Double Procession of the Holy Spirit?

[dcointin]

So if I understand you correctly, the Roman Church is saying that the Spirit “proceeds” from the Father and the Son in two different senses? This is confusing since the sentence “proceeds from the Father and the Son” makes no distinction between the manner of procession. To put it another way, one would naturally assume that the Spirit proceeds from both in the same manner since there is no qualifying statement to suggest otherwise. I don’t understand how having origin in the Father, and receiving divinity from the Son, are distinct. I’m not trying to be argumentative here, I’m honestly just trying to come to some sort of understanding of how I can reconcile the two positions. I can certainly appreciate the intention of the west on using this clause to oppose heresy, I just am questioning if its a theologically appropriate way to do so. I should also be clear that the Holy Trinity is a mystery in the deepest sense, and I’m not trying to define it so much as recognize the Orthodox manner in which we can speak of it. Thank you again for your posts Mardukm, they’re very informative!

 

[mardukm]

So if I understand you correctly, the Roman Church is saying that the Spirit “proceeds” from the Father and the Son in two different senses? This is confusing since the sentence “proceeds from the Father and the Son” makes no distinction between the manner of procession. To put it another way, one would naturally assume that the Spirit proceeds from both in the same manner since there is no qualifying statement to suggest otherwise. I don’t understand how having origin in the Father, and receiving divinity from the Son, are distinct. I’m not trying to be argumentative here, I’m honestly just trying to come to some sort of understanding of how I can reconcile the two positions. I can certainly appreciate the intention of the west on using this clause to oppose heresy, I just am questioning if its a theologically appropriate way to do so. I should also be clear that the Holy Trinity is a mystery in the deepest sense, and I’m not trying to define it so much as recognize the Orthodox manner in which we can speak of it. Thank you again for your posts Mardukm, they’re very informative!

Thank you for the question.

No, I am not saying that the Latins are saying in their Creed that the Spirit proceeds from the Father one way and the Spirit proceeds from the Son in another way.

In the Latin Creed, the Holy Spirit indeed proceeds from the Father and the Son in the same way. All I am saying is that the Latin Creed does not intend, and never intended, to use “proceeds” in the sense of ontological origination in their Creed. They only used “proceeds” in the sense of “go forth” in order to assert the consubstantiality (not origin) of the Spirit within the Godhead.

So what the Latin Creed IS saying is:
Tthe Spirit “goes forth” from the Son because the Spirit “goes forth” from the Father, the Son having received this from the Father…

What the Latin Creed IS NOT saying is:
Tthe Spirit “originates” from the Son because the Spirit “originates” from the Father, the Son having received this from the Father.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

The English proceeds and the latin procedit DO NOT SPECIFY which form, origination nor transmission. The term can be used in one phrase for both forms simultaneously.

It is exactly the same as with emits. Emitting light does not mean of need origination, but does mean the light is coming from, by an indeterminate possibility of transmission and/or origination.

Procession is exactly the same situation. It means the Spirit comes to us via the Father and the Son, and yet, does not specify that either is the origin, nor preclude either as the origin. Proceeds merely says it’s coming from, not originating from.

The Latin Credo was different from the Greek Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed from its origin, because it used procedit ex patre, not emanio ex patre nor initio ex patre, where the Greeks used ekporousai. Adding “and the Son” to the Greek is heresy. Adding it to the English and Latin versions of the Latin is not, because the Latin Credo does not speak of origin in that line. And that line is redundant, anyway.

It was a foundational translation error. And one that has never been corrected; functionally, the Roman church has NEVER used the N.C. Creed, but the Latin Credo, a translation that is close but subtly different. And was accepted as Orthodox until the 800’s despite that.

The problem was Greek (and is now EO) arrogance that the Credo Latinae is merely a translation of the N.-C. Creed.

 

[Hesychios]

The problem was Greek (and is now EO) arrogance …

I take exception to your characterization as arrogance.

… that the Credo Latinae is merely a translation of the N.-C. Creed.

Is that how Development of Doctrine works?

What are you trying to say, the Latin church has a different religion? Are you seriously proposing that the Latin church never completely accepted the Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed as written?

It would not have always been so.

