Debating the filioque

[mardukm]

Dear brother Richca,

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.

To be concise, St. Gregory Palams did not teach that the Holy Spirit receives the divine substance from the Son, though he did teach that the Holy Spirit receives the divine Energy from the Son (and - this is most important - not merely temporally, as certain modern EO apologists contend, but rather ETERNALLY).

As far as the essence/energy distinction, I cannot really comment on that because I don’t know what is meant by energy here and from where does this energy come from? Maybe you can elaborate on that somewhat. I understand what essence is. Here in the latin tradition, we see the operation of God as involving His intellect and will since He is an intellectual substance. Does this energy flow from His will or intellect or something else and from whom does it flow?

My own understanding of the Essence/Energy distinction is that it was the best way for the Eastern and Oriental Fathers to explain the dogma of the utter “otherness” of God from created beings, while simultaneously asserting the dogma that communion can actually be achieved between the two. The Latins likewise believe in these same two dogmas, but express it without recourse to the Essence/Energy distinction.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Richca,

Actually the Official Clarification references the Catechism, so the Catechism came first. Are you aware of any textual differences between the first and second editions of the Catechism as regards the Procession? Any possible misunderstandings that may result from the wording of the Catechism (which it shouldn’t given the fact that the Catechism is explicit that the Son has the role of being “through” in the Procession, while it is the Father Who has the role of being “from”) should be resolved in light of the Official Clarification.

Blessings,
Marduk

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.

 

[Richca]

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?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Richca

When the council of Lyons or Florence say that the Father and Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit, “one” here means that the Father and Son together are equally the one principle of the Holy Spirit. The council is obviously talking about the origin of the Holy Spirit.

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

Consequently, the latins and greeks say the same thing once the terms employed are understood correctly.

Agreed — but, brother, while I completely understand your intentions, you are simply not using the terms correctly, and this lack of precision in using the theological terms will result in confusion and discord, in direct contradiction to the ecumenical intentions of the Churches.

The greeks would not apply the term source or origin to the Son because apparently to them it can only be applied to the Father.

Not just the Greeks, brother, but the ENTIRE Church. Being source/origin is regarded by ALL to be a hypostatic property of the Father alone. He does not share this with the Son in any way.

The latin and english language does not have such a term. The greek word for proceed is translated as proceed in latin and english and proceed which means to come forth from a source can mean any source. Consequently, it can be applied to both the Father and Son.

Not exactly, The ambiguity of the term “procedit” rests not in the notion that it can mean “to come forth from any source.” Rather, the ambiguity rests in the notion that procedit can refer both to what is coming forth from a source or simply a flowing with no reference to source.

Since you capitalize the word “Source,” I take it that you mean God the Father so in this sense your statement is correct.

There is no other sense in which to take the term source, for it is a hypostatic property of the Father and the Father alone.

If by your statement you mean that the Holy Spirit does not originate from the Son in one way or another, then your statement would be incorrect.

Not at all. The Son does not originate anything. It is the Father alone who originates, while the Father and the Son together form one principle of spiration, where the Father alone is source/origin.

It may be that you are trying to impose a term from the greek language onto the latin or english language in which there is no term in the latin or english language.
For the sake of argument, if I agree with you that Source and Origin should only be applied to God the Father, then it cannot be said that the Father and Son are the Source and Origin of the Holy Spirit.

That is correct. It cannot be said that the Father and Son are the Source/Origin of the Holy Spirit. I will go so far as to admit the phrase “the Father and Son together form one PRINCIPLE of origination.” But I could never agree to “the Father and Son are the Source/Origin,” for being the source/origin per se is a hypostatic property of the Father alone.

The council of Florence stated that by “through the Son,” the greek fathers mean cause. The Son is a cause of the Holy Spirit but not the First Cause. This appears to be what St Gregory of Nyssa says here:
"While we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused,…

As stated, earlier, I wanted to explain the difference between the Greek and Latin use of the term “cause.” This term has a theological use and, distinctly, a philosophical use. Theologically speaking, the term “cause” refers only to a primary motive power – i.e., it only refers to first cause. In philosophy, however, the term has a more expansive use, and can refer also to a purpose, an instrument, an impetus, an intermediary, etc., etc., etc., anything that can effect something subsequently – hence, there can be a first cause, second cause, third cause, etc… In dogmatics, the Greeks Traditionally utilize the term “cause” only in its theological sense. In distinction, Latins Traditionally utilize “cause” in its philosophical sense. You can see this in the quote from Gregory of Nyssa. He does not state that there is a “first cause” or “second cause,” but refers instead to “directly from the first cause,” and “through that which is directly from the first cause.”

