"As From One Principle"

[NinjaSnark]

This has been a really great discussion- I’ve enjoyed reading it. Well done, all sides.

It seems to me that of all the differences between East and West, this (the filioque) has real fix-it potential, if each side is willing to reach across the aisle.

If Latins could formally acknowledge that the wording is potentially misleading, and Orthodox could formally acknowledge that wording aside, as the Latins mean it- it is not heretical, then each side could acknowledge that since the Creed’s purpose is to be universally unifying everyone would be better served by going back to the original Creed… well, that would be most good.

 

[kotim]

Ninja the problem is as you have said in your reply, The latins only have to say it sounds confusing, so lets fix the confusion, however the Orthodox have to ADMIT that they were wrong to accuse the Latin Church of being wrong in their understanding and teaching, ultimately of being heretical.

It puts the East in a very difficult positon, becasue it ultimatley means they were wrong on an issue that I believe has been one of, if not the chief cause of historical division.

If the East admits they are wrong then what else are they wrong about it. (This is what people will say in their minds at the very least)

Ultimatley Pride gets in the way of all these things, alas the greatest sin for us all.

 

[NinjaSnark]

Ninja the problem is as you have said in your reply, The latins only have to say it sounds confusing, so lets fix the confusion, however the Orthodox have to ADMIT that they were wrong to accuse the Latin Church of being wrong in their understanding and teaching, ultimately of being heretical.

It puts the East in a very difficult positon, becasue it ultimatley means they were wrong on an issue that I believe has been one of, if not the chief cause of historical division.

If the East admits they are wrong then what else are they wrong about it. (This is what people will say in their minds at the very least)

Ultimatley Pride gets in the way of all these things, alas the greatest sin for us all.

I think it would be pretty equal. The Latins’ admission that the wording is misleading opens the door. Admitting that acknowledges (and dare I say justifies?) the Orthodox concerns about the doctrine behind the filioque- because, if Latins meant by it what Orthodox are concerned they mean by it, it would be heretical. The admission from the Orthodox that wording aside (which I think this thread demonstrates is misleading) what Latins are trying to say by it isn’t heretical isn’t an admission that they were wrong as to calling black white, but that the inference made from an admittedly ambiguous clause wasn’t the inference Latins intended. Plus, one could argue that the removal of the filioque- going back to the original creed for the sake of unity all around- would be another concession on the Latin side of this equation.

I don’t think either side is unreasonably burdened here- but maybe I’m being overly-optimistic.

 

[kotim]

Ninja, it wasn’t ambiguous from the Latin perspective, thats where the issue lies, Sure non theologians would have issues with it, but then non theologians on both Catholic and Orthodox side would have trouble with many aspects of the theology of the faith, whether it be what Eastern Orthodox express or what Catholicism expresses.

The East believe that we have a heretical position, thats the issue, they don’t just believe that we have a confusing jumble of words but in effect they believe that what we say/mean is heretical.

I have no trouble in omitting the filoque from the creed at all, if it will bring about a closer unity, but removal of it from the Catholic perspective only means that we will say the same words as the Orthodox, we all ready have the same underlying meaning, so if we refine the words to that of the East it does not make the Catholic side in error, however if the East have to admit the Catholic meaning of the filoque is Orthodox in faith, then they have to admit their position has been in error for many hundreds of years. Don’t forget this issue was and probably is the main reason for our failure to reunite hundreds of years ago.

For the East to come out and admit they were wrong puts them in an untenable theological position whereby they have to admit Theologically they were wrong. St Maximos understood what the Latins meant many many hundreds of years ago, and that was, that the Latin filoque was Orthodox. So it means that the latins have an Orthodox meaning despite a difference in words.

That is not a positiion that the Orthodox want to admit to, becasue they cannot say that suddenly The Latins have a new understandng that is now Orthodox.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister NinjaSnark,

If Latins could formally acknowledge that the wording is potentially misleading,

The Latin Catholic Church has already formally done this. That is why HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory promulgated the OFFICIAL Clarification on Filioque back in 1996 (if I recall the date correctly). Are you aware of that document?

and Orthodox could formally acknowledge that wording aside, as the Latins mean it- it is not heretical,

And that is the ONLY thing holding up unity on this particular issue. The ball is in the EO’s court.

then each side could acknowledge that since the Creed’s purpose is to be universally unifying everyone would be better served by going back to the original Creed… well, that would be most good.

