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

Dear Petrus:

As clear as the incision of an expert surgeon's scalpel.

AmdG

As Bishop Kallistos wrote on this in the revised version of The Orthodox Church there are "doves" and "hawks" on this issue in Orthodoxy. It's quite interesting to read the original text of Bishop Kallistos' book with the revised (current) version. It appears the latest version argues against his first version. Bishop Kallistos is apparently a "dove" on this point (as are some others). Some, sadly, are still "hawks" on this issue.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

I am not particularly concerned with older Rome's "filioque" - especially given that they seem to be returning to the original formula.

I am much more concerned with the Orthodox Churches in Communion with Rome using the original text of the Symbol of Faith ecumenically agreed upon and following the Orthodox theology with respect to our thinking about the most holy Trinity.

And happily I find that slowly but surely [and in some cases surprisingly quickly] our Churches are returning to profess the original Symbol of Faith - even some Redemptorist parishes in the new world!

And I am also happy that the Catholic Communion, including the Latin Patriarchate, both supports and encourages us in this recovery of our True Faith/Worship:

So if they can be Ok with our halting efforts in the recovery of our Creed, I can cut them some slack as they struggle to more and more discern an ever more faithful and meaningful way to theologize about the mystery of the most holy Trinity.

herb

ps:

just a rogue thought and somewhat off topic...
While I am all for the Orthodox in Communion with Rome becoming fully Orthodox again; I am not sure that [not that it's any of my business] I think the Latin Church should become Byzantine in theology with merely a Latin liturgical "skin" - kind of "reverse uniates".

But of course there are limits to diversity....

Dear Petrus,

Actually, the notion that the Spirit is the "Love between the Father and the Son" is a very Latin formulation rejected by the East - and with good reason.

Love is a characteristic that is specific to all Three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity.

Even an Eastern Catholic theologian I knew (he has reposed in the Lord) agreed with the Orthodox East's understanding that to see the Spirit as the Love between the Father and the Son is to denigrate His Personal Role - and I don't pretend to understand all the niceties of that argument.

Orthodoxy has denigrated the Filioque ONLY in terms of the inner relations of the Trinity - it is entirely acceptable as an expression of the theology of the Economic Trinity ie. the temporal sending of the Spirit into the world. This is Bl. Seraphim Rose's "Orthodox Filioque."

The only real reason why the West has clung to it is because the West has reduced the identity of the Persons to their relations to one another ie. we cannot recognize the Father but only as the Person Who has no origin in any Other, we cannot recognize the Son but only as the Person Who is begotten of the Father, and we cannot recognize the Spirit but only as the Person Who proceeds from BOTH the Father and the Son - otherwise the Spirit will be confused with the Son.

Orthodoxy, beginning with St Photios of Constantinople, affirmed that the identity of the Son and the Spirit is assured on the basis of the NATURE of their procession from the one monarchial Source of Origin in the Trinity, the Father ie. that being Begotten is qualitatively distinct from Spiration.

And the Fathers have taught this as well.

It is just that the East's mystical attitude is such that when it is faced with a mystery, it will accept it as such - we cannot know HOW being Begotten and Spiration are qualitatively different from one another, but we can accept that they are and leave it at that.

The West, being of a decidedly more rationalist bent, was never happy with that and so proceeded to define and affirm doctrines and points that the East leaves to faith.

The fact is that the West is, as Herbigny said, moving closer, not to Orthodoxy per se, but to the ancient Fathers of the Church on this matter.

It was Pope John VIII himself who publicly said he always thought the Filioque was heretical, reinstated St Photios as Ecumenical Patriarch and then sat with the Patriarch of New Rome on thrones that were of equal height to indicate equality between them - something Pope John Paul II does as well with His All Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew.

The Vatican has two tablets on which the Nicene Creed is written, in Latin and Greek. Neither has the Filioque.

The controversy should be quietly put to rest by Rome dropping the Filioque and East and West agreeing that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son - and, Anastasios, this is the formula of union proposed by Fr. Prof. John Meyendorff himself in "Byzantine Theology" in his analysis of the Council of Florence.

