Debating the filioque

[frjohnmorris]

Continuation of the above

My historical studies have convinced me that the issue of clerical marriage played a major role in the schism. When you tell a man that his wife if a whore and his children bastards as Cardinal Humbert did during a public discussion in the imperial palace in Constantinople in 1054, that kind of statement is not going to dispose the Eastern clergy to have a positive attitude towards anything else that he had to say.
Quote:

To be continued

 

[frjohnmorris]

Continuation of the above

Pope Leo III in 809 had declared the addition of the filioque unlawful.
This is not true, Father. What happened was that Charlemagne requested that the Pope make the filioque a REQUIREMENT in the recitation of the Creed. The Pope did not make the addition of the filioque unlawful; his response was specifically that even though it was permissible, it cannot be made a requirement, contrary to Charlemagne’s request. He also exhorted the Carolingian court to refrain from using filioque in order to avoid scandal.
I RESPOND: That is not my information. He had the original version of the Creed without the filioque engraved on two silver platters and hung in St. Peter’s to show his disapproval of the change. Neutral historians tell us that he told Charlemagne and his people that only an Ecumenical Council could change the Creed.

Quote:
It was not added to the Creed in Rome until 1014.
This is not exactly true either, Father. What happened was that when the German King Henry II was crowned at Rome, he requested that the Creed with filioque be used during the Mass for his coronation, since that was the norm among the Germans. That is ALL that we know for certain occurred. Unfortunately, historians on both sides of the debate have introduced their own interpretations on the matter. Some claim that Henry II strongarmed the Pope into doing this. Some claim that the Pope made this a universal requirement. But in truth, the only evidence we have is that the Pope allowed it for the Mass of Henry II’s coronation that just happened to be at Rome. It is probably also true that many interpreted the event to mean the Pope was approving the use of filioque everywhere. But there is really no direct evidence for this.
I RESPOND. It was Henry IV. There is no doubt that the Germans sought to show their superiority to the Greeks. The Council of Frankfurt 794 condemned the veneration of icons. Granted, it is possible that they did not understand the distinction made by the 7th Ecumenical Council between worship and veneration. However, there is no doubt that there was a rivalry between the German Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire. We can see that in the way that Sts. Cyril and Methodius and their followers were treated in Moravia, which is not part of the modern Czech Republic. Then the clash that took place in Bulgaria which geographically should have been under Constantinople anyway.
To be Continued

 

[frjohnmorris]

Continuation of the above

I have no doubt that there was nationalism and arrogance on both sides. It is tragic that secular politics and rivalry between the Holy Roman and the Eastern Roman Empires could be at least one cause of the schism, for we should not allow secular political matters to divide the Church, but they did.
Quote:
St. Photius was completely correct to object to the alteration of the Creed by the West.
I have studied the Mystagogy, and I am not aware that St. Photius objected to the alteration of the Creed on merely textual grounds. He objected not to the alteration of the Creed, but to (what he thought was) the alteration of the [n]Faith of the Creed that the text represented. The same can be said of St. Mark of Ephesus. I seriously believe this argument based on the alteration of the mere text is a thoroughly modern invention by EO polemics. The Eastern Fathers were not concerned with the text so much as with the Faith proposed by the text. This legalistic focus on the mere text is a novel invention of polemicists. I am not saying that you are guilty of this legalistic focus by your statement above. My foregoing comment is for those who might understand your comment as such.
I RESPOND: We now have had enough serious dialogue with Roman Catholics to know that it is possible to interpret the filioque in a way that is acceptable to Orthodox. If you read Sts. Photius and Mark of Ephesus you will see that they object to one interpretation of the filioque, which is the doctrine of the double procession, not the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son or is sent by the Son, which is how many modern Roman Catholics explain its meaning.

