www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Eastern Schism

Dear lm,

The problem is that there is an equivocation on the word "proceeds." The Spirit does not proceed from the Son in the same way he proceeds from the Father. The Father is the origin, the cause of all in the Trinity, and the Son isn't. The Spirit takes its origin from the Father alone. There's not a two-source origin. If people in the west understand filioque as teaching a two-source origin to the Spirit, then they are heretics. There is one source, and one source-by-proxy.

This is why I think that Church should cease using the word "proceed" to refer to the way the Spirit comes from the Father and the way the Spirit comes from the Son. The two modes are different, and should have different words used. Otherwise it is sloppy.

In fact, I think that the filoque should be done away with. The thought it expresses is no doubt true: the Spirit comes forth from the Son. But this "coming forth" is not the same as the coming forth (proceeding) from the Father, if even only in the difference of coming forth _from the Father_.

The Trinity is a monarchy, not a triarchy, and the fact that it takes so much effort to understand the filioque in a non-heretical manner makes it a very poor theological formulation of what we know of the inner life of the Trinity. We can do better.

Am I bound to accept the filioque? I hope not, since I think it is a terrible expression of Trinitarian theology popularized by an ignoramus king, Charlemagne.

Am I bound to accept the truth of the "procession" of the Spirit from the Son? Yes. But I object mightily to calling it "procession," if the same word is to be used of the way the Spirit comes forth from the Father.


Let me add a thought that just came to me. The problem is in attempting to apply scriptural terms describing heavenly realities beyond the referents given to us in scripture. The Bible says that the Word is begotten, and that the Spirit proceeds. Both these words are words with one referent: "begetting" refers to whatever it is that is the relationship of Father to Son. "Proceeding" refers to whatever the relationship is of Father to Spirit. Best to come up with a different word to refer to the relationship of Spirit and Son, rather than to apply a one-referent word to another thing.


By the way, the scriptural use of "proceeds" is in John 15:26. It is never used to describe the relationship of Son and Spirit, but only of Spirit and Father. Here is the text, which describes quite clearly two different relationships between Father and Spirit and Son and Spirit:



Why should we use words less carefully than the gospels?

I am an Eatern Catholic and I never said that Eastern Catholics have to include the filioque in the Creed. I do think we have to affirm the truth of the matter to the extent that we cannot say Roman Catholics are heretical. The real inquiry then, if we want faith seeking understanding (which is not necessary either, just having simple faith and submitting our minds to the Church is sufficient) is how saying the Creed with the filioque and without it are both acceptable in the Catholic Church.

But you asked a question--which I proposed to answer saying that there is nothing contrary to the Fathers and St. Thomas.


St. Thomas does not understand there to be two origins, nor does the Catholic Church. Again East and West can agree.

I don't agree with you about the Father's non-forays into Greek philosophy--for one thing it was like the air they breathed, if they were educated--which most of them were very well educated.

Also you might look at Basil's letter to young men -- I'll reread it this weekend.

And look at his treaty "On the Holy Spirit--the use of preopostions was very important and very technical. That is a foray into more than theology.

I do think it is ok to say "we don't understand" and I think it is ok to ask "where exactly is that point at which we cannot understand, but can only be in awe at the mystery."

Dear Psuedo-A,

In the future, I hope and pray we have lots of time to discuss these matters.

I think Thomas uses the term spiration with respect to the procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son.


Here he maintains the monarchy of the Father and the procession of the Holy Spirit from and through the Son.

The Gospel didn't say the Spirit didn't proceed from the Son.


If the Church should breathe with both longs, why not individuals as well?

Karl,

Very well said. What you have explained is what the fathers held when they said that the Spirit proceeds from the father through the Son.

What do you mean of the CCC's claim that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son together, but as from one principle?

From the Catechism:

246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)". The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."75

247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447,76 even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.

248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason",78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle",79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

This is worth noting from St. Thomas:

Psuedo-A,

Since Father and Son are correlatives, the procession is better referred to as generation.

lm

Don't forget, Augustine was a father too!

Here is Basil's letter to young men. A small portion of it is set forth below:

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/basil_litterature01.htm

As an Eastern Christian I hold that the Holy Spirit proceeds (ekporeusis) as person (hypostasis) from the Father alone, because the Father is the sole cause, source, origin, and principle of divinity.

Now, in addition to the hypostatic procession of origin of the Holy Spirit, He is also manifested (proienai), both temporally and eternally, from the Father through the Son as energy, but this energetic manifestation must not be confused with the existential origin of the Spirit, which He receives only from the Father, since it (i.e., the manifestation as energy) concerns only the revelation of the uncreated divine glory and the activity (energeia) of the Tri-hypostatic God in relation to the created world.

So, are the paragraphs from the CCC (246-248) that I cited compatible with eastern Christian thought? What does it mean to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from a single principle?

Joe

Dear Todd,

I do believe you've summarized very succinctly the exact Triadology of the Christian East - better than anywhere I've read, congratulations!

Further to lm's points, the start of a way to understand how the West and East can have separate theologies should be to show how the Latin West's understanding reflects the Eastern patristic Triadology since the Filioque and scholasticism are later Western developments.

I personally believe that the West ultimately can affirm what you have outlined above - and in the case of a number of RC theologians, already does.

But your explication is the one I, as an Eastern Christian, find to be both comprehensive and complete as far as Triadology is concerned.

There is nothing else that we need to take from anywhere.

Alex

"...because the Father is the sole cause, source, origin, and principle of divinity" would be the same reason for the procession of the Son from the Father and, therefore, this statement does not distinguish the processions of the Son and Spirit which then does not make for a distinction of persons (at least according to the reason given) between the Son and Spirit.

It seems that an explanation of origin explains the distinction in persons between the Father and Son. This procession is one of generation. Apotheoun's statement above is true of both Son and Spirit and expresses the Father's monarchy, but not any relation of distinct persons.


If the Catholic Catechism quoted by Joe is true (and I have no reason to doubt that it is) then the filioque is not simply a later scholastic development. Furthermore Augustine held the procession from the Father and the Son, and so there are contemporaneous developments in the East and the West which have a different emphasis.

Yes, I understand what you are trying to say, but I must ask...

Why than the confusing language? Just go with the Orthodox Symbol of Faith to avoid any such <heretical accusations>

Remember that "procedere" in Latin has wider application than "ekporouemai" (or whatever the Greek infinitive is). You could say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son in Latin, but not in Greek, since the Greek carries the meaning of "from an origin."

Dear Borislav,

In fact, I would support a return to the original creed, even though I don't think the filioque is heretical. I just think it's a sloppy expression of theology.