Alex

Dear Petrus,

Actually, the notion that the Spirit is the "Love between the Father and the Son" is a very Latin formulation rejected by the East - and with good reason.

Love is a characteristic that is specific to all Three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity.

Even an Eastern Catholic theologian I knew (he has reposed in the Lord) agreed with the Orthodox East's understanding that to see the Spirit as the Love between the Father and the Son is to denigrate His Personal Role - and I don't pretend to understand all the niceties of that argument.

Orthodoxy has denigrated the Filioque ONLY in terms of the inner relations of the Trinity - it is entirely acceptable as an expression of the theology of the Economic Trinity ie. the temporal sending of the Spirit into the world. This is Bl. Seraphim Rose's "Orthodox Filioque."

The only real reason why the West has clung to it is because the West has reduced the identity of the Persons to their relations to one another ie. we cannot recognize the Father but only as the Person Who has no origin in any Other, we cannot recognize the Son but only as the Person Who is begotten of the Father, and we cannot recognize the Spirit but only as the Person Who proceeds from BOTH the Father and the Son - otherwise the Spirit will be confused with the Son.

Orthodoxy, beginning with St Photios of Constantinople, affirmed that the identity of the Son and the Spirit is assured on the basis of the NATURE of their procession from the one monarchial Source of Origin in the Trinity, the Father ie. that being Begotten is qualitatively distinct from Spiration.

And the Fathers have taught this as well.

It is just that the East's mystical attitude is such that when it is faced with a mystery, it will accept it as such - we cannot know HOW being Begotten and Spiration are qualitatively different from one another, but we can accept that they are and leave it at that.

The West, being of a decidedly more rationalist bent, was never happy with that and so proceeded to define and affirm doctrines and points that the East leaves to faith.

The fact is that the West is, as Herbigny said, moving closer, not to Orthodoxy per se, but to the ancient Fathers of the Church on this matter.

It was Pope John VIII himself who publicly said he always thought the Filioque was heretical, reinstated St Photios as Ecumenical Patriarch and then sat with the Patriarch of New Rome on thrones that were of equal height to indicate equality between them - something Pope John Paul II does as well with His All Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew.

The Vatican has two tablets on which the Nicene Creed is written, in Latin and Greek. Neither has the Filioque.

The controversy should be quietly put to rest by Rome dropping the Filioque and East and West agreeing that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son - and, Anastasios, this is the formula of union proposed by Fr. Prof. John Meyendorff himself in "Byzantine Theology" in his analysis of the Council of Florence.

Alex

What slander of St. Vladimir's. What a way to take a quote out of context. You have claimed to know many Orthodox, so if that is true you know that St. Vladimir's does not teach that, and your comment was merely an unChristian attack phrased in the form of a question to create controversy. You claim impartiality but yet you do something like this! Such a comment does not seek to restore unity among the Orthodox and Catholics but instead makes people doubt St. Vladimir's.

What I said is that we need to agree on what God is. If he is a simple essence that proceeds a Spirit that is different than if he is a hypostasis (the Father) that produces a Word and a Spirit. Wasn't it St. Thomas Aquinas himself in his "Against the Errors of the Greeks" that clearly argues that papal primacy and filioque are linked, and that the Greeks get the primacy "messed up" because they get the filioque "messed up?" St. Gregory Palamas argued with Barlaam the heretic that to view God as simple essence was to view God the wrong way.

I in no way said that St. Vladimir's teaches that RC's believe in a different Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. What I said was we need to agree on what God is. Sure we can say Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but the modalists said that, too. They were wrong. We need to agree on the substance and not just the words. If, after serious study, we resolve it to be a semantics problem, then I will be the first to rejoice. I already said that despite the gravity of the problem I still don't think it should be a barrier to communion. Of course, my opinion on that doesn't count. The whole point of my original post was that Rome needs to address the Tome of 1285 and the Council of 879 if serious discussion is to be continued.

anastasios

Dear Amado,

Yes, my "unsolicited" comment was necessary to get my point across. I typed in the name of the article in Google, and up popped ol' Gerard's site, so I looked at the article, and was happy to see it was the article, but it was degraded with all sorts of italics and bolds and red "heart"s all over the place. Very disappointing work product. With the bolds and italics he has in effect but his emphases into the article which I find annoying at best.