Having said that, I feel obliged to comment that I do not believe removing filioque from the Creed of the Latins will solve any problems unless the Easterns first understand the orthodox theological presuppositions of the Westerns for adding filioque (and with that understanding, realize that the addition did not change the Faith of the Creed), with a simultaneous acknowledgement from the Westerns of the orthodox Eastern concerns about what they perceive to be the theological dangers of the addition (and with that understanding, perhaps on their own initiative will remove filioque from their Creed)
Quote:
Adding Deum de Deo had no theological significance, but the filioque certainly did and is subject to being interpreted in an heretical way.
This is a very important point you bring up, Father. Would you agree, then, that if an Eastern understands the theological presuppositions of the Westerns for adding filioque (i.e., not as a statement that doubts the Monarchy of the Father, but merely a statement about the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father), then the problem can be resolved without insisting that the Latins remove filioque for reunion to occur (i.e., it’s removal should depend on a free decision of the bishops of the Latin Patriarchate, not because it was forced upon them as a condition of reunion)?
I RESPOND: I frankly doubt it, because in ecumenical dialogues we have been consistent in our objections to the addition of the filioque. I will say this, I was an Orthodox representative to the North American Orthodox Lutheran Ecumenical Dialogue. The Roman Catholics are much more flexible on this than the Lutherans were. They also did not give us a very good explanation except to tell us that it was a part of their Western tradition. At least the Roman Catholics have made an effort to express the doctrine in a way that Orthodox can understand. Since even a statement by the Vatican has acknowledge that if the original Greek word ἐκπορευόμενον is used that the filioque is not an acceptable addition to the Creed.
In 1995, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity published in various languages a study on The Greek and the Latin Traditions regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit,[135] which pointed out an important difference in meaning between the Greek verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι and the Latin verb procedere, both of which are commonly translated as “proceed”. It stated that the Greek verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι indicates that the Spirit “takes his origin from the Father … in a principal, proper and immediate manner”, while the Latin verb, which corresponds rather to the verb προϊέναι in Greek, can be applied to proceeding even from a mediate channel. Therefore the word used in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (ἐκπορευόμενον, “who proceeds”) to signify the proceeding of the Holy Spirit cannot in the Greek language be appropriately used with regard to the Son, but only with regard to the Father, a difficulty that does not exist in Latin and other languages. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque
My argument is that any translation of the Creed must seek to accurately express the Creed as meant by the Ecumenical Councils, which means that it must convey in its translation the meaning and nuances of the original Greek text.
Quote:
I have yet to receive an answer to two questions that I have asked during this discussion.

1. 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.
   This issue does not seem relevant to the thread. I would invite you to present the matter at Byzcath.org.

In Christ

Fr. John

 

[LionHeart777]

LionHeart, thank you, good post

You bet:thumbsup: Thanks!

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Fr. John, bless.

Thank you very much for the discussion so far.

It is for certain that St. Photius did not know Latin, so it is more than likely that he did not understand the linguistic nuances between the Greek and Latin theologies on the matter. Fortunately, St. Maximos took the time to inquire of the matter to the Latins before making any judgment, and St. Maximos should be taken as the preeminent model for everyone on this issue, not St. Photius. That said, Latins should recognize that St. Photius was thoroughly orthodox in his Trinitarian theology. His only mistake was in accusing Latins of teaching something that they never really taught (because he did not understand the theological presuppositions of the Latins, which was different from the Greeks).

I RESPOND: You may have a point, but to be honest with you, I do not find a consistent teaching on the subject from the quotes cited in this discussion. Some of them are in complete agreement that the filioque is simply another way to way “through the Son” or “sent by the Son.” That we can accept. Other times some of the quotes seem to state that the Father and the Son are both the origin of the Spirit. That we cannot accept. Therefore there a definition of the filioque that Orthodox can accept as a legitimate statement of the teaching of the Church, but there is also a definition of the meaning of the filioque that we cannot accept.

I agree with your observation for the most part, with an important caveat. I have often found myself pleading with my Latin Catholic brethren both online and in real life to stop using terms such as “double Procession” or “sources” or “origins” when discussing the Procession/filioque (I hope you have read my other posts in this thread aside from my posts to you). In fact, none of these terms have any MAGISTERIAL support. What many Latin apologists often do is quote individual popular theologians, not the Magisterial documents of the Church - I’ve discovered that many Latins prefer to listen to professional apologists and popular theologians rather than the Magisterium of the Church. This gives an unfortunate appearance that there are two acceptable teachings in Catholicism regarding filioque. But this is not at all true. The sensus fidei is an important feature of the infallible Church, according to Catholic teaching. But you know as well as I that this teaching is more prominent in Eastern and Oriental circles (both Catholic and Orthodox) than in Latin Catholic circles. An EO will often view the most common teaching that is prevalent among the people as an indication of the official teaching of the Church. But this is often (not always) not the case in Catholicism. More often than not, in Catholicism, the teaching of the episcopal Magisterium is the proper indicator of Catholic doctrine, not the popular belief of the people. On the issue of filioque, I would respectfully request that EO focus on the Magisterial documentation, rather than the popular apologetics, to determine what the official teaching is on the matter. Granted, that there is a discrepancy between the official teaching and the popular apologetics may be an indication of a deficiency in the teaching methods within Latin Catholicism. But we also have to consider that Latin Catholicism is the single largest branch of Christianity in the world hands down, at least 20 times over. So perhaps official teaching is not as easily or quickly distributed among Latins as we non-Latins would like.

