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

Ghazar wrote:

I struggled with these concepts for many years. My first introduction to God and the Bible was through Jehovah's Witnesses who are modern-day Arians (well, almost, they also deny the personality of the Holy Spirit...at least, Arius had that part right.)

Yes, the usual NT usage of "God" means the Father. (There are notable exceptions...scholars are divided on some of the passages but generally speaking John 1:1, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, Hebrews 1:8, and John 20:28 are generally accepted as applications of "God" to Jesus.) Just as significant, however, the NT usually reserves "Lord" for Jesus...even applying OT passages about Yahweh ("the LORD") to Jesus. From a Christian perspective it was providential that the usage of the name "Yahweh" had died out in first century Judaism. Otherwise, the application of the name "Yahweh" to Jesus would have been more of a stumbling block.

1 Corinthians 8:4b-6 illustrates this contrasting the pagan deities, the "gods" and "lords" with "one God...the Father" and "one Lord, Jesus Christ":

...`there is no God but one.' For even if there are so-called gods in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many so-called "gods" and "lords," there is still only one God for us, the Father from Whom everything comes and for Whom we live, and there's one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and through whom we exist.

So even as St Paul re-affirms monotheism in discussing idol worship he goes on to explain that for Christians there is one God and one Lord, clearly distinguishing between them yet still including the Lord Jesus on a level with the Father. Trinitarian definitions came much later but here St Paul seems to be heading in that direction by distinguishing the persons yet noting their equality.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

I believe that we have to be careful to not interpret Fr. Hopko's words (who is only quoting very eminent Fathers) with a sort of "pendantic literalism" that would "exclude" calling Christ God, or the Holy Spirit God. The scriptures (including the NT) call all three "God." Orthodox worship never calls Christ or the Holy Spirit anything less than God. ("May Christ our true God....") The point he is trying to make is that God the Father is the unique source of His Son and His Spirit. No, there was never a time when the Son and Spirit did not exist. No, the Son and the Spirit are not less than the Father - they are equal to Him. However, the dichotomy of saying "there is one God because there is one Father," and "God is three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" is simply the heart of the Christian revelation itself. And Orthodox theology loves a good dichotomy.

Priest Thomas

Fr. Thomas,

Thank you. As I said before, I liked Fr. Hopko's teaching, I just was having a problem relating to our practice of prayer. Your explanation helps me to put his words into perspective. I knew I had to be missing something. Thank you Father Thomas.

In Christ's Light,

Ghazar

p.s. Father, would you please take a look at the other thread when you get time. I'm really trying to get a handle on this subject and I think you might be someone who could help me. Thanks again.

Dear Dave,

Thanks. I knew Christ was true God, but I was trying to understand how, based on Fr. Hopko's teaching, we should properly express this. I think I got a handle on it now. Thanks for your help.

Dear Lance, Anastasios, Alex, Dave, Ghazar, djs, Fr. Thomas, et al.

This is fun, isn't it? And to think other men still chase women for recreation!

The only frustrating thing about this entire topic is that I think we all agree!

I am still trying to understand and explain the Latin perspective. So, let me throw out a few more concepts:

The first is in reply to Anastasios' question about the necessity of the Son for the sending of the Spirit.

In Latin theology, the mission of the Son and the Spirit are typically described as Being and Knowing, respectively. If there is no being, there can be no knowing.

*****
Another dimension that requires explanation is Aquinas' concept of Notion. (Do not ask me too many questions about this. I am not an Aquinian scholar but if you give me a few weeks and some beer...)

Notion is a defining charactaeristic of a divine person. There are five notions: unoriginatedness, paternity, filiation, spiration, and procession. Three relations are Person-constituting: The Fathere is the Father of the Son, the Son is Begotten, and the Spirit is spirated. There are two processions, being begotten (the Son), and being Spirated. There is only one God, hence, only one divine essence.

Here is the schema:

NOTION------PERSON-----RELATION------CONSTITUTION
Unbegotten---Father----Unbegotten

Paternity----Father----Begetter of
------------------------ the Son

Filiation----Son-------Begotten of----Constitutes
------------------------the Father-----Son as Son

Spiration----Father----Breathe forth
--------------& Son-----the Spirit

Procession---Spirit----Breathed by----Constitutes
------------------------Father & Son---Spirit as
---------------------------------------Spirit

My apologies with my insufficiency in making proper columns. Hopefully you get the idea.

******

Some modern Roman Catholic theologians warn of problems with over-defining the Essential Trinity. The concern is that if the Essence is over-emphasized, a fourth Person of the Trinity is created (i.e. the Father, the Son, the Spirit, the Essence).

