Do Eastern Catholics accept the filioque?

[Ghosty]

Please do me a favor and explain exactly what is the difference between “as from one PRINCIPLE” and “as from one PERSON”?

I’m kind of confused at your confusion. How is principle even possibly the same as Person? “Principle” refers to the Spiration, of which there is one “from the Father, through the Son”; it doesn’t even begin to refer to Person.

If “one Principle” meant “one Person”, then the Spiration could never be said to be “through the Son”, as it is in the Latin tradition. It couldn’t even be said to be from the “Father AND the Son”, since the “and” indicates two distinct Persons. If one principle was the same as “as from one Person”, then there would be no way to refer to the two Persons individually in the filioque, and instead a third term that covered both Father and Son would have to be used (no such term exists, and never has, indicating that this was never even a consideration in the Latin tradition).

St. Augustine certainly never suggested anything like “one Person”, and I don’t see how it could even be inferred from his writings. No other Latin doctors suggested anything like it either, especially since it is precisely the distinctness of the Father and Son which is being referred to in the Augustinian Trinitarian approach (elsewise the Holy Spirit couldn’t be said to be the “Gift” or the “Love” from the Father to the Son).

The expression “one principle” simply means that the Holy Spirit doesn’t flow separately from the Father and the Son, as if both were contributing half parts to make up the Holy Spirit. There is only one “breathing forth”, and that is why there is said to be “one principle”; it simply has absolutely nothing to do with Person at all. To use the classic Patristic example, if you have a spring, a stream, and a lake, and the lake is filled only from the stream, and the stream comes only from the single spring, then you have one principle of the lake (since it’s not fed from more than one flow of water). This doesn’t even begin to make the stream and the spring the same thing.

I’m really at a loss for how this could even be a confusion.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JohnVIII,

Thank you for your questions. I will answer to the best of my ability.

Please do me a favor and explain exactly what is the difference between “as from one PRINCIPLE” and “as from one PERSON”?

I hope brother Ghosty has explained it sufficiently for you. I will add that I can understand your confusion (because I used to be just as confused). You see, though the one “Principle” refers to the spiration exactly as brother Ghosty said, it is also commonly understood in Latin theology that the Father HIMSELF is the one “Principle” of the Trinity. In other words, the word “Principle” really has two meanings in Latin theology - it can refer to the action generated by the motive force, or it can refer to the motive force itself. Thus, one is tempted to equate “Principle” with the Person of the Father. It is simply a matter of understanding the context to determine the exact meaning that should be used.

(I seriously hope this doesn’t lead into a discussion/debate about the simplicity of God)

So, please explain, is the unity of the Holy Trinity based on the Father and the Son as from one principle? If so, please explain how that works.

Plainly put, the phrase “Father and the Son as from one principle” has NOTHING to do with the unity of the Holy Trinity. As brother Ghosty has explained, the phrase refers to the spiration of the Holy Spirit. More generally, it does not refer to the spiration alone, for there are other actions that the Father and Son do together “as from one principle” - for example, creation, judgment, salvation, etc. But it should never be confused that the Father ALONE is THE Principle/arche/source. The Father permits the Son to share in his actions - hence, the phrase" AS from one principle."

Could you also do me a favor and please explain the theology behind that prayer that I quoted: " … Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, one God, world without end."

“in the unity of the Holy Spirit” is SIMPLY a really long way of saying “with.” I have heard that prayer when I have gone to Latin Masses, and I have heard it said both ways - either “in the unity of the Holy Spirit” is used, or simply “with the Holy Spirit” is used.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[SeanTom]

Quotes from a Knights of Columbus publication:

Catholic Position: “The Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. (Eastern Catholics although believing this, are not obliged to add “and from the Son” to the Nicene Creed as in the Latin Rite.)”

Orthodox Position: “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. No one has the right to add anything to the Nicene Creed.”