If you read the Official Clarification on Filioque, the universal standard of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was already formally admitted by the Latin Catholic Church. As stated, the ball is now in the EO’s Court. If they are willing to formally and officially admit to the orthodoxy of the Latin Catholic Church on this matter, the removal of filioque should pose no problem.

As you may know, the North American Catholic-Eastern Orthodox Consultation on the matter proposed both those things - (1) acceptance of the orthodoxy of both sides of the issue, and (2) removal of the filioque. The problem - the ONLY problem - is that there are many EO who wish for the Latin Catholics to concede to (2),.without themselves having to accept (1). It is a matter of hypocrisy for those particular EO.

What do you think? Do you think it is fair that Latins should concede to (2), without the EO having to concede to (1)?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[NinjaSnark]

Ninja, it wasn’t ambiguous from the Latin perspective, thats where the issue lies, Sure non theologians would have issues with it, but then non theologians on both Catholic and Orthodox side would have trouble with many aspects of the theology of the faith, whether it be what Eastern Orthodox express or what Catholicism expresses.

The East believe that we have a heretical position, thats the issue, they don’t just believe that we have a confusing jumble of words but in effect they believe that what we say/mean is heretical.

Right- I’m saying that this is cause/effect from the wording which is not perspicuous in Greek. Of course they believe Catholics have a heretical position- they wouldn’t if, as Mickey said earlier, it said “from the Father through the Son” instead of “and”.

I have no trouble in omitting the filoque from the creed at all, if it will bring about a closer unity, but removal of it from the Catholic perspective only means that we will say the same words as the Orthodox, we all ready have the same underlying meaning, so if we refine the words to that of the East it does not make the Catholic side in error, however if the East have to admit the Catholic meaning of the filoque is Orthodox in faith, then they have to admit their position has been in error for many hundreds of years. Don’t forget this issue was and probably is the main reason for our failure to reunite hundreds of years ago.

This whole discussion strikes me as really similar to the discussion of the Oriental Orthodox position of miaphysitism, and what they mean by it. I think that was already mentioned upthread somewhere. Which brings me to-

For the East to come out and admit they were wrong puts them in an untenable theological position whereby they have to admit Theologically they were wrong. St Maximos understood what the Latins meant many many hundreds of years ago, and that was, that the Latin filoque was Orthodox. So it means that the latins have an Orthodox meaning despite a difference in words.

I disagree. The Orthodox are not theologically wrong on this issue. They don’t have to admit that they are theologically wrong, because their position has always been theologically correct. What they need to admit (in my proposed scenario), is that the Latin understanding of the filioque was not theologically wrong. Poorly worded? Maybe, and for the amount of problems it has caused (and taking into consideration the purpose of the Nicene Creed to begin with) as a gesture of good faith (and clarity!) let’s get rid of it, and go back to the original.

Words aren’t magical arrangements of letters- it’s the meaning behind them that counts. And the meaning behind the filioque as Latins really, truly mean it- isn’t heretical. That’s my (probably poorly expressed) point. EO doesn’t need to admit it was theologically wrong- because it never was. It just needs to acknowledge that Latins weren’t theologically wrong, either.

As an analogy, it reminds me of the Protestant vs. Catholic debate on the role of faith and works. “Sola Fide!”, Protestants cry… and Catholics say “No, dude.” But in all my years as a Protestant, I never ran across a one that thought that you didn’t have to be obedient in addition to your faith. And despite my certainty, when I looked at the Catechism for myself I was shocked to find that Catholics don’t believe you can earn your salvation! Each side has a meaning implicit in their wording. “Sola Fide” doesn’t literally mean sola fide as Catholics often think Protestants mean- if you don’t have works, a Protestant would say you never had the fide to begin with. And when a Catholic says we’re saved by faith + works- they don’t mean that if you help 50 old ladies across the street in the course of your life, that you’ll get a gold star and free ticket to heaven. Each side’s position is much closer (IME, usually the same) to the other’s. Am I saying the Reformation was a huge misunderstanding? No, because there are other issues at play. But on this issue- on this Protestant sola- if each side was willing to listen to what the other side was saying, it could get scratched off the list. Much of it is misunderstanding.

