Debating the filioque

[Richca]

Would not the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by St. John of Damascus be considered a Greek equivalent to the Summa? I just did a search of the text using my computer and found references in the footnotes to ideas that came from Plato, but no direct reference to Plato in the actual text.
It is necessary to put the Summa in its historical context. Aristotle had been lost in the West until manuscripts of his works were found during the reconquistia of Spain from the Muslim Moors. The discovery of Aristotle was revolutionary to Western thought. Scholasticism was an effort to reconcile the newly found knowledge with Christian theology. The East had not lost Aristotle, so his thought was not considered that revolutionary. However, the East considered Aristotle of great value for science and philosophy, but too dependent on human reason for theology. In fact the Eastern Church condemned John Italus in a council held in 1082 for arguing that human reason was a valid method for when doing theology. The firm conviction of the East is that the human mind is too limited for human reason to be a way to comprehend the mysteries of God. Therefore we avoid rationalism in our theology. It is better to simply accept God’s revelation at face value rather than to try to understand and define it using human reason.

Archpriest John W. Morris

“Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope” (1 Peter 3:15).

“holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents” (Titus 1:9)

St Thomas Aquinas wrote the Summa Contra Gentiles in the hope that by exposing the errors of unbelievers and setting forth the truth of the Catholic faith they might be converted.

Theology is a science and knowledge comes by way of the human reason or intellect for human beings. The very object of the intellect is truth and principally universal truth which is God himself. This is not to say that unaided human reason can know all the truths that our faith proposes for our belief. For we believe truths that are beyond the grasp of unaided human reason such as the Trinity. However, truths that can be known by the natural light of reason and those truths of faith we accept on the authority of God revealing are not in contradiction to each other. It is the task of a good theologian to explore and investigate thoroughly the science of God and whatever that might entail. A theologian, as well as a philosopher, pursues wisdom and wisdom is truth. This was Aquinas’ vocation. This is not to say that Aquinas thought we advance to God without faith. Faith is one of the theological virtues and without faith it is impossible to please God.
God created us with an intellect or human reason that we might know Him. This is the only faculty we have by which we can know Him. God also created us with a will that we might love Him.
There is a branch of theology which is called mystical theology. This entails not the use of human reason to explore the truths of our faith but it is an infused loving knowledge of God or is also called infused contemplation. It cannot be acquired by our own efforts but is simply a gift from God. The saints tells us that this infused loving knowledge of God can hardly be expressed in words. This kind of direct experience of God is what we hope for in heaven if God does not bestow it upon us on earth. Thomas Aquinas seems to have had some kind of mystical experience towards the end of his life as I believe you mentioned in a previous post and it seemed to him that whatever he had written seemed as straw compared to this experience.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Fr. Morris,

I am aware that the Latin Church has anathematized Theodore. Theodore died in peace and communion with the Church, but was then condemned posthumously. I am in favor of having him rehabilitated as a person, because I am not convinced that he taught the Nestorian heresy of two Sons and two Persons.

God bless,

Rony

I do not see that happening, because he was condemned by an Ecumenical Council, which is the highest authority of the Church. I have read enough of the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia to see that there are problems with his Christology. Once we start revising the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, we will wind up like the Episcopalians with no doctrinal standards. I believe that the Holy Spirit led the Ecumenical Councils, which are infallible expressions of the Orthodox Faith.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[SyroMalankara]

I do not see that happening, because he was condemned by an Ecumenical Council, which is the highest authority of the Church. I have read enough of the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia to see that there are problems with his Christology. Once we start revising the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, we will wind up like the Episcopalians with no doctrinal standards. I believe that the Holy Spirit led the Ecumenical Councils, which are infallible expressions of the Orthodox Faith.

Condemnations of individuals are not necessarily doctrinal positions. You can state your doctrinal position and remove the anathema on the individual.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Condemnations of individuals are not necessarily doctrinal positions. You can state your doctrinal position and remove the anathema on the individual.

I cannot remove any anathema. Only a pan-Orthodox Council can do that. As I have written above, I am not convinced that the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia was not pre-Nestorian or that Nestorius was not a Nestorian. St. Cyril of Alexandria had reasons to write his 12 anathemas against Nestorius. Three Ecumenical Councils have accepted the anathemas of St. Cyril of Alexandria against Nestorius. That fact is rather difficult to ignore.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[SyroMalankara]

I cannot remove any anathema. Only a pan-Orthodox Council can do that.

I’m quite sure a couple of fancy meetings and ink on paper by future Pope (of Rome or Alexandria) [insert name here] and Patriarch [insert name here] will suffice.

 

[AdvocatusVerbum]

Your argument makes great sense to me. I agree that after the consecration that it looks like bread and wine, but is really the Body and Blood of Christ.
I am beginning to recognize that a lot of the differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are more linguistic than theological.

I do think the quarrel over filioque is mostly linguistic. The Latin procedit was never intended to be congruent with ἐκπορεύεσθαι.

