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

Hi, Alex,

1) I think we must clarify that "The Filioque" is not a dogma but a word that expresses a dogma. The dogma expressed by that word is: the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son as from a single source and by a single spiration. Since this belief was affirmed by an Ecumenical Council, and the opposing beliefs anathematized, I submit that it is on the same level as the Immaculate Conception, Pastor Aeternus, etc.

2) The Pope can recite the Creed without the Filioque, because the Creed of 381, without the Filioque, is a Creed of the Church. Nevertheless, the insertion of the Filioque was done to clarify and express a truth of the Faith--a truth that was implicit in the original creed but was made explicit by the word "Filioque"(cf. Summa Theologiae I.36.2-4).

3) I have also read about Active and Passive Spiration, but have never read that the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father by Active Spiration and from the Son by Passive Spiration. I will go back tonight and read the Summa on it again, and try to pick it up. I realize that I am just a regular Joe and not a credentialled theologian, but I am certain that the "western" view sees the Holy Spirit as proceeding "from the Father and the Son, as from a single source." The distinction you are making seems to separate the Father and the Son into two sources of procession.

4) Regarding the "through the Son" expression--it is interesting that in the Summa, Thomas first deals with "Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son," and then goes on to "Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son," and answers affirmatively to both questions! Thus, for the West, the "through the Son" formula is an amplification of the Filioque--not a watering-down of it.


Speaking of watering down . . .

LatinTrad

Specifically, I am looking to learn if it is possible that the Holy Spirit could proceed "actively from the Father and passively through the Son", and still have it be 1)a single spiration, 2)the Father and the Son as one Source.

LatinTrad

Friends,

Theophilus made an important point. The original Creed was in Greek and the Greek verb εκπορευόμενον means "to take origin from". The Latin translation of εκπορευόμενον, procedit, does not mean "to take origin from" but "to come forth from" not identical meanings.

So I do think it is heretical to say the Spirit εκπορευόμενον, takes origin from the Father and the Son. Which is why it is forbidden to insert "and the Son" into the Greek Creed. The Father is the sole source of origin for the Son and the Spirit.

"The Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name will instruct you in everything and remind you of all that I told you" (John 14:26 NAB).

However, I also believe it is not heretical to say the Spirit procedit, comes forth from the Father and the Son. Everything the Father has the Son has. While the Father is the source of origin for the Spirit, because He begetts the Son eternally the Son has the Spirit of His Father and the Spirit comes forth from them both.

"Then he breathed on them and said: 'Receive the Holy Spirit'" (John 20:22-23 NAB).

In Christ,
Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Latin Trad,

You must have still been in the shower when I went home so I didn't see your posts above . . .

I must congratulate you on framing the issue as you have - it is the best I've ever seen. I don't think you got that kind of amazing insight just from your understanding of Aquinas, but also from your own thinking on the subject.

And your quote from Aquinas is certainly the most central and germane on this subject.

Let's work backwards for a moment with Aquinas - St Thomas states that the Father breathes or spirates the Spirit through the Son which "is to say the same thing" as from the Father and the Son.

Aquinas was aware of the issue affirmed by Father Deacon Lance above regarding the Greek translation of "Filioque" which would, in Greek, mean "the Holy Spirit takes His origin from the Father and from the Son."

He knows that to say the Spirit has TWO sources of Origin within the Trinity would be false. This is what the term "from the Father and the Son as from one Principle" was meant to check to ensure that only one Origin, namely the Father was understood (and whatever the Father has, the Son has too).

The only thing the Son does NOT have, as Fr. Hardon wrote, is that He does not have His Origin from Himself (but from the Father).

And since the Father breathes the Spirit through the Son, yes, there is an active spiration as from the Origin that is the Father and a passive spiration via the Son or through the Son.

This is why Aquinas emphatically states that both terms, the Latin From the Father and the Son and the Greek "Through the Son" reference the same thing.

It is a single Action, from a single Origin in the Trinity consisting of a single Principle, with the differentiation of active and passive that MUST be made so that TWO Origins of the Spirit are not confessed or implied.

The Greek Fathers who discuss "Throught the Son" include St Basil the Great, St Maximos the Greek, St John Damascene (and St Photios of Constantinople who, when he opposed the "Filioque" was opposing the Greek translation which would be false doctrine, as Aquinas showed, in any event).

St John Damscene in his "De Fide Orthodoxa" presents some excellent analogies to the Spiration of the Spirit in the Trinity via "Through the Son."

He compares the Trinity to a flower with the Father as the root, the Son as the stem and the Spirit as the flower.

Or to water with the source of a river as the Father, the river itself as the Son and the ocean as the Spirit.

Or to the sun with the solar orb as the Father, the Son as the rays and the Spirit as the warmth that is generated.

In each case, the Father breathes the Spirit through the Son in a "passive way" or "through Him." The Son is not the Origin of the Spirit - for then there would be Two Principles or Two Origins in the Trinity - something that is not accepted by RC theology or Orthodox theology.

Of course, there is such a thing as the "Orthodox Filioque."

This is in conjunction with the Economic Trinity where both East and West agree that the Spirit is sent into the world by both the Father AND the Son in the temporal sphere.

Alex

Father Deacon Lance,
Glory to Jesus Christ!

You also made an important point.

If I may be so bold to offer an analogy (this leaves me very open to deserved criticism), I would view the controversy as a translation issue.

The Latins say the Spirit �procedit�, comes forth from the Son. The analogy would be that I procedit through the doorway, you also procedit through the doorway, and that any number of other people could procedit through the doorway. There is no conflict with this translation.

However the Greeks say �εκπορευόμενον�, meaning �take origin from�, meaning from a single source. It would be very correct to say that I εκπορευόμενον from my mother. However, if I said I εκπορευόμενον from my mother, and from my aunt�and then declared this to be dogmatically truthful, the only possible Greek response is an emphatic denial of the above statement and a denial of the dogma surrounding the statement.

I hope that this simplification may help someone.
My apologies if any are offended.

Deacon El

I guess "growing theological concensus" is more important than a conciliar declaration.

Shockingly un-shocking, I regret to say.

However, Rome has reprimanded the USCCB before. If the Holy See deems this inappropriate, it'll never come to fruition.

Logos Teen

Dear Teen Logo,

The ecumenical ball really is now in Rome's (Papal) Court.

Alex

Well, in the spirit of ecumenism, I propose that a well-known Latin hymn should be changed to read
Et ab Patre procedenti
Compar sit laudatio!

Ab Filioque, libera nos Domine

Incognitus

But honestly, when is it NOT in Rome's court?

Logos Teen

Dear Teen Logo,

You're a really feisty defender of Rome - for a Methodist!

Rome got itself backed into a corner here by all its ecumenical gestures toward the East.

Orthodoxy is now calling what it considers to be Rome's ecumenical bluff.

Actions speak louder than words, or so they say.

As the EP has said, Rome has acted on nothing nor has it changed anything in the spirit of what it has been dialoguing about all these years.

I would say the ball is in Rome's court therefore.

Rome put it there to begin with.

Alex