www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Filioque clarification

Dear Friends,

I have a real problem with Rome's filioque "clarification." I read it once, and I was very confused with it. So I will read it again. But some points I want to bring up are:

1) Rome espouses the "new" clarification that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son "as from a single spiration." That's supposed to be what the Orthodox believe. Well it's not. That theory was condemned at the Council of Blachernae in 1285 (not ecumenical but definitely what the Orthodox consider to be authoritative.) Gregory of Cyprus in his Tome taught an eternal sending forth of the Spirit by the Son, but NOT a procession. The difference? Sending forth of the Son happens via God's energies, while procession happens in the realm of God's essence. And this was BEFORE St. Gregory Palamas! All of this is better explained in Aristeides Papadakis's great and totally non-polemical book "Crisis in Byzantium" published by St. Vladimir's.

2) Rome forgets it used to consider the Council of Constantinople 879 as ecumenical but replaced it 200 years later with the Council of 869 (which condemned St. Photios falsely). At the Council of 879, Pope John VIII condemned the filioque.

My point is: maybe things HAVE changed. But ignoring two big issues like this when one is supposedly trying to clarify something seems like a big deal.

For Orthodox who know about the clarification (we have to read it in our Dogmatics class at St. Vladimir's) it still does not prove acceptable.

In Christ,

anastasios

Interesting...

The Council of Trent clearly taught that "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle".

Don't have much time to comment right now, but the thought occurs to me that some Orthodox seem to be able to find a commonality between the two views...such as Bishop Kallistos who was quoted as saying that the issues are more semantical than anything else. Why are some able to find a harmonization possible?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dear Anastasios the Seminarian,

It is always so good to see you participating here with your usual erudition and depth, Big Guy!

(How are your studies coming along? Do you think you would like to consider the Priesthood?)

Well, you are right, of course.

"Father through the Son" is considered valid by the Orthodox in terms of the Economic Trinity, the sending of the Holy Spirit into the world.

In terms of the Economic Trinity, however, the "Filioque" is also valid. Both the Father AND the Son can be said to send the Spirit into the world.

Dave's point with respect to Kallistos Ware is quite right.

Ware also mentions others who believe as he does.

The thing is, and I have no views on Ware one way or another, that he is even saying the RC Filioque doctrine is not against traditional Orthodox doctrine here!

But I don't know - it's interesting to raise this.

The question I wanted to ask you about, Pillar of Orthodoxy, is what St John Damascene (and St Maximos the Greek as well) meant by "Proceeds from the Father through the Son."

It is interesting that both East and West say they accept his "De Fide Orthodoxa."

And yet St John clearly states that "we do not say the Spirit proceeds from the Son."

He then goes on to make some natural comparisons to get across the procession of the Spirit.

He compares, for example, the Trinity to a flower where the Father is the root, the Son is the stem and the Spirit is the Flower.

Or he compares the Trinity to the sun where the Father is the sun, the Son is seen in the rays and the Spirit is the warmth generated by the sun.

Or else he compares the Trinity to a river, with the Father being its source, the Son the river itself and the Spirit the ocean into which the river flows.

I understand the difference between the Economic Trinity and the Inner Life of the Trinity, energies and essence (although I know I can learn much more ).

To my simple, theologically unlettered mind, St John's comparisons seem perfectly compatible with the notion of "through the Son" in both cases.

What say you, Defender of Truth?

Alex

Anastasios:

Did Gregory really talk of about "procession"?

Is it correct to say that the Greek "ekporeuomenon" and the Latin "procedentem" have slightly different meanings? What is the teaching at St. Vladimir's on this point?

I can agree that there is a difference between the two positions. My main concern is whether or not that difference alone should be enough to deny East and West communion. Was this difference really the cause of our break in communion?

There are, since that time, other differences more than adequate to keep us apart. I would hope that those in authority would focus upon them first, or at least at the same time (just as we have throughout this Byzantine Forum).

With love in Christ,

Dear Andrew,

Your comment is both remarkable as it is insightful!

Alex

Dear Friends,

I wish I had a scanner. I am going to buy one eventually.

Gregory of Cyprus, writing for the Council of Blachernae, wrote a Tomos where 11 points were condemned:

a. That the Father is, through the Son, the essential cause of the Spirit.

b. That the Spirit exists through the Son and from the Son.

c. that the preposition "through" is equivalent to "from"

d. that the one unique essence and divinity of the Father and the Son is the cause of the Spirit

e. that the Father and the Son together constitute a single cause in the procession of the Spirit

f. that the procession of the Spirit from the Father is an activity of the essence and not of the hypostasis*

g. that the expression "through the Son," when used in reference to the creation of the world, indicates that the Son is the primordial or initial cause.

h. that the Son is the "fountain of life" or the cause of life in the procession of the Spirit, just as the Virgin is said to be the fountain of life in giving birth to Christ.

(taken verbatim from "Crisis in Byzantium" by Aristeides Papadakis, on page 210)

*this means that the Father in his hypostasis IS GOD and that the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed FROM HIM and receive their divinity FROM HIM. They are eternally begotten and proceeded, true, but the FATHER ALONE is "GOD" in the strictest sense, with the Son being God because he is the Father's IMAGE and the Spirit being God because he is the Father's Spirit. Also, the co-indwelling of the three (perichorises in Greek) unites them, as does their one will. Read "The Spirit of God" by Fr. Thomas Hopko to understand better. The Latins tend to view God as an essence that has three persons. The Orthodox and patristic view is that God is the Father, and the Son and Holy Spirit are God by being generated from God (homoousios--of the same essence). One cannot thus speak of a separate essence.

