Eastern understanding of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity

[Alexander_Roman]

The issue is clearly heavily semantic. The East has the original Scriptural languages and cultures, and the West has the Papacy. Men will be men. But getting past the semantics (and cultural pride) we basically view this the same, that is, truthfully. We ought to really start all such discussions by celebrating this fact: that we are one in the Spirit. It is a lack of appreciation for what Church means that seems to inspire these frivolous squabbles. I must agree that the East’s position is safer from the East’s standpoint. I must also agree that the Latin word “proceed” may not mean all that Easterners take it to mean. All told the prudent thing would be to just remove Filioque from the Creed until such a day as all the Church’s main organs are agreed on it…or have found a word they can all agree on to replace “proceed” in the case of the Spirit’s relationship to the Son. Because to be obstinate, ironically, is an insult to the very Holy Spirit we pretend to reverence. I take the Eastern view of the Trinity to be more Biblical and more reliable. Eastern theology tends to send direct roots to the actual experience of Jesus rather than mounding piles of words on top obscuring the actual Gospel message and events. This is something the Western church could learn a lot from. The question of the Trinity is a prime example of this. When asking ourselves Who the Trinity is a sane man would ask himself where in Scripture-recorded experience have we seen the Trinity. The answer of course is the Baptism in the Jordan. This, I suspect, is where you get the idea of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and resting on the Son. People complain how slow Rome is to pronounce herself on doctrine, but I say she wasn’t quite slow enough, or rather she was too independent and did not listen to what the whole Church had to say. If we would all just start from the most down-to-earth references and, as community, build from there as high as we may (and no higher, ditching the Babel attitude) there would be no need to go back and revise as, like I said, ostensibly needs to be done with Filioque. Filioque has borne bad fruit, and the sane thing would be to cut it out for the time being. We need to stop using words whose meaning we evidently don’t agree on. We need to prefer shorter words and always keep a Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic translation of all our doctrines making sure they agree with the witness of Scripture before shoving it in the faces of our Eastern brethren thus insulting their doctrinal intelligence. As to God’s divinity as his “Energy vs. Essence,” can’t we just content ourselves by saying “God is divine”? Do we have to squeeze square pegs into round holes? Philosophy is useful, but you can never fit all our Faith into ancient Greek paradigms. I think the Eastern Church uniquely knows this (being themselves, many of them, racially Greek and Jewish!) and is cautious of any such endeavor because of how human pride can transform such an undertaking into something blasphemous. By the way, I say all this as a Latin Catholic who simply appreciates the simple wondrousness of Eastern liturgy, art and theology. When I say we need them I mean what Pope John Paul II said about two lungs. Anyone who wants to suffocate, by all means continue pridefully with the ever-dubious, ever-divisive Filioque! For my part I’m willing to at the very least listen to my elder brothers in the Faith - for such is wisdom - and will not stop encouraging our Holy Father to do likewise.

A very profound and insightful post! You’ve obviously thought about both sides of the issue in a most remarkable way.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear brother Formosus,

By the same token, no one in the East ever argued for the removal of filioque apart from its theological import until the 20th century. It would seem theological understanding is the best solution for the matter. Removing filioque without theological understanding between East and West is like sewing up a bullet wound without removing the bullet.

I think many Easterns and Orientals adopted Latin customs just to “help ease tension” with their Latin neighbors. Look how that turned out. “Helping to ease tension” is just not a good enough reason to make a change that has great theological ramifications. The only thing that will help ease tension on the matter is theological understanding and the spread of knowledge. Then and only then should we talk about removing filioque.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Marduk,

You are certainly raising what is without a doubt the most central issue in all this.

The removal of the Filioque has, unfortunately, been cast in the mold of something Catholics would do to “make the Orthodox happy.” An ecumenical (and political) move on the part of Rome.

The question remains - which theological perspective should be brought to bear on the Filiioque? Is it both? And if so, would Latin (and also not a few Eastern) Catholics be happy as well with that?

