Filioque and Eastern Christian Trinitarian understanding

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

But that is not the teaching of Saint Basil. Here is the relevant canon…Canon XXVI

Fornication is neither marriage, nor the beginning of marriage. If it may be, it is better that they who have committed fornication together be parted; but if they be passionate lovers, let them not separate, for fear of what is worse.
ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-14/7appndx/basil.htm

Now, hold on to your hat, but this Canon of Saint Basil was approved by the Quinisext Council.

Too late. My hat DID fly off and is probably in the next county by now…

Basil has gotta be the patron saint of the teenager for THAT quote!!! Then again, I’m wondering if there is something lost in the translation somewhere in that quote. But that isn’t the point or the subject. I didn’t quote Basil and neither did the Metropolitan. Maximus was quoted.

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

I’d venture to say that the Metropolitan must be well aware of the consensus of the Orthodox as to Saint Maximus’ teaching on the filioque in the statement quoted. Btw, I cannot find it now (and that is really galling) but later in his writings Saint Maximus launches into an attack on what he considers the incorrect Roman understanding of the filioque. Anybody know where to locate this? Myrrh gave it in a previous thread but I am too lazy to go and look for it.

Don’t you think the Metropolitan would offer the balancing quotes if it truly mattered to the discussion?

 

[SFH]

Hesychios:

This is a side thread prompted at the request of posters elsewhere who expressed an interest in the Eastern Christian understanding of the Trinity, and objections to the Filioque.

With some trepidation I will begin this thread by quoting Saint Gregory of Nazianzus “You hear that there is generation? Do not waste your time in seeking after the how. You hear that the Spirit proceeds from the Father? Do not busy yourself about the how” [Orat XX, 2] “You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Do tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, then I will explain to you the physiology of the Son’s generation and the Spirit’s procession and both of us shall be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God” [Orat XXXI, 8]

http://www.wellsprings.org.uk/images/trinit1.jpg

Don’t forget these cites either: Greg. Thaumat., “Expos. fidei sec.”, vers. saec. IV, in Rufius, Hist. Eccl., VII, xxv; Epiphan., Haer., c. lxii, 4; Greg. Nyss. Hom. iii in orat. domin.); Cyril of Alexandria, “Thes.”, ***. xxxiv; the second canon of synod of forty bishops held in 410 at Seleucia in Mesopotamia; the Arabic versions of the Canons of St. Hippolytus; the Nestorian explanation of the Symbol.

Wait, those cites are from Greek Fathers supporting the “filioque.”

My mistake …

 

[SFH]

Fr Ambrose:

The words of the Lord in Scripture support Saint Gregory.

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.

Gospel of Saint John 26:15 (Douai-Rheims)

---

God is the one loveable who is always rejoicing without end in infinite happiness.
~St.Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, died 395

Sorry Father Ambrose but you’re making the same logical mistake you made in the discussion on papal infallibility. The absence or scarcity of statements in support of a proposition doesn’t prove the opposite proposition.

For example, if Congress states that the American flag has blue in it, and I maintain that the American flag has red, white, and blue in it, the fact that Congress doesn’t mention the other colors in the flag doesn’t prove that the other colors aren’t in the flag.

Just because Our Blessed Lord indicated that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, it doesn’t follow that the Holy Spirit doesn’t also proceed from the Son. Indeed, Holy Scripture contains ample proof that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. See Luke, xxiv, 49; John, xv, 26; xvi, 7; xx, 22; Acts, ii, 33; Tit., iii, 6.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

SFH:

Sorry Father Ambrose but you’re making the same logical mistake you made in the discussion on papal infallibility. The absence or scarcity of statements in support of a proposition doesn’t prove the opposite proposition…

May I know if I am in a discussion with a Christian, a Roman Catholic, an Anglican…? Your profile < forums.catholic-questions.org/member.php?u=18537 > does not list any religion for you.

I enjoy this Forum but primarily I want to hear and discuss the Roman Catholic view.

 

[SFH]

Fr Ambrose:

May I know if I am in a discussion with a Christian, a Roman Catholic, an Anglican…? Your profile < forums.catholic-questions.org/member.php?u=18537 > does not list any religion for you.

I enjoy this Forum but primarily I want to hear and discuss the Roman Catholic view.

Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem coeli et terrae, visibilium omnium, et invisibilium …

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

SFH:

Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem coeli et terrae, visibilium omnium, et invisibilium …

I can recite the Creed in Latin. It does not make me a Roman Catholic no more than quoting scripture makes me the devil.