What you are suggesting is a dogmatic shift in the belief of the Latin church sometime after the fourth century as the vernacular language of the Christians in the city of Rome changed. If that is true, it is indefensible on so many levels.

If the Creed is not an exact exposition of the Creed as agreed in Council of the Fathers, it is not the universal Faith of the Apostles. First and foremost, the Latin church must adhere to the Faith of the Seven Councils as explained in the Creed of the first two great ecumenical councils (which happened to have been Greek in this case), or recognize it’s own religious indifference. If that means the sense of interpretation of the Latin text must always yield to the Greek original, so be it. If that means Latin/German/Slavic/Chinese laity must have extra catechesis to understand it, so be it.

That’s what we have church Teaching authority for, to make sure people don’t screw up on matters like this.

I for one do not believe that the Latin church was ever indifferent to the Faith as expressed in the Greek in the first few centuries. The church at Rome was initially composed of Greek speaking Jews and Gentiles and worshiped in Greek for a very long time. Knowledge of Greek was required of every gentleman who cared about his family’s reputation, and for deacons and priests of God’s holy church that was a given. They had to have understood the Creed in it’s original Greek from the beginning.

BTW, the Creed didn’t just pop up out of nowhere, it was mostly drawn from a baptismal profession used in the east, one source said it was the text used at Ceasarea in Palestine.

In other words, the term ‘Procedit’ had to carry the sense of origin from the Father in the Latin to parallel the Greek understanding, in fact it would have been the subject of homilies. If the illiterate peasants of Italy didn’t know Greek they would have (and should have) necessarily been catechized to know that Jesus Christ had His origin from the Father.

When these people are exposed to ‘filioque’ then, what else are they supposed to think? Jesus has His origin from the Father and the Holy Spirit has His origin from the Father and the Son. Origin from two sources for the Holy Spirit and from one source for the Son.

Clear as a bell.

 

[Hesychios]

The problem was Greek (and is now EO) arrogance …

I take exception to your characterization as arrogance.

… that the Credo Latinae is merely a translation of the N.-C. Creed.

Is that how Development of Doctrine works?

What are you trying to say, the Latin church has a different religion? Are you seriously proposing that the Latin church never completely accepted the Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed as written?

It would not have always been so.

What you are suggesting is a dogmatic shift in the belief of the Latin church sometime after the fourth century as the vernacular language of the Christians in the city of Rome changed. If that is true, it is indefensible on so many levels.

If the Creed is not an exact exposition of the Creed as agreed in Council of the Fathers, it is not the universal Faith of the Apostles. First and foremost, the Latin church must adhere to the Faith of the Seven Councils as explained in the Creed of the first two great ecumenical councils (which happened to have been Greek in this case), or recognize it’s own religious indifference. If that means the sense of interpretation of the Latin text must always yield to the Greek original, so be it. If that means Latin/German/Slavic/Chinese laity must have extra catechesis to understand it, so be it.

That’s what we have church Teaching authority for, to make sure people don’t screw up on matters like this.

I for one do not believe that the Latin church was ever indifferent to the Faith as expressed in the Greek in the first few centuries. The church at Rome was initially composed of Greek speaking Jews and Gentiles and worshiped in Greek for a very long time. Knowledge of Greek was required of every gentleman who cared about his family’s reputation, and for deacons and priests of God’s holy church that was a given. They had to have understood the Creed in it’s original Greek from the beginning.

BTW, the Creed didn’t just pop up out of nowhere, it was mostly drawn from a baptismal profession used in the east, one source said it was the text used at Ceasarea in Palestine.

In other words, the term ‘Procedit’ had to carry the sense of origin from the Father in the Latin to parallel the Greek understanding, in fact it would have been the subject of homilies. If the illiterate peasants of Italy didn’t know Greek they would have (and should have) necessarily been catechized to know that Jesus Christ had His origin from the Father.

When these people are exposed to ‘filioque’ then, what else are they supposed to think? Jesus has His origin from the Father, while the Holy Spirit has His origin from the Father and the Son. Origin from two sources for the Holy Spirit and from one source for the Son.

Clear as a bell.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Thank you for the question.