On the other hand, I feel obliged to comment that I have encountered way too many EO apologists who also border on heterodoxy in their rhetoric against filioque, claiming, for example, that the manifestation of the Spirit is merely temporal, whereas the Eastern Orthodox Fathers I have studiend consistently refer to the manifestation as eternal. Another heterodox notion I encountered recently from an EO apologist is the claim that the Spirit’s resting on the Son is an altogether temporal event.

I think both our communions have our fair share of cavalier (yet perhaps well-intentioned) apologists who don’t properly reflect the OFFICIAL teaching of their respective Churches.

However, the text of the Creed is an altogether different issue. I am very uncomfortable with Augustine’s psychological explanation of the Trinity that defines the Holy Spirit as the Love between the Father and the Son because it seems to make the Holy Spirit an unequal member of the Holy Trinity and also is an effort to understand the mystery of the Trinity through human reason. That is why many Orthodox theologians say that the Trinity of the filioque is the Trinity of the philosophers.

This is readily explained, I think in an acceptable way, if EO understand that, unlike them, Latins don’t make a distinction between Essence and Energy. Love IS God Himself to Latins, so to say that the Holy Spirit is the Love between Father and Son in no way diminishes the Holy Spirit. If your concern is that referring to the Holy Spirit as the Love between Father and Son somehow diminishes the Holy Spirit, rest assured that this most definitely is not what the Latins intend.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

My historical studies have convinced me that the issue of clerical marriage played a major role in the schism. When you tell a man that his wife if a whore and his children bastards as Cardinal Humbert did during a public discussion in the imperial palace in Constantinople in 1054, that kind of statement is not going to dispose the Eastern clergy to have a positive attitude towards anything else that he had to say.

Interesting point. Cardinal Humbert was rather cavalier. IIRC, he was supposed to transmit a letter from Pope, but his accusations against the Easterns went way beyond what was contained in the Pope’s letter.

This is not true, Father. What happened was that Charlemagne requested that the Pope make the filioque a REQUIREMENT in the recitation of the Creed. The Pope did not make the addition of the filioque unlawful; his response was specifically that even though it was permissible, it cannot be made a requirement, contrary to Charlemagne’s request. He also exhorted the Carolingian court to refrain from using filioque in order to avoid scandal.

I RESPOND: That is not my information. He had the original version of the Creed without the filioque engraved on two silver platters and hung in St. Peter’s to show his disapproval of the change. Neutral historians tell us that he told Charlemagne and his people that only an Ecumenical Council could change the Creed.

From what I’ve read, Charlemagne requested the addition of the Creed as a plot to gain more political leverage in the Eastern Empire. His plot was to accuse the Constantinopolitan Patriarch of heresy over the filioque issue (accordingly, as part of his plot, he requested the Pope officially include filioque in the Creed). The Pope saw through his political ambitions and refused to do so. The tablets were not a statement against the addition of filioque per se, but a solid response against Charlemagne’s plot. Also, please consider that the historical reality does not support the claim that the Pope outlawed the addition of filioque - no local Latin Church that used the filioque at the time actually removed it.

This is not exactly true either, Father. What happened was that when the German King Henry II was crowned at Rome, he requested that the Creed with filioque be used during the Mass for his coronation, since that was the norm among the Germans. That is ALL that we know for certain occurred. Unfortunately, historians on both sides of the debate have introduced their own interpretations on the matter. Some claim that Henry II strongarmed the Pope into doing this. Some claim that the Pope made this a universal requirement. But in truth, the only evidence we have is that the Pope allowed it for the Mass of Henry II’s coronation that just happened to be at Rome. It is probably also true that many interpreted the event to mean that the Pope was approving the use of filioque everywhere. But there is really no direct evidence for this.

