The Filioque: Dogma, Theologumenon or Error? by Theodore Stylianopoulos on a topic that's been much debated around here lately.

Bump :p

Read in light of Whether the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son?

Great stuff

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! Good call on posting the Summa, too, Myles. To understand the filioque, it really has to be read with "Latin Eyes", and those are best supplied by Thomas Aquinas, who almost singlehandedly redefined theological thought in the West by "bringing back the Greeks".

I think that the differences between Palamite and Thomistic formulations are too often used to divide, rather than to compliment eachother. When we realize that they're really talking about two totally different things, it becomes much less of a problem. Of course, it's getting people to READ both in their proper contexts that's the problem :p

Peace and God's love!

Food for thought:

You are single, and lonely. You get a cat or dog. You become very attached to this animal. You then meet your true soul mate. Your soul mate is very allergic to dogs/cats.

What do you do? Give up the cat/dog? Break off the relationship with your true soul mate? Put the dog/cat outside and take care of it yourself, since you know being near the cat/dog will adversely affect your soul mate?

Please remember this is your one and only true soul mate. I think you can see where I am going with this. That is all. :-)

Michael

The question is not about letting go of the cat or dog, it's getting the soul-mate to realize that you don't have to kill it or hate it.

Furthermore, you can always make it an outside pet and keep both

Good for you, Ghosty! You are so right about the crucial role of St. Thomas Aquinas in recovering Greek theology for the Latin West. As M. D. Chenu once remarked, people today often forget that Aristotle and the other pagan philosophers were not the only Greeks whose work was translated into Latin during the 12th-13th c. The great transmission also included much Christian Greek theology. Thus, just as Thomas was instrumental in bringing Aristotle to bear on Christian culture, so he was important for seeing the importance of the Greek Fathers for the development of Latin theology.

In the long, sad debate over the filioque such important historical developments are often overlooked.

Dr. Michael

Agreed even when people recall the fact that St Thomas Aquinas said he'd give up Paris for a complete translation of Chrysostom's homilies on Matthew they still ignore the fact that St Thomas was on the end of a long movement including figures like William of St Thierry to revive Greek learning (both secular and religious) in the West.

Dear Myles,

Nonsense, all these polemics and intricate explanations are nonsense! Now in my opinion the Holy Spirit had to proceed from the Son, because it is the Holy Spirit working through the Son that gives us the 'Word'.

By the same account, the Holy Spirit also came from the Father. It is the Holy Spirit coming through the Father that gives us the ability to comprehend the 'Word'.

Saint Gregory Palamas also said that the Holy Spirit comes from both the Father and the Son, but in different ways. I see it no differently.

My Gosh! It' so easy to understand. You know we're talking about God here. Why are we always trying to comprehend things of God by using our own faculties? All we have to do is ask God? If He wants us to understand, He'll comply.

Zenovia

The excellent and non-polemical work, "Crisis in Byzantium: the Filioque Controversy in the Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus" by Aristeides Papadakis (SVS Press) gives an excellent explanation of why our Orthodox Church condemned the filioque clause at the Council of Blachernae in 1285 (which was an expounding upon the Council of St Sophia in 879 which also condemned this clause). It's not just a matter of semantics but one which touches upon our faith; semi-Arianism was opposed by the church becuase of the term homoiousios instead of homoousios--even little words matter because of the spiritual effect of heresy. We can't know God if we don't know who he is, and any incorrect notion of him detracts from our union with him. The Church has seen fit therefore to engage in such "nonsense."

The Word is the Word regardless of the Holy Spirit; the Son doesn't need the Holy Spirit to be the Word, he IS the Word. One Church father described the Word and the Spirit as the two hands of God.

The quote you attribute to St Gregory Palamas is not talking about the eternal procession of the Spirit from the hypostasis of the Father (from his person) but rather from the temporal sending forth of the Spirit which the Son initiated when he left (kind of like a divine "trade-off" so to speak so that God would always be with us in our world).

Anastasios

Anastasios has the Roman Church ever taught that the Son needs the Holy Spirit to be the Word?

Looking soberly at Dr Theodore Stylianopolous' article, which was first printed in the Orthodox Theological review almost 20 years ago, one can see there is very little difference between what the Latin Church teaches about the filioque and the Greek Church teaches about the eternal procession of the Spirit.

If you opened the link from the Summa you would have seen that what the West means by filioque is no different than what St Basil the Great asserts in his work 'On the Holy Spirit' 18:45, 18:47 (particularly) and what his brother, Gregory of Nyssa, writes 'Against Eunomius' 1 and in his 'Letter to Ablabius'.

Moreover, many Greeks understood this in times past. St Maximus the Confessor being the most noteable. However, there were many others too e.g. Patriarch Peter III of Antioch (1052-6) who wrote to Patriarch Cerularius telling him not to divide the Church over issues that do not touch the 'fundamental doctrines of faith'. St Anselm of Canterbury told Pope Urban II as much when he came to Rome to explain the filioque in discussions with Greek theologians.

Tragically, it wasn't until the 1204 Sack of Constantinople that people began grasping at every single difference between East and West and using them to substantiate the hatred both the Latins and Greeks felt for one another. Indeed, part of the reason why Pope Urban chose to send the first Crusade East (he could've urged more military action in Spain against the Almohads) was because Basileus Alexios I assured him there was no schism this was in 1099. For centuries Photius' Mystagogia was just lying around and nobody addressed it. Indeed, Photius himself was accused of duplicity by many Greeks because he did not address the issue at Council with Latins in 879AD--that Council merely condemned adding to the Creed but the canon was deliberately framed to allow various interpretations--when Pope John VIII who Photius called 'My John' recognised his legitimacy as Patriarch. Indeed, Photius even celebrated communion with these heretical Latins and feeling such a sense of goodwill towards the West stopped sending Bishops into Bulgaria too.

Apart from Anastasius the Roman Librarian c.10th century who argued (correctly) that the Mystagogia of Photius misrepresented the Latin teaching on the filioque nobody in East or West cared to make an issue of this teaching. Even Cerularius' objection to it had no impact in his own era since he did not have the support of the other Eastern Patriarch's who continued to commemorate the Pope's in their diptychs. Peter III of Antioch actually recieved a confession of faith from Pope Leo IX (with whom he enjoyed cordial relations) stating Leo's IX acceptance of the teaching of the 7 Ecumenical Councils and the filioque and Peter III accepted it.

I agree with Zenovia that the filioque just doesn't matter. Sts Hiliary of Poitiers and Ambrose and Augustine all taught the filioque yet remained on good terms with the East. Ambrose was indeed an intimate acquaintance of the Cappodacians and Augustine was invited to the 3rd Ecumenical Council where Cyril of Alexandria whose writings are laced with the filioque was president. How is it then that the Fathers did not find cause for contention on this issue and we do?

Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Cyril of Alexandria do not give much support to the filioque doctrine as it is expressed by the Latins at Lyons or Florence. I'm not intending to enter this debate again -- I've been through it so many times now that it makes me almost nauseous to think of it -- but for reading I would suggest: Photius and the Carolingians by Richard Haugh, Aristotle East and West by David Bradshaw, and (as Anastasios mentioned) Crisis in Byzantium by Aristeides Papadakis. The first examines the patristic testimony (including some of the Latins that have been suggested), including St. Cyril, and finds that there seems to be nothing near real support for the later understanding of the filioque there (except in Augustine). The second explicitly addresses Gregory of Nyssa and Basil the Great and expounds upon what they were really saying, explaining why it is not equivalent to the later filioque. The third then gives the Orthodox doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit.

To put it very simply, there are three distinctions in Orthodox thought: (1) the Spirit's procession in time (the temporal procession or manifestation), (2) the Spirit's eternal procession in the divine energies, outside of the intra-Trinitarian being (the energetic procession or eternal manifestation), and (3) the Spirit's hypostatic procession as Person sharing the intra-Trinitarian being (the hypostatic procession). They allow that there is a filioque, in some sense, for both (1) and (2) -- and they also allow something like a filioque on the level of the shared divine essence (ousia), which is what Cyril and Maximos tend to be talking about: i.e., the Father and the Son share the same essence, so the essence of the Spirit is the essence of the Father and the Son -- but they do not allow a filioque when it comes to (3). In the cited text of the Summa, however, particularly "Reply to Objection 3," Aquinas seems to be talking about the hypostatic procession (since he mentions the begetting of the Son, which is the mode of his hypostatic, Personal origin), so he seems to be applying the filioque to the level of hypostatic, Personal existence. This is a no-no for the Orthodox.

Further, this section of the Summa does not capture Aquinas' full doctrine of the procession; as Roman Catholic theologian Cardinal Yves Congar notes, the Latin filioque is about "the hypostases of the Son and the Spirit, since in the most common Latin interpretation [and here in the book he cites Thomas Aquinas with a footnote], the persons are in reality distinguished only by an opposition of relationship, and that exists only through the processions" (Diversity and Communion, p. 101). This is the other part of Aquinas' doctrine. According to Aquinas, the only distinguishing property of each Person in the Trinity is His relationship of opposition to some other Person: the Son comes from the Father alone, but if the Spirit comes from the Father alone as well, according to the common Latin doctrine, there will be nothing to distinguish the Spirit from the Son -- so, the patch-up is that the Spirit comes from the Father and the Son. This is a property of the Spirit's hypostasis or Person, on Aquinas' view. This is exactly what the Orthodox will not allow.

Now, whether this is all Catholic dogma is a different question, and whether there is some underlying compatibility that might be worked out between the two traditions is also different. However, I think the above is worth saying, as things are much less cut-and-dry than they usually appear.

I'll likely leave it at that and say, "Read the books," if you want more info. It really isn't my interest to hash this out again right now. (One additional book that I might suggest, which I haven't yet read, is Trinitarian Theology East and West by Michael Fahey, SJ, and John Meyendorff; it's a Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical book wherein they apparently try to work out the similarities and differences).

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

I do not fully agree with this comment, because God the Father is the pegaia theotes, the source of the divine essence itself, "for the Son and the Spirit receive the divine essence from Him." [M. Edmund Hussey, "The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Theology of Gregory Palamas," page 29] The divine essence is common to all three hypostases, but it is common to the Son and the Spirit in a derivative sense, i.e., in the sense that they are homoousios with the Father, receiving their eternal being from Him. Nevertheless, it is not proper to say that the Father is homoousios with the Son and the Spirit, because the term homoousios is in fact a relational term of dependency, i.e., it indicates derived origin. Thus, the Father is the sole source, cause, and principle of the hypostasis of the Son, and He is the sole source, cause, and principle of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit; and as a consequence, both the Son and the Spirit receive their participation in the divine essence from their derived existential origin from the hypostasis of the Father, who is the sole source and font of divinity. The consubstantial communion of the hypostases involves a flowing of the divine essence from the Father to the Son, and through the Son to the Spirit, but the divine essence, as with all divinity, has its origin in the Father alone, and so neither the Son nor the Spirit is a cause within life of the immanent Trinity.

*sigh*

The Latin filioque, and the theology behind it, expresses only the eternal aspects of the Trinitarian relationship, which includes both Energetic and Immanent. This has been explained ad nauseam by the Latins, since the time of Maximus the Confessor.

Latins do not speak with the terms of Engergies and Immanence, although these distinctions are, and always have been, recognized in Latin theology. All polemics by Eastern Orthodox about Latin beliefs in "created graces" are non-sense at best, and based on dangerously faulty reading of Scholastic theology at worst.

These facts have been recognized and affirmed by Thomas Aquinas, the Council of Florence, Yves Cardinal Congar, and recent Joint Conferences between the Orthodox and Catholics on the subject.

Like Ecce Jason, however, I have no desire to re-hash the whole debate. I'll just say that the fact that this issue, which came up and was resolved by theologians centuries before any Schism between the Byzantines and Latins, while the Christological misunderstanding that arose from the Council of Chalcedon and resulted in immediate Schism was resolved almost providentially and without hardly any debate after 1600 years of seperation is, frankly, disgusting.

Just my thoughts. Any clarification requests can be sent to my PM box

Friends,

There is an interesting article on the website of the Ukrainian Catholic Archeparchy of Winnepeg on the filioque. It is in PDF format and it is the second like on the right on the home page.

http://archeparchy.ca/

-uc

I dont wish to debate this either but I will say that St Thomas' Trinitarian theology should be distinguished from a simple relation of opposition. His Triadology is about relations of origin. What you've quoted from Congar is absolutely correct Jason. The difference is the processions Thomas speaks of are not in terms of relations to the other persons but in relation to their mode of being from the Father. In my opinion he expresses himself more clearly in his letter the Cantor of Antioch than in the Summa. For St Thomas the key distinction is that the Son's procession is a procession of intellect and the Spirit's is one of love:

St Thomas' Triadology cannot simply be reduced to a relation of opposition. Yes, he does distinguish by relation but relations of origin from the Father. Because the Son is originated by intellectual procession and the Spirit is originated by procession of love there isn't need for St Thomas to include the filioque in his Triadology for the reasons you say Jason. Indeed, the reason he does include it in his Trinitarian Theology is for a completely different reason than the one you have attributed to him as is clear from his own writing.

Ukrainian Catholic: Thank you for that link. I think it's an excellent example of the Catholic Church's actual internal discussion of the matter.

