Debating the filioque

[chimo]

Hello FrJohnMorris,

The Catholic Church does not deem it illogical or unbiblical that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Jesus said “The Father and I are one” (John 10:30); and "He (the Holy Spirit) will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. " (John 16: 14-15)
And the Creed states that our Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, is “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father.”

According to the foregoing, the Catholic Church believes that the Father and Son are identical and one in everything except their relation of origin: the Father begets the Son and the Son is begotten from all eternity. The Son’s origin from the Father is the only thing that distinguishes Him from the Father. The Father communicates to His Son His entire being and nature from all eternity, thus the Son is true God from true God.
Such being the case, the Father communicates to the Son the power to spirate the Holy Spirit for Jesus said “Everything that the Father has is mine” and we profess in the Creed about the Son, “true God from true God, Light from Light, consubstantial with the Father.”
That the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of both the Father and the Son is attested to in Sacred Scripture. “It is the Spirit of the Father that speaketh in you” (Matt. 10:20), “God sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts” (Gal. 4:6); “through your prayers and support from the Spirit of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:19).
The Holy Spirit is sent by both the Father and the Son: “But I tell you the truth, it is better for you that I go. For if I do not go, the Advocate will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.” (John 16:7); “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate* to be with you always, the Spirit of truth” (John 14: 16-17).
So, with good reason does the Catholic Church believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. And this belief is also attested to in a number of the church fathers and it is an older tradition in the Church than the one that began with Photius in the 9th century who declared that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “alone.” None of the earlier ecumenical councils declared that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “alone.” Indeed, this would have been contrary to the teaching of many of the latin fathers and some popes.

Another doctrine of the Catholic Church that concerns this discussion on the Holy Spirit is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the will or from the mutual love of the Father and of the Son. Dr Ludwig Ott lists this doctrine as theologically certain in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Whether your Church has a doctrine such as this I do not know. Scripture and Tradition ascribe the works of love to the Holy Spirit " the love of God is poured forth into our hearts by the Holy Spirit who is given to us" ( Romans 5:5).
That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the will or mutual love of the Father and the Son can only be if the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.

Probably these discussions on whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from is best suited when another Ecumenical Council is convened. There is so many learned men and women from both the East and West so that a future Council will bring forth a statement that will please everyone.

 

[dzheremi]

Of course the ungrateful cannot enter heaven. My point is that to say that purgatory is somehow necessary or correct so as to fix ingratitude is presuming a need for purgatory to do this, and that it is mainly efficacious in fixing a person’s attitude. The objections to this are two-fold (even disregarding what I’ve most heard from Orthodox, both EO and OO, that the notion of two types of punishment is quite simply absent from the Fathers):

(1) The efficacy of Christ’s death upon the cross in saving us is undoubtedly total and complete.
(2) To relegate the ‘minor sins’ such as attitude problems and the like to the posthumous work of purgatory seems to in some sense retard the spiritual growth of the person while they’re still alive and can actually do things to fix such problems. Maybe there is a difference between our communions in their teaching about death and the forgiveness of sins (if there is, I am unaware of it), but it strikes me as entirely inappropriate to assume that whatever is left undone can be safely handled by “purgatory” – a sort of religious philosophy that turns 1 Corinthians 15:32 on its head in the worst way (‘If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die’).

Nope, sorry, unacceptable. As the Desert Father said, this life was given to you for repentance (not “if you have a bad attitude, you will go to purgatory and be fixed there”). And if I recall correctly, it was EO saint Xenia of St. Petersburg who said “It is later than you think; therefore hasten to do the work of God!” And as we teach in the Coptic Orthodox Church, quite forcefully (as you will see if you click the link), after death there is no chance for repentance (though, please note: this is talking about the deceased individual’s ability to affect their own fate after death; we can and do pray for the souls of the departed in the understanding that it is right to ask for God’s mercy on their behalf for whatever they may need, which God knows and we don’t; for this reason and with this distinction in mind, the funerary prayers include language in which the Church states that she absolves the departed from sin and prays for mercy that God may accept the soul among the righteous in the heavenly Jerusalem…all of this reinforces the absolute lack of purgatory as the Latins have dogmatized it, without denying any of the things they claim make it necessary: the necessary for a purgation of sins in order to enter heaven, the efficacy or rationale for praying for the dead, etc.).