Alex,

Studies are going well. My wife is who you will have to speak with if you wish to know if I will ever be a priest! :-)

djs,

Yes Gregory talked about processions but as to the different words, I don't remember if that was an issue back then, and what the outcome was. Please read the book I cited as I can't explain it better than Papadakis can.

Dave,

Maybe Bp Kallistos is a little over-optimistic?

Andrew,

Yes I agree with you that the filioque should not keep us a part. However, it is important that we agree on what God is--our spiritual life depends on it!

NDHoosier,

I'm sorry to admit that I haven't read the decrees of Trent.

Alex again,

I haven't read St. John of Damascus all the way through though yet either. Sorry!

All,

One more reference:

St. John Damascene and St. Thomas Aquinas on Eternal Procession of the Holy Spirit, by Michael D. Torre, St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, Vol. 38, Number 3, 1994, pages 303-327 takes a different view from Papadakis; I'd like you all to be aware of it too, but I haven't read the whole article yet.

In Christ,

anastasios

Dear All,

The Torre article from St. Vlad's quarterly is available online, only unfortunately in a Gerard Serafimized version (ie heart is in red all over the place and there are lots of bolds and italics).

Here is the link: http://www.praiseofglory.com/torre.htm

In Christ,

anastasios

anastasios:

Is your unsolicited comment necessary to make your points across?

You are already using this person's website as a ready and, I think, valuable resource in this instance, but still you have the temerity to denigrate his work product.

Something is wrong somewhere.

AmdG

Dear Anastasios the Seminarian,

I will pray that your wife receives a calling to become a Presbytera then!

Yes, I've seen those points and thank you for taking the time to reprint them here.

I can't help wondering that just as the West has had trouble fulling understanding what Eastern Triadology is all about, the East too has had the same difficulties understanding the West.

There are points in that list that are meant to condemn aspects of Western Trinitarian theology that the West never asserted.

Also, while it is absolutely correct to speak of the Father as the "Monarch" of the Trinity, the other Two Persons are in every which way like the Father, save for being Begotten and Spirated.

Thomas Aquinas accepted the "Through the Son" phrase and simply said that this means that the Father spirates the Spirit through the Son.

RC theology of the Trinity (I guess you don't get a whole lot of that at St Vladimir's do you? ) has ALWAYS insisted on a "passive" spiration of the Spirit "From the Son."

In short, the Spirit has His Origin in the Father (an Eternal Origin whereby the Spirit is as Eternal as the Father and the Son) and not in the Son. This is what the Greeks wanted to ensure was affirmed and this is what the Latins have always agreed with as well.

I agree that the "Filioque" is not the best terminiology - it can tend toward the view that there are two Origins of the Spirit - and this RC theology likewsie deems heretical.

There is, in fact, an Orthodox version of the Filioque in terms of the Economic Trinity i.e. the Spirit is sent into the world by the Father and the Son.

"Through the Son" is acceptable Orthodox theology, therefore, (Sts. John of Damascus and Maximos the Confessor both use it) as long as it is safeguarded that the Spirit has His Origin in the Father alone - something that RC theology readily accepts.

Much more problematic is the inclusion of the Filioque into the Nicene Creed and RC theologians agree today that it should be removed. Pastoral and other considerations currently prevent this from occurring right now, but the RC church in Greece doesn't use it (and no one broke out in hives) and the Pope, when saying Mass in Greek, doesn't use it in that context either.

Again, a number of the points advanced by the list you so kindly reproduce here, while stating Orthodox doctrine, are caricatures of what the Roman Church actually taught about the Filioque.

These things happen all the time in church life whenever people get hot under the collar (I'm glad you and I aren't like that, Big Guy! ).

When the Council at Constance condemned John Hus, they charged him with teaching that there are four persons in God and not three.

Hus never taught that, but was so upset that he refused to answer. And silence giving consent . . .

Also, we tend to see the Filioque as an abstract idea which it certainly never was, nor is.

As Meyendorff has said (I think your seminary knew him well ), it is important to see the Filioque in context with Latin Church history and theology.

Meyendorff said that the West saw God in His irreducible internal Trinitarian relations. In that context, the Filioque was inevitable and understandable!

St Mark of Ephesus at Florence also didn't care if the West believed in the Filioque or not - as long as it didn't affirm it as a universal doctrine and as long as it agreed to remove it from the universal Nicene Creed intended to express the faith of the entire Church.

Have a nice day!

Alex

Is St. Vladimir's really teaching you that we do not believe in the same Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

Dear Administrator,

I guess my latest papalism shows, I suppose, in those times when I just want to shout out:

"The Administrator has spoken - the matter is finished!"

Alex

Dear Anastasios:

Perhaps you can get a better feel for the Catholic argument.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm

My shorthand understanding of this is such:

The procession of the Son is a generation.

The procession of the Spirit is a spiration.

Spiration is a procession that cannot occur from One alone but only when One is in relation to an Other.

Take for example Love. One cannot Love without an object for that love. So, in this sense, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father's relation to the Son. One way to look at this is to consider the Spirit as the outpouring of Love for the Son.

This outpouring from the Father (Procession) can only occur because of the existence of the Son (through the Son).

Furthermore, because of the Oneness of Essence with the Father, THIS procession is reciprocated in kind. Therefore, the Spirit spirates (proceeds) from the Father AND the Son.

This concept confirms that the Father is the eternal Origin of the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Father is the Source of the Procession. However, the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed by different mechanisms and these modes of procession are directly linked to their Personhood. And despite the uniqueness in Personhood, there remains unity in Essence.

Clear?

John

P.S. Like the Nestorian controversy, the Filioque controversy seems to have less to do with theological doctrine and more to say about linguistic semantics arising from different cultures and languages.