Debating the filioque

[ronyodish]

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?

Fr. Morris:

For an alternative perspective, you might wish to read how other ancient Christians initially handled the creed of Nicaea. In 410, at the Synod of Seleucia-Ctesiphon of the Church of the East, the creed of Nicaea was altered on the basis of a local Persian creed. You can read this Persian creed on page 16 of this book: peshitta.org/pdf/CoEHistory.pdf

The author goes on to say that “This creed is a wonderful historical example of an agreement of faith despite differing formulations. The conformity with the Council of Nicaea is expressed in words the Persian fathers deemed adequate for their church” (page 17).

God bless,

Rony

 

[frjohnmorris]

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.

I do not think that they were careless and sloppy or realized that they were mistranslating the original Greek text. This was a time of very limited communications. Cardinal Humbert probably actually believed that the East had changed the Creed by dropping the filioque. Conveying the exact meaning when translating a text is extremely difficult. I do believe that a lot of the divisions were due to linguistic difficulties and a failure of both sides to communicate as well as nationalism. It is apparent that one reason for the Coptic schism was resentment that Alexandria was demoted to third rank after Constantinople. There were also linguistic differences. When the Chalcedonians spoke of two natures in Christ, they heard them saying the same thing as two persons. Augustine, the major theologian of the West did not know much Greek and relied on a Latin translation of the Bible. I have noticed this difference even in modern English translations. St. Matthew 4;17 In the Revised Standard Version is “From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” However, in the Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition the translation is “From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say: Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” “Repent” means to recognize and feel sorrow for one’s sins and resolve to change the direction of one’s life. “Do penance” means to do something like say certain prayers, make a pilgrimage of an act of charity to atone for one’s sins. The Greek word is “metanoeite” which literally means to turn a new course. Thus repent conveys the meaning of the original Greek text much better than “do penance.” If you base your understanding of salvation on doing penance, you will have a very different understanding than if you base it on doing penance. The Roman Catholic doctrine of temporal punishment as making satisfaction to God for our sins makes sense if you believe that Christ told us to do penance, but the Orthodox understanding of forgiveness without temporal punishment does not if you believe that Christ told us to change the direction of our lives away from sin. In the Orthodox understanding the works that we do are the sign that our repentance is sincere because we have a living faith manifested by good works and a result of God’s transforming grace that changes us so that we do good works.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Zekariya]

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.

How many translations and re-translations of the Bible exist because of the hard task of conveying the meaning of the original languages? How many editions of the Latin Vulgate have been promulgated and translated because the previous edition was seen as lacking? Similar problems occur with translations into English.

The famous phrase, “Gloria in excelsis Deo”, is from the Vetus Latina. That phrase was changed by St Jerome to a more accurate translation of the Greek Luke 2:14: “Gloria in altissimis Deo”. However, the original translation was well known and popular and never died out.

Certainly the Latin translation of the Creed was considered a good translation of the Greek. The broad meaning of procedit did not pose any problems for the Western Church. However, as less and less people used Greek and started only using Latin, the original intent of “proceeds” in the Greek Creed was probably not realized by Latin Theologians. They added the Filioque, understanding that procedit can be applied to the Father and the Son.

The culture of the West and the East started to split with the Byzantine Empire collapsing in Western part. Traditions and practices started to diverge. The West had the Pope of Rome and found their traditions and practices superior. The East had the Byzantine emperor and found their traditions and practices superior.

 

[frjohnmorris]

How many translations and re-translations of the Bible exist because of the hard task of conveying the meaning of the original languages? How many editions of the Latin Vulgate have been promulgated and translated because the previous edition was seen as lacking? Similar problems occur with translations into English.

The famous phrase, “Gloria in excelsis Deo”, is from the Vetus Latina. That phrase was changed by St Jerome to a more accurate translation of the Greek Luke 2:14: “Gloria in altissimis Deo”. However, the original translation was well known and popular and never died out.

Certainly the Latin translation of the Creed was considered a good translation of the Greek. The broad meaning of procedit did not pose any problems for the Western Church. However, as less and less people used Greek and started only using Latin, the original intent of “proceeds” in the Greek Creed was probably not realized by Latin Theologians. They added the Filioque, understanding that procedit can be applied to the Father and the Son.

The culture of the West and the East started to split with the Byzantine Empire collapsing in Western part. Traditions and practices started to diverge. The West had the Pope of Rome and found their traditions and practices superior. The East had the Byzantine emperor and found their traditions and practices superior.

I agree with you. The root of the problem is that the West lost its understanding of the Greek language and did its theology in Latin. I believe that people who added the filioque did not realize that they were changing the meaning of the Creed, but because of the differences between the original Greek word and the Latin translation changed meaning of the Creed. Had the Ecumenical Councils written the original Creed in Latin, the West would have a valid argument. However, the Ecumenical Councils wrote the original Creed in Greek, therefore any translation must convey the actual meaning of the original Greek text.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I RESPOND: You have made a very good point. I am quite certain that many of our misunderstandings of each other are caused by linguistic differences between Greek and Latin.
However, since the Creed as written and ratified by the Ecumenical Councils was the Greek version, we have to consider the Greek text the authoritative one as understood by the actual meanings of the Greek words used. Since the original Greek text used a word that also means “originated with” any translation of the Creed into Latin or any other language must convey the meaning of the original Greek text. Since the words, “and the Son” were not in the Creed as approved by the Ecumenical Councils it should not be added to the Latin translation of the Creed.
Of course Orthodox Christians believe the Holy Spirit is sent or, if you will distributed, by the Son. No Orthodox theologian has ever questioned that Biblical teaching. That is why Greek Fathers and Orthodox liturgical texts speak of the Holy Spirit proceeding “through the Son.” Thus Orthodox have no problem if the filioque is defined as meaning that the Holy Spirit is sent or distributed by the Son. However, we still have a problem with changing the wording of the Creed as written and approved by the Ecumenical Councils. The Latin definition of proceeding as distributed by belongs in theological works, not in the text of the Creed which must convey the original meaning of the Greek text. Just as Orthodox theological works speak of the sending of the Holy Spirit by the Son but would not think of changing the wording of the Creed to express this theological point.

The Latin word “procession” also means origin. The Catechism of the Catholic Church still explains the Filioque as an eternal procession of eternal origin.

245 The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381): “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father.” By this confession, the Church recognizes the Father as “the source and origin of the whole divinity”. But the eternal origin of the Spirit is not unconnected with the Son’s origin: “The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is God, one and equal with the Father and the Son, of the same substance and also of the same nature. . . Yet he is not called the Spirit of the Father alone,. . . but the Spirit of both the Father and the Son.” The Creed of the Church from the Council of Constantinople confesses: “With the Father and the Son, he is worshipped and glorified.”

246 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.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Would you also say that the Holy Spirit is one with the Father and has everything that the Father has? I still believe that when translating the Creed, one must convey the original meaning of the Greek text as approved by the Ecumenical Councils. A literal translation of the Greek text is “The Holy Spirit who proceeds as from one source from the Father.” Since the original Creed does not contain the filioque, the filoque is an illegal addition to the Creed, even if the filioque can be interpreted to mean “through the Son,” a term that Orthodox also use, but not in the Creed, in the writings of the Fathers and some of our liturgical texts.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Zekariya]

Would you also say that the Holy Spirit is one with the Father and has everything that the Father has? I still believe that when translating the Creed, one must convey the original meaning of the Greek text as approved by the Ecumenical Councils. A literal translation of the Greek text is “The Holy Spirit who proceeds as from one source from the Father.” Since the original Creed does not contain the filioque, the filoque is an illegal addition to the Creed, even if the filioque can be interpreted to mean “through the Son,” a term that Orthodox also use, but not in the Creed, in the writings of the Fathers and some of our liturgical texts.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Alexandria did not acknowledge the 2nd Ecumenical Council for quite a while do to its removing Alexandria from second place behind Rome. Rome did not acknowledge the changing of the order of precedence either. St Cyril of Alexandria never acknowledged the 2nd Council. In his third letter to Nestorius, he quotes the Creed as such:
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible…And in the Holy Spirit: But those that say, There was a time when He was not, and, before He was begotten He was not, and that He was made of that which previously was not, or that He was of some other substance or essence; and that the Son of God was capable of change or alteration; those the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.

Therefore, when St Cyril (during the Council of Ephesus) prohibits adding anything to the Creed established in Nicaea, he actually meant the Creed of Nicaea. There was no Council held to prohibit adding anything to the Creed of Constantinople I.

 

[twf]

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

Reverend Father,
I believe that the Catholic position is more in line with the Orthodox position than you may think - from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

405 Although it is proper to each individual, 295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

Emphasis added.
The Catechism clearly teaches elsewhere that every man and woman is created in the likeness and image of God - to this day. The Catholic Church condemns as heresy Luther’s notion of “total depravity”. Human nature has been tainted, but it is not completely corrupted. To clarify, St. Thomas and the Catholic Church do not teach that man is deprived of all graces by original sin, but rather we are deprived of what in Latin theology is defined as sanctifying grace - that is, participating in the divine life of the Trinity. Other graces are still available to even the non-baptized for it is only by the grace of God that man is first moved to faith and repentance. The Catechism continues:

406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (29) 296 and at the Council of Trent (1546). 297

 

[Cavaradossi]

Alexandria did not acknowledge the 2nd Ecumenical Council for quite a while do to its removing Alexandria from second place behind Rome. Rome did not acknowledge the changing of the order of precedence either. St Cyril of Alexandria never acknowledged the 2nd Council. In his third letter to Nestorius, he quotes the Creed as such:
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible…And in the Holy Spirit: But those that say, There was a time when He was not, and, before He was begotten He was not, and that He was made of that which previously was not, or that He was of some other substance or essence; and that the Son of God was capable of change or alteration; those the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.

Therefore, when St Cyril (during the Council of Ephesus) prohibits adding anything to the Creed established in Nicaea, he actually meant the Creed of Nicaea. There was no Council held to prohibit adding anything to the Creed of Constantinople I.

The Council of Constantinople of 879-880 did. Also the argument made by the Greek party at Florence was twofold: the first was that the insertion was canonically forbidden by the Third Ecumenical Council, because the Third Ecumenical Council received the two symbols of faith as one; the second was that the Pope was never granted the authority by the canons to modify this common symbol of faith. Even if the Third Ecumenical Council did not receive the symbol of faith as set down by the Second Ecumenical Council, we still view the addition of the filioque as illicit, for the second reason.

 

[Zekariya]

The Council of Constantinople of 879-880 did.

This council is not accepted by Rome. The Council of Constantinople of 869-870 is the one that Rome accepts. Not even all of the Eastern Orthodox Churches recognize an 8th Ecumenical Council.

because the Third Ecumenical Council received the two symbols of faith as one;

I do not read this in any copies of the Third Council.

 

[Zekariya]

“And after the letter {against Nestorius} was read, Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria, said: This holy and great Synod has heard what I wrote to the most religious Nestorius, defending the right faith. I think that I have in no respect departed from the true statement of the faith, that is from the creed set forth by the holy and great synod formerly assembled at Nice. Wherefore I desire your holiness * to say whether rightly and blamelessly and in accordance with that holy synod I have written these things or no.”
Source: fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.asp*

 

[Cavaradossi]

I do not read this in any copies of the Third Council.

Then the Second Council falls under the Anathema of the Third Council. For the Third Council strictly forbade one from drawing up any new symbol of faith other than the Symbol of Nicaea. The Fourth Ecumenical Council, however, clearly receives both symbols of faith as one declaring in the Chalcedonian Definition, immediately following the quotation of the two symbols of faith: “This wise and saving symbol of divine grace sufficed for the perfect knowledge and confirmation of piety, for on the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit its teaching is complete, while to those who receive it faithfully it also sets forth the incarnation of the Lord.”

 

[Zekariya]

Then the Second Council falls under the Anathema of the Third Council. For the Third Council strictly forbade one from drawing up any new symbol of faith other than the Symbol of Nicaea. The Fourth Ecumenical Council, however, clearly receives both symbols of faith as one declaring in the Chalcedonian Definition, immediately following the quotation of the two symbols of faith: “This wise and saving symbol of divine grace sufficed for the perfect knowledge and confirmation of piety, for on the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit its teaching is complete, while to those who receive it faithfully it also sets forth the incarnation of the Lord.”

The Second Council did not change the Faith taught in the Creed of Nicaea and, therefore, is not under an anathema.

Canon 7 of Ephesus:
When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.
But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Second Council did not change the Faith taught in the Creed of Nicaea and, therefore, is not under an anathema.

Canon 7 of Ephesus:
When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.
But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.

The Council of Chalcedon makes it clear that the the prohibition against “composing another faith” in this canon is to be understood as being against composing a different creed or symbol of faith, for the Definition of Chalcedon, in its restatement of this canon states that not only is it prohibited on pain of anathema that one should teach a different faith (πίστις) but that one should produce a new creed (προκομίζειν ἕτερον σύμβολον)

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Would you also say that the Holy Spirit is one with the Father and has everything that the Father has?

I think it depends on what you mean. The Holy Spirit is one in essence with the Father. The principle is that the persons are distinguished only by their relations and not because they are different substantially.

I would like to post some more on the issue of temporal punishment later.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

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.

Thank you for your explanation. I understand there is a “principle of triadology” employed by the Eastern Orthodox (or at least by their apologists) which states that any property of the Divine Persons must be shared by all or held only by one. Like you say later that Eastern Orthodox do not accept the principle that the persons of the Trinity must be distinguished by relations of opposition, it is not clear to me why the EO principle must be assumed. Is there a philosophical or scriptural basis for it? Where did this principle develop historically?

Secondly, even if this principle is admitted, I don’t think it must necessarily contradict the Filioque because even though the Father and Son are a single principle of the Holy Spirit, the sense in which the Son participates in the spiration of the Holy Spirit is not in every respect exactly the same as the sense in which the Father spirates the Holy Spirit.

Third, if this principle is applied so strictly, doesn’t it undermine the EO doctrine as well? The Holy Spirit is subordinated by the Latins because they say that Son and the Father share in causality to the exclusion of the Holy Spirit (poor guy). However, the EO say that the Son and the Holy Spirit share in being caused, leaving the Father out. Do the EO subordinate the Father by saying this?

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.

I take it that this that you are pointing to the Greek “essence-energy distinction.” I don’t have any understanding of that so I will refrain from comment.

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.

I agree wholeheartedly. I don’t believe the question of the Filioque, either for or against, is explicitly taught in Scripture. Nor do I think the robust theory of the Trinity as formulated by the fathers of the Church over the centuries is taught explicitly.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I do not think that they were careless and sloppy or realized that they were mistranslating the original Greek text. This was a time of very limited communications. Cardinal Humbert probably actually believed that the East had changed the Creed by dropping the filioque.

It is interesting that you say this. I think you will find this funny. St. Thomas says that the Filioque was the faith of the Nicene Fathers and the denial that the Holy Spirit was a novelty invented by the Nestorians. He also says that St. John Damascene got his rejection of the Filioque from the Nestorians.

“The Nestorians were the first to introduce the error that the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son, as appears in a Nestorian creed condemned in the council of Ephesus. This error was embraced by Theodoric the Nestorian, and several others after him, among whom was also Damascene. Hence, in that point his opinion is not to be held. Although, too, it has been asserted by some that while Damascene did not confess that the Holy Ghost was from the Son, neither do those words of his express a denial thereof.”
newadvent.org/summa/1036.htm#article2

 

[Zekariya]

The Council of Chalcedon makes it clear that the the prohibition against “composing another faith” in this canon is to be understood as being against composing a different creed or symbol of faith, for the Definition of Chalcedon, in its restatement of this canon states that not only is it prohibited on pain of anathema that one should teach a different faith (πίστις) but that one should produce a new creed (προκομίζειν ἕτερον σύμβολον)

In that case, the Oriental Orthodox are anathematized as well. The Armenian Church in particular has added a lot to the Creed. This lead me to believe that the EO interpretation is one of many with regards to this canon.

 

[LionHeart777]

The Council of Chalcedon makes it clear that the the prohibition against “composing another faith” in this canon is to be understood as being against composing a different creed or symbol of faith, for the Definition of Chalcedon, in its restatement of this canon states that not only is it prohibited on pain of anathema that one should teach a different faith (πίστις) but that one should produce a new creed (προκομίζειν ἕτερον σύμβολον)

Where specifically from the Council of Chalcedon are you drawing this conclusion from, Cavaradossi?

Edit:

The Catholic Encyclopedia is helpful here:

"…Had not Rome overstepped her rights by disobeying the injunction of the Third Council, of Ephesus (431), and of the Fourth, of Chalcedon (451)?

