www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Agreed Statement of Filioque

Agreed, Brian.

Isn't Trinitarian dogma fun?!

Logos Teen

Sed contra est quod dicit Athanasius: "Spiritus Sanctus . . . procedit a Patre et a Filio." (Summa Theologiae P I q 36 a 2)

The only possible theological reason for the argument over the "filioque" is the verbs used to describe the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the other persons of the Trinity. Hasn't enough been said about this subject by persons in higher authority and more learned than any of us so that the "filioque" should cease to be used as the whipping boy for continued schism?

I don't know whether God gets a laugh out of our foibles or He has a big cry. But it certainly makes the Pope sad and I'm getting sad over it as well.

Dan Lauffer

Amen Dan.
Read your work over at cath-con. Very nice.

I think St. Basil settled this many years ago in his famous work "On the Holy Spirit" - the Holy Spirit proceeds FROM the Father THROUGH the Son".

It is clear that the local circumstances which precipitated this unfortunate deviation from the first two ecumenical councils has long since passed and we can get along fine without the Filioque.

Diak
Agreed it is a non issue since what the Latin Church means is procedit per filium.
Lets get beyond this issue and just say that the reasom in the West for the inclussion of the "filioque" is no longer a concern and so we can recite the Creed without it.
Stephanos I

Please consider the following points:

1) Florence is considered an Ecumenical Council by the Catholic Church, and it is thus an article of Faith for the Catholic Church that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, "as from a single source and from a single spiration". As St. Thomas teaches in the Summa, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son--as from a single source--is implicit in the creed of 381. It is certainly not excluded by the language of 381! The Filioque is thus NOT considered a "deviation" from the earlier Ecumenical Councils, but a development consistent with their teaching. This view was adopted by all the Patriarchs of the East in 1439, only to be repudiated two generations later.

2) The "local circumstances" that occasioned the theological clarification of the Filioque may have passed. But so have the local circumstances that occasioned every other clarification in the Church's history. The local circumstances that occasioned Chalcedon have also passed; but the Church is not about to repudiate Chalcedon and "return" to the "original" Christological expressions!

God bless!

LatinTrad

Dear Latin Trad,

When has the Filioque ever been proclaimed an infallible dogma by the Roman Pontiff?

When you refer to the Council of Florence as an Ecumenical Council, we must remember some points:

1) By this time in its history, the Roman Church believed firmly that the authority of the Pope was above that of any Council. So Florence in the eyes of the Latin Church is NOT what the first Ecumenical Councils are to the Orthodox Church. The Pope is above the Councils in Roman thinking and especially at this time. Unless a Pope deliberately exercised a definition of the Filioque "ex cathedra" (and no pope has) then the Filioque can be removed from the Creed.

2) In fact, the current Pope has used the Nicene Creed in his celebration of the Mass in Greek (and Ukrainian) WITHOUT the Filioque. He has authorized the RC Church in Greece to use the Creed WITHOUT the Filioque. So if you were right about what you said about Florence above, then this Pope is, without a doubt, a heretic.

3) There are in fact two issues surrounding the Filioque and one has precious little to do with the other. RC theology affirms explicitly that it is forbidden by Catholic faith to assert that the Spirit proceeds "in the same way" namely, "Actively, from BOTH the Father and the Son. RC theology asserts that a DISCTINCTION must be made between the way the Third Person is spirated from the first two Persons - Actively from the Father and PASSIVELY from the Son, since the Son has what He has from the Father as from the Source and Monarch of the Trinity. This is what Aquinas affirmed when he wrote that the Eastern perspective that the Father spirates the Spirit through the Son is what the "And the Son" also affirms. SO, what this means is that the "Filioque" COULD be a dangerous addition to the Creed since, in and of itself, it does NOT differentiate between the two modes of Spiration within the Trinity. In addition, the original Creed's "From the Father" (alone) which are Christ's Words, underlines that the Father is the Source of the Trinity and that distinction between the Son and Spirit is maintained by the MODE of proceeding "Begetting" and "Spiration." As to HOW these two modes are different - that we cannot know.

4) The second issue is whether the Roman Church had the right to include the Filioque unilaterally in a Creed that was meant to be an expression of the faith of the universal Church. And the Roman Church now seems to be saying that it did not. The Creed without the Filioque was established by the Ecumenical Councils, approved and affirmed by the Roman Pontiffs of the dayand for all time.

Just as a Pope would have no right to cancel the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, so too can no one tamper with the original Nicene Creed.

Theological perspectives may abound. But Rome itself appears to be realizing that the Filioque adds NOTHING to our understanding of the Trinity that isn't already complete and was complete when the Churches were unified - as Pope John VIII said when he called the Filioque a heresy during his reinstatement of Saint Photios of Constantinople.

Go ahead with that cold shower now . . .

Alex

Alex,

1) Even though the Pope is above the Council, the Conciliar decrees and anathemas of Florence were ratified by the Pope. In the West we do not see a theological difference in the way the Medieval Councils worked, from the way the earlier councils worked, since the Pope had to ratify the decrees anyway (e.g. there is one canon of Chalcedon that was not ratified by Pope Leo--I think you know which one).

