www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Ex Cathedra

I don't. The Western spiritual tradition is filled with mystical aspect as much as the Eastern tradition is filled with the rational aspect. The above description is so stereotypical.

Joe

Thomas and John do seem to hit it off, philosophically and theologically speaking.

But the necessity of the Filioque has become a point of difference. The same goes for whether the heaveanly bodies have rational souls. Issues to point and counter-point over. These are only a very few differences between the two.

Overall, Aquinas did refer to St. John AND and even the Council of Chalcedon!!! A real cool dude.

Joe

Mr. Thur:

Your post in response to mine regarding the charicature of Latin theology as rational vs. Eastern theologies as mystical is unclear. You say that you do not agree with me, but then you express the very opinion that I voiced.

I would be interested to know where you stand.

Dr. Michael

Dear Professor Michael,

Please excuse my lateness in coming to this exchange!

My quip about the Damascene had to do with St Thomas' analysis of the Filioque where he said, if memory serves me correctly, that despite what the Damascene said in his "De Fide Orthodoxa" (ie. that we do not say the Spirit proceeds "from the Son").

Does St John Damascene not say that in his work? Does St Thomas Aquinas not quote this in his analysis of the Filioque?

Aquinas has, as you know better than I, his own history in the Orthodox East, as Fr. Prof. Meyendorff (+memory eternal!) has written.

His moral theology figured prominently in the East and some Orthodox were even led to privately invoke him as a saint, even apologising for his stance on the Filioque, again as Meyendorff relates.

Our Patriarch Josef Slipyj loved Aquinas' theology and even had an Eastern icon of him written in his Church at Rome.

What do you make of what I once read was St Bonaventure's assessment of Aquinas being "the father of all heretics?"

And there is no need to call me "Dr Alex" as I only use that title when I make restaurant reservations . . .

Alex

Dear Professor Michael,

Let me compliment you on the last sentence of your post to Joe above!

I've been trying to find out the answer to that particular question for some time!

Welcome to the Forum, Sir!

Alex

Mr. Thur:

You and I agree that St. Thomas and St. John have much in common. I also agree with you that, of course, there are differences.

Regarding the filioque, however, I would say that this is not a good example of difference.

I would refer you to the report of the pontifical commission on the filioque (1995) the upshot of which was that the Latin Chruch never claimed that the filioque was part of the Nicene Creed, but of course added it to the recitation of the Creed in the Latin West. More importantly, the commission found no contradiction between the Trinitarian theology of the Creed and the theological point intended by the filioque. While Thomas defended the filioque, he also acknowledged the "ek monou tou Patros" of the Council Fathers (see ST Ia, q. 36, a. 3).

So, perhaps on this issue the difference between Thomas and John is less than one might suppose.

Dr. Michael

Dr. Michael,

The East and West has BOTH rational and mystical characteristics. That is all.

Joe

Dr. Michael,

It would be unfair to use church statments from many centuries later to argue a point, statements that Thomas did no participate in. Thomas did find necessary the Filioque.

Joe

Mr. Thur:

I think you may have missed my point. I only refered to the Filioque Commission's report as a convenient general source for the history of the topic.

My only point is that, while it is true that Thomas defends the theological point intended by the filioque, he does not see this as contradictory to the theological point intended by the Council Fathers regarding procession. And Thomas' point is the same as that made by the 1995 Commission. That is all I really meant by this.

Dr. Michael

Dear Professor Michael,

I do believe that Mr. Thur's point is well taken.

I too have often found it interesting how a contemporary Latin report will affirm something in a way that is "less offensive" to either Orthodox or Protestants, AS IF to be repealing what was taught in previous centuries.

As Mr. Thur has stated, did not Aquinas maintain the NECESSITY of the Filioque for the proper understanding of the internal relations of the Holy Trinity?

From the Eastern point of view, this "necessity" is descended from what some might say is a "rationalist" approach to the Trinity.

An Orthodox perspective would say, in rejoinder, that:

1) the Procession of the Spirit from the Father is markedly different than the Procession of the Son from the Father;

2) This difference is, in and of itself, sufficient to ensure the identities of the Persons;

3) That we cannot possibly know the difference;

4) That we should not attempt to explain it, especially with the "Filioque" or other later theological constructs that go against both scripture and tradition.

The Roman Church has always taught the necessity of the dual procession of the Spirit - if it is, today, saying this is not necessary, then this would seem to imply that:

1) Previous statements in this respect at the later Latin Councils following the East-West schism to this effect are to be called into question (surely this would be intolerable for the Latin Church to admit?)

2) There is no reason why the Filioque cannot be dropped from the Nicene Creed - as both an unnecessary and a non-canonical addition, as the Orthodox have always maintained.

Both cases, however, seem to raise the matter of theological consistency for the Latin Church.

Unless, of course, this can be explained by the "Development of Doctrine?"

Alex

Dear Alex:

Thanks for the clarification of your statement regarding Sts. John and Thomas. As you will see from my postings in reply to Joe Thur, I find that Thomas and John as not as far apart on this issue as many think. Indeed, I would go further and say that the Latin Church and the Eastern Chruches are not as far apart on the filioque issue as long thought by many. (In this I believe that I am in accord with the findings of the 1995 Pontifical Commission on the Filioque.)

Regarding your Bonaventure reference, I do not know of it. Do you have a citation? I would be a bit surpised if St. Bonaventure did say this, for he was a careful and insightful theologian. If he did say this, then I would have to disagree and hold that Bonaventure misunderstood Thomas in some respect.

I am happy to see you refer to the work of Fr. Meyendorff. He is, in my opinion, one of the great 20th-century church historians. I had the honor to know him in his later years. My wife worked closely with him when she served on the Editorial Board of the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium project in the 1980's. Fr. Meyendorff was a member of the project's Advisory Board.

Dr. Michael

Dear Professor Michael,

Thank you for the kindness of your reply!

I've no problem with Aquinas - I'm trying to understand him from an Orthodox perspective(s) as best as I can. (And I don't know where that line from Bonaventure can be found - if I come across it, I'll share it with you!).

I agree that, from our point of view, there is NO difference in Trinitarian theology between East and West that can justify the separation of Churches.

When I visited St Michael's University theological library here in Toronto, I came across some theological texts used for coursework that affirmed, among other things, that the "Roman Catholic Church condemns anyone who says that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as He does from the Father" (as part of the "active-passive Spiration" continuum).

So one can accept the Filioque in an "Orthodox" sense, as Kallistos Ware has said as well (and not just in the sense of the "Economic Trinity").

It would seem that the only really remaining stumbling block on this score is the presence of the Filioque in the Creed.

As Fr. Prof. John Meyendorff said in his commentary on the Council of Florence, both East and West could have agreed on the formula "From the Father through the Son" and also the West could have removed the Filioque."

It was interesting to find out that St Mark of Ephesus himself came to Florence as a unionist - but demanded, as a minimum requirements for the achievement of ecclesial unity, the removal of the Filioque by the Latin Church.

With respect,

Alex

Dear Alex:

I do not have time right now to give your post the detailed response it deserves. I will try to do that later. For now, let me say simply the following:

The report of the Filioque Commission does not represent a change or development in Church teaching. It is a clarification of just what is affirmed by the filioque and a claim that the Latin Church never taught that the filioque replaces nor denied the orthodox teaching expressed in the Creed.

I know that many in both the Latin West and the Greek East have thought that the filioque was intended to deny the orthodox position. The Commission's finding is that this view is in error. My own view is that the Commission is right about this.

The points you made about the orthodox position are the standard ones that I have always heard. As I understand the Commission's position it is that these points only apply if the filioque is a denial of orthodoxy, but it is not. Therefore, these points do not correctly represent a real difference in doctrine.

More later.

Dr. Michael

Alex,

I believe this lies at the heart of the issue. The inclusion of the Filioque into an Ecumenical Document, the Creed, by a single church without the rest.

Joe

Dear Alex:

I know that I said that I would come back to this discussion later, but I find it so useful that I cannot resist one comment before I turn to other matters.

I am happy to see that your most recent post indicates that we are pretty much on the same page. I also like your reference to Bishop Ware's work on this topic and I agree with both you and him on this.

I also agree with you that the real difficulty is not doctorinal, but with the inclusion of the filioque in the recitation of the Creed. Being from the East myself, I do not like it and I think that it creates the possibility of may misunderstandings, as indeed it has! So, I agree that this is a difficulty.

But this difficulty does not provide any reason for the common assertion that the Latin Church is not orthodox.

Also, it does not provide any good reason for a claim that Latin theologians ought not to defend the filioque, provided they do not claim that it is necessary to orthodoxy. St. Thomas did think that the filioque is necessarily true, but that is not quite the same as saying that it is necessary for orthodoxy. At least, so it seems to me.

Again, more later.

Dr. Michael