Ephesus and all the other Greek Fathers who speak of the procession of the Holy Spirit "through the Son" as to his operation or as you might call it mission to the World. It is through the Son that He is given and reveals Himself.

Fr. Stephanos, the Creed was sung nearly a millenium in Latin in some places without et filioque procedit Work with it a bit, and it sings just fine in the traditional Gregorian melodies.

I am by no means an educated man, when my wife and I were catechumens for the Orthodox faith, it was pounded into us about the error of the Roman Church with regards to the addtion of the Filioque. I accepted it, later I wanted to know more about both sides views. Educating oneself is knowledge as I tell my young son. I can see both sides from my 12th grade education level, when I left the Orthodox faith and entered the Catholic Church as a Byzantine Catholic (I feel comfortable making the sign of the cross right to left shoulder) Fr. Don Eagelson who openly embraced my son and I told us there was no problem with the sign of the cross, the rosary or prayer rope, we were free to use which ever we wanted, we use both, I asked about the Filioque, Fr. Don smiled and said if we say we say it, if we don't we don't, we can still receive the Sacraments. So Fr. Don and I became friends, close friends and I asked him one day what do we really know about the Holy Trinity? He paused and smiled and said, "We don't know alot about the Holy Trinity other than we believe in the Holy Trinity." I will end by saying Fr. Don Eagleson reposed in the Lord on October 22, 2004 and I would like to ask all who read this to pray for his soul please. He was my friend, teacher, confessor and priest, I miss him dearly as does my son. We have a new priest and he is wonderful, but Fr. Don's shoes will be hard to fill let alone walk in.

Dear Seraphim, How very blessed you were to have such a spiritual father/confessor! A man that stressed the really important things over those where there are many questions and misunderstandings...what a good solid Christian and priest he must have been! Sounds like a man after my own heart. May there be many more such priests!

Your poor brother in His service,
+Fr. Gregory

Alice, I really honestly believe that some bishops, priests, and laity in the Orthodox Church actually LOOK for points of difference, in order to have something to justify their being separated. In other words, there are those who ENJOY the separation and the 'fighting'---so sad as to be pathetic. Our duty (it seems to me) is to find the essential things that are common to us (which are the VAST majority of things) and find a way to honestly dialogue about the lesser things and try to understand the language and mentality of those separated from us. It is our 'spirit' that needs conversion, I think? We don't have His spirit...or His desire to be 'one-in-Christ' and that is sinful (I believe) and VERY sad. After all, if we were truly ONE in mind and heart...a lot of bishops and priests might well be out of a job. Probably the very same ones, who should be doing an honest day's work somewhere anyway? Perhaps I've said too much...as usual.

May He give us HIS heart and mind, that we might be united in faith and hope and love!

In His Name,
Your little brother,
+Fr. Gregory

Beloved in Christ, Father Gregory,

Everything you have said is very true and indeed, quite lamentable.

Last night I was at the first Salutation service (parts of the Akathist, as is the custom in the Greek Orthodox church on the first four Fridays of Lent--ofcourse YOU know this--*wink*,but others may not), and upon hearing my priest's beautiful voice sing the praises to our blessed Theotokos, I said a prayer for unity of her Son's Church, and prayed for one particularly obnoxious Orthodox convert I recently encountered that fits the description you describe perfectly.

Words, charity, and even love cannot win with such 'hardliners/fundamentalists', so I just prayed that God would touch their hearts and cure their spiritual illness of pride and emnity towards their Christian brethren.

Humbly,
Alice

Alice,
You always amaze me! You are not far from the Kingdom of God
Diak, I think that the creed was not sung for a millenium before the seperation of east and west since Gregorian Chant dates from the mid 6th Century. The filioque was inserted into the Creed in Rome, let's say around 1000. So maybe it was sung for 400 some + years without it.
Blessed Passion of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Stephanos I
Nec Plus, Nec Minus, Nec Alieter.