As for your use of the word "temerity", I am no expert of English so I went to dictionary.com and discovered:

-------------------------
temerity

\Te*mer"i*ty\, n. [L. temeritas, from temere by chance, rashly; perhaps akin to Skr. tamas darkness: cf. F. t['e]m['e]rit['e].] Unreasonable contempt of danger; extreme venturesomeness; rashness; as, the temerity of a commander in war.

Syn: Rashness; precipitancy; heedlessness; venturesomeness.

Usage: Temerity, Rashness. These words are closely allied in sense, but have a slight difference in their use and application. Temerity is Latin, and rashness is Anglo-Saxon. As in many such cases, the Latin term is more select and dignified; the Anglo-Saxon more familiar and energetic. We show temerity in hasty decisions, and the conduct to which they lead. We show rashness in particular actions, as dictated by sudden impulse. It is an exhibition of temerity to approach the verge of a precipice; it is an act of rashness to jump into a river without being able to swim. Temerity, then, is an unreasonable contempt of danger; rashness is a rushing into danger from thoughtlessness or excited feeling.
-----------------------

So in effect your were asking how I could have the rashness to post that? Or the reckless disregard for danger to post that? Could you please clarify for me what exactly you meant by that?

anastasios

Alex,

Thanks for answering Petrus's concerns far better than I could!

In Christ,

anastasios

It is not I who have taken the quote out of context but you who have misrepresented the entire filioque issue. In your post was a clear implication that because East and West differ on their theological understanding of the Trinity they therefore do not share the same belief in what God is with the result being that we believe in different gods. It is your accusation that sought to divide rather than work towards the restoration of unity between Catholics and Orthodox.

Now it may be that you really did not mean to imply that St. Vladimir�s was teaching that Roman Catholics believe in a different Father, Son and Holy Spirit but your post certainly carried that accusation. The fact that East and West express different understandings of the essence of the Trinity does not automatically equate to having different understandings of God.

Finally, my question would cause no one do doubt the teaching at St. Vladimir�s. It would only cause people to question the theological accuracy of your post. You made an assumption that a clarification by Rome meant something specific yet offered no objective evidence testifying that your assumption was valid. Then you argued against it. If you had provided the appropriate references to support your argument then it might have carried some weight.

In recent months your posts on theological issues appear to have moved from an openness to understanding and appreciating the similarities and differences of the theological expressions of both the East and the West to an uncritical acceptance of Eastern polemics (and not just theology) and a critical unacceptance of anything coming from the West. Rome does not carry 100% of the blame for the Great Schism. Orthodoxy is not 100% correct in all things.

Dear Anastasios the Seminarian,

Coming from you, that truly IS a compliment - thank you, you've made my month!

This must be Friday . . .

I think you might want to consider when people go after you here, it is because they love you!!

Say hello to your future Presbytera!

Alex

anastasios:

You said:

Really?

I am not at all interested in your personal judgment of Gerard's work.

I wish you don't have to refer to the dictionary everytime you encounter a word as common as "temerity."

It simply speaks of your audacity, your nerve, your gall to put down Gerard in every which way.

It is uncharitable and un-Christian.

AmdG

Dear Amado,

Gerard is a nice fellow - I'm happy his theological head has stopped turning, and his face is back up to the front again - to quote from St Thomas More.

But why is everyone so touchy here today?

When we were talking about the Papacy and Patriarchates, you yourself refused to acknowledge the validity of my arguments and also said that it was due to my "experiences with the Ukrainian Catholic Church and Patriarchate."

You don't know if that is a fact or not. You imputed motive to me which I also found, well, "off-putting."

How is what you said any different from what Anastasios said about Gerard?

Do we not have the right to have our own views about others and other websites here?

I (rather impishly, I admit it) have referred to Anastasios' website as "clone.ugh" and Anastasios has ripped me to shreds for it. I don't blame him, I was wrong.

But, as I believe Anastasios would agree strongly, we have the right to speak our minds on certain things here.

And I don't see what the Seminarian said about Gerard's site by way of analogy constitutes "offensiveness."

Alex

Talking about the procession of the Holy Spirit …Taking into account that I am not an expert in Holy Scripture or biblical exegesis I would like you, if you are so kind, to give me your opinion about Saint John 16, 13-15: “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you”. What is your interpretation of these verses? What do the words “he shall receive of mine” “he shall take of mine” mean? What is the relationship of these verses if any with the topic of the procession of the Holy Spirit? Is our Lord talking only about the sending of the Holy Spirit or also about his procession? Can we put together these words these words with those of the verses John 14, 26-27 (“But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning”) or are they talking about completely different things? Are the words “he shall receive of mine” “he shall take of mine” talking about a future action or rather an eternal action? What did the Holy Spirit “which proceed from the Father” “receive” or “take” from the Son? Is the Holy Spirit eternally “receiving” and “taking” from the Son in the same way he is eternally “proceeding from the Father”? Do you see any relationship between these verses and the “filioque” question and its possible solutions? Do you know what is the interpretation of these words of the Fathers of the Church and its use in the theological discussion about the filioque question between Latins and Greeks?

Dear Francisco,

It is so nice to be able to converse with so intelligent a man as yourself!

The Eastern Church sees these verses as referring to the temporal sending of the Spirit into the world.

The Spirit reminded the Apostles about all the Christ taught and inspired a correct understanding of Christ's Words for their mission as founders of the Church throughout the world.

Contemporary RC interpretations (See John Hardon's A CATHOLIC CATECHISM) have understood this to mean that these words refer to the Spirit's Eternal Procession and define it to mean that He proceeds "from the Son" also, since, "All that the Father has is Mine" and since the only thing the Son does not have from the Father is being the Origin of the Trinity, then this must mean, they say, that the Spirit proceeds from the Son also.

But Christ Himself, in the same sections of that same Gospel, clearly states that the Spirit "comes from the Father" which is the phrase the Fathers of the universal Church chose to institute in the Nicene Creed.

If it can be shown that our Lord was speaking of something OTHER THAN the temporal sending of the Spirit, this view might have substance.

The other view taken by Western theologians that anything affecting the Spirit in the temporal sphere, affects the Spirit in the eternal sphere as well (ie. if the Spirit is sent into the world by the Father and the Son, then He must also proceed from the Father and the Son) is a view that has no scriptural or patristic backing in the first centuries of the Church.

And it is an argument that is obvious only to those who accept it.

The idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Son in the internal relations of the Trinity undercuts the theology of the Trinity, accepted by the entire Church, that the Father is the sole active Origin of the Trinity.

The RC view is also that the Spirit's spiration from the Son is only "passive" and not "active" as with the Father.

This means, therefore, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son which is the best formula - not the Filioque.

Alex

Originally written by Anastasios: With the bolds and italics he has in effect but his emphases into the article which I find annoying at best.

To which Amado replied: I am not at all interested in your personal judgment of Gerard's work.

I don't think that this has anything to do with Anastasios' personal like/dislike for Gerard's work, and I think anyone can see this from Anastasios' clarification of his point of view.

No one has to care about Gerard's work. But that Gerard would italicise, bold, "red", etc. the text of what is essentially someone else's work is not honest, because it adds someone else's reading into the original author's work. I would think that Gerard's readership would be intelligent enough to understand the material he posts on his website without Gerard "helping out the process". He it was who at another time and another place complained that his words were being "edited", even though the "editing" did not substantially change the points he was making. Is it, then, honest to go about the same sort of thing in a different manner?