Apotheoun,

Chalk up my lack of precision to an attempt to summarize everything as quickly as possible. Of course you are right. However, in some sense of "Trinitarian order," the essence that the Spirit receives from the Father is also the essence of the Son, and that's all I really meant in positing a filioque at the level of ousia. I think Metropolitan John of Pergamon uses this same language in his response to Rome's clarification on the filioque, and I also think this is exactly what St. Cyril means when he says, "The Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son; clearly, He is of the divine substance, proceeding (proion) according to the essence (ousiodos) in it and from it." But thank you for your needed clarification.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

Myles,

You say: The latter sentence here seems to be contrary to the facts. We need to establish a few things. First, Aquinas seems to take a principle from Augustine which is just that Persons are relations. This is why he says, in the Summa, that "a divine person signifies a relation as subsisting . . . such a relation is a hypostasis subsisting in the divine nature," and later that "there are several real relations in God . . . which means that there are several persons in God." Later, he even insists "relation must necessarily be the same as person." Then Aquinas asks how we can distinguish the Persons. His answer seems to go directly against what you have expressed. He says that "Some . . . have said that the divine hypostases are distinguished by origin . . . This opinion, however, cannot stand . . . Origin of a thing does not designate anything intrinsic, but means the way from something, or to something; as generation signifies the way to a thing generated, as proceeding from the generator. Hence it is not possible that what is generated and the generator should be distinguished by generation alone; but in the generator and in the thing generated we must presuppose whatever makes them to be distinguished from each other. In a divine person there is nothing to presuppose but essence, and relation or property. Whence, since the persons agree in essence, it only remains to be said that the persons are distinguished from each other by the relations." Then how is the Holy Spirit distinguished, according to Aquinas? "It must be said that the Holy Ghost is from the Son. For if He were not from Him, He could in no wise be personally distinguished from Him." So, is it true that the Persons are distinguished according to their origin from the Father, as you suggest? Or are they distinguished by their relations of opposition to one another, as I had suggested? I will let Aquinas finish this post with his answer (emphasis added):

"It must be said that the divine persons are distinguished from each other only by the relations. Now the relations cannot distinguish the persons except forasmuch as they are opposite relations; which appears from the fact that the Father has two relations, by one of which He is related to the Son, and by the other to the Holy Ghost; but these are not opposite relations, and therefore they do not make two persons, but belong only to the one person of the Father. If therefore in the Son and the Holy Ghost there were two relations only, whereby each of them were related to the Father, these relations would not be opposite to each other, as neither would be the two relations whereby the Father is related to them. Hence, as the person of the Father is one, it would follow that the person of the Son and of the Holy Ghost would be one, having two relations opposed to the two relations of the Father. But this is heretical since it destroys the Faith in the Trinity. Therefore the Son and the Holy Ghost must be related to each other by opposite relations. Now there cannot be in God any relations opposed to each other, except relations of origin, as proved above (28, 44). And opposite relations of origin are to be understood as of a 'principle,' and of what is 'from the principle.' Therefore we must conclude that it is necessary to say that either the Son is from the Holy Ghost; which no one says; or that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, as we confess."

The relations are the Persons. The relation of the Holy Spirit that makes Him a different Person from the Father and the Son is his relation of oppositional origin from the Father and the Son. This is precisely what I have posited as problematic.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

For relevant parts of the Summa, look here:

Does the word "person" signify relation?

Are there several persons in God?

Is relation the same as person?

Does the Holy Ghost proceed from the Father and the Son?

Yes, but I would simply point out that anything that is common to two of the hypostases within the Trinity is common to all three hypostases. Thus, the divine essence is the essence of the Holy Spirit, which He receives from the Father, who is the sole source, cause, and principle of divinity. In other words, the Son does not impart the divine essence -- which He has received from the Father -- to the Spirit in an existential manner.

I have no idea but I didn't say that it did. I was responding to Zenovia.

As far as St. Photios is concerned, the Franks had not yet conquered the Roman Patriarchate so I highly doubt that the Carolingian interpretation of the filioque was accepted by Pope John VIII. I believe the Frankish Church was still even in schism from Rome because of its refusal to accept the 7th ecumenical council. At any rate, the Latins at that time had the good sense to condemn the filioque clause and so St. Photios felt justified communing with them.

Of course we know that 1054 is somewhat of a myth date; the Pope of Rome was removed from the dyptchs of the Church in Constantinople in 1014 I believe when the filioque was introduced into the creed there, but full intercommunion did not cease until 1204.

That Peter III of Antioch accepted communion with Leo IX was obviously a mistake on his part. Eventually all the patriarchs condemned the filoque and hence here we stand.




The book I referenced above answers your point about the previous pastristic texs of St Cyril and others being "laced" with the filioque.

St. Photios and St. Mark of Ephesus are Fathers of the Church, and the fathers of the Council of Blachernae in 1274 condemned the filioque, and all Orthodox hierarchs in council from this time have condemned the filioque, and after imperial pressure ceased with the Turkish yoke, no Orthodox bishop confessed the filioque (and remained an Orthodox bishop).

I feel Jason has more adequately addressed your points on Thomas Aquinas (who I will be the first to admit I am not well versed in but am not so much interested in him as in the official RC doctrines) but I can't see that the Latin Church and the Orthodox Church agree on this issue. I think some positive steps towards solving the dilemma have been made but the Orthodox still see enough problems with the RC teaching to refrain from accepting it.

Anastasios

Right; communicating of essence is a hypostatic property of the Father alone.

Anastasios

Hey Jason

As I said I dont think the Summa expresses things best in this issue which is why I had recorse to De rationibus fidei contra Saracenos, Graceos et Armenos ad Cantorem Antiochenum. Which is basically what Aquinas says after the quoted passage you gave from Prima Pars Q36 a2.

St Thomas' discussion of procession from the Father and the Son and from the Father through the Son need to be read in light of one another rather than isolated from each other. It is why they have been grouped together. What Aquinas means by his treatment of relations is that the relation of the procession of love is explained when he speaks about how one comes to love something, that is via knowledge. For Aquinas the relational difference between the Father and Son is because of their consubstantiality. As one loves through knowledge of something, Aquinas holds that the filioque is a logical neccessity since God apprehends Himself through His word and loves Himself accordingly.

It is because of the consubstantiality of the Son that Aquinas teaches what he teaches not simply because he doesn't know how to differentiate between the persons by any other manner--if that were the case he wouldn't have bothered to write the rest of article 2 or article 3 for that matter. The relations of origin as Aquinas posits them make the filioque a logical neccessity in that being of one essence it is impossible at any time for Father not to perfectly apprehend Himself. This procession of intellect thus gives rise to the procession of love as what God understands and by His hyper perfection cannot fail to understand: Himself. He also loves timelessley and eternally by procession of love in the person of the Spirit.

Hence Thomas says in article 3: The filioque clause in Aquinas' thought is the consequence and clarification of the consubstantiality of the Godhead. As God cannot ever not understand Himself it makes the procession of love impossible in Him to take place without the Son playing a mediating role. Since its logically impossible for any love nevermind the procession of the Spirit as Love to take place without knowledge of the object of love and its equally impossible for God not to know the object of anything nevermind the object of His own actions. The Word does not give the Spirit anything rather the Word is the Fathers' understanding and from that understanding does the Spirit proceed eternally in the Father's all-loving all-understanding of His own being.

The Augustinian and Scholastic attempt to define the nature of generation and procession within the Godhead in psychological terms is foreign to Eastern Triadology. In other words, the generation of the Son is not seen as a procession of intellect and the procession of the Spirit is not seen as a procession of love or will; instead, the Eastern Fathers hold that generation and procession are distinct hypostatic properties of the Father, but exactly how it is that they are different is unknown, for as St. John Damascene has indicated, ". . . the Father is without cause and unborn: for He is derived from nothing, but derives from Himself His being, nor does He derive a single quality from another. Rather He is Himself the beginning and cause of the existence of all things in a definite and natural manner. But the Son is derived from the Father after the manner of generation, and the Holy Spirit likewise is derived from the Father, yet not after the manner of generation, but after that of procession. And we have learned that there is a difference between generation and procession, but the nature of that difference we in no wise understand. Further, the generation of the Son from the Father and the procession of the Holy Spirit are simultaneous." [St. John Damascene, "De Fide Orthodoxa," Book I, Ch. 8] Clearly, the East does not try to solve the mystery of the Trinity, nor does it apply psychological categories to the intimate life of God; and that is why it will not reduce the generation of the Son's hypostasis to a type of intellection, nor will it reduce the Spirit's hypostasis to the energy of love. The Father is the sole cause within the Godhead; and as such, He alone gives hypostatic origin to the Son and Spirit, and He alone shares His nature with them.

Apotheoun,

Right, and it goes back even further than St. John of Damascus (as you of course know). Even the Cappadocians were cautious about delving into the mystery; in fact, I suspect -- if it is not too inappropriate to say -- that St. Gregory of Nazianzen might have chastised Aquinas, using something like these very words of his: God bless,
Jason

Dear Anastasios you said:

"It's not just a matter of semantics but one which touches upon our faith; semi-Arianism was opposed by the church becuase of the term homoiousios instead of homoousios--even little words matter because of the spiritual effect of heresy. We can't know God if we don't know who he is, and any incorrect notion of him detracts from our union with him. The Church has seen fit therefore to engage in such "nonsense."

I say:

Gregory Palamas said that it is not the intellect that matters, but rather the heart. Certainly we Orthodox have had many saints that were illiterate and they would not even know what you are talking about. By the same token, the Catholics also have had many saints, yet they said the Creed with the Filioque...so it doesn't seem to matter to God.

Maybe these things are simply above us...and maybe when we perceive that 'our' minds must comprehend something 'correctly', it comes down to 'pride'...thus limiting the 'heart' from being able to understand what God is telling us.

I think when it comes to 'heresy', it is the individual 'pride' within the leaders of those encompassing the heresy, that leads others astray. I can only speak from my personal experiences. I know many within a 'correct' Church, that seem to follow some rather 'prideful' leaders with the end result of a 'church' in apostasy.

So taking this into account, we cannot specify that only one thing or another is heretical, but rather the 'persona' of the individuals involved and their effect on a community as a whole. It is the fruits that we must look at...and by fruits I mean the amount of compassion and charity among us.

Zenovia

Zenovia,

With all due respect, I fear that your post may be motivated by a mistake that has become quite prevalent these days. I don't blame you for it, as it is all too common. But I think it is this: you seem to almost imply that "heart" and "mind" are inevitably opposed, as if there is some unbreakable dichotomy between strident intellectual endeavor and prayerful and heartfelt reverence. There are at least two reasons that I believe this is false.

The first: the very meaning of the term "Orthodoxy." Etymologically, as you may be aware, it comes from the Greek words orthos, typically meaning "right" or "correct," and doxa meaning "doctrine" or, derivatively, "glory" or "worship." The potential double-meaning perhaps conveys exactly the point I would like to make: right-doctrine and right-worship are often connected. There is something to both doctrinal discussion, then, and also to prayerful ascetism. The two are not necessarily opposed, and perhaps neither should be relied on solely, to the detriment of the other.

This leads to my second reason: the early Church councils. As Anastasios notes, there was heated debate over even a single Greek letter, the iota in the word homoiousios. There was a reason for this, and part of it was related directly to what I said above. The doctrinal definitions were not ends in themselves, but they were sorts of "signposts," pointing the way toward right doctrine, because right doctrine itself pointed the way toward deification. The early Councils were not ends in themselves; they were almost medical clinics, in a sense (I believe John Romanides uses such language somewhere), in that they "cut off" those who had heretical understandings in order to protect the Church. How did doctrinal formulations protect the Church? By setting the path toward deification, toward glorification, and blocking the way toward error and false worship. So reasoned deliberation was highly prized at even the early councils, all of course under the larger umbrella of our struggle for salvation.

This is why I am very wary every time someone suggests on these boards that we ought to stop discussing such things, or suggests that such discussions are frivolous or purely prideful, or suggests that desire for and deliberation over correct belief is in some way even the cause of heresy. On the contrary, it is a precondition of heresy's destruction. This is not to say that the heart is not of crucial importance as well, it is just to say that the two are not necessarily opposed. Christ saves the whole man, heart and mind.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

Oh no, Romanides "Frankish Filioque" non-sense is coming up now? Word to the wise: NEVER put so much trust in an academic.

There's a reason I abandoned academics, and it's that there's too much emphasis on novelty of theory rather than soundness of it. Romanides wouldn't know Latin theology if it smacked him in the face, and his works remain the best cited, yet WORST presentations of the subject I've ever had the mispleasure of reading.

This "Frankish interpretation" really needs to be relegated to the dust-bin of history where it belongs, right next to Marx's "Dialectic Materialism" theories of political development. :rolleyes:

"Frankish Filioque" is where I officially bow out of any conversation on the subject.

Peace and Love!

Whoa Ghosty,

I only mentioned Romanides because he might have used the metaphor of the Church as a "medical clinic," and so I wanted to give credit for that metaphor alone where it may have been due. No one's saying anything about the Frankish filioque, or even putting trust in any of his work here.

By the way, yes, Romanides does go off the deep end at times, and his work is often full of rhetoric and unsympathetic presentation of the opposing side. However, this is neither an engagement of his arguments nor a fair characterization of everything he presents. For example, he is Byzantine Orthodox, but his work on the Council of Chalcedon is amazingly sympathetic to the non-Chalcedonian position, and actually goes so far as to say that Dioscorus was in some sense right(!). In fact, I believe some of his historical work here has been very important in Chalcedonian/non-Chalcedonian dialogue, and he was (from what I understand) even one of the people who, I believe, pushed for the lifting of the anathemas. Also, his book, The Ancestral Sin, though also full of rhetoric and an unfair presentation of the Latin side, does present an interesting and well-defended thesis regarding the Greek view. Let us not overreact and inadvertently end up being just as dismissive as we accuse him of being.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

Oh, and by the way, not all of that "Frankish filioque" stuff is nonsense either. Some of it is well-supported by historical research, including Professor Richard Haugh's Photius and the Carolingians.

EDIT: Yes, in fact, if one wants to find some of Romanides' work for the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Consultation, including discussions of his papers by both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian orthodoxy, they can be found here: Orthodox Unity

Romanides went over the top some times but he makes a lot of good points that are often ignored by others. Since you seem to dismiss him so out of hand, why don't you instead take a few moments to point us to rebuttals of Romanides or take a few minutes to sketch out what is wrong with his discussion of the filioque controversy.

While we're on the subject, what did you think about his book The Ancestral Sin and his review of Fr John Meyendorff's work on Palamas? I thought the later was brilliant but found the former somewhat confusing. Perhaps I will give it another read.

Anastasios

Don't get me wrong, I don't dismiss Romanides out of hand. I don't even dismiss his historical works. My only problem with him is that he takes his histrical examination of Frankish influence on European ecclesiastical and political development and tries to run it into theological analysis. In doing this he takes a very myopic view of Latin theological expression and development, IMO. In other words, he's a great historian, but mediocre theologian when it comes to Latin expressions, often substituting myopic polemics for genuine analysis.

