J
jimmy
Guest
Is that not what they do? They profess it to be dogma.
- Status
A
Apotheoun
Guest
If it were truly a dogma it follows that the Roman Church itself would be in violation of its own “dogmatic” canons, because it does not require that Eastern Catholics profess the filioque when they recite the creed.
J
jimmy
Guest
I think in the section where he talks about Augustines idea of the Holy Spirit as the love of the Father for the Son he denies that it can be taken up into the immanent Trinity but is only relevant to the economic Trinity. He may just be speaking of the analogy but I understood it to be refering to the whole concept of the filioque.
His reference to the immanent Trinity is a reference to the Trinity apart from creation. It is a reference to the Trinity in eternity rather than in time. The economic Trinity is a reference to Gods manifestation in creation.
G
Ghosty
Guest
They certainly do, though they don’t force the theological approach of the West on the Eastern Churches (or, at least in the best of times they don’t).
The idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds both in Person and in Nature from the Father and Son together can be found in the Catechism, and not as a “theological opinion”, but as a matter of fact. At the very least we could say that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is heretical for espousing the teaching of the Council of Florence, according the notion that the eternal Personal procession of the Holy Spirit from Father AND Son is heretical.
I actually cited the Vatican document to which you refer, and it puts forth an entirely different meaning than yours. Ekporousis, according to that document, refers to origin from the source (“This origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone as Principle of the whole Trinity is called ekporeusis by Greek tradition, following the Cappadocian Fathers”) which of course could apply only to the Father who is Source of all Deity.
Your definition divides ekporousis and proienai, whereas the Vatican document simply relates ekporousis as a kind of proienai, namely that as being from a Source. Your definition also makes ekporousis alone Personal, but that is also unsupported by the Vatican document (and unsupported by the Fathers, who use the term proienai to refer to the begetting of the Son as well, further cementing the fact that ekporousis is simply a more specific term to proienai’s general.
So “proceeds” (proienai) can be said to be “and the Son” without qualification, since it is general and covers multiple meanings. Ekporousis can only be said in a qualified manner regarding the Son, such as by adding “through” instead of “and”, since the procession from the Source/Father (ekporousis) comes “through” the Son, rather than the Source being the Father and Son together (which would be implied if the term “and” was used in conjunction with ekporousis).
Peace and God bless!
G
Ghosty
Guest
Dogmas don’t have to be expressed in the Creed, so this argument is baseless. The Holiness of images and icons is a dogma that is not required in the Creed, for example, as is the two wills, human and Divine, of Christ, neither of which are found in the Creed.
The fact that the language of the filioque does not fit the Greek, but does fit the Latin, is sufficient reason to not require it, and in fact requires that it not be allowed at all.
The fact that the Latin theological framework that is utilized by Florence and other Western Councils is not required of the East is also not enough to show that it’s not a required dogma; the Union of Brest, for example, speaks of the origin of the Holy Spirit “from the Father, through the Son”. That is a fully Eastern expression of the truth that Latins explain with the term “filioque”, and is upheld at least by the Ukrainian Church.
Peace and God bless!
A
Allyson
Guest
East and West:
I am sure that I can not convince you easily that there is a legitimate diversity acknowledged by the Vatican. I do not think that things are absolute in the way that I think you intend to say that they are.
I think that our good and holy leaders in Rome, are willing to acknowledge the legitimate diversity of theological expressions currently found in the Church.
I got the word normative, which I used in my previous quote, in reference to the creedal text I quoted from:
THE GREEK AND LATIN TRADITIONS REGARDING THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
Pontificial Council for Promoting Christian Unity
:Dominus Jesus (From when Ratzinger was prefect)
qui ex Patre procedit = and he proceeds from the Father The Greek again is τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον.
It seems that it was not considered necessary to include the filioque. The councils may have given the phrase an official okay, but I think that the Church still acknowledges the legitimacy of not using the filioque, and what that may imply - that is the legitimacy of the Eastern Theological perspective, perhaps among others…
I should have mentioned in my previous post that of course there are other creed formula’s used in other Apostolic Churches, which as far as I am aware are legitimate too. I saw the Armenian Creed posted on the same wikiarticle I got the Greek text and English translation from, just in case anyone was interested in reading it.
God Bless,
R.
J
JesuXPIPassio
Guest
Can some of you guys help me understand the importance of the Filioque? I don’t understand how this one word could facilitate an entire Schism, or at least be the excuse for it.
Are there any theological ramifications as to whether or not the Spirit was sent by the Father or by the Father and the Son? I’m not a theologian and I have a hard time grasping these concepts.
