"As From One Principle"

[dcointin]

“Through the Son” is more problematic, in Latin at least. “Through”, in Latin, is used for instrumental causes, or for delegation of powers. So “proceeds from the Father, through the Son” would more naturally be understood as the Father delegating the task to the Son to perform, rather than the Spirit proceeding from the Father and Son as them being united in Spiration.

For example, in Latin, when saying that a judge orders someone to be arrested by a police officer you would say “the judge arrested the criminal through the policeman”. If you wanted to say that the judge and policeman together arrest someone, even if the authority comes from the judge, you would say “the judge and the policeman arrested the criminal”.

Since the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son is the whole point of the filioque, the proper term to use in Latin is “and”; “through” can be used to have the same meaning, but it’s not the primary usage of it, and requires much more clarification in Latin then “and” does. Since the teaching is a Latin one, it only makes sense that it be rendered in the most natural Latin, and this was St. Maximos’ point 1500 years ago: let the Latins render the their teaching in their own tongue. It may require some clarification when translated into Greek or English, but that’s better than having it be confusing/incorrect in the original language.

The Latin is actually very clear in and of itself, which is why an unorthodox interpretation of the “filioque” never arose in the West when Latin was the dominant language. It’s only in translation, where terms have different nuances in different languages, when things become problematic, and that’s why the “filioque” is forbidden in Greek recitations of the Creed for example, as the mere shift in language causes the direct translation to lose its meaning and actually become heretical. This is because “ekporousis”, the Greek term for “proceeds” in the Creed, has a slightly different meaning than “procedit”; “ekporousis” means “from the source”, while “procedit” simply means “going out from”. There is no Latin word for “from the source”, so the closest Latin term was used to translate the Creed, but that term has a different nuance which allows for the inclusion of “filioque”, while such an inclusion would be heretical in the original Greek.

In short, the proper way to give the orthodox understanding of the filioque, in Latin, is “and the Son”, though “through the Son” can be correct with some explanation and contextualization. In English either term works, and in Greek only “through” works, but since the “filioque” is never used in Greek it’s not really an actual issue.

St. Maximos’ mediation on the subject really should have been the end of it, IMO. He cut to all the points concisely and clearly, both regarding linguistics and theology, and he did so hundreds of years before this became a Church dividing issue. Would that his Inspired Wisdom had be followed!

Peace and God bless!

This is the best explanation of the differences in the Latin and Greek wording that I’ve read. Thank you!

 

[dzheremi]

It is true that it could be rendered as “through the Son” in English, but dynamic translation is not the way the Church prefers things to be done, and in fact it’s been cracking down on some of the more dynamic liturgical translations lately.

Personally it doesn’t matter to me either way.

Peace and God bless!

I understand. I am not trying to push for this or that understanding or wording so much as detailing what was my concern as a Catholic, as I have seen it reproduced among other ex-Catholics who are now Orthodox. If the procession can be understood in an orthodox fashion, great. I’m not entirely sure it always is, but I guess it’s up to the Latin church to work that out to the extent that they see it necessary.

 

[Mickey]

And John also says:
John 15:26
(Jesus Speaking) 26 “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.

 

[Mickey]

They believe that the Father is the sole “source” of the Holy Spirit in the Holy Trinity, not the Father and the Son.

Then the Filioque should be omitted.

 

[Mickey]

and that the filioque is not a church dividing issue.

And yet, it remains a Church dividing issue…but not the only one.

That is what the joint theological commissions say.

Oh, well then, that settles it eh?

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Friends,

First of all, thanks to all the posters in this scholarly, theological thread. I’ve learned so much in all that you’ve so succinctly said and have debated here!

It seems to me that the positions of both East and West have been thoroughly represented here and that, when both sides understand what the other is really saying, there is no room for separation on this important issue.

At the same time, there seems to be no reason why the original Nicene Creed without the Filioque cannot be confessed by one and all by way of a return to Tradition.

The issue of the distinction between the Son and the Holy Spirit within the Most Holy Trinity is already established, and agreed upon by both East and West, in terms of the Son being Only-Begotten of the Father and the Spirit Proceeding (Spirating) from the Father.

The phrase “through the Son” while found in some Eastern Fathers was never the object of dogmatic formulation in the East as was the Filioque in the West. To compare the two as if the latter represents Eastern Triadology in the same way as the Filioque represents that in the West just doesn’t hold water from the outset.