Again, when it comes to history the man is actually rather brilliant, IMO. I wouldn't dream of knocking him generally, just on the "Frankish Filioque" issue and other theological matters that are peculiar to the West. Sorry if that wasn't clear enough before

As for why I don't trust his theological premises, it really has a lot to do with simply being a Latin Catholic and knowing that a lot of what he says Latins believe (due of course to Frankish influence) is flatly wrong. In fact, most of his work on the subject has been made obsolete by the various "clarification" documents released in the past ten years by both Orthodox and Catholics. The clarification link on page three of the "Essence/Energies..." thread is a good example of this. He also seems to have over looked the fact that much of the problem he attributes to the Latin theology, namely that it makes the Procession and Generation a trait of God's Essence, was actually explicitely condemned at the Fourth Lateran Council, circa 1215. If you're gonna be polemical, at least accuse us of a heresy we actuall subscribed to at least at SOME point, rather than one we unilaterally condemned 800 years ago, and 70 years before the birth of Gregory Palamas

Anyway, hope that clears it up. It's the "Frankish Filioque Theory", not Romanides or his work in general, that irk me. Ecce Jason's reference to Romanides didn't even trip my radar, honestly, it was the mention of the "Carolingian" influence on the filioque that got my beeper going :p

Peace and Love!

Compare and contrast:

and

What St Thomas means by procession of intellect is equivalent to what he finds in The Damascene (whom he quotes more times than anyone in the Summa besides Augustine and Pseudo-Denys). As such the filioque as Thomas uses is not heretical since what is loved is first known and in God understanding takes hypostatic existence as Word. The procession of love must by the consubstanitality of the persons include the Word. But in both the Son's generation and the Spirit's procession the Father is the principle. The Son takes place in the procession only because it is impossible by God's own timelessness and hyper perfection that He could at no time fail to understand what He was willing. There are not two principals in Thomas' thought, Thomas is not a modalist, nor does Thomas come to any conclusion that the tradition of the Church which has always held that the Divine Logos is a Word proceeding from Mind. Indeed, his conclusions are what you'd expect from someone who's main theological influences are Augustine, Denys and Damascene. St John the golden throated even says:

If the emboldened words are not psychological analogy then there is not psychological anaology in Aquinas. I do not have a problem with the Trinitarian theology of Gregory of Cyprus or St Gregory Palamas. I am not out to prove the East is wrong. All I want is for people to stop saying St Thomas' use of the filioque is heretical. Indeed, some of the charges Jason cited about differing solely on relation of opposition can be found in other Western writers prior to Thomas. If you read the book 'Discovering Aquinas' by Fr Aidan Nichols OP he actually names a few of them. Whether or not they were actually rendering St Augustine's ideas acurately I cant know because I am not an Augustinian and know precious little about his work. But when it comes to St Thomas and what he means when he says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the Son or in the next article of the same question from the Father through the Son I really cannot see how this can be errant. The Word is Logos, the Word must eternally and without question always have understanding in infinite clarity. The Word is the Father's knowing of what He wills and thus Thomas says:

Which I feel are no different from St John Damascene making statements like this:

Sincerely
Myles

PS) Zenovia thanks for reminding us whats most important.

Close, but no cigar.

Myles,

I recommend reading David Bradshaw's book "Aristotle: East and West," because in it he shows quite clearly that Aquinas frequently misunderstood and misread what St. John Damascene meant in his theological writings, especially in relation to the divine names and the hypostatic origin of the Son and Spirit.

Blessings to you,
Todd

The Eastern Fathers, including St. John Damascene, do not reduce the hypostases to mere relations within the divine essence, nor do they reduce them to psychological categories; rather, the hypostases are different in their manner of subsistence (tropos hyparxeos). The Son receives his subsistence from the Father by generation, and the Spirit receives His subsistence from the Father alone by procession. That being said, St. John's doctrine of perichoresis allows that the hypostases indwell each other, and that is why the Spirit, which is properly the Spirit of the Father, is also the Spirit of the Son, but as St. John goes on to say, ". . . we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son." [St. John Damascene, "De Fide Orthodoxa," Book I, Ch. 8] There is no "filioque" in the theology of St. John Damascene, and in fact there is a direct refutation of it, which I just quoted above. Moreover, St. John Damascene does not reduce the hypostases to mere relations within the divine essence as Aquinas does, nor does he fail to distinguish between essence and hypostasis as Aquinas does (cf., Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q. 39, Art. 1 and 2; Q. 40, Art. 1). Now as far as the Spirit's origin is concerned, it comes from the Father alone, for as Andrew Louth pointed out in his book on Damascene, St. John ". . . speaks of the Holy Spirit as 'the Holy Spirit of God the Father, as proceeding from Him, who is also said to be of the Son, as through Him manifest and bestowed on the creation, but not as taking His existence from Him.' (St. John, Sabbat. 4:21-23)" [Andrew Louth, "St. John Damascene: Tradition and Originality in Byzantine Theology," page 110]

Dear Jason you said:

"With all due respect, I fear that your post may be motivated by a mistake that has become quite prevalent these days. I don't blame you for it, as it is all too common. But I think it is this: you seem to almost imply that "heart" and "mind" are inevitably opposed, as if there is some unbreakable dichotomy between strident intellectual endeavor and prayerful and heartfelt reverence. There are at least two reasons that I believe this is false."

I say:

I realize that discussions must always occur and certainly agree with you in everything you stated. I just get a little annoyed at times with some, (and I have come across quite a few), that will use a certain 'word' and it's correctness within a certain language (Greek), in order to 'impose' their beliefs on another. I can't help but feel that when one over specifies the 'correctness' of certain words that can only be understood within a certain language, it becomes an 'idolatry' of that language, and I have seen too much of that.

Certainly the heart and mind go together otherwise we'd be following our 'passions', and that wouldn't be very Christ-like.

Please forgive me if I had given the impression that I didn't believe in honest and open discussion.

Zenovia

Straw.

Apotheoun: Latins believe that the Holy Spirit's sole source of personhood is the Father. All you're doing is setting up straw men.

The way "from" (ek) is used in Greek is much different from Latin and English. You're simply obfuscating that in your remarks. These cross-culture and cross-linguistic discussions always end up as shell games with the Truth. :rolleyes:

Aquinas agrees with you as the quoted passage from the letter to the Cantor of Antioch and the Summa is testament to. In the breadth of Q36 Article 3 its quite clear actually.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding what St Thomas Aquinas means by filioque. When St John Damascene speaks of the procession of the Holy Spirit in De Fide Ortho. Book 1 chapter 7 he clearly includes the Son in the how . Interpreting chapters 7 and 8 in light of one another it is clear that John includes the Son in the procession not as a second principle but as a simultaneous action of the Father. As the Word is generated the Word is accompanied by the Spirit because of its nature as a Word:

Thomas agrees though his more extensive treatment of the Son makes it seem otherwise. His point is merely that in the Son's generation from the Father there cannot not simultaneously be procession by Spirit because God's timelessness prevents such a thing. There is no instant seperating God's all-self comprehension and God's all-self love. The two are simultaneous acts from the Father as my citations of St Thomas have illustrated. Louth is correct that the Spirit does not take His existence from the Son. St Thomas' words that the Father spirates through the Son do not have the meaning that you're giving them. This is clear from St Thomas' own words:

An adverb, as everyone knows, is a word which describes a verb 'a doing word' as teachers used to tell me as an infant. Calling the Father and the Son one principle adverbially of the Spirit acts only to describe the doing done by the Father. The Father generates the Son via procession of intellect and simultaneously does the procession of love take place. Thus, St Thomas maintains the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son as one principle (adverbially). This can be described through the words of The Damascene:

As with all scholastic writers St Thomas Aquinas arranges his material systematically so that what you read next you will read in light of what has come prior (as Q36 illustrates). Hence what you say here:

Must be read in light of what St Thomas says in Q 29 Art. 2: Whether "person" is the same as hypostasis, subsistence, and essence?

In light of what St Thomas tells us in Summa Theol. Q29 Art.2 its evident why he answers what he answers in the questions to which you have referenced the reader: the Divine substance is two fold. The simplicity of God is always two fold, St Thomas holds without doubt that ousia and hypostasis and irreducible further. Hence, for St Thomas it makes sense to answer what he answers in the Questions you have referenced.

Once again I highlight that I have no problem with the Trinitarian Theology of the East I'm not out to do anything more than vindicate the Triadology of my mentor. Without whom I have never had been able to make the act of intellect that God took and confirmed in His loving grace, and without whom I may have fallen into modernism and all sorts of novel 'approaches' to Catholic teaching.

It was St Thomas who dragged me out of emanationism, St Thomas who taught me to love God for bridging the infinite gap between ourselves and Himself uncoerced and unforced, St Thomas who taught me to love the sacraments especially the Eucharist. I owe him...lots. Therefore, I must contest passionately--a fault I admit Thomas but not all can be as composed and reasoned as you angel of schools--any misrepresentation of his teaching.

Thomas may have stressed the Son more than need be in Q36 but only because he was a Westerner living in part of the world where the fight against Arianism had decisively influenced the prominence given to the Son in the Latin Triadology he was taught. Yet, as I've shown, at the root of his teaching there cannot be found a shred of evidence for the errors of modalism or ditheism.

Sincerely
Myles

Actually it is St. Thomas who misunderstands St. John, because the Son does not participate in the "how" of the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. St. Thomas, because he fails to distinguish essence, energy, and hypostasis in God, confuses the energetic manifestation of the Spirit through the Son, with the Spirit's hypostatic origin. This error is common among Western theologians.

I urge you to read David Bradshaw's book.

I'll grant that what the Damascene says of the Spirit in De Fide Ortho. Book 1 Chapter 8 is concerned with the economy primarily. But chapters 6 and 7 of De Fide Ortho. treat the eternal Trinity and it is in the content chapter 7 in particular that what I am saying about St Thomas takes its foundations. What is written in chapter 6 about the eternal generation of the Son is dovetailed by the Damascenes' treatment of the simultaneous eternal procession of the Spirit in chapter 7. You're correct that the West does not distinguish the economy from the eternal but in this case it is of little consequence because St Thomas' eternal Triadology echoes the contents of De Fide Ortho. Book 1:6-7.

The problem with St. Thomas is that he is more of a philosopher than a theologian. The Aristotelian distinction he makes in substance does not correspond to the teaching of the Cappadocians.

Moreover, as I pointed out before he fails to distinguish hypostasis from essence in Prima Pars Q. 39, Art. 1 and 2, and Q. 40, Art. 1, which is why Christopher Hughes in his book entitled "On a Complex Theory of a Simple God" asserts that Thomas' Trinitarian "theory" ultimately destroys the reality of the three hypostases.

It would have served Thomas well to have backed off from Aristotle, and embrace the Cappadocians, because Thomas' views on the divine simplicity make any real distinctions in God impossible.

Thomas has reduced the three hypostases to mere relations within the divine essence, and he insists that "person" and "essence" are the same, that Cappadocian Fathers condemned this position as Sabellian (cf. Basil, Letter 236] Thomas' Aristotelian theory of the Trinity has very little to do with the Cappadocian doctrine. As an Easterner I reject Thomas' nominalist theory of the Trinity. Sadly, for Thomas, the three divine hypostases only differ in ". . . our way of thinking." [Summa, Prima Pars, Q. 39, Art. 1]

In Q. 40, Art. 1, Thomas reduces the "persons" (hypostases) to the divine essence, in which they differ only in relation. The hypostases are true subsistent realities, and so they are not merely "a relation subsisting in the divine nature," as Thomas believes.
This idea is not acceptable in the Eastern theological tradition, because hypostasis and essence (ousia) are really distinct, and so you cannot identify any one hypostasis with the divine essence. In fact, if you identify essence and hypostasis in God you advocate a form of Sabellian modalism.

I posted the following note that I wrote to a friend on my website, but I thought I'd post it here as well:

The Trinitarian Problems Arising from the Thomistic Failure to Distinguish Essence and Hypostasis in God

I've been thinking about Aquinas' views on the Trinity, and I believe his philosophical theology ultimately leads to a denial of the reality of the three divine hypostases.

Let me put it this way, in the "Summa Theologica" (Prima Pars, Q. 39, A. 1 and A. 2; and Q. 40, A. 1) St. Thomas denies that there is a real distinction between essence (or nature) and hypostasis; thus, the hypostasis of the Father is identical with the divine essence (or nature), and the same holds with the hypostases of the Son and the Spirit. As a consequence, the essence of God is the Father, but since the Son and the Spirit possesses the same divine essence as the Father, it follows that they are both the Father as well, since the divine essence is identical with the hypostatic property of paternity. That being said, the subsistent reality of the Father is also undermined, because He possesses the divine essence too, and since the divine essence is held in Thomas' theory to be identical with the hypostases of the Son and the Spirit, it follows that the Father is also the Son, while He is simultaneously the Spirit, and so, the trinity of divine hypostases collapses into a single monistic whole.

As Christopher Hughes puts it in his critique of the Thomist theory of the Trinity:

"Surely if (a) the essence of x = the essence of y, and (b) the essence of x = x, and the essence of y = y, it follows as the night does the day that x = y. And Aquinas maintains both that the divine persons are not distinct from their essences, and that they all have the same essence." [Hughes, "On a Complex Theory of a Simple God," (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989), page192]

In other words, the Father (x) is the Son (y), and the Son is the Father, and the same holds in relation to the Spirit. Now it should be noted that the first point (a) of Aquinas' theory conforms to the teaching of the Cappadocian Fathers, but that the second point (b) does not; in fact, the second point conforms to the teaching of Sabellius and not to the theological doctrine of the Cappadocians.

Moreover, Aquinas' error is confirmed by what St. Basil said in Letter 236, where he called those who fail to distinguish between essence (or nature) and hypostasis in God, "Sabellians"; for as St. Basil said, "On the other hand those who identify essence (ousian) or substance and hypostasis are compelled to confess only three persons (prosopa), and, in their hesitation to speak of three hypostases, are convicted of failure to avoid the error of Sabellius, for even Sabellius himself, who in many places confuses the conception, yet, by asserting that the same hypostasis changed its form to meet the needs of the moment, does endeavour to distinguish persons (prosopa)." [St. Basil, Letter 236] St. Thomas, in certain sense, is even more of a modalist than Sabellius, because Sabellius could at least admit that there are prosopic distinctions in God, while Thomas' theory of divine simplicity does not admit of any real distinctions.

No, I'm actually pointing out what Jason already pointed out in another thread. The Western Church at the Council of Lyons II used the word "ekporeuesthai" to describe the procession of the Spirit from the Son, which is clearly unacceptable.

Ghosty,

I know you are well intentioned, as we all should be, but I don't think your views on the historical teaching of the Western Church on the "filioque" match up with the actual documents issued by the Magisterium at the Councils of Lyons II and Florence.