That is not a positiion that the Orthodox want to admit to, becasue they cannot say that suddenly The Latins have a new understandng that is now Orthodox.

That’s not what I think they should say at all. It’s not “now” orthodox, and it’s not a “new” understanding for Latins.

If reconciliation is ever going to occur, there has to be "Mea culpa"s (use of Latin not intentional, hehe) on both sides… if there isn’t, we can all just pack up and go home and forget this pie-in-the-sky dream of unity.

I love how His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew put it in his homily during the Papal visit back in 2006: “Therefore we kneel in humility and repentance before the living God and our Lord Jesus Christ whose precious name we bear and whose seamless garment we have divided.”

Each side has to have this attitude. Each side has to be willing to say they made mistakes.

 

[NinjaSnark]

You were typing while I was typing! Haha, sorry.

Dear sister NinjaSnark,

The Latin Catholic Church has already formally done this. That is why HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory promulgated the OFFICIAL Clarification on Filioque back in 1996 (if I recall the date correctly). Are you aware of that document?

I wasn’t actually- thanks for the info.

And that is the ONLY thing holding up unity on this particular issue. The ball is in the EO’s court.

If you read the Official Clarification on Filioque, the universal standard of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was already formally admitted by the Latin Catholic Church. As stated, the ball is now in the EO’s Court. If they are willing to formally and officially admit to the orthodoxy of the Latin Catholic Church on this matter, the removal of filioque should pose no problem.

As you may know, the North American Catholic-Eastern Orthodox Consultation on the matter proposed both those things - (1) acceptance of the orthodoxy of both sides of the issue, and (2) removal of the filioque. The problem - the ONLY problem - is that there are many EO who wish for the Latin Catholics to concede to (2),.without themselves having to accept (1). It is a matter of hypocrisy for those particular EO.

What do you think? Do you think it is fair that Latins should concede to (2), without the EO having to concede to (1)?

Blessings,
Marduk

No, I don’t think it’s fair because as I said in the post that I was typing when you posted this- each side has to make concessions. If the RCC has already taken steps toward that end, then so much the better. If the EO are willing to take steps too, then I think this could be resolved for everybody. I pray- fervently, daily- that it is.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Kotim,

The EO don’t have to admit they were wrong. All they have to admit to is that there was misunderstanding.

Blessings,
Marduk

Ninja, it wasn’t ambiguous from the Latin perspective, thats where the issue lies, Sure non theologians would have issues with it, but then non theologians on both Catholic and Orthodox side would have trouble with many aspects of the theology of the faith, whether it be what Eastern Orthodox express or what Catholicism expresses.

The East believe that we have a heretical position, thats the issue, they don’t just believe that we have a confusing jumble of words but in effect they believe that what we say/mean is heretical.

I have no trouble in omitting the filoque from the creed at all, if it will bring about a closer unity, but removal of it from the Catholic perspective only means that we will say the same words as the Orthodox, we all ready have the same underlying meaning, so if we refine the words to that of the East it does not make the Catholic side in error, however if the East have to admit the Catholic meaning of the filoque is Orthodox in faith, then they have to admit their position has been in error for many hundreds of years. Don’t forget this issue was and probably is the main reason for our failure to reunite hundreds of years ago.

For the East to come out and admit they were wrong puts them in an untenable theological position whereby they have to admit Theologically they were wrong. St Maximos understood what the Latins meant many many hundreds of years ago, and that was, that the Latin filoque was Orthodox. So it means that the latins have an Orthodox meaning despite a difference in words.

That is not a positiion that the Orthodox want to admit to, becasue they cannot say that suddenly The Latins have a new understandng that is now Orthodox.