I RESPOND. It was Henry IV. There is no doubt that the Germans sought to show their superiority to the Greeks. The Council of Frankfurt 794 condemned the veneration of icons. Granted, it is possible that they did not understand the distinction made by the 7th Ecumenical Council between worship and veneration. However, there is no doubt that there was a rivalry between the German Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire. We can see that in the way that Sts. Cyril and Methodius and their followers were treated in Moravia, which is not part of the modern Czech Republic. Then the clash that took place in Bulgaria which geographically should have been under Constantinople anyway.
I have no doubt that there was nationalism and arrogance on both sides. It is tragic that secular politics and rivalry between the Holy Roman and the Eastern Roman Empires could be at least one cause of the schism, for we should not allow secular political matters to divide the Church, but they did.

This is a good point. The filioque was definitely a rallying cry for the Western Empire, and would have used it for political advantage. There is certainly no record of the Pope authoritatively and officially approving filioque for universal use - he merely approved it for a single Mass in Rome. But the more – energetic – (for lack of a better word)Westerns turned that simple event into propaganda against the Easterns (Cardinal Humbert comes to mind).

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

I have studied the Mystagogy, and I am not aware that St. Photius objected to the alteration of the Creed on merely textual grounds. He objected not to the alteration of the Creed, but to (what he thought was) the alteration of the [n]Faith

of the Creed that the text represented. The same can be said of St. Mark of Ephesus. I seriously believe this argument based on the alteration of the mere text is a thoroughly modern invention by EO polemics. The Eastern Fathers were not concerned with the text so much as with the Faith proposed by the text. This legalistic focus on the mere text is a novel invention of polemicists. I am not saying that you are guilty of this legalistic focus by your statement above. My foregoing comment is for those who might understand your comment as such.

I RESPOND: We now have had enough serious dialogue with Roman Catholics to know that it is possible to interpret the filioque in a way that is acceptable to Orthodox. If you read Sts. Photius and Mark of Ephesus you will see that they object to one interpretation of the filioque, which is the doctrine of the double procession, not the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son or is sent by the Son, which is how many modern Roman Catholics explain its meaning.
Father, I would like to ask you what you think of the following: From what I have studied of the Eastern Fathers regarding filioque (particularly the Synod of Blacharnae, and Sts Photius, Mark of Ephesus, and Gregory Palamas), their theological concerns were these:
(1) That filioque makes it appear that the Holy Spirit has two origins/sources;
(2) That filioque makes it appear that the Son adds something to the Procession, hence making the Father’s role in the Procession somehow imperfect;
(3) That filioque diminishes the arche of the Father for the previous reason;
(4) That filioque diminishes the equality of the Holy Spirit because He does not spirate Himself (which, forgive me for saying, is perhaps the weakest complaint against the filioque - I mean, if one is going to accept the logic that because the Holy Spirit does not participate in His own Spiration, then His divinity is diminished in relation to the Father and Son, then one might as well accept the validity of the Arian argument that the divinity of the Son is diminished in relation to the Father because He does not participate in His own generation);
(5) That filioque makes the ousia the generating principle of the Holy Spirit;
(6) That, consequently, filioque introduces a new Faith other than what is contained in the Creed.
If you can add any other theological concerns which I might have missed, please do so. As it is, I believe these concerns are sufficiently mollified by the Catholic Church. However, I believe there are novel issues, issues that these original Eastern sources never brought up, that certain current EO apologists use to perpetuate division. For example, I’ve encountered EO apologists use the filioque issue as a springboard to accuse Westerns of heterodoxy for not recognizing the Essence/Energies distinction.

Btw, Father, can you please provide the earliest record of an Eastern figure accusing the Pope of unilaterally adding filioque to the Creed? I have read St. Mark’s Letter against the False Union, and he doesn’t make that accusation. I am thinking this is another of those novel EO arguments.

My argument is that any translation of the Creed must seek to accurately express the Creed as meant by the Ecumenical Councils, which means that it must convey in its translation the meaning and nuances of the original Greek text.

How do you feel about a future Ecumenical Council making an additional clarification to the Creed to molllify the current debate on the issue. This is certainly not without precedent. The Third Council asserted that no changes to the Nicene Creed could be made. This did not prevent the Fourth Council from accepting the textual additions of the Council of Constantinople. In fact, The Fathers did not view the textual additions of the the Council of Constantinople as introducing a different Creed because the additions were merely clarifications that reflected the same orthodox Faith of the Nicene Fathers. Being on the “in” about these matters, do you think the EO would accept the above suggestion?

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[Richca]

Dearest Fr. John,

Bless me, a sinner.

 

[SyroMalankara]

It is futile to try and reconcile Photius’ theology of the Holy Spirit with the Catholic Church’s.

Is this another Catholic Church = Latin Church rhetoric? If not, how can you say that the theology of Photius, accepted by the Byzantines, is not Catholic?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Richca,

I am not Eastern, but Oriental. But I would disagree with your assessment of St. Photius’ Trinitarian theology.

What you do not consider is the distinction between Essence and Energy that the Easterns make. Orientals also accept the Essence/Energy distinction, but it is not so rigorous and defined as the Easterns would have it. This is probably why I can appreciate both the Eastern and Western positions on this matter, and can perhaps be some sort of bridge.

Permit me to explain why St. Photius is orthodox in his Trinitarian theology (Fr. John might want to add something I might have missed, since as an Oriental, I don’t exactly have the same understanding of the Essence/Energy distinction as Easterns have).

It is true that St. Photius taught that the Essence of the Holy Spirit is ONLY from the Father. But there is something you may not realize about the EO teaching:
(1) The EO do teach that the Son participates in the manifestation of the Holy Spirit. In fact, St. Gregory Palamas asserted (Fr. John, correct me if I’m wrong) that the Energy of the Spirit, if not His Essence, ekporeusai from the Son (cf., St. John Damascene).
(2) The EO do teach (as St. Photius did) that the manifestation of the Holy Spirit is ETERNAL.

It is especially this second factor that you really need to consider as a Latin Catholic. You have probably been inured by so many modern EO apologists making the claim that the manifestation of the Holy Spirit is only temporal. But this is not the teaching of St. Photius (nor of the Synod of Blacharnae, nor of St. Gergory Palamas, for that matter). Do not listen to these particular modern EO apologists. The best Eastern sources assert that the manifestation (the ekporeusai of the Energy from the Son) is indeed ETERNAL.

If you can do so, translate this according to your Latin theology. You know very well that even though you do not accept the Essence/Energy distinction, you DO yourself believe that what is Eternal refers to the immanent Godhead. So even though St. Photius did not believe that the Son participates in the ekporeusai of the Essence, he did believe that the Son is intimately connected to the manifestation of the Holy Spirit, and that this manifestation is ETERNAL.

I don’t believe it would be a great leap for you to appreciate the orthodox consequences of the belief that the manifestation is ETERNAL, from a Latin perspective.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

Photius’ trinitarian theology, especially his theology concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, cannot be considered orthodox in any sense of the word according to the Catholic Church. The two theologies are incompatible with each other. The confusion results by trying to reconcile two theologies that cannot be reconciled.
Photius teaches that the Holy Spirit receives the divine substance of the Father from the Father alone. Thus he says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.
Contrarily, the Catholic Church teaches that the Holy Spirit receives the divine substance of the Father from both the Father and the Son or from the Father through the Son. Thus the Catholic Church teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son or from the Father through the Son.
Now, it is not possible that the Holy Spirit be from the Father alone and from the Father and Son at one and the same time. It is either one or the other. It is futile to try and reconcile Photius’ theology of the Holy Spirit with the Catholic Church’s.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Dear Markum

I think that you have correctly pointed out the concerns of Sts Photius and Mark of Ephesus.
I also think that you have correctly identified the political aspects of the filioque controversy.
As far as I can see the official statements by Rome on the meaning of the filioque seem to solve the doctrinal differences. Recently official statements by Rome have been careful to preserve the monarchy of the Father and to explain the filioque as meaning that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son or is sent by the Son but that the Father is the source (arche) of both the Son and the Holy Spirit. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in essence and undivided. The Son is begotten by the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son or through the Son.
The theology of St. Gregory Palamas is the official theology of the Orthodox Church. It is important to us to make the distinction between the essence of God and the energies because it allows us to speak of deification without falling into the trap of pantheism. It also allows us to define Grace as divine and uncreated and a real experience of God without compromising the unique character of the essence of God as beyond human experience and understanding. Palamite theology is more mystical than scholastic theology, which to Orthodox trusts too much in human reason to try to understand the mysteries of God. By the end of his life Thomas Aquinas had a mystical experience that caused him to question scholasticism.
I do not think that Orthodox would consider changing the text of the Creed. Orthodox are very conservative and resist change, especially in doctrine and worship. The kind of radical changes that followed Vatican II in the Catholic Church would be impossible in the Orthodox Church. The faithful would rebel. We do not have the concept of the Magisterium of the Church. However, we do have the concept of the teaching authority of the Church. No one can not change our doctrine. We have archdiocesan conventions representing the parishes of the Archdiocese that approves the budget and hears reports from the various commissions of the Archdiocese, but unlike a Protestant national convention has no authority over doctrinal matters. We also have a parish council elected by the members of the parish, but the authority of the council is limited to non doctrinal matters. The parish meeting and council deal only with finances and non-doctrinal matters like fixing a leak in the roof or repairing the air conditioning system. As I saw in the Episcopal Church, a group can organize a well orchestrated political style campaign and change the teachings of a Protestant Church. That cannot happen in the Orthodox Church. We do not believe that the Ecumenical Councils changed the doctrine of the Church. We believe that they clarified what the Church already believed in answer to various heresies like Arianism, Nestorianism and Monophysitism.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

I do not think that there is anything of substance that I can add to Mardukm’s post. He seems to have covered the ground very well. I am glad that Oriental Orthodox agree with Eastern Orthodox on these matters. It shows that we are very close if not in complete agreement on doctrinal issues, despite the usage of slightly different terms.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Richca]

Is this another Catholic Church = Latin Church rhetoric? If not, how can you say that the theology of Photius, accepted by the Byzantines, is not Catholic?

Hi SyroMalankara,
I said his theology about the procession of the Holy Spirit is in error. I do not know anything about the rest of his theology. Either the Holy Spirit does or does not proceed from the Son. Photius denies it, the Catholic Church believes it. Do the Byzantines take everything he wrote as scripture? Not everything the fathers and doctors of the Church have said has the Catholic Church accepted as truth. Since they are human, they have made some mistakes and errors. This is why the Catholic Church has the pope and magisterium and gathers ecumenical councils so they can sort out what God has revealed to us and what we should believe.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Hi SyroMalankara,
I said his theology about the procession of the Holy Spirit is in error. I do not know anything about the rest of his theology. Either the Holy Spirit does or does not proceed from the Son. Photius denies it, the Catholic Church believes it. Do the Byzantines take everything he wrote as scripture? Not everything the fathers and doctors of the Church have said has the Catholic Church accepted as truth. Since they are human, they have made some mistakes and errors. This is why the Catholic Church has the pope and magisterium and gathers ecumenical councils so they can sort out what God has revealed to us and what we should believe.

Nothing written by any Father of the Church is equal to Scripture. We agree that not everything said or written by the Fathers is to be regarded as truth. St. Photius based his objections to the filioque on the theology of the Cappadocian Fathers, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Gregory of Nyssa and, of course, St. Basil the Great. The Cappadocians emphasized the monarchy of the Father as the source (arche) of both the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Son is begotten by the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. As has been mentioned the Greek word ἐκπορευόμενον has a different meaning from the Latin word procedit. ἐκπορευόμενον means to proceed from one source, while procedit can mean proceeds through a mediator. In the case of the filioque that mediator is God the Son. The Orthodox teaching is that the Holy Spirit takes its being from the Father and is sent by the Son or through the Son. In other words the source of the Holy Spirit (arche) is the Father, but the Holy Spirit is sent by the Son for our salvation. As I understand it that is what the Catholic Church now means by the filioque.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Richca]

Dear brother Richca,

This is in fact the only way it can be taken. That is why no magisterial dogmatic document of the Church ever refers to the Son as Source. Only the Father is Source. Not only was this explicit in the Council of Florence, but also the Second Council of Lyons (IIRC) placed under anathema anyone who stated that there is more than one Source of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Richca]

Dear brother Richca,

I am not Eastern, but Oriental. But I would disagree with your assessment of St. Photius’ Trinitarian theology.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Hi Mardukm,
Thank you for the post. The teaching about the manifestation and energy of the Spirit and the Son’s participation in it, though I had heard something of it, I really don’t know what eastern theology means by it. It is also interesting that you say that St Gregory Palamas may have taught, if I understand you correctly, that the Holy Spirit receives the divine substance as well as “energy” from the Son.

 

[Richca]

Nothing written by any Father of the Church is equal to Scripture. We agree that not everything said or written by the Fathers is to be regarded as truth. St. Photius based his objections to the filioque on the theology of the Cappadocian Fathers, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Gregory of Nyssa and, of course, St. Basil the Great. The Cappadocians emphasized the monarchy of the Father as the source (arche) of both the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Son is begotten by the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. As has been mentioned the Greek word ἐκπορευόμενον has a different meaning from the Latin word procedit. ἐκπορευόμενον means to proceed from one source, while procedit can mean proceeds through a mediator. In the case of the filioque that mediator is God the Son. The Orthodox teaching is that the Holy Spirit takes its being from the Father and is sent by the Son or through the Son. In other words the source of the Holy Spirit (arche) is the Father, but the Holy Spirit is sent by the Son for our salvation. As I understand it that is what the Catholic Church now means by the filioque.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Hi frjohnmorris,
Just to clarify, the official teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which was promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1992 with the second edition coming in 1997. The catechism states:

1. The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)”. the Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration… And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son…

248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”, for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”, is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed."

That other document from the Pontificial Council for Promoting Christian Unity which Mardukm cites in previous posts predates the second edition of the catechism and whatever is said in it should be understood according to the catechism. In addition, the Catechism of the Catholic Church was issued by the apostolic constitution Fidei Depositum by Pope John Paul II which is at the top of the heirachy of authoritative documents and has binding authority on the entire Church. In essence, the document from the Pontificial Council for Promoting Christian Unity , which 99.9999% of the catholic faithful probably don’t even know it exists, stresses the fact that the Father is the origin of the Trinity and looks upon the latin and greek traditions of the procession of the Holy Spirit.

As you can see from what I quoted from the catechism, the Catholic Church teaches that the Holy Spirit derives his being or subsistence from both the Father and the Son. This obviously is in sharp contrast to the Orthodox teaching inherited essentially I believe from Photius that the Holy Spirit derives his being or subsistence from the Father alone.

blessings and peace, Richca

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother RIchca,

You seem to be equating “source” and “principle.” Would it not stand to reason that, according to your own understanding of the matter, the anathematization by Lyons of those who say there are two principles of the Spirit is equivalently anathematizing those who say there are two sources of the Spirit?

In any case, the Son is never Source in the Trinity, and his role in the Procession is never as Source of the Holy Spirit.

Blessings,
Marduk

Hello brother mardukm,
The extract from the Second Council of Lyons I read does not say source but principle. So it says the Father and Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit. It should be understood that by saying the Father and Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit, “one” does not refer to the Father only or the Son only, but indiscriminately to both.
The Council of Florence calls the Father the source and principle of all deity. The same council also considers the Son to be a principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father. Is not this saying that the Son is a source and origen (uncapitalized) of the Holy Spirit while the Father is the primordial Source and Origen (capitalized) of the Holy Spirit?

 

[mardukm]

As you can see from what I quoted from the catechism, the Catholic Church teaches that the Holy Spirit derives his being or subsistence from both the Father and the Son. This obviously is in sharp contrast to the Orthodox teaching inherited essentially I believe from Photius that the Holy Spirit derives his being or subsistence from the Father alone.

I’m afraid the way you express the teaching of the Catholic Church on filioque is rather offputting, especially juxtaposing it with St. Photius’ concerns the way you do. The concern expressed by St. Photius is not contradictory to what the Catechism states. The Catechism actually agrees with St. Photius (not with you) because while it points out that Florence asserted that the Holy Spirit derives His being and subsistence from Father and Son, it simultaneously asserted that the Father, not the Son, is the Source of this being and subsistence. The Son Himself only serves as a channel, so to speak, of the one, unique spirative power of the Father. That is the Son’s only role in the Procession - the Son Himself is not and has never been taught by the Catholic Church as a Source/Origin of this spirative power, nor can it be stated that the Son is a Source/Origin of the Holy Spirit.

So insisting that one can refer to the Son as a source/origin of the Holy Spirit contradicts the teaching of the Second Council of Lyons, of Florence, and of the Orthodox Fathers of the Eastern Church - rather, of the Orthodox Catholic Fathers of the Church universal.

Blessings,
Marduk