So, would you be kind enough to declare yourself. Why be ashamed and conceal it?

 

[SFH]

Fr Ambrose:

I can recite the Creed in Latin. It does not make me a Roman Catholic no more than quoting scripture makes me the devil.

So, would you be kind enough to declare yourself. Why be ashamed and conceal it?

But when I recite the Creed, I mean it.

Excuse me if I’m leary of giving personal information about my beliefs, but someone mentioned something about getting kicked off the forum if you get too specific.

God bless

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

SFH:

Excuse me if I’m leary of giving personal information about my beliefs, but someone mentioned something about getting kicked off the forum if you get too specific.

Yes, that is true. But knowing the faith of someone who wants to debate religion with you on a public forum is a reasonable request. I don’t see one’s faith as being personal information in this context.

If you refuse to say that you are a Catholic, or a Baptist or a Presbyterian, then what’s the point of interacting with you? It all becomes quite unreal.

 

[Hildebrand]

Subrosa:

The Roman Catholic church does not teach that the Son is origin, but that the Father is origin. From the Catachism:

The question, as I understand it, stems from the word “proceeds.” Again, the Catachism:

Ergo, the Spirit originates with the Father, coming through the Son:

**Why is this a problem? The formulation of the Trinity is intact. Father is origin, Son and Spirit are consubstantial with the Father. **

**As **Saint Ambrose **observed: (I’ve heard this name somewhere else. hmmm) newadvent.org/fathers/34023.htm

The Trinitarian formula is not altered. Father is ORIGIN, Son & Spirit are begotten.

Why is this an issue?**

Great explanation.
Sorry to jump in on this conversation, but if the Holy Spirit does not proceed from both the Father and the Son, then how can you explain this gospel passage:

Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” (John 20:21-23)

If the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, not the Son, how could Jesus breathe on the apostles and give them the Holy Spirit? Wouldn’t it require Jesus to ask the Father to send the Holy Spirit? I might be wrong.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Hildebrand:

f the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, not the Son, how could Jesus breathe on the apostles and give them the Holy Spirit? Wouldn’t it require Jesus to ask the Father to send the Holy Spirit? I might be wrong.

Here is something similar which helps.

The change in the consecrated Bread and Wine is brought about by the Holy Spirit. In effect the Holy Spirit sends Jesus. But this does not mean that Jesus proceeds from the Holy Spirit.

Both Jesus’ sending of the Spirit to the Apostles and the Spirit’s sending of Jesus into the Bread and Wine are things done in time. They are unconnected with their eternal origin before time began.

 

[SFH]

Fr Ambrose:

Here is something similar which helps.

The change in the consecrated Bread and Wine is brought about by the Holy Spirit. In effect the Holy Spirit sends Jesus. But this does not mean that Jesus proceeds from the Holy Spirit.

Both Jesus’ sending of the Spirit to the Apostles and the Spirit’s sending of Jesus into the Bread and Wine are things done in time. They are unconnected with their eternal origin before time began.

A different way to think about it is that the difference between the Blessed Persons of the Holy Trinity is relational. The Father is the Father of the Son. The Son is the Son of the Father. That is what distinguishes the Persons. If two Persons of the Blessed Trinity have an identical procession from the Father, then the distinction between those two Persons is eliminated. Since the Son proceeds directly from the Father (“begotten”), the Holy Spirit must proceed from the Father through the Son or from the Father and the Son (“spiration”) to preserve the distinction between the Second and Third Persons of the Blessed Trinity.

 

[El_Catolico]

The issue of the Filioque is a problem in semantics. The Greek version of the filioque says “through the son.” I dont think anyone would deny that the spirit proceeds from the father through the son. That is a perfectly veritable apostolic tradition. Example:

“I believe the Spirit to proceed from no other source than from the Father through the Son.”
Tertullian,Against Praxeas,4:1(A.D. 216),in ANF,III:599

Orthodox polemicists like to attempt to use the fact that the Latin version uses “and” instead of “through” to blow the issue way out of proportion to suggest that the Catholic Church has become “heretical”. This is just semantics; in a sense, the Spirit does proceed from the father and the son. The Bible clearly refers to the Holy Spirit as the “Sprit of the Son”, too.

