Eastern understanding of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity

[Ora_et_Labora_1]

As a Roman, I have heard time and time again the following analogy about the Holy Spirit in relation to the Trinity: that the HS is the love from Father to the Son, and from the Son to the Father. I am guessing this analogy has to do with the “Filioque”.

I do not want to start up another Filioque thread; I just want to know what is the Eastern analogy for the Holy Spirit’s “place” within the Trinity.

 

[ciero]

As a Roman, I have heard time and time again the following analogy about the Holy Spirit in relation to the Trinity: that the HS is the love from Father to the Son, and from the Son to the Father. I am guessing this analogy has to do with the “Filioque”.

I do not want to start up another Filioque thread; I just want to know what is the Eastern analogy for the Holy Spirit’s “place” within the Trinity.

The Holy Spirit is a distinct person of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is not an analogy.

 

[Ora_et_Labora_1]

The Holy Spirit is a distinct person of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is not an analogy.

Uhm, I didn’t say the Holy Spirit was an analogy. I asked for an analogy of the Holy Spirit’s “place” within the Trinity.

 

[Gregory_I]

The SOn and the SPirit are like the two arms of the Father according to the Greek Fathers. THe Trinity has its unity not in the commonality of substance, but in the Father.

 

[Ora_et_Labora_1]

The SOn and the SPirit are like the two arms of the Father according to the Greek Fathers. THe Trinity has its unity not in the commonality of substance, but in the Father.

Ah, right! I had forgotten that I had heard this analogy some time ago. Many thanks. I’m teaching catechism and am trying to give the kids a taste of Eastern and Western theology, so I thought I’d explain to them the various ways of “understanding” the Holy Spirit.

 

[Contarini]

Ah, right! I had forgotten that I had heard this analogy some time ago. Many thanks. I’m teaching catechism and am trying to give the kids a taste of Eastern and Western theology, so I thought I’d explain to them the various ways of “understanding” the Holy Spirit.

St. Gregory Palamas speaks of the Holy Spirit as the “eros” of the Father, so East and West aren’t quite as far apart here as some folks claim. (Palamas did not, of course, believe in the Filioque.)

 

[Alexander_Roman]

St John of Damascus and other Fathers relate the Holy Trinity to such images as a flower, for instance, where the Father is the root, the Son is the stem and the Holy Spirit is the flower. Or else, the Father is the source, the Son is the river and the Holy Spirit is the sea. Likewise, the Father is the sun’s orb, the Son is the rays and the Holy Spirit is the warmth.

Roman Catholic theology with respect to the Filioque distinguishes between the Father “actively spirating” the Holy Spirit and the Son “passively spirating” the Spirit. The East prefers to see the Spirit proceeding from the Father and resting on the Son and the like.

Alex

 

[Ora_et_Labora_1]

Roman Catholic theology with respect to the Filioque distinguishes between the Father “actively spirating” the Holy Spirit and the Son “passively spirating” the Spirit. The East prefers to see the Spirit proceeding from the Father and resting on the Son and the like.

Alex

The way I’ve understood it, personally, has always been that the Spirit proceeds from the Father *through *the Son (which I suppose is what you mentioned in more technical terms), but that the “source” is the Father alone.

 

[Ghosty]

The SOn and the SPirit are like the two arms of the Father according to the Greek Fathers. THe Trinity has its unity not in the commonality of substance, but in the Father.

Actually, most Greek Fathers described it more like one arm, with the shoulder being the Father, the elbow the Son, and the hand the Holy Spirit. This is like our brother Alex described about with his analogies.

I’ve yet to find a single early Greek Father that described the Holy Spirit proceeding apart from the Son. I’ve heard some accounts of Photius describing it like this, what I call the “Photian Fork”, but I haven’t seen anything earlier than him that suggests such a thing.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Vico]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
**The Trinity. **
**Andrei Rublev (1370-1430). **
Moscow.
Equal in dignity, symbolizing the triunity and equality of all three Persons.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The way I’ve understood it, personally, has always been that the Spirit proceeds from the Father *through *the Son (which I suppose is what you mentioned in more technical terms), but that the “source” is the Father alone.

This was the original teaching in school for me also.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

One problem with saying the Holy Spirit proceeds “from the Father through the Son” is that it causes discord when Catholics present it as an “Eastern” version of the “Filioque.”

Catholics and Orthodox alike agree that the Spirit was manifested in the world and therefore comes from both the Father and the Son (the so-called “Orthodox Filioque”). And that the Spirit also came to us from the Father through the Son.

In terms of eternal procession, “through the Son” is not a doctrine in the East as the “Filioque” is in the West. Moreover, Orthodox theologians disagree as to what the Fathers meant by the former term.

At best, to say that the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father through the Son is a “theologoumenon” at best, or a theological opinion. I think that this is indeed what was meant by the Church Fathers like St Maximos the Confessor and St John of Damascus (the latter Father also said, in his De Fide Orthodoxa, that we do NOT say the Spirit proceeds from the Son . . . a point that St Thomas Aquinas contested later).

Ultimately, church unity on this matter will only be achieved if the Filioque is removed from the Nicene Creed, as a universal Creed for all Churches, and if anything other than the teaching, the Spirit proceeds from the Father, is given the status of legitimate theological teaching - but not doctrine to be imposed on anyone.

Alex

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alex,

I hate to do this (apologies to the OP )-

One problem with saying the Holy Spirit proceeds “from the Father through the Son” is that it causes discord when Catholics present it as an “Eastern” version of the “Filioque.”

Catholics and Orthodox alike agree that the Spirit was manifested in the world and therefore comes from both the Father and the Son (the so-called “Orthodox Filioque”). And that the Spirit also came to us from the Father through the Son.

In terms of eternal procession, “through the Son” is not a doctrine in the East as the “Filioque” is in the West. Moreover, Orthodox theologians disagree as to what the Fathers meant by the former term.

At best, to say that the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father through the Son is a “theologoumenon” at best, or a theological opinion. I think that this is indeed what was meant by the Church Fathers like St Maximos the Confessor and St John of Damascus (the latter Father also said, in his De Fide Orthodoxa, that we do NOT say the Spirit proceeds from the Son . . . a point that St Thomas Aquinas contested later).

Ultimately, church unity on this matter will only be achieved if the Filioque is removed from the Nicene Creed, as a universal Creed for all Churches, and if anything other than the teaching, the Spirit proceeds from the Father, is given the status of legitimate theological teaching - but not doctrine to be imposed on anyone.

I partly agree, partly disagree.

What I mean is this:

The fact is that the Latin understanding of Procession is different from the Greek understanding of Procession. To the Latins, Procession refers to the transmission of Divinity. To the Greeks, Procession refers to the hypostatic Origin of the Holy Spirit.

Both East and West agree that there is only one Souce of the hypostatic Origin of the Holy Spirit - namely, the Father.

Both East and West also agree that the Divinity of the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son (or through the Son). I don’t understand how you can say this is a mere theologoumenon, since it is a universal belief of the Church from times past (held everywhere and always).

The issue is ultimately not about the use or removal of filioque from a local version of the Creed. Nor is it about the theology of filioque. Rather, we need to reflect on the difference in understanding on the nature of Divinity. To the East, Divinity is seen as an Energy of God, distinguishable from his Essence. But to the West, Divinity is the Essence of God (I think the Orient is somewhat stuck between both positions).

It is really on this issue - the nature of Divinity - on which East and West are distinguishable, as far as this topic is concerned. The question is - can we accept each others’ position as equally valid and orthodox (West - Divinity is Essence; East - Divinity is Energy), or can we live together with that distinction? I don’t think either side has the monopoly on knowledge of Divinity. Both groups have to admit that we see through a glass darkly on this matter of Divinity as Essence or Energy, and have no right to rigidly impose either view at the expense of Unity.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Formosus]

St. Gregory Palamas speaks of the Holy Spirit as the “eros” of the Father, so East and West aren’t quite as far apart here as some folks claim. (Palamas did not, of course, believe in the Filioque.)

St.Palamas was one of the first Greek Fathers to have easy access to Greek versions of St. Augustine’s work, and there are some gems of Augustine’s influence such as the above analogy.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear brother Alex,

I hate to do this (apologies to the OP )-

I partly agree, partly disagree.

What I mean is this:

The fact is that the Latin understanding of Procession is different from the Greek understanding of Procession. To the Latins, Procession refers to the transmission of Divinity. To the Greeks, Procession refers to the hypostatic Origin of the Holy Spirit.

Both East and West agree that there is only one Souce of the hypostatic Origin of the Holy Spirit - namely, the Father.

Both East and West also agree that the Divinity of the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son (or through the Son). I don’t understand how you can say this is a mere theologoumenon, since it is a universal belief of the Church from times past (held everywhere and always).

The issue is ultimately not about the use or removal of filioque from a local version of the Creed. Nor is it about the theology of filioque. Rather, we need to reflect on the difference in understanding on the nature of Divinity. To the East, Divinity is seen as an Energy of God, distinguishable from his Essence. But to the West, Divinity is the Essence of God (I think the Orient is somewhat stuck between both positions).

It is really on this issue - the nature of Divinity - on which East and West are distinguishable, as far as this topic is concerned. The question is - can we accept each others’ position as equally valid and orthodox (West - Divinity is Essence; East - Divinity is Energy), or can we live together with that distinction? I don’t think either side has the monopoly on knowledge of Divinity. Both groups have to admit that we see through a glass darkly on this matter of Divinity as Essence or Energy, and have no right to rigidly impose either view at the expense of Unity.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Marduk,

As an Eastern Catholic, I certainly have no problem accepting all you’ve said.