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

This explains why the Greeks, despite the orthodox intentions of the Latins, could not eventually accept the definition of Florence on the Procession. Though the primarily Latin Fathers of Florence equated the Greek “cause” with the Latin “principle,” the two terms were not actually equivalent. To Greeks, “cause,” dogmatically speaking, ONLY refers to first cause, while to the Latins, “principle” can accommodate BOTH a first cause/ source together with a secondary cause/intermediary. The Greek Fathers at Florence who accepted the definition probably understood the nuance, and realized that the Latins certainly did not intend that the Son, together with the Father, should be regarded as first cause/source. However, this would not be evident to the general Greek populace, nor was it evident to St. Mark of Ephesus (proven by the fact that in his letter against the False Union, he accuses the Latins of making the Son a source of the Holy Spirit). Any Latin not cognizant of the difference in how “cause” is used by the Greeks theologically (as a consistent reference to source/ origin/ FIRST cause ONLY) will accuse Greeks who rejected the definition of Florence of heresy. Likewise, any Greek not cognizant of the difference in how “cause” is used by the Latins philosophically (wfhich accommodates BOTH first and second causes) will think that using the term “cause” in reference to the Son makes the Son either another first cause, or makes the Father an imperfect first cause, thus also accusing the Latins of heresy.

Brother Richca, I hope you can understand from the explanation above the importance of correcting the language you are using about the Procession.

If Source or Origin cannot be applied to the Son because that can only be applied to the Father according to the greek language, I think we still need to apply some term to the Son for His involvement in the existence of the Holy Spirit. What term are we to employ?

We can employ the language that is approved by the Councils. I will defend the use of the term “cause” or “principle” with respect to the Son because it has conciliar backing (and has a defensible explanation), but it is theologically impossible to use or defend the terms Source/Origin with respect to the Son.

mardukm, you seem to have a bent towards the greek tradition concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit and that is fine.

My sole interest is unity. I will challenge anyone, Eastern, Oriental, or Latin, who endangers the ecumenical efforts of our Churches to be united according to our Lord’s exhortation.

However, as the CCC teaches, the latin tradition is just as valid and one should not become to rigid in affirming one and denying the other.

Excuse the apparent boldness of the suggestion, but the Latin Tradition should be informed by magisterial teaching, not the statements of individual theologians or popular apologists. I understand that the apologetic language you use is very popular among Latins, and very well-meaning, but it does not properly preserve nor convey the theological language of the magisterial sources.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Richca]

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.

Hi mardukm,
You stated in a previous post “That said, Latins should recognize that St. Photius was thoroughly orthodox in his Trinitarian theology.” The doctrine of St Photius concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit is not that of the Catholic Church, I’m just stating a simple truth. The Catholic Church teaches that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son whether we say “Father and Son” or “Father through the Son.” What is meant here is the essence and subsistent being of the Holy Spirit. Photius teaches that the Holy Spirit is from the Father only. As far as I can tell, Photius does not even teach that the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son as the greek fathers taught. And here I mean the essence and subsistent being of the Holy Spirit. So to say that latins should recognize that St Photius was thoroughly orthodox in his Trinitarian theology is going to raise some eye brows and can be a source of confusion. For it does not seem possible for the Holy Spirit to be from the Father and Son and from the Father only at one and the same time.

So, at least on the point of the substance and subsistent being of the Holy Spirit which is the procession of the Holy Spirit, I think we can agree that the Catholic Church and St Photius do not agree.

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

 

[frjohnmorris]

I would like to point out that there is an American Orthodox Catholic Dialogue and an International Orthodox Catholic Dialogue. Therefore our theologians are talking on an official level and working towards unity. We must be patient and allow these official discussions to take the time needed to reach agreement and secure official approval of their agreement from the Pope and the autocephalous Churches of Orthodoxy. Then after the agreement is reached, union will take place. In the meantime in addition to the official dialogues, friendly relations are being developed. His All Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch attended the installation of Pope Francis, the first time in history, before or after the schism that a Patriarch of Constantinople attended a papal installation. A few weeks ago, His Beatitude, John X, the new Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch visited Pope Francis in Rome. On the local level Orthodox and Roman Catholic clergy can develop good relations. I can honestly say that I have excellent relations with the local Catholic clergy and have even had several very pleasant meetings with Bishop Latino, the local Roman Catholic Bishop who was great help in dealing with some problems with a Protestant chaplain at a local prison where I was visiting the Orthodox prisoners. In two weeks, I will preside over the wedding of a Catholic boy with a girl in my parish. After the Orthodox service, the boy’s priest will give a blessing to the couple.
Florence failed because the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism cannot be solved in one meeting, especially one like Florence which took place in a time in which both sides were under pressure to reach an agreement as soon as possible. Pope Eugene IV wanted to achieve unity with the East to boast his claims against the Council of Basil that supported the Conciliar Movement and elected a rival Pope, Felix V. The Eastern Roman Emperor John VIII wanted to achieve a quick union to secure Western support against the coming Turkish attack on Constantinople. As a result they did not really resolve the issues that divide us but patched up an agreement that did not last because nothing had really been resolved. Part of the problem was that neither side understood the theological presuppositions of the other because they had not done the slow and difficult work that is now being done by regional and the international Orthodox Catholic ecumenical dialogues.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother RIchca.

You stated in a previous post “That said, Latins should recognize that St. Photius was thoroughly orthodox in his Trinitarian theology.” The doctrine of St Photius concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit is not that of the Catholic Church, I’m just stating a simple truth. The Catholic Church teaches that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son whether we say “Father and Son” or “Father through the Son.” What is meant here is the essence and subsistent being of the Holy Spirit. Photius teaches that the Holy Spirit is from the Father only. As far as I can tell, Photius does not even teach that the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son as the greek fathers taught. And here I mean the essence and subsistent being of the Holy Spirit. So to say that latins should recognize that St Photius was thoroughly orthodox in his Trinitarian theology is going to raise some eye brows and can be a source of confusion. For it does not seem possible for the Holy Spirit to be from the Father and Son and from the Father only at one and the same time.

So, at least on the point of the substance and subsistent being of the Holy Spirit which is the procession of the Holy Spirit, I think we can agree that the Catholic Church and St Photius do not agree.

I do not agree. I assume you have never read St. Photius’ Mystagogy. It is true that he rejected “through the Son,” but it was on thoroughly orthodox grounds. He thought that when the Latins used the term “through the Son,” they meant either one of three things:
(1) the Son shares in the Father’s hypostatic property as Source/Origin/FIrst Cause (which is not true - according to the Latin teaching, the Son does not share this with the Father in being the one principle of the Holy Spirit; rather, the Father ever remains the one and ONLY Source/Origin/First Cause, while the Son has the role of being a channel, so to speak of the Father’s power);
(2) the Father was an imperfect First Cause and needed the Son to complete Him as First Cause (which is not true - the Latin teaching is that the Son, receiving from the perfect First Cause, not himself originating anything nor adding anything, is principal with the Father, of the Procession)
(3) the Father gave the Son the power to spirate the Holy Spirit, and that the Son thence produced the Holy Spirit with this power of spiration. The analogy St. Photius used was that the Holy Spirit would be the grandson in the Trinity. Of course, this is also a misunderstanding of the Latin teaching. The Son does nothing on His own, but is always considered with the Father in the Spiration, Further, the Father does not give the Son the power to be Source/Origin with Him in the Spiration; rather the Father maintains his role as the ONLY Source/Origin, while the Son’s role is as a channel, so to speak, of the originating power of the First Cause.

So St. Photius did not reject “through the Son” because of heresy, but merely because of a misunderstanding of what the Latins meant. His concerns were thoroughly orthodox.

I don’t think the council capitalized the word “source.”

It didn’t need to. When the Fathers spoke of “source” they referred to only one thing - the Father. They did not need to capitalize “source” in one instance and then not capitalize it in another instance to make some sort of distinction (if that’s what you meant).

Also, within the context of the whole discussion in the council statement, when it asserts the Father being the source and principle of all deity, I take this to mean the ultimate source.

There is no such thing as an ultimate Source and a secondary source in the Godhead. There is only ONE Source, the Father.

Because if we take Source as you seem to imply it, i.e, meaning the Father only, then one may get the impression that the Holy Spirit does not originate from the Son which would be erroneous.

To be perfectly frank, I am not implying anything. “Source” indeed refers to the Father ONLY, and the Holy Spirit indeed does not originate from the Son.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

What we possibly have here is the awkwardness of trying to impose one language, namely greek, onto another language. I think the important point is that whatever the words used, the same meaning is conveyed.

Agreed, but I believe we need to use the terms as approved by the Councils, not use those same terms to cause more confusion.

For instance, we say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Since proceeds means "to come forth from a source, "

I’ve already explained in the previous posts that this is incorrect. Your definition makes procedit perfectly equivalent to ekporeusai, which is very dangerous theologically.

it can be said that the Father and the Son are the source of the Holy Spirit. Source being indiscrimately applied to both Father and Son. However, since we know that the Son is from the Father, if we apply source to the Son it does not mean that he is the source of the Trinity, for this is proper to the Father.

There is absolutely no patristic, conciliar, nor magisterial warrant for making any sort of distinction between the Source in the Trinity, and the Source in the Procession. “Source” refers to one thing and one thing only in the Godhead no matter what context - the Father.

You point out that Florence asserted that the Holy Spirit derives His being and subsistence from Father and Son. This is important and is the correct understanding of Catholic doctrine. Photius doesn’t teach this understanding of catholic doctrine but you are aware of this as you pointed out in a previous post.

St. Photius’ concerns for rejecting that teaching were thoroughly orthodox. The first sentence in your above statement is not an “understanding.” Rather, it is the direct teaching. But that teaching itself requires a good amount of understanding. St. Photius did not possess this proper understanding because he did not understand Latin nor was probably aware of the peculiarly Latin theological presuppositions. But, as explained, his concerns were thoroughly orthodox. Wouldn’t you be crying foul, for example, if you thought someone was teaching that God was an imperfect FIrst Cause?

The Catholic Church, at least in the latin tradition, sees the Son playing more of a role in the origination of the Holy Spirit than being just a channel. God the Son is not a robot or some kind of lifeless inanimate object. The Holy Spirit originates from the reciprocal love that the Father and Son have for each other. The Father is the source of the spirative power as He is the source of all deity. But since He has given to the Son everything He himself is except of being father, and since the spirative power which proceeds from the will of God is not opposed to the Father being Father nor the Son being Son (The Father begets the Son by His intellect) the Son then also possesses the spirative power. Indeed, if the Son did not have the spirative power which proceeds from the will of God, how could the Son reciprocate the love of the Father for Him?

That’s incorrect brother. The proper Latin expression is not that the Holy Spirit originates from the love between Father and Son, but that the Holy Spirit is HIMSELF the love between Father and Son. This love (which is the Holy Spirit) has its singular Source from the Father, which He then gives to the Son from all Eternity, Who reflects this love back to the Father from all Eternity, and pours it forth to creation. Read the Official Clarification for the full explanation. The Son is no way Himself the Source of this love (i.e., the Holy Spirit).

That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the will of God is theologically certain as Pope John Paul II points out in “The Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father and the Son,” General Audience — November 20, 1985. “He (Holy Spirit) proceeds “by way of will,” “in the manner of love” (per modum amoris). This is a sententia certa, that is, a theological doctrine commonly accepted in the Church’s teaching and therefore sure and binding.”

The explanation of this statement about love is properly the one given by the Official Clarification, not that the Father and Son together produce the Holy Spirit by their mutual agape.

The word “proceed” is the one the Church uses in the creed and in all it’s documents concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit at least in the latin rite. Everywhere you will find “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.”

That’s fine. Let’s stick to that.

And since proceeds means “to come forth from a source/origin,”

Again, that is an incorrect understanding of procedit.

and we say “who proceeds from the Father and the Son,” source/origin refers to both the Father and Son. This is the very meaning of the word.

No, it’s not.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[frjohnmorris]

I do not agree. I assume you have never read St. Photius’ Mystagogy. It is true that he rejected “through the Son,” but it was on thoroughly orthodox grounds.

I just read St. Photius’s Mystagogy. No where does he deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. Indeed, he states repeatedly that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Son. His chief concern is the affirmation that the source (arche) of the Holy Spirit is the Father. I may be wrong, but I believe that according to what has been written here the Catholic Church does not teach that the Son is also a source (arche) of the Holy Spirit, but that the Holy Spirit is sent by or through the Son.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Fr. John. bless,

I do not agree. I assume you have never read St. Photius’ Mystagogy. It is true that he rejected “through the Son,” but it was on thoroughly orthodox grounds.

I just read St. Photius’s Mystagogy. No where does he deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

My intention was not to state that he rejected “through the Son” without qualification, but rather (which I thought I made clear), he rejected it according to a particular interpretation of “through the Son” which he thought the Latins were proposing. Thank you for pointing out the ambiguity in my statement. There is a correct (i.e., orthodox) interpretation of “through the Son”; it is simply that in his personal understanding, he did not think this orthodox interpretation was the one the Latins were proposing.

Indeed, he states repeatedly that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Son. His chief concern is the affirmation that the source (arche) of the Holy Spirit is the Father. I may be wrong, but I believe that according to what has been written here the Catholic Church does not teach that the Son is also a source (arche) of the Holy Spirit, but that the Holy Spirit is sent by or through the Son.

This is an important point that needs to be clarified, a point which probably still needs to be discussed more thoroughly in the various Orthodox-Catholic commissions. You (possibly) pointed to this remaining difficulty in your comment about your concerns about describing the Holy Spirit as the love between Father and Son.

As explained to brother Richca, the popular Catholic apologetic involving the image of love between the Father and Son is often erroneously explained by Catholic apologists. Popular Catholic apologetics normally explain the matter (as expressed by brother Richca’s own explanation) as the Father and Son together producing the Love which is the Holy Spirit. This is often how St. Augustine’s statement on the love between Father and Son is (mis)interpreted. But the true Catholic teaching, as explicitly affirmed by the Official Clarification, is that the Father is Himself the Source of this Love (which is the Holy Spirit), Who gives this Love to the Son, Who likewise reflects this Love back to the Father, thus completing (so to speak) the perfect Trinity – and this same Love (i.e. the Holy Spirit) is dispensed by/through the Son to creation. It is NOT that the Father and Son together are the Source of this Love, but rather that the Father is the Source of this Love.

I hope that helps mollify your concerns (at least partly) over the Love analogy. Before continuing (because there is actually another issue that the matter brings up), please comment on what I have stated so far.

We must be patient and allow these official discussions to take the time needed to reach agreement and secure official approval of their agreement from the Pope and the autocephalous Churches of Orthodoxy. Then after the agreement is reached, union will take place…Florence failed because the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism cannot be solved in one meeting, especially one like Florence which took place in a time in which both sides were under pressure to reach an agreement as soon as possible.

Well put, Father. Hearing and listening are two different things. The former implies mere knowledge, while the latter implies true understanding. The Commissions, and the bishops therein, can explain a lot of things, but unless one truly understands what the other is saying, it will not mean much. True understanding always takes time, even for individual bishops within the Commissions. I’m sure anyone and everyone can attest to individual experiences where they constantly hear something, but it is only MUCH later that a light goes on that indicates “Ahhhh! THAT’s what it means!” This was especially evident at Florence.

Of course, there is also much to discuss about the papal prerogatives issues before actual reunion can take place.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[Zekariya]

Marduk, I am greatly edified by your posts on the Filioque. Thanks!

