I don’t disagree with that. I’m just asking what would be an exact, word-for-word translation (which, as Father said in #168 and #170, we should use) into English of the original?But the Council of Florence explicitly interprets “procedit ex patre filioque” to mean that the Son is the cause of the Spirit’s subsistent being.
Hello QNDNNDQDCE,Damascene’s Fount of Knowledge could be called a Scholastic work, but it is not really the same as the Summa in the way that Zekariya was saying.
As for the Filioque, I think it is a mistake to just gloss over the differences between RCs and EOs. The CCC makes it clear that it does intend to teach that the Holy Spirit has his eternal origin in the Son, which is anathema to Byzantine ears. However, I hope that this apparent contradiction is really not one in fact. It would be disconcerting to believe that the whole Western Church fell into this theological error so early, or that the entirety of Byzantine Christianity likewise erred in adamantly denying the Filioque from a similarly early date. I would rather both be correct.
I think there is good hope to reconcile. How accurate can we be when speaking about God in human language? Maybe even though one says, “p,” and another, “not p,” they are still saying the same thing. I will leave that discussion to the theologians and hope the Lord will have mercy on me if I am in error on the procession of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Judgment.
To clarify one point, is the Son’s sending the Holy Spirit something only in time in your view, Fr. Morris? Some of your earlier statements seem to say that the Son only “sent” the Holy Spirit after his Resurrection.
Hello QNDNNDQDCE,Damascene’s Fount of Knowledge could be called a Scholastic work, but it is not really the same as the Summa in the way that Zekariya was saying.
As for the Filioque, I think it is a mistake to just gloss over the differences between RCs and EOs. The CCC makes it clear that it does intend to teach that the Holy Spirit has his eternal origin in the Son, which is anathema to Byzantine ears. However, I hope that this apparent contradiction is really not one in fact. It would be disconcerting to believe that the whole Western Church fell into this theological error so early, or that the entirety of Byzantine Christianity likewise erred in adamantly denying the Filioque from a similarly early date. I would rather both be correct.
I think there is good hope to reconcile. How accurate can we be when speaking about God in human language? Maybe even though one says, “p,” and another, “not p,” they are still saying the same thing. I will leave that discussion to the theologians and hope the Lord will have mercy on me if I am in error on the procession of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Judgment.
To clarify one point, is the Son’s sending the Holy Spirit something only in time in your view, Fr. Morris? Some of your earlier statements seem to say that the Son only “sent” the Holy Spirit after his Resurrection.
I have read St. Photius’ works and I have never seen him reject the phrase proceeds from the Father through the Son. Please provide a citation to where he does that. Also, St. John of Damascus explicitly denies that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in On the Orthodox Faith.Hello QNDNNDQDCE,
“That the entirety of Byzantine Christianity likewise erred in adamantly denying the Filioque from a similarly early date” is not correct. There is absolutely no evidence that the entirety of Byzantine Christianity adamantly denied the Filoque from a similarly early date, nor is there any evidence that any greek church father explicitly denied it either. The controversy concerning the filoque for the Orthodox Churches not in communion with Rome stems principally from Photius who lived in the 9th century. Photius taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds neither from the Father and the Son or from the Father through the Son which is a teaching that cannot be patristically supported by either greek or latin fathers. Photius taught that the Holy Spirit receives his divinity from the Father only. The Son plays no part in the origin of the Holy Spirit.
Hello Cavaradossi.I have read St. Photius’ works and I have never seen him reject the phrase proceeds from the Father through the Son. Please provide a citation to where he does that. Also, St. John of Damascus explicitly denies that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in On the Orthodox Faith.
Hello Peter,I don’t disagree with that. I’m just asking what would be an exact, word-for-word translation (which, as Father said in #168 and #170, we should use) into English of the original?
(We Melkites say “who proceeds from the Father” but that isn’t an exact translation. Personally, I hope that we will at least change it to “who proceeds eternally from the Father”.)
