Posted on 04/05/2005 9:11:13 PM PDT by annalex
The quotations below show that the early Church Fathers, both Latin and Greek, recognized the same thing, saying that the Spirit proceeds "from the Father and the Son" or "from the Father through the Son."
These expressions mean the same thing because everything the Son has is from the Father. The proceeding of the Spirit from the Son is something the Son himself received from the Father. The procession of the Spirit is therefore ultimately rooted in the Father but goes through the Son. However, some Eastern Orthodox insist that to equate "through the Son" with "from the Son" is a departure from the true faith.
The expression "from the Father through the Son" is accepted by many Eastern Orthodox. This, in fact, led to a reunion of the Eastern Orthodox with the Catholic Church in 1439 at the Council of Florence: "The Greek prelates believed that every saint, precisely as a saint, was inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore could not err in faith. If they expressed themselves differently, their meanings must substantially agree. . . . Once the Greeks accepted that the Latin Fathers had really written Filioque (they could not understand Latin), the issue was settled (May 29). The Greek Fathers necessarily meant the same; the faiths of the two churches were identical; union was not only possible but obligatory (June 3); and on June 8 the Latin cedula [statements of belief] on the procession [of the Spirit] was accepted by the Greek synod" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 5:972–3).
Unfortunately, the union did not last. In the 1450s (just decades before the Protestant Reformation), the Eastern Orthodox left the Church again under pressure from the Muslims, who had just conquered them and who insisted they renounce their union with the Western Church (lest Western Christians come to their aid militarily).
However, union is still possible on the filioque issue through the recognition that the formulas "and the Son" and "through the Son" mean the same thing. Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that "This legitimate complementarity [of expressions], provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed" (CCC 248).
Today many Eastern Orthodox bishops are putting aside old prejudices and again acknowledging that there need be no separation between the two communions on this issue. Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware (formerly Timothy Ware), who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, states: "The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences" (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).
Tertullian"I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son" (Against Praxeas 4:1 [A.D. 216]).
Origen
"We believe, however, that there are three persons: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and we believe none to be unbegotten except the Father. We admit, as more pious and true, that all things were produced through the Word, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ" (Commentaries on John 2:6 [A.D. 229]).
Maximus the Confessor
"By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten (Questions to Thalassium 63 [A.D. 254]).
Gregory the Wonderworker
"[There is] one Holy Spirit, having substance from God, and who is manifested through the Son; image of the Son, perfect of the perfect; life, the cause of living; holy fountain; sanctity, the dispenser of sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father who is above all and in all, and God the Son who is through all. Perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty neither divided nor estranged" (Confession of Faith [A.D. 265]).
Hilary of Poitiers
"Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources" (The Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 357]).
"In the fact that before times eternal your [the Father’s] only-begotten [Son] was born of you, when we put an end to every ambiguity of words and difficulty of understanding, there remains only this: he was born. So too, even if I do not grasp it in my understanding, I hold fast in my consciousness to the fact that your Holy Spirit is from you through him" (ibid., 12:56).
Didymus the Blind
"As we have understood discussions . . . about the incorporeal natures, so too it is now to be recognized that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son that which he was of his own nature. . . . So too the Son is said to receive from the Father the very things by which he subsists. For neither has the Son anything else except those things given him by the Father, nor has the Holy Spirit any other substance than that given him by the Son" (The Holy Spirit 37 [A.D. 362]).
Epiphanius of Salamis
"The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son" (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).
Basil The Great
"Through the Son, who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity" (The Holy Spirit 18:45 [A.D. 375]).
"[T]he goodness of [the divine] nature, the holiness of [that] nature, and the royal dignity reach from the Father through the only-begotten [Son] to the Holy Spirit. Since we confess the persons in this manner, there is no infringing upon the holy dogma of the monarchy" (ibid., 18:47).
Ambrose of Milan
"Just as the Father is the fount of life, so too, there are many who have stated that the Son is designated as the fount of life. It is said, for example that with you, Almighty God, your Son is the fount of life, that is, the fount of the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit is life, just as the Lord says: ‘The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life’ [John 6:63]" (The Holy Spirit 1:15:152 [A.D. 381]).
"The Holy Spirit, when he proceeds from the Father and the Son, does not separate himself from the Father and does not separate himself from the Son" (ibid., 1:2:120).
Gregory of Nyssa
"[The] Father conveys the notion of unoriginate, unbegotten, and Father always; the only-begotten Son is understood along with the Father, coming from him but inseparably joined to him. Through the Son and with the Father, immediately and before any vague and unfounded concept interposes between them, the Holy Spirit is also perceived conjointly" (Against Eunomius 1 [A.D. 382]).