This is something akin to the discussion between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox theologians on the recognition of saints and teachers of both traditions who have been traditionally excommunicated and even liturgically excoriated.

Before one could even get to the crux of the matter, there is the problem of the weight of centuries of ill-feeling towards them. How could Sts Severus and Dioscoros be considered as such by the Eastern Orthodox? What about St Peter Mongus, St Philoxenos of Mabbugh etc.? It doesn’t help when there are references such as the “headless Severus” et al. in the EO liturgy . . .

When there is talk about the removal of the Filioque, there is and will be the knee-jerk reaction from ALL Catholics that this is wrong, why should we, why should we admit we were wrong on this, such removal makes the singing of it in Latin “off,” etc.

Those issues come way ahead of any theological understanding and I don’t know how to overcome that.

I do know that in the UGCC there are parishes who use the Filioque and others who don’t. This made it just one more thing to divide us along with “High” and “Low” llines characteristic of Anglicanism . . .

Alex

 

[chaldobyzantine]

John 15:26

When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me.

I’m surprised the main quote which is the reason for our belief stated in the creed has not yet been mentioned. To me the bible is clear and simple, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, only.

Hopefully people will stop making things too complicated with whatever theology they believe in and just read the Word of God.

 

[johnpfmcguire]

Exactly so, chaldobyzantine, and this Biblical clarity, this common sense, this affinity for spiritual language is what I love about my Eastern brethren. Filioque is at the very least misleading (even supposing the word is taken to mean something we could apply to both Son and Spirit because it lumps them together in a cumbersome way that is not becoming to a profession of faith!) and at the very most heretical. There is no clarity in Filioque to outweigh the confusion, no advantage to outweigh the multitude of disadvantages. All I can see to support it is human obtuseness. Speaking of which, just in general, as a Latin Catholic, I’m sick of everything we say and do being an extra step away from the simplicity of Scripture creating an extra layer of bureaucratic clericalist job security gunk! It’s time we ceased holding council with Protestants (whose heresy of Biblical overreaction our aforementioned opacity for all intents and purposes created) and started listening to the East!

 

[Fr_Kyrillos]

This is something akin to the discussion between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox theologians on the recognition of saints and teachers of both traditions who have been traditionally excommunicated and even liturgically excoriated.

Before one could even get to the crux of the matter, there is the problem of the weight of centuries of ill-feeling towards them. How could Sts Severus and Dioscoros be considered as such by the Eastern Orthodox? What about St Peter Mongus, St Philoxenos of Mabbugh etc.? It doesn’t help when there are references such as the “headless Severus” et al. in the EO liturgy . . .

I don’t want to divert the thread but in the Second Agreed Statement (1990) between the EO and OO, the following is suggested:

Both families agree that all the anathemas and condemnations of the past which now divide us should be lifted by the Churches in order that the last obstacle to the full unity and communion of our two families can be removed by the grace and power of God. Both families agree that the lifting of anathemas and condemnations will be consummated on the basis that the Councils and Fathers previously anathematized or condemned are not heretical.

It is further assumed that each church would retain its veneration of said saints as local saints. Even now, while the OO churches are in full communion with each other, there are many Armenian and Syriac saints which are not on our calendar in the Coptic Church and vice versa. So I wouldn’t expect the EO or Catholic churches to start venerating St. Dioscorus…just to lift the anethemas and remove the liturgical condemnations.

In Christ,
Fr. Kyrillos

 

[Ghosty]

John 15:26

I’m surprised the main quote which is the reason for our belief stated in the creed has not yet been mentioned. To me the bible is clear and simple, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, only.

Hopefully people will stop making things too complicated with whatever theology they believe in and just read the Word of God.

Scripture also says this:

7] Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.
8] And when he comes, he will convince the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:
9] concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;
10] concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no more;
11] concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
12]
"I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.