 

[Mickey]

What are you referring to when you say that the Latins claim “they mean he same thing?”

I have concluded that the main Latin argument seems to boil down to this strange explanation about the word “processio” and the failure of the Orthodox to understand it.

The Holy Spirit receives His existence from the Father alone by εκπόρευσις, and it is vitally important that His hypostatic procession (εκπόρευσις) of origin not be confused with His manifesting progression (προϊέναι) from the Father through the Son. Sadly, the Latin translation of the Greek terms εκπόρευσις and προϊέναι by the single word processio causes theological confusion, because it fails to take into account the two theological realities that are being conveyed in the original Greek language and causes a false equivalence between these two different Greek words, and the theological meanings connected with them. Now clearly it is this false equivalence - made possible by a poor translation - that makes possible the creation of a “new doctrine” (i.e., the filioque), a doctrinal theory that has no support in either the Greek New Testament or the Greek patristic tradition.

Finally, whether the Latins want to admit it or not, it is important to remind them of the fact that the Greek language has primacy over any other language in theology, because it is the language God - for whatever reason - chose to use in the inspired scriptures of the New Testament. That said, no translation (Latin, Slavonic, English, French, Russian, etc.) can be used to create new doctrines or alter existing ones.

Clearly, the Latins must come up with a way to distinguish between the Spirit’s εκπόρευσις, which is only from the Father as the unique cause (αἰτίαν) of divinity, and His (i.e., the Spirit’s) προϊέναι, which concerns His movement (both eternal and temporal) through the Son as already eternally existing as person from the Father alone.

 

[steve_b]

I have concluded that the main Latin argument seems to boil down to this strange explanation about the word “processio” and the failure of the Orthodox to understand it.

The Holy Spirit receives His existence from the Father alone by εκπόρευσις, and it is vitally important that His hypostatic procession (εκπόρευσις) of origin not be confused with His manifesting progression (προϊέναι) from the Father through the Son. Sadly, the Latin translation of the Greek terms εκπόρευσις and προϊέναι by the single word processio causes theological confusion, because it fails to take into account the two theological realities that are being conveyed in the original Greek language and causes a false equivalence between these two different Greek words, and the theological meanings connected with them. Now clearly it is this false equivalence - made possible by a poor translation - that makes possible the creation of a “new doctrine” (i.e., the filioque), a doctrinal theory that has no support in either the Greek New Testament or the Greek patristic tradition.

Finally, whether the Latins want to admit it or not, it is important to remind them of the fact that the Greek language has primacy over any other language in theology, because it is the language God - for whatever reason - chose to use in the inspired scriptures of the New Testament. That said, no translation (Latin, Slavonic, English, French, Russian, etc.) can be used to create new doctrines or alter existing ones.

Clearly, the Latins must come up with a way to distinguish between the Spirit’s εκπόρευσις, which is only from the Father as the unique cause (αἰτίαν) of divinity, and His (i.e., the Spirit’s) προϊέναι, which concerns His movement (both eternal and temporal) through the Son as already eternally existing as person from the Father alone.

The filioque was inserted into the creed by the CC, to fight Arianism, & Nestorianism, that came out of the East.

(all emphasisi mine)

"By rigidly ignoring additional truth of the filioque, many Eastern Orthodox come very close to heresy – that is, the sin of a schismatic mentality, which is the sin of rejecting the totality of Truth, and so dividing the unity of the Church, which is “the pillar and foundation of Truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). As a very wise priest once said, “All heresies are, in some sense, ‘true’. The problem is that they zealously stress one truth at the expense of other truths” Such is the case with the popular Eastern Orthodox rejection of Filioque – that is, their unwillingness to appreciate and accept the orthodox theology that Filioque addresses, as testified to by the fathers. Indeed, by implicitly ‘dogmatizing’ the Photian theolegoumenon, in which Son and Spirit are presented as having no eternal, Personal connection, they strongly imply that the eternal Sonship of Christ is something all-together different from the Divine Sonship into which Christians are adopted, through the Holy Spirit, in Baptism. And this comes very close to the Spanish Arian view, if not also the ancient heresy of Adoptionism! For Christ was God’s only Son prior to His Baptism and His anointing in the Spirit (Mark 1:10-11), and it is this same, eternal Sonship (for there is no other) that He calls us to partake of, through the Spirit, in Baptism. For, as St. Paul says,

If we recognize only one Lord, then we recognize only one Son, Who possesses an *eternal *Sonship.