A staunch opposition to the double-procession of the Spirit merely on the basis that the filioque isnt included in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed is not a very strong basis on which to deny the filioque. It doesnt condemn it, it just doesnt insert it. Rejection of the filioque based on that is similar to the rejection of most apostolic tradition by Protestants. They say that because some things arent there, therefore it isnt true. (yet so many patristic sources affirm the doctrine; its in the athanasian creed; and there is a very strong biblical case)

Why do the Eastern Orthodox Churches do it? They have an identity crisis. They recognize the strong biblical and patristic case for the authenticity of the Church built upon Peter. The only way for them to justify the existence of their Church is to label the Catholic Church as “heretical.” They look to find the slightest things to disagree with the Church on in order to justify themselves. They have different Bible canons from the Catholic Church (and different eastern orthodox have different canons; very few of them have the canon proclaimed by the councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage). Some eastern orthodox churches have an altered form of the immaculate conception. They have developed an ecclesiology that is based entirely upon the invisible working of the holy spirit that leaves no room for the hierarchical church (instead of the holy spirit working in a hierarchical church). Their “patristic foundations” for this pneumatic ecclesiology is little more than mythical and sensationalistic. They have lumped the heretical Protestant Churches with the Catholic Church so as to increase their integrity by setting themselves apart (this is based unpon the claim that the western church is too “rationalistic”; in truth, the Orthodox is much more related to Protestant Churches, esp. in ecclesiology). The Orthodox Churches, instead of measuring the authenticity of a church by solid reasoning, do it based upon exterior material things- they think that they can disprove the Catholic Church based upon the recent upheavals in terms of liturgy (and we have much to learn from the EO in terms of liturgy and respect for traditionalism). They relegate the powers of the papacy to “a primacy of honor”-again, a historical myth, and not very well grounded in patristics. A primacy in honor in working effectuality is nothing. The Roman Church indeed had a primacy, but it was far from a primacy of “honor.”

In the last paragraph I have explained (and tried to give responses to) some of the methods the eastern orthodox use to solve their identity crisis by “setting themselves apart.” Let it be known that none of the issues which we are here dealing with were ever defined dogmatically in the early church. There are many eastern orthodox, for example, who accept the canon of the north african synods or who accept the immaculate conception. This just shows the inner weakness and dissentions among the greco-slavic bloc of churches. They have even embraced contraception! Does THAT sound like the Church founded by Jesus Christ and one which is modeled upon the early church? Of course not. There are plenty of hard-heads in the eastern orthodox church who stress these “differences” to justify their break from the Catholic Church. It is these people who are preventing a reunion. The Pope has been charitable enough. Again, the “support” they give for these issues is quite small; and none of them are defined by the early church anyways. So, who are we to believe? The See of Peter, or one of the eastern churches? Their vicious treatment of their fellow eastern-rite Catholic brethren shows the true attitude of these people. These Greek-Orthodox polemicists are lovers of rhetoric, not wisdom; they are a group of churches which is fueled by nationalistic passions. They are little different from the ravings of Luther and the early Protestants. They lack a magisterium to settle doctrinal disputes when they arise. Their Church is largely based upon what it is not rather than what it is.

Pax Tecum!

 

[El_Catolico]

I recommend reading catholic-convert James Likoudis’s book Ending the Greek Orthodox Schism. It cuts through a lot of issues to get to the heart of the matter, and it includes a translation of Thomas Aquinas’ Contra Errores Graecorum(this has an excellent discourse of the filioque as well). It helps to show, largely by using quotes from eastern orthodox scholars themselves, the inconsistencies and contradictions of the orthodox church and the irrationality of this new brand of “pneumatic ecclesiology” being developed and propagated by individuals such as Fr. Meyendorff and Alexander Schmeman. He has another book too, The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy: Letters to a Greek Orthodox on the Unity of the Church, which answers a book by eastern orthodox polemicist Michael Whelton.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

SFH:

A different way to think about it is that the difference between the Blessed Persons of the Holy Trinity is relational. The Father is the Father of the Son. The Son is the Son of the Father. That is what distinguishes the Persons. If two Persons of the Blessed Trinity have an identical procession from the Father, then the distinction between those two Persons is eliminated. Since the Son proceeds directly from the Father (“begotten”), the Holy Spirit must proceed from the Father through the Son or from the Father and the Son (“spiration”) to preserve the distinction between the Second and Third Persons of the Blessed Trinity.

No, the distinction of the Persons come from their manner of origin and not from their relationship. Read what jprejean wrote earlier in this thread. It is very well put.