Ghosty’s discussion of the Filioque iin the West and how it transcends the inherent problems, for the West, contained in the “through the Son” shows, still, how neither formulation can be held up as a universal one for the entire Church. Both are expressions of the Particular Trinitarian theologies of East and West - one will not, does not, cross over to embrace the other.

This does not demonstrate that unity cannot be achieved, only that the Filioque will never make sense in the East and “through the Son” won’t be liked in the West. In fact, “through the Son” isn’t liked by everyone in the East and it does not have the dogmatic status that the Filioque has in the West. For the East, “Only Begotten” and “Proceeding from the Father” are sufficient answers to the question.

There is no reason, once again, why the original, Traditional Nicene Creed cannot be used in both East and West (with Pope St Leo IV and his own affirmations on the tablets he had made leading the way for both). An Ecumenical Reunion Council can affirm the particular theological expressions of East and West which, while different, affirm the same truth in different ways.

We can affirm different roads to the One God and Church unity - that doesn’t mean that we ourselves need to take one that is other than the one we are already on as Particular Churches.

Alex

 

[Mickey]

At the same time, there seems to be no reason why the original Nicene Creed without the Filioque cannot be confessed by one and all by way of a return to Tradition.

I pray for this.

This does not demonstrate that unity cannot be achieved, only that the Filioque will never make sense in the East and “through the Son” won’t be liked in the West. In fact, “through the Son” isn’t liked by everyone in the East and it does not have the dogmatic status that the Filioque has in the West. For the East, “Only Begotten” and “Proceeding from the Father” are sufficient answers to the question.

Very true.

There is no reason, once again, why the original, Traditional Nicene Creed cannot be used in both East and West

Amen, Alex!

 

[dvdjs]

And yet, it remains a Church dividing issue…

It remains a point of contention not among the Churches and not among the learned but among those who prefer contention.

Oh, well then, that settles it eh?

I stated already that it remains to be seen if the thinking of the theologians can inform the thinking of the contentious. You quote a fragment of what I said to no apparent substantive point. And people wonder why the P word is used.

 

[dvdjs]

There is no reason, once again, why the original, Traditional Nicene Creed cannot be used in both East and West

It is used. The question is whether there are reasons that it must be exclusively used. I think there are reasons to avoid not to do that. The West has used the filioque for centuries beyond a millenium. I don’t think that it would be productive to try to enforce a change of something so long standing. (Nor IMO would it satisfy the hardcore without a repudiation of the theology - however valid we take it to be.) Moreover, as an Easterner, I really don’t care for anyone in the West suggesting modifications to our traditions, so I think it is wise for us to be silent on theirs.

 

[Mickey]

It remains a point of contention not among the Churches and not among the learned but among those who prefer contention.

It remains a point of contention amongst the hierarchy, laity, learned, etc. It is meaningless that a group of ecumenically-minded “scholars” get together thinking that they have solved an issue that has divided the Church for over 1000 years. They are living in a fantasy world. And so are you.

Alex has the only answer. Remove the Filioque.

 

[Ghosty]

It is the theology that is the primary dispute. Just removing the word while the theological belief and teaching remains would solve nothing while some continue to hold to an utterly erroneous belief about what the filioque actually means.

Will the Eastern Orthodox likewise abandon the confusing post-schism Palamite distinctions? The filioque is at least equally Patristic and confusing to those of different traditions, yet it is only the Latins who are expected to give up their Patrimony. The Latin Church does not insist on the inclusion of the filioque in the Ecumenical Creed, why must the Latins remove it from local use if the theology is orthodox? Should they also redact the writings of Saints, East and West, who taught the filioque?

We demand that the Latins respect the integrity of our tradition, and we must do the same or else utterly turn our backs on Christ, who said to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Peace and God bless!

 

[dvdjs]

It is meaningless that a group of ecumenically-minded “scholars” get together thinking that they have solved an issue that has divided the Church for over 1000 years. They are living in a fantasy world. And so are you.

The world that they are living in is the that great world of listening to one another.
As to my world: you are without knowledge of it. But that apparently does not stop you from holding forth on the subject. Probably wiser to avoid the personal comments.

 

[Mickey]

The world that they are living in is the that great world of listening to one another.

Yup. They’ve been trying to listen to one another for over a thousand years. Someone is not speaking clearly.

As to my world: you are without knowledge of it.

I am sure it is similar to the world you just described above.

But that apparently does not stop you from holding forth on the subject.

Freedom of speech.