That would be ekporeuomenon.Hello Peter,
I believe the greek word that we translate as proceeds in the nicene-constantinopolitan creed …
There is a very good reason why most of the Greek Fathers did not deal with the filioque before St. Photius, they did not know about the issue. Therefore they did not address it. The addition of the filioque comes from the Council of Toledo in 589. It was not added to the Creed in Rome until 1014. Charlemagne championed the addition of the fiioque to the Creed in an effort to find grounds to accuse the East of heresy for not saying the filioque with the Creed. The Libri Carolini a book commissioned by Charlemagne repeated this false accusation. As I have pointed out repeatedly Pope Leo III refused to accept Charlemagne’s request that the filioque be added to the Creed in Rome and condemned the addition as contrary to the canons of the Ecumenical Councils. Finally in 1014, Pope Benedict VIII who owed his papacy to Henry IV added the filioque to the creed at Henry’s coronation. In 1054, Humbert used the accusation that the Greeks had altered the Creed by omitting the fiioque, which is completely false, when he excommunicated Patriarch Michael I and his supporters beginning the schism. Obviously the Cardinal did not know that it was actually a fairly recent addition to the Creed as used in Rome.Hello QNDNNDQDCE,
“That the entirety of Byzantine Christianity likewise erred in adamantly denying the Filioque from a similarly early date” is not correct. There is absolutely no evidence that the entirety of Byzantine Christianity adamantly denied the Filoque from a similarly early date, nor is there any evidence that any greek church father explicitly denied it either. The controversy concerning the filoque for the Orthodox Churches not in communion with Rome stems principally from Photius who lived in the 9th century. Photius taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds neither from the Father and the Son or from the Father through the Son which is a teaching that cannot be patristically supported by either greek or latin fathers. Photius taught that the Holy Spirit receives his divinity from the Father only. The Son plays no part in the origin of the Holy Spirit.
Wow, jumping ahead almost 500 years with nary another mention of it’s deepening tradition in the West. Just slightly lacking in context. Filioque was used at the Sixteen Councils of Toledo from 440-675 quite specifically against the Arians in Toledo III as you noted in 589 , also in the Quicumque of St Athanasius, and while technically correct that it hadn’t been sung in the liturgy, was most certainly used by the Roman Church as the defense of St Maximus the Confessor defended Pope Theodore and the Roman use of Filioque hundreds of years before Charlegmagne.The addition of the filioque comes from the Council of Toledo in 589. It was not added to the Creed in Rome until 1014. Charlemagne championed the addition of the fiioque to the Creed in an effort to find grounds to accuse the East of heresy for not saying the filioque with the Creed.
Why did those Greek monks speak Latin?The first controversy occurred in 808 when Greek monks in the Holy Land noticed that Latin monks were saying the Creed with the fiioque.
Nicea 325 didn’t mention procession at all. It was simply Kai eis to Hagion Pneuma. Constantinople 381 was not immediately agreed upon by the entire Church and both Creeds were side by side (by Churches in Communion with each other) until Chalcedon 451. Even then, there was more evolution on Christology in the Creed and BOTH the Symbol of 325 (which also has Deum de Deo it!) and the Symbol of 381 were read. Constantinople 680 also added to the Creed.However, it is not acceptable to altar the Creed as adopted and ratified by the Ecumenical Councils. Once again the only authoritative version of the Creed is as it was originally written with its original meaning. Therefore understood properly the division is not so much over theology as it is over the legitimate Orthodox objection to the unilateral addition of the fiioque to the Creed by the West.
Wow, jumping ahead almost 500 years with nary another mention of it’s deepening tradition in the West. Just slightly lacking in context. Filioque was used at the Sixteen Councils of Toledo from 440-675 quite specifically against the Arians in Toledo III as you noted in 589 , also in the Quicumque of St Athanasius, and while technically correct that it hadn’t been sung in the liturgy, was most certainly used by the Roman Church as the defense of St Maximus the Confessor defended Pope Theodore and the Roman use of Filioque hundreds of years before Charlegmagne.
I RESPOND: What authority did the 16 Council of Toledo have to change the Creed written by the Ecumenical Councils. A local council does not have the authority to change the decisions of an Ecumenical Council. Rome alone does not have the authority to overrule the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils by changing the Creed as written by the Councils. Like every other Bishop of the Church the Bishop of Rome was subject to the authority of the Ecumenical Councils. That only changed in the West at the 5th Lateran Council in 1512, when Pope Julius II also known as the warrior Pope for leading armies, something strictly forbidden by the canons and which would lead to the suspension of an Orthodox Patriarch or Bishop.
Western Fathers who confessed the filioque well before Charlemagne: St Hilary of Poitier in the 4th century against the Arians. St Jerome, St Ambrose of Milan in the 380s, St Augustine, St Leo the Great, yes in Rome, in 446, St Fulgentius of Ruspe, St Eucherius of Lyons, St Faustus of Riez, St Avitus of Vienne as well as Pope St Gregory the Great.
I RESPOND: There is a difference between the filioque as understood as the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son of was sent by the Son but originates in the Father and the doctrine that the Son is also a cause or source of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, there is a way to explain the filioque that is compatible with Orthodox theology. As I have mentioned the latin word procedit can mean to proceed through a mediatory, while the Greek word in the Creed and John 15:26 is ἐκπορευόμενον which means to proceed only from. The original Creed was written in Greek, therefore the original Greek text is the one that has authority. Any translation into any language including Latin must convey the meaning of the Creed as adopted by the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils.
Continued Below
There is a very good reason why most of the Greek Fathers did not deal with the filioque before St. Photius, they did not know about the issue.
Therefore they did not address it.
I’m afraid this is a misrepresentation of the Latin Catholic teaching. You will not find a single Latin Catholic magisterial document which claims that the Son is source or origin of he Holy Spirit. At best, you will find the statement that the Son is Cause of the Holy Spirit, but never the Source or Origin of the Holy Spirit. Only the Father can be stated to be the Source or Origin of the Holy Spirit. This was stated in the Council of Florence’s definition, and more explicitly recently in the Official Clarification on Filioque produced by HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory.Whatever the greek word used in the nicene-constantinopolitan creed for proceeds, it does not mean that the Son may not also be a source or origin of the Holy Spirit.
Of course, this does not mean that the greek fathers are wrong when they are more inclined to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. They are stressing the order in the Trinity and that the Father is the origin or first principle or first cause of the divine substance of the Holy Spirit…
Hi brother mardukm,Dear brother Richca,
I’m afraid this is a misrepresentation of the Latin Catholic teaching. You will not find a single Latin Catholic magisterial document which claims that the Son is source or origin of he Holy Spirit. At best, you will find the statement that the Son is Cause of the Holy Spirit, but never the Source or Origin of the Holy Spirit. Only the Father can be stated to be the Source or Origin of the Holy Spirit. This was stated in the Council of Florence’s definition, and more explicitly recently in the Official Clarification on Filioque produced by HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory.
Blessings,
Marduk
But, if the Western Church agrees with the East that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, then what does it mean by “Filioque” – that the Spirit proceeds “from the Father and the Son”? Very simply, and keeping in mind the West’s isolation from the original Greek-language intention of the Constantinopolitan Creed, what the West means to express is a truth that is equally valid, but distinct and parallel to, the original Greek-language intention. For, when the West speaks of the Spirit “proceeding” from the Father and the Son, it is referring to something all-together different than “procession” as from a single source (aitia). It is not advocating two sources or principals for the Spirit, or some kind of “double spiration”, as is all-too-commonly (and wrongly) assumed by many Eastern Orthodox. Rather, it is using the term “proceeds” in an all-together different sense. And the best way to illustrate the two different senses or uses of the term “proceeds” (Greek vs. Latin) is though the following analogy:
Source: catholic-legate.com/apologetics/thechurch/articles/filioque.aspxIf a human father and son go into their back yard to play a game of catch, it is the father who initiates the game of catch by throwing the ball to his son. In this sense, one can say that the game of catch “proceeds” from this human father (an “aition”); and this is the original, Greek sense of the Constantinopolitan Creed’s use of the term “proceeds” (“ekporeusis”). However, taking this very same scenario, one can also justly say that the game of catch “proceeds” from both the father and his son. And this is because the son has to be there for the game of catch to exist. For, unless the son is there, then the father would have no one to throw the ball to; and so there would be no game of catch. And, it is in this sense (one might say a “collective” sense) that the West uses the term “proceeds” (“procedit”) in the Filioque. Just as acknowledging the necessity of the human son’s presence in order for the game of catch to exist does not, in any way, challenge or threaten the human father’s role as the source or initiator (aition) of the game of catch, so the Filioque does not deny the Father’s singular role as the Cause (Aition) of the Spirit; but merely acknowledges the Son’s necessary Presence (i.e., participation) for the Spirit’s eternal procession from the Father to Someone else – namely, to the eternal Son. Father and Son are thus collectively identified as accounting for the Spirit’s procession. This is all that the Filioque was ever intended to address; and it was included in the Creed by the Western fathers at Toledo in order to counter the claims of the 6th Century Spanish (Germanic) Arians. These Arians were of course denying this essential and orthodox truth – that is, the Son’s eternal participation in the Spirit’s procession – an issue which was never challenged or comprehensively addressed in the Byzantine experience, aside from the fact that there does exist throughout the writings of the Eastern fathers the profession that the Spirit proceeds from the Father “through [or ‘by way of’] the Son” – an expression equivalent to the Filioque.
Hi again Father Morris,…I have yet to receive an answer to two questions that I have asked during this discussion.
Archpriest John W. Morris
- Show me any canon from one of the 7 Ecumenical Councils that can be used to justify the modern claims of the papacy, especially the claim of universal jurisdiction, outside the authority of an Ecumenical Council and the right to infallibly proclaim the doctrine of the Church.
- What mechanism exists within Roman canon law or practice to remove a corrupt, immoral or heretical Pope? There is no way that one can study the history of the Papacy and not find both.