The Athanasian Creed
"[W]e venerate one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in oneness. . . . The Father was not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding" (Athanasian Creed [A.D. 400]).
Augustine
"If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle" (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]).
"[The one] from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term ‘principally’ because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son" (ibid., 15:17:29).
"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him" (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Cyril of Alexandria
"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it" (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).
"[T]he Holy Spirit flows from the Father in the Son" (ibid.).
"Just as the Son says ‘All that the Father has is mine’ [John 16:15], so shall we find that through the Son it is all also in the Spirit" (Letters 3:4:33 [A.D. 433]).
Council of Toledo
"We believe in one true God, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, maker of the visible and the invisible.
. . . The Spirit is also the Paraclete, who is himself neither the Father nor the Son, but proceeding from the Father and the Son. Therefore the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten, the Paraclete is not begotten but proceeding from the Father and the Son" (Council of Toledo [A.D. 447]).Fulgence of Ruspe
"Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the only God the Son, who is one person of the Trinity, is the Son of the only God the Father; but the Holy Spirit himself also one person of the Trinity, is Spirit not of the Father only, but of Father and of Son together" (The Rule of Faith 53 [A.D. 524]).
"Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the same Holy Spirit who is Spirit of the Father and of the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son" (ibid., 54).
John Damascene
"Likewise we believe also in one Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life . . . God existing and addressed along with Father and Son; uncreated, full, creative, all-ruling, all-effecting, all-powerful, of infinite power, Lord of all creation and not under any lord; deifying, not deified; filling, not filled; sharing in, not shared in; sanctifying, not sanctified; the intercessor, receiving the supplications of all; in all things like to the Father and Son; proceeding from the Father and communicated through the Son" (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 8 [A.D. 712]).
"And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of his divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to himself, but different from that of generation" (ibid., 12).
"I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word [the Son] coming from himself and, through his Word, the Spirit issuing from him" (Dialogue Against the Manicheans 5 [A.D. 728]).
Council of Nicaea II
"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, proceeding from the Father through the Son" (Profession of Faith [A.D. 787]).
You and me both.
That aside, I am convinced that our differences on this issue [and others] are more about perspective than reality. This is further aggrevated by our propensity to miscommunicate. Add to that certain emotional investments made by the various parties involved and what you have is "Schism Maintenance 101".
Not to change the subject, but I have an off topic question:
Is a zebra a black animal with white stripes or a white animal with black stripes?
The issues that are not clear to me are:
As far as I know, the Summa is simply St. Thomas' personal "basic introduction" to theology.
The teachings of the Summa have no doctrinal standing per se, but the Summa carries considerable weight since St. Thomas is regarded as the preeminent Doctor of the Church.
That is because after 450 AD, there was almost no communication between the East and the West, each exisiting almost autonomosly. The West was the domain of the Pope, the East under other Patriarchs. Very few spoke each other's language.
The trouble errupted specifically over the filioque under Pope Nicholas I, in the 9th century, and Bulgarian Khan Boris who was "shopping" for the best deal and German clergy arrived there and started to teach something other than what the Church taught in the east in compliance with the Ecumenical Council definitions of faith. It was at this time that the Pope saw an opportunity to extend his rule beyond the domains of the Western Patriarchate.
But the ground was made plenty fertile for the tear in Christendom by events prior to that. I would recommend reading this lenghty but well worthhwile summary of what took place leading to the Great Schism.
That being said, the fact that filioque was added to combat heresy is not the issue. The issue is that a German king in his own semi-iconoclast beliefs and faulty translations accused the Greek side of heresy for omitting the filioque. For centuries the East did not mention the insertion as long as it was understood that it was done to combat heresy. The issue became the issue when it was made into that by someone who wasn't even a theologian.
I think you are confused. This is not the Orthodox model. The "model" of the Church, east and west, was and to this day is (as inscribed in the Vatican) that the Son is begotten of the Father and that the Holy Spirit/Ghost proceeds from the Father. I am not sure where you are getting your "models."
The Father is the cause and source of everything and all. The Trinity is in an eternal relationship. The Holy Spirit is not a "product" of the Father and the Son, eternally and transcendentally speaking. This does not mean that, while in Flesh, the Spirit could not be sent -- from the Father -- through the Son, but that does not, and I repeat does not describe the ternal relationship of the Triune God. The Creed -- as formulated by the Ecumenical Council -- does.
I would like to remind everyone here that the addition of "filioque" was done to combat heresy and not to change the Creed. It acquired a life of its own and was perverted into something that it never was by the Franks who, in ignorance and arrogance, accused the Greeks of committing "heresy" for omitting the "filioque"!
Perhaps you should revist your old Church and learn more about it annalex. What I gather from your comments is that you left it without ever having known it.
Of course I meant "proceeds from the Father alone" as the Orthodox model. Sorry.
