Posted on 06/18/2007 1:47:28 PM PDT by markomalley
From 1999 until 2003, the North American Orthodox-Catholic Consul-tation has focused its discussions on an issue that has been identified, for more than twelve centuries, as one of the root causes of division between our Churches: our divergent ways of conceiving and speaking about the origin of the Holy Spirit within the inner life of the triune God. Although both of our traditions profess “the faith of Nicaea” as the normative expression of our understanding of God and God’s involvement in his creation, and take as the classical statement of that faith the revised version of the Nicene creed associated with the First Council of Constantinople of 381, most Catholics and other Western Christians have used, since at least the late sixth century, a Latin version of that Creed, which adds to its confession that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father” the word Filioque: “and from the Son”. For most Western Christians, this term continues to be a part of the central formulation of their faith, a formulation proclaimed in the liturgy and used as the basis of catechesis and theological reflection. It is, for Catholics and most Protestants, simply a part of the ordinary teaching of the Church, and as such, integral to their understanding of the dogma of the Holy Trinity. Yet since at least the late eighth century, the presence of this term in the Western version of the Creed has been a source of scandal for Eastern Christians, both because of the Trinitarian theology it expresses, and because it had been adopted by a growing number of Churches in the West into the canonical formulation of a received ecumenical council without corres-ponding ecumenical agreement. As the medieval rift between Eastern and Western Christians grew more serious, the theology associated with the term Filioque, and the issues of Church structure and authority raised by its adoption, grew into a symbol of difference, a classic token of what each side of divided Christendom has found lacking or distorted in the other.
(excerpt). For more go to scoba.us
BTW, I made this a caucus thread (hopefully with concurrence from the Religion Mod), only because this is an important enough issue for we Catholics and Orthodox that it doesn't need to get 'love bombed' from the usual suspects.
Having said that, constructive, respectful inputs, including disagreements, are welcome. I just ask for the caucus designation in order to keep it polite.
I read a similar such article, I believe in First Things.
If people keep level heads, this should be an excellent discussion.
To me it hinges on whether there is an inconsistency on expression of Faith. Whereas there has been no Ecumenical Council to settle the Issue, we can only speculate.
Therefore I would say “no” it’s not a Church dividing issue, and it the grand scheme of things acts more as a lightning rod which distracts many good people from some far more important issues.
From my perspective, there are several issues that are usually not considered when taking this into account:
1. An ecumenical council *has* spoken. The creed accepted at Nicea in 425 and ratified at Constantinople in 481 did not have the Filioque.
2. Our ultimate authority, the Lord Jesus Christ, in John 15:26, said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father.
3. The issue in the creed, contrary to what many think, is not the giving of the Spirit on Pentecost, but the eternal relationship between the persons of the Trinity. This clause is parallel to the earlier clause that affirms that the Son is eternally begotten of the father and shows that the relationship between the Father and the Spirit is one of procession. The addition of “and the Son” thus dilutes the monarchy of hte Father as the fountainhead of deity.
4. While I believe that the churches in Spain who first added this clause were well motivated to combat Arianism, they clearly did not realize the effect of what hey had done on the doctrine of God.
5. the Spanish Church clearly did not have the authority to modify the creed as it did however well intentioned. The question then arises whether the pope can overrule an ecumenical council. That takes this debate to a whole other level which the two churces must work out.
Note: I am thrilled by the possibilities of reunion but it must not happen at the expense of truth.
And the Creed at Constantinople left out “One Holy and Apostolic”, we can debate these things endlessly, the point of the article was whether or not this is a Church dividing issue.
I don’t believe it is, as do others, I believe the article I saw was by Metropolitan Methodius? of one of the Orthodox jurisdictions in the U.S.
Orthodox/Catholic caucus ping.
This is an interesting and intriguing article to which I have referred often in the past. reading the whole thing is worth it.
BTW, Cheverus, I suspect the article you read was by Met. Maximos who has been more involved with these talks than +Methodios, but it may have been +Method.
Father Raniero Cantalamessa has a discussion of this issue in his book, “Come, Creator Spirit.” I thought it was very polite.
However, I have to admit that the whole thing is beyond me!
The Western Fathers and three of the Greeks taught the Filioque; the whole Latin patristic tradition does, starting with Tertullian (in his Catholic period), down to Isidore of Seville, the last Father in the West, and three Eastern Fathers: Cyril of Alexandria, Didymus of Alexandria, and Epiphanius). The Greek Fathers taught “from the Father,” and many of them “through the Son”; none of the Greeks taught “from the Father alone” which was the invention (and distortion) of Photius, Saint that he became not withstanding. Maximus the Confessor defended Pope Martin and the Latins from the charge of teaching that there were two causes of the Holy Spirit.