Karl Rahner, for example, prefers to use the concept of the Immanent Trinity. His point is that the Immanent Trinity (aka the Essence of the Trinity) IS the Father. The Son and the Spirit are His self-revelation.

*****

Alex, et al. I have a question for you.

The filioque is deeply entrenched in the West, and not only among the Catholics! If we accept the filioque as "a clarification" that fits with Western theology, would it be acceptable for the Catholic Church to recognize the Greek form as the "official" Catholic form, and the Latin form as the "Patriarchal" form?

*****
John

Dear John,

Certainly, the Filioque can be allowed as a local theological opinion in the West - as long as it is not in the universal creed.

As an example, St Mark of Ephesus at Florence actually argued to have the Filioque removed. He cared not a wit what the Latins believed as long as the Creed was restored to its original state - minus the Filioque.

The Council that proclaimed the Creed also proclaimed that "not a word" was to be added or subtracted from it as well.

Thomas Aquinas understood well the Eastern perspective on the Procession of the Spirit and he basically taught as Lance wrote concerning the "Breathing of the Spirit through the Son - which is to say the same thing (as the Filioque)" as Aquinas said.

My own view is that when Eastern theologians actually come to terms with what the West really does teach with its Filioque, it just might see it as a legitimate Western theological expression and part of Western Triadology.

As long as it isn't in the universal Creed . . .

Alex

Alex,

You may have missed this question so I'm re-sending it to you:

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 shocked you had the nerve to ask him this. Good for you!

Trusting in Christ's Light,

Ghazar

John wrote:

I would say it already does. The official text of the Creed for the Catholic Church is in Greek, not Latin. The recent Roman document Dominus Iesus quoted the Creed from the Greek text minus the Filioque.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Here's and nice little historical note that traces the introduction of the filioque in the West from the Early Church Fathers on-line library.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-56.htm#P3760_642888

I am unable to find this "not a word" quote, in the texts at this library. Where is it from?

I found this to be a very interesting argument by the Orthodox's favorite Armenian, Saint Photius (a descendent of St. Gregory the Illuminator).

Clark Carlton (CC) writes, "Photios' primary concern in his "Mystagogy" was to demonstrate the logical absurdity of the the Filioque. According to the Latin doctrine, the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. Attributes such as generation and procession, however, must be ascribed to either the divine nature, which is common to the three persons, or to one of the persons."

As St. Photios put it:
"According to this line of reasoning, everthing not said about the whole, omnipotent, consubstantial and supersubstantial Trinity is said about one of the three persons." Mystagogy, 36, p. 76.

CC adds:
"It is inconceivable, however, that an attribute could be applied to two of the persons without applying to the third. Otherwise there would be inequality in the Godhead. This means that the property of "spirating" or "producing" the Spirit must either belong to the divine nature or to one person of the Trinity. It cannot belong to two persons, unless one is prepared to admit that the third person is not equal to the first two."

"St. Photios created a logical dilemma from which the supporters of the Filioque were not able to escape. No matter which way you turn, the Holy Spirit ends up as something less than a fully divine person. If one asserts that generation and spiration are properties of nature, then one must assert them of all the divine persons. Thus, the persons would all generate and spirate each other. Furthermore, the Spirit, if He is identical in essence with the Father and the Son, must also produce another person (or produce the Father and the Son)"

As St. Photios said:
"If the son is begotten from the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Son, by what reason do you not accord the Spirit, Who subsists in the same identical essence, the diginity of another procession from Himself at the same time? Otherwise, you denegrate Him who is worthy of eqaul honor." Mystagogy, 8, pp.62-63

CC goes on:
"On the other hand, if procession or spiration are considered to be properties of the person, not of the nature, then how can one possbily explain two of the persons sharing the same proerty? Does the Father need the Son to produce the Spirit?"

Again, St. Photios:
"But the essence is not the cause of the Word; the Father is the personal cause of the person of the Word. But if, as this ungodly doctrine asserts, the Son is also a cause of the Spirit, then the personal feature of the Father is distributed to the Son. Ultimately you are forced to say this, or else to say that the Son completes the person of the Father. But to say that is to argue that the person of the Father is imperfect, wanting completion, and that the Son takes over the Father's role and title. This is the same thing as reducing the awesome mystery of the Trinity to a mere dyad." Mystagogy, 15, p. 65."

I thank God the Latin Church has come to her ecumenical senses and has "clarified" a little. I think it is now more clear that the Latins are avoiding any semblace of teaching the Holy Spirit has the "Father and the Son" as its cause or source. I don't think this has always been the case. What do you great minds think about the teachings of St. Photios?

In Christ's Light,

Ghazar

p.s. Alex, how long will you keep me in suspense???

Ghazar:

In reply to the above:

________________________________________________
CC adds:
"It is inconceivable, however, that an attribute could be applied to two of the persons without applying to the third. Otherwise there would be inequality in the Godhead. This means that the property of "spirating" or "producing" the Spirit must either belong to the divine nature or to one person of the Trinity. It cannot belong to two persons, unless one is prepared to admit that the third person is not equal to the first two."

This can be rejected out of hand. The Father as the Origin can be distinguished from the Son and the Spirit who share the property of "procession" if one follows the Eastern formula.

__________________________________________________
As St. Photios said:
"If the son is begotten from the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Son, by what reason do you not accord the Spirit, Who subsists in the same identical essence, the diginity of another procession from Himself at the same time? Otherwise, you denegrate Him who is worthy of eqaul honor." Mystagogy, 8, pp.62-63

This is a simple misappropriation of the Latin understanding. Nowhere does the Latin formula suggest that the Son is the Source of the Spirit. This statement implies that the Latin teaching is that the Son is the Spirit's Father, and the Father is the Spirit's grandfather!

John

And now for my most controversial entry to this thread, I wish to support the filioque through iconography!

There are 5 icons that classically depict the Spirit.

In the first, Rublev's Trinity, the angel at your right as you look at the icon, and the center angle both have their gaze directed toward the angel on the left, the Father, their origin. However, the bodies of the "Father" angel and the center "Son" angel both point to the right "Spirit" angel demonstrating His Spiration.

In the icons of the Annunciation and the Theophany the Holy Spirit descends like a dove on a ray. The ray can be considered a line connecting two points: The Father, and the Son. One can also think of Jacob's ladder, etc. etc. all of those images contained within the Akathist to the Theotokos. (In the Annunciation icon the Son is implied within the womb of the Theotokos.)

In the icon of the Pentecost the sending of the Spirit completes Jesus' promise who has now returned to the Father.

And now, perhaps most controversial of all, is the icon of the Transfiguration. In this icon the voice of the Father proclaims his favor with his Son, while the Son is visualized in glory. This "double procession", proclaimed in sight and sound, overwhelms the apostles who are enveloped by the Holy Spirit.

John

The Second Council of Lyons (1274) taught, "We profess faithfully and devotedly that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration."

When they say that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son as from one principle does that not imply that the Holy Spirit takes his origin from the Son as well as the Father?

Not only this, but to ascribe procession to two persons of the Holy Trinity and not to the third violates the logical rule explained by St. Photios, "Attributes such as generation and procession, however, must be ascribed to either the divine nature, which is common to the three persons, or to one of the persons."

As St. Photios put it:
"According to this line of reasoning, everything not said about the whole, omnipotent, consubstantial and supersubstantial Trinity is said about one of the three persons." Mystagogy, 36, p. 76.

CC adds:
"It is inconceivable, however, that an attribute could be applied to two of the persons without applying to the third. Otherwise there would be inequality in the Godhead. This means that the property of "spirating" or "producing" the Spirit must either belong to the divine nature or to one person of the Trinity. It cannot belong to two persons, unless one is prepared to admit that the third person is not equal to the first two."

I think this argument still stands

In Christ's Light,
Ghazar

A major problem with the argument presented here is the presumed specificity of "proceed", and its interchangability with "spirate", "generate", "produce", "cause", and "source". Inasmuch as St. Maximos had already pointed out the caution that should be exercised in this regard some two centuries century before the argument of St. Photius, this presumption lacks due diligence.

The argument that "everthing not said about the whole, omnipotent, consubstantial and supersubstantial Trinity is said about one of the three persons" is perhaps better developed in the original text. As stated here, however, it is hardly compelling. If the the Father alone has the property of being the source, then the Son and Spirit share the complementary property of not being the source. Thus, if the sharing of a property solely between two Persons necessarily implicated an inequality, then - since it is an immediate consequence of the possesion of the complementary property by the other Person - it must be conceded that this inequality is inherent to the assertion that any Person has any unique property. And I think that neither St. Photius nor CC want to go there. (Perhaps St. Photius resolved this problem in the original text by defining "properties" in some specific way. In such case his argument would probably be susceptible to criticism on the grounds of "victory by definition".)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by anastasios:

1) Rome espouses the "new" clarification that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son "as from a single spiration."

mmm...

I have not read all the many posts on this - there seems to be a lot - I will wing it.

I am not aware of a RC clarification (I am RC). I am aware that in the RC Catechism there is some explanation regarding the acceptance of the two forms.

All this reminds me of the early days of the Church when the "Greek" block took power. The tug of war between Latin and Greek was strong. The other particular churches located in other cultures had little inclination to dominate the church. Some of the other particular churches wanted no part of the quarrel - yet (I am thinking of the Ethiopian church right now) the Greek fathers came to them and said "you must use Greek terms and definitions" and the Ethiopians said "we are not interested" so the Greek block had the Ethiopian church condemned. "Play by my rules or your - out of the game." And the Ethiopian church went merrily on its way - not caring to be forced to take sides with Justine or Rome.

One other thing comes to my mind (for I have studied these old cultures and the terms of philosophy) and that is that the word "procession" has lost its meaning today. If we are to understand it - we need to go back to the way those who originally used it understood it. Today we tend to mentally equate "procession" with a "sending" or a choice - to-go.. The meaning is almost the same. To "proceed" to the store is the same as - going to the store. .. and this is not the way these early statements would have equated things.

"Procession" should be thought of in the way of - nature. The procession of the stars as the seasons change. The procession of the seasons... etc. The procession of generation (something is generated) So "procession" has to do with a nature and not a personality.

Something in procession - would not rightly be said to be "sent". Being "sent" is a choice of a person. Proceeding as in procession - is an inevitable hand and glove thing. It is a natural unfolding. A generation.

So when we speak of "procession" we are speaking of it in the way of the nature of God (which God the Father and God the Son share as one nature) and not in the way of personality (which is the difference we humans experience between the Father and The Son).

A "procession" of the Holy Spirit then, is something that proceeds and is generated (not tied to any human experience of it) from the one nature of God. It proceeds outside of, and without, any human experience of it (in this context).

We properly say that the Father - generates the Son (the personality we call son) but we do not say that the Father generates himself (well in some context it is said He is self-generating - but that is a twist of words to paint a picture).

It could be said that the Father is �generated� by the Godhead nature - in as much as the Father (as differentiated from the unknowable Godhead essential nature) is experienced by us because of the Son.

And when the word "sent" is used it refers to a human experience we have - of the Holy Spirit. In this context we must then speak of a personality - something that we humans do experience. Whether we experience that personality directly (a direct experience of Christ) or indirectly (as we would know the sender by reading the letter he sent us).

The difficulty (when the difference between procession and sent is not understood in the way originally used) is in the dual use of the terms Father and Son. On one hand we use them to refer to the personality (for example - we know the Father because of the Son <reading the letter sent as it were>). We also use the term Father to designate the unknowable nature of God. And when we say �God� we most often tend to think of the Father when we might just as well think of the Son or the Holy Spirit.

So when it is said �proceeds from the Father and the Son� it refers to that same and one God nature which is shared by the Father and the Son and uses the personality terms only to designate that these both shared the one nature. Of course language breaks down because we cannot also say that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from itself (in as much as it too is that one God nature) but it is impossible in the way of language to designate something which comes out of - itself - yet remains within itself at the same time. Words fail.

It is said of the Son and the Holy Spirit (in as much as we humans of created human nature) can have an experience of them - that they are - generated into the nature of our human experience - yet do not become that nature in anyway but a personality. Since we do not experience directly the personality of the Father but it is revealed to us (evidenced to us) by our experience of the Son and Holy Spirit - we do not properly say that the Father is generated - but rather generates.

All in all - this intense scrutiny of words is never going to make one holy or add one bit of holiness or authority to anyone. It reminds me of the semantic fights so often forced on Jesus himself. �I and the Father are one� - well - obviously not - �I am in the father and the father is in me� - well how could that be? So - Jesus - including his body (is that not also Jesus?) is - inside the Father (I see no type of container wrapped around him) and he himself is - inside the Father?? An impossibility. So you see - given over to semantics - Jesus himself would have been scrutinized and tossed out of his own church as some type of heretic. (Oh - that�s right - he was - wasn�t he) - I mean his own church.

It has always struck me as humorous that the early block of Greek fathers, who condemned such as they thought we Hellenize the Church - did so much to Hellenise it by cutting off Latin, Coptic� and so many others who didn�t have Greek philosophical term training.

For me - being an early �father of the church� does not equate with - doing no wrong - nor being a saint equate with - making no mistakes.

One last thought "as from a single spiration" - I note that in-spiration is a breathing in - and a spiration is a breathing out - properly speaking - God the Father does not breath air at all (and that is what the word means) - so all this sematic fighting is selective anyway. Minds are already made up and the arguments follow the emotions in selective ways.

Geting the words of the filoque "right" will never join the two churches - the will to jpin must be there first. What the heart does not want - the intellect can keep in circles forever.

These are my thoughts.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
The Council that proclaimed the Creed also proclaimed that "not a word" was to be added or subtracted from it as well.

Too bad they did not leave a tape recording for us to hear and repeat - the very nature of translation - adds or subtracts words. So it would seem that none of us sould be using any form of translation. And what if we are mispronouncing something (as compared to the way he pronounced that same word)?

Just making a comment - I am not around much to read a rely.