 

[Mickey]

Will the Eastern Orthodox likewise abandon the confusing post-schism Palamite distinctions?

Odd statement coming from a Melkite.

why must the Latins remove it from local use if the theology is orthodox?

You say the theology is orthodox…but that is not the concensus of Holy Orrthodoxy…else there would not be an issue.

 

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by dvdjs View Post
As to my world: you are without knowledge of it.

I am sure it is similar to the world you just described above.

So nice of you to calibrate us on your use of the word “sure”.

 

[mardukm]

Odd statement coming from a Melkite.

It only seems odd to someone who can’t live by the Golden Rule.

but that is not the concensus of Holy Orrthodoxy…else there would not be an issue.

Oh please. The Eastern Orthodox have no consensus on the matter (but that’s a good thing, actually).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

So nice of you to calibrate us on your use of the word “sure”.

One must calibrate often in this life.

 

[Mickey]

Oh please. The Eastern Orthodox have no consensus on the matter

Oh please. If Holy Orthodoxy believed that the Latins truly had the correct theology regarding this issue, there would be no issue.

 

[crazzeto]

So then why is the word “and” used instead of “through?”

Perhaps because the Filioque was utilized in part to help combat the last reminents of Arianism, so if one said “Father through the Son” would that leave doors open for “interpretation” which should be shut?

 

[Alexander_Roman]

It is the theology that is the primary dispute. Just removing the word while the theological belief and teaching remains would solve nothing while some continue to hold to an utterly erroneous belief about what the filioque actually means.

Will the Eastern Orthodox likewise abandon the confusing post-schism Palamite distinctions? The filioque is at least equally Patristic and confusing to those of different traditions, yet it is only the Latins who are expected to give up their Patrimony. The Latin Church does not insist on the inclusion of the filioque in the Ecumenical Creed, why must the Latins remove it from local use if the theology is orthodox? Should they also redact the writings of Saints, East and West, who taught the filioque?

We demand that the Latins respect the integrity of our tradition, and we must do the same or else utterly turn our backs on Christ, who said to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Peace and God bless!

Dear and Revered Ghosty!

That is precisely the point - the original Ecumenical Creed did not have the Filioque and it represents the faith of the universal Catholic Church - then and now and was confirmed by Rome and as late as the time of Pope St Leo IV (and I believe the Orthodox Church should acknowledge this Pope as a saint).

This Creed was the expression of the universal faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church until the Schism. And yet, even before the Schism, there were theological traditions being developed in East and West that were specific to the theology of each.

The Filioque should be discarded by the universal Church precisely because it is a theological expression of the Particular Latin Church. And yes, theology is expressed in words. Historically, excommunications have been based on words, such as in the Christological issues involving the Miaphysite Churches. Words are important and they can mean different things to different people - thus the problem of the separation of the Churches.

For the Latin Church to remove the Filioque is not synonymous with discarding it or eradicating it from its theology. You yourself presented a hefty theological explication of it (as has Mardukm, in his usual lucid style!). After reading your presentation, I, for one, see nothing in it that could conflict with Eastern theology (then again, I’m an EC so you can’t really trust much of what I say in that department - Todd would take issue with me, to be sure! ).

Yes, the Filioque has been used for almost a millennium in the West - it hasn’t been used in the West for most of the previous millennium and Roman Popes have deliberately refused to include it.

East and West were in perfect unity (although rocky at times due mostly to political circumstances) on the bases of the original Nicene Creed. Can’t we begin a crucial step in that direction by returning to that Creed? Such a return would not deny anything that the Latin West hasn’t affirmed and continues to affirm (again, its Trinitarian theology appears “rationalistic” in the East at the same time as Eastern theology i.e. Palamism, appears “confusing” in the West due to the lack of a Western Scholastic approach inherent in it etc.).

My point is that let the West be the West and the East - the East. I can be in union with the Catholic West while, at the same time, passing over your religious art and most of what you cherish. I’m sure that your confreres don’t like “Theosis” and other characteristically Eastern things too - again, that’s OK, we aren’t imposing Eastern theology on you. It is the West that has historically imposed its own Particular theology on the East while, at the same time, confusing what is Western with what is “universal.”

It is to be expected that the West would be uncomfortable with removing the Filioque for this very reason - it is not used to seeing itself as a part of the Church rather than as the whole Church.

If the West can make that adjustment - then we are on the way to having a united church of Christ, East and West.

Alex