It is true that these councils had forbidden to introduce another faith or another Creed, and had imposed the penalty of deposition on bishops and clerics, and of excommunication on monks and laymen for transgressing this law; but the councils had not forbidden to explain the same faith or to propose the same Creed in a clearer way. Besides, the conciliar decrees affected individual transgressors, as is plain from the sanction added; they did not bind the Church as a body. Finally, the Councils of Lyons and Florence did not require the Greeks to insert the Filioque into the Creed, but only to accept the Catholic doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost."

Source: Maas, Anthony. “Filioque.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 6. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 11 Oct. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Thank you for your explanation. I understand there is a “principle of triadology” employed by the Eastern Orthodox (or at least by their apologists) which states that any property of the Divine Persons must be shared by all or held only by one. Like you say later that Eastern Orthodox do not accept the principle that the persons of the Trinity must be distinguished by relations of opposition, it is not clear to me why the EO principle must be assumed. Is there a philosophical or scriptural basis for it? Where did this principle develop historically?

It is a direct consequence of the Cappadocian distinction between hypostasis and ousia. Essentially, it is a response to the challenge of Eunomianism. For Eunomius, the Father’s being unbegotten is His very essence (and all of His attributes as a result must be identical with this attribute). For the Cappadocians, the three Trinitarian Hypostases are distinguished by their manner of existence (τρόπος ὑπάρξεως), which is identical with their hypostatic characteristics. To share in the hypostatic characteristics of another, because the hypostatic characteristics are identical with the τρόπος ὑπάρξεως of that hypostasis, would be a blending of hypostases, a participation in the very manner of that hypostasis’ existence.

For us, if Causality is a property of the divine nature, then the Holy Spirit too must be its own cause; and if Causality is an hypostatic characteristic of the Father, then the Son cannot share in this without having His manner of existence confused with the Father’s manner of existence; and if the Father and the Son are said to share in Causality without a blending of hypostases, and without the Holy Spirit being is its own cause, then this implies that the Father and the Son share properties with each other in a more intimate way than they do with the Holy Spirit (in other words, implying that there is some substance in common between the Father and the Son in which the Holy Spirit does not share), which is quite subordinationist (not to mention the ramifications such a consequence would have for the doctrine of divine simplicity).

Secondly, even if this principle is admitted, I don’t think it must necessarily contradict the Filioque because even though the Father and Son are a single principle of the Holy Spirit, the sense in which the Son participates in the spiration of the Holy Spirit is not in every respect exactly the same as the sense in which the Father spirates the Holy Spirit.

I don’t disagree that the filioque is not necessarily contradicted by this principle, because as St. Maximus teaches in his letter to Marinus, there is an Orthodox sense of the filioque, in which the Son is not made into the cause of the Holy Spirit, but rather the Father alone is the cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit (one by Begetting and the other by Procession). According to St. Maximus, the Latins of his day used the expression filioque in order to teach the progression (προϊέναι) of the Spirit through the Son. The question then is what do the modern day Latins who affirm the teaching of Florence mean when they confess the Filioque? Do they not mean, in accordance with the teachings of the council of Florence, to confess the Son as principle and cause of the subsistent being of the Holy Spirit? If so, then we cannot accept that, because we find it to be foreign to the teachings of the Holy Fathers, most especially of St. John of Damascus, St. Gregory the Theologian, and St. Maximus the Confessor.

Third, if this principle is applied so strictly, doesn’t it undermine the EO doctrine as well? The Holy Spirit is subordinated by the Latins because they say that Son and the Father share in causality to the exclusion of the Holy Spirit (poor guy). However, the EO say that the Son and the Holy Spirit share in being caused, leaving the Father out. Do the EO subordinate the Father by saying this?

Properly speaking, being caused is not said univocally to be a property of the Son and the Holy Spirit, but rather being begotten and proceeding are their hypostatic properties. The two, according to St. Gregory the Theologian and St. John of Damascus, differ in an unknown way. Indeed, if it were that the Son and the Holy Spirit were both properly said to be caused in a univocal fashion, then there would be no difference between the two, and the Holy Spirit would be another Son, and the Son would have a brother. Furthermore, even us creatures, if ‘being caused’ were applied univocally to us, would be brothers of the Son, and Sons of the Father. We do not run into a problem, however, because we understand that ‘being caused’ is not used univocally.