To me, it doesn’t seem to really matter who sent the Spirit – the Spirit’s here, and that’s all that matters. It’s like arguing whether or not the glass is half full or half empty; there’s water in there, the end.
Are there any theological ramifications as to whether or not the Spirit was sent by the Father or by the Father and the Son? I’m not a theologian and I have a hard time grasping these concepts.
To me, it doesn’t seem to really matter who sent the Spirit – the Spirit’s here, and that’s all that matters. It’s like arguing whether or not the glass is half full or half empty; there’s water in there, the end.
A
Aramis
Guest
et filioque (the latin for “and the son”) is tied to the verb precedit… which, in Latin, is not indicative of origination, but merely of flowing out from.
In the liturgical languages of the East, however, there are various terms in use with different meanings. Proeinai is a term which can mean either a source or simply an outlet (like the difference between a water tank and the tap on the tank). The usual translation of precedit is not, however, proeinai, but ekporousis, which is clearly an origin reference.
Both Proeinai and Ekporousis translate to the latin Precedit, and generally precedit is translated back as Ekporousis.
So, when the filioque is rendered by normal translation protocols into Greek, it becomes heretical, as it ascribes (in the translation) origin to both the Father and the son. Even tho’, in Latin, it is not explicit that it indicates origination, merely outlet, and those who know better say that et filioque itself has an ending which renders the Son secondary.
In Church Slavonic, it s less profound, but can be misinterpreted when formulaically translated.
Please excuse any spelling errors,
G
Ghosty
Guest
I hope everyone will indulge me in a bit of theological illustration. I just broke from a three-day fever, and as I was lying awake in bed an image occurred to me that might help illustrate what the Latin filioque is really trying to say. It’s possibly just fevered non-sense, but I think it’s sound. 
Imagine a string of three balls hanging from the ceiling, one on top of the other. Considering only the balls, the top ball is the “first cause” of all the balls hanging; all “hanging” ultimately goes back to this top ball as the source and reason for it occurring at all. We can’t say that the second ball is the “first cause”, or source, of the third ball’s hanging because it receives its power to hold up the third ball from the first ball; if the first ball didn’t hang, and pass that power on to the second in some manner, then the second ball wouldn’t have the power to hold up the third, AND it wouldn’t be hanging itself.
Now the third ball, despite having two balls prior to it that are in some way holding it up, is not hanging by two separate “hanging powers”, but only by one. There is one “hanging” of the third ball, one “principle” of it being held up. If the first two balls were side by side and together holding up the third in a kind of upside-down triangle, then we would say that there are two principles of hanging, the first and the second balls’ powers of hanging.
Now some might suggest that in this case the hanging of the third ball is not immediately connected to the first, since the second ball is between them. That’s an obvious assumption to make, but it’s incorrect; the one hanging power of the first ball immediately touches each ball beneath it. In other words, by one single and immediate “hanging power”, the first ball holds up two balls, not just one; there are not two “hangings” coming from the first ball, but only one that holds both up. Remove this one hanging power and both balls immediately fall.
It is actually the second ball whose “hanging power” is not immediate, but rather mediate. Despite it being directly connected to the third ball, it doesn’t have the “hanging power” in and of itself, and must first receive it from the first ball. In a very real sense, then, the first ball immediately holds up the second and the third, while the second ball mediately holds up the third; the first ball’s hanging power is not impeded by “passing through” the second, but rather is immediate precisely because of the second.
In other words, we can say that the one hanging power of the first ball is the immediate cause of the other two being held up, but we can’t say that the second ball’s hanging power is the immediate cause of the third ball hanging up, since it must receives this power from the first ball first, before it can hang up the second.
Another important element of this illustration is that it removes any erroneous concept of time from the equation; the three balls hang together all at once. The designation of “first”, “second”, and “third” have to do with causal sequence, not time sequence.
So we could easily say, in answer to “what holds up the third ball”, “the first and second ball hold up the third” (this would be the equivalent of the Latin filioque, since the Latin word says nothing about source at all). We could also say equally well that the first ball holds up the third ball “through” the second, without removing its immediacy since “through” is describing a property of the one, immediate hanging, not something that alters it. We could not say, however, that the second ball is the source of the third ball hanging (and since the Greek term used for procession in the Creed means “from the source”, a term not found in Latin, the expression “and the Son” can’t be added to the Greek Creed without heresy).
I hope that illustration helps! Any thoughts or questions?
Peace and God bless!