Arians claimed that the Son could not be God if the Spirit of Sonship (the Holy Spirit) existed eternally apart from Him. In response, the bishops at Toledo (drawing on the consistent testimony of the Latin fathers) proclaimed that the Son is essential to the procession of the Spirit of Sonship – that the Spirit’s procession is part of the co-eternal relationship of Father and Son. For, one cannot be an eternal Father unless one begets an eternal Son; and one cannot be an eternal Spirit of Sonship unless there is an eternal Son, Who is eternally begotten by an eternal Father a denial of

the Arian position that

• the Son is merely a temporal participant in the Spirit’s procession –
• that the Son merely receives the Spirit after the procession (from the Father) comes about,

as opposed to this taking place in the context of an eternal communion between Father and Son. It is of course quite disturbing (from the Western perspective) that modern Eastern Orthodox (i.e., Photian) theology comes very close to advocating this same Arian view by refusing to incorporate the Son’s participation in the Spirit’s eternal procession in any way"

catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/TheChurch/Articles/Filioque.aspx

 

[mardukm]

that makes possible the creation of a “new doctrine” (i.e., the filioque), a doctrinal theory that has no support in either the Greek New Testament or the Greek patristic tradition.

I have always defended the orthodoxy of the Eastern Orthodox Church on this point - that they don’t deny that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son (which is the doctrine that Filioque teaches). But here we have an EO explicitly assert that the teaching that the HS is consubstantial with the Father and the Son is a novelty, and cannot be found in the Greek patristic Tradition.

Oh well. I guess I can’t generalize the EOC. There are indeed individual EO who are heterodox/heretical on the matter.:sad_yes:

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

Doesn’t ring a bell. Do you have a link to the paper, or at least the name of it?

Doing a quick search online all I’m coming up with is that he said that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally, personally, and essentially from the Father and (through) the Son, which is exactly what I’ve said on this thread, and what the Fathers taught. Are you aware of something different that he said?

EDIT: Doing a quick search, Fr. Coffey did come up in a conversation on the filioque on Byzcath that I participated in six years ago. I’ve not read his specific work on the filioque, but Fr. Coffey has been censured for his theological views before. He’s denied the Resurrection of Christ, for example. He’s hardly a good example of a Latin theologian, and he’s most definitely not a widely renowned theologian.

Peace and God bless!

More importantly, he can not be even vaguely considered an authoritative source of Catholic Teaching.

It would be like Fr. Bishop Nikolai being used to express the OCA mindset…

 

[Mickey]

There are indeed individual EO who are heretical on the matter.

LOL! It is a riot to see the ad hominems that you throw around when your own personal weak arguments are dismantled.

Again, if everyone is talking about the same thing…remove the filioque. Easy fix.

But you won’t see this anytime soon.

St Photius pray for us!

 

[Mickey]

bishops at Toledo (drawing on the consistent testimony of the Latin fathers) proclaimed that the Son is essential to the procession of the Spirit of Sonship

So then you believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son. Interesting. This is what Markudm and Ghosty are trying to deny.

As far as seeing the phrase “Spirit of the Sonship” as the equivalent of the filioque is concerned, that false assertion was answered long ago by St. John Damascene who said:

“t should be understood that we do not speak of the Father as derived from any one, but we speak of Him as the Father of the Son. And we do not speak of the Son as Cause or Father, but we speak of Him both as from the Father, and as the Son of the Father. And we speak likewise of the Holy Spirit as from the Father, and call Him the Spirit of the Father.* And we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son: but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son***.”

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Steve,

First of all, thank you for your patience in putting up with me and for not calling me a schismatic or an heretic . .