13] When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
**[14] He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
**

It was from this line of Scripture that the Filioque is drawn, and it is the passage that Greek-speaking Fathers, such as St. Epiphanius, used to explain the Filioque. After all, there is nothing in the passage you cited that says or implies “alone”.

Peace and God bless!

 

[johnpfmcguire]

Huh?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother John

Semantics has to do with the meanings of words, so, yes, the problem with Filioque is a semantic problem as mardukm’s words inadvertently confirm. Further, I still don’t see a problem with removing Filioque since doctrine should be a priority over and above, um, “attitudinal speculations.”

If doctrine is your main concern, I don’t understand why you oppose my suggestion that theological understanding must come first before any talk of removing filioque.:juggle:

What ought to be done in an uncompromising manner is to get everyone back on the same page with what all the Church’s main arteries agree on basing ourselves on the meaning of Sacred Scripture (which, let’s face it, the Orient has got a much better handle on),

Uncompromising? Get everyone back to the same page? OK. Now we’re talking. Let’s talk about the original intention of the Second Ecumenical Council. The purpose of the Second Ecumenical Council for dogmatically adding “who proceeds from the Father” was to defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit. The Greeks interpreted this phrase to mean that the Spirit originates from the Father. The Latins interpreted this phrase to mean that the Spirit was consubstantial with the Father. Both expressions and interpretations fully adhered to the intent of the Second Ecumencial Council to defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit (in fact, I believe the Latin interpretation defends the divinity of the Holy Spirit better than the Greek interpretation). Both are on the same page if we take the intention of the Second Ecumenical Council to defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit as the standard for unity. Why do we need to go beyond that understanding? Please explain. Explain how the Greek interpretation is somehow more valid than the Latin interpretation for the purpose of defending the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[johnpfmcguire]

Because, mardukm, what you suggest seems to have failed us in every age from Filioque’s sort of impromptu innovation to our own. It has the stink of damage control.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alex,

Dear Marduk,

You are certainly raising what is without a doubt the most central issue in all this.

The removal of the Filioque has, unfortunately, been cast in the mold of something Catholics would do to “make the Orthodox happy.” An ecumenical (and political) move on the part of Rome.

The question remains - which theological perspective should be brought to bear on the Filiioque? Is it both? And if so, would Latin (and also not a few Eastern) Catholics be happy as well with that?

This is something akin to the discussion between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox theologians on the recognition of saints and teachers of both traditions who have been traditionally excommunicated and even liturgically excoriated.

Before one could even get to the crux of the matter, there is the problem of the weight of centuries of ill-feeling towards them. How could Sts Severus and Dioscoros be considered as such by the Eastern Orthodox? What about St Peter Mongus, St Philoxenos of Mabbugh etc.? It doesn’t help when there are references such as the “headless Severus” et al. in the EO liturgy . . .

When there is talk about the removal of the Filioque, there is and will be the knee-jerk reaction from ALL Catholics that this is wrong, why should we, why should we admit we were wrong on this, such removal makes the singing of it in Latin “off,” etc.

Those issues come way ahead of any theological understanding and I don’t know how to overcome that.

I do know that in the UGCC there are parishes who use the Filioque and others who don’t. This made it just one more thing to divide us along with “High” and “Low” llines characteristic of Anglicanism . . .

That’s a very sensible position. The “knee-jerk” reaction is what we really need to contend with. Removing filioque right now without proper theological education of the laity (for both Catholics and Orthodox) is not going to do a whit of good. The “knee-jerk” reaction factor will undoubtedly create more bad blood on the level of the laity. It’s rather ironic (to say the least) that Easterns who have a more ground-up ecclesiology have neglected to take into account the grass-roots ramifications of removing filioque.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Because, mardukm, what you suggest seems to have failed us in every age from Filioque’s sort of impromptu innovation to our own. It has the stink of damage control.

That the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son is no innovation, brother. :tsktsk:

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

John 15:26

I’m surprised the main quote which is the reason for our belief stated in the creed has not yet been mentioned. To me the bible is clear and simple, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, only.