Purgatory is in no way Orthodox doctrine.

 

[frjohnmorris]

QUOTE: The main argument is that nothing changed with the Filioque, it just became more clear and precise…”
I RESPOND: Even it that were true and the filioque does not change the doctrine taught by the Creed, it is still an unauthorized addition to the text of the Creed as approved by the Ecumenical Councils made unilaterally by the West. In 1054, when Cardinal Humbert began the schism by excommunicating the Patriarch of Constantinople and the entire East that supported him, he accused the East of taking the “filioque” out of the Creed. It was never in the Creed approved by the Ecumenical Councils to begin with.
Unfortunately the filioque does change the meaning of the Creed. At this point, I am not sure what Rome believes about the procession of the Holy Spirit. Some explanations given on this thread, that the filioque is equivalent to saying through or sent by the Holy Spirit are acceptable to Orthodox theology. Others, which explain the filioque as teaching that the Holy Spirit originate from the Father and the Son are not.
QUOTE: Plus if the Latin Church has superlative access to the “deposit of faith” that clearly means even if it was a semantics difference, their diction was clearly more superior END QUOTE
I RESPOND: How can the Latin Church have superlative access to the “deposit of faith” than the Ecumenical Councils? That kind of statement is pure pride.
QUOTE: I think it is partly our fault for believing in too much the legal requirements of those Ecumenical Councils when Catholics today hardly know about them. So let us bend a bit to give these brothers and sisters of Rome our willingness to share something that would transmit into more mutual understanding and fellowship. That is how we can heal this. END QUOTE
I RESPOND: I strongly disagree. The Ecumenical Councils are the highest voice of the Church. Orthodox ywould not be Orthodox if we did not adhere to their decisions. There is a friendly dialogue with Rome on the national and international level. The Orthodox proposal for reunion is simple and reasonable, reunite on the basis of the way that things were before 1054 on the basis of the Faith of the ancient undivided Church as expressed by the 7 Ecumenical Councils that we both share.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Aramis]

I do not understand the issue at all. I simply have decided to recite the Creed as we received it from the fathers of Nicaea and not worry anymore about what I believe. Whatever the Holy Catholic Church teaches, I believe.

Two processions in one spiration from the Father through the Son or something.

It just makes my head hurt.

You don’t recite the Creed handed down by the Fathers of Nicea in ANY Catholic nor Orthodox liturgy. You recite the Creed handed down by the Fathers of the Council of Constantinople, which was a revision/expansion of the Creed of Nicea.

 

[Catherine_Grant]

**Note from Moderator: **
This debate on the filioque was sufficiently off-topic to create a new thread from it. Please see here for the original discussion.

Please adhere to the debate guidelines in this thread. Thank you.

May God Bless You Abundantly,
Catherine Grant
Eastern Catholicism Moderator

 

[frjohnmorris]

I believe also that St. Augustine was not entirely correct on this subject on Original Sin. Perhaps the Eastern understanding was not available to him or that the Eastern understanding was not yet formulated at that time to what we know today. I agree with you that the Original Sin as proposed by the West lays too much guilt on this and carries too much weight that needs an Eastern (name removed by moderator)ut to keep it align with what the Eastern Fathers had spoken about it.