I do… regret that many of the eastern polemics against filioque have an unintended… tone of seemingly diminishing of the Son, though. To say nothing of the lack of Procession or origination on the Creed at Nicea in 325 or the relative lack of Latin bishops at Constantinople in 381 (nor much mention the Creed from which until almost a hundred years later) which makes it seem much more of a local council. Or the long tradition of filioque in the West from before Athanasius. Much as with the argument against Iconoclasm, the Creed at either was never intended to define EVERY aspect of the faith or defend that which had not yet been attacked without a truly Ecuminical Council of western, as well as eastern bishops to decide on the matter.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I do think the quarrel over filioque is mostly linguistic. The Latin procedit was never intended to be congruent with ἐκπορεύεσθαι.

I do… regret that many of the eastern polemics against filioque have an unintended… tone of seemingly diminishing of the Son, though. To say nothing of the lack of Procession or origination on the Creed at Nicea in 325 or the relative lack of Latin bishops at Constantinople in 381 (nor much mention the Creed from which until almost a hundred years later) which makes it seem much more of a local council. Or the long tradition of filioque in the West from before Athanasius. Much as with the argument against Iconoclasm, the Creed at either was never intended to define EVERY aspect of the faith or defend that which had not yet been attacked without a truly Ecuminical Council of western, as well as eastern bishops to decide on the matter.

If I go to any Roman Catholic Source such as the Catholic Encylopedia, I find that the I Council of Constantinople of 381 is recognized by the Roman Catholic Church as an Ecumenical Council. Therefore your arguments against I Constantinople have not been accepted by the Roman Catholic Church. Besides Chalcedon, which is also recognized by Rome ratified the Creed in its original form without the filioque. Since, the original Creed was not written in Latin but was written in Greek. I believe that any translation of the Creed should be faithful to the intent of the authors by making an understandable but literal translation of the Creed into Latin or any other language. Since the filioque was not in the original Greek text, it should not be in the translation of the Creed. It is to us the matter of recognizing the supreme authority of the 7 Ecumenical Councils.
I agree that the Creed was never intended to express all the dogmas of the Church. That is why we had to have further Ecumenical and Pan-Orthodox Councils to resolve doctrinal matters. However, that is not the issue. The issue is simply a matter of our view that no one has the authority to alter the Creed as written by the Ecumenical Councils. In changing the Creed the West acted unilaterally.
The theological issues seem to be be resolved by considering linguistic differences between the Greek and Latin languages. and the statement of Roman Catholic theologians that filioque is simply another way to say “through the Son,” “or sent by the Son,” which is theologically and Biblically more accurate. Therefore, I understand that there is no significant difference between what Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics believe about the procession of the Holy Spirit.
.
Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[AdvocatusVerbum]

Therefore, I understand that there is no significant difference between what Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics believe about the procession of the Holy Spirit.

Indeed. I would disagree that filioque qualifies as an actual addition or alteration to the Creed as much as a translation. We can certainly debate the appropriateness of the verbiage as good orthodox Christians… though I would hope we could respect each other’s interpretations without impugning our orthodoxy… especially as long as you’re not casting anathema at me for daring to include it.

Being a Spanish speaker, as well as English, I certainly don’t think the English translation of filioque does any justice to the nuances of the debate. Even Spanish loses much of it’s… context from Latin, which I much prefer to the Greek. Out of our own Apostolic tradition, of course.

 

[tdgesq]

The theological issues seem to be be resolved by considering linguistic differences between the Greek and Latin languages. and the statement of Roman Catholic theologians that filioque is simply another way to say “through the Son,” “or sent by the Son,” which is theologically and Biblically more accurate. Therefore, I understand that there is no significant difference between what Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics believe about the procession of the Holy Spirit.

That is my understanding as well. I accept the formulations of St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Cyril of Alexandria on this point, and it wouldn’t concern me in the least if the Latin Creed changed to “from the Father and through the Son” (*per filio *).

The issue is simply a matter of our view that no one has the authority to alter the Creed as written by the Ecumenical Councils. In changing the Creed the West acted unilaterally.

Yet this isn’t an issue confined to the filioque. It is a matter of the prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome. Ultimately, this is what must be resolved, whether it involves the filioque, the Marian dogmas, purgatory or any other number of disputes.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Indeed. I would disagree that filioque qualifies as an actual addition or alteration to the Creed as much as a translation. We can certainly debate the appropriateness of the verbiage as good orthodox Christians… though I would hope we could respect each other’s interpretations without impugning our orthodoxy… especially as long as you’re not casting anathema at me for daring to include it.

Being a Spanish speaker, as well as English, I certainly don’t think the English translation of filioque does any justice to the nuances of the debate. Even Spanish loses much of it’s… context from Latin, which I much prefer to the Greek. Out of our own Apostolic tradition, of course.

I believe that any translation of the Creed should be word for word from the original Greek text as approved by the Ecumenical Councils without any changes or additions, even if they are meant as clarifications. I do not believe that the West acted correctly by unilaterally altering the text of the Creed. Remember the Popes resisted the pressure from the Holy Roman Empire to accept the addition of the filioque for centuries. We can discuss the theology of filioque and reach agreement, because I believe that the doctrine of filioque can be expressed in a way that is not contrary to Eastern Orthodox doctrine.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[AdvocatusVerbum]

Word for word translations from Greek into Latin? Or English? Which Council was that covered at?

Our contention is over the substance vs addition (or changes), which I already disputed as I would the context of the Holy Roman Empire and any “pressure” on the Popes.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Word for word translations from Greek into Latin? Or English? Which Council was that covered at?

Our contention is over the substance vs addition (or changes), which I already disputed as I would the context of the Holy Roman Empire and any “pressure” on the Popes.

It is a matter of common sense and respect for the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils that any translation of the Creed be an exact translation of the Creed as it was adopted and ratified by the Ecumenical Councils.
Although he had no authority to name an Emperor, Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne Emperor of Rome on Christmas in 800. Charlemagne and his court wanted to show their independence of Constantinople. The addition of the filioque to the Creed was part of that effort. For 214 years the Popes refused to add the filioque to the Creed out of respect for the Ecumenical Councils despite pressure from the Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire. However, in 1014 Henry IV restored Pope Benedict VIII to the papal throne after Antipope Gregory VI tried to take the papacy from him. In gratitude Pope Benedict VII added the filioque to the Creed for the first time in Rome at Henry’s imperial coronation.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[AdvocatusVerbum]

Exact translations with different languages unfortunately don’t quite work that neat and tidy, and there is room for interpretation and legitimate disagreement as to propriety. But I’m confused as I thought we agreed that filioque didn’t address origination as much as the early eastern polemics propagandized. Do you think filioque is doctrinally in conflict with orthodoxy or don’t you? Do we agree or not or are you still casting anathema while trying to be slightly more tactful?

I am curious from whence you think Pagan Rome received de jure authority over Europe and how that de jure authority lawfully transited to the Byzantine Emperor to be crowned by the Patriarch as having more any more legitimacy than Pope Saint Leo III crowning Charles the Great? Especially considering the irony that at the same time and age, said Byzantine Emperor’s blatant interferences were much more overt, to say nothing of defiance in canon law, by elevating the Court Bishop of Caesar’s capital from their historically suffragan status to Heraclea in the thin disguise of a reputed Apostolic foundation much less deposing lawfully elected clergy and intruding their own minions in their places when it pleased them to do so…

 

[Peter_J]

I believe that any translation of the Creed should be word for word from the original Greek text as approved by the Ecumenical Councils without any changes or additions, even if they are meant as clarifications.

Forgive me if you have already answer this question, but what would you give as a literal, word for word translation into English? “who proceeds eternally from the Father”?

 

[AdvocatusVerbum]

I believe the preferred form in English is “…from the Father through the Son.”

 

[frjohnmorris]

Forgive me if you have already answer this question, but what would you give as a literal, word for word translation into English? “who proceeds eternally from the Father”?

Here is the translation of the Creed used by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America.

I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages.

Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not created, of one essence with the Father through Whom all things were made.

Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.

He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried.

And He rose on the third day, according to the Scriptures.

He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

And He will come again with glory to judge the living and dead. His kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke through the prophets.

In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the age to come. Amen.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Would not the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by St. John of Damascus be considered a Greek equivalent to the Summa? I just did a search of the text using my computer and found references in the footnotes to ideas that came from Plato, but no direct reference to Plato in the actual text

Damascene’s Fount of Knowledge could be called a Scholastic work, but it is not really the same as the Summa in the way that Zekariya was saying.

As for the Filioque, I think it is a mistake to just gloss over the differences between RCs and EOs. The CCC makes it clear that it does intend to teach that the Holy Spirit has his eternal origin in the Son, which is anathema to Byzantine ears. However, I hope that this apparent contradiction is really not one in fact. It would be disconcerting to believe that the whole Western Church fell into this theological error so early, or that the entirety of Byzantine Christianity likewise erred in adamantly denying the Filioque from a similarly early date. I would rather both be correct.

I think there is good hope to reconcile. How accurate can we be when speaking about God in human language? Maybe even though one says, “p,” and another, “not p,” they are still saying the same thing. I will leave that discussion to the theologians and hope the Lord will have mercy on me if I am in error on the procession of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Judgment.

To clarify one point, is the Son’s sending the Holy Spirit something only in time in your view, Fr. Morris? Some of your earlier statements seem to say that the Son only “sent” the Holy Spirit after his Resurrection.

 

[Aramis]

Proceeds in english has the exact same problem as the latin procedit - it does NOT imply origination. The Greek Creed does, as it uses ekpourousis.

 

[Peter_J]

Forgive me if you have already answer this question, but what would you give as a literal, word for word translation into English? “who proceeds eternally from the Father”?

Proceeds in english has the exact same problem as the latin procedit - it does NOT imply origination. The Greek Creed does, as it uses ekpourousis.

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m talking about.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Proceeds in english has the exact same problem as the latin procedit - it does NOT imply origination. The Greek Creed does, as it uses ekpourousis.

But the Council of Florence explicitly interprets “procedit ex patre filioque” to mean that the Son is the cause of the Spirit’s subsistent being.