 

[Diak]

That is an older publication, I believe, and not the updated publication actually written by an Eastern Catholic bishop for the Knights in the Veritas series.

This is the position of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic bishops at the Union of Brest and ratified by Pope Clement VIII and reaffirmed several times (most recently by Pope John Paul II) and continues to be the position of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church:

we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that 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.

FDRLB

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace Everybody,

Great thread! Wonderful! Pleasing to my eyes and ears.

God Bless you all.

 

[tdgesq]

It appears to me that this “western” prayer came about from this alternative teaching: “Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, one God, world without end”. You will note that, for those who adhere to this alternative and exceedingly common teaching concerning the filioque, that unity in the Godhead is no longer based on the monarchy of the Father, but rather is based on the Holy Spirit.

The language to which you refer is used in the collect or opening prayer immediately preceding the liturgy of the word. In the Novus Ordo it is a common conclusion to the opening prayer rendered:

“We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit,
one God for ever and ever. Amen.”

I have never heard it used in connection with the filioque. I have also never heard of the Holy Spirit being considered the sole source of unity of the blessed Trinity. You are reading something into a conclusion to an opening prayer that doesn’t exist anywhere in Catholic theology. Besides which, it stands the common objection to the filioque on its head - that the Holy Spirit is somehow a lesser person because he proceeds through the Son. Now you are alleging in Roman Catholic theology that the Holy Spirit replaces the monarchial role of the Father?

 

[JohnVIII]

You are reading something into a conclusion to an opening prayer that doesn’t exist anywhere in Catholic theology. Besides which, it stands the common objection to the filioque on its head - that the Holy Spirit is somehow a lesser person because he proceeds through the Son. Now you are alleging in Roman Catholic theology that the Holy Spirit replaces the monarchial role of the Father?

Please forgive me if perhaps I sounded like I was trying to be offensive with regard to Roman Catholic theology. I do appreciate everything that I have had the opportunity of reading in this forum, it has been very educating and uplifting! You ask what I am alleging; I’m not alleging that Roman Catholic theology teaches against the monarch role of the Father, it is my understanding that it does not teach that. However, I do think that a great many Catholics who go to church and recite the creed and listen to the prayers do come to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit is the source of unity in the Godhead, not the Father, and that this is in fact why the Holy Spirit doubly-proceeds from both the Father and the Son so that the Holy Spirit can create their unity.

I also appreciate those of you who tried to explain to me the difference between principle and person. However it’s still very confusing to me. I’m sure this is not right but it sounds like to me that “principle” means one person made up out of two halves of two other persons; namely that the Holy Spirit is made up half of the Father and half of the Son. Just let me meditate on this for a while. Dummies like me need to think about things for a long time before they will eventually make sense!

This thread is: “Do Eastern Catholics accept the filioque?” and at this point I believe I can honestly say that I would feel obligated to at least become an “Eastern Catholic” if not altogether Roman Catholic if indeed I can get over this filioque issue. If in fact the faith between East and West is identical then that would mean to me that Rome is the primary see of St. Peter. I know that “primary see” doesn’t go far enough for a conservative Roman Catholic standpoint, but it’s far enough to make me believe that I should at least be in communion with Rome.

Maybe in the next reincarnation (just kidding!)

 

[tdgesq]

Please forgive me if perhaps I sounded like I was trying to be offensive with regard to Roman Catholic theology. I do appreciate everything that I have had the opportunity of reading in this forum, it has been very educating and uplifting! You ask what I am alleging; I’m not alleging that Roman Catholic theology teaches against the monarch role of the Father, it is my understanding that it does not teach that. However, I do think that a great many Catholics who go to church and recite the creed and listen to the prayers do come to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit is the source of unity in the Godhead, not the Father, and that this is in fact why the Holy Spirit doubly-proceeds from both the Father and the Son so that the Holy Spirit can create their unity.)