 

[frjohnmorris]

Dearest Fr. John. bless,

My intention was not to state that he rejected “through the Son” without qualification, but rather (which I thought I made clear), he rejected it according to a particular interpretation of “through the Son” which he thought the Latins were proposing. Thank you for pointing out the ambiguity in my statement. There is a correct (i.e., orthodox) interpretation of “through the Son”; it is simply that in his personal understanding, he did not think this orthodox interpretation was the one the Latins were proposing.

This is an important point that needs to be clarified, a point which probably still needs to be discussed more thoroughly in the various Orthodox-Catholic commissions. You (possibly) pointed to this remaining difficulty in your comment about your concerns about describing the Holy Spirit as the love between Father and Son.

As explained to brother Richca, the popular Catholic apologetic involving the image of love between the Father and Son is often erroneously explained by Catholic apologists. Popular Catholic apologetics normally explain the matter (as expressed by brother Richca’s own explanation) as the Father and Son together producing the Love which is the Holy Spirit. This is often how St. Augustine’s statement on the love between Father and Son is (mis)interpreted. But the true Catholic teaching, as explicitly affirmed by the Official Clarification, is that the Father is Himself the Source of this Love (which is the Holy Spirit), Who gives this Love to the Son, Who likewise reflects this Love back to the Father, thus completing (so to speak) the perfect Trinity – and this same Love (i.e. the Holy Spirit) is dispensed by/through the Son to creation. It is NOT that the Father and Son together are the Source of this Love, but rather that the Father is the Source of this Love.

I hope that helps mollify your concerns (at least partly) over the Love analogy. Before continuing (because there is actually another issue that the matter brings up), please comment on what I have stated so far.

Well put, Father. Hearing and listening are two different things. The former implies mere knowledge, while the latter implies true understanding. The Commissions, and the bishops therein, can explain a lot of things, but unless one truly understands what the other is saying, it will not mean much. True understanding always takes time, even for individual bishops within the Commissions. I’m sure anyone and everyone can attest to individual experiences where they constantly hear something, but it is only MUCH later that a light goes on that indicates “Ahhhh! THAT’s what it means!” This was especially evident at Florence.

Of course, there is also much to discuss about the papal prerogatives issues before actual reunion can take place.

Humbly,
Marduk

I may be wrong, but I do not think that St. Photius fully understood the Latin doctrine. When the Latins said procedit he understood ἐκπορευόμενον. I will not go over again the difference in meaning between the Greek and Latin words. That has been sufficiently covered. I think that educated Roman Catholics would agree that to teach that the Holy Spirit ἐκπορευόμενον (proceeds as from one source) from the Father and the Son would be in error. I also think that the Orthodox would recognize the truth that the Holy Spirit procedit (as from a source through a mediator) from the Father and the Son is not heretical.
I do think that the distinctions are so technical and difficult to understand that the filioque can easily lead to confusion on the part of non-theologians. Even in English it sounds like the Father and the Son are the source of the Holy Spirit, not that the Father is the Source of the Holy Spirit who come through or is sent by the Son.
I appreciate your clarification of how the Holy Spirit is the love between the Father and the Son.
It takes a lot of time to break through the linguistic barriers and really understand each other. That is why Florence failed. They did not take the time to get to that point in the dialogue.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

Someone on one of these threads asked if Orthodox recognize Roman Catholic Sacraments. I have thought a lot about it and personally believe that it is not our place to judge Roman Catholic Sacraments, especially since we believe basically the same thing about the Sacraments of the Church. I know of no one in the Orthodox Church who would not argue that the only thing needed for reunion is doctrinal agreement, not the re ordination of all Catholic clergy. With Anglicans it is very different. We do not recognize Anglican orders as having real Apostolic Succession. Besides before they could reach doctrinal agreement with use they would first have to reach it among themselves. In every case when an Anglican minister has converted, he has been received as a layman by the Orthodox Church. Despite the claims of some Anglicans to the contrary, Anglicans are really Protestants. I believe that God honors all who come to him in sincere prayer, even the Protestants who lack Apostolic Succession and a proper understanding of the Sacraments. Obviously there is a serious impediment to the validity of a Eucharist presided over by someone not ordained by a canonical Bishop in proper Apostolic Succession who does really believe that the bread and wine are transformed into the actual Body and Blood of Christ. However, I do believe that God honors their intentions to worship Him even if their intentions are not fully fulfilled due to defective sacramental theology.
God is not going to give us a theology exam when we are judged. He will judge us by what is in our hearts. It is true that outside of the Church there is no salvation, but as the great 19th century Russian theologian Alexei Stepanovich Khomiakov wrote there are people who are saved whose membership in the Church is known only to God.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[LionHeart777]

Fr. Morris,

A couple of paragraphs from the Catechism of the Catholic Church related to your last post:

838 'The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.'322 Those 'who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.'323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound 'that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.'324

‘Outside the Church there is no salvation’

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 'Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.'338

Source: scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm

It sounds to me that you implicitly recognize what we Catholics refer to as “invincible ignorance” (cf. Jn. 15:22) Is there something similar within Eastern Orthodox beliefs?

 

[frjohnmorris]

Fr. Morris,

A couple of paragraphs from the Catechism of the Catholic Church related to your last post:

Source: scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm

It sounds to me that you implicitly recognize what we Catholics refer to as “invincible ignorance” (cf. Jn. 15:22) Is there something similar within Eastern Orthodox beliefs?

Ultimately we do not know who is saved, because only God knows what is in someone’s heart. I personally believe that if a person is trying to follow God to the best of their knowledge and ability that God will honor their faith and save them, because Christ died for all men. There is a growing school of thought within Orthodoxy that considers the fire of hell to be the love of God which is torment for those who face God and know that they rejected Him. That means that hell is not so much a place, but a condition. The Eastern Fathers teach that our spiritual progress continues in the next life. Therefore, we let God be God and recognize that He is the judge not us. We know that there is only one way to salvation which is through Christ and His holy Church. But as more than one Orthodox theologian has said, “we know where the Church is, but do not know where it is not.” Thus, I would speculate that for some people hell will be spending all eternity with the knowledge that they turned their back on Christ and His Church.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Richca]

Dear brother Richca

This is false. The role of Origin/Source belongs to the Father alone

 

[Richca]

Dear brother Richca

This is false on three counts.
(1) It is absolutely incorrect to state that the Son has become A

 

[mardukm]

mardukm;11330335:

Dear brother Richca

St Thomas Aquinas makes the distinction that although there is one spirative power common to the Father and the Son from which the Holy Spirit originates, there is a sense in which we can say that there are two spirating but not two spirators. For although the spirative power is one, the possessors of that spirative power are two distinct persons, i.e, the Father and Son. There are not two spirators by reason of the one spirative power and one spiration. Also because the Father and Son are not two gods but one God.
It is in the sense that as the Father and the Son are two distinct persons and can be considered as two spirating that he applies the text of St Hilary of Poitiers concerning the Holy Spirit " who is from the Father and Son, his sources." (cf. ST, 1a, Q.36, Art.4).

The councils hint at this distinction because they affirm that the Father is the principle without principle of the Holy Spirit while the Son is a principle from a principle of the Holy Spirit. Yet, the Father and Son are not two principles of the Holy Spirit but together are one principle of the Holy Spirit. The Father and Son are one in everything, they are one God, though two distinct persons owing to paternity and filiation. The distinction Aquinas makes is subtle and if it is not understood properly it can lead to an improper understanding of the Trinity. This is probably why the councils do not elaborate on it. Not everyone has the genious of St Thomas Aquinas.

(

If the Father is the principle without principle of the Holy Spirit and the Son is a principle from a principle of the Holy Spirit, what else can principle stand here for but origin?

Strictly speaking source/origin is not a personal property of the Father because the Father and Son together are the origin of the Holy Spirit. It is better to say that the personal property of the Father is to be originless or a principle without principle as He is from no one.

Also, the spirative power which is common to the Father and the Son and from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds is also not a personal property because of the simple fact that it is common to both Father and Son.

Also, the Council of Florence explicitly states that the Father gave to the Son that the Holy Spirit should proceed from him.

The persons of the Trinity are distinguished by their relations of origin to one another. If the Son and the Holy Spirit do not have a relation of origin to each other, then they cannot be distinguished from one another.

blessings and peace, Richca