Imagine a string of three balls hanging from the ceiling, one on top of the other. Considering only the balls, the top ball is the “first cause” of all the balls hanging; all “hanging” ultimately goes back to this top ball as the source and reason for it occurring at all. We can’t say that the second ball is the “first cause”, or source, of the third ball’s hanging because it receives its power to hold up the third ball from the first ball; if the first ball didn’t hang, and pass that power on to the second in some manner, then the second ball wouldn’t have the power to hold up the third, AND it wouldn’t be hanging itself.
Now the third ball, despite having two balls prior to it that are in some way holding it up, is not hanging by two separate “hanging powers”, but only by one. There is one “hanging” of the third ball, one “principle” of it being held up. If the first two balls were side by side and together holding up the third in a kind of upside-down triangle, then we would say that there are two principles of hanging, the first and the second balls’ powers of hanging.
Now some might suggest that in this case the hanging of the third ball is not immediately connected to the first, since the second ball is between them. That’s an obvious assumption to make, but it’s incorrect; the one hanging power of the first ball immediately touches each ball beneath it. In other words, by one single and immediate “hanging power”, the first ball holds up two balls, not just one; there are not two “hangings” coming from the first ball, but only one that holds both up. Remove this one hanging power and both balls immediately fall.
It is actually the second ball whose “hanging power” is not immediate, but rather mediate. Despite it being directly connected to the third ball, it doesn’t have the “hanging power” in and of itself, and must first receive it from the first ball. In a very real sense, then, the first ball immediately holds up the second and the third, while the second ball mediately holds up the third; the first ball’s hanging power is not impeded by “passing through” the second, but rather is immediate precisely because of the second.
In other words, we can say that the one hanging power of the first ball is the immediate cause of the other two being held up, but we can’t say that the second ball’s hanging power is the immediate cause of the third ball hanging up, since it must receives this power from the first ball first, before it can hang up the second.
Another important element of this illustration is that it removes any erroneous concept of time from the equation; the three balls hang together all at once. The designation of “first”, “second”, and “third” have to do with causal sequence, not time sequence.
So we could easily say, in answer to “what holds up the third ball”, “the first and second ball hold up the third” (this would be the equivalent of the Latin filioque, since the Latin word says nothing about source at all). We could also say equally well that the first ball holds up the third ball “through” the second, without removing its immediacy since “through” is describing a property of the one, immediate hanging, not something that alters it. We could not say, however, that the second ball is the source of the third ball hanging (and since the Greek term used for procession in the Creed means “from the source”, a term not found in Latin, the expression “and the Son” can’t be added to the Greek Creed without heresy).
I hope that illustration helps! Any thoughts or questions?
Peace and God bless!
G
Ghosty
Guest
I’ve also given thought to the apparent contradiction in Metropolitan John’s assertion that the Son participates in the flow of Divine Essence, but not hypostasis. It’s possible, and I have no way of knowing for sure, that he was meaning that the property of “being a Person” comes from the Father alone, in the sense that Divine Personhood is first and foremost a reflection of the Father, while the Divine Essence in general is spoken of generally of the whole Trinity, and therefore can be said to pass from the Son to the Holy Spirit.
If that’s indeed what he means, then I would simply counter that the Latins aren’t distinguishing between Person and Divine Essence in such a way that would necessitate making such a qualification. Personhood, like everything else of the Divine Essence, is immediately from the Father as Source, just as omnipotence, and Glory, and anything else you can say about Divinity. They aren’t making the Son the “exemplar” of Personhood that impresses itself on the Holy Spirit, but are saying that the Son, by reason of His Begotteness from the Father, participates directly in the immediate communication of Divinity, and all its “features”, from the Father to the Holy Spirit (see my above illustration using the hanging balls for a kind of picture of how this kind of relationship can work).
Again, I don’t know if that’s what the good Bishop meant, but it would certainly make sense of the apparent confusion!
Peace and God bless!
If that’s indeed what he means, then I would simply counter that the Latins aren’t distinguishing between Person and Divine Essence in such a way that would necessitate making such a qualification. Personhood, like everything else of the Divine Essence, is immediately from the Father as Source, just as omnipotence, and Glory, and anything else you can say about Divinity. They aren’t making the Son the “exemplar” of Personhood that impresses itself on the Holy Spirit, but are saying that the Son, by reason of His Begotteness from the Father, participates directly in the immediate communication of Divinity, and all its “features”, from the Father to the Holy Spirit (see my above illustration using the hanging balls for a kind of picture of how this kind of relationship can work).
Again, I don’t know if that’s what the good Bishop meant, but it would certainly make sense of the apparent confusion!
Peace and God bless!
E
East_and_West
Guest
I have no problem with a diversity of theological expressions. I have not problem with the fact that the filioque is not in the Greek version of the Creed. BUT, BUT, BUT, there is a huge problem with the fact that some people on this forum believe that the Dogma of the Filioque is an error or heresy. Such is absurd because it is the teaching of the Universal Church.