I commend you for trying to reinterpret these conciliar definitions -- which I have seen in both Latin and Greek -- in a way that is less offensive to the theological tradition of the Eastern Church, but your reinterpretation requires the evisceration of the actual meaning of the texts in their original languages.

Myles,

Interestingly enough, the triadology expressed by St. John of Damascus in De Fide Orthodoxa, Book 1, Chapters 6-7 (which you cited), cuts directly against the triadology developed by Aquinas and instead stands in strong support of the Orthodox view. I will explain why briefly, but first I will second Apotheoun's recommendation of Aristotle East and West and also of Crisis in Byzantium by Aristeides Papadakis (which I believe Anastasios suggested), as both of these works explicitly address St. John's triadology and its relationship (or non-relationship) to the filioque. The former is better because it also includes a detailed examination of Augustine, Aquinas, and the Latin tradition.

Now, here are a few quotes I'd like to single out from the 7th chapter of St. John of Damascus:

"When we have learnt about the Spirit of God, we contemplate it as the companion of the Word and the revealer of His energy."

"We must contemplate it as an essential power, existing in its own proper and peculiar subsistence, proceeding from the Father and resting in the Word, and shewing forth the Word."

These two texts express the Orthodox position almost in a nutshell. The Spirit, as eternally subsistent hypostasis, proceeds from the Father (not from the Son -- as Apotheoun noted, St. John explicitly denies that) as the companion of the Word. If He proceeds from the Father with the Word, the Word cannot be any cause, principle, or origin of Him when it comes to hypostatic existence. However, there is an eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit, and it is exactly what St. John suggests: the Spirit reveals the Son's energy and shows forth (or manifests) the Word. The Orthodox position is exactly this; the Father is the sole cause, principle, origin, etc., of the Spirit in His intra-Trinitarian hypostatic existence, but the Spirit proceeds (or shines forth) from the Father and the Son (or through the Son) in His extra-Trinitarian existence, in the eternal energies of the God and in the temporal creation. Read either of the books that have been suggested (or heck, even ask questions here) if that's not entirely clear.

In any case, suffice it to say that the Orthodox, as I mentioned earlier, make a clear distinction between God's essence and His energies, and there are thus at least three levels of "procession" (or something near it) concerning the Holy Spirit: (1) there is the intra-Trinitarian, hypostatic procession of the Spirit from the Father alone; (2) there is the eternal manifestation in the energies from the Father and (or through) the Son; (3) there is the temporal manifestation in the world from the Father and the Son. Latin theology does not typically make this distinction, which is why Aquinas cannot fully embrace St. John. In fact, Aquinas' theology is committed to a theory of absolute divine simplicity which seems to be contradictory to the Eastern position regarding the essence and energies of God -- on Aquinas' view, all things in God are really identical (His Goodness is His Being, His Will is His Being, etc., as He is pure act). As a result, Aquinas cannot make sense of the distinction between essence and energies, and this is why he cannot embrace the fullness of St. John's theology. When he sees St. John saying that the Spirit manifests the Son's energy or shows forth the Word and understands this as one of His eternal characteristics, he must immediately conclude that it has to do with the intra-Trinitarian hypostatic existence of the Spirit. In other words, he stands committed to the filioque here; with no concept of "eternal energies," he cannot distinguish any other way in which the Spirit eternally shines forth from the Son. St. John can, which is precisely why he can say all of this but also explicitly deny that he ever says "from the Son." Aquinas cannot embrace both theses, and so he ends up rejecting the latter (and saying "from the Son" as a matter of dogma).

Lest you think this idea of "eternal energies" is an anachronistic reading of St. John being forced back into him, I reiterate the suggestion of Bradshaw's book (he shows its existence in the early Church) -- and, along with that, if you can manage to find it, I recommend Joseph Farrell's, Free Choice in Saint Maximus the Confessor, which establishes clearly that the doctrine existed in St. Maximus' writings, and also quite probably (if not definitely) in St. Athanasius and the Cappadocians.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

P.S. I'd also second Apotheoun's recommendation of Hughes' book, too, although it's extremely technical and difficult. However, it's worth the work.

My comments are not concerned with the economic Trinity. The Son is not a cause, source, or principle, of the hypostatic origin of the Spirit. St. Thomas is confusing the Spirit's hypostatic procession of origin from the Father alone, with His eternal energetic manifestation through the Son.

Apotheoun and Ghosty,

Apotheoun said: Yes, I did point that out. However, the only potentially mitigating factor is that this version of the decree of Lyons appears in a Greek document that ultimately ends up repudiating the council (although that certainly doesn't suggest the falsity of the translation; it's only one consideration). And even so, the Greek translation is found in a book by Fr. Joseph Gill, a Roman Catholic specialist on the councils of Lyons and Florence -- he actually wrote the book The Council of Florence in support of the Latin doctrine -- who knows both Greek and Latin, and he suggests nothing of a difference here, and in fact at this point reproduces the decree of Lyons right next to the Greek in its original Latin (rather than placing the simple English translation of the Greek, as he does throughout the rest of the document), almost as if underscoring that the two are identical. Furthermore, as I also documented copiously, Fr. Gill understands John Beccos through and through and enthusiastically promotes him as a true advocate of the Latin doctrine professed at Lyons. Ghosty continues to insist that at least some part of this is not the case, but I am at the point of letting the sources speak for themselves. (The source is Joseph Gill's, Church Union: Rome and Byzantium; one chapter is more or less on the greatness of Beccos and how well he truly understood the Fathers and the Latin church.)

As for this, by Ghosty: First, I too join Apotheoun in commending Ghosty for his efforts. At the same time, I too join him in questioning how accurate they are. The definition of Florence itself says that the Son is a cause or principle (whatever you may take that to mean) of the Holy Spirit's essence and subsistent being. "Subsistent being" in Latin theology just means "person" or "hypostasis." The identification is made explicitly in Thomas' Summa. In fact, it's common knowledge that you can find in many dictionaries (in fact, even look on dictionary.com, under "subsistence"). So, leaving aside our discussion on the "Divine Essence/Energies" thread, whatever is meant by "cause" or "principle," the Son does play some role in the origin of the Spirit's person (subsistent being). This is just Latin dogma.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

Not particularly. The Spirit's procession from the Father and Son as one principle is taken adverbially (Summa Theol. Q36 art.4), that is it describes the way of doing. What Aquinas is saying is simply what you said a page ago Jason: The Word and Spirit go out together. In generating the Word by procession of intellect the Spirit is simultaneously and instantaneously processed by Will. The filioque in St Thomas amounts to little more than that which should be clear by now given what I quoted from his letter to the Cantor of Antioch and the way I've expounded Q36 of the Summa. St Thomas' use of the term filioque amounts to nothing more than its application as an adverb. In plain speech what St Thomas means to say is simply:

In generating the Son, the Father also proceeses the Spirit. Or alternatively to look at it another way by the generation of the Son the Spirit proceeds for from the Father.

That is the whole sum of Thomas' teaching on the filioque. For him it is an adverb to describe how the Spirit simultaneously proceeds from the Father as the Father is generating the Son. All he wants to do is show that the procession of intellect that gives rise to the Word cannot happen without the procession of love that gives rise to the Spirit.

In generation God processes: thats what filioque means to Thomas. Its a simple adverb. Both Son and Spirit go out from the Father alone the Son does not play a part in the Spirit's procession expect as acting as an adverbial principle, that is, except in that by His generation the Spirit simultaneously proceeds from the Father because in the timeless God there is no instant between knowing and loving. Thus, as He does one He does the other. And I again I stress the word 'does' the 'doing word' the verb described by the adverb 'principle' which encapsulates what Thomas teaches by the usage 'filioque'.

Ironically Jason all Aquinas wants to say is what you want him to say! That the Father alone is the cause of the Son and the Spirit and that the Son and the Spirit go out from the Father simultaneously. Generation in the Godhead is impossible without procession, this is Thomas' point and the reason he uses the term filioque and goes to lengths to express what he means by it in Summa Theol. Q36 arts.2-4.

Jason,

"...the Son does play some role in the origin of the Spirit's person (subsistent being). This is just Latin dogma."


I think there are two issues here. One is whether the "Latin Church" ever said something like this, and the other is whether it currently does. It seems like the past history could go either way, at least from all the arguments being made. But the present case should be easier to figure out shouldn't it? I mean do you have any modern documents supporting your position? Are there any supporting Ghotsy's and others? I mean I don't see why it's so hard to figure out what the Church says at this moment.

Myles,

I have only a passing familiarity with Aquinas but I like Chesterton and he spoke very highly of the saint. He even liked him more than St. Francis as I recall, and THAT is high praise indeed. So it seems that your opinions are at least in good company

Matt

We've done the Council of Florence song and dance before :p

I'll answer exactly as I answered then, and as the Latin Church has continued to answer. The reason that the Council stresses that the Holy Spirit receives His whole hypostasis from the Father and the Son is in order to preserve the "single principle" of the Holy Spirit, not in order to make the Son a derivative Source. The Latins even explicitely put that forth as a given before the main body of the Decree, where it says:

The only part that the Son plays is that when the Holy Spirit moves through Him, the WHOLE Holy Spirit moves through Him, the whole hypostasis, the whole Person. To say otherwise would be to muddy the waters, making the Holy Spirit divided in how He manifests when "sent" by the Father versus being "sent" by the Son; in otherwords it would make two Holy Spirits instead of one. If Latins had intended it that way, they wouldn't have made the forerunning statement.

Since principle is a term that relates to two points in relation to eachother, both the Father and the Son are principle to the Holy Spirit, but they are not principle as a unit.

They are principle in the sense that if I walk from the living room, through the kitchen, to the garage, both the living room and the kitchen are principle to the garage in my movement, and while my origin is entirely in the living room, my whole person went through the kitchen to get to the garage; I didn't split in half and one part of me take another route. The living room is the only source of my journey, the only origin, but one could still say that I came from the kitchen. This is why Aquinas, when describing both the Father and the Son as principles of the Holy Spirit, says that the Father is the principle in a "principal and proper manner", as to say the ultimate and true principle is the Father.

Incidently, this idea is identical to that presented by St. John of Damascus, and the Tomus of Blacharmae, which state that the Holy Spirit is eternally manifested by the Son, not just temporally. The reason that Latins use "from" where John of Damascus ruled that term out is for the reasons I described above in a previous post, and Myles has indicated in his description of how it's used by Aquinas. Quite simply, "ek" (from) denotes something very different than the Latin "ex" (from), which is very broad, and doesn't necessarily denote origin as "ek" does.

As for statements that the Western Church used ekporeuethsai in translating proceed, of course it did, but that doesn't mean that they meant the same thing by it as the Greeks. The two terms were always translated using eachother, despite the fact that they'd always had slightly different meanings. This goes back to the very beginning of the Church, when Scripture and the Creed were translated into Latin. It made things easy when translating, but it was ultimately sloppy. Unfortunately the science of translation was not what it is today, and people were content with doing "word for word" translations for centuries, which would be rightly considered next to worthless today.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter what the Latin Church's documents said in Greek, as far as dogma goes, only what they say in Latin, and in Latin there is no heresy even implied. This same principle holds today, that English translations of official Latin documents are never considered the "final rule", only the Latin ones. Even Yves Congar, when speaking of the Council of Florence, notes how odd it was that ekporeuethsai was used to translate "proceed" with regards to the Son. The Latins clearly and always meant the procession by the Son as a "through", not an origin, and they've explicitely stated this time and time again, going back to Maximus the Confessor.

Talking about what they said when translated into Greek is purely academic. You might as well talk about what it implies in Swahili for it matters towards doctrine :p

The only relevence the Greek holds is in showing why the Greeks reacted so viciously to what they were hearing, and there's nothing wrong with their reactions because that would have been the exact same reaction the Latins would have had if they'd heard such things stated in Latin.

Peace and God's Love!

Yes, the documents are very clear about what the Latin Church teaches today.

Vatican statement on the filioque.

What's more, the teaching has always been clear in the Latin Church. The only folks who seem to be saying otherwise base it off of the Greek translations of the Latin made 800 years ago. All of the art, teaching, and theology expressed by the Latin Church since those days has expressed exactly what Myles, myself, and the Vatican are saying today.

Peace and love!

Let me clarify my earlier remarks about Beccus. It's the language he used that was heretical, not the ideas he was intending to express with it. My only contention is that he should have known better, being a native Greek speaker. Given the translating methods of the day, it's somewhat understandable since there were no methods of linguistic comparison that could navigate this problem, but my personal contention is that he shouldn't have made the moves and statements that he did without much more careful explaination. You can't just plop exporeuethsai into the process of the Holy Spirit by the Son without doing serious damage to both the Latin and Greek understanding of the Trinity. Even Fr. Joseph Gill recognized the differences in their meanings and implications, and wrote about them in his book on the Council of Florence.

Peace!

I give up. Forgive me.

I will say two things, and then I will only let the Latins who were at the Council of Florence speak for themselves to a few various points raised here. After that, I will say no more here about the filioque. (You may refer to my other posts for support and documentation regarding other issues; I have mentioned a number of books and sources, as well as providing numerous quotations.)

First, about Ghosty's claim that: Yes, and even understanding those meanings and implications, on reading Beccos, he still thought his doctrine was the doctrine of the Latins.

Second, regarding the Vatican's clarification on the filioque, see what it says about the Council of Florence (the answer is nothing). Also, I have addressed the clarification elsewhere, noting how it is ambiguous and how, whenever it refers to the Father as sole cause, it uses qualifiers such as "sole immediate cause," implying the possibility of a mediate cause and so on. It is compatible with both the interpretation that Ghosty and Myles are giving and the interpretation that Apotheoun and I are giving. For some reason, however, it is still insisted that the document is crystal clear.

Now, let the Latin representatives speak for themselves:

Point 1: I said that the Latin doctrine is that the Son plays some role in the origin of the Holy Spirit's person, to which Myles replied, "Not particularly." Here, however, is John Montenero, the Latin orator at Florence:

John Montenero: "The Holy Spirit receives being also from the Son and so must proceed also from him."

[Later:] "If one person is from another he is said to receive being and existence from another, which is what Basil and Epiphanius meant when they wrote that the Spirit has being from the Son."

[And later:] John: "When we say someone from someone, it is necessarily from the person."

