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]).
good luck with that.
I was reflecting on something Bishop Kallistos wrote regarding the Copts et al. Seems we have two positions worded in such a way that they appear to be polar opposites but when examined closely are actually identical. When I first read it I drew this mental image of two brothers on the Serengeti in an altercation over how best to describe a zebra. :/
All that aside, one man's ability to speak is only as good as another man's ability to listen. The greatest orator in the world speaks in vain if his audience is deaf. Sometimes we think we hear the message but we really hear something else instead. Hypothetical example: annalex uses the term "double procession" unapologetically in a post. Monkfan, being a good lil' Orthodox Christian, nearly has a heart attack. Later, annalex clarifies his position and it becomes evident to monkfan that what he thought annalex meant and what annalex actually meant were two different things. In short, a simple linguistical mix-up. Thankfully, there wasn't the added burden of having to translate into another language. Otherwise, things may have gotten ugly. ;)
I really don't have much to say about the filioque, except this: It is resolvable and, in the grand scheme of things, the least of our problems.
I'm a bit skeptical about being able to explain away the Monophysite controversy as a failure to recognize that both sides were "really saying the same thing." If you read the essays in "Does Chalcedon Divide or Unite?" you will find that the Coptic theologians in the dialogue are still very much firm that the Orthodox theology of the Council of Chalcedon is, at root, incorrect. In any event, the idea that 21st c folks understand 5th c Greek better than did 5th c Greeks has always struck me as a bit hubris-laden.
You are right that we often don't take the time to listen to what "the other side" is saying. Right now, in the 21st c, that failure to listen is mostly manifested by the failure to listen to those who believe that we have different theologies on certain things, and that those differences in theology matter because they have implications for the practical spiritual life.
The filioque certainly is resolvable, but not in ways that the Roman church as it is currently constituted would be able to accept. It is the least of our problems as Orthodox Christians as long as no one expects the Orthodox Church to drop its stance that the filioque is a wrong teaching.
In any event, there is no reason for it to need to be resolved until such time as we reach a point where it is obvious to anyone who walks into a Catholic or an Orthodox parish and instantly recognizes that the faith is identical in every respect. Once Catholicism and Orthodoxy are in full agreement on the faith, then and only then, will it be necessary to figure out how to deal with the words said and written in the past.
The most valuable thing we can do right now is to accurately understand what the other believes, and respectfully agree to disagree.
Fair enough. But you seem to presume that nobody involved has any face to save. I don't expect anyone is going to jump up and say "Holy smokes, we completely misundertood you!" Imagine the implications.
You are right that we often don't take the time to listen to what "the other side" is saying. Right now, in the 21st c, that failure to listen is mostly manifested by the failure to listen to those who believe that we have different theologies on certain things, and that those differences in theology matter because they have implications for the practical spiritual life.
Point taken. However, I suspect the larger problem might just be with people making arguements against positions not actually held by "the other side".
The filioque certainly is resolvable, but not in ways that the Roman church as it is currently constituted would be able to accept. It is the least of our problems as Orthodox Christians as long as no one expects the Orthodox Church to drop its stance that the filioque is a wrong teaching.
When it comes time for a council, maybe you can go along and make sure it turns out ok. Relax!
In any event, there is no reason for it to need to be resolved until such time as we reach a point where it is obvious to anyone who walks into a Catholic or an Orthodox parish and instantly recognizes that the faith is identical in every respect.
A friend of mine is a cradle Orthodox from the Middle East. He's dating a girl who is Marionite Catholic. I saw him at Pascha. He tells me that, for all intents and purposes, the Liturgy is identical. Should I be shocked?
Once Catholicism and Orthodoxy are in full agreement on the faith, then and only then, will it be necessary to figure out how to deal with the words said and written in the past.
I think it's more likely to get hammered out on the fly. It doesn't seem likely to me that we could compare our faiths without visiting our past in the process. But I'm just guessing.
The most valuable thing we can do right now is to accurately understand what the other believes, and respectfully agree to disagree.
Are you sure you have an accurate understanding of what Rome teaches?
In practice, most dogmas are promulgated in response to heresies.
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"!
A development in doctrine isn't necessarily an error, is it?
The local council of Toledo had no authoirty to make dogma. It's addition to the Creed was deemed "profitable" in combating Arian heresy and as such should have ceased when that heresy no longer existed.
A development in doctrine isn't necessarily an error, is it?
Doctrine is something the Church collectively decides in a Synod. It is certainly not the domain of a secular leader, a semi-iconoclast at that, to decide what is orthodox in the Church.
Since the filioque is not universally recited in the creed in the Church, can it be properly considered Dogma?
True. But that doesn't mean that the teaching doesn't have value or authority, does it?