Hopefully people will stop making things too complicated with whatever theology they believe in and just read the Word of God.

This has to do with the semantics, but FYI, appeal to the Scripture would not have helped, because the Latin Scriptures had procedit where the Greek Scriptures had ekporeusai in John 15:26, anyway.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[johnpfmcguire]

What is this bait-and-switch, mardukm? No one is questioning the Son’s consubstantiality with the Father. At this point I have to ask: are you familiar with how the Creed goes in Latin?

Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium, et invisibilium. Et in unum Dominum Jesum Christum, Filium Dei unigenitum. Et ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula. Deum de Deo, Lumen de lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero. Genitum, non factum, consubstantialem Patri: per quem omnia facta sunt. Qui propter nos homines, et propter nostram salutem descendit de caelis. Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine: Et homo factus est. Crucifixus etiam pro nobis: sub Pontio Pilato passus, et sepultus est. Et resurrexit tertia die, secundum Scripturas. Et ascendit in caelum: sedet ad dexteram Patris. Et iterum venturus est cum gloria, judicare vivos et mortuos: cuius regni non erit finis. Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum, et vivificantem: qui ex Patre Filioque procedit. Qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur, et conglorificatur: qui locutus est per Prophetas. Et unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam. Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum. Et exspecto resurrectionem mortuorum. Et vitam venturi saeculi. Amen.

Filioque (meaning “and the Son”) refers to procedit (meaning “procedes”), not consubstantialem (meaning “consubstantial” or “one in being”). That kind of makes a difference to everything you’ve been arguing all this time…

Also just to reiterate that Filioque does not come (literally, non procedit) from the Nicaean Council.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother John,

It’s strange that you earlier claimed to understand the semantic character of the debate, and then fail to realize that procedit does not mean the same thing as ekporeusai. Procedit is a verb that denotes consubstantiality in the Latin understanding. Consubstantialem is not a verb, is it? Have you ever read the offical explanation of filioque promulgated by HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory? He explains all that.

And this is not some artificial modern understanding. Have you ever read St. Maximos the Confessor’s defense of the Latin use of filioque (In his letter Ad Marinus). There, he details that when the Latins explained it to him, the Latins stated that the Latin phrase refers merely to the unity of essence (i.e., consusbtantiality), and did not intend to deny the arche of the Father.

I humbly suggest you do a little more reading on the matter before making further, unjustified judgments against your own Church.

Btw, as far as making the Greek East the standard of all Christian dogma, Paulos Mar Gregorios of venerable memory, representing Oriental Orthodoxy in colloquys with the Chalcedonians wrote, “There is no reaason to claim that only the Greek Church understood the Fathers and their terminology.” My conscience insists I apply this same principle in discussions regarding filioque. I would show respect to the venerable Latin Tradition, as much as I would expect Latins to show respect for my Oriental Traditions.

Blessings,
Marduk

What is this bait-and-switch, mardukm? No one is questioning the Son’s consubstantiality with the Father. At this point I have to ask: are you familiar with how the Creed goes in Latin?

Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium, et invisibilium. Et in unum Dominum Jesum Christum, Filium Dei unigenitum. Et ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula. Deum de Deo, Lumen de lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero. Genitum, non factum, consubstantialem Patri: per quem omnia facta sunt. Qui propter nos homines, et propter nostram salutem descendit de caelis. Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine: Et homo factus est. Crucifixus etiam pro nobis: sub Pontio Pilato passus, et sepultus est. Et resurrexit tertia die, secundum Scripturas. Et ascendit in caelum: sedet ad dexteram Patris. Et iterum venturus est cum gloria, judicare vivos et mortuos: cuius regni non erit finis. Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum, et vivificantem: qui ex Patre Filioque procedit. Qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur, et conglorificatur: qui locutus est per Prophetas. Et unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam. Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum. Et exspecto resurrectionem mortuorum. Et vitam venturi saeculi. Amen.