So, you make the inference. The second quote says that Basil and Epiphanius meant that the person of the Holy Spirit receives being and existence from the Son (and Montenero cites this as support for the Latin doctrine -- we won't get into the different interpretations of Basil and Epiphanius). The third quote says that when they say "from," they mean from the Person. So, since they say that the Person of the Holy Spirit receives being and existence "from" the Son, they mean from the Person of the Son. The same thing goes for the first quote. Am I wrong, then, that the doctrine is that the person of the Son plays some role in the origin of the person of the Spirit?

-----

Point 2: Ghosty admits that "both the Father and the Son are principle to the Holy Spirit," but says that: But John Montenero says: "The Son, identical in nature with the Father, receives also to be producer of the Spirit, in respect of the common nature he has with the Father, and so is with him the principle, numerically one, of the Procession of the Holy Spirit."

The Son and the Father are numerically one producer of the Spirit. It is this which the Son "receives," i.e., to "also" be the producer of the Spirit. This is what makes him one principle with the Father, numerically one, of the procession of the Holy Spirit.

------

Just some further supporting statements:

Mark [of Ephesus, the Greek orator]: Never mind that. Let us see the consequences of your admission. St Basil says: [God] 'sends forth the Spirit through his mouth. . . for the Spirit is from him and not from elsewhere'. (P.G. 29, 736B)

John: Yes, but Basil says that in metaphor, and elsewhere affirms that the Spirit receives being from the Son.

I cannot remain with this issue any further because I have bent over backwards spending time writing and doing research on this and a number of related issues, citing text after text, from different author after different author, and it appears to be going nowhere. Please forgive me for my frustration, and also forgive me for leaving this discussion behind.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

As I look at my most recent post, I realize that I wrote much of it in haste and in frustration, as is probably clear. Forgive me if it comes across as aggressive.

God bless those of you who continue this filioque discussion, but I remain sure that I have had my fill, at least for now.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

Dear Jason

I'm sorry if you felt driven from this discussion I had no intention of causing offence. As I've insisted numerous times I am not trying to defend the interpretation of every Westerner on the filioque. Many of them misunderstand St Thomas and teach that the filioque should be taken in other than an adverbial sense. This is something, if I recall correctly, Dr Stylianopolous points out in the article linked via the first page.

It is true that the filioque clause can get people tied up and for this reason I think the East is justified in its criticism of liturgical recitation of the Creed avec filioque. Let me give you an example:

Not to long ago on EWTN Live a questioner asked Fr Mitch Pacwa SJ how the procession of the Father and Son works if the Holy Spirit precede's them? Obviously Fr Mitch had to explain that its not precede its proceed. Yet, can we think this individual is the only one? Unfortunately, not everyone reads the Catechism (or reads it accurately). Thus, I feel the Orthodox are justified in saying the filioque is unclear that it gives rise to heretical interpretation and that its liturgical recitation could unintentionally mislead some.

What I feel is unjustified is the filioque being branded as heretical, which in St Thomas its not. I'm not particularly concerned with how his teaching has been understood or not and how writers apart from St Thomas have taught the filioque. I'm on the tail end of the Ressourcement et la nouvelle theologie, for me everything is the source itself not the commentary and in the source I find no heresy as I've gone at lengths to show. Even Montenero's words can be reinterpreted according to an authentic reading of Aquinas's Triadology but its unneccessary because his words aren't particularly relevant:

The reason Ghosty keeps saying go back to the definition is because the Western way of looking at a Council (or ex cathedra statement alternatively) is to go back to the definition itself. As such the reasoning of Montenero, for instance, lacks pertinence for us since that's not what we're called to evaluate.

You're probably right Jason. Perhaps a lot of Latin theologians have renedered the filioque wrongly, which as you have pointed out, is dangerously errant. However a) St Thomas is not one of them and b) even if he were--and he's not--his voice would become irrelevant. For whilst the discussions at Florence are interesting reading, according to the way we've learnt to read Ecumenical Councils in the West what they said about the filioque is impertinent. The Council's definition is the sole object of importance and, in truth, only the Magisterium has arbitrary powers of interpretation over the objects of dogmatic definitions.

Hence, Ghosty was right to refer to the Vatican Clarification because thats the most authoratitive interpretation of the filioque (LG 25) extant in the Latin Church. Even what the doctors of the Church taught has no weight if their interpretation conflicts that explanation. The whole thrust of my participation in this thread has simply been to show that St Thomas' teaching on the filioque is adverbial and thus non-heretical and does not fall foul of the Holy See's pronouncement. If other Western writers have err'd *shrugs* thats not my concern. If they're wrong, they're wrong. Living in the 21st century Latin Church I've grown accustomed to theologians giving their own views of documents in direct conflict with Rome's. E.g. Just ask certain moral theologians what Vatican II's idea of conscience means?

When St Thomas uses the filioque he interprets 'one principle' to be an adverb a word to describe how as the Father generates the Son in the act of so doing He also instantaneously processes the Spirit. The Father and the Son are one principle because in generating the Son, the Father also processes the Spirit. This I believe does not contravene the Vatican clarification nor the traditions of the East.

Yes, and we continue to disagree on the meaning of the texts of the Council of Florence.

It is precisely the idea that the Father and the Son can be a "single principle" in the procession (or spiration) of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit that I deny as an Eastern Christian, because this concept involves a confusion of the hypostasis of the Father with the hypostasis of the Son, i.e., it is a form of Sabellianism.

What is common to two of the hypostases of the Trinity, is common to all three hypostases because of their common essence (ousia); in other words, if the Father and the Son are a "single principle" in the spiration of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, it follows that the Spirit must also be a "single principle" with them in His own spiration, which is clearly nonsense.

The hypostases of the Trinity are distinguished only by their unique hypostatic properties (idiotes), and so anything that is common to the Father and the Son is common also to the Holy Spirit. As St. Basil said, "The Spirit shares titles held in common by the Father and the Son; He receives these titles due to His natural and intimate relationship with them." [St. Basil, "On the Holy Spirit," ch. 19, no. 48] Thus, the idea that the Father and the Son can be a "single principle" in the spiration of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit involves a confusion of hypostasis and essence (ousia) within the Godhead, because anything common to the hypostases is founded upon the one divine essence (ousia) that they share, and that is why the Western notion that the Father and the Son can be a "single principle" in the procession of the Spirit's hypostasis is nonsensical.

Therefore, to hold that the Father and the Son can be a "single principle" of origin in relation to the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit involves either Sabellian modalism, or an essential subordination of the Spirit to the Father and the Son, because He does not possess a common quality shared by the Father and the Son, and consequently would be essentially distinct from them and subordinate to them.

Generation and procession are hypostatic properties of the Father alone, and as such they are not common essential qualities of two or more of the hypostases within the Trinity. Thus, the Father and the Son cannot act as a "single principle" in the procession of the Spirit's hypostasis, and to say that they can act in this way is contrary to the theological tradition of the Eastern Church.

The Father alone is the single principle who spirates the hypostasis of the Spirit, just as He is the single principle that generates the hypostasis of the Son.

Myles brings up an excellent point that I hadn't really considered, and that's the Western view of how to understand dogmatic documents and how it may conflict with other understandings.

We are very, very strict in applying the "What does it say" rule, and this comes into play in all aspects of the Infallibility of the Church. In the West we have a conception akin to "Truth survives inspite of us", and all of our "infallibility" rules must be understood in light of that. When we read 2 Peter 1:20-21 we understand it as a principle of Faith to be applied in a certain way:

We believe that the Holy Spirit can speak through people without regard to their human will or reason, and the question is when and where we can know that the Holy Spirit is speaking. Our understanding of infallibility is entirely rooted in that understanding, and is nothing short of a set of key identifiers for definate identification of the Holy Spirit's voice and words. "He who hears you, hears me" becomes not a general affirmation, but a law, a binding servitude and subjegation of the human will to God's in certain cases.

It's an interesting concept I've never really explored before, and might be worth further reflection. The application of this principle seems worthy of a lot of thought.

Apotheoun: I've only got one thing to say, brother in Christ:

I agree completely, 110%, that procession belongs only to the Father. I just disagree that procession belongs only to the Father, and so do the Church Fathers

I agree with the first part of your comment, but clearly I hold the second part to be Sabellian.

Procession is a hypostatic property unique to the Father, and as such it can be shared with no one else. Moreover, as I indicated before, anything common to two of the hypostases is common to all three. Therefore, if procession is common to the Father and the Son, it is common to the Spirit as well, and that means that the Spirit can be the cause of His own procession, which is clearly heretical.

While not wishing to address the filioque specifically right now (I stand by my wish to leave that alone for a while), I will say a few things:

First, Myles, I sent you a PM; don't worry, you don't need to apologize. So that everyone understands, I suppose what ultimately put me off was the certain implication that perhaps those like Apotheoun and I have just failed to "figure it out" and see the obvious fact that we are clearly wrong about what the Church teaches. I know that no one said as many words -- and, in charity, I believe that probably no one meant them that way either -- but when the possibility of that implication arose in the context of issues that had already been discussed repeatedly (to no avail) by myself, Ghosty, Apotheoun, and Ray, and that we all had put quite a bit of work into, I was a bit... disappointed. That's all. Again, sorry for the aggressive nature of my post.

Now, a few substantive concerns.

First, I understand that Montenero's words and the other discussion at Florence is anything but infallible or authoritative. However, it doesn't seem that I need them to be. The defintion of Florence is supposed to be infallible. The definition of Florence says that the Son is a cause and principle of the Holy Spirit's essence and subsistent being, and that he receives the Spirit's procession from the Father so that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. Apotheoun and I have already pointed out that this seems to remain the teaching of the Church -- Fr. David Coffey argues this point explicitly, Fr. Joseph Gill suggests this particularly in the way he treats John Beccos, and nothing in the Vatican's clarification on the filioque explicitly says otherwise; the document remains ambiguous so that it can be interpreted exactly in our way regarding Florence, and this is why I find it so odd that the document neglects to mention Florence even once. It says nothing about what Florence's definition might possibly mean, and that, by the way, is likely part of the reason why Metropolitan John of Pergamon -- one of the foremost ecumenical theologians in the Orthodox Church -- responded to the document by pointing out that the issue of what the Catholic document means by "cause" is still the main issue; it isn't clear. In other words, contemporary scholars seem -- forgive me if it is pompous to say so -- heavily on the side of the interpretation Apotheoun and I are giving, as do the very deliberations at Florence.

And this is precisely where the deliberations at Florence become relevant. Ghosty raised the point that perhaps the definition at Florence meant something else by "cause," or did not mean what we thought it meant when it said that the Spirit has his essence and subsistent being from the Father and the Son. The deliberations at Florence are not infallible, of course, but they do say something about what the definition that was agreed upon might have meant -- in fact, they are probably the strongest support of what was meant at the time that the definition was written up. What did the Latins who wrote up that definition mean when they said that the Son was a cause of the Spirit's subsistent being? I refer you to Montenero, quoted above.

Finally, Ghosty, you must have made a typo here: If not, this issue is perhaps more ambiguous than many of us think.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

Apotheoun and Ecce Jason: No typos on my part, I was being completely serious.

As I've said before, Latin has two meanings for procession, one that excludes the other. This is why saying that "procession" is a hypostatic property of the Father alone is misleading.

In one sense of procession, the sense of hypostatic origin, that is absolutely true, but in another it is entirely false, because it would mean that the Son doesn't eternally manifest the Holy Spirit. The Church Fathers were adamant that the Son eternally manifests the Holy Spirit, and in Latin that has been expressed as "procession" since the time of Augustine. When people say that "procession" belongs to the Father alone, they have to be very careful to indicate exactly how they mean it.

Procession is common to both, but not the same kinds of procession, and that is where the confusion sets in. It's kind of like how running is a trait common to both sprinters and watery icing on cakes; same word, completely different implication. :p

Peace!

Ghosty,

Given that, what do you think of John Montenero's defense of the Latin doctrine given at Florence? He was, after all, their main spokesman there. As I pointed out, he says that the person of the Holy Spirit is from the person of the Son. "Person" = "Hypostasis."

God bless,
Jason

Ecce Jason: Most of what Montenero said is precisely what Myles and I have been saying, near as I can tell. The particular part you've asked me to comment on is that he said that the Person of the Holy Spirit is from the Person of the Son.

To answer that I point back to the difference between "ek" and "ex". In Latin, when it is said that something is from (ex) something, it doesn't mean that what's coming from is derived from. To use a well known example, we say that the Pope can speak "ex cathedra" (from the chair). In no way are we saying that the chair is the source of the Pope's words, nor are we even relating the chair to the Pope's words in any particular way. The chair is just kind of there, really.

In light of this, when we say that the Person of the Holy Spirit is from the Person of the Son, we are meaning it in a non-derivative sense, or as Myles put "adverbial". Since the Holy Spirit is never not the Person of the Holy Spirit, and the Person of the Holy Spirit is never incomplete, any time the Spirit proceeds (in the sense of manifesting) from the Son He must proceed with his full hypostasis and being "from the Son". To use the previous example of ex cathedra, when the Pope gives a speech ex cathedra, the whole speech comes ex cathedra, or literally "from the chair". Again this in no way implies that the speech is derived from the chair.

I can't say for certain, but I don't think Montenero was ever intending to say that the Holy Spirit derived anything from the Son, or that the Son was somehow a necessary component to the processing by the Father. He seems to be saying that the Holy Spirit receives His person and being "from the Son" in the sense I refer to above, in the sense that He is from the Son but not by the Son. Of course he states that the hypostasis and being come from the Son (adverbally), because to say otherwise would be to imply that the Holy Spirit somehow only symbolically comes from the Son, and the Holy Spirit is never a symbol, but a real Person. Again, how odd would it be to say that the Son manifests the Holy Spirit, but he doesn't manifest the Person of the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is a Person after all, not an Energy, even when manifested Energetically.

In short, I don't see anything immediately troubling with Montenero's words, because Latin would require more modifiers to indicate that he was speaking derivatively and not adverbally. A perfect example of this is when Thomas Aquinas says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, but from the Father "principally and properly". Those added modifiers indicate that the procession from the Son is in a general sense, or manifesting to use a Palamite expression, while the procession from the Father is a unique kind, unrelated to the meaning of the Son's processing, given the broadness of Latin words.

In the same sense, if one was to say that a speech was given "principally and properly ex cathedra", it would indicate that the speech originated in the being of the chair itself, and that the person talking was just acting as the voice for the chair. Creepy thought, actually :p

Incidently, this is why Latins have always insisted that "through the Son" is a proper explaination of what's being said. After all, if the whole hypostatis and being of the Holy Spirit passes through the Son, then the whole hypostasis and being of the Holy Spirit come from the Son, in the same way that when I leave Portland by driving through it, I've come from Portland when I reach my destination.

Peace and God bless!

Ghosty,

Okay, so in the phrase "proceeds from the Son," both "proceeds" and "from" have different meanings for the Latins? Do we all mean the same thing by "the Son?"

In all seriousness, though, it seems to me that Montenero is pretty clear about what he means when he says that the person of the Spirit is from the person of the Son. He says: "If one person is from another he is said to receive being and existence from another, which is what Basil and Epiphanius meant when they wrote that the Spirit has being from the Son." Again, leaving aside questions about Montenero's interpretation of Basil and Epiphanius, Montenero says here that the Person of the Spirit receives being and existence from the Person of the Son. The Son does not just receive and then manifest an already existing Spirit, but rather the Spirit receives being and existence from the Son -- in fact, if the procession from the Son is a different procession, then there seem to be two processions going on here, contrary (once again) to what the Latins decreed at Florence. Rather, it is exactly as has already been indicated: the Father and the Son together project the Spirit's Person (hypostasis) into existence. The Son receives this ability "also" from the Father, which is why the Father is still the "principle without principle" and the sole fount or origin of deity; the Son's ability to project the Spirit comes from the Father, but even so the Son also gives being and existence to the Spirit's Person. Our reading continues to seem to be the most consistent with the actual wording of the Florentine decree, with the words of the discussion that resulted in that Florentine decree, with the interpretations of scholars that I'm aware of, and is even consistent with the clarification on the filioque. It just seems to me that yours continues to have to retreat, to perform some sort of verbal gymnastic, and to not take the testimonies of prominent Latin theologians at face value. This is why I don't quite buy it.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

Ok Jason I know I said I wouldn't but I will.

First point:

His Grace John in his critique of the Vatican Clarification on the filioque reminds us that according to St Maximus the Confessor the filioque does not posit a second cause in the Trinity. Moreover he makes the key point that:

There is a difference between cause, source and principle. Even more difference than one might think given that Zizioulas uses the words source and principle in the adverbial sense and St Thomas Aquinas uses principle as a substantive (Q36 art.4--sorry for those who have been watching this thread I used the wrong word before but the semantics are the same)--indeed he critiques the use of principle and source in the sense Zizioulas is using it.

However, the important thing is that unless source or principle are used as adjectives they cannot be predicated to the essence. This rules out modalism as Zizioulas points out in 'One Single Source' 2:7. However, it does open the door for the Thomistic interpretation of the filioque.

Zizioulas' words illustrate how the concept of principle and cause can co-exist without doing violence to the Monarchia of the Father, which is what Thomistic Triadology attempts to demonstrate.

Thomas is not making the Son a cause Summa Theol.Q36 art 3 should make this explicit for therein St Thomas states that the Father spirates through the Son. The Father and Son are a principle yes, but the Father is the sole cause . As Zizioulas notes in 'One Single Source' 2:4:

When St Thomas uses the filioque, as explained in Summa Theol. Q36 art.4, he uses it to describe the impersonal way in which the Son participates in the Spirit's procession. The Father alone is 'Cause' but the Father and the Son can be said to be 'principle' without doing damage to this truth and Aquinas' aim is explicitly said to be the illustration of this fact in Summa Theol. Q36 art.4. This brings him into line with His Grace John's words in 'One Single Source' 3:1:

God love you
Myles

The Holy Spirit as hypostasis does not "pass through the Son"; rather, He shines forth or is manifested through the Son as divine energy. In other words, the eternal energetic manifestation of the Spirit through the Son has nothing to do with the Spirit's hypostasis (either with His existential origin or with His being as "person"); instead, it concerns the consubstantial communion of the hypostases within the Godhead. The Spirit shines forth through the Son in the divine energy as grace, and so He does not receive his hypostasis either from or through the Son.

Apotheoun: My understanding has always been that Grace is an Energy of God that is common to all three Persons, as are all Energies, due to the sharing of Divine Essence. Now I know that the Holy Spirit can show forth Energetically, i.e. actively, but as an Energy? The Holy Spirit that manifests from the Son is not the Holy Spirit as we know Him properly, but an Energy called the Holy Spirit, perhaps synonymous with the Energy of Grace? I always thought that the Manifestation of the Holy Spirit is what permits the Holy Spirit to communicate Grace, which is a Divine Energy.

This is new to me, and a bit confusing. Perhaps I have misunderstood Palamite theology. Do you have any resources that specifically deal with the Holy Spirit as a Divine Energy?

On this point I can say that Latins don't believe that the Holy Spirit receives His Hypostasis from or through the Son either, in a derivative sense, but that the Son receives the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit in being begotten by the Father. If this were not the case, the Holy Spirit would not be refered to as the "gift" from Father to Son. When Latins say that the Holy Spirit receives His being and existance from the Son, we're saying that He manifests from the Son lacking nothing.

This is why the Latins were so insistant that the Father is the "sole source of deity, that is of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", and that the fact that the Son receives the procession (general meaning) of the Holy Spirit from the Father does not take away from that. The procession from the Son (general moving forward) is fundamentally different from the procession from the Father (as from a derivative source and origin), and represent two different Hypostatic properties, but are also part of only one "motion", hence there is a single procession (general meaning).

For a limited physical representation, imagine a bullet passing from a gun and through a watermelon. We have one procession (moving forward), but the way the bullet proceeds from the gun is fundamentally different from the way it proceeds from the watermelon (origin/source versus general procession). The water melon does not shoot the bullet, but the whole bullet comes from the watermelon just as surely as it comes from the gun. Furthermore, the watermelon receives the procession of the bullet from the gun, not from itself. Hence we have two fundamentally different types of proceeding while still only having a single procession (moving forward, general meaning).

In other words, the Son receives from the Father's begetting the property of manifesting the Holy Spirit, just as the Holy Spirit is processed (derivative source) from the Father in the same "instant" and "given" to the Son to eternally manifest (process in the general sense). This is why Aquinas says that the Holy Spirit, the Hypostasis, exists "between" the Father and the Son. The processing by the Son is wholly dependant on the Father's unique processing of the Holy Spirit and begetting of the Son.

The only thing that confuses me is the Holy Spirit as Divine Energy, which I may be misunderstanding. If the Holy Spirit is an Energy as well, that definately puts a kink in the comparisons. I'll await further information on that.

Peace and God bless!

The divine energy is common to all three hypostases, but the Spirit can be spoken of in a unique way as divine energy, because when the Spirit is imparted to the saints, He is not received as hypostasis, but as divine energy, for it is not possible for two hypostases, i.e., the hypostasis of the Spirit and the hypostasis of a man, to become one. There is only one hypostatic union, and that occurred in the incarnation of the Logos.

This is confirmed by what St. Gregory Palamas said when speaking about the divine energy, for ". . . 'It is not by measure that the Spirit is given to Christ by God the Father' (cf. John 3:44). [And] St. John Chrysostom explains this passage when he states: 'Here Spirit means the energy of the Spirit. For all of us receive the energy of the Spirit by measure, but Christ possesses the Spirit's entire energy in full and without measure. But if His energy is without measure, how much more so is His essence.' By calling the energy Spirit -- or, rather, the very Spirit of God -- as the Baptist did, and by saying that the energy is without measure, Chrysostom showed its uncreated character. Again, by saying that we receive it by measure he indicated the difference between the uncreated energy and the uncreated essence of God. For no one ever receives the essence of God, not even if all men are taken collectively, each one receiving in part according to his degree of purity. Chrysostom then goes on to reveal another difference between the uncreated essence and the uncreated energy, for he says, 'If the energy of the Spirit is without measure, how much more so is His essence." [St. Gregory Palamas, "One Hundred and Fifty Chapters," no. 95]

Thus, the Holy Spirit as He is manifested by Christ is often called divine energy, because this is how the Spirit is received by the Son from the Father, and how He is received by the saints through the Son, for no one can receive the Spirit's hypostasis itself, and to even suggest that this is possible is to fail to grasp the nature of the distinctions between essence (ousia), person (hypostasis), and energy (energeia) within the Godhead. Therefore, the Spirit does not shine forth hypostatically through the Son, but energetically, and that is why the manifestation of the Spirit through the Son is called an eternal energetic manifestation.

In other words, the Spirit does not proceed as person (hypostasis) from or through the Son, and to say that He does exhibits confusion in connection with the hypostatic origin of the Spirit and His existence, which comes only from the Father, with the communication of the divine essence (ousia) among the three hypostases, which is revealed and manifested to us only through the divine energies. Once again the West is failing to distinguish between essence (ousia) and hypostasis within the Godhead.

Standing by what I said earlier in relation to Metropolitan Zizioulas' well-rounded appraisal of the Vatican Clarification on the filioque where I demonstrated that the filioque taken in the substantive as one principle according to the teaching St Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theol.Q 36 art.4 applies only to oneness of the Divine Essence and thus: a) Makes the Western understanding of the filioque, as His Grace states, true and b) does not transgress against the truth of the Monarchia of the Father. I add this in light of Apoutheon's latest post:
Aquinas and Palamas on grace by Fr Louis Bouyer

East and West can co-exist. There is no reason for us to continue this debate any longer. The filioque is fine on the level of essence and thats where the West would have it. It might affect our views of grace but as Bouyer points out in this extract from his 'Introduction to Spirituality' ultimately that amounts to little. Neither Thomism or Palamism can be demonstrated to be heretical that much has become certain from this contest of verbal gymnastics. Accordingly, why don't we put this thread to rest? What purpose does it serve to insist further that Thomism is wrong when both Ghosty and I have demonstrated that the Western filioque operates on essential level with the Father as 'cause' and the Son simple as 'principle' in a way Metropolitan Zizioulas grants is acceptably orthodox?

This thread is finished, at least for me, I bid whomever choses to post here further all the best.

God love you
Myles

Myles,

Just a friendly reminder: there is no concept of "created" grace in the Eastern tradition, because deifying grace (i.e., deifying energy) is God Himself as He exists outside of His ineffable essence.

The idea that grace could be "created" makes no sense in the Eastern tradition, because it would be like saying that there is a "created" God.

Fr Bouyer explains what the West means by created grace, which as you well know has a slightly different definition than the gift of Uncreated Grace aka God himself.

I'm well aware of the difference between East and West and I respect those differences as does Fr Bouyer in his article. The Eastern and Western presentations of the Dogma of the Trinity are not mutually exclusive and neither of them results in any errors. East and West just explain the same mystery from two different standpoints and my sentiments on the matter coincide with Fr Bouyers: The Catholica is more than big enough for both views.

God love you
Myles

As an Eastern Christian I will never accept the idea that the Son is a "principle" within the Trinity, because to confess the Son as a "principle" is to confess either ditheism or Sabellianism.

Moreover, I don't accept your interpretation of Metropolitan John's brief essay on this topic, because he is not allowing for the idea that the Son can be a "principle" within the Trinity, but is merely pointing out that the use of the word "cause" (aitia) by the Cappadocian Fathers was intended to rule out precisely that idea. Thus, for the Cappadocians it is the Father alone who is cause, source, and principle within the Godhead, and they taught this in order to refute the Eunomians who were teaching that the divine essence -- what Eunomius called "ingeneracy" -- was the principle and source of divinity.

Apotheoun: Don't worry, I would never suggest that anyone could receive the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit. I'm fully aware of the fact that humans partake of the Divine through Energy, and not through any possession of the Essence. Being "filled with the Holy Spirit" does not mean that the Holy Spirit is living inside us as a Person.

The quote you used, though, doesn't settle the question for me. Yes, the Son receives the Energy of the Spirit, because the Energy of the Spirit is common to all Persons of the Trinity, as it's the Divine Energy. I don't see how that means that the Son's only "connection" with the Holy Spirit is the Energy of the Holy Spirit. The statement seems to be rather open-ended, dealing only with the fact that the Son has all the same Energy, Energy without measure, as the Holy Spirit.

I don't see how this is refering to the Holy Spirit as Energy at all, but rather the Energy belonging to the Holy Spirit, the Divine Energy. Palamas even stresses this by drawing the Energy of the Spirit as a parallel for the uncreated, or Divine, Energy. The Holy Spirit isn't being called an Energy, near as I can tell yet, but only the Energy of the Spirit is being refered to, which would include all of the Divine Energies, such as Grace, and would be shared by the Son by virtue of sharing the Divine Essence.

This doesn't seem to speak at all of the Hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit, nor to contradict the Western view.

To quote St. Basil:

This seems to speak of the Hypostasis and Essence, not of the Energy, as the creature can partake of the Divine Energy, and the partaking of the Holy Spirit by Creation here is ruled out, even while saying "through the Son".

It seems to say that the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit is connected through the Son to the Father, because soon afterwards St. Basil says:

Participation in the Energy of the Holy Spirit (Grace and Knowledge) allows us to recognize the Son and the Father, but that is necessarily a different kind of relationship than the one that follows, and the one described in the previous quote. Again, participation by Creation in the procession of the first quotation is explicitely ruled out.

Do you have other quotes that are more clear? I don't think this particular one illustrated for me what you intended it to, as I already understand that the Energy of the Holy Spirit, and not the Hypostasis, is what is communicated to creation

Peace and God bless, and pray for my humble mind as I try to process this stuff.

The quotation from St. Basil supports only the manifestation of the Spirit through the Son in the divine energy, i.e., the communication of the divine essence among the three hypostases, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a "procession" of the Spirit's hypostasis. St. Basil does not use the term ekporeusis at all in his treatise "On the Holy Spirit," thus, your view that the Son has some type of involvement in the hypostatic procession of the Spirit has no support.

This once again shows that the East and the West have a fundamentally different view of the nature of the Triune God.

The false notion that the hypostasis of the Spirit proceeds or is manifested through the Son, once again posits the Son as a principle, source, or cause, of the hypostasis of the Spirit, albeit in a secondary sense. The manifestation (proeinai) of the Spirit through the Son, involves the shining forth of the Spirit as divine energy, both temporally and eternally. Consequently, I cannot support your position, because you are trying to make the energetic manifestation of the Spirit through the Son into a hypostatic reality, and that is contrary to the theological tradition of the Church.

Let me put this as clearly as I possibly can: the Son has nothing to do with the hypostatic procession of the Spirit.

Ghosty,

Maybe check out Energies of the Spirit: Trinitarian Models in Eastern Orthodox and Western Theology by Duncan Reid. I haven't read that one myself, but I hear that it's very good, and it sounds like it might directly address the issues you're concerned about.

Also, a comment. Regarding the procession of the Spirit, you make an analogy about driving through Portland from some other origin, and you also say: In the watermelon analogy, the flying bullet does not in any sense receive its being or existence from the watermelon; rather, the watermelon is a completely passive "channel" through which the bullet passes. It does, however, qua flying bullet, receive its being in some way from the gun (i.e, the gun makes it a flying bullet). In the driving analogy, your trip does not in any sense receive its being or existence from Portland; rather, Portland is a completely passive "channel" through which your trip passes. It does, however, qua trip, receive its being in some way from the origin (i.e., the trip is a trip by virtue of its being a leaving of an origin). Neither analogy is suitable to express the Latin doctrine as it was defended at Florence. According to the debate at Florence which frames the context for the definition, the Son (1) actively projects the Spirit with the Father, (2) gives to the Person of the Spirit being and existence, and (3) has everything the Father has, including the procession of the Holy Spirit, and this procession is numerically one (there are not two different ones). All three of these points are not captured by your analogies.

A suitable analogy might be something like this: my father buys a gun, takes me to a shooting range, stands behind me and holds the gun together with me as we both take aim, and we pull the trigger together. This analogy captures the fact that the Father is the ultimate source (he has the gun), that he hands over the ability to fire the gun to me (by handing over the gun), that we both actively originate the flying bullet together in numerically one firing (because he continues to hold the gun as well, and pulls the trigger with me), and so on. This analogy seems to capture the features of the Latin doctrine expressed at Florence. Unfortunately, it of course will not be acceptable to the Orthodox.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

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

Myles,

Okay, I'm looking everywhere and I can't find Cyril's Commentary on John, nor the phrase you cited. The closest thing I can find is:

"Just as the Son says 'All that the Father has is mine' [John 16:15], so shall we find that through the Son it is all also in the Spirit."

That's from Cyril's letters, not his commentary. Can you give a larger citation so that we can see the context of the quote you cited? There's no punctuation in the last sentence you cited, so I can't tell if that's your sentence or Cyril's, nor can I tell if the sentence ends there or continues on. And if the Greek is available, can you give that? I'd like to see what word is used for "exists," and I'd like to see the structure of the sentence (if possible) before I continue on. But if you don't have it, that's okay. At least more of the quote (or heck, if the source is online, point us toward it!) would be nice.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

Dear Jason

According to the 'search inside option' @ Amazon.com Cyril's commentary on John should be found within this book: Cyril of Alexandria (The Early Church Fathers) by Norman Russell . Unfortunately his Thesauraus and The Dialogues on the Trinity do not appear to be extant in English.

The quote you requested is:
At this present time I have not got the Greek to give you. Sorry. But I have it on good authority that in the works referenced St Cyril says that the Father and the Son issue forth the Spirit.

Sincerely
Myles

The "filioque" as a theologoumenon (if that is what it really is) should be removed from the creed of the Latin Church, because a theological opinion has no place in an official creed that is meant to declare the faith of the whole Church.

Myles,

No one has ever disputed that St. Cyril has a doctrine of energetic manifestation (i.e., a doctrine that supports the consubstantial communion of the three hypostases), but he does not have a "filioque" as it was formulated at the Councils of Lyons II and Florence. St. Cyril never called the Son a cause of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, and so he could never have agreed to the Florentine decree.

In his book "Aristotle East and West" Dr. David Bradshaw gives one of the most concise explanations of the manifestation of the Spirit through the Son as divine energy (cf. pages 214-220), and how the West confuses this "manifestation" of the Spirit with His hypostatic procession from the Father alone, thus I highly recommend reading his treatment of the topic.

For those interested there is an English translation of the homilies of St. Cyril of Alexandria on the Gospel of St. John in a book series entitled "A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church: Anterior to the Division of the East and West" published in 1874.

Myles,

Once again, the Spirit as energy is manifested from the Father through the Son, but He does not proceed as hypostasis through or from the Son. As always Westerners seem to confuse the hypostatic procession of the Spirit, which comes only from the Father as the sole cause within the Godhead, with the Spirit's energetic manifestation through the Son, which expresses and reveals the consubstantial communion of the three divine hypostases within the Trinity.

Blessings to you,
Todd

This point was answered from the Eastern side by St. Gregory II of Cyprus who pointed out that the Spirit receives His existence from the Father alone (which concerns His hypostatic procession), but that the Spirit exists through the Son (which concerns His energetic manifestation), and that this latter manifestation reveals the communion of essence of the three hypostases within the Godhead.

Without addressing the heretical nature of one theological approach to another, has theology in general been hijacked by Greek ontology for too long? If we apply Heidegger to theology we might discover that Aristotle and Plato argue from the same side of the aisle.

Joe

There is also Jewish soteriology in the New Testament too.

Can we still give glory to the Father, thru the Son, and in the Holy Spirit?

Joe

My question concerning the filioque is not of a theological nature, but more of a legal nature.

Was the filioque officially added to the Creed of the Church? If so, when and by what Pope or Ecumenical Council? If not, is the Roman Church's use of the filioque just a liturgical addition in its acknowadgement of the truth of filioque doctrine?


Jesse Venner

Creed of what church?

I believe a Pope of long ago had the Creed engraved in plaques, one in Greek and the other in Latin, without the Filioque in response to those who put it in. Can't remember where it was placed.

The Creed is an Ecumenical document, not belonging to one particular tradition. The West putting it in their use of the Creed is akin to the State of Utah changing the US Constitution without the rest of the states.

Joe

Joe,

I did not ask when it was NOT added. I asked when it WAS added. Someone from the Roman Church's perspective had to have had the authority or though they had the authority to add it to the Creed. I want to know who or what this was and when. Thats all I want to know.

Jesse Venner

The "filioque" began being added to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed in the West (in Spain, at the Third Council of Toledo in 589 A.D.) at the end of the 6th century. It spread from Spain into the Frankish kingdom and other parts of the West, but the addition of the "filioque" to the creed was resisted by the Popes for many centuries, and as J Thur pointed out, Pope Leo III had ". . . two heavy silver shields made and displayed in St. Peter’s, containing the original text of the Creed of 381 in both Greek and Latin. Despite his directives and this symbolic action, however, the Carolingians continued to use the Creed with the Filioque during the Eucharist in their own dioceses." [The Filioque: A Church Dividing Issue? An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation] Finally, in 1014 A.D. the Pope, Benedict VIII, under pressure from King Henry II, the German Emperor, added the "filioque" to the creed at Rome itself.

For more information on this topic click the link below:

The Filioque: A Church Dividing Issue?

Apotheoun said:

Well, of course first off this is an Economic situation and so it's a bit of a different issue. That being said, however, I don't think any of the options you listed accurately reflect the situation as it transpired. Even John Chrysostom, in his homilies, states that it's not clear what is occuring at that moment. Jesus could be giving them the "gifts of the Spirit", or could be making them ready to receive the "gifts of the Spirit" at a later time (Pentecost). Either way, the Spirit Himself is not necessarily involved at all at this particular point in time, and St. John Chrysostom even mentions in Homily 86 on the Gospel of John that what's being described either way is the powers of the Spirit, i.e. the Divine Energies, not the Holy Spirit as a Person or an identifiable Energy. Chrysostom makes this explicit by pointing out that the "powers" of the Spirit are the "powers" of the Father and Son also.

As is so often the case in the Gospel of John, the (power of the) Spirit is used here to represent the Divine Energies as a category, at least according to St. John Chrysostom. What is clear is that the Apostles did not receive the whole of the Holy Spirit's power at that moment in time. As Chrysostom states, Jesus says "receive the Holy Spirit", not "you have received the Holy Spirit". It could easily be a direction for the coming Pentecost, which is the direction I tend to lean in. They are certainly given some authority and blessing at this moment, but they are not receiving any extreme, miraculous Energy just yet. This is made clear by the shattering change that occurs forty days later compared to what we see here. This also ties directly back to John 16 where Jesus says that the Holy Spirit will not be among the Apostles until Jesus returns to the Father (and He also states that Christ would be doing the sending).

In short, I think it's a non-starter as a question. I'll have to check out Gregory Palamas' "One Hundred and Fifty" to see the Spirit as an Energy. So far I see no Patristic support for it yet.

Peace and God bless!

Ghosty,

Patristic support for the idea of the Spirit as an energy can be found at least twice in St. Athanasius. Look at his Epistolae ad Serapionem (sometimes just Ad Serapionem -- they're his "Letters to Serapion"), I.20, and I.30. In both places he refers to the Holy Spirit as the energeia (energy) of the Son.

Myles,

Forgive me for taking a little longer in getting around to the "more on Cyril" I'd mentioned; I'm in grad school, so I've been busy lately, and Apotheoun already gave part of the response to your quotation. I'll reiterate it again first, and then give some other considerations that ought to give us pause before we say that St. Cyril supported the filioque as it comes to be expressed by the Latins.

First, as Apotheoun pointed out, Eastern Trinitarian theology makes a distinction between "having existence" vs. "existing," which corresponds to the distinction between hypostatic procession vs. energetic manifestation which has already been mentioned. The Spirit "has existence" from the Father alone (i.e., He hypostatically processes from the Father alone) but He exists through the Son (i.e., He is manifested through the Son, so that the movement through the Son in some way characterizes His divine life). Apotheoun mentioned Bradshaw's book, and this is a great place to start. As Bradshaw puts it there, "Gregory [II of Cyprus] concedes that the Spirit may be said to exist through the Son insofar as He eternally shines forth from the Son, but denies that the Spirit therefore has His existence through the Son . . . Gregory invoked [St. John] Damascene's analogy with light: radiance exists through the ray in that it shines forth from the ray, but it has its existence directly from the sun" (p. 218-219). Later, sums it up as follows: "The Spirit proceeds from the Father to rest upon the Son, and in so doing both glorifies the Son, manifesting His energy, and is Himself made known through the Son" (p. 220). This whole idea is nascent in St. John of Damascus, who says, "We do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son, but yet . . . we confess that He is manifested and imparted to us through the Son," and also in St. Gregory of Nyssa (although some think the letter is St. Basil's), who says, "[the Spirit is recognized by the facts] that He is known after the Son and together with the Son, and that He has His subsistence from the Father." So, hopefully that makes the distinction clear. Prima facie, then, Easterners are not going to have trouble accepting the quote from St. Cyril and still denying the Latin filioque.

But let's not stop there, because there are other things about St. Cyril's writings to consider in this connection, too. I assume you're familiar with the fact that he was quite involved in a Christological debate with the heretic Nestorius, and as a result of that wrote many letters to him. Well, in one of those letters, St. Cyril wrote that the Holy Spirit is Christ's own Spirit. One of Nestorius companions, Theodoret of Cyrus, responded angrily: Now, the things to note about this are first that Theodoret was trying all he could do to find mistakes in Cyril; that he would cite this fact and charge Cyril with potential blasphemy then suggests that the idea of the Spirit having His subsistence from or through the Son would have seemed wrong to those watching the debate. However, what's perhaps more significant than this is that Cyril responded, and instead of defending himself forcefully or even charging Theodoret and Nestorius with additional mistakes, he simply clarified himself and used much more guarded language (emphasis added): This is a much more guarded thing to say. Here Cyril reemphasizes that the procession is from the Father, but just that the Spirit is not "alien" from the Son; he then connects this "not alien" notion to the fact that the Father and the Son have all things in common, apparently implying that the Son is also consubstantial with the Spirit and "has" Him in some way. Now, nothing in this response from Cyril alone obviously speaks in favor of either side here, but it at least should make us hesitant to say that he ascribed to anything like the Latin filioque. But we shouldn't stop here, either, because there are other things Cyril says that should tilt us a bit further in the direction of thinking that he might not hold the filioque doctrine. For it seems in other places that what St. Cyril means when he says that the Son "has" the Spirit, that the Spirit belongs to Him and is not "alien" to Him, and so on, is defined more explicitly. For instance, at another spot in his Commentary on John, He says that the Holy Spirit is the "radiance" of the Word of God, which -- keeping in mind the "light" analogy above -- seems to suggest something like energetic manifestation rather than hypostatic procession. In his Commentary on Luke, Cyril says that although the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, He is united to the Son consubstantially, and belongs to Him "naturally" as the finger naturally belongs to the hand (I get this from Richard Haugh's Photius and the Carolingians, p. 190). So what Cyril seems to want to say is that the Spirit proceeds from the Father but is consubstantial with the Son and so "belongs" to Him by nature (this is, in fact, exactly the conclusion Haugh reaches; incidentally, it is also the interpretation that Gregory II of Cyprus gave him, and seems to be suggested by other quotes from Cyril that are often taken by apologists to address the filioque). Other things pointing in favor of this are that Cyril elsewhere insists that the Spirit is said to "proceed perfectly" from the Father; so it seems that, if the procession from the Father is perfect, there ought to be nothing to add to it -- Gregory II of Cyprus uses an argument like this (see Aristeides Papadakis' Crisis in Byzantium, p. 93). So, there are a number of things in Cyril himself, as well as in his interpreters, that are mitigating against the belief that Cyril taught the filioque doctrine as it is now expressed; and even if not, the Eastern tradition has no problem accommodating the quote you've provided.

I should mention one thing about Cyril, too. At his time, distinctions between "nature" (or essence) and "person" were still being forged -- this was a crucial part of his debate with Nestorius; the terminology was not fixed -- and so he is hard to interpret as it is. As Richard Haugh (mentioned above) puts it, "Cyril's triadological thought is not always clear because it suffers from a lack of precision in distinguishing between nature and person . . . Cyril's language is ambiguous because sometimes he speaks as though he identifies the Holy Spirit with the Divine Essence without distinguishing what is 'natural' in God and what is 'personal' or 'hypostatic'" (ibid., p. 189-190, emphasis his). However, as I've noted, Haugh maintains that Cyril's clearest intention is to say that the Spirit is consubstantial with the Son and that both are divine.

Hopefully that's at least somewhat helpful.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

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 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.

Arbanon,

Quotes from the book would be more than welcome, if you'd like to cite them. However, I reiterate my caution again about going too far with these things. Sherrard does indeed make some great points, but any claim that the filioque doctrine leads necessarily to materialistic atheism is, quite frankly, absurd. Pope St. Leo the Great, whom we all venerate as a saint, quite clearly declared the filioque as early as 447 AD, in his "Quam laudabiliter," where he says (against the heretics): It is clear that St. Leo is talking about the personal, inter-Trinitarian existence of the Divine Persons, and he affirms that the Spirit "proceeds from both." There are, of course, precedents for this in Augustine, and there were also councils in the early Western church (in Spain) that declared the filioque as well (in the 6th or 7th centuries). Of course, none of these declarations were dogmatically binding on the Church, but that is beside the point. The point is that "atheistic materialism" did not become a real, pervasive phenomenon until some time in the 19th century or so. Any claim that such materialism was a consequence of the filioque is just ridiculous. Now, if one wants to claim that a particular type of philosophy, say the extreme Scholastic philosophy of interpreters of Thomas Aquinas (such as Cajetan), eventually led to the philosophy of atheistic materialism, I would be more open to that thesis. However, this brings up my point about Sherrard "misinterpreting texts" again, because I would want to point out that what Cajetan and other interpreters of Aquinas say is Thomism is not clearly Thomas' doctrine at all... And in any case, this is all far from saying that such is a necessary consequence of the filioque.

By the way, since Augustine of Hippo is typically a whipping boy for all of these issues, you may be interested to know that recent scholarship is beginning to vindicate him against typical charges made against him (particularly by Orthodox polemicists, though I mean no offense in saying that). This article , for example, demonstrates Augustine's compatibility with both the Cappadocian and Western Fathers of the Church. Note particularly some of the points made in the bibliography of that article, as well. Research is now demonstrating that Augustine's ideas about the perichoresis between the Divine Persons in the Trinity was actually very similar to notions in the East, and that the claims that are typically made against him -- and which, as far as I am aware, are made by Sherrard as well -- such as that he overemphasizes the Divine Essence and neglects the Divine Persons are being shown to be false. Sherrard's book comes prior to some of this research.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

Interesting that you should say that Jason because this because a couple of weeks ago in Oxford the Arcbishop of Granada, His Grace Javier Martinez, was here and said much the same at a conference on the New Evangelisation. Only he attributed the growth of modern secularism to Suarez.

You can read a short synopsis of the conference here

Myles,

Actually, your note is a good corrective. I should have said Suarez rather than Cajetan, as Suarez was significantly more influential regarding Aquinas, and his interpretations of Thomas were pretty much accepted uncritically for quite a while.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

In defense of Dr. Sherrard -- having read his book ("The Greek East and the Latin West") some time ago -- I do not see what he said as polemical, and so I disagree with A. N. Williams. Moreover, she does not really engage the arguments in Sherrard's book, but merely asserts that his writing is polemical without proving her point. Now clearly Sherrard and Williams read St. Thomas differently, but this does not mean that Dr. Sherrard's reading is "polemical," any more than Dr. Williams' reading of Palamas in her book "Ground of Union," in which, at least in my opinion, she favors reducing the distinction between essence and energy to a merely epistemic one, is polemical. People can disagree on the meaning of a given text without that disagreement necessarily involving polemics.

In Dr. Sherrard's defense, I don't believe that he is saying that the "filioque" itself is what leads to atheistic materialism; rather, his argument is far more subtle and complex, because he is actually saying that the reassertion of Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy in the West led to a view of the nature of "essence" which involves the reduction of essence to a category of thought. Moreover, the emphasis upon the philosophical conception of essence (ousia), which is not a part of the Cappadocian understanding of the term, and which promotes the idea that essence (ousia) is a definable underlying substrate that is comprehensible and that determines what a thing is, is what leads to the problems in Western metaphysics and theology. It is this essentialist approach that leads to the necessity of a "filioque," and it is this essentialist approach that he argues leads to the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and ultimately to philosophical materialism. Thus, the "filioque" is a symptom of a larger problem in Western philosophy and theology, and so it is not the cause of that problem.

Moreover, that is why a type of "filioque," i.e., one does not either make a single principle out of the Father and the Son, or which does not posit the Son as a cause of the hypostatic being of the Holy Spirit, is, and always will be, acceptable in Eastern theology.

The Son does manifest the Holy Spirit, both temporally and eternally in the divine energy, but He does not cause the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit.

The focus on the "filioque" as if it is the sole point of difference between East and West is ultimately unhealthy, because there are many things that divide East and West theologically at the present moment, e.g., the understanding of the divine simplicity, the nature of the hypostases in the Godhead, the Monarchy of the Father, the nature of grace as uncreated energy, the permanent diastemic nature of created reality, etc., and so we must not take a stance that holds that any disagreement over these issues necessarily involves polemics. Dr. Sherrard's book is no more polemical than Dr. Bradshaw's book ("Aristotle East and West"), or Dr. Pentecost's dissertation ("Quest for Divine Presence"), or Dr. Williams' book ("Ground of Union"), or Christopher Hughes' book ("On a Complex Theory of a Simple God"), et al.; instead, these books are simply pointing out the different ways in which people can interpret the texts of Palamas, Aquinas, and the Fathers of the Church in general.

Todd,

A few comments.

You say: This is not quite true, as far as I can tell. For example, I have Williams' book before me as I write this, and while it is true that she merely asserts that Sherrard is polemical and incorrect on page 14 (which I cited above), she does go on to substantiate her claims on pages 24-26. She explicitly cites a number of his statements regarding Thomistic epistemology, points out how they appear to be inconsistent with his other comments on Thomas, notes that he fails to explain or even to notice the inconsistency, and she then remarks that it ignores the relevant portions of the Summa Theologiae. The rest of her book (at least the portions about Aquinas) goes on to reference precisely those "relevant portions" in order to explicate Aquinas' doctrine on the knowledge of God.

Also, to continue in Williams' defense, she is equally critical of Western scholars (such as Martin Jugie and Thomas Tyn) who have failed to really attempt to understand Gregory Palamas.

This is precisely what a lot of recent work is calling into question. Certainly, as I noted above, it ends up being true of many of Aquinas' interpreters (such as Suarez, mentioned in a previous note), but that doesn't mean that any of this is intrinsic to Western theology in and of itself. In fact, the article I cited above about Augustine (and the work which that article cites in its bibliography) sharply calls into question the notion that Augustine and the West following him overemphasized the essence against the Persons or sharply turned away from the theology of the East. Furthermore, you might be interested to know that the very debate you suggest (about reducing essence to a category of thought, or being) arose recently regarding Thomas Aquinas, and the result was that a very prominent Catholic theologian/philosopher was forced to admit that Aquinas does not actually reduce the essence in the way he had thought (and in the way that many people suggest). The philosopher's name is Jean Luc-Marion (author of God Without Being); see this article . As that article notes, Marion had argued that Aquinas "had moved fatally away from the God of revelation and faith . . . towards the construction of the metaphysical idol of 'God' who would come to dominate modern thought . . . [According to Marion, Aquinas] accorded primacy to a human concept of being (allegedly tainted with the representational limitations of the imagination) as the horizon that dominates and determines the way in which God can appear . . . God is thus objectified and subordinated to human conceptualization, the beginning of the development that would flower into modern onto-theology." This is the standard critique, and something very much like it seems to be the one made by Sherrard and suggested here by you. In that article, however, Marion is forced to retract that view after a closer reading of Thomas Aquinas; in fact, he is forced to concede exactly what I have suggested above: namely, that this view of Aquinas comes from his interpreters, like Cajetan and Suarez, rather than Aquinas himself. In any case, there is much to suggest that this is not a fair reading of the Western position.

I believe this answers your concerns, then. The notion that the West is too "essentialist" is addressed in recent work on Augustine, some of which is cited above. The notion that Western theology necessarily reduces the essence of God to a category of thought is now being actively and forcefully questioned, even regarding Thomas Aquinas (the monument of Western Scholastic theology). Furthermore, it seems disingenuous to suggest that the filioque is a "symptom" of any of this Western theology, as it is professed so early by acknowledged saints (like St. Leo the Great) and its existence is even attested to by St. Hilary of Poitiers (in De Trinitate XII) before Augustine even existed.

In general, then, my concern has increasingly become that we are being unfair to the West in our critiques. All that I've said above suggests why I think so, and why my next phase of personal research intends to focus more on Western theology than I have been.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

I've never read Suarez, so I can't judge his interpretations of Aquinas, and although I have read a few things by Cajetan, the texts that I have read did not deal with philosophy. Nevertheless, Thomas' triadology is not acceptable from a Cappadocian standpoint, and in fact it can be held to fall under the direct condemnation of St. Basil in his letter 236. That being said, I don't think that Sherrard was "polemical" in his treatment of Thomas or of scholasticism generally. That at least is my take on his book.

I do not hold that either St. Hilary or St. Leo taught a "filioque" that involves the error of positing the Son as a "cause" of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit. The Florentine decree is far removed from their teaching, and also from the teaching of St. Maximos, who defended a type of "filioque." As an Eastern Christian I do not accept Florence as an Ecumenical Council.

Moreover, I reject the Augustinian teaching on the Trinity because Augustine's views on the divine simplicity are irreconcilable with the teaching of St. Athanasios and the Cappadocians.

Yes, I have read her book, but again I do not think that she has proven that Dr. Sherrard is a polemicist. I simply think that they disagree on how to interpret Aquinas, and clearly such disagreements are possible without falling into the dismissive rhetorical device of calling your opponents viewpoint "polemical."

Ecce Jason,

if St. Leo preached filioque that only proves that pope can err... :rolleyes:


However, as Apotheon remarked, not simply Filioque, but, as i put it somewhere above, "the mentality employed in understanding Filoque", which part of a greater system of thought, when brings dogmatic deviations, may lead to even materialism. There is nothing strange in here.


Thanks Apotheon for saving me time in citing directly from Sherrard's book.

Dear Arbanon,

Actually, no.

If it can be shown that St Leo, recognized by Orthodoxy as a saint, preached the Filioque as the Latin Church understands it, then this really is a problem.

At Florence, both sides quoted their respective Fathers to prove themselves "correct."

Both sides accepted that their Fathers were inspired by the same Spirit and thus, although using different means of expression, could ONLY teach the same doctrine on the procession of the Holy Spirit.

This is why St Mark of Ephesus, when hard-pressed by the Latins on this issue, asserted that the texts of the Latin Fathers the Latin Church was advancing to "prove" the Filioque were "corrupted" by the Latins themselves. In no wise would he accept that the Latin Fathers, that Orthodoxy also venerated as Saints, could teach otherwise than against the Filioque.

In Orthodoxy, those Fathers who seem to have erred are often given the title of "Blessed" rather than "Saint."

Alex

Dear Arbanon,

Actually, no.

If it can be shown that St Leo, recognized by Orthodoxy as a saint, preached the Filioque as the Latin Church understands it, then this really is a problem (for Orthodoxy).

At Florence, both sides quoted their respective Fathers to prove themselves "correct."

Both sides accepted that their Fathers were inspired by the same Spirit and thus, although using different means of expression, could ONLY teach the same doctrine on the procession of the Holy Spirit.

This is why St Mark of Ephesus, when hard-pressed by the Latins on this issue, asserted that the texts of the Latin Fathers the Latin Church was advancing to "prove" the Filioque were "corrupted" by the Latins themselves. In no wise would he accept that the Latin Fathers, that Orthodoxy also venerated as Saints, could teach otherwise than against the Filioque.

In Orthodoxy, those Fathers who seem to have erred are often given the title of "Blessed" rather than "Saint."

You, as an Orthodox, could privately believe in the Filioque or the Immaculate Conception for that matter - that would not get you excommunicated.

Alex

I humbly accept your naswers, among Ecce Jason, Apotheon.


However, so far, I completely agree with the way Philip Sherrard (I think even Ecce Jason has pointed to this somewhere in his enlightened posts) has explained that there is no possibility for the Church of Christ to become dualistic in doctrine given the differences in language or mentality. There can be diversity but not adversity.


Individually and privately, I, as an orthodox, or you as a catholic, could be even a atheist, and still not be excomunicated, but be an integral part of the outward part of the church. And actually, that happens alot in Orthodox and Catholic countries.


P.S, today I realized, when I saw your name in there, I have come across of your website (unicorne) long time ago. Congratulations for your work.

A nice article from the Pontificator on Absolute Divine Simplicity

Myles,

Did you read the comments after the article? Especially David Bradshaw and Perry Robinson's replies? I thought one good point Bradshaw made was the unavailability of good translations of the greek fathers in the middle ages. I had heard that before and there may be some truth to it.

I havent read the replies actually Matt. What do they pertain to?

You can read Perry's response to Kimel's article here on our blog:

http://www.energeticprocession.com/archives/2005/04/response_to_fr.html

Interesting reading thank you for posting it. I do think though there are greater points of commonality than I initially thought. I may be wrong--and I admit my youth and inexperience make this likely--but I think key here is what St Thomas means by 'being'. To my understanding when Thomas uses this word to apply to God he uses it as a verb and not a noun. God is the noun that is doing the being.

Justify their separation from the Catholic Church? Palamism is erroneous and a piece of theological speculation?

St. Gregory describes life in the Trinity. Theosis. The article only highlights how different and incompatible the Eastern and Western approaches are.

The essence / energy distinction in the Cappadocian Fathers simply reflects their views on the nature of the ontological "gap" that exists between God and man.

Man is by definition a diastemicand kinetic being, i.e., he is a dimensional (existing in space and time) and constantly moving being, while God is adiastemic and akinetic, i.e, He is beyond dimensionality and exists in absolute stability. This ontological "gap" or difference is permanent at the level of essential being, and as a consequence, man can never know, nor come into contact with, the divine superessential (hyperousios) essence. Instead, all that man can experience of God are His enhypostatic energies, i.e., the enactments of the divine essence by the three divine hypostases, which flow out from the Trinity, and which manifest the divine being within the created world. In other words, God is known by man (both now and in eternity) only in His gracious activities (energeia).

Thus, to say that man can know or experience the divine essence (ousia) is to fail to grasp the radical otherness of God in relation to man, an essential otherness, which the Cappadocian Fathers held to be a fundamental truth of revelation. That being said, for the Cappadocian Fathers, any participation in the divine essence (ousia) by man necessarily involves his essential annihilation, and not his salvation.