D
Diak
Guest
All of the arguments on this thread about the nature of procession and origin brilliantly speak volumes to the misunderstandings that the insertion of one word in the Creed has caused. And I see now how wise was the hesitancy of Pope Leo III in the West as well.
I applaud our current Holy Father abundantly for including the true historical form of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed in Dominus Iesus, clearly indicating where the direction of the Magisterium is leaning.
I admit I am in complete agreement with the way Fr. Paul concludes his article on the matter:
Again, Rome has blessed this Union from the time of its inception through the current Pontiff. We have offered a holocaust of millions of martyrs for fidelity to this covenant of communion. No Pope, none, not one, ever, has questioned the faith of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church as stated in our agreed covenant of communion nor reopoened it to specifically include a reference to Lyon or Florence.
Was it somehow “understood” that Florence and Lyon were theological bases of the Union? In agreement with Fr. Paul’s scholarly work on this, I also think not - considering the complete failure of both with Eastern Christians over the same issues that plague us today as seen here - so the Union of Brest completely avoided any reference to either and stated the obvious, ** we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.
** What was “understood” was clearly stated in the Union to specifically avoid these kinds of misunderstandings and to ultimately foster the greater communion of hierarchs of the Kyivan Metropolia with Rome.
I only wish to use what was granted our Kyivan hierarchs in our covenant of communion with Rome, and later blessed by Rome herself; which is also the same form of the Creed the Holy Father himself recently used in Dominus Iesus. By not accepting the addition we do not pass judgement on those who do; we could not be in communion with a Church that professed heresy, which is an obvious reality.
FDRLB
I applaud our current Holy Father abundantly for including the true historical form of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed in Dominus Iesus, clearly indicating where the direction of the Magisterium is leaning.
I admit I am in complete agreement with the way Fr. Paul concludes his article on the matter:
What we are bound to believe as Ukrainian Greek Catholics was agreed in the statement of communion between our Churches:
**Not by a double procession. **
Again, Rome has blessed this Union from the time of its inception through the current Pontiff. We have offered a holocaust of millions of martyrs for fidelity to this covenant of communion. No Pope, none, not one, ever, has questioned the faith of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church as stated in our agreed covenant of communion nor reopoened it to specifically include a reference to Lyon or Florence.
Was it somehow “understood” that Florence and Lyon were theological bases of the Union? In agreement with Fr. Paul’s scholarly work on this, I also think not - considering the complete failure of both with Eastern Christians over the same issues that plague us today as seen here - so the Union of Brest completely avoided any reference to either and stated the obvious, ** we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.
** What was “understood” was clearly stated in the Union to specifically avoid these kinds of misunderstandings and to ultimately foster the greater communion of hierarchs of the Kyivan Metropolia with Rome.
I only wish to use what was granted our Kyivan hierarchs in our covenant of communion with Rome, and later blessed by Rome herself; which is also the same form of the Creed the Holy Father himself recently used in Dominus Iesus. By not accepting the addition we do not pass judgement on those who do; we could not be in communion with a Church that professed heresy, which is an obvious reality.
FDRLB
A
Allyson
Guest
J
jimmy
Guest
Ghosty,
I think your analogy is problematic. It sounds to me that you have made the Son the one source of the Spirit. The Father has given the power to Him but it is He who spirates the Spirit, not the Father. I don’t know if that is what you are actually trying to say.
The Greeks will not accept this. I think Apotheoun’s idea of the Son manifests the Spirit is more accurate. The Son does not have the power to Spirate the Spirit. I don’t think you could find that in any of the Greek fathers. I think the image of the hose with the water running through it is the best image. The hose is not the source but the water does run through it and you can say that the water comes from the hose but it is not in the sense of origin or source or cause.
I think your analogy is problematic. It sounds to me that you have made the Son the one source of the Spirit. The Father has given the power to Him but it is He who spirates the Spirit, not the Father. I don’t know if that is what you are actually trying to say.
The Greeks will not accept this. I think Apotheoun’s idea of the Son manifests the Spirit is more accurate. The Son does not have the power to Spirate the Spirit. I don’t think you could find that in any of the Greek fathers. I think the image of the hose with the water running through it is the best image. The hose is not the source but the water does run through it and you can say that the water comes from the hose but it is not in the sense of origin or source or cause.
G
Ghosty
Guest
I’m not sure which analogy you’re refering to, or which part. I’m certainly not saying that the Son is the Source, but He definitely Spirates the Spirit; that much is attested to by both Eastern and Western Fathers. He just doesn’t Spirate the Spirit as Source, but rather as a participant in the Spiration of the Father.