Read also what was presented earlier from St Gregory Nazianzen. This is very important. He addresses the mistake contained in what you have written…

Indeed, if the relations of origin- to be unbegotten, begotten and proceeding which cause us to distinguish the three hypostases, lead our thought to the sole source of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, to the “pegaia theotes”, to the Father, Source of Divinity, they do not establish a separate relation between the Son and the Holy Spirit. These two persons are distinguished by the different mode of their origin: the Son is begotten, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. This is sufficient to distinguish them.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

El Catolico,

Simply too many issues to deal with. The understanding of Orthodoxy is so superficial and biased that it would require a herculean effort to correct. I would prefer to dialogue with those who have a better grasp of the topic and who do not radiate such hostility.

Vade in pace, El Catolico.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

El Católico:

I recommend reading catholic-convert James Likoudis’s book Ending the Greek Orthodox Schism. It cuts through a lot of issues to get to the heart of the matter, and it includes a translation of Thomas Aquinas’ Contra Errores Graecorum(this has an excellent discourse of the filioque as well).

Are you aware that Aquinas in this work you recommend teaches that all the Orthodox, the Greeks, are going to hell? And not just the Orthodox, but your Baptist aunt who sings in the choir, the Queen of England, the President of the United States, Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King, the non-Catholic kid who mows your lawns…

“To be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation.”

What a nasty piece of doctrine! How can Likoudis, a former Greek Christian, turn around and proclaim that the 12 million Orthodox Greeks now living in Greece are going to hell. That includes his parents and grandparents, his brothers and sisters. Shame on him! What a fanatical teaching to espouse!

Are you aware that Aquinas’ “Against the Errors of the Greeks” is constituted of forged and truncated texts? In this respect, the medieval doctrine of the filioque should be considered as a disgrace to the West when one thinks that for many centuries this doctrine has depended on a vast number of forgeries and falsehoods made to impute to the Fathers doctrines alien to them.

The Filioque: The Vital Orthodox Understanding of the Procession of the Holy Spirit
homb.org/st_annas/Articles/Father_Patrick/Fr_Patrick_Filioque.htm

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

El Católico:

He has another book too, The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy: Letters to a Greek Orthodox on the Unity of the Church, which answers a book by eastern orthodox polemicist Michael Whelton.

I think you must have in mind Michael Whelton’s “Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition.”

They say that Cardinal Kasper never fails to read a chapter every evening. But seriously, Kasper is very much in favour of moving away from papal monarchy and towards a collegial model more alined with Orthodox ecclesiology.

 

[Subrosa]

Good day, everyone -

Fr. Ambrose, I would like to address a previous post and your answer to it. (#403 and #412 )

I proposed that the issue concerning an understanding of the filioque was one of semantic understanding of the word “proceeds.”

I originally posed this question in post #403,
"The question, as I understand it, stems from the word “proceeds.”

Unfortunately, you were upset because of an overcritical post directed at you personally, and you never adequately answered my question posed in the same post:
*Why is this a problem? The formulation of the Trinity is intact. Father is origin, Son and Spirit are consubstantial with the Father. *

A statement made by Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware, poses the same positional stance. The Bishop, who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, stated in May of 1995: “The filioque controversy which has separated us [Eastern Orthodox and Catholics] for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences” (Speech to a symposium on the Trinity; Rose Hill College, Aiken, South Carolina)

Please, why is it a problem? Is there at least some room in Orthodoxy to move in the filioque issue?
Jerry

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Subrosa:

A statement made by Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware, poses the same positional stance. The Bishop, who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, stated in May of 1995: “The filioque controversy which has separated us [Eastern Orthodox and Catholics] for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences” (Speech to a symposium on the Trinity; Rose Hill College, Aiken, South Carolina)

I see that you give this Speech of Bishop Kallistos and dated to 1995.

Here is a fuller statement from the bishop, also dated to 1995:–

Bishop Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia
Concerning the Filioque
From the book
The Orthodox Way
St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press 1995 pp.32-33
God as Trinity: Personal Characteristics

The first person of the Trinity, God the Father, is the “fountain” of the Godhead, the source, cause or principle of origin for the other two persons. He is the bond of unity between the three: there is one God because there is one Father. “The union is the Father, from whom and to whom the order of the persons runs its course” (St Gregory the Theologian).

The other two persons are each defined in terms of their relationship to the Father: the Son is “begotten” by the Father, the Spirit “proceeds” from the Father. In the Latin West, it is usually held that the Spirit proceeds “from the Father and from the Son”; and the word filioque ("and from the Son) has been added to the Latin text of the Creed. Orthodoxy not only regards the filioque as an unauthorized addition-for it was inserted into the Creed without the consent of the Christian East-but it also considers that the doctrine of **the “double procession”, as commonly expounded, is theologically inexact and spiritually harmful. **