No, I am not saying that the Latins are saying in their Creed that the Spirit proceeds from the Father one way and the Spirit proceeds from the Son in another way.

In the Latin Creed, the Holy Spirit indeed proceeds from the Father and the Son in the same way. All I am saying is that the Latin Creed does not intend, and never intended, to use “proceeds” in the sense of ontological origination in their Creed. They only used “proceeds” in the sense of “go forth” in order to assert the consubstantiality (not origin) of the Spirit within the Godhead.

So what the Latin Creed IS saying is:
Tthe Spirit “goes forth” from the Son because the Spirit “goes forth” from the Father, the Son having received this from the Father…

What the Latin Creed IS NOT saying is:
Tthe Spirit “originates” from the Son because the Spirit “originates” from the Father, the Son having received this from the Father.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

So the Creed in Latin does not intend to make a statement on the eternal origin of the Spirit? If the Creed as written by the Council did make a statement about the eternal origin of the Spirit, wouldn’t changing the meaning of the Creed in that way constitute an uncanonical and possibly heretical alteration? Did the council err in making a statement about the eternal origin of the Spirit or was that statement unnecessary?

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Aramis]

The latins church’s Credo is not a direct translation of the N.-C. creed; it’s extremely close, but as with all translations, differences creep in.

Until the filioque (Roman) or et filios (Mozarabic) creedal accretions, the lack of precision in the Credo was a non-issue.

The Catholic Church never denied the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed; in fact, few Roman Catholics ever really noticed the difference, since the Latin was the basis for western understanding. Arguably, few, if any noticed until the internet that the credo isn’t a correct translation.

It’s obvious the East didn’t realize it, either… for if they had, they’d either have accepted the Credo as valid publicly (for it teaches the same truths in the other elements), or would have rejected the Credo from the start of its use.

That the Son sends the Holy Spirit is orthodox, as it is in the Gospel that Christ promises to send the Spirit; but likewise, in the Gospels we see that the Father can send forth the spirit directly as well.

In short, the Orthodox have made a great deal about a trivial difference in expression that is still congruent with Orthodox belief. The simplest explanation for this would be a desire to exclude all non-byantine expressions; persistant ignorance is harder for many to believe, but is more charitable.

More interesting, however, is that the Orthodox use the English “proceeds” in the creed, making the same “error” as the Latins… and proceeds is, in English, not the same as ekporousis in Greek; it is the English-speaking Orthodox as well not using the correct creed. It should read “Who originates from the Father.” But it does not; it uses the vague “Who proceeds from the father.” So, do the English speaking Orthodox not share the faith?

You can not logically have it both ways, Michael; either both are heterodox or both are orthodox.

 

[mardukm]

More interesting, however, is that the Orthodox use the English “proceeds” in the creed, making the same “error” as the Latins… and proceeds is, in English, not the same as ekporousis in Greek; it is the English-speaking Orthodox as well not using the correct creed. It should read “Who originates from the Father.” But it does not; it uses the vague “Who proceeds from the father.” So, do the English speaking Orthodox not share the faith?

OOOOO! Nice one!

 

[josephdaniel29]

OOOOO! Nice one!

Whatever the language used the intent is exactly the same, to make a statement about the ontological procession of the Spirit. That is precisely what the Fathers intended. Either way you slice it the Latin Church changed the meaning of the creed. Either you ceased to make a statement about the ontological procession as was originally intended or begin to make a statement about double procession. Where is the flaw in my logic?

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Ghosty]

More interesting, however, is that the Orthodox use the English “proceeds” in the creed, making the same “error” as the Latins… and proceeds is, in English, not the same as ekporousis in Greek; it is the English-speaking Orthodox as well not using the correct creed. It should read “Who originates from the Father.” But it does not; it uses the vague “Who proceeds from the father.” So, do the English speaking Orthodox not share the faith?

An interesting and very important point, actually. I don’t believe I’ve seen this brought up before.

Technically speaking, English-speaking Orthodox make the exact same “error” as Latins. We may proceed from this fact to the conclusion that English speaking Orthodox are heterodox.

Now, did my previous sentence begin the discussion about this fact of language?