The whole idea of the connection of Photios and his defence of the original Creed (defended by Rome in the first millennium, notwithstanding local changes) to Arianism and even to schism is quite ridiculous and only serves to show how certain Western theologians, historically and in contemporary times, can easily confuse issues. St Photios affirmed “Through the Son” and so is perfectly Orthodox in this respect, especially in accordance with St Thomas Aquinas. Once again, that blog-website that you refer to is demonstrating its ignorance and tendentious interpretation more akin to 19th century Latin defensiveness and vitriol against the Eastern Church.

It is also extremely out of touch with contemporary Catholic praxis with respect to Orthodoxy which would never use terms like “schism” in any remote sense or even approximating such in Rome’s current relations with Orthodoxy. That blog is a reactionary one at best and Catholics would do well to stay away from it.

And despite Toledo’s inclusion of the Filioque, Rome’s Popes themselves refused to include it at Rome in any official capacity.

Your statement that Arianism and Nestorianism came out of the East (which I’ve read before in old-fashioned RC apologists) does not mean that the East is somehow more inclined to heresy. It simply means that theological thought was being carried out in the East at the great centres of Christianity such as Alexandria and Antioch at a time when Rome had ceased to be a force for theology and philosophy. (And how the Filioque could fight Nestorianism - which was a heresy about the union of the Natures of Christ - really defies explanation . . .).

And the East combatted Arianism quite successfully without the Filioque, including Semi-Arianism which was St Basil the Great’s specialty. The arguments at Toledo would likewise have sounded foreign to Eastern ears. That the West was ready to attack the East as possible “schismatics” and “heretics” as that blog of yours is wont to do didn’t square with the Popes of Rome who, for the first millennium refused to change the universal Creed INTENDED TO EXPRESS THE FAITH OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH on the Holy Trinity (emphasis definitely mine). So did Pope St Leo IV.

The Filioque is an orthodox but local Trinitarian expression which is suited to the Western Catholic milieu (although not apparently during the first millennium). It has no place in Eastern Triadology. And while it was in the East that Arianism arose, it was also there that Arianism was destroyed - not in Toledo or in the West where vestiges of Arianism persisted to the time of St Benedict (which is why he insisted on the Doxology to be said at the end of each psalm in his Rule).

Alex

 

[steve_b]

So then you believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son.

absolutely
M:

As far as seeing the phrase “Spirit of the Sonship” as the equivalent of the filioque is concerned, that false assertion was answered long ago by St. John Damascene who said:

“t should be understood that we do not speak of the Father as derived from any one, but we speak of Him as the Father of the Son. And we do not speak of the Son as Cause or Father, but we speak of Him both as from the Father, and as the Son of the Father. And we speak likewise of the Holy Spirit as from the Father, and call Him the Spirit of the Father.* And we do not speak of the Spirit as* from the Son****: but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son.”

I’m familiar with what S Damascene said there. Explain “Spirit of the Son”

 

[Mickey]

absolutely

Great. Thanks for being honest

 

[dzheremi]

And so here we are again.

I swear, the CC is like “Jaws” or something.

nuh NUH…nuh NUH…nuh NUH…

Just when you thought it was safe to get back into the dialogue…

 

[Mickey]

And so here we are again.

I swear, the CC is like “Jaws” or something.

nuh NUH…nuh NUH…nuh NUH…

Just when you thought it was safe to get back into the dialogue…

 

[Mickey]

But here we have an EO explicitly assert that the teaching that the HS is consubstantial with the Father and the Son is a novelty, and cannot be found in the Greek patristic Tradition.

Nonsense!

By denying the filioque, I am not rejecting the consubstantiality of the three persons of the Trinity. I have simply rejected the notion that the Spirit takes His origin (εκπόρευσις) as person from the Son; while firmly asserting the co-essentiality of the Son and Spirit (with the Father) by saying that the Spirit progresses (προϊέναι) through the Son. Sadly this proves that Westerners and their allies really do confuse εκπόρευσις and προϊέναι, and in the process they make the Son a cause (αἰτίαν) of the Spirit’s origin.