Auustine was wrong on original sin because he had a very limited knowledge of Greek. As a result, he based his doctrine of original sin on an incorrect translation of Romans 5:12. In the original Greek, the text reads, “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned…” However, the Latin version that Augustine read translated “because” as “in whom.” On the basis of this incorrect translation, Augustine developed the idea that we all are born guilty of the sin of Adam. From this and an over reaction to Palegianism, Augustine developed the concept of total depravity and with it the denial of free will. He also developed a negative attitude towards sex which he saw a tainted with the transmission of inherited guilt. However, the actual Biblical text does not teach that. Instead, it teaches that we inherit the consequences of the sin of Adam which is mortality and the corruption that comes with it. Because of this we sin and become guilty of our sins, but are not guilty of the sin of Adam. Every patristric scholar agrees that before Augustine every Father of the Church East and West taught the doctrine of free will. Roman Catholicism never adopted the full Augustinian theology on salvation, and still affirms free will. However, both Luther and Calvin did adopt Augustine’s theology of total depravity. Luther denied free will and taught predestination to salvation, but stopped short of teaching that God predestines the damned. Calvin bought the whole Augustinian system and not only denied free will, that the individual plays no role in their salvation, because he taught that God alone determines who is saved and who is damned.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[WetCatechumen]

You don’t recite the Creed handed down by the Fathers of Nicea in ANY Catholic nor Orthodox liturgy. You recite the Creed handed down by the Fathers of the Council of Constantinople, which was a revision/expansion of the Creed of Nicea.

Fair enough.

 

[Richca]

.

Auustine was wrong on original sin because he had a very limited knowledge of Greek. As a result, he based his doctrine of original sin on an incorrect translation of Romans 5:12. In the original Greek, the text reads, “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned…” However, the Latin version that Augustine read translated “because” as “in whom.” On the basis of this incorrect translation, Augustine developed the idea that we all are born guilty of the sin of Adam. From this and an over reaction to Palegianism, Augustine developed the concept of total depravity and with it the denial of free will. He also developed a negative attitude towards sex which he saw a tainted with the transmission of inherited guilt. However, the actual Biblical text does not teach that. Instead, it teaches that we inherit the consequences of the sin of Adam which is mortality and the corruption that comes with it. Because of this we sin and become guilty of our sins, but are not guilty of the sin of Adam. Every patristric scholar agrees that before Augustine every Father of the Church East and West taught the doctrine of free will. Roman Catholicism never adopted the full Augustinian theology on salvation, and still affirms free will. However, both Luther and Calvin did adopt Augustine’s theology of total depravity. Luther denied free will and taught predestination to salvation, but stopped short of teaching that God predestines the damned. Calvin bought the whole Augustinian system and not only denied free will, that the individual plays no role in their salvation, because he taught that God alone determines who is saved and who is damned.

Archpriest John W. Morris

St Augustine did not develope a concept of total depravity as understood by the Reformers, i.e., Martin Luther and company. Total depravity is an invention of Luther. Nor did St Augustine teach that man does not have free will. Augustine wrote a work “Of Grace and Free Will” in which he sought to instruct and appease those “who believe that free will is denied, if grace is defended, and who so defend free will that they deny grace and maintain that grace is given according to our merits.” Augustine said “He who created thee without thy help does not justify thee without thy help.” Justification is not only a work of grace, but at the same time a work of the free will.

Nor is St Augustine wrong about original sin. For the Scriptures teach that death has come to all human beings through the sin of Adam and Eve.
" Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world,h and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned" (Romans 5:12).
“For if, by the transgression of one person, death came to reign through that one” (Romans 5:17).
“In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all” (Romans 5:18).
“For God formed us to be imperishable; the image of his own nature he made us.
But by the envy* of the devil, death entered the world” (Wisdom: 2:23-24).

And it’s quite clear from the first chapers of Genesis that by the transgression of Adam and Eve, we are all subject to bodily death.

 

[frjohnmorris]

St Augustine did not develope a concept of total depravity as understood by the Reformers, i.e., Martin Luther and company. Total depravity is an invention of Luther. Nor did St Augustine teach that man does not have free will. Augustine wrote a work “Of Grace and Free Will” in which he sought to instruct and appease those “who believe that free will is denied, if grace is defended, and who so defend free will that they deny grace and maintain that grace is given according to our merits.” Augustine said “He who created thee without thy help does not justify thee without thy help.” Justification is not only a work of grace, but at the same time a work of the free will.

Nor is St Augustine wrong about original sin. For the Scriptures teach that death has come to all human beings through the sin of Adam and Eve.
" Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world,h and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned" (Romans 5:12).
“For if, by the transgression of one person, death came to reign through that one” (Romans 5:17).
“In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all” (Romans 5:18).
“For God formed us to be imperishable; the image of his own nature he made us.
But by the envy* of the devil, death entered the world” (Wisdom: 2:23-24).

And it’s quite clear from the first chapers of Genesis that by the transgression of Adam and Eve, we are all subject to bodily death.

Orthodox agree with original sin as you state it. That is the inheritance of mortality and the corruption that comes with it. Although we use the term ancestral sin. However, does not the Catholic Church also teach like the Protestants that we also inherit guilt from the sin of Adam?
One of the problems with Augustine is that he contradicts himself. At times he supports free will. However, at other times he denies free will and teaches the full Calvinist doctrine of double predestination. The Council of Orange in 529 did not accept the full Augustinian teaching against free will or double predestination. However, later Luther got his denial of free will and Calvin got his doctrine of double predestination from reading Augustine. Rome condemned extreme Augustinianism in the papal bull Unigenitus in 1713 when it condemned Jansenism.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Zekariya]

Orthodox agree with original sin as you state it. That is the inheritance of mortality and the corruption that comes with it. Although we use the term ancestral sin. However, does not the Catholic Church also teach like the Protestants that we also inherit guilt from the sin of Adam?
One of the problems with Augustine is that he contradicts himself. At times he supports free will. However, at other times he denies free will and teaches the full Calvinist doctrine of double predestination. The Council of Orange in 529 did not accept the full Augustinian teaching against free will or double predestination. However, later Luther got his denial of free will and Calvin got his doctrine of double predestination from reading Augustine. Rome condemned extreme Augustinianism in the papal bull Unigenitus in 1713 when it condemned Jansenism.

Archpriest John W. Morris

St Augustine softened his predestination stance as he got older (and wiser). That is probably why it could appear that he contradicts himself.

 

[frjohnmorris]

St Augustine softened his predestination stance as he got older (and wiser). That is probably why it could appear that he contradicts himself.

Unfortunately both Luther and Calvin do not realize that, but built their theology on the most extreme statements of Augustine.
The fact that Augustine softened his stand on free will and predestination is why Orthodox still consider Augustine a Saint. Some of his writings, taken out of context from his other writings are rather extreme. Orthodox consider St. John Cassain’s 13 Conference a corrective to Augustine and an authentic expression of the doctrine of the Church. The problem we have with Augustine is not so much how Catholics use him, but the way that Luther and Calvin used him. Frankly, I find Calvinism frightening especially as expressed by the Synod of Dort.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Calvin taught that he derived his false doctine of the Lords’s Supper from Augustine too. Calvin was either ignorant or dishonest in his readings of Augustine and he should not be regarded as an interpreter of any authority.

I cannot say what Augustine taught on original sin, but I do know that St. Thomas speaks of a guilt of original sin, but the word guilt is not used the same way in the Summa Theologica as it is in our language. Having guilt in his usage seems rather to merely signify having a penalty owed to oneself without signifying any personal actual sin. For Thomas, original sin consists in the deprivation of supernatural grace and the impairment of our human nature. In the same way, I think the Easterners in this thread would benefit from reading the relevant sections from the Summa on the other issues discussed in this thread (not that I know what they have to do with the Filioque). I might post some excerpts if I have time later this week.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Calvin taught that he derived his false doctine of the Lords’s Supper from Augustine too. Calvin was either ignorant or dishonest in his readings of Augustine and he should not be regarded as an interpreter of any authority.

I cannot say what Augustine taught on original sin, but I do know that St. Thomas speaks of a guilt of original sin, but the word guilt is not used the same way in the Summa Theologica as it is in our language. Having guilt in his usage seems rather to merely signify having a penalty owed to oneself without signifying any personal actual sin. For Thomas, original sin consists in the deprivation of supernatural grace and the impairment of our human nature. In the same way, I think the Easterners in this thread would benefit from reading the relevant sections from the Summa on the other issues discussed in this thread (not that I know what they have to do with the Filioque). I might post some excerpts if I have time later this week.

Therein lies a difference, Orthodox do not believe that anyone no matter how evil is ever completely denied the grace of God because we are all created in the Image of God. We believe that we inherit the consequences of the sin of Adam but that the only guilt that we have is the guilt from our own sins. Thus we inherit mortality and the corruption that comes from mortality. Because of that and the sinful environment in which we are all born, we sin ourselves and earn our own guilt.
Calvin may have thought that he derived his doctrine of the Eucharist from St. Augustine, but he really derived it from his defective Nestorian Christology. Calvin denied the patristric doctrine of the communication of attributes and with it the deification of the human nature of Christ. Calvinists deny the sanctification of material that comes from the Incarnation. That is why they do not bless anything and have center their worship on the sermon instead of the Eucharist. Their churches took their central pulpit from the medieval university lecture hall, because they have an intellectual or emotional view of Christianity that involves the mind rather than the mind and body as those of us who have a Sacramental view of the Faith do.
I have tried to read Thomas Aquinas several times, but my Eastern mind cannot understand him. One important difference is that Scholasticism tried to reconcile Christian doctrine with Aristotle. We do not do that. For one thing at the time of Aquinas the West rediscovered Aristotle, while the East never lost him. I find it ironic that the West first read Aristotle translated from Arabic documents that were discovered during the reconquest of Spain from the Moors. We were always able to read Aristotle in the original Greek. This also illustrates one important difference between East and West. We feel that the West puts too much trust in human reason when discussing theology. Significantly, Thomas Aquinas had a mystical experience that led him to cease writing.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Augustine defines the Holy Spirit as the love between the Father and the Son. That implies that the Holy Spirit is not an equal member of the Trinity. Orthodox doctrine restricts itself to the language of the Bible which speaks of the Son as Begotten of the Father and the Spirit as proceeding from the Father. The only text in the Bible that speaks of this subject is John 15:26 which teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son. The wording of the text is important and should be followed in the dogmatic statements of the Church. Augustine’s mistake was trying to define the mystery of the Holy Trinity. His efforts are called by historians of dogma the psychological model of the Trinity. You must remember that the East does not give Augustine the authority that he is given in the West. For one thing he could not read the original Greek text of the New Testament, but built his theology on an error filled Latin translation. For another, Augustine himself is not consistent. His various writings contradict each other. Even Augustine at times wrote that the first principle cause or source of the Holy Spirit is the Father. On some issues you can use Augustine to disprove Augustine. He never wrote a systematic theology like St. John of Damascus’ "Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith

Father, forgive me for saying so, but your polemical manner is not conducive to an edifying conversation. You have not offered any argument beyond a bare assertion. Like I said earlier, it is not clearly how Augustine makes the Holy Spirit an unequal member of the Trinity. The so-called “psychological model” of the Trinity is describing the relation of the three Persons of the Trinity, not anything about their essence since they are indistinguishable in that respect. So the question is, how does this model subordinate the Holy Spirit? According to the Orthodox the Son and the Holy Spirit both have their origin in the Father? Are they therefore subordinate to the Father and unequal members of the Trinity? No one says that. I could try to guess what you are trying to say, but I don’t think it is too much to expect for someone to provide an argument to support their assertions when asked.

You asserted that the Old Latin Bible used by Augustine was an error-filled translation. What bearing this has on the Filioque is beyong me. You have said yourself that the Filioque was derived by a reliance on philosophy and departure from the Scriptures. There is no text in the Latin Bible used to defend the Filioque that is not present in the Greek text.

Finally, Augustine could have said that the first principle of the Holy Spirit is the Father (alone) without contradicting the Filioque because the Father has a logical priority over the Son in the procession even if they spirate the Holy Spirt as one principle through one procession.

The words are Christ’s quoted by St. John. We can assume from the actual words used by Our Lord that He said what He meant to say. How can we add to the words of Christ or alter them? Are not the words of Our Lord enough? If Christ meant to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son He would have said so. Instead, he said that the Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son. Is it more theologically sound to stick to the exact words of the Scriptures?
At Florence, the Roman Catholics stated that “filioque,” “and the Son” was merely another way to say “through the Son.” If that is the case there is no difference between Roman Catholic doctrine and Orthodox doctrine on this subject, for we both agree that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son. The word “proceeds” refers to the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father just as the word “begotten” refers to the origin of the Son from the Father.
We know from Genesis 1:2 that the Holy Spirit was with God in the beginning.

You are reading your theology into the verse where it is not there. Genesis 1:2 states, “And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” Now while it is true that the Holy Spirit was in the beginning with God, that is not what this verse is saying. It merely says that God’s Spirit moved over the face of the waters. Well, were the waters also in the beginning with God? Was the earth (previously mentioned) also in the beginning with God? Of course not. They did not exist until God created them. All that can be taken from this verse is that the Holy Spirit was with God on the first day.

The point is this, I could just as easily say that John 1 is the only place in the Scripture that clearly speaks about the eternal co-existence of the Holy Trinity and that Genesis 1:2 refers only to the “economic co-existence” of the Trinity or some nonsense like that.

In Revelation 22, it speaks about God (the Father), the Lamb (the Son) and the River of Water of Life (the Holy Spirit). The identity of none of these is obscure. The verb used for proceeding is exactly the same as in John 15:26. There better be a good argument to simply dismiss this verse as “obscure” or “pertaining only to economic procession” over John 15:26 (which, again, does not deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son) beyond a bare assertion that it is so.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Of course St. John never meant to touch on the issue of the “filioque.” That controversy did not take place until about 700 years after his death.

You have missed my point entirely. It is not clear to me that St. John at all had in mind the theology of “procession” behind the Filioque or denial of the Filioque when he wrote his Gospel. What I mean is that it is unclear to me that “proceeds” in John 15:26 means the same thing as it does in the later writings of those who developed the doctrine of the Trinity.

Thus there is a way to interpret “filioque” that does not contradict Orthodox theology as long as the monarchy of the Father as the source of the Son and the Holy Spirit is preserved and the phrase merely means that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Son or through the Son. By source, I do not mean that there was ever a time when either the Son or the Holy Spirit were not, but that the Son is eternally begotten by the Father and that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. However, in time for our salvation the Son sent the Holy Spirit, first when He breathed on the Apostles and gave them the power to pronounce the forgiveness of sins, and again after His Ascension at Pentecost.

Let us look at the only Biblical statement on the procession of the Holy Spirit. St. John 15:26. “But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me;” As I thought about our discussion it suddenly occurred to me that the statement referring to the sending of the Holy Spirit by the Son is in the future tense. At the time that He said it, the Holy Spirit had not been sent by the Son.

Are you saying you believe that the Holy Spirit was only sent by the Son after the Resurrection? I just want to be sure I am clear on what you’re arguing.

To summarize: could you please explain how (not just that) Augustine’s model of the Trinity makes the Holy Spirit an unequal member of the Trinity. That is most important. Please don’t take it for granted that the reason for this is obvious to someone like me.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

The texts that you quote above refer to the unity of the three persons of the Holy Trinity which is three persons “one in essence and undivided,” as we state during the Orthodox Divine Liturgy. They do not speak to the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit. By applying them to this question you are doing eisegesis, which is reading your personal theology into the Bible. You are also making the mistake of trying to use human reason to comprehend the mystery of the Holy Trinity. The Orthodox objection to the doctrine of the double procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is best expressed by the Mystagogia written by St. Phoius the Great. He wrote that the doctrine of the double procession of the Holy Spirit confuses the characters and attributes of the Father and the Son, thereby leading to a form of the Sabellian heresy. He also argued that by concentrating on the Father and the Son, Western theologians risk neglecting the work of the Holy Spirit. Therefore St. Photius argued that the phrase “through the Son” or “and the Son” referred to temporal mission of the Holy Spirit as sent by the Son not the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father meant to be expressed in the Creed.

This is a funny argument on the part of Photius because it is exactly the same argument made by St. Thomas against the Greek denial of the Filioque.

"It must be said that the Holy Ghost is from the Son. For if He were not from Him, He could in no wise be personally distinguished from Him; as appears from what has been said above (28, 3; 30, 2). For it cannot be said that the divine Persons are distinguished from each other in any absolute sense; for it would follow that there would not be one essence of the three persons: since everything that is spoken of God in an absolute sense, belongs to the unity of essence. Therefore it must be said that the divine persons are distinguished from each other only by the relations. Now the relations cannot distinguish the persons except forasmuch as they are opposite relations; which appears from the fact that the Father has two relations, by one of which He is related to the Son, and by the other to the Holy Ghost; but these are not opposite relations, and therefore they do not make two persons, but belong only to the one person of the Father. If therefore in the Son and the Holy Ghost there were two relations only, whereby each of them were related to the Father, these relations would not be opposite to each other, as neither would be the two relations whereby the Father is related to them. Hence, as the person of the Father is one, it would follow that the person of the Son and of the Holy Ghost would be one, having two relations opposed to the two relations of the Father. But this is heretical since it destroys the Faith in the Trinity. Therefore the Son and the Holy Ghost must be related to each other by opposite relations. Now there cannot be in God any relations opposed to each other, except relations of origin, as proved above (Question 28, Article 44). And opposite relations of origin are to be understood as of a “principle,” and of what is “from the principle.” Therefore we must conclude that it is necessary to say that either the Son is from the Holy Ghost; which no one says; or that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, as we confess.
newadvent.org/summa/1036.htm#article2

As he says, “it cannot be said that the divine Persons are distinguished from each other in any absolute sense; for it would follow that there would not be one essence of the three persons: since everything that is spoken of God in an absolute sense, belongs to the unity of essence.” Thus it is not clear how the Latin Filioque confuses the character and attributes of the Holy Spirit, unless you disagree with the preceding statement that is. And both Latins and Greeks agree that the persons of the Trinity are consubstantial.

I am not bringing this up because I want to extend the argument to this point. I just want to point out that these things go both ways and to reinforce the necessity of supporting your assertions with argumentation.

 

[Cavaradossi]

So the question is, how does this model subordinate the Holy Spirit? According to the Orthodox the Son and the Holy Spirit both have their origin in the Father? Are they therefore subordinate to the Father and unequal members of the Trinity? No one says that.

Teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as one principle results in a subordination of the Holy Spirit, because it means that the Father and the Son share in a common property (causality) in which the Spirit does not also share, in effect the communion between the Father and the Son is a greater communion than the communion between all three, because more is shared between the Father and the Son than what is shared between all three. Having the Father as the sole cause (i.e., the Monarchy of the Father) does not result in a similar subordination, because causality in this model remains a characteristic unique to the Father (that is, an hypostatic characteristic of the Father). It is not causality which subordinates (for even some fathers, like St. Basil the Great do recognize that the Father is said to be greater than the Son with respect to causality without implying in this statement any subordinationism), but rather it is the sharing of causality with one and not the other which subordinates.

Finally, Augustine could have said that the first principle of the Holy Spirit is the Father (alone) without contradicting the Filioque because the Father has a logical priority over the Son in the procession even if they spirate the Holy Spirt as one principle through one procession.

The phrase, if I recall, that St. Augustine uses is that the Holy Spirit proceeds principally from the Father. That being said, we disagree with Thomas Aquinas’ exegesis of this phrase, because we do not believe that the Spirit is said to proceed from the Father principally because spiration is a power which is proper to the Father, but rather because spiration is a power unique to the Father. For us, the Spirit is said to proceed from the Father principally in the sense of the verb εκπορεύω, while the Spirit is said to proceed Father and Son in an equivocal sense, in the sense of the Greek verb πρόειμι.

In Revelation 22, it speaks about God (the Father), the Lamb (the Son) and the River of Water of Life (the Holy Spirit). The identity of none of these is obscure. The verb used for proceeding is exactly the same as in John 15:26. There better be a good argument to simply dismiss this verse as “obscure” or “pertaining only to economic procession” over John 15:26 (which, again, does not deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son) beyond a bare assertion that it is so.