All these assertions, which are true historically, are made in response to the false generalization made by many Orthodox that only Augustine and none of the other Fathers taught the Filioque. There was no consensus of the Greek Fathers against the Filioque.
Tertullian (who gives the West its terminology), Ambrose, who knew Greek and the Cappadocians, and Hilary, the Western Athanasius, all preceded Augustine, and of the ones who followed, such names as Leo the Great, Jerome, and Gregory the Great, taught the doctrine. Moreover, Maximus the Confessor defends Pope Martin’s teaching on the Filioque and answers the very objections of the Greeks, objections which the Orthodox still hold on to. Maximus’s response:
“Those of the Queen of cities (Constantinople) have attacked the synodic letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology (of the Trinity) and, according to them, says: ‘The Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis (ekporeuesthai) from the Son’. The other deals with the divine incarnation. “With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause (aitian) of the Spirit - they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by ekporeusis (procession) - but that they have manifested the procession through him (to dia autou proienai) and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence... “They (the Romans) have therefore been accused of precisely those things which it would be wrong to accuse them, whereas the former (the Byzantines) have been accused of those things of which it has been quite correct to accuse them (Monothelitism). They have up till now produced no defence, although they have not yet rejected the things that they have themselves so wrongly introduced. “In accordance with your request, I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them [the ‘also from the son’] in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending [the synodic letter] has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to do this. It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot. In any case, having been accused, they will certainly take some care about this.”
Maximus, himself, believed that the Spirit proceeded from the Father ‘dia mesou tou Logou’, (by means of the Logos). The Spirit proceeded, in his view ineffably from the Father and consubstantially through the Son.
Orthodox have to understand first the Latin Fathers’ teaching on their own terms — Something they are not often willing to do. Photius tried to understand the Filioque on his own terms, which, of course, will not work. One has to understand the other person first before one can evaluate another’s position.
The Greek Fathers’ start with the individual Divine Person as an absolute; the Unity of the Persons as One God then becomes the issue which they solve by reference to an Absolute Origin (the First Person). From that point of view (borrowed from Origen) there is no need to consider the differentiation of the Spirit from the Son in order to understand the Spirit as “individualized” right away; and when pressed to do so they come up with the formula “through the Son” which is not exactly the same notion as the Westerners, though it is equivalent.
Now, along in the 9th century comes this man Photius, who contradicts all that. So guess who’s wrong? He misreads the Eastern Fathers as a whole and contradicts all the Western ones; and of those he only knew that Augustine and Gregory the Great taught the Filioque. Instead of stopping and backing up at that discovery, he just plows ahead recklessly. His work, Mystagogia, smacks of the very logic-chopping for which Orthodox often criticize Western Scholastics: an either/or mentality that completely misses the point of the Western teaching.
Gregory the Great taught the Filioque and Photius was aware of this and tried to excuse him (in his Mystagogia); Leo the Great taught the Filioque and wrote to the Spanish Church about the teaching a few years before he wrote his definitive Tome on Christology to the East. (Letter: Quam laudabiliter in 447: DS284).
When we look at the Photius’s career we see him as a layman, advanced to the Patriarchate for political reasons, who manages to be deposed twice and be in schism with the West for a while, as well as writing viciously against the legitimate diversity of Western customs. Requiring the same uniformity in non-essentials with which the Orthodox often charge Catholics. It certainly was not from spirituality that Photius wrote the Mystagogia, as anyone who reads this polemic work full of name-calling can see; it was from his superior sense of his Byzantine intellectualism carried over from his layman’s life that this work arises.
Now, it may very well be that by the time he dies in exile he becomes a saint, but it is also obvious to the knowledgeable and objective observer that this saint was in error in his adding the concept of alone to the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father in his formulations, something he did not notice the Greek Fathers never do.
The thorough work in English on the council of Florence is The Council of Florence by Gill, which uses all the sources and has a back-up for every one of its assertions.
In that work we discover that the Byzantine scholars, among whose party was Mark of Ephesus, were surprised to discover that all the Latin Fathers and three of the Greeks taught the Filioque; and when Mark of Ephesus challenged the texts which prove this the Latin theologians compared texts and proved they had the correct ones (which is backed up by modern scholarship), and this reduced Mark to silence and he withdrew from the discussions. (He was several times asked for by his Latin interlocutors, but to no avail.)
We return to the fact that the entire Latin patristic tradition taught the Filioque while the Church was undivided. Therefore it cannot be wrong. The fact is the first time the Greeks contradict the Latin teaching by a formula of their own is Photius’ text, wherein he adds the word “alone” to the Greek formularies departing from the Greek Fathers and contradicting all the Latin ones. The conclusion is inevitable: Photius made an error in judgment, not the Latin Fathers; and all who follow Photius and not the Greek Fathers are likewise in error on the point.
A simple example illustrates this: it is like saying (a) “the color blue is beautiful”; and another saying (b) “yellow and green (constituents of blue) are also beautiful”; to which a third person says (c) “only blue is beautiful.” The third statement contradicts the second and narrows the first in an unacceptable way. That is not to say that statements (a) and (b) are the same; they are not, and both of them are true, but they mean slightly different things, since blue is not the same as yellow and green unmixed.
Photius’ error was to completely miss the premise of the Latin tradition and to suppose the premise of the Greeks in understanding the Latins. The latter start with the insight into the unity of the Three, that each Person is all of the Divine Nature, so that there is no real distinction in fact between Person and Nature in God, but only between Person and Person in God. But distinction of Person to Person can only be by the opposition of their relations, when you consider the unity of Nature, and that means the Holy Spirit must be from both the Father and the Son or He wouldn’t be distinct from either.
The Greeks start from the absolute distinction of Persons first and must account for Their unity in terms of origin (which approach they received from Origen, the first genius of the Church who was definitely subordinationist in his own thinking). Thus for the Greeks the Holy Spirit must proceed from the Father or the Father wouldn’t be the absolute source, and if the Holy Spirit proceeded also from the Son, that would mean the Father ceased being the absolute source. Thus they use two different Greek words for “proceed from the Father” : one word for the Son, and another for the Holy Spirit.
Latin has only one verb for “to proceed from” but gets the second idea of procession in Greek of the Holy Spirit (in order to safeguard the Father being absolute source) by adding the words: “as from one principle” and “principally from the Father.” Thus there is no contradiction between the Latin and Greek Fathers’ teaching as Maximus understood, but neither are the concepts exactly the same. There is no doubt that the Greeks saw themselves more individualistically and so started with the individual Person with his own absolute personal characteristics as the starting point, while the Latins saw themselves more socially (rationally) and so start from relational concept of person. Thus the Person in the Trinity for the latter is a subsistent relation, while for the East it is an absolute with personal characteristics.
When the Orthodox take the time to listen to the Western understanding, they usually see that it is valid, though it is not their preference. The Orthodox have now two ways of thinking: the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (a la the Fathers), and Photius’ formula of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father alone. Perhaps that is the origin of the divergent reactions to the Western thought.
An appreciation of the Western Fathers destroys another mistaken generalization of the Orthodox antagonists to Rome: the conclusion that the Filioque teaching results in a downplaying of the Holy Spirit in Catholic life. If that were the case, then, during the patristic period one should have seen this. But the contrary is true. This misdiagnosis by some Orthodox neglects the sociological factors of the non-dogmatic causes of non-Mediterranean Europe culture at play in the development of Western Christianity after the Byzantine period. It may also result from an absolutizing of its own very particular Byzantine cultural development, such that anything non-Byzantine is suspect as non-Orthodox.
The conclusion of all the above is obvious: the doctrine of the Filioque ought not to divide the Churches from one another, as it is a different but equally valid emphasis in understanding the Trinity and is not harmful to spirituality as such. (This was the conclusion of the Council of Florence.) This conclusion has already been reached by eminent Orthodox scholars and theologians.
by Padro
Too bad Padro doesn’t know Greek, apparently. “Dia tou” does not in any way mean what “filioque” implies in the Latin, let alone what it would imply in Greek. “Dia tou” means “through” in the sense of a pipe or a conduit. The Latin of the West simply does not say that and thus implies a dual procession of the Holy Spirit, which is heresy. I will grant you that the West has, especially of late, argued that what they “mean” is dia tou, which is not heresy. They should have, therefore, simply said what they meant. By the way, I doubt anyone thinks it was in any way a canonical act to amend the Creed sua sponte.
Back to work.:)
You are probably right, hence my “?”, and it would seem your second point sums up the debate very well. The Greek language often has a different “expression” in it while the Latin Language though literally may look the same it is not.
It calls to mind the current English debate about “One in Being with” and “Consubstantial” with, they can mean the same thing but can also mean different things.
“The Greek language often has a different “expression” in it while the Latin Language though literally may look the same it is not.”
Well, here’s the thing about that. The Nicene Creed as adopted by the Council is speaking of the “origin” of the Holy Spirit. If what the West means by “filioque” is indeed “dia tou”, then what the West is speaking of is how the Holy Spirit comes to us...two different things. As I said, to my knowledge there is nothing wrong with “dia tou”, but that’s not what the Council or the Creed was/is talking about.
That was interesting, although there seems to be some dispute over whether the author is right or wrong in saying the issue is simply a confusion created by this Photius.
James has a useful expression which I think is apropos here: “Huh?”
Photius is a pretty confusing fellow all in all.
I think the fact that you can even argue that there is a source of confusion would seem to answer the question as to whether it is a “Church Dividing” issue.
Huh?
The problem with arguing that St. Photius misunderstood the Latin position, is that the Latins themselves at Lyons, which they recognize as an ecumenical council, declared that the Spirit ‘proceeds from the Father and the Son as from a single principle’, thereby accepting St. Photius’ characterization of their position as using procession in an ontological sense, and trying to paper over the fact that this is a dual procession, disfiguring the unity of the Godhead, by inserting the rhetorical figleaf of ‘as from a single principle’.
The Tomus of 1285, which admits the eternal manifestation of the Spirit through the Son, a position in accord with the bulk of patristic understanding, both East and West, and at variance with St. Photius, who admitted only an economical manifestation of the Spirit through the Son in the sending of the Spirit upon the Church, while at the same time upholding the single procession of the Spirit as a matter of ontology, explicitly anathematizes Lyons.
I personally think the position of the Tomus of 1285, very important to the development of Palamite theology, on the one hand, and in accord with the patristic witnesses cited by the Latins to support the filioque, on the other, could serve as a basis for reunion on this issue-—were it not for the fact that the Latins insist that Lyons was an ecumenical council.
>> 1. An ecumenical council *has* spoken. The creed accepted at Nicea in 425 and ratified at Constantinople in 481 did not have the Filioque. <<
That’s hardly a “dog that didn’t bark.” The fact that the Council didn’t specifically say something doesn’t mean it isn’t true. It only means that the council didn’t consider the issue. And it had no cause to, either. Your point would require that Council to have specifically rejected the inclusion, which it did not.
>> 2. Our ultimate authority, the Lord Jesus Christ, in John 15:26, said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. <<
As the article explained, to “proceed from” doesn’t have the implications that the Greek word has, which could be perhaps translated “is generated by.” If the Son sends him, he proceeds from the Son, even if the Son sends him from the Father.
>> 3. ...The addition of “and the Son” thus dilutes the monarchy of hte Father as the fountainhead of deity. <<
It could be interpreted falsely as meaning that, but it does not state that.
>> 5. ... The question then arises whether the pope can overrule an ecumenical council. <<
Given my response to #1, there is no over-ruling in play.
MY RECOMMENDATION: The Roman Church could slightly change wording again, to address the heresy the Spaniards addressed, without disrupting the singularity of God, and the fountainhead nature of the Father. The anathema of the Council of Lyons (was it?) could be ruled in applicable.
On the other hand, the Eastern Patriarchs could affirm that there is no blasphemy in the use of “from the Father and Son,” and that its prior use reflected only a difference in liturgy, not doctrine.
I hop I don’t need to know Latin about that, but doesn’t “proceeds from the Father and the Son as from a single principle” merely assert that the Father and Son are united? The Eastern problem seems to be that “from the Father and the Son” seems to suggest that they independently send forth the Spirit, which detracts from the monarchy of the Father.
Certainly that is not how it was received at Constantinople in 1285, and it certainly reinforces the view that the Latins regard the procession of the Spirit from Father and Son as an ontological statement, later protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
The suggestion in your earlier post that the Latins could finess the issue by invalidating the anathemas of Lyons and changing wording slightly has something to commend itself—as I suggested the Tomus of 1285 provides a formulation of sound doctrine: the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father, and is eternally manifested through the Son.
The problem is, this is bound up with an ecclesiological issue. The creed cannot be modified because an Ecumenical Council—the Third at Ephesus—declared it to be unchangeble, and explicit anathemas were issued by the Council of Constantinople in 879 against additions to the Creed. This council, which also anathematize the anti-Photian synod that the Latins regard as the Eighth Ecumenical Council, has been received by the Orthodox (indeed some of us argue that *it*, not the anti-Photian synod is properly the Eighth Ecumenical Council, the Palamite Synods being the Ninth). The Council of 879 also poses a problem for Latin ecclesiology, as it was received at the time by Pope John VIII—papal assent being the sign Latins claim makes a council Ecumenical.
The more serious problem is posed by Lyons: its anathemas must be overturned for reunion to take place, but the Latins regard it as an Ecumenical Council. If they overturn its acta, save possibly by some act of repentence by which all councils not received by the Orthodox are declared to have been falsely and vainly called ‘Ecumenical’, and were, in fact, only local councils of the Patriarchate of Rome, then they show that their understanding of the force of an Ecumenical Council’s decisions is different from that for the Orthodox, who regard an Ecumencial Council’s doctrinal decisions as inspired of the Holy Spirit, and unchangable. I personally have a fear that for many Latins this is the case: I have repeatedly heard appeals to the absence from the ‘Catechism of the Catholic Church’ of points established at councils the Latins call ‘ecumenical’ as proof that the Latin church does not teach one thing or another.
Union with those who do not regard Ecumenical Councils as being infallible is a problematic as union with those who regard certain pronouncements of the Bishop of Rome made without an Ecumenical Council as being infallible.
>> Certainly that is not how it was received at Constantinople in 1285, <<
Well, of course not. The fact that something is “lost in translation” hardly negates its validity, especially if the people doing the interpreting weren’t exactly in a mood for conciliation.
>> The suggestion in your earlier post that the Latins could finess the issue by ... changing wording slightly has something to commend itself <<
I’m guessing a clarification, rather than a change in wording, is more likely to happen.
As for the fourth Council of Constantinople, actually the anathema is far TOO strong to be used as you, and apparently Photius, desired to use it:
“If anyone, however, dares to snatch the authority of the confession of those divine men and impose on it his own invented phrases and put this forth as a common lesson to the faithful or to those who return from some kind of heresy, and display the audacity to falsify completely the antiquity of this sacred and venerable Horos (Rule) with illegitimate words, or additions, or subtractions, such a person should, according to the vote of the holy and Ecumenical Synods, which has been already acclaimed before us, be subjected to complete defrocking if he happens to be one of the clergymen, or be sent away with an anathema if he happens to be one of the lay people.”
The history provided in the main article of this thread shows, plainly, the argument which has been accepted by the Roman church that the Filioque is not original to the Creed. But it also argues that it is as ancient as the sixth century, and expresses a theology as ancient as the third century, and was already in wide usage throughout vast expanses of Christianity. Isolated from any context, there is room to interpret the passage to regard the Filioque as such an addition, since arguably a prohibited addition need not be a novel addition.
However, such an interpretation would immediately defrock or anathematize most of the Western Church. The more reasonable interpretation is that no-one who used the Filioque was using “his own, invented phrase” and a “falsification.” Whether certain persons, such as Photius, regarded it as such would be irrelevant. For example, I would not presently debate this sentence:
>> The Council of 879 also poses a problem for Latin ecclesiology, as it was received at the time by Pope John VIII—papal assent being the sign Latins claim makes a council Ecumenical. <<
... but it hardly establishes that the remote Pope assented to what Photius would have LIKED the canons to have meant.
As for Ephesus, one would have to establish that the creed including the Filioque constitutes a faith which was a rival to that of the Holy Fathers of Nicea. Quite to the contrary, the Spanish intended the Filioque as a necessary clarification to assist the true faith in prevailing against heresy.
>> If they overturn its acta, save possibly by some act of repentence by which all councils not received by the Orthodox are declared to have been falsely and vainly called ‘Ecumenical’, and were, in fact, only local councils of the Patriarchate of Rome, then they show that their understanding of the force of an Ecumenical Council’s decisions is different from that for the Orthodox, who regard an Ecumencial Council’s doctrinal decisions as inspired of the Holy Spirit, and unchangable. I personally have a fear that for many Latins this is the case: I have repeatedly heard appeals to the absence from the ‘Catechism of the Catholic Church’ of points established at councils the Latins call ‘ecumenical’ as proof that the Latin church does not teach one thing or another. <<
I am EXTREMELY positive that this is not the case among those who matter, such as Pope Benedict.
>> The more serious problem is posed by Lyons: its anathemas must be overturned for reunion to take place, but the Latins regard it as an Ecumenical Council. <<
Begging your interpretation of Lyons, yes. But haven’t we succeeded in casting reasonable doubt that the commonplace Greek interpretation of the Council was not what was intended or stated in Latin?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.