"As From One Principle"

[dcointin]

Thank you all again for your contribution to my question. I think at this point it’s reached the end of its course, and any more discussion would likely just result in a he said/she said argument.

I’d like to give my understanding of the issue as it now stands.

I see no reason to insist that Catholics are saying something other than what they themselves say they are saying. They believe that the Father is the sole “source” of the Holy Spirit in the Holy Trinity, not the Father and the Son. By the word “and” in the filioque they mean that the procession of the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, in the sense that his essence comes through the Son. I believe this is what St. John of Damascus was saying as well. The Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son if we understand that to mean origination, as it apparently did for St. John, but he does proceed through the Son. This procession is not just temporal, a sending of the Holy Spirit into the world, but eternal, i.e. of his essence. This is exactly what the Filioque is in fact saying - that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father by means of the Son. I have no problem with this understanding, and again I think it’s ridiculous to insist that Catholics are saying something they deny. It reminds me of a bit of the accusation I heard as a Lutheran that the Orthodox doctrine of theosis taught that we become God by nature, no matter how much the Orthodox insisted that was not their belief and clarified it. No one is served by that kind of refusal to listen, and it’s nothing but a hardness of the heart and refusal to hear one’s brother with an open mind.

Further, I honestly don’t consider it reasonable to expect Roman Catholics to stop reciting the Filioque when they’ve been doing so for 1000 years, fully half of church history, and they understand it in an orthodox sense. To insist they stop reciting it could be taken as an insistence that they deny the orthodox understanding, which they have every right to fight.

While there’s still the issue of the Filioque violating the decree of the Council of Chalcedon to not make alterations to it, and the huge amount of misunderstanding and pain that it’s caused, I don’t believe any longer that this should be a church dividing issue.

God help us to learn to let go of our triumphalism for the good of his church.

 

[Ghosty]

Thank you all again for your contribution to my question. I think at this point it’s reached the end of its course, and any more discussion would likely just result in a he said/she said argument.

I’d like to give my understanding of the issue as it now stands.

I see no reason to insist that Catholics are saying something other than what they themselves say they are saying. They believe that the Father is the sole “source” of the Holy Spirit in the Holy Trinity, not the Father and the Son. By the word “and” in the filioque they mean that the procession of the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, in the sense that his essence comes through the Son. I believe this is what St. John of Damascus was saying as well. The Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son if we understand that to mean origination, as it apparently did for St. John, but he does proceed through the Son. This procession is not just temporal, a sending of the Holy Spirit into the world, but eternal, i.e. of his essence. This is exactly what the Filioque is in fact saying - that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father by means of the Son. I have no problem with this understanding, and again I think it’s ridiculous to insist that Catholics are saying something they deny. It reminds me of a bit of the accusation I heard as a Lutheran that the Orthodox doctrine of theosis taught that we become God by nature, no matter how much the Orthodox insisted that was not their belief and clarified it. No one is served by that kind of refusal to listen, and it’s nothing but a hardness of the heart and refusal to hear one’s brother with an open mind.

Further, I honestly don’t consider it reasonable to expect Roman Catholics to stop reciting the Filioque when they’ve been doing so for 1000 years, fully half of church history, and they understand it in an orthodox sense. To insist they stop reciting it could be taken as an insistence that they deny the orthodox understanding, which they have every right to fight.

While there’s still the issue of the Filioque violating the decree of the Council of Chalcedon to not make alterations to it, and the huge amount of misunderstanding and pain that it’s caused, I don’t believe any longer that this should be a church dividing issue.

God help us to learn to let go of our triumphalism for the good of his church.

Thank you for your charitable and sensible response! This is the kind of dialogue we need, from both sides, if we are to correct our errors in judgement and come together as a single family of Apostolic Churches again.

Thankfully this is the movement we’ve seen (for the most part) at the upper levels of our hierarchies when it comes to theological matters. With a lot of prayer and penance we can hopefully overcome our human frailties before Parousia!

Peace and God bless!

P.S. I’ve shaken my head to hear even some Latin Catholics make the accusation about Theosis that you mention. I’ve always pointed out that the Catechism has the same teaching as the Orthodox, and so did the Catechism of Trent, and all the great Latin theologians and mystics.

 

[Dave_in_Dallas]

I recall when I first became an Eastern Catholic and the term “Filioque” came to my attention. I had never heard it before in all my life as a Roman Catholic (38 years)! I came to my priest and asked him about it. He told me that the Latins were in error by its inclusion and directed me to the Gospel of St John:

But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.

---

That’s about it in a nut shell. All the Latin theological hoop jumping and spin doctoring cannot twist this one.** **

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.

Sounds just like what the CC teaches IMO.

 

[Ghosty]

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.

Sounds just like what the CC teaches IMO.

And let’s not forget John 16:13-15

13] When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. **
****14] He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
****15] All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. **

The Latin tradition is very well grounded on Scripture with this one.

Peace and God bless!