No offense taken. I was just puzzled as to how you reached the conclusion since I’ve never heard it before. The portion of the collect that you quote is understood by Catholics at most to affirm that there is unity between the three Persons of the Trinity - not a comment on the source of that unity. It really doesn’t even go that far when you consider that it is a plea of prayer from the Church through the intercession of the Son to the Blessed Trinity.

As for the source of unity, I haven’t really thought about it until now. The Father is the source of all deity in Catholic teaching. Whether that makes the Father the source of union in the Trinity is something I would have to consider. But I have never heard of any teaching or inference from the RC liturgy that the Spirit is the sole source of unity of the Godhead. I have read Fathers (eastern ones at that) who declare that the Holy Spirit as the third Person completes the Trinity. Again, I’ve always understood that to mean that the three persons are in union, not that the Holy Spirit is the sole source of that union.

I guess I would need to see some sources from you to comment any further.

 

[SHW]

No offense taken. I was just puzzled as to how you reached the conclusion since I’ve never heard it before. The portion of the collect that you quote is understood by Catholics at most to affirm that there is unity between the three Persons of the Trinity - not a comment on the source of that unity. It really doesn’t even go that far when you consider that it is a plea of prayer from the Church through the intercession of the Son to the Blessed Trinity.

As for the source of unity, I haven’t really thought about it until now. The Father is the source of all deity in Catholic teaching. Whether that makes the Father the source of union in the Trinity is something I would have to consider. But I have never heard of any teaching or inference from the RC liturgy that the Spirit is the sole source of unity of the Godhead. I have read Fathers (eastern ones at that) who declare that the Holy Spirit as the third Person completes the Trinity. Again, I’ve always understood that to mean that the three persons are in union, not that the Holy Spirit is the sole source of that union.

I guess I would need to see some sources from you to comment any further.

Hello,
I was taught that the persons of the Holy Trinity are equal but have different roles.

CCC 1066 In the Symbol of the faith the Church confesses the mystery of the Holy Trinity and of the plan of God’s “good pleasure” for all creation:** the Father accomplishes the “mystery of his will” by giving his beloved Son and his Holy Spirit** for the salvation of the world and for the glory of his name.

Such is the mystery of Christ, revealed and fulfilled in history according to the wisely ordered plan that St. Paul calls the “plan of the mystery” and the patristic tradition will call the “economy of the Word incarnate” or the “economy of salvation.”

CCC 245The 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.”

The Nicene Creed states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.”

For a detailed Scripture Study on the Holy Trinity, see Holy Trinity on this website: members.cox.net/studyhisword. Scripture Studies on other topics such as the Ark of the New Covenant are also on the website.

 

[mardukm]

Dear SHW,

Hello,
I was taught that the persons of the Holy Trinity are equal but have different roles.

It is not exactly their roles that distinguish them, but their relationships; it is not what they do that distinguishes them, but WHO they are in their relations.
The Father is the Source/Arche/Principal, the Son is the Begotten, the Spirit is the One Who proceeds from Father through the Son.
According to the Fathers, those are their only distinguishing characteristics.

The Nicene Creed states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.”

If you read through the thread, and others on the same topic, you will discover that the Nicene Creed as you have proposed is peculiar to the Latin Church (with similarities to some Syrian sources). The ORIGINAL Greek actually did not contain the phrase “and the son” (i.e., filioque). In any case, most apostolic Christians agree that the INTENT of “filioque” is actually identical to “per filium” (i.e., “through the Son”).

The only real problem some Eastern Orthodox have with the doctrine on filioque now is that it APPEARS to fail to make a distinction between Father and Son. Enough has been said in this thread, IMHO, to quash even that objection.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alethiaphile]

I’m kind of confused at your confusion. How is principle even possibly the same as Person? “Principle” refers to the Spiration,

 

[Ghosty]

“Principle” can’t be a “Spiration” (which is an action) any easier than it can be a “Person”. A “Principle” is a someone or something, not a movement or action.

I’m referring to the Spiration as a “power”, not an action. The Spiration is the Principle of the Holy Spirit.