2) Saying the Creed without the Filioque does not equal a denial of the dogma--Allatae Sunt clarified that as you know. Therefore it is erroneous and silly to imply that JP2 has repudiated the dogma, or made it dispensible

3) Please reference your statements about the different modes of spiration. AFAIK the Holy Spirit is held to proceed ex Patre Filioque by a single spiration.

4) The whole point of my bringing up Florence is that the Eastern Patriarchs accepted the Filioque as Orthodox. The only counter-argument to this, which I've heard ad nauseam, is that they did it in hope of military aid from the West. So if they didn't really believe the Filioque, and they ratified it anyway, why is it that the West has to take all the heat for the "innovation"?

Now I'll see about that shower . . .


LatinTrad

BradM and LatinTrad:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

A few comments, and then I�ll disappear again:

About John 15.26 � �When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of me� � please note the different Greek words St. John uses for Christ �sending� the Spirit (pempso, in the future tense) and the Spirit's �proceeding� from the Father (ekporeuetai, in the present tense). The Fathers in the East understood this difference to be critical, a sign that John was distinguishing between the Spirit�s temporal or economic mission and his hypostatic origin. The Spirit is sent into the world through the Son but, ontologically or theologically, the Spirit � like the Son � proceeds eternally from the Father, the sole principle or source of the Godhead.

That the Father is the source / principle / cause is His particular hypostasis; if the Son shares that hypostasis with the Father, then it must not be the Father�s �unique� hypostasis and must be a �characteristic� of the Godhead as such, its ousia � which means, lest we subordinate the Spirit to the Father and Son, the Spirit must also proceed from Himself.

Note that the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed uses a form of the �theological verb� ekporeuetai (to ek tou patros ekporeuomenon), not a form of the �economic verb� pempso. Just as important, note that the Greek word used for �begotten� � as in �the only-begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father� � is �gennethenta,� a synonym interchangeable with ekporeuomenon but not with pempso.

The problem is that the word �Filioque� suggests a theological procession. �Et per Filium� would better capture the idea of the Spirit proceeding from/through the Son economically.

I really don�t see how the Filioque is �contained� in the original creed at all.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Dear Latin Trad,

Well:

1) The Filioque is not an infallible article on the same level as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption and the papal doctrines. Please reference anything that says differently. I would suggest that you perhaps look into contacting Fr. Serge Keleher via e-mail over in Dublin - he is a great resource for this sort of thing especially and he knows all about conservative Latin hang-ups on the Filioque - which is not to say that you are in that category!

2) If the Pope of Rome can recite the Creed without the Filioque, then what does that mean? That it is central to the Nicene Creed? May he dispense with the beginning verse? No, he may not. What about the articles on the Incarnation? No, he may not. But he can and does recite the original Creed without the later Latin addition of the Filioque. I rest my case here - and today I'm wearing my papal lapel pin, are you? Oh, sorry, of course you're not, you are getting ready for a shower . . .

3) I have plenty of references about the Active and Passive Spiration of the Spirit in RC theology. They are all contained in what is called a "theological library." Just today at lunch-time I visited our St Michael's library and, at random, pulled out two such sources that explain RC Trinitarian theology and are used at our university. I should have made references, but one cannot buy them at any bookstore anyway. Sorry, the internet is not infallible. Perhaps you might want to visit your library after the shower has calmed you down a bit?

4) As for Florence, yes the East was somewhat afraid of the Turks. Yes, the Emperor wanted military help from the always helpful West (perhaps he also believed in the man in the moon too). But St Mark of Ephesus came to Florence as a pro-unionist, did you know. He knew the Latins had different views on things, but considered the Filioque to be the one thing that the East could not compromise on. And he didn't even demand the West deny its theology of the Filioque - only that it remove the Filioque from the universal Creed. God would heal the rest, he believed. The Greeks who did sign the union did so because they received assurances that they would not have to include the Filioque in the Creed. Nor would they have to believe in a "purgatorial fire." The Marian doctrines weren't around then so they weren't an issue. The Greeks at Florence basically left with the same Creed as they had coming in. But not all, and not the most significant party headed by Mark of Ephesus - pope Eugene himself recognized Mark to be representative of the most conservative Orthodox vein of thought in this department. And all those who signed the union repudiated their signatures once they faced opposition at home. Others, like Met. Isidore of Kyiv, remained Greek Catholic and immigrated to Italy where he spent the remainder of his days trying to ransom his Greek confreres from Turkish imprisonment. There is no doubt that Florence was a desperation measure and in no way did the Greeks ever agree to include the Filioque in the Creed. Such an inclusion only came about in the Slavic EC Churches in the time of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

So while at Florence and at Lyons before that, the Eastern Churches could see a harmonization on the point of "Through the Son" - they at no point would accept the Filioque in the Creed.

Fr. Meyendorff in fact states that unity at Florence could have been achieved if both sides agreed to the original Creed without the Filioque and then to agreeing that the Spirit proceeds from the Father Through the Son.

Alex

Hey Theophilos,
Is that thesis finished?

djs

Dear djs,

Why would you be interested in a "Vostochnyk" style thesis?

Alex

djs:

Slava Isusu Christu!

Nope. Not yet. And don't expect to until the spring. Too busy preparing for the new baby, expected in about two weeks.

Hope all is well.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Slava na viki.
And with you and your family.