It's addition to the Creed was deemed "profitable" in combating Arian heresy and as such should have ceased when that heresy no longer existed.
If it's true, why?
A development in doctrine isn't necessarily an error, is it?
Doctrine is something the Church collectively decides in a Synod.
That is the final stage. (The promulagtion of dogmas is not limited to Church Councils in the Catholic Church). But in the meantime, the teaching usually exists as part of Sacred Tradition. Such was the case with the dogma of the Assumption. Mary's Assumption had been part of Sacred Tradition prior to its promulgation as dogma.
The teaching of the double procession of the Holy Spirit goes back to the early Church:
The dogma of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son as one Principle is directly opposed to the error that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, not from the Son. Neither dogma nor error created much difficulty during the course of the first four centuries. Macedonius and his followers, the so-called Pneumatomachi, were condemned by the local Council of Alexandria (362) and by Pope St. Damasus (378) for teaching that the Holy Ghost derives His origin from the Son alone, by creation. If the creed used by the Nestorians, which was composed probably by Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the expressions of Theodoret directed against the ninth anathema by Cyril of Alexandria, deny that the Holy Ghost derives His existence from or through the Son, they probably intend to deny only the creation of the Holy Ghost by or through the Son, inculcating at the same time His Procession from both Father and Son. At any rate, the double Procession of Holy Ghost was discussed at all in those earlier times, the controversy was restricted to the East and was of short duration. The first undoubted denial of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost we find in the seventh century among the heretics of Constantinople when St. Martin I (649-655), in his synodal writing against the Monothelites, employed the expression "Filioque." Nothing is known about the further development of this controversy; it doesnot seem to have assumed any serious proportions, as the question was not connected with the characteristic teaching of the Monothelites. In the Western church the first controversy concerning the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was conducted with the envoys of the Emperor Constantine Copronymus, in the Synod of Gentilly near Paris, held in the time of Pepin (767). The synodal Acts and other information do not seem to exist. At the beginning of nineth century, John, a Greek monk of the monastery of St. Sabas, charged the monks of Mt. Olivet with heresy, they had inserted the Filioque into the Creed. In the second half the same century, Photius the successor of the unjustly deposed Ignatius, Patriarch of Constatinople (858), denied the Procession of Holy Ghost from the Son, and opposed the insertion of the Filioque into the Constantinopolitan creed. The same position was maintained towards the end of the tenth century by the Patriarchs Sisinnius and Sergius, and about the middle of the eleventh century by the Patriarch Michael Caerularius, who renewed and completed the Greek schism. The rejection of the Filioque, or the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, and the denial of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff constitute even to-day the principal errors of the Greek church. While outside the Church doubt as to the double Procession of the Holy Ghost grew into open denial, inside the Church the doctrine of the Filioque was declared to be a dogma of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second Council of Lyons (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438-1445). Thus the Church proposed in a clear and authoritative form the teaching of Sacred Scripture and tradition on the Procession of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity.
Why wouldn't the Catechism state the double procession more clearly? I have the impression that it deliberately leaves room for the Greek interpretation, at least in the chapters I quoted in 2 and 3.
I was told by Kolokotronis that Augustine did not understand Trinity because he did not know Greek. He did not provide any criticism of Augustine's reasoning beyond that he did not refer to any Greek words. I am hoping to get more from Kolokotronis today.
I'm a bit mystified a to why Augustine is figuring prominently on this thread. Is someone explaining the rise of the Filioque as the result of Augustine's trinitarian theology? Or is it just because Augustine was influential in the West? But so too was Hilary . . .
The Filioque arose from an effort to counter Adoptionism in Spain long after Augustine. No creed at all was recited in the Mass at Rome for centuries. It was the Carolingians, in their effort to show that the Byzantines were illegitimate emperors and that the Carolingians had preserved the true Roman imperium, pressured the popes to add the Nicene Creed with the Mozarabic filioque to the Roman liturgy. For a long time the popes resisted but finally added it, as late as the 11thc, if I am not mistaken. The "because he did not know Greek" is an old canard thrown at Augustine. The Greek struggle over hypostasis and prosopon in the late 300s and 400s could equally be attributed to the fact that they did not know Latin and thus Tertullian's brilliant adding of Christian meaning to what had in Graeco-Roman culture been a rather blank (mask, role in Greek drama, prosopon, persona), empty, impersonal term. It's not simply a matter of knowing or not knowing language.