In this example, the spring is clearly the “principle” of the both the stream and the lake. The stream istelf would not be referred to as “the principle” of the lake. “Principle” has a definite meaning, implying origin or cause.

The stream is definitely the principle of the lake, when the lake is considered as the result. If only the spring were the principle, and not the stream as well, then the lake would not flow from the stream at all, which is nonsense. “Principle” refers to the first part, or the “origin”, but it doesn’t refer to a specific point as if it could only be a single Person of the Trinity. It can refer to everything prior to the end point of the discussion, so in the case of the lake the principle is the stream and spring together. Since the lake is equally from the stream and the spring (is the lake from the stream: yes; is the lake from the spring: yes) the stream and spring can together be called the principle of the lake. Additionally, calling them together the principle of the lake says nothing about the relationship of the spring to the stream, or the status of the spring as the source of all the water being spoken of; all it says, all it CAN say, is that the lake comes from the stream and spring.

You’re using “principle” in a manner that is far too restricted, and which is not consistent with the Latin use throughout history.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

I’m referring to the Spiration as a “power”, not an action. The Spiration is the Principle of the Holy Spirit.

The stream is definitely the principle of the lake, when the lake is considered as the result. If only the spring were the principle, and not the stream as well, then the lake would not flow from the stream at all, which is nonsense. “Principle” refers to the first part, or the “origin”, but it doesn’t refer to a specific point as if it could only be a single Person of the Trinity. It can refer to everything prior to the end point of the discussion, so in the case of the lake the principle is the stream and spring together. Since the lake is equally from the stream and the spring (is the lake from the stream: yes; is the lake from the spring: yes) the stream and spring can together be called the principle of the lake. Additionally, calling them together the principle of the lake says nothing about the relationship of the spring to the stream, or the status of the spring as the source of all the water being spoken of; all it says, all it CAN say, is that the lake comes from the stream and spring.

Very well put. From the perspective of the stream and lake, the spring is the origin. From the perspective of the lake, the spring AND stream is the origin.

Abundant Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Formosus]

I am sorry for comming into this thread so late, but isn’t this an acceptable compromise between Eastern and Western perspectives on the Filioque?

’You should understand this teaching in this sense: it is the powers and essential energies of God which pour out, not the divine hypostasis of the Spirit’

“The Holy Spirit belongs to Christ by essence and by energy, because Christ is God; nevertheless, according to essence and hypostasis it belongs but does not proceed, whereas, according to energy, it belongs and proceeds.’

This is, of course, St. Palamas. Is this view not acceptable to latins?

 

[mardukm]

I am sorry for comming into this thread so late, but isn’t this an acceptable compromise between Eastern and Western perspectives on the Filioque?

’You should understand this teaching in this sense: it is the powers and essential energies of God which pour out, not the divine hypostasis of the Spirit’

“The Holy Spirit belongs to Christ by essence and by energy, because Christ is God; nevertheless, according to essence and hypostasis it belongs but does not proceed, whereas, according to energy, it belongs and proceeds.’

This is, of course, St. Palamas. Is this view not acceptable to latins?

Definitely (of course, I am not Latin, so I could be wrong). If the term “proceeds” in the first clause has the sense of ekporeusai, while “proceeds” in the second clause has the sense of procedit or proieanai, then there would be a resolution (at least as far as St Palamas is concerned). If Palamas used the term “proceeds” in the second clause in the sense of “ekporeusai,” then I believe there would be a problem.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Formosus]

I don’t have the original greek I am sorry : (.

 

[Alethiaphile]

I’m referring to the Spiration as a “power”, not an action. The Spiration is the Principle of the Holy Spirit.

What exactly do you mean by a “power”? A “power” usually means a mere potency, and a potency never caused or originated anything. We never talk of “powers” without an agent.
And how does the “one power” account fit with the spring-stream-lake example? You clearly have two powers, the power of the spring bringing water vertically out of the earth, and the power of the stream bringing the water horizontally (roughly) to the lake. Seems like different “powers” to me.