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

Whatever the language used the intent is exactly the same, to make a statement about the ontological procession of the Spirit. That is precisely what the Fathers intended. Either way you slice it the Latin Church changed the meaning of the creed. Either you ceased to make a statement about the ontological procession as was originally intended or begin to make a statement about double procession. Where is the flaw in my logic?

Yours in Christ
Joe

You can say this all you like, but the fact is that this point was never made to the Latins at the time of the Creed. There was absolutely NO WAY for this notion to be conveyed based on the languages being used.

Do you believe that, at the Council of Nicaea, they had a discussion about the difference between Latin and Greek, and explained to the Latins that their language was wrong in expressing the Faith?

Speaking for myself, I find it far more likely that this issue simply wasn’t broached by the Fathers until translations were exchanged. That happened with St. Maximos the Confessor a couple of centuries later, incidentally.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Vico]

I could be wrong, but all I see here is an argument against Modalism. It does not address Orthodox concerns over the filioque, but does affirm a dual origin of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son, which is double procession.

This reads to me like a strong exposition of dual origin of the Holy Spirit, or if not that possibly double talk.

To wit: "according to the Greeks indeed as cause ". Which cause … The First Cause? The Unmoved Mover?

It can be used just as strongly to argue against a single origin as for a single origin, depending upon one’s reference point.

One could actually also read this to mean that when the Greek Fathers spoke of “through the Son” we are supposed to read “from the Son” as an originator.

The only clearly discernible point I can see in it is that they declared that the filioque phrase “… was licitly and reasonably added to the creed”. Which is the position the Latin Fathers went in with to that Council.

It is becoming abundantly clear why most Catholics do not understand the dogma.

I hope this statement from St. Maximus the Confessor will answer all your question above.

John 15:26
King James Version: But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.
Rheims-Challoner: But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.

The Latin creed is saying something more than the Greek and was intentional and necessary (added first in Toledo, Spain 587 A.D.) to counter the Arian Christian faith of the Spanish Visigothic nobility.

St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 580 - 662 A.D.) wrote:
For the procession they [those at Rome] brought the witness of the Latin Fathers, as well, of course, as that of St Cyril of Alexandria in his sacred study on the Gospel of St John. On this basis they showed that they themselves do not make the Son Cause (αίτία) of the Spirit. They know, indeed, that the Father is the sole cause of the Son and of the Spirit, of one by generation and of the other by ἐκπόρευσις — but they explained that the latter comes (προϊέναι) through the Son, and they showed in this way the unity and the immutability of the essence.”
Therefore the meaning is orthodox when the verb proinai is used meaning “through the Son” or “and the Son”. But in the Greek “and the Son” should never be used with the verb ekporev-, and it is inadvisable to even use “through the Son” in Greek, and you may notice the Pope Saint Leo I did not add the phrase to the Greek version of the Creed, only the Latin.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Joe,

So the Creed in Latin does not intend to make a statement on the eternal origin of the Spirit? If the Creed as written by the Council did make a statement about the eternal origin of the Spirit, wouldn’t changing the meaning of the Creed in that way constitute an uncanonical and possibly heretical alteration? Did the council err in making a statement about the eternal origin of the Spirit or was that statement unnecessary?

Good point, but I believe the focus of your criticism is a bit off.

I’m sure you’ve read about the Pneumatological debates that resulted in the revision of the Nicene Creed by Constantinople. The additions to the statements on the Holy Spirit were for the purpose of proving the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Don’t just look at words. Look at the purpose behind them.

(That is something we Orientals love to exhort our aposotlic brethren to do ).

So the statement “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father” was the Council of Constantinople’s way of asserting the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

The question we must ask is not “did the Latins use the same words?” Rather we need to ask “did the Latin Creed fulfill the same purpose that Constantinople intended of asserting the divinity of the Holy Spirit?”

The answer is a resounding YES.

True, the Latins did it differently - by asserting the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father and Son. However, it fulfilled the same purpose that the Fathers of Constantinople intended by their own assertion of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father.

Given that, how can there be any accusation of heresy?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[revert_jen]

This reads to me like a strong exposition of dual origin of the Holy Spirit, or if not that possibly double talk.

