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

I'm not sure why he would address a Catholic understaning of their own doctrine in an exposition of Orthodox dogmatic theology. Is it really relevant to the Orthodox experience?

Those who know Fr. Hopko know that he has done more for theological understanding in the ecumenical movement that most. He spent many decades in dialogues and ecumenical venues listening to the theological opinions of non-Orthodox confessions.

However, I looked for some consistency in his work, to make sure that I was not quoting him out of context. Sure enough, his classic work "The Orthodox Faith" states much the same thing:

---
From "The Orthodox Church - Doctrine" http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Doctrine/Holy-Trinity.html#03

One God, One Father

First of all, it is the Church's teaching and its deepest experience that there is only one God because there is only one Father.

In the Bible the term "God" with very few exceptions is used primarily as a name for the Father. Thus, the Son is the "Son of God," and the Spirit is the "Spirit of God." The Son is born from the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father -- both in the same timeless and eternal action of the Father's own being.

In this view, the Son and the Spirit are both one with God and in no way separated from Him. Thus, the Divine Unity consists of the Father, with His Son and His Spirit distinct from Himself and yet perfectly united together in Him.

----

Priest Thomas

One last point regarding the quote of St. Maximos posted by djs. In this, I do not see a defense of the filioque. What I do see is the relaying by St. Maximos to the East that the Roman understanding of the procession of the Spirit is the same as the East.

However, to the observer it begs the question, why the extra word(s) in the creed? Why not just say, "you know, this was a mistake. It was poorly worded or wrongly placed. It needs to go. We don't really believe what it mistakenly implies." Imagine how far that would go toward mutual understanding?

So it seems to me that much more could be accomplished by this one action than by endless dialogues, forums, and ecumencial papers being pushed back and forth.

Priest Thomas

I agree, Father Thomas. I can't see how Catholics would object to this. Like djs, I don't believe the West's theology on the matter is wrong, but the overall judgement to include it in the Creed is wrong, or at least certainly unwise. It just gives very mistaken inferences.

ChristTeen287

A recount of the Council of Florence by Joseph Gill, SJ.

http://praiseofglory.com/gillunion.htm

Father Thomas:

Respectfully, I am trying to follow your argument regarding this topic, but I still don't understand how the filioque is theologically heretical.

I still maintain that the Greek and Latin "processions" are proclaiming different aspects of Trinitarian reality.

For example, I can understand how the Son can be generated from the Father independent of the Spirit.

But I don't understand how the Spirit can be spirated independent of the Son? I agree that the origin is the Father, but the Son's existence is essential. (ergo through the Son; and the Son, whatever). The Holy Spirit is that which the Father and the Son share with each other. Cyril of Alexandria suggests this: "Since we have all received the same unique spirit, that is, the Holy Spirit, we are all in a certain sense merged together with each other and with God. Although we are many and separate and although Christ had made the Spirit of the Father and his own Spirit dwell in each of us, that Spirit is still one and indivisible."

*****
Pro-filioque Biblical Passages

But this He spoke concerning the Holy Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. John 7:39

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. John 14:26

And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them "Receive the Holy Spirit." John 20:22

It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you shall be witness to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the Earth. Acts 1:7-8

Therefore, being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear. Acts 2:33

Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38

*****
I concur with djs that English is a poor language to harbor this discussion. So is Latin.

*****
Another way of looking at this is the Holy Spirit proceeds (originates) from the Father, the Holy Spirit proceeds (is sent forth as in a mission) from the Son.

*****

(I still can't believe I am defending the filioque!)

John

One final point for tonight;

The Greeks state that the Latins made a unilateral addition to the Creed. Anathema!

The Latins proclaim that there was nothing new added to the Creed. The filioque is merely a clarification (as I have tried to demonstrate).

John

John,

Christ's bearing of the Holy Spirit is in fulfillment of doing and bearing everything for us as humans and for our salvation, even from the foundation of the world. The Spirit of Christ is God's own Spirit. (That is, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ insofar as he receives it from His Father. But He does not originate it. Hence, it does not proceed from Christ as a point of origin.) And yes, he also sends the Spirit of His Father. But Christ is also the "express image of the Father," and so he does his Father's will in all things.

Once again, it is not a matter of the Son being "essential" or "non-essential." We could make the opposite argument regarding the Son, that in a way He "needed" the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit annointed him to preach the gospel. So I'm not sure that this is a good line of thinking.

Christ shows humanity that they can live a life in union with God (as the new Adam) and he sends the Spirit of His Father to allow God's creatures to "live." (The Spirit is the "giver of life.")

Once again, as an Orthodox Christian, the filioque has to be parsed and explained and clarified in so many different ways, that, well, it's all just rather unfortunate.

Priest Thomas

Father, Father Deacon, and Friends,

In plain English the proceed of the Nicene Creed in Greek = takes his origin from, in Latin it = is sent forth from.

Now when we talk of the Spirit we speak of his spiration, something we associate with breathing. The Father as the Unoriginated Origin is the Fountainhead of the Divinity of the Trinity as Father. He is also the Source of the personhood of the other two Persons. The Son is Son becasue He is begotten of the Father, the Spirit is Spirit becasue He takes his origin from the Father. The Father speaks the Word, and breathes the Spirit. Even as the Father begetts his Son and originates his Spirit, He breathes his Spirit into his Son. But because the Son is Son, He has all that is the Fathers and becasue the Father breathes His Spirit into the Son, the Son also breathes the Spirit, although He is not the origin of the Spirit.

"If I fail to go, the Paraclete will never come to you, whereas if I go, I will send him to you... All that the Father has belongs to me. That is why I said that what he will announce to you he will have from me" (John 16:7,15).

"Then he breathed on them and said: 'Receive the Holy Spirit' (John 20:22).

If the Church of the First Millenium could tolerate the Latin and Greek expressions without schism, why can we not.

In Christ,
Lance

Dear Fr. Thomas,

How does the Council of Blachernae (1285) and the Tome of Gregory of Cyprus that was commissioned by that Council coincide? At that council, the Holy Spirit was said to be sent eternally from the Son in the energies. The whole affair is recounted in "Crisis in Byzantium: The Filioque Controversy in the Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus" by Aristedeis Papadakis.

For all, here's a citation to think about:
---------------
Gregory, then, was willing to accept those expressions of the post-Nicene theologians, such as Maximus the Confessor, Tarasius, John of Damascus, and Cyril of Alexandria, that the Spirit exists through the Son and from the Son. To say that the Spirit exisits from or through the Son did not mean, however, that it also had its existence from or through Him. A distinction had to be made between existing (iparkhei) and having existence (iparxin exein). At the outset, we should note that the distinction is both valid and fundamental to Gregory's trinitarian theology. It helps us to differentiate between two separate realities in God--one, referring to the Spirit's cause [anastasios: ie essence], which concerns its eternal personal mode of origin from the Father alone; the other, referring to the divine life itself of the Spirit, or to its eternal manifestation, which concerns its eternal personal mode of origin from the Father alone; the other, referring to the divine life itself of the Spirit, or to its eternal manifestation, which concerns the Father and the Son. True, teh fine distinction between existing and having existence is a subtle one. (Beccus [anastasios: the unionist Patriarch who was deposed when Lyons was repudiated]--along with some modern commentators--saw it as a contradiction, or a senseless distinction). And yet, according to Gregory, the alternative would have meant reading the Fathers out of context, and nullifying the immutable monarchy of the Father (which these same theologians clearly advocated.) In short, he woudl be abandoning the only guiding principle in the interpretation of the Fathers.

In general, Gregory argued that, if the Spirit received that which pertains to its subsistence "immediately and exclusively" from the Father, it also finds its reason for subsisting or its manifestation in the Son.
"The phrase of John of Damascus, 'the Father is the projector through the Son of the manifesting Spirit'...clearly denotes the manifestation--through the intermediary of the Son--of the Spirit, whose existence is from the Father."

Papadakis, p 124.

(I wish I had a scanner, again. I cannot stress enough how much everyone should just go out and read that book!)

To me, it seems to argue something close to what others here are saying they think the Latin doctrine means; that there are two types of "origin" and that might mesh with the Orthodox distinction between the internal life of the Trinity (essence) and the external life (energies). I think it is interesting how far Gregory actually elaborated on that, 75 years before St. Gregory Palamas.

In Christ,

anastasios

Dear Dc. John,

I am also trying to respectively follow your argument. I am having trouble understanding why you can't see the Spirit spirated independently of the Son? Why are the Son and the Father linked but the Spirit is merely the link? Doesn't it make sense to see the Father as the unoriginate and the Son and Spirit both his hands, not placing one above the other?

How can the Spirit be a link between the Father and the Son? The Father's hypostasis is what makes the essence that unites the divinity, not the Holy Spirit, as I understand Orthodoxy to teach.

In Christ,

anastasios

Just to throw some other points of view into this, Scott Hahn in the book "Catholic for a Reason" suggests on pages 6-7 in the footnotes that the Father spirates the Spirit, but since the Son is his image, he therefore necessarily spirates the Spirit as well. He says only the filioque adequately safeguards the Father's paternity (!). I don't really understand what he's saying but I thought it would be good to get his pov out as well.

In Christ,

anastasios

Lance,

Thanks for the link on Florence. It really helped me to get a better understanding of some of differences in theological perspectives and the Patristic background. It also gave me a better perspective on subtleties and difficulties that are seen by some reserved respondents to the "Clarification", for example:
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/french/larchet.html

After reading these links, I am reminded of the "Far Side" cartoon ("Math phobic's nightmare") in which a recently departed soul approaches the Pearly Gates, where St. Peter examines him, saying:

"Nobody gets in here without answering the following question: A train leaves Philadelphia at 1:00 PM. It's traveling at 65 miles per hour. Another train leaves Denver at 4:00 ... say, you need a pencil and paper?"

And I think: better than a theology exam?

djs

As an Orthodox Christian, to me, this whole discussion regarding the filioque in the creed should be centering around the purpose of mentioning the procession of the Spirit and the begetting of the Son. Why is it mentioned? It is mentioned to show how the Son and the Spirit are (and I will use a word only for convenience, not for accuracy) "generated" within the Divine Life of the Holy Trinity itself, that is, in its essence.

The idea regarding the Son's role is giving the Spirit to human persons is indeed a matter of economy, not essence. But this is not what the creed is addressing. Its all rather simple.

The argument that the Latin word means something different than the Greek word is irrelevant, at least to me. The creed was written in Greek, not in Latin, originally, and the meaning in the context of it's writing (in the actions of the council) would have been clear - we are addressing the Divine Life of the Trinity within Itself.

Priest Thomas

Dear Friends,

Both Eastern and Western Fathers AGREE that the Son and the Spirit are distinct from each other on the basis ALONE of the way they come forth from the Father, Begetting and Spirating.

The Filioque should be removed from the Creed as an unnecessary and later addition to a Creed intended to express the faith of the Universal Church.

Everything else after this is theological opinion that should never be imposed on the Church as a whole.

Too bad I wasn't the Protosyngellos of Constantinople in 1054, eh?

I wonder if the OCA would have me . . .

Alex

Dear Friends,

I have a great regrard for Fr. Thomas Hopko (see my much neglected thread on the origin of the soul):

https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=001619

-Perhaps, Fr. Thomas, you could help me with this question, being so familiar with Fr. Hopko's teachings.

I really like what he teaches about the Father being the one God. It makes very good sense and seems to be consistent with NT usage. But I have difficulties with this concept when considering Christian Tradition. I know in the Armenian Church we often refer to the Son as "Christ our God." I know this is also the Tradition of the Latin Church and probably that of the East Roman (a.k.a. Byzantine) Church as well. But based on what Fr. Hopko states and the example of the NT, this Tradition would be wrong. This would condemn probably around 1700 years of Christian Tradition and that is hard to accept. Am I missing something here?

IN Chirst's Light,

Ghazar

p.s. Alex, your statement about the Pope's private comments to you are extraordinary here. Your mentioning it in passing is totally unacceptable! Could you please elaborate on exactly what you asked him and what was his reply to this. I'm totally shocked you had the nerve to ask him this. Good for you!