 

[dzheremi]

I think the problem, as far as the text itself is concerned (not the political issues related to its inclusion), is that it seems far less precise than the Latins present it to be. Because the text itself does not say “through the Son” (as Latins insist it means, theologically), when it very easily could (per filium), it seems odd. Why not say what you mean, if you are being truthful about this “through the Son” business? (If you absolutely MUST have it there; I have not heard any Orthodox person object to the “through the Son” phrasing, but I have heard many object to the filioque because of the inherent disconnect between what it literally says, and what the Latins say it means.)

I feel like I’ve been using this a lot lately, but it really fits here:

But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.

 

[dvdjs]

I think the problem, as far as the text itself is concerned (not the political issues related to its inclusion), is that it seems far less precise than the Latins present it to be. Because the text itself does not say “through the Son” (as Latins insist it means, theologically), when it very easily could (per filium), it seems odd. Why not say what you mean, if you are being truthful about this “through the Son” business? (If you absolutely MUST have it there; I have not heard any Orthodox person object to the “through the Son” phrasing, but I have heard many object to the filioque because of the inherent disconnect between what it literally says, and what the Latins say it means.)

I feel like I’ve been using this a lot lately, but it really fits here:

But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.

If there is no objection to it, what do you say we all get together and jointly write it as: “… Father through the Son…” That would be great.

I don’t however think that this would solve the ambiguity problem. The Creed is a summary, not a complete exposition, of the faith, written as a poem not a patent disclosure. Words have a range of usages and meanings and semantics games can always be played if one has the will to do that.

 

[dzheremi]

Um, no, I meant why don’t the Latins write it that way, since they claim that it’s what they mean, and it seems to be the only orthodox way to understand it? I don’t think anyone who doesn’t currently use it should have to add anything.

 

[dvdjs]

Um, no, I meant why don’t the Latins write it that way, since they claim that it’s what they mean, and it seems to be the only orthodox way to understand it? I don’t think anyone who doesn’t currently use it should have to add anything.

Ah, so there will still be objection.

I think that this admission underscores the fact taht what we need is not a change of words, but a change of hearts and minds. There will never be meaningful reconciliation without the desire and the metanoia

 

[dzheremi]

Huh? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that Rome’s own approach to the Eastern and Oriental churches likewise did not require them to add the filioque or any variant thereof. You think that the Easterners and Orientals should have to add “through the Son”?

 

[dvdjs]

Huh? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that Rome’s own approach to the Eastern and Oriental churches likewise did not require them to add the filioque or any variant thereof. You think that the Easterners and Orientals should have to add “through the Son”?

The point of my suggestion was to make you realize that such as gesture on the part of the Latins would of scant consequence; the issue is not the precision of the words, it is hardness of hearts.

 

[mardukm]

Huh? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that Rome’s own approach to the Eastern and Oriental churches likewise did not require them to add the filioque or any variant thereof. You think that the Easterners and Orientals should have to add “through the Son”?

IIRC, the Melkites actually accepted “through the Son” in their condition for reunion.

IMO, if the Melkite Synod formally adds it to their Creed it is no big thing. They would not be violating the Ephesine Canon because despite the different text, they would nevertheless be professing the same, identical FAITH.

As a comparison, within the OO Communion, many already know about the difference in the Armenian Creed. In the Coptic Orthodox Church, certain phrases in the Creed are actually ommitted according to the Liturgical Season. These LOCAL expressions in no way detract from the reality that these Churches profess, adhere, and believe in the same FAITH that all the the OO (and, in fact, the whole Church) profess.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

Mardukm: Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying that it would be a big thing, I’ve just never encountered anyone who thought, as dvdjs seemed to, that the Easterners or Orientals should be required to add any phrase.

 

[mardukm]

Mardukm: Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying that it would be a big thing, I’ve just never encountered anyone who thought, as dvdjs seemed to, that the Easterners or Orientals should be required to add any phrase.

Thanks for the explanation, brother.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[PJM]

=dcointin;7964133]I have read that the Catholic faith teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son “as from one principle”. For example, the Catechism of Trent states:

“With regard to the words immediately succeeding: who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, the faithful are to be taught that the Holy Ghost proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son, as from one principle. This truth is proposed for our belief by the Creed of the Church, from which no Christian may depart, and is confirmed by the authority of the Sacred Scriptures and of Councils.”

cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tcreed08.htm

My question is: what does “as from one principle” mean? Does it mean “as if he proceeded from both as from one person”? What does “principle” mean in this context? Any elaboration on this topic would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

***IN SUMMARY FORM:

It means: ***

***1. God is three Persons [Father, Son and Holy Spirit]

1. That these “three-persons” are ONE GOD
2. That God shares Equally and Totaly ONE [only] Divine Nature
3. That God Father, Son and Holy Spirit are: 1. Co-Equal and 2. Co-Eternal 3. Have ALL Existed from Eternity to Eternity.
4. The theological termonolgy is for OUR BENEFIT ONLY; and an attempt for humanty to grasp that which is IMPOSSSIBLE for us to understand, EXCEPT through FAITH.
5. Except for the roles they have selected for themselves; for our benefit; [even then all do what each does; all knows what each knows, and all desire what each desires] they are identiacl in every way.