A very good but little-known effort to reconcile Eastern and Western views on the procession of the Holy Spirit by employing the Hebrew/Greek chabod/doxa as expounded in the Farewell Discourses, particularly Jn 17, is found in Paul M. Quay, S.J., The Mystery Hidden for Ages in God (New York etc.: Peter Lang, 1995), in the first part of the book. He also offers a profound effort to reconcile East and West on original sin, taking account even of what we now know about fetal psychology and the plasticity of the brain as it develops (Quay had a PhD in physics from MIT but also did part of his theological training under De Lubac at Lyons. His book is an effort to apply the patristic spiritual sense of Scripture to the development and growth of spiritual life, first in the OT as we (the Jewish people) crawled back from the horrible abyss of alienation from God produced by the Fall to even be ready for the Incarnation, then, after the Incarnation, the growth in holiness in the Spirit toward theosis, all of it done typologically in accord with the patristic method. It's well worth reading, slowly, ruminatively.
Should the Latin line of reasoning, in view of the interpenetration of the Persons, be that the Son is doubly begotten by the Father and the Holy Ghost? It is my pet heresy.
Please see Dionysius' post above this, quoting you.
Teaching anything outside the dogma of the Church has no authority.
If it's true, why?
I didn't say it was true -- it was "deemed profitable."
The teaching of the double procession of the Holy Spirit goes back to the early Church
The "early Church" defined the faith by the the Fourth Ecumenical Council or Synod. The original Creed has no "filioque" and any addition to or removal from the Creed was specifically prohibited except by another Ecumenical Council and approved by the whole Church.
Your source keeps regurgitating empty rationalizations. We have nothing more to talk about.
Can this topic be twisted any more out of shape? The Creed was universally recited officially by the ENTIRE Church for centuries without the "filioque." The fact that it is not recited universally today means that one side of the Church (guess which side!) departed from the Church dogma as to what our faith is.
The Roman Catholic Church added filioque officially to the Creed in the 11th century and subsequently reaffirmed the addition. Yes, in the minds of the Roman Catholics, the "filioque" is dogma. But be aware that while the Vatican did all this, it was careful not to use the filioque in Rome -- instead the Vatican usese the original Creed without the filioque! Why? So that no one can ever say that the Holy See was in heresy because of addition to the Creed. Thus the orthodoxy of the Pope is preserved and unbroken.
As for Blessed Augustine, his translations show that he did not understand Greek and that he incorrectly interpreted Greek sources -- one particualr stands out, regarding Genesis, confusing the word "in common" with "instantly."
Likewise, the concept of procession from a source, versus sending in time, for which Greek has two distinct terms and Latin just one (procedere) for both is a source of erroneous conceptualization of the Trinity. God is one, Triune, interrelated, of one essence or nature, with all three Hypostases equally divine, yet separate Personae, the revealed energies, co-substantial, in perfect harmony. Triune God reveals the monarchy of the Wisdom, which generates the Word, and the Spirit that proceeds from the Wisdom. The Divine Economy leaves no doubt that being co-substantial is not a two-way or a three-way street, but that the Wisdom begets the Word, and not the other way around, and that the Father, Who is the source of everything and all, and not the Son, is the source of the Spirit and not the Spirit of the Father or of the Son. Yet at no time is one less Divine than the other -- these energies reveal a Divine Being we call God, just as our mind and words are, and our spirit that is sent through the words, but does not originate in them, reveals a person that we are; made in His image and likeness.
Two questions.
1. Do you have a theological-trinitarian disagreement with the Catechism (posted in 2 and 3), which does not mention the double procession of the Holy Ghost?
2. Aquinas says that any two persons must have a relation between them, or else they collapse into a single person. What is the relation between the Son and the Holy Ghost in your understanding? How is the Son distinct from the Holy Ghost if there is no defined relation?
The rest of your post is not my focus at the moment.
Yes, with an attitude like yours there can be no reconciliation.
In fact it was not recited universally for centuries, with or without the filioque. The Creed was inserted into the liturgy in places--both East and West--where heresy of one sort or another was widespread. Check out the exact history of where and when recitation of the creed was made part of the liturgy in the various rites--including the Oriental Rites. I think you'll find a rather variegated pattern. It may be have been more widespread earlier in the East because that's where the heresies were rampant. So who changed things?
Oh, spare me the sermon of relativism! No Patriarch ever backed changing the Symbol of Faith! Yet, it was the entire Church of the West, with its Patriarch, that eventually succumbed to this heresy and officially proclaimed the addition to the Creed as dogma.
My attitude? We are talking historical facts here. It had nothing to do with my attitude. The Creed was violated and then, so corrupted, proclaimed to be dogma. Now it is impossible to admit it?
There most certainly is a defined relation. Read St. John of Damascus on this.
Specifically, he says
To answer your own question, I suggest reading the entire Book I dealing with Trinity.
You did not read what I wrote. Just calm down for a minute. I challenged your blanket assertion that the creed (in whatever form) was always recited in the liturgy, East or West. It was not. It was inserted into the liturgy in response to heresy.
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.