But I’m trying to understand the Orthodox position as Orthodoxy itself affirms it.

That means that the “through the Son” only refers to the “economic Trinity” and the sending of the Spirit into the world through Christ. At no time has the Orthodox East ever maintained the eternal procession of the Spirit “through the Son” as a doctrine. There is disagreement over what several of the Eastern Fathers meant by this term. In any event, this phrase would not have anything resembling the dogmatic status that the “Filioque” has in the West.

I would invite comment from our Orthodox posters here as well. Reference wise - Pomazansky, Meyendorff and Ware immediately spring to mind. Also, the UGCC writer Mr. Evhen Ivankiw and others.

Both sides are in agreement that the distinction between the Son and the Spirit can be seen in terms of the mode of their procession from the Father - even though that is a mystery. The Orthodox Church chooses not to go further than that.

Alex

 

[johnpfmcguire]

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.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother John,

The issue is not merely semantic (though if one could clear up the semantic issue it would help a lot). The fact is, procession has always meant something different to the Latins than the Greeks.

To the Greeks, Procession refers to the hypostatic origin of the Spirit. To say, “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father” means that the Father is the Source of the Spirit, and it would be heretical to add “and the Son” to such an understanding of the phrase.

To the Latins, however, Procession refers to the sharing of divinity. To say, “the Holy Spiirt proceeds from the Father” means that the Spirit is consubstantial with the Father, and it is perfectly orthodox to add “and the Son” to such an understanding of the phrase, for it would simply mean that the Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son.

To remove “and the Son” from the Latin Creed would for them be a denial of the consubstantiality of the Spirit and the Son. And isn’t that a heresy?

You made some statements and added “the Eastern Church uniquely knows this.” I would say that the Latins have their own venerable Tradition and it would be wrong to impose Eastern paradigms on them. The Latin Church is just as ancient as the Eastern Church. I am supportive of maintaining filioque until understanding has been spread among the Easterns of what the theology of filioque actually means. Removing it before such understanding occurs would reinforce the lie that the the Latins have been teaching heresy on the matter for all this time, and there are too many Easterns who already have such an attitude.

I’ll give you an example from my experience as an Oriental on the importance of understanding for the sake of unity. As you may know, there has been official and formal agreement between the CC and OOC on the matter of Christology. But such official rapprochement has not occurred between the EOC and the OOC. There are some theological terms that Chalcedonians understand differently than non-Chalcedonians. The agreements between the CC and OOC have come about because one side has understood what the other side is trying to say about itself. The Catholic Church has accepted that the OO interpretation of these theological terms is fully as ancient and orthodox as its own, and the OO has come to understand likewise of the Catholic position. But certain powerful elements within the EOC have not done likewise. For them, the only road to orthodoxy (orthodoxy in their eyes, anyway) is to impose the Chalcedonian understanding of these terms on the non-Chalcedonians. Hence, no unity.

I grant the same consideration to the Latins in regards to the filioque controversy (or I would be a hypocrite otherwise). Easterns should understand what Procession means according to the Latins (as an expression of consubstantiality between the Persons), and they will see that the Latins are completely orthodox on the matter. Easterns should not need to impose its own understanding of Procession on the Latins in order to accept that the Latins are orthodox. You preach of “listening.” But that advice must go both ways.

The issue is clearly heavily semantic…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.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Formosus]

To remove “and the Son” from the Latin Creed would for them be a denial of the consubstantiality of the Spirit and the Son. And isn’t that a heresy?

Yet they sure got along just fine without it for 1,000 years in Rome, and it was the germanic Catholics that first added it to begin with. I think its one thing to argue that a denial of it would be heresy to Latins (which I only find evidence of it being heresy to deny the filioque at a fairly late date…), and another to say that it is heresy to simple remove it from the Creed. The creed doesn’t state everything the Church believes and if removing an interpolation from the Creed helps ease tension and build a culture of trust between the Orthodox churches and the Catholic communion, then I say remove it.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Formosus,

Yet they sure got along just fine without it for 1,000 years in Rome, and it was the germanic Catholics that first added it to begin with. I think its one thing to argue that a denial of it would be heresy to Latins (which I only find evidence of it being heresy to deny the filioque at a fairly late date…), and another to say that it is heresy to simple remove it from the Creed.

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.

The creed doesn’t state everything the Church believes and if removing an interpolation from the Creed helps ease tension and build a culture of trust between the Orthodox churches and the Catholic communion, then I say remove it.

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

 

[johnpfmcguire]

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.” 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), always giving deference and preference to the older versions of the creeds, prayers, etc. (If you have time perhaps you’ll explain how the Occidental Church is “just as old” as the Oriental.)