www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West filioque and papal authority

It is probably not a good thing to emphasize the Western theory that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle, because this idea has Sabellian connotations for the Orthodox since they hold that the one principle (arche) in the Godhead is the Father alone. In other words, being principle (arche) is a hypostatic property unique to the Father.

As I understand it, the Western teaching EXPLICITLY states that the Father IS the one principle. The Son is not the one Principle by any means. Nor are the Son and Father melded together somehow during the Procession. The Father is not sharing his hypostatic property as arche or principle with the Son during the Procession. What the Father is sharing is the action of Procession.

Thank you for your comment. This is precisely what the Orthodox reject as impossible.

So if some Eastern Fathers teach that the very Being of the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son, would that be important enough to at least grant the doctrine of filioque the status of theologumenon instead of heresy?

The texts would have to be examined in the original Greek in order to determine their precise meaning. Sadly, many Catholic translations of the Eastern Fathers confuse terms like ekporeusis, proienai, and pempo, etc., and promote the filioquist error in the process. Moreover, as far as the teachings of individual Fathers are concerned, they are not infallible and can – as a consequence – be in error on certain theological topics. Thus, it is only the consensus of the Fathers that is orthodox.

Ultimately, Orthodoxy rejects the notion that the Son participates in the procession of origin of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Holy Spirit receives His subsistent being from the Father alone, and He proceeds (ekporeusis) from the Father and rests on the Son. Finally, the per filium concerns only the manifestation (phanerosis) of the Spirit's energies which flow eternally through the Son as the light and glory of God.

If SOME Fathers teach that the Being of the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son, how can the EO claim there is consensus? It appears to me that the whole matter is a mystery, and just as much as the EO can claim that the Latins are in error, they simultaneously do not have the authority to definitively say it is a heresy. At best, it seems all they can say is that it is theologoumenon and leave it at that.

I would definitely like to do some investigation in the original Greek of the Eastern and Oriental Fathers who have stated that the very Being of the Spirit proceeds through the Son, such as St. Cyril, St. Basil, and St. John Damascene. It's a little difficult, but I can get access to a copy of the Patrologia Graeca. Once I finish my study, I'll let you all know my findings. Probably won't be for another two weeks or so.

Blessings

Consensus, of its very nature, does not require absolute unanimity.

I have come to the conclusion, through my own research on this topic, that East and West are simply going to have to agree to disagree on the hypostatic procession of origin of the Holy Spirit.

I may or may not be up to the task but after trying my best to show my friends on Defenders what the distinction is all about I have come to the same conclusion. We are simply going to have to agree to disagree on the hypostatic procession of the origin of the Holy Spirit. I don't understand on what basis we remain in union but since our hierarchs and the Popes proclaim the union to be secure then we must leave it at that.

CDL

Thank you for your responses, brothers.

Brother Carson,

What is "Defenders?" And what is the "distinction" that you were trying to prove?

Blessings

Dear Friends,

Unity will not be achieved until there is agreement on Triadology - anything less will not be agreed to by either side.

John Meyendorff suggested that the Florentine council could have achieved unity if both sides agreed to the original Creed without the Filioque and then agreed to the "From the Father through the Son."

Both sides already agree that "Begetting" and "Proceeding" are distinct but how they are cannot be known by us.

They already agree that the Spirit's procession from the Father distinguishes the Spirit from the Son Who is eternally Begotten.

Why, in Heaven's name, can't we leave it at that?

Alex

Catholic Convert or Defenders of the Catholic faith has been my favorite online learning place for Catholic Doctrine since my conversion. I found that before I found byzcath.org.

The point is that while they deny double procession it certainly seems like double procession when they explain it. If the West needs the filioque to protect them from Arianism, fine, but the East needs to protect the arche or majesty of the Father's single procession. Moreover, the filioque was not in the original creed. Since the popes confirmed the Creed established by the Councils that is what we accept. Moreover, the Council of Brest accepted our position and every pope since has as well. The Catholics there don't accept this. I've tried to explain the different relationship we share with the Pope than what they have but to no avail. I probably don't have enough ammunition but for whatever reason I can't get through so I done.

CDL

Do they not accept the official Catholic clarification, link [geocities.com]?

CDL,

We also accept the Constantinople-Nicean version of the Creed and although the two differ slightly, one does not contradict the other. The filioque, properly understood, does not contradict the Creed, and according to the document referred to by ajk, the Latin "procedere" seems to demand the addition of the filioque, just as much as the "ekpourisis" (excuse my spelling) requires that "and the Son" could not be added.

As I understand it, the Son receives everything He is from the Father, including the fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him. And hence to preserve the monarchy of the Father, and the Truth of the matter that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father, it is best to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. That is the formulation used in the Union of Brest and I don't see that there is any contradicting it if one is to hold the Catholic faith.

Peace, good will to men,

lm

Can you give me the link? I want to take a crack at it (if you don't mind).

Blessings