Here is my understanding–it is how I was taught and it seems to be simple so I’m probably missing something, but FWIW:

It just means that procedit does not imply origin. Since the word for proceeding from and proceeding through are the same in Latin, filioque is correct, just not ideal. Latin has a smaller vocabulary than Greek.

I come from my mother and my father. It would be more exact to say that I was begotten by my father and borne by my mother, but that doesn’t mean that the first sentence is incorrect. There are a lot of words in English, like in Greek.

Anyway that is what I was taught.

–Jen

 

[mardukm]

Here is my understanding–it is how I was taught and it seems to be simple so I’m probably missing something, but FWIW:

It just means that procedit does not imply origin. Since the word for proceeding from and proceeding through are the same in Latin, filioque is correct, just not ideal. Latin has a smaller vocabulary than Greek.

I come from my mother and my father. It would be more exact to say that I was begotten by my father and borne by my mother, but that doesn’t mean that the first sentence is incorrect. There are a lot of words in English, like in Greek.

Anyway that is what I was taught.

A true and simple Faith. Well said, sister!

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Hesychios,

What you are suggesting is a dogmatic shift in the belief of the Latin church sometime after the fourth century as the vernacular language of the Christians in the city of Rome changed. If that is true, it is indefensible on so many levels.

There was no dogmatic shift. As explained to brother Joe, the dogma that Constantinople intended to establish with the line “the Holy Spirit originates from the Father” was the divinity of the Holy Spirit. The statement of the Latin Creed “the Holy Spirit goes forth from the Father and the Son” was intended to establish the same dogma - the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

Aside from all that, it is important to note that all the heretics that the Easterns and Westerns were combatting at the time of Constantinople believed in the Arche of the Father. So that was not even an issue with which Constantinople concerned itself. It’s just an anachronism to defend a lost-cause polemic to claim that the difference in language between the Latins and Greeks in the Creed represented some kind of dogmatic shift.

Blessings

 

[Hesychios]

Technically speaking, English-speaking Orthodox make the exact same “error” as Latins.

No, because for the Orthodox ‘Proceeding’ signifies a type of origin, for which then we would understand the term “and the Son” to mean sharing that role as origin.

It is’t the word used as much as the meaning. For Orthodox ‘Proceeding’ in English signifies a point of origin, just as it probably did for the early Latin Catholics.

Modern Catholic apologists are trying to use this argument to explain away the fact that their own predecessor church taught double-procession and double origin and were more than willing to risk schism over it.

 

[Hesychios]

Dear brother Hesychios,

There was no dogmatic shift. As explained to brother Joe, the dogma that Constantinople intended to establish with the line “the Holy Spirit originates from the Father” was the divinity of the Holy Spirit. The statement of the Latin Creed “the Holy Spirit goes forth from the Father and the Son” was intended to establish the same dogma - the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

No it wasn’t.

How many times has it been asserted (here and elsewhere) that the filioque was intended to combat Arianism in Spai
n, which in fact was a heresy maintaing the it was Jesus who was not God.

The filioque was intended to show that Jesus was as much God as the Father, and so could also send forth the Holy Spirit as the Father does.

Double origin to prove Jesus was God, not just some exalted holy person.

 

[Hesychios]

Here is my understanding–it is how I was taught and it seems to be simple so I’m probably missing something, but FWIW:

It just means that procedit does not imply origin. Since the word for proceeding from and proceeding through are the same in Latin, filioque is correct, just not ideal. Latin has a smaller vocabulary than Greek.

I come from my mother and my father. It would be more exact to say that I was begotten by my father and borne by my mother, but that doesn’t mean that the first sentence is incorrect. There are a lot of words in English, like in Greek.

Anyway that is what I was taught.

–Jen

 

[Hesychios]

Here is my understanding–it is how I was taught and it seems to be simple so I’m probably missing something, but FWIW:

It just means that procedit does not imply origin. Since the word for proceeding from and proceeding through are the same in Latin, filioque is correct, just not ideal. Latin has a smaller vocabulary than Greek.

So when the church at Rome received the creed from Constantinople, they never understood it to mean that Jesus originated with the Father, put instead passed through the Father, and the Holy Spirit did not originate with the Father, but passed through the Father.

Is that correct?