Filioque and Eastern Christian Trinitarian understanding

[JPrejean]

Thank you kindly for your response, Fr. Ambrose; I will harry you no more. Best wishes in explaining your position. It took me quite a bit of reading before it finally clicked, and even then, it was only after someone borrowed a summary from Vladimir Lossky that the light actually came on. I’m sure you’ve recommended several of these, but in case any of my fellow Catholics haven’t checked them out, you should:

John Meyendorff, Christ in Eastern Christian Thought, Byzantine Theology, St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality
[Note: Meyendorff sometimes overemphasizes the conflict between Origenism and hesychast spirituality, which other scholars have criticized.]

Philip Sherrard, The Greek East and the Latin West

Joseph P. Farrell, The Disputation with Pyrrhus of Our Father Among the Saints Maximus the Confessor

Those are all relatively inexpensive on Amazon, and they are well worth your time.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

JPrejean:

Thank you kindly for your response, Fr. Ambrose; I will harry you no more.

Harry away! Bachelor monks need it! And let us harry the Catholics with our two-pronged approach

John Meyendorff, Christ in Eastern Christian Thought, Byzantine Theology, St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality
[Note: Meyendorff sometimes overemphasizes the conflict between Origenism and hesychast spirituality, which other scholars have criticized.]

Philip Sherrard, The Greek East and the Latin West

Joseph P. Farrell, The Disputation with Pyrrhus of Our Father Among the Saints Maximus the Confessor

I have the first two but not Farrell’s. I must see if it is in a library somewhere. Amazon.com prices, even when cheap for the denizens of the US, are expensive for us in NZ because of the exchange rate, postage, and bank cheque fee.

Those are all relatively inexpensive on Amazon, and they are well worth your time.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Just to throw an interesting spin on this:

Here is the Creed translated from Aramaic, used by the Church of the East, (and possibly the Chaldean, Syriac, Syro-Malankara, Syro-Malabar, and Maronite Catholics, not 100% sure)

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty: Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-Begotten, the First Born of all created. Begotten of His Father before all worlds and not made: Very God of very God: of one essence with His Father, by Whom the worlds were established and everything was created. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by The Holy Spirit and became Man: And was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary: He suffered and was crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate. He was buried and Rose again on the third day as it is written and ascended into Heaven and sat down on the right hand of His Father: And He shall come again to judge the dead and the living. And, in one Holy Spirit, The Spirit of Truth: who proceedeth from the Father, the Life-giving Spirit: And in one Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church. And, we confess one baptism for the remission of sin. And, the resurrection of our bodies, and life for ever and ever: Amen

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Not exactly word for word, but the meaning and intention are the same as the other Apostolic Churches.

 

[SyroMalankara]

The Syriac translated:

We believe in one true God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, Who was begotten of the Father before all worlds; light of light, true God of true God; begotten and not made; and being of one substance with His Father, by Whom all things were made; Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God. And He became man, and was crucified for us in the days of Pontius Pilate, and He suffered, died and was buried, and the third day He rose according to His will, and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of His Father; and He will come again with great glory to judge both the living and the dead; and His kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life to all, Who proceeds from the Father; Who together with the Father and Son is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke through the Prophets and Apostles.

And in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the new life in the world to come.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Michael_Thoma:

and was incarnate by The Holy Spirit and became Man: And was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary…

Michael Thoma,

I am quite interested in the above phrase.

The Nicene Creed is quite simple here… “…and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man…”

The Roman Catholic version of the Creed now gives what amounts to an amplified paraphrase: “…by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary and was made man…”

The thing to note is that the (Orthodox) Nicene Creed implies that the Virgin Mary had an equal part in the incarnation (an equal-opportunities conception ) But the Roman Catholic Nicene Creed somehow gives the impression that Mary was rather secondary and it was all accomplished by the power of the Holy Spirit. It was something done to her by a higher power. Yes, in one sense it was, but the Orthodox Nicene Creed allocates to Mary a greater role than the Catholic Nicene Creed.

This is why I am interested in a literal translation of the Creed which you have given us.

 

[JPrejean]

I attend Qurbana at a Syro-Malabar mission, and the translation of the creed in English includes the filioque. Since I don’t speak Malayalam, I couldn’t say whether that version includes it.

 

[SyroMalankara]

JPrejean:

I attend Qurbana at a Syro-Malabar mission, and the translation of the creed in English includes the filioque. Since I don’t speak Malayalam, I couldn’t say whether that version includes it.

The Syro-Malabar Church is of the Chaldean Rite, and should not have the filioque in its translation.
See dutcgeo.ct.tudelft.nl/oostveen/malabarlit/RA1v2.PDF, and go to page 40.

The Syro-Malankara, from the Syriac Rite should not have it either.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Michael_Thoma:

The Syriac translated:

We believe in one true God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, Who was begotten of the Father before all worlds; light of light, true God of true God; begotten and not made; and being of one substance with His Father, by Whom all things were made; Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God. And He became man, and was crucified for us in the days of Pontius Pilate, and He suffered, died and was buried, and the third day He rose according to His will, and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of His Father; and He will come again with great glory to judge both the living and the dead; and His kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life to all, Who proceeds from the Father; Who together with the Father and Son is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke through the Prophets and Apostles.

And in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the new life in the world to come.

Notice the addition of Theotokos to counter the Nestorian heresy of Christotokos. Also the phrase and became Man. Also he rose according to his will is extended from the passive, “he rose again as it is written.” The worship along with the Father and Son is also stressed, in addition to the mention of the Prophets and Apostles.
Interesting developments.

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

What is the question? Please forgive me, but after so many days with the Forum out of action, when real life has been rushing on as usual, I cannot recall a question from so many days ago,

One of the questions was to have you clarify what you meant by 2 spirits
fr ambrose:

Is the Holy Spirit 2 persons or one? The Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son makes him two Spirits. Catholics try to avoid this conclusion by defining that he proceeds from both of them as from one principle. Well, WHAT or WHO is that principle that causes the Holy Spirit?
**

steve b:

*Not 1 Spirit but 2 different Spirits? Holy Smokes!!! If I misunderstand you just hollar. So let’s do the math. You agree The Father is one person, and the Son is one person, correct? But the HS = 3 persons, one being the Spirit of the Father, one being the Spirit of the Son, and one being Himself? So we have 1Father + 1Son + 3 HS’s =5 persons of the Blessed Trinity? *

Your understanding of the HS needs explaining.
fr ambrose:

The task of the Ecumenical Councils was not to produce innovative doctrine but to clarify the Church’s teaching when it was being opposed and corrupted by false teachers.

The Catholic Church continues to hold ecumenical councils.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

One of the questions was to have you clarify what you meant by 2 spirits

Please would you provide the numbers of the relevant posts, or an URL to access them.

The Catholic Church continues to hold ecumenical councils.

Is it possible for Rome to hold “ecumenical” councils after it has withdrawn from communion with the other Patriarchates and Churches which convened and participated in the ecumenical councils in the first millenium? Such Councils would not be "ecumenical’ so much as “Roman.” I think that this is a difficulty which the Eastern Catholic Churches also have with Roman/“ecumenical” councils post 1054 AD, and they do not accept them as being ecumenical but merely local Councils of the Church of Rome.

 

[prodromos]

Fr Ambrose:

The Roman Catholic version of the Creed now gives what amounts to an amplified paraphrase: “…by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary and was made man…”

The thing to note is that the (Orthodox) Nicene Creed implies that the Virgin Mary had an equal part in the incarnation (an equal-opportunities conception ) But the Roman Catholic Nicene Creed somehow gives the impression that Mary was rather secondary and it was all accomplished by the power of the Holy Spirit.

The Catholic version seems to have been brought into line with the Apostles Creed which IMHO shares the same weakness with regards to Mary’s role:
“Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary”

 

[prodromos]

steve b:

Fr Ambrose:

The task of the Ecumenical Councils was not to produce innovative doctrine but to clarify the Church’s teaching when it was being opposed and corrupted by false teachers.

The Catholic Church continues to hold ecumenical councils.

So by extension you are saying the Catholic church continues to be fraught with false teaching?

 

[Aris]

"Non ex Filio esse dicimus: sed Filii Spiritum nominamus.—Damascen. lib. i. Fid. Orth. c. 11

“We do not say that he is from the Son [has his existence from the Son], but we name him as the Spirit of the Son” -St John of Damascus. On the Orthodox Faith, chapter 11

I understand what you are saying and agree. But I was replying to the people here who make a great deal of the *through * and *and * distinction as regards the word filioque. It’s a juggling act to keep all the conversations going at the same time

I don’t think the Catholics are making a great deal of the distinctions of through and and. Rather it is your insistence that we should use “through” and not “And”.

I would still want to see where you see Catholics differ from the Orthodox with regards to how they see the Trinity. Jprejean has given an explanation of “Spirit of the Son”. Is this not Catholic? Is this contrary to what the Orthodox claim?

 

[Aris]

Fr Ambrose:

No, we use the same words, as I said, and we give them different meanings.

Take, as one example, the assertion which has often been aired by Catholics, in this thread and others, that filioque does not on fact mean filioque (and the Son) but it means per filium (through the Son).

So when Orthodox (bless their ignorance!) see the word filioque in the Amplified Nicene Creed they see just that -filioque. And yet this is not so with the Catholics. They see filioque and they understand per filium.

Same word. Totally different meaning. It must be the only instance in the Latin language where -que means per, where and means through.

My point exactly. The creed you have has a different wording but the meaning is the same. You do not use filioque in the creed but we have the same meaning.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Aris:

I don’t think the Catholics are making a great deal of the distinctions of through and and. Rather it is your insistence that we should use “through” and not “And”.

I am nor too concerned about which word you use. It is the Catholics here who have said over and over that the *and * should be understand as through. Is this correct Catholic teaching? It’s confusing when Catholics seem to be advocating different things.

I would still want to see where you see Catholics differ from the Orthodox with regards to how they see the Trinity. Jprejean has given an explanation of “Spirit of the Son”. Is this not Catholic? Is this contrary to what the Orthodox claim?

I do not know to which faith tradition Jprejean belongs? The Syriac? He mentioned that he attends a Syro-Malabar mission which is presumably miaphysite?

Is this what you have in mind?

In order to properly understand it, you have to distinguish between the origin of the hypostasis and the procession of the shared divine nature. The hypostasis of the Holy Spirit has its sole origin from the Father as the one principle of Trinity. This is the universal patristic doctrine of “monarchy of the Father” (mono- = one, arche = principle). The Father is also the fount of the divine essence, which all Persons of the Trinity share, so it also makes sense to talk about the way in which this divine essence “moves” from one Person to another. This is known as perichoresis (literally “dancing around”) among the Fathers and was later called circumincession (later still, circuminsession) in Latin theology. In that respect, there is procession of the divine essence from the Father through the Son.

 

[Aris]

Fr Ambrose:

Please would you provide the numbers of the relevant posts, or an URL to access them.

Is it possible for Rome to hold “ecumenical” councils after it has withdrawn from communion with the other Patriarchates and Churches which convened and participated in the ecumenical councils in the first millenium? Such Councils would not be "ecumenical’ so much as “Roman.” I think that this is a difficulty which the Eastern Catholic Churches also have with Roman/“ecumenical” councils post 1054 AD, and they do not accept them as being ecumenical but merely local Councils of the Church of Rome.

That depends on the definition. By definition, the Eastern Churches (excluding the Eastern Catholic Church) are in schism with the True Church. And even then the Eastern Catholic Churches have their patriarchs. I’ll leave it at that because that is already off topic.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Aris:

My point exactly. The creed you have has a different wording but the meaning is the same. You do not use filioque in the creed but we have the same meaning.

If only it were so!

But the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church is that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son as from one procession and one spiration. Unfortunately this definition is locked in place by the teaching of a Catholic Ecumenical Council which is considered as doctrinally infallible. I do not know the way for Rome to exist this impasse. You will need another Council to make a redefinition.

In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit**, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. ** We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

Council of Florence

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Aris:

That depends on the definition. By definition, the Eastern Churches (excluding the Eastern Catholic Church) are in schism with the True Church. And even then the Eastern Catholic Churches have their patriarchs. I’ll leave it at that because that is already off topic.

I think it is relevant because the rumours are that the Eastern Catholics look upon the Ecumenical Councils conducted by Rome as being local Roman Councils and not binding on them. (I think they are are very discreet about this and never mention it in the presence of the Panzer-Kardinal!) But it means that they would not feel obliged to accept the trinitarian teachings on the filioque propounded at Florence.

 

[JPrejean]

Michael_Thoma:

The Syro-Malabar Church is of the Chaldean Rite, and should not have the filioque in its translation.

I’m just reporting the situation in the parish I visit. It could be optional.

Aris:

I would still want to see where you see Catholics differ from the Orthodox with regards to how they see the Trinity. Jprejean has given an explanation of “Spirit of the Son”. Is this not Catholic? Is this contrary to what the Orthodox claim?
…
The creed you have has a different wording but the meaning is the same. You do not use filioque in the creed but we have the same meaning.

Here, it gets a little complicated. The Nicene Creed was formed to answer the Arian objection that the Son was a created person. In order to answer that objection, the Nicene Creed affirm the existence of all three persons, with the Father being the sole origin of the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Orthodox version of the Nicene Creed is talking only about personal origin, just as it always has.

In the West, we added the filioque to answer a later Arian objection. These later Arians were arguing that because the Holy Spirit did not proceed from the Son, the Son did not “have everything” from the Father. That question of “have everything” relates to substance, because that is what the Persons of the Trinity all have in common. Thus, the Latins rightly answered that in terms of substance, the substance proceeds from the Father and the Son (and more particularly, from the Father through the Son). The problem is that substance and personal origin aren’t the same thing, so when we added the filioque, we essentially wrote a new creed about an entirely different subject than the original Nicene Creed. Therein lies the difficulty.
Fr Ambrose:

I do not know to which faith tradition Jprejean belongs? The Syriac? He mentioned that he attends a Syro-Malabar mission which is presumably miaphysite?

I am a Latin-rite Catholic who simply happens to recognize the need to respect all things Eastern (both Catholic and Orthodox) in order to fully appreciate one’s faith.
Fr Ambrose:

Unfortunately this definition is locked in place by the teaching of a Catholic Ecumenical Council which is considered as doctrinally infallible. I do not know the way for Rome to exist this impasse. You will need another Council to make a redefinition.

I believe we simply need a Western council (or simply a papal document) to definitively state that the doctrines of Florence refer to ousia and not hypostasis. There is nothing wrong with saying “The past council says X, but it is unclear whether X means A or B. We declare that it means B.” I don’t think that Florence was wrong, but I also don’t think that Orthodox Christians would consider reunion without an assurance that this confusion wouldn’t simply return again.

To parse it particularly:
“that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son”: That is true, by way of substance

“and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son”
Essence clearly refers to ousia (substance). It appears that “subsistence” and “subsistent being” are being used somewhat unclearly, but I think that it is reasonable to understand this as the essence actually subsisting in the hypostasis rather than the hypostasis itself. Thus, again, I think that this applies to substance.

“and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration”
This simply refers to the fact that the fact that the substance proceeds from the Father and the Son to the Holy Spirit does not in any way detract from the single principle of origin of the Holy Spirit (spiration from the Father).
Fr Ambrose:

I think it is relevant because the rumours are that the Eastern Catholics look upon the Ecumenical Councils conducted by Rome as being local Roman Councils and not binding on them. (I think they are are very discreet about this and never mention it in the presence of the Panzer-Kardinal!) But it means that they would not feel obliged to accept the trinitarian teachings on the filioque propounded at Florence.

I think that more recently, given the Vatican’s statements related to the filioque in particular, that there has been more of a feeling that Florence does not bind any Catholics to the “Latin” view of the Trinity. As I said, it would be best to have a Western council that makes that clear, although it is the practical understanding of many Catholics (myself included). The only controversial position taken by a Patriarch of an Eastern Catholic Church of which I am aware was Kyr Elias Zoghby’s suggestion that the Eastern Churches should be in communion with both Rome and Constantinople, and that was considered problematic strictly for the problem of papal authority, not for any theological difference over the filioque.

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

Please would you provide the numbers of the relevant posts, or an URL to access them.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?postid=463649#post463649

Please explain what you mean by 2 different Spirits
Fr Ambrose:

Is it possible for Rome to hold “ecumenical” councils

Of course.
Fr Ambrose:

after it has withdrawn from communion with the other Patriarchates and Churches which convened and participated in the ecumenical councils in the first millenium?

We didn’t withdraw from anything. The Catholic Church has been here from the beginning, and is still here, and all those in union with the pope, the successor to St Peter.
Fr Ambrose:

Such Councils would not be "ecumenical’ so much as “Roman.” I think that this is a difficulty which the Eastern Catholic Churches also have with Roman/“ecumenical” councils post 1054 AD, and they do not accept them as being ecumenical but merely local Councils of the Church of Rome.

Not so. You’re talking about your difficulties since 1054. Eastern Catholics reunited with the pope.