If you are thinking of the three balls analogy, remember that there are limits to any physical analogy; just because the second ball is holding up the third doesn’t mean that the first ball isn’t also, or that the first ball isn’t the primary holder. Just ask yourself what would happen if the first ball was taken away, would the third ball stay up? No, of course not.
The illustration was more to show the unity of power than anything else. Everything
The problem with “manifestation” is it doesn’t give the Son any participation in the origin of the Holy Spirit, but rather He merely shows forth the Holy Spirit much as I might hold up a sign I myself didn’t make. That’s not how the Fathers expressed it, except perhaps St. John of Damascus alone, and it’s not the way the Union of Brest expresses it either.
The hose with water running through it is an analogy I’ve used before, and has the same meaning I was getting at with the three balls. The Son still Spirates (puts water forth, if its the hose) in that example as well. The hose is not the source, but it’s a direct and mediate participant in the flow of water, receiving the flow from the tap.
Peace and God bless!
G
Ghosty
Guest
Diak: I would only add that “one origin, from the Father through the Son” is exactly what is meant in the West by the term “double procession”, since there are two participants in one procession. I think the Union of Brest was either referring to what the West calls “two principles”, or didn’t understand what the West meant by “double procession”. Otherwise I have no explanation for it saying no to “double procession”, and then proceeding to exactly describe “double procession from one principle”. It would be as if I were to say “I don’t believe in the Trinity, I believe in three Divine Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, eternally united and possessing one Divine Nature”.
Of course nothing more should be required of the Ukrainian Church than the first article of the Union of Brest, and the filioque has no place in the Creed in Byzantine-tradition Churches, even in brackets. The theology of the East has no need to incorporate these Latin concepts; I’m simply pointing out that difference between the two positions isn’t as great as some think.
It certainly leads to much confusion, though, I’ll agree with you there. The problem is that this confusion arises from the writings of the Fathers even without the addition to the Creed, so there’s no guarantee that, had the term never been added, that the problem would still exist. It likely would have just taken longer to manifest. This can be seen by the fact that the West clearly held to the teaching of the filioque from the time of St. Athanasius, but controversy wasn’t sparked until the time of St. Maximos the Confessor, when the Greeks first became aware of it being added to the Creed.
Peace and God bless!
Of course nothing more should be required of the Ukrainian Church than the first article of the Union of Brest, and the filioque has no place in the Creed in Byzantine-tradition Churches, even in brackets. The theology of the East has no need to incorporate these Latin concepts; I’m simply pointing out that difference between the two positions isn’t as great as some think.
It certainly leads to much confusion, though, I’ll agree with you there. The problem is that this confusion arises from the writings of the Fathers even without the addition to the Creed, so there’s no guarantee that, had the term never been added, that the problem would still exist. It likely would have just taken longer to manifest. This can be seen by the fact that the West clearly held to the teaching of the filioque from the time of St. Athanasius, but controversy wasn’t sparked until the time of St. Maximos the Confessor, when the Greeks first became aware of it being added to the Creed.
Peace and God bless!
I
Ignatius
Guest
Yes, as pointed out earlier, Pope John Paul lI of blessed memory, may his memory endure forever, often omitted the filioque when saying the Liturgy.
A
Apotheoun
Guest
Yes, the crux of our disagreement is centeredup on the West’s attempt to make the Son a participant in the origin (ekporeusis) of the Spirit.
In Byzantine theology the Father alone is personally (i.e., according to His hypostasis) the source (pege), origin (arche), and cause (aitia) of divinity, and of the other two hypostaseis within the Godhead. Thus, neither the Son nor the Spirit can possess these properties (i.e., pege, arche, or aitia) without falling into form of Sabellian Modalism, because these characteristics are proper only to the Father’s hypostasis. That said, ecumenical agreement will remain impossible so long as the West continues to confuse hypostatic procession (ekporeusis) with energetic manifestation (proienai).
E
East_and_West
Guest
Are you accusing your Latin bretheren of heresy? btw, your logic is still not sound. The fact that Son is begotten and the Father is the begetter is sufficient to distinguish them as two different people, even if that was the only difference between the two, because one cannot be one’s own begetter. The charge of Modalism is simply silly. Its the creating of problems where none exist.
J
jimmy
Guest
I don’t see how you can possibly say that is not how the union of brest says it. All it says is that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. It does not give the Spirit any participation in the actual origin of the Son. The Greek Fathers didn’t make the Son an origin either. Through the Son was the most used form in the Greek and that is exactly what ‘manifests’ means.
I am not sure what you are saying exactly the Son’s part is.
- Status