Do Eastern Catholics accept the filioque?

[mardukm]

Dear all,

Dear brother SHW,

I’m afraid your catena of quotes does not really help resolve the matter. The crux of the matter (for the Eastern Orthodox, anyway), is the distinction between Essence and Energy.

Eastern Orthodox distinguish between the Energetic Procession and the Hypostatic Procession (source: Synod of Blacharnae and St. Gregory Palamas). EO are willing to admit the Energetic Procession, but not the Hypostatic Procession. All the quotes you gave refer to the Energetic Procession, EO will say, not the Hypostatic Procession. The distinction is not so strong in Blacharnae and Palamas - they both admit that the Energetic Procession is an ETERNAL action, an idea which still has a good chance of reconciliation with the filioque theology of the Latins. But modern EO have gone beyond the sources and have begun to argue that the Energetic Procession is only a temporal action (i.e., not eternal), referring exclusively to the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in creation.

The Latin Church, in distinction, does not distinguish between the Energetic Procession and the Hypostatic Procession. According to Latin theology, Energy cannot be separated from Being, since God is simple. In your understanding, “sending the Holy Spirit” is an eternal action, not merely temporal, and is part and parcel of the eternal Being of the Son.

One can see how close Latin theology is with Blacharnae and Palamas. The Pneumatology of Blacharnae and Palamas is faithfully carried on by Eastern Byzantine Catholics, and provides a good basis and rationale for unity.

As far as the Oriental Orthodox theology is concerned, I personally find nothing wrong with the filioque theology, fully understanding the distinction between ekporeusai, on the one hand, and proienai/procedit, on the other. I do have a big problem with the term “double procession,” and have strongly advocated for its removal from Latin Catholic terminology in the Apologetics Forum.

Blessings,
Marduk

I just found this blog by an EO that seeks to reconcile the Western doctrine of filioque with Eastern theology precisely on the grounds of the notion of the “ETERNAL MANIFESTATION.” This blog is obviously at odds with the opinions of other EO who believe the manifestation is a purely temporal action of the Son.

energeticprocession.wordpress.com/about/

Happy readings. Theotokos pray for our understanding and unity.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[sidbrown]

Dear all,

I just found this blog by an EO that seeks to reconcile the Western doctrine of filioque with Eastern theology precisely on the grounds of the notion of the “ETERNAL MANIFESTATION.” This blog is obviously at odds with the opinions of other EO who believe the manifestation is a purely temporal action of the Son.

energeticprocession.wordpress.com/about/

Happy readings. Theotokos pray for our understanding and unity.

Blessings,
Marduk

I went to the Orthodox website that you recommneded and it looks pretty anti-Catholic to me. For example, what I found on the filioque was this:
dialectic.wordpress.com/
“THE ORTHODOX RESPONSE
The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics… we did not separate from them for any other reason other than the fact that they are heretics. This is precisely why we must not unite with them unless they dismiss the addition from the Creed filioque and confess the Creed as we do.” - St. Mark of Ephesus - The Pillar of Orthodoxy "
and
"“It is impossible to recall peace without dissolving the cause of the schism—the primacy of the Pope exalting himself equal to God.” - St. Mark of Ephesus - The Pillar of Orthodoxy "
I don’t see why a Catholic would recommend this website.

 

[mardukm]

I went to the Orthodox website that you recommneded and it looks pretty anti-Catholic to me. For example, what I found on the filioque was this:
dialectic.wordpress.com/
I don’t see why a Catholic would recommend this website.

OOPS! Here’s the proper link to the blog I was speaking about:
energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2006/12/03/st-maximus-the-conffesor-and-the-filioque-doctrine-part-i/

Tares and wheat, brother.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ChristusVincit]

I don’t knowt

 

[marymol]

ewtn.com/devotionals/mercy/novena.htm#5

Above Novena prayers are about our Lord asking us , to bring all, including the separated ones , into His mercy …

and would the filioque controversy not be like the clever decoy , to take our hearts and minds off what comes next - ’ we believe in one holy , Catholic and Apostolic Church ’ …how deep and profound those words can be , when said with a deep trust and yearning in the reality of God’s intention, for One Church …

May be , many, many more of His children reciting those words , trusting in our unity as One Church , to include all those who at present are separated , thus fulfilling our Lord’s request , to bring all to Him …may be that would have an impact , that is far beyond what the two controversial words have done …

May our Father be pleased to grant same …in this Season of Hope and Light !

 

[sidbrown]

ewtn.com/devotionals/mercy/novena.htm#5

Above Novena prayers are about our Lord asking us , to bring all, including the separated ones , into His mercy …

and would the filioque controversy not be like the clever decoy , to take our hearts and minds off what comes next - ’ we believe in one holy , Catholic and Apostolic Church ’ …how deep and profound those words can be , when said with a deep trust and yearning in the reality of God’s intention, for One Church …

May be , many, many more of His children reciting those words , trusting in our unity as One Church , to include all those who at present are separated , thus fulfilling our Lord’s request , to bring all to Him …may be that would have an impact , that is far beyond what the two controversial words have done …

May our Father be pleased to grant same …in this Season of Hope and Light !

The filioque is one problem, but there are many others also preventing union between East and West.

 

[marymol]

True ; yet , seems that most of those difficulties can be overcome , with good infusion of Godly wisdom , into more hearts at all levels , with more persons fulfilling the need with expectant trust , pleading for His mercy !

May prayers of Ven.Pope John Paul 11 and saints and angels be with us all !

Peace and Blessings !

 

[sidbrown]

True ; yet , seems that most of those difficulties can be overcome , with good infusion of Godly wisdom , into more hearts at all levels , with more persons fulfilling the need with expectant trust , pleading for His mercy !

May prayers of Ven.Pope John Paul 11 and saints and angels be with us all !

Peace and Blessings !

The problem is that many Orthodox view Catholics as heretics and say that the Catholic Sacraments are invalid. Of course, not all will say that, but it is a significant number.
To get back to the original question of whether or not Eastern Catholics accept the filioque, they do not accept it in their creed. They say the creed without it. But do they accept it in theory. That is where the confusion begins, and I don;t think that the answer is clear cut.

 

[mardukm]

I just discovered that St. Gregory Thaumaturgus is a witness to the teaching of the ETERNAL manifestation of the Spirit from the Son (a LOT earlier than the witness of the Synod of Blacharnae and St. Gregory Palamas).

“We acknowledge that the Son and the Spirit are consubstantial with the Father, and that the substance of the Trinity is one - that is, that there is one divinity according to nature, the Father remaining unbegotten, and the Son being begotten of the Father in a true generation, and not in a formation by will, and THE SPIRIT BEING SENT FORTH ETERNALLY FROM THE SUBSTANCE OF THE FATHER THROUGH THE SON.”

Amen and Amen! St. Gregory Thaumaturgus pray for our unity!

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

**the spirit being sent forth eternally from the substance of the father through the son."

 

[Ghosty]

***the spirit being sent forth eternally from the substance of the father through ***the son."

This has been denied by other Orthodox on this thread, and it is the teaching of the filioque. Denying that this is the filioque, after so much explanation of the Latin, can only be chalked up to arrogance and/or obstinancy.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

This has been denied by other Orthodox on this thread.

What has been denied?

 

[Mickey]

This has been denied by other Orthodox on this thread, and it is the teaching of the filioque. Denying that this is the filioque, after so much explanation of the Latin, can only be chalked up to arrogance and/or obstinancy.

Earlier on this thread Todd (an Eastern Catholic) explains it like this and I agree with him:

I am an Eastern Catholic and I do not accept the filioque. I believe that the Spirit as hypostasis proceeds (ekporeusis) only from the Father, and not from or through the Son. The Father is the sole cause of the Son by generation, and He alone is the sole cause of the Spirit by ekporeusis (see St. Maximos’ Letter to Marinus).

Now as far as the “per filium” is concerned, it applies only to the Spirit’s manifestation as energy, and so it does not concern His subsistent (hypostatic) being.

Now, if the Latins are going to argue that “and” means “through”, then perhaps the wording should be changed?

…and perhaps you should be careful who you label as arrogant and obstinant.

 

[Ghosty]

Earlier on this thread Todd (an Eastern Catholic) explains it like this and I agree with him:

I am an Eastern Catholic and I do not accept the filioque. I believe that the Spirit as hypostasis proceeds (ekporeusis) only from the Father, and not from or through the Son. The Father is the sole cause of the Son by generation, and He alone is the sole cause of the Spirit by ekporeusis (see St. Maximos’ Letter to Marinus).

Now as far as the “per filium” is concerned, it applies only to the Spirit’s manifestation as energy, and so it does not concern His subsistent (hypostatic) being.

Now, if the Latins are going to argue that “and” means “through”, then perhaps the wording should be changed?

…and perhaps you should be careful who you label as arrogant and obstinant.

What Todd says contradicts the quote that Mardukm wrote; being “sent from the substance of the Father” can only refer to hypostasis (substance is the Latin for hypostasis, incidentally). It is the same expression used to indicate the Begetting of the Son, after all.

As for asking for the words to be changed, that is precisely the kind of arrogance and obstinancy I’m referring to; the Latin is adequate in what it expresses, and it is only those who refuse to accept Latin on its own terms who complain about them, or who claim that “filioque” is fundamentally different from “per fillium”. Non-Latin speakers lecturing Latins on the use and meaning of Latin is indeed very arrogant.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

What Todd says contradicts the quote that Mardukm wrote;

I am guessing that St Gregory the Wonderworker would not be very pleased with today’s Latin form of the Filioque in the RCC creed.

As for asking for the words to be changed, that is precisely the kind of arrogance and obstinancy I’m referring to

If the Latins mean “through” then have it re-written in English to “through”. It seems very simple and straight forward. There is no arrogance or obstinancy intended. However, if you would like to continue your insults—you have the free will to do so.

the Latin is adequate in what it expresses

In my opinion, one simple word change would express it much better in English.

Peace and God bless!

You call me arrogant and obstinant and then bless me with peace? Seems odd.

 

[Ghosty]

I am guessing that St Gregory the Wonderworker would not be very pleased with today’s Latin form of the Filioque in the RCC creed.

Guess all you like, but it remains merely a projection of your own view onto the past. All we can go on is what he said, and he said that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the substance of the Father, through the Son, just as the Latin Church teaches and has taught.

If the Latins mean “through” then have it re-written in English to “through”. It seems very simple and straight forward. There is no arrogance or obstinancy intended. However, if you would like to continue your insults—you have the free will to do so.

English isn’t the language this debate has been held over. It’s not even the primary language of the discussion in modern times. The English in the Creed accurately translates the words of the Latin, and that should be enough; it takes a modicrum of theological understanding, that’s all. In that it is no different from the expression “of one substance with the Father” meaning that the Father and Son share a single substance, rather than simply having the same substance as two seperate humans do (the Greek, homoousion, does indeed mean simply being of the same “species”, not a unity of a single substance). That’s a much bigger leap of understanding from the plain text than the proper understanding of the filioque.

You call me arrogant and obstinant and then bless me with peace? Seems odd.

Would you rather me curse you? I do wish you peace and God’s blessings, even if I find your statements arrogant.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

Guess all you like, but it remains merely a projection of your own view onto the past. All we can go on is what he said, and he said that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the substance of the Father, through the Son, just as the Latin Church teaches and has taught.

And so refresh my memory. Why is it translated as “and” in English?

The English in the Creed accurately translates the words of the Latin

No it does not. “And” and “through” are different words.

“In accordance with your request I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them (the ‘also from the Son’) in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending (the synodal letters) has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to doing this. It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot do.” ( Saint Maximos’ Letter to Marinus, PG 91, 136. )

Would you rather me curse you? .

I suppose insults are very much like cursing someone.

I do wish you peace and God’s blessings, even if I find your statements arrogant.

Again you bless me with peace as you curse me. How very sad.

But I forgive you.

 

[Ghosty]

As St. Maximos said, the idea of the filioque can’t be reproduced in a foreign language. It’s imperative to understand the Latin, and that’s been explained numerous times on this thread. The fact that you keep going back to translation questions, despite the fact that it can’t be easily rendered the way you want it to be, establishes that my “insults” are hardly unwarranted: you are indeed either being arrogant or obstinate. That’s not a curse, it’s merely an observation based on clear and continued behavior. You can take it merely as an attack, or you can take it as an opportunity to look at yourself and how you keep insisting on things that have already been clarified, the very definition of obstinancy.

And so refresh my memory. Why is it translated as “and” in English?

Obviously this is a rhetorical question, since you know that the word “que” means “and”. You obviously also realize that “and” does not necessarily make the Son the Source with the Father, and that it is fully compatible with “through” (and is used with this compatibility in mind).

But this continued argument shows that it is not the wording at all which is the issue, but the teaching that the Son is eternally through the Father. You yourself have taken a stand against the Fathers on this matter, so why keep going back to “through” when you don’t accept it either?

Peace and God bless!

 

[sidbrown]

As St. Maximos said, the idea of the filioque can’t be reproduced in a foreign language. It’s imperative to understand the Latin, and that’s been explained numerous times on this thread. The fact that you keep going back to translation questions, despite the fact that it can’t be easily rendered the way you want it to be, establishes that my “insults” are hardly unwarranted: you are indeed either being arrogant or obstinate. That’s not a curse, it’s merely an observation based on clear and continued behavior. You can take it merely as an attack, or you can take it as an opportunity to look at yourself and how you keep insisting on things that have already been clarified, the very definition of obstinancy.

Obviously this is a rhetorical question, since you know that the word “que” means “and”. You obviously also realize that “and” does not necessarily make the Son the Source with the Father, and that it is fully compatible with “through” (and is used with this compatibility in mind).

But this continued argument shows that it is not the wording at all which is the issue, but the teaching that the Son is eternally through the Father. You yourself have taken a stand against the Fathers on this matter, so why keep going back to “through” when you don’t accept it either?

Peace and God bless!

Why were the excommunications of 1054 put into effect? Was not one reason for the excommunication listed was that the filioque was omitted from the creed?

 

[Ghosty]

Why were the excommunications of 1054 put into effect? Was not one reason for the excommunication listed was that the filioque was omitted from the creed?

Put into effect by whom? The two Churches continued to share Communion for many years afterwards. The “Great Schism of 1054” is a bit of a historical myth (the Crusades, and especially the Sack of Constantinople, are much better points to mark the split), though the date does mark a clear turning point in relations.

Yes, Humbert accused the Greeks of removing the filioque; he also accused them of heresy for not shaving their beards. His “excommunication” was merely a polemical screed issued against the Patriarch because he wasn’t allowed to meet with him in person. It’s a sad action by a rather hot-headed man who overstepped his authority (no Pope authorized his Bull, and in fact there was no Pope at the time he composed and issued it).

Peace and God bless!