The stream is definitely the principle of the lake, when the lake is considered as the result. If only the spring were the principle, and not the stream as well, then the lake would not flow from the stream at all, which is nonsense. Since the lake is equally from the stream and the spring (is the lake from the stream: yes; is the lake from the spring: yes) the stream and spring can together be called the principle of the lake. Additionally, calling them together the principle of the lake says nothing about the relationship of the spring to the stream, or the status of the spring as the source of all the water being spoken of; all it says, all it CAN say, is that the lake comes from the stream and spring.

 

[SHW]

Dear SHW,

It is not exactly their roles that distinguish them, but their relationships; it is not what they do that distinguishes them, but WHO they are in their relations.
The Father is the Source/Arche/Principal, the Son is the Begotten, the Spirit is the One Who proceeds from Father through the Son.
According to the Fathers, those are their only distinguishing characteristics.

Thank you for the distinction. I had counted both “relationship” and “role” as one thing calling it “role.” The three are equal, however, as I stated in my previous post and cited the CCC for this statement.

 

[SFH]

I am misrepresenting nothing. I am stating what is clearly stated in the definitions of Lyons and Florence. I know full well that the Catholic Church NOW teaches both “Father AND the Son” and “Father THROUGH the Son” and claims these are equivalent expressions, but claiming doesn’t make it so. I am reading nothing into the councils other than what is there. As to Ghosty, I have dialogued with him several times on the issue, and still have recent posts unanswered by him. The fact is that the Orthodox Church strongly believes that “and the Son” and “through the Son” are not equivalent expressions, and that “and the Son” is not the teaching of the Fathers. Since the original poster came from an Orthodox background, I thought that might be something he had thought about.

Actually, it’s a lot more complicated than you represent. Remember that the Son proceeds from the Father; He does not proceed from the Father and the Holy Spirit. So when we in the Latin Rite say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, it is implicit that the Holy Spirit ultimately proceeds from the Father since the Father is the originating source of the Son. A more precise statement would be that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

Now, whether the Greek Orthodox are justified in their opposition to the use of the “filioque” is another matter. As shown above, it is doctrinally acceptable (if a little less precise) to use the “filioque”. Moreover, the criticism that the “filioque” was adopted in the Latin Rite without the consent of the Greek Orthodox at an ecumenical council is a bunch of baloney (IMHO). The Greek Orthodox made much more serious changes to the decrees of the Council of Nicea when they elevated Constantinople without the benefit of an intervening ecumenical council and in opposition to Pope St. Leo the Great.

 

[Harpazo]

Actually, it’s a lot more complicated than you represent. Remember that the Son proceeds from the Father; He does not proceed from the Father and the Holy Spirit. So when we in the Latin Rite say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, it is implicit that the Holy Spirit ultimately proceeds from the Father since the Father is the originating source of the Son. A more precise statement would be that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

Now, whether the Greek Orthodox are justified in their opposition to the use of the “filioque” is another matter. As shown above, it is doctrinally acceptable (if a little less precise) to use the “filioque”. Moreover, the criticism that the “filioque” was adopted in the Latin Rite without the consent of the Greek Orthodox at an ecumenical council is a bunch of baloney (IMHO). The Greek Orthodox made much more serious changes to the decrees of the Council of Nicea when they elevated Constantinople without the benefit of an intervening ecumenical council and in opposition to Pope St. Leo the Great.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

It’s not just the Greek Orthodox that are against the introduction of the filioque, but the Copts, Russians, Romanians, Bulgarians, Syriacs, Ethiopian, Ukrainians, and the rest of the Orthodox.

The Latins had no authority to change the Creed whatsoever. The Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople, which Popes of Rome were in attendance (or at least had representatives in their stead) damned anyone who would change the Creed “one iota.”

In Christ,
Andrew