The idea that this is somehow grounds for the GREAT SCHISM escaped me and IMO also God.

God Bless,
Pat***

 

[dvdjs]

Mardukm: Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying that it would be a big thing, I’ve just never encountered anyone who thought, as dvdjs seemed to, that the Easterners or Orientals should be required to add any phrase.

I have corrected your misinterpretation of what I wrote. What are still promoting that misinterpretation?

 

[Ghosty]

Um, no, I meant why don’t the Latins write it that way, since they claim that it’s what they mean, and it seems to be the only orthodox way to understand it? I don’t think anyone who doesn’t currently use it should have to add anything.

“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!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ghosty,

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”.

I like this illustration. For my part, I just want to point out that I have never ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever seen a single Magisterial (or even apologetic) source utilize the term “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son” without any qualification whatsoever. It has always been “from the Father and the Son.” The very term filioque dictates that the “and” portion is absolutely necessary for a proper understanding of the doctrine.

It has only been in non-Catholic polemics that I have encountered a separation of the two, as if the two can ever be considered separately in terms of Procession - they can be considered distinctly, but never separately.

As St. John Damascene taught, it is not proper to claim “the Holy Spirit is from the Son.” Catholic Magisterial teaching thoroughly agrees with this, for it never seeks, and has never sought, to consider the Son as the source of some separate and unique principle of the Holy Spirit apart from the Father.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

“Through the Son” is more problematic, in Latin at least.

Sorry, Ghosty, I should have made it clear that I was talking about English. When I asked my old FOC about the filioque he said, as is apparently customary, that it really means “through the Son”, because that is essentially what is said in the original Latin phrase (I don’t think he knew Latin as well as you do, or he didn’t want to bother with that explanation; thank you for it!). When I asked him why we kept it as “and” in English even if it isn’t what we mean, he said it was in order to be faithful to the original Latin. It was a bit of a headache-inducing conversation, as were all my attempts with him to get to the bottom of filioque…

dvdjs:

I have corrected your misinterpretation of what I wrote. What are still promoting that misinterpretation?

I’m not. “Seemed” is past tense because I was referring to my understanding of what you had originally written before your subsequent clarification.

 

[Vico]

IN SUMMARY FORM:
It means:

1. God is three Persons [Father, Son and Holy Spirit]
2. That these “three-persons” are ONE GOD
3. That God shares Equally and Totaly ONE [only] Divine Nature
4. That God Father, Son and Holy Spirit are: 1. Co-Equal and 2. Co-Eternal 3. Have ALL Existed from Eternity to Eternity.
5. The theological termonolgy is for OUR BENEFIT ONLY; and an attempt for humanty to grasp that which is IMPOSSSIBLE for us to understand, EXCEPT through FAITH.
6. Except for the roles they have selected for themselves; for our benefit; [even then all do what each does; all knows what each knows, and all desire what each desires] they are identiacl in every way.

The idea that this is somehow grounds for the GREAT SCHISM escaped me and IMO also God.

God Bless,
Pat

“Except for the roles they have selected for themselves” means that the Divine Persons have will and voluntarily cooperate. This may be a threat to the idea of the monarchy of the Father.

The consubstantiality (in this case, of Father and Son) is expressed first in the western statements, and the monarchy of the Father is emphasized in the eastern statements. Controversy arises over two internal Divine processions. Fr. John Hardon elucidates on Procession:
The origin of one from another.

A procession is said to be external when the terminus of the procession goes outside the principle or source from which it proceeds. Thus creatures proceed by external procession from the triune God, their Primary Origin.

An internal procession is immanent; the one proceeding remains united with the one from whom he or she proceeds. Thus the processions of the Son and the Holy Spirit are an immanent act of the Holy Trinity. An internal, divine procession signifies the origin of a divine person from another divine person (Son from the Father), or from other divine persons (the Holy Spirit from Father and Son) through the communication of numerically one and the same divine essence.
catholicculture.org/cultu…x.cfm?id=35811

Dogma de fide from Council of Lyons II:
On the supreme Trinity and the catholic faith

1. We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike. But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one.
   papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum14.htm

 

[Ghosty]

Sorry, Ghosty, I should have made it clear that I was talking about English. When I asked my old FOC about the filioque he said, as is apparently customary, that it really means “through the Son”, because that is essentially what is said in the original Latin phrase (I don’t think he knew Latin as well as you do, or he didn’t want to bother with that explanation; thank you for it!). When I asked him why we kept it as “and” in English even if it isn’t what we mean, he said it was in order to be faithful to the original Latin. It was a bit of a headache-inducing conversation, as were all my attempts with him to get to the bottom of filioque…

Just for the record I’m no expert in Latin by a long shot. I took it in highschool and that’s about it. I’m just very familiar with this particular point because of how often it comes up and needs explaining.

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!