The verse speaks of the Spirit as the “River of the Water of Life.” Life itself being an operation of God should make it clear that this verse refers to the energetic manifestation of the Holy Spirit through or from the Son, something which has always been taught, but it does not refer to the eternal origination of the Spirit as being from the Father and the Son. In other words it is not the Spirit qua hypostasis which is referenced here, but the Spirit qua energy (qua life) which is referenced here.

You have missed my point entirely. It is not clear to me that St. John at all had in mind the theology of “procession” behind the Filioque or denial of the Filioque when he wrote his Gospel. What I mean is that it is unclear to me that “proceeds” in John 15:26 means the same thing as it does in the later writings of those who developed the doctrine of the Trinity.

If that is the case, then neither passage can truly be used to argue for or against either doctrine. In that case we must turn to the writings of of the Fathers and to rational thought in order to understand how each passage should be properly interpreted

This is a funny argument on the part of Photius because it is exactly the same argument made by St. Thomas against the Greek denial of the Filioque…

As he says, “it cannot be said that the divine Persons are distinguished from each other in any absolute sense; for it would follow that there would not be one essence of the three persons: since everything that is spoken of God in an absolute sense, belongs to the unity of essence.” Thus it is not clear how the Latin Filioque confuses the character and attributes of the Holy Spirit, unless you disagree with the preceding statement that is. And both Latins and Greeks agree that the persons of the Trinity are consubstantial.

There is a major premise taken for granted here by Thomas which is not accepted by Photius, that is that the relations must be relations of opposition. We do not accept the necessity of this premise, for we understand hypostasis as having ontological content equal to the ontological content of substance (after all, hypostasis and ousia were at one point synonymous). Thomas by contrast weakens the relative ontological strength of hypostasis by overemphasizing the unity of the trinity, giving (to paraphrase Vladimir Lossky) a certain priority to essence over hypostasis. This priority given to the unity of essence seems to be the underlying reason why Thomas posits and accepts the premise that the relations must be relations of opposition, whereas for us—because we maintain, as did St. Maximus the Confessor, that the Holy Trinity is both triad and monad—we do not understand relations of origin as undermining the unity of the Holy Trinity.

 

[frjohnmorris]

The more I study it, the more I see that the problem is one of linguistics. The Latin translation of the Creed did not convey the meaning of the original Greek words. The Greek word, ekporeusis, translated into English proceeds, means to originate from a single source, while the Latin word procedit does not imply origination from a single source. Therefore, it is safe to assume that those adding the filioque really did not mean to change the meaning of the original Creed or realize that they were changing the Creed from its original meaning. However, is it not reasonable to expect that any translation of the Creed from its original Greek would convey the meaning of the original Greek text?

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

I should add that when you read a Protestant, especially a Calvinist, defense of the filioque you will find a completely different theology than you find when reading a Roman Catholic explanation of the filioque. Calvin definitely taught the double procession of the Holy Spirit with both the Father and the Son as the arche or original source, an explanation that is not used by Catholics on this issue. This very interesting, because if you take the time to examine Calvin’s Christology, you will find that it is basically Nestorian. He denies the communication of attributes or the deification of the human nature of Christ. That is why he rejects the doctrine that the bread and wine are actually changed into the real Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

The more I study it, the more I see that the problem is one of linguistics. The Latin translation of the Creed did not convey the meaning of the original Greek words. The Greek word, ekporeusis, translated into English proceeds, means to originate from a single source, while the Latin word procedit does not imply origination from a single source. Therefore, it is safe to assume that those adding the filioque really did not mean to change the meaning of the original Creed or realize that they were changing the Creed from its original meaning. However, is it not reasonable to expect that any translation of the Creed from its original Greek would convey the meaning of the original Greek text?

Archpriest John W. Morris

Bless, Father.

I am only a layman, and I certainly don’t know much Greek (other than what I hear and know from Liturgy) but it would stand to reason that any translation properly done would attempt to convey the meaning of the text as close to the original as possible. If the Filoque in Greek is unadulterated heresy, one would think that more care would have been taken. Your point is valid, and I too struggle with this one. I have a hard time believing that they were that careless and sloppy.