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

Dear Alex,

Thanks for your response.

It seems clear that I'm accepting the former or what I have termed "the traditional" interpretation and you are accepting the latter or what I would call "Trinitarian" interpretation. We are agreeing that both may be valid.

The quotation from your first response, reproduced below, led me to believe many things regarding your opinion of the validity of the former interpretation. Thanks for clarifying what you really meant.

"If your professors were to have said their nonsense on such a feast in a parish such as mine, they would be turned out of the church in short order, diplomas, degrees and academic resumes notwithstanding.

We may not be learned in theology and scripture, but we know heresy when we hear it."

With love in Christ,

Merry Christmas to you, my Orthodox brother in Christ!

Alex

Andrew Rubis stated:

"When discussing Andrei Rublev's icon of the "Trinity" we should remember that it is not widely accepted as such in the Eastern Churches. The original title used and still used for this scriptural event is "the Hospitality of Abraham." The traditional icons depicted Sarah and Abraham behind the three visitors. The most traditional interpretations of this icon are of Abraham and Sarah hosting a visit from the Lord and two of his angels. If we read forward in the Genesis account, we see that "the two men" then proceeded toward Sodom and Gomorah' which God subsequently torched."

I must respectfully disagree. My discussion regarding this icon and its support for the filioque can be found above.

For my refutation of Rubis' statement, I have started a new thread:

https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=5&t=000094

John

Anastasios said:

..."Rublev et al reinterpreted the visitation to Abraham to speak to them, Trinitarians that they were, in a way the people would understand: the Angels that visited Abraham WERE the Holy Trinity (although Andrew points out that two of the Angels later left..."

Anastasios,

Do you mean they proceeded from the first?

(Sorry I couldn't resist)

John

Dear Deacon John,

Can you please explain how "'eternally begotten' can also be a 'Daughter'"? It seems that we use this language in the Creed to refer to Our Lord.

Also, your comments on the Son being Son more because of His relationship to His Mother than to His Father seem innovative, can you elucidate or give scriptural or patristic cites for this position?

Tony

Dear Alex, Petrus/John, and Anastasios,

Thank you for the replies to my post. All the posts here are very enlightening. However, I'd like to ask these questions to further the discusion:
1. If the Filioque was condemned already by the Council of Blachernae, why was it never included in the Anathemas of the Synodikon of Orthodoxy?

2.Does the ability to 'spirate' the Holy Spirit come from the Godhead or from a Person? If the ability to spirate is attributed to the Godhead, then there are two options: the Holy Spirit is not God or He has the power to 'spirate' himself. The first is the denial of the Trinity; the second a ridiculous absurdity.

Thanks in advance for the replies. Disagreements of this kind, as St. Basil the Great wrote, can be easily overcome later, after reunion, in the course of life together over a long period and study together without polemic. And as the late Panteleimon, Metropolitan of Chios, who observe many years ago that "Between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, it is fanaticism alone, that has emphasized the insignificant differences, differences that were never serious, that existed in former times without bringing on a schism." (Le Monde, Jan 26, 1952)

ruel

Dear Ruel,

Magandang Omaga!

The Orthodox Church sees the Filioque at two distinct levels.

The first is the unilateral inclusion of it by Rome into a Creed established by an Ecumenical Council (or two actually) where it was forbidden to add to or subtract from anything from it. The simple dropping of the Filioque by Rome (whenever it is ready!) would help resolve this.

The second is the theology. And there are two ways in which to understand the Filioque.

One may understand it, as the Greeks always have, at "face value" meaning that the Filioque teaches there are two Origins for the Holy Spirit.

But Rome has always denied it teaches this by the Filioque - by Rome's admission itself such a view of the Filioque would indeed make it heretical from the Catholic perspective.

Rome sees the Filioque in terms of distinguishing between the "active" spiration of the Spirit from the Father and the "passive" spiration of the Spirit from the Son or "through the Son."

There are Orthodox theologians today who have reassessed this and have said that if Rome believes that the Spirit does not proceed from the Son as He does from the Father - then there should be no further problem about it.

The Spirit spirates from the Divine Person of the Father, the "Monarch" of the Trinity.

Alex

To me, this implies that the Father is greater/more powerful than the Son and the Spirit. I'm not saying you're wrong, Alex, as you seem to be regurgitating an accepted idea; I just don't "get it."

ChristTeen287

Tony asks:

Can you please explain how "'eternally begotten' can also be a 'Daughter'"? It seems that we use this language in the Creed to refer to Our Lord.

Also, your comments on the Son being Son more because of His relationship to His Mother than to His Father seem innovative, can you elucidate or give scriptural or patristic cites for this position?

[B] You will recall that the Son is "eternally begotten of the Father" before all time.

Time is a dimension of human reality, it is not of God's who is beyond time.

Creation, including that of man occurred within time.

Gender, like time, is a component of the human reality. God is beyond gender. We use terms like Father and Son in a metaphorical sense. These terms connote something of the relations between the Persons but does not imply that the Father is male and the Son is male.

The Word was thus eternally manifest before all time and before becoming human. He was born of a Virgin as a male child. Therefore, in his humanity, Christ is male. His humanity derives from his mother alone. Therefore, his maleness, a feature of his humanity, derives from his relationship with his Mother. It may reveal something of his relationship to the "Father" but it is defined by his mother.

Before His Incarnation, to construe the second member of the Trinity as "daughter" eternally begotten of the "Father" would not detract at all from his divinity. The gender is from our human understanding. It does not accurately reflect the relationship between the first and second member of the Trinity, but it does "reveal" something of its nature.

I hope this helps.

John

I concur with Alex above that, while the filioque can be explained in terms that are wholly Orthodox, its very inclusion is unnecessary and divisive. In short, the Orthodox position defines procession=spiration and is defined by its Origin. The Roman Catholic understanding is that spiration is not the same as procession and derives from the relations among the Persons of the Trinity.
********

This post represents a transition in my focus on the topic at hand. From this point on, I will be focusing on the Orthodox point of view.

One point that I don't think has been mentioned as of yet derives from a fundamental difference in the Orthodox conception of the Persons. One reason the East disapproves of the filioque is the possibility that it can be misconstrued. For example, In Eastern theology, The Father is the Origin of all things uncreated. The Son is the Origin of all things created (the Logos).

Furthermore, the double generation implied in the filioque suggests that the Son also has a role in the Uncreated things. And with his role in the creation of the created, this could imply that the Son is greater than the Father!

John

Please note the terminology of:

Athanasian Creed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. and shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

Please note verse 23 again. The implication is that this is a testimony to the filioque coming from one of the most esteemed of the Eastern Fathers. However, the oldest version of this Creed is in Latin and seems to postdate Athanasius by at least 200 years. I believe that currently this is thought to be a forgery and may have been written by a Western Father, perhaps Hillary of Poitiers.

John

Now, I wish to present one that is much more problematic in regard to explaining away the filioque. (I know I said that I would now attempt to refute the filioque, but this one is just to good.)

The following is from the Third Sermon on the Lord's Prayer by Gregory of Nyssa (there does not seem to be any real question regarding its authenticity):

"...But the Holy Spirit is also said to be from the Father, and is testified to be the Son's. For it says: 'If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.' (Rom 8:9) Hence the Spirit that is from God is also Christ's Spirit, but the Son who is from God, neither is or is said to be from the Spirit and this relative sequence is permanent and incontrovertible...."

John

In the previous message, Petrus indicated that the Holys Spirit is God's personified Love. I'm not sure if the following excerpts are the same as calling the Holy
Spirit "God's personified Love" but they seem to come quite close to
this affirmation:

"The Spirit of the most high Word is like an ineffable love of the
Father for this Word ineffably generated. A love which this same Word
and beloved Son of the Father entertains (chretai) towards the Father,
but insofar as he has the Spirit coming with him (sunproelthonta) from
the Father and reposing connaturally in him."

(Gregory Palamas, Capita physica XXXVI, PG 150, 1144, D-1145 A)

"We believe in one God, but not a God in solitude, not in
God-self-love. God is love, teaches Christian faith. Yet love is
openness to the other, and at its greatest the offering of oneself to
the other. The Father... loves the Son and gives everything to him. The
Son loves the Father and gives himself to him. Finally, the very gift of
love, this very love.... is the Holy Spirit...

"If God is the lover and the Son the beloved, then the Holy Spirit is
the love that joins them together.... Such is the Mystery of God-the
Trinity, the God of love." (Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemman,
Voskresnye besedy , Sunday Sermons, Moscow 1993, p.81 - exactly as
quoted in Father Michael Meerson's "The Trinity of Love").

In IC XC,
ruel

An interesting thread, indeed. I feel that it is most important to reinforce that Orthodox Theology (and hopefully the Theology that the Byzantine Catholic Church claims to be rediscovering) is apophatic, or negative (as opposed to affimative). Thus, generally speaking, speculation is merely that, and the Church does not say definately yes or no, unless there is a major doctrinal issue needing defining. Thus, only Seven Ecumenical Councils (although I believe strongly the issue of diaspora dictates need for another, ethnicjurisdictionalism flies into the face of everything that the Church stands for), as opposed to many more ECs in Catholicism. St. Augustine is highly revered in Orthodoxy (particularly among the Slavs), despite his THEORIES on the Trinity and Original Sin.

By the way, the Dining Hall at the Seminary of the Resurrection of Christ in Shen Vlash Durres in Albania has two large icons that you can't help but see as you eat there every day. One is behind the head table and it is the Three Angels with Abraham and Sarah and the inscriptions in both Albanian and Greek. The other is at the other end (over the food service counter). It is ... (lol) Rublev's Trinity! And Sarah said, God made Laughter!

Christ is Among Us! Indeed He Was, Is and Ever Shall Be!

Three Cents

Dear Three Cents,

Can you guess nearest to which one I sat when I visited?

It is fascinating that they even had both icons. It just goes to reinforce my point that one is "The Holy Hospitality" and is about the Genesis account while the other is "Rublev's Vision of the Holy Trinity" and is not a portrayal of this same account.

Could you read the inscriptions? Would you tell us what they were?

In Christ.