Filioque refers to procedit, not consubstantialem. That kind of makes a difference to everything you’ve been arguing all this time…

 

[johnpfmcguire]

Just to be inescapably clear on what’s being discussed here, the Filioque controversy has nothing (nihil) to do with whether the Son is consubstantial (consubstantialem) with the Father (we certainly all agree on that!) but whether the Spirit proceeds (procedit) from the Son as well as from the Father (and, again, whether we’re talking about transmission of divinity or hypostatic origin). To simply replace Filioque (and the Son) with per Filium (through the Son)…was that so dang hard?

 

[johnpfmcguire]

No, mardukm, and you’ll want to kick your habit of putting words in people’s mouths at some point. I never claimed to understand the semantical issue beyond knowing that, contrary to an assertion you made, the issue is purely semantical. Nor have I attacked the Church in the West. The fact is that the Council of Nicaea never included Filioque: it was underhandedly inserted postconciliarly (necessarily recalling to mind a lot of post-conciliar nonsense in the wake of a more recent council, the Second Vatican Council). Do you understand?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother John,

Just to be inescapably clear on what’s being discussed here, the Filioque controversy has nothing (nihil) to do with whether the Son is consubstantial (consubstantialem) with the Father (we certainly all agree on that!) but whether the Spirit proceeds (procedit) from the Son as well as from the Father (and, again, whether we’re talking about transmission of divinity or hypostatic origin). To simply replace Filioque (and the Son) with per Filium (through the Son)…was that so dang hard?

You are absolutely mistaken.

Consubstantiality is exactly one of the key issues here. Procedit denotes the transmission of divinity or ousia. That’s what it means to the Latins. Ekporeusai denotes the origination of hypostasis. That’s what it means to the Greeks. They are two different understandings of the Credal phrase, yet they are both perfectly orthodox, and they both uphold the original intention of the Second Ecum to defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

The problem is that many EO want to impose their understanding of the Credal phrase on the Latins before accepting their orthodoxy. The Latin phrase “the Holy Spirit procedit from the Father and the Son” perfectly means “the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son,” and that is all it means. Unless you can find the heresy in that, I propose your suggestion of removing filioque is of little value to ecumenical relations - at least not without official recognition from the Easterns that the theology of filioque is orthodox. To repeat, removing filioque without theological understanding having first occurred is like sewing up a bulletwound without taking out the bullet.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[johnpfmcguire]

If only I were, as you say, “absolutely mistaken,” then you could be “absolutely correct,” is this not so? For all your repetitions of the bullet analogy you fail to convince this Latin Catholic that you have formed a realistic image of how your proposal would work, but I do wish you all the luck in the world with it.

 

[mardukm]

No, mardukm, and you’ll want to kick your habit of putting words in people’s mouths at some point. I never claimed to understand the semantical issue beyond knowing that, contrary to an assertion you made, the issue is purely semantical.

If you don’t have a grasp of it, don’t even claim it. Simple as that.

Nor have I attacked the Church in the West.

You stated that the Latins were “obstinate” and implied strongly that the Latin Church was “obscuring the Gospel message.” What’s that?

The fact is that the Council of Nicaea never included Filioque: it was underhandedly inserted postconciliarly

Who ever claimed that Nicea included filioque?

(necessarily recalling to mind a lot of post-conciliar nonsense in the wake of a more recent council, the Second Vatican Council). Do you understand?

Ahhh! Are you a traditionalist who has a gripe against the Latin Church? That would explain a lot.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Could the greatest commandments possibly describe how Christ is one with the Father?

Jesus loves God the Father with all his heart, soul, mind, and strength.
Jesus loves each and every one of us as he loves himself.

God the Father loves God the Son with all his heart, soul, mind, and strength.
The Father loves each and every one of us as he loves himself.

Could the spirit be the power of God’s love; working through the perfection of the greatest commandments? Is it possible that God’s purpose for each and every one of us is, to have this Trinitarian relationship with each other?

And just a short passage that links the Spirit and the second greatest commandment.
1 Samuel 18

1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself.