Do Eastern Catholics accept the filioque?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alethiaphile
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Apotheoun said:
I am an Eastern Catholic and I do not believe in the filioque.
Click to expand...
As an Eastern Catholic, do you reject the teaching of the Catechism?

CCC 245, 247, 248: “…the Church recognizes the Father as “the source and origin of the whole divinity”…Yet he is not called the Spirit of the Father alone,. . . but the Spirit of both the Father and the Son.”…“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… 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.”
 
Apotheoun said:
I am an Eastern Catholic and I do not believe in the filioque. Instead, I believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds (ἐκπόρευσις) from the Father alone, that is, I believe that He (i.e., the Holy Spirit) receives His subsistent being (i.e., His hypostatic existence) only from the Father, and not from the Son or through the Son. The Father alone is the sole cause of the other two persons within the Trinity, for He alone causes the Son through generation (γέννησιν) and the Holy Spirit through procession (ἐκπόρευσιν).
Click to expand...
As a member of the “Ruthenian Recension of the Constantinopolitan Particular Church in Union with the Roman Particular Church”, I agree with above statement.

U-C
 
bpbasilphx said:
**Those of the Queen of cities (Constantinople) have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope…one relates to the theology (of the Trinity) and according to this, says ‘the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.’

…they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit–they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession–but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence.

They (the Romans) have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong to accuse them, whereas the former (the Byzantines) have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them (Monothelitism).

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… 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 Maximus’ Letter to Marinus, PG 91, 136] **

If it’s good enough for St. Maximos the Confessor and St. Cyril of Alexandria, it’s good enough for me.
Click to expand...
As a member of the “Ruthenian Recension of the Constantinopolitan Particular Church in Union with the Roman Particular Church”, I agree with above statement.
  • Simple
 
I’m not a member like Aramis and ASimpleSinner, but I want to join the list and agree with it as well… excellent quote indeed. 🙂
 
bpbasilphx said:
…they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit–they know in fact that the Father is the only cause αἰτίαν] of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting γέννησιν] and the other by procession ἐκπόρευσιν] – but that they have manifested the procession προϊέναι] through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence οὐσίας]. [Saint Maximus’ Letter to Marinus, PG 91, 136]

If it’s good enough for St. Maximos the Confessor and St. Cyril of Alexandria, it’s good enough for me.
Click to expand...
I agree completely, because if it was good enough for St. Maximos the Confessor it is good enough for me. That said, I have added the Greek words (presented in bold face font) that he used in connection with the Spirit’s sole causation by the Father through ἐκπόρευσιν, while recognizing the προϊέναι of the Spirit through the Son which manifests the communion of οὐσίας of the three divine persons.

Thus, I reaffirm my rejection of the Western filioque theory which confuses the ἐκπόρευσις of the Spirit from the Father alone with His προϊέναι from the Father through the Son.
 
Dr. A. Edward Siecienski gives a detailed analysis of St. Maximos’ Letter to Marinus in his dissertation entitled, “The Use of Maximus the Confessor’s Writing on the Filioque at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438–1439),” which is available through UMI Dissertation Services.
 
bpbasilphx said:
Those of the Queen of cities (Constantinople) have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope…one relates to the theology (of the Trinity) and according to this, says ‘the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.’
Click to expand...
St. Maximos in his Letter to Marinus makes it clear that this accusation by members of the Church of Constantinople is false, and that the Romans have not made the Son the αἰτίαν of the Spirit’s ἐκπόρευσιν, but that the Spirit is made manifest through the Son and this προϊέναι of the Spirit reveals the communion of οὐσίας of the three divine persons.
 
Well, if you think that filioque means that the Holy Spirit proceed (ἐκπόρευσιν) from the Father and the Son, Well that is really wrong, and we agree that this is wrong, as ἐκπόρευσιν of the Holy Spirit is only from the Father.

However when we say filioque, we believe the procession (προϊέναι ) of the Spirit through the Son. Now, its up to you if you will accept the filioque that we understand and completely orthodox in which St. Maximos agrees, or the filioque that others try to put wrong meaning on the word.

thanks
marlo
Apotheoun said:
I agree completely, because if it was good enough for St. Maximos the Confessor it is good enough for me. That said, I have added the Greek words (presented in bold face font) that he used in connection with the Spirit’s sole causation by the Father through ἐκπόρευσιν, while recognizing the προϊέναι of the Spirit through the Son which manifests the communion of οὐσίας of the three divine persons.

Thus, I reaffirm my rejection of the Western filioque theory which confuses the ἐκπόρευσις of the Spirit from the Father alone with His προϊέναι from the Father through the Son.
Click to expand...
 
itsjustdave1988 said:
As an Eastern Catholic, do you reject the teaching of the Catechism?

CCC 245, 247, 248: “…the Church recognizes the Father as “the source and origin of the whole divinity”…Yet he is not called the Spirit of the Father alone,. . . but the Spirit of both the Father and the Son.”…“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… 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.”
Click to expand...
I would like to point out that the CCC is not a universal catechism. It is not looked to by Eastern Catholics as the authority on doctrine.

Apotheoun and many other easterners would probably have probelms with the statement that “He has His nature and subsistence at once from the Father and the Son.” ‘Subsistence’ is a translation of the word hypostasis. What Apotheoun is saying is that the procession from the Son is not the same as the procession from the Father. It is proienai rather than ekporousis. Or a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. This seems to be the view of the Capadocians, especially St. Gregory of Nyssa.
 
I betcha I don’t need to fathom the nature of the procession of the Holy Spirit in order to do good, to love my neighbor, to love God, and to attain salvation.

I betcha I DO need to realize that I’m simply not required to know - that some things are beyond my ken.

This is not to deny that there may be significance to the concept at all.

I’m glad there’s no “test” other than the judgment when I die.

anyone interested in a game of gin rummy?
 
This seems to be the view of the Capadocians, especially St. Gregory of Nyssa.
Click to expand...
Actually, St. Gregory of Nyssa explicitely says that the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit is through the Son, something Apotheoun denies.

Of course, the Union of Brest, the reunion decree that eventually led to the creation of Apotheoun’s Church, also explicitly says that the Holy Spirit is through the Son. 🤷

From the Articles of Union:
…we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.
Click to expand...
Peace and God bless!
 
Ghosty said:
Actually, St. Gregory of Nyssa explicitely says that the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit is through the Son, something Apotheoun denies.

Of course, the Union of Brest, the reunion decree that eventually led to the creation of Apotheoun’s Church, also explicitly says that the Holy Spirit is through the Son. 🤷

From the Articles of Union:

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
The question is not whether ‘through the Son’ is acceptable but what is meant by it. Gregory of Nyssa seems to present it in a form that sounds like it is the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in the way that Apotheoun means.
 
This here is St. Basil’s 38’th letter but it is considered to be by St. Gregory(atleast according to Cardinal Shonborn).

For the Son, by whom are all things, and with whom the Holy Ghost is inseparably conceived of, is of the Father. For it is not possible for any one to conceive of the Son if he be not previously enlightened by the Spirit. Since, then, the Holy Ghost, from Whom all the supply of good things for creation has its source, is attached to the Son, and with Him is inseparably apprehended, and has Its being attached to the Father, as cause, from Whom also It proceeds; It has this note of Its peculiar hypostatic nature, that It is known after the Son and together with the Son, and that It has Its subsistence of the Father. The Son, Who declares the Spirit proceeding from the Father through Himself and with Himself, shining forth alone and by only-begetting from the unbegotten light, so far as the peculiar notes are concerned, has nothing in common either with the Father or with the Holy Ghost. He alone is known by the stated signs. But God, Who is over all, alone has, as one special mark of His own hypostasis, His being Father, and His deriving His hypostasis from no cause; and through this mark He is peculiarly known.
This uses the approach that Apotheoun is coming from. It specifically says that the Spirit has His ‘subsistence’(hypostasis) of the Father.
 
St. Basil simply says that the subsistence is from the Father, which nobody is denying. He does not say that the subsistence is “not through the Son”, nor can his words be construed as placing such a limitation. Indeed, even when the “manifestation” of the Holy Spirit by the Son is referenced by Basil, it is the manifestation (declaration) of the “Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father, through Himself (the Son)”.

St. Gregory of Nyssa, on the other hand, does say that the subsistence/hypostasis of the Holy Spirit is “by the Son”, so there is no grounds at all for claiming that he is speaking of manifestation only. He makes it very, very clear that he’s speaking of hypostatic origin in the oft-quoted passage, literally saying that we distinguish the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit by this origin.

There is, quite simply, no limitation like Apotheoun’s present in the writings of the Cappadocian Fathers.

Peace and God bless!
 
Ghosty said:
St. Basil simply says that the subsistence is from the Father, which nobody is denying. He does not say that the subsistence is “not through the Son”, nor can his words be construed as placing such a limitation. Indeed, even when the “manifestation” of the Holy Spirit by the Son is referenced by Basil, it is the manifestation (declaration) of the “Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father, through Himself (the Son)”.

St. Gregory of Nyssa, on the other hand, does say that the subsistence/hypostasis of the Holy Spirit is “by the Son”, so there is no grounds at all for claiming that he is speaking of manifestation only. He makes it very, very clear that he’s speaking of hypostatic origin in the oft-quoted passage, literally saying that we distinguish the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit by this origin.

There is, quite simply, no limitation like Apotheoun’s present in the writings of the Cappadocian Fathers.

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
The above passage seems to place this limitation on it. It does not say that the Spirit recieves His subsistence from the Father through the Son but simply that He has it from the Father. It says that He proceeds from the Father through the Son but that doesn’t necessarily indicate the same thing.

Can you supply this passage you are refering to for St. Gregory?
 
Chaldean_Rite said:
source?
Click to expand...
A quick read by one familiar with Byzantine Theology shows that it is thoroughly Roman in writing; it makes almost no mention of the Byzantine, Syriac, Armenian, Alexandrian, or Antiocene rites or their constituent churches. It deals with liturgy from a nearly pure Latin Rite perspective. The Theology used is both very roman and very couched in roman terminology.

Further, certain other Churches Sui Iuris are working on authoritative catechisms of their own. The Melkites, Ukrainians, and Chaldeans all have ongoing projects to do so at the Synodal level, according to various indicia on-line. The Maronite Patriarch, last year, called for the creation of one for the Maronites, in one of his web addresses.

Further still, if it were imposed as-is on the Eastern Churches, it would invalidate the Treaties of Reunification of AT LEAST the Ruthenians, Ukrainians, and Melkites…
 
Aramis said:
A quick read by one familiar with Byzantine Theology shows that it is thoroughly Roman in writing; it makes almost no mention of the Byzantine, Syriac, Armenian, Alexandrian, or Antiocene rites or their constituent churches. It deals with liturgy from a nearly pure Latin Rite perspective. The Theology used is both very roman and very couched in roman terminology.

Further, certain other Churches Sui Iuris are working on authoritative catechisms of their own. The Melkites, Ukrainians, and Chaldeans all have ongoing projects to do so at the Synodal level, according to various indicia on-line. The Maronite Patriarch, last year, called for the creation of one for the Maronites, in one of his web addresses.

Further still, if it were imposed as-is on the Eastern Churches, it would invalidate the Treaties of Reunification of AT LEAST the Ruthenians, Ukrainians, and Melkites…
Click to expand...
The reason you can’t support Jimmy’s statement is because theologically, Eastern Churchs share the same faith as the Latin Church. If something is true for them, theologically or dogmatically, its true for us. Truth is not rite/church based that sounds like a form of theological relativism to me; its revealed from Heaven by the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top