Not to enter into a discussion of personalities, indeed I was evangelized by the Roman Catholic Church (though baptized by the Orthodox in infancy), and this is why I ask the Orthodox these questions.
I would also like to avoid the discussion of the procedure by which Filioque was added, not because it is inimportant, or because the Orthodox do not have a point on that, but because I want to focus on the comparative trinitarian theology on this particular thread.
The Creed cannot be altered by anyone in particular, regardless what other theological interpretations exist. Which part of this do you not understand?
That is not the Orthodox model, annalex. That is the Church "model". The undivided Church defined it and used it as such officially before it was ever Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.
The purpose is for me to understand the Trinity. The opinions of fathers and doctors of the Church is very important, regardless of their dogmatic status. We just clarified that the Summa does not have such status either. I am, repeat, interested in opinions, not in conciliar process of altering the Creed.
I refer to the "Orthodox" whenever it is necessary to distinguish between them and the Catholic, and vice versa for "the Catholic". I understand that each side might have a larger claim, but my purpose is clarity of expression (even if on occasion I use one word while meaning the other). I apologize in advance, and I will stick to the labels that seem most clear for the context.
Zoologists say that a zebra is a white animal with black stripes. Why?
I would highly recommend St. Photius' "Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit." Joseph Farrell's translation (published by Holy Cross -- the Greek Orthodox publishing house in Boston) is excellent and has a first-rate introductory essay regarding the theology of the filioque. It can be obtained through many different book sources. He has another book, "God, History, and Dialectic" that has even more highly detailed and developed analyses of this, but copies of it are hard to find, since it was privately published.
I would also recommend reading the second answer (and the first part of the third answer) of Patriach Jeremiah to the Tuebingen Lutheran theologians. The best source of these exchanges is the volume published by Holy Cross Press, but there is a reasonable excerpting on-line to be found here:
The Three Answers of Patriarch Jeremiah III
Not everyone likes the late Greek Orthodox theologian, Fr. John Romanides (I have tended to deeply respect his works, for the most part), but I think that this work is also valuable:
bump for later reading
Because I'm not a zoologist and I wanted to know.
I need to understand this a bit more, particularly the Orthodox side.
You may be interested in this, which is a record of the debate between the Greeks and the Latins over the "filioque" at the Council of Florence.
That's a good enough reason for me... I was just trying to connect it somehow with the filioque! :-)
This is an important point. Individual fathers do not represent the Church, but rather the "consensus patrum" does. The Ecumenical Councils are a formal expression of this consensus of the Fathers, and there are other, informal expressions of the consensus of the Fathers that are also authoritative.
Individual Fathers can (and do) err or are unclear on this or that point -- that is why the Orthodox Church has never lifted one Father's teachings above those of the rest.
And the consensus view of the Fathers of the Orthodox Church has not only been that the filioque was improperly added in the West, but also that it is incorrect theology, with attendant implications and practical consequences for the spiritual life.
There are of course many modern Orthodox theologians who wish very much to finesse and avoid this issue, but that is because they wish to be nice, and because there are adverse consequences in the modern age to state that one doctrine is correct and that another one is incorrect. It just isn't nice.
But your title says Filioque. Certainly, Trinity is part of it, but to understand what caused all this, one must take into account the history, the politicis and the cultures involved in shaping the Filioque issue, and not just the Trinity.
Read this well-written summary and you will have a much better idea.
Relativism can be made to equate everything and all.
It was the opinion of the fathers gathered at Ecumenical Synods who uninaimously declared that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, as it is stated by our Lord Jesus Christ, verbatim.
I think Patriarch Jeremiah III made it very clear that pcorceeding and sending are two distinct concepts that seem to be intermingled (if not confused) in the West.
The summary you have linked to, kosta, is a very good one.
A book that both gives a detailed history of the Council of Florence from the Orthodox perspective is "The History of the Council of Florence," by Ivan N. Ostroumoff. It was written in the mid 1800's in Russia, and translated and published in England a few decades later.
It is currently most readily available in a photo-reprint of the original British publication that was published by Holy Transfiguration Monastery in 1971. Used copies can be found very inexpensively through any online booksearch engine such as www.abebooks.com and new copies be found through any number of Orthodox on-line booksellers.
There is additional material added to the HTM edition that deals with more modern issues of ecumenism, some of which I agree with, some of which I don't. But the reprint of the original core text remains an invaluable resource for anyone who wants genuinely to understand the deliberations and events that took place in Florence from an Orthodox perspective. It is not ponderous reading at all -- it is a fascinating story.
Finally, I made a typo in my post above -- it was Patriarch Jeremiah II, not Jeremiah